Wednesday, 11 May 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 11.30 a.m ., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Commemorative Stamps To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: that to date no postage stamps have been issued to commemorate the services of Australian Forces in Korea and Vietnam. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should seek and support the issue of such commemorative stamps. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 90 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 Crichton-Browne (from 68 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 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 Convention 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 we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 108 citizens), Boswell (from 5,057 citizens), Chipp (from 90 citizens), Collard (from 186 citizens), Colston (from 78 citizens ), Crichton-Browne (from 121 citizens), Foreman (from 133 citizens), Hamer (from 87 citizens), Kilgariff (on behalf of Senator Archer) (from 524 citizens), MacGibbon (from 38 citizens), McIntosh (from 90 citizens), Messner (from 185 citizens), Peter Rae (from 116 citizens), Robert Ray (from 62 citizens), Scott ( from 128 citizens) and Walters (from 120 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens 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. withdrawing telegram operating facilities from a large number of suburban and country post offices 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 per cent 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 Senator Robert Ray (from 22 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —On behalf of the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution in relation to the duration of the House of Representatives, the terms of service of senators, the holding of elections for the Senate and House of Representatives, and the appointment, and the termination of the appointment, of Ministers of State. Notice of Motion Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —On behalf of the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution with respect to the inter-change of powers between the Commonweath Parliament and the State parliaments. Notice of Motion Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —On behalf of the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to confer an advisory jurisdiction on the High Court. Notice of Motion Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —On behalf of the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution by removing certain outmoded and expended provisions. Notice of Motion Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution in relation to proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government, and the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations-Annual Report for the year ended 13 August 1982-pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter- Government Relations Act 1976. 2. Australian National Animal Health Laboratory-The Use of Live Exotic Animal Pathogens-Report by ASTEC-pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 3. Biotechnology in Australia-Supplementary Report by ASTEC-pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 4. Life Insurance Commissioner-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 11 of the Life Insurance Act 1945-together with a Half Yearly Financial and Statistical Bulletin. 5. Commonwealth New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking Volumes 3 and 4. 6. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Monthly Statements-November 1982-March 1983. 7. Operations of the Registered Medical Benefits and Hospital Benefits Organizations-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 76A of the National Health Act. 8. Victorian Grants Commission-Annual Report 1982, Queensland Local Government Grants Commission-Annual Report 1982, South Australian Local Government Grants Commission-Annual Report 1982, Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission-Annual Report 1982-83, Tasmania-pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. 9. Plan for the Development of the Museum of Australia-Report of the Interim Council-together with the text of a statement made in the House of Representatives on 5 May 1983 by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. 10. Case-Control Study of Congenital Anomalies and Vietnam Service (Birth Defects Study)-Report* Report Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-The previous Government commissioned the Commonwealth Institute of Health to undertake a study of birth anomalies and Vietnam service. The study was completed in January 1983 and the report on it was released by Senator Messner, the former Minister, my predecessor, on 20 February. Because of the importance of the report I believe it should be tabled. In accordance with the procedures for release of documents out of parliamentary sessions, copies were distributed to all senators and members of the previous Parliament. Copies will be distributed to newly elected senators and members. I draw attention to the conclusions reached by the study team. The main conclusion was that there is no evidence that Army service in Vietnam has increased the risk of the birth of a child with an anomaly. The study also showed that neither the length of service in Vietnam not the time between return from Vietnam and conception of a child nor the calendar year of service in Vietnam had an effect on the risk of fathering a malformed child. I am sure that the report will be taken into account by the royal commission which is soon to be set up to inquire into the effects of chemical agents on Vietnam veterans. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-The report which was released in January by the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Messner, I think caused a fair amount of concern, amongst Vietnam veterans in particular, that possibly the item would not be taken up. Of course, the current Government has anounced that it will pursue the item and many others by the means of a royal commission. The Australian Democrats certainly welcome that. However, I think that the aspect of the report that was of most concern to the Vietnam veterans was that while the study was certainly well conducted, no control study was made of possible spontaneous abortion by mothers who may have had foetuses which were deformed in some way. Since the medical evidence shows that abortions are much more likely to be the case under such conditions, it would seem that the study may be biased in that way. However, that item will certainly be looked at by the royal commission. We hope that the study does not in any way stop the Government from pursuing the various types of proposals and policies it announced prior to the election. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate) —by leave-I am glad to see that the report that was commissioned some months ago has been tabled in the Senate. I certainly note the contents and the deliberations of that report. It has significance in the field to which it refers. I was also pleased to note that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) remarked that the determinations of this report will certainly be taken into account by the royal commission investigating these matters. I trust also that the further inquiries that are still under way, as I understand regarding morbidity and mortality will indeed be pursued and that the results that they bring forth likewise will become part of the investigations of the proposed royal commission. Annual Report Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr President. Leave granted; debated adjourned. Report Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.41) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The reason I rise to speak to this report is that it relates to an issue that has come up in other reports to the Senate on which I have spoken in the past. On this occasion the Australian Science and Technology Council has reported on the proposal for the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory to import live , exotic animal pathogens. It has been a matter of great controversy within the Australian community, or that part of it that has an interest in the subject of the import of live virus, that there is a proposal to import live foot and mouth virus into Australia for the purpose of certain scientific work. I note in the letter presenting the report to the then Acting Prime Minister that the Chairman, Professor Badger, and the Deputy Chairman have taken the fairly unusual step of stressing certain recommendations in relation to the import of foot and mouth disease virus. I briefly draw to the attention of the Senate some comments made by ASTEC, a very eminent scientific body. I am sure that the Government will pay very close regard to what it says. It points out that, because of our geographical isolation and more recently Australian importation and quarantine controls, Australia has remained relatively free of serious animal diseases. It is the concern of those who have been opposed to the import of the live foot and mouth disease virus that we should remain free of that virus. It has been their concern that with such imports there would be a risk that we would have in this country exotic diseases which would be enormously damaging to it. I would like to quote very briefly from the report to underline the concern that is obviously shared by ASTEC on this matter. The report states: No one is able to give a guarantee that there is absolutely no risk of an exotic pathogen escaping from ANAHL. Therefore, notwithstanding the excellent containment offered by ANAHL, the importation of an exotic pathogen to the Laboratory must be considered to represent an additional risk over and above that posed by its accidental or deliberate introduction by other means. . . . . Furthermore, there is a clear need for an agreed procedure to ensure that full consultation takes place between CSIRO and Commonwealth and State authorities, producer organisations and other interested parties. . . . . This will ensure adequate consultation with government authorities, but it is important that all organisations with a legitimate interest be consulted at an early stage. ASTEC has concluded that the ANAHL Consultative Committee should have the responsibility to give formal notice, when an application for importation is made by CSIRO, to interested parties, including the National Farmers' Federation and the Australian Veterinary Association, and to transmit their advice and comments to the Minister for Health as well as to the Executive of CSIRO. The report gives quite separate consideration to the foot and mouth disease virus from the general consideration it gives to other viruses and points out: ASTEC has given separate consideration to the importation of live Foot-and- Mouth Disease (FMD) virus. It is important to understand that FMD has a special significance for Australia, greater than that of any other animal disease. A single outbreak would result in an immediate prohibition on most, if not all, of Australia's main animal exports. Major markets for beef would be closed and the domestic price would collapse; exports of live sheep and sheepmeat would also be seriously affected, and shipment of wool might also be banned by some countries. Furthermore, a proven disease-free period of six to twelve months after the last case might elapse before export markets were re-opened. It is clear, therefore, that FMD poses a special threat to Australia; there are few other countries with a major export industry dependent on freedom from the disease. I conclude by just saying, as I said at the beginning, that the importation of live foot and mouth disease virus has been a matter of great controversy. Beef producers in particular have opposed it. I think it is very welcome that ASTEC should sound a very strong note of caution. I believe that in this report it has laid down procedures which are very reasonable and which should go a long way, if they are followed, to allaying the fears of our animal producers as to what might happen if this virus is introduced. I strongly recommend that the Government implement the recommendations of the report. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.47) -The report from the Australian Science and Technology Council has followed a previous report on the same subject by the Australian Academy of Science. Both of these reports have made recommendations which suggest that there is no justification for research involving live virus at the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory. This matter has been of enormous concern to primary industry groups around Australia ever since the previous Government announced that live virus would be imported by the Laboratory. It has been a matter of agenda discussion at every primary industry peak council that I know of over the past two or three years. I believe that after last year's conference on this matter which was, one could probably say, inconclusive it would now seem that the weight of scientific opinion has moved against the importation of such virus certainly at any time that we do not actually have an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country. The report of the Academy of Science draws attention to the fact that research no longer requires live virus to be able to engage in adequate protection measures. Artificial viruses are quite capable of being used. They have none of the lethal effects but all of the operating characteristics. I believe that we can await a fairly rapid announcement on the part of the Government that it has no intention of importing live virus for the Laboratory. If this is the case one needs to look again at that Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation facility and consider whether the initial discussions surrounding that facility and the initial decisions that were taken to establish it were made with the type of input that one would think was necessary. It could very well be argued that the establishment of that facility was a needless expense in terms of the other pressing requirements of research in CSIRO. The development of such a facility on the mainland to undertake those types of activities was, even at the time it was suggested, a very controversial proposition and it has simply become more so. The alternative suggestion which was put forward at the time the decision was made was to establish such a facility on one of the Australian territories or off-shore islands. This decision seems to me to have been preferable even at that time. Hindsight shows that that decision should have been made, bearing in mind the problems that Australia faces in terms of its animal husbandry with any possibility of the outbreak of such lethal diseases in Australia affecting not only the cattle themselves but also our entire primary industry. I hope that we get from this Government much more decisive statements in this regard than we got from the dithering of the previous Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Volumes 3 and 4 Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.51) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is a paper which may not be a best seller in the community but which, nevertheless, is an important document. It is the report to the Parliament made each year on the operation of the health funds. It provides parliamentarians and the public with a bird's eye view of the size, vigour and health of the health insurance industry and sector. It identifies the problems, the benefits, the money paid and the way in which the health funds organise their finances and pay their money. What emerges from this report, which covers the year 1981-82, is that it was a year of fairly rapid change in the provision of medical benefits in Australia. It was a year during which the Fraser Government conferred significant extra benefits upon people and when a large amount of activity took place through the health funds-the medical and hospital insurance funds. The report, at page 1, identifies the changes in medical and hospital benefits during the year of report. It is worth reminding ourselves of what the government of the day was able to do for the people of Australia during that year. As is set out in the report, Commonwealth medical benefits were identified at a flat rate of 30 per cent of the scheduled fee and they were restricted in that year to those people with at least basic medical cover with a registered organisation. But during that year the basic level of medical insurance was increased from 75 per cent to 85 per cent of the scheduled fee. So people did benefit from that change which took place in health insurance provisions during that year. The Government identified a maximum patient payment of $10 per service in cases where the scheduled fee was charged. Again, that was a move designed to help people and to limit the costs they faced from health insurance. The Commonwealth, during the year 1981-82, assumed full responsibility for nursing home benefits. It did this from 1 September. Of course, this had implications for the registered funds and that year the Government contributed to the Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund a smaller amount of, still, $ 100m to help cover the costs of those who were chronically ill and who were heavy drawers upon hospital and medical insurance in Australia. During that year the Commonwealth Government increased its bed-day subsidy for private hospital patients receiving prescribed surgical procedures to almost double the amount, from $16 to $28 per day. During that year a tax rebate of 32c in the dollar was introduced for cost of basic hospital and medical insurance with registered organisations. The effect of all these changes was to confer upon people in Australia greater security, support and benefits. It is interesting in looking at the report and the aggregated figures to see the size of medical and hospital insurance as offered through these registered funds in Australia. On the medical benefits side I note that Australia-wide something just under $1,000m in medical benefits was paid to contributors. Mr President, in our State of New South Wales over $ 400m was paid out in the year under study. In the hospital sector something over $300m was paid in New South Wales and Australia-wide something more than $1,000m was paid. If one looks at what these funds cover one sees that they involve the collection of money from Australian citizens, the organisation and safe-keeping of the money and the paying of something like $2,000m on behalf of Australians. What emerges from this report for the years 1981-82 is that the system of voluntary health insurance and the operation of that insurance by the funds have been something of which Australia can be proud. The funds have attracted no great criticism in this report. The activities of the funds are recorded fairly factually. It is obvious that it is a very large, well established, well organised, available and accessible system. If the new Government determines, in line with its election mandate, to change the system, it should do so knowing the size, extent and success of the system that it does change. I remind the Government that fixed assets of something like $120m, assets which belong to Australians, will have to be taken into account if and when a different system of health insurance is brought in. One thing which this report demonstrates is that Australians have been well served for a long time by the funds which are the subject of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report of the Interim Council Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.57) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I note that only three minutes remains for the Senate to debate papers and I shall try to confine my remarks to that period. We should all welcome this report recommending that a Museum of Australia be set up. I remind the Senate that the Museum of Australia was established by the Museum of Australia Act which received royal assent in September 1980 and the Interim Council was set up by the then Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr R. J. Ellicott. The report is an excellent one and is, of course, on matters of great significance to Australians. I notice that the first recommendation to the Government is that it endorse the concept of a Museum of Australia and that the Museum of Australia be opened in 1990. There are a number of matters of great interest in the recommendations. What is welcome is some emphasis on the role that Aboriginals can play in this Museum. When the Fraser Government moved to have this report prepared it laid down that there should be three main themes of the Museum: Firstly, the history of Aboriginal people; secondly, the history of non-Aboriginal people; and thirdly, the interrelationship between people and the Australian environment. They are all important themes but I think it is particularly welcome that such strong recognition is given in the recommendations in this report that special steps be taken to make sure that Aborigines be involved. Too few Australians realise that the prehistory of Australia-that is, the history of Australia prior to European settlement-is a very rich one indeed. We should consider that that part of Australia's history is part of the history of the world because there are things to be learned about Aboriginal civilisation and culture in Australia which are of great significance throughout the world. Of course, the significance is not confined simply to Aborigines. There are uniquenesses, particularly in the fauna of this country, which have relevance throughout the world. I am sure that we will all look forward with great enthusiasm to the Government's acceding to the recommendations in this report and to the opening of what promises, from this report at least, to be an outstanding Museum in 1990. Debate (on motion by Senator Haines) adjourned. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I preface the question by congratulating him on the speed with which he took action last week against the National Times and others to protect highly classified documents, for which of course there was a very good precedent as I am sure he will acknowledge. I ask: Will the Attorney-General assure the Senate that he will press the Government's claims in this action and also inquiries into the source or sources of the leaks of these highly classified documents with vigour and determination and not be deterred by elements in his own party which are hostile to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the protection of Australia's security interests? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government will pursue the matter in the court to the extent it is necessary in our judgment to protect national security. That remains a matter for judgment in the light of the Government's examination of the proposed further articles in the series which have now been supplied to us in draft form. No concluded decision as to what action the Government will take in this respect has yet been made. As to the second question relating to the pursuit of the source of the leaks, the answer is yes. The Government will take such action as is necessary and appropriate, and indeed it is taking such action at the moment to endeavour to identify the source of such leakages as occurred. I make it clear, as I endeavoured to make it clear yesterday, that there is no intention on the part of the Government, whatever may be the ambit claim character of the statement of claim filed in this matter, to seek to establish the source directly by way of affidavit or other evidence from the journalist concerned. But there are many other ways of going about the business of establishing sources, as the former Attorney-General will no doubt be well aware , and those avenues are being vigorously pursued. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Attorney-General's assurance that the Government and he will press the inquiries into the source of the leaks, will he explain the significance of a term of the adjournment of the case yesterday whereby the Government undertook not to use Mr Toohey's affidavit for the purposes of inquiries? Senator GARETH EVANS —I should have thought the former Attorney-General would be capable of reading an order with slightly more precision than that which he has just-- Senator Durack —I have not seen the order. Senator GARETH EVANS —If the honourable senator has not seen the order I will be only too happy to make it available. The only point in that order is an undertaking by the Government not to use Mr Toohey's affidavit describing the process of the destruction of the documents in question, according to his oath, as an evidentiary ground for any possible subsequent prosecution of Mr Toohey under the Crimes Act. There are technical reasons for doing that, which again I am sure Senator Durack will appreciate, but the undertaking does not in any way tie the Government's hands in the way I suspect he was implying by that question . Senator ROBERTSON —Can the Minister for Social Security explain what he means by the concept 'least restrictive alternative' in respect of special services to the handicapped? Senator GRIMES —I assume that Senator Robertson was referring to a statement which was released yesterday in which I announced that the Government will be reviewing funds which will be available under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Program to apply the concept of the least restrictive alternative in assessing funding for special services which include such things as activity therapy, sheltered employment, special training and residential accommodation for the disabled. The principle basically recognises the individual's right to live in an environment which is as supportive as possible, and as supportive as is needed by the disabled without unreasonably restricting personal freedom. It implies for the handicapped person the least possible restriction on living an ordinary life in the community. It is a concept which is well accepted by all those who are concerned with the welfare of the disabled in the community. It is particularly important, when considering applications for funding for residential accommodation for these people, to move away from the institutionalisation which has developed in the past. The Government has decided to review future applications, and indeed existing applications, on this basis. I have asked organisations which seek funds in future, and those which already have funding applications which are being examined by the Government, to review those applications and their policies in this light. In the past many of these organisations have not had many disabled people on their boards of management or on the main bodies of their associations. I hope that, as a result of the International Year of Disabled Persons and the increased interest in this area, as seen by the development of organisations such as Disabled Persons International, other organisations will take their cue in this regard and ensure that the disabled and their views are represented both within their organisations and within the umbrella organisations which oversee the policies of the various societies and groups in the community which care for the disabled . Briefly, we wish to ensure that groups of disabled people are assisted by the Government to live as normal lives as possible with regard to residence, occupation and their ability to take part in our society. That will be the policy of this Government from this day hence. Senator ROBERTSON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I thank the Minister for his answer. I am concerned that organisations and handicapped persons should be consulted before any reforms are made. This seems to be implicit in the answer given by the Minister, but I seek from him a direct assurance that disabled and handicapped people and organisations will be consulted about any reform of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Program. Senator GRIMES —Disabled people and their representatives-both the organisations and their umbrella organisations-were consulted by us in Opposition and will be consulted by us in government. At the same time we want to ensure that those organisations represent the views of the disabled. It is my view, and it is the Government's view, that those who are the real experts on what the disabilities, are, and the likely solutions to those disabilities are the disabled themselves. In the past they have had too little say. In the future, we will ensure that they have more say. Senator KILGARIFF —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is the Government giving consideration to the call from the honourable member for Fraser for the abolition of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and its replacement by a different type of intelligence organisation? Senator GARETH EVANS —The abolition of ASIO is not Australian Labor Party policy and never has been. The accountability of ASIO has always been a matter of considerable concern to us. As I indicated yesterday, the question of how best to ensure that accountability is the subject of active review at the moment and, indeed, will be the subject of announcements shortly by the Government. Senator McINTOSH —Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to the article in Business Review Weekly on the different treatment given to certain capital gains for social security and tax purposes? What will the Government do about differences in interpretation of this type? Senator GRIMES —I did read the article in Business Review Weekly. It draws attention to a problem which has bedevilled Ministers for Social Security, Ministers for Finance and Treasurers before me. A problem for the Department of Social Security, for instance, in relation to property growth trusts to which the article largely referred and to other capital growth schemes, is that it is difficult in practice to establish that a person has an immediate legal entitlement to a sum of money and therefore it is difficult to assess income in these circumstances. One of the basic problems is in defining just what income is. It is a matter which I raised during the National Economic Summit Conference . For instance, the Social Services Act contains for pension and benefit purposes the following definition of income: . . . any personal earnings, moneys, valuable consideration or profits earned, derived or received by that person for his own use or benefit by any means from any source whatsoever, within or outside Australia . . . The Income Tax Assessment Act, despite its title, contains no definition of income. Consequently, under the Income Tax Assessment Act the term is understood in its general meaning according to the ordinary concepts and usages. It causes great difficulties in trying to define income when the Act which has the word ' income' in its title has no definition but the Act which does not has a fairly strict and rigid definition. Quite clearly, the taxation authorities in this country and the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Finance, the Department of Social Security and other departments involved in supervising means tests and income tests, must eventually get together so that we get a common definition of income to avoid the sorts of confusions which arise now and which were pointed to in the article. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Attorney-General a question. It concerns permanent proposals for a commission to investigate organised crime and corruption in Australia. Did the Attorney, when he took on his ministerial post, state that there would be a six-months delay in implementing the proposals for a national crimes commission? Does he agree that while ad hoc royal commissions may be of some use, it is vital, if we are to investigate thoroughly and prosecute organised crime in all States, that there be a federal body with the jurisdiction to do so? Specifically, if a person is arrested and charged with an offence against Commonwealth law, say the importation of heroin, brought before a State court of summary jurisdiction, say in New South Wales, and wrongly discharged by a magistrate, is the existing legislation for a crimes commission adequate to allow it to intervene? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that the Government remains committed to the concept of a federal crimes commission operating in close consultation and co- operation with the States. The precise form that that commission should take in terms of its composition, powers and functions is, as I indicated in a public statement jointly with the Special Minister of State a few weeks ago, under further consideration. It will be the subject of a Green Paper to be published shortly, I hope, and of an open seminar during the winter recess at which the kinds of issues which Senator Chipp has canvassed on this and previous occasions can be closely considered by the Government. The issues are simply too momentous in their significance and the risks to individuals and the credibility of the law enforcement process too great for any government to go off in any half-baked fashion in this area. It is important to get the machinery right and that is what the present Government proposes to do. The more specific matter that Senator Chipp raised about the situation of a possible offender under Commonwealth law being discharged under State law is one that can arise and has arisen on occasions in the whole course of the administration of criminal law in this century. I am not sure that it raises questions of any special difficulty in this area but to the extent that it does we will look into them. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology whether she saw the article in the Age of 8 April headed 'Antarctic beauty spoiled by man's wreckage' in which Peter Roberts described the old Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition station on Heard Island as a graveyard for old buildings, machinery, stores and equipment. He stated that the roofs of most buildings have collapsed inwards, that those buildings that are not roofless have sunk in their foundations and that their floors are filled with stinking water. The article also referred to a jumble of old food cans spilling out into the mud, piles of rusting drums, sheet iron and so forth. Can the Minister explain why nothing has been done to clean up the rubbish over the 25 years since the base was last used? Will this Government undertake to care for the Antarctic environment by cleaning up the mess at Heard Island? Finally, can she assure me that the Government is not taking the view expressed by Dr Phillip Law, opposing the clean-up, on the basis that, as he says: The storms over the years will obliterate the evidence of our short period of occupation and, in any case, the seals and penguins will be the only ones to observe the untidiness . . . Senator RYAN —The brief supplied to me on this matter by my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology implies that the criticisms of the conditions on Heard Island stated in the honourable senator's question are right . I have some briefing notes to the effect that essentially no maintenance of the original buildings has been carried out since 1954-55. Succeeding parties have provided their own temporary accommodation. The buildings are now in an advanced state of disrepair due to the effects of weather and seals. Over the summer of 1982-83 two private expeditions visited the island and it is understood that members of those expeditions made some attempt to tidy up the debris. The Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition's ship Nella Dan visited the island for one day in March 1983. Detailed reports on the conditions of the station and its environs are being prepared. There is no undertaking in the brief supplied to me by my colleague in another place as to the Government's intentions in this matter. I will convey to the Minister the concern raised in this question by Senator Coates and get a response for him as to the Minister's intention. Senator LEWIS —I ask the Attorney-General: Is it true, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, that the Government has given consideration to prosecuting a senior Australian Labor Party figure who the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has told the Government is a potential security risk? If so, what is the outcome of those considerations? Senator GARETH EVANS —I advise the honourable senator and the Senate that the Prime Minister proposes to make a statement on this matter at the earliest possible hour today. Until then I have nothing further to say on that question. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware that it has been claimed by the Vice-Chancellor of Griffith University, Professor John Willett, that Queensland tertiary institutions are funded at a lower level than the national average? Will the Minister investigate this claim, which assumes that Australia-wide funding decisions have not previously allowed for significant population growth in Queensland? Senator RYAN —I am not aware of Professor Willett's claims in respect of unequal funding provisions for Queensland. It is certainly a matter of great concern to the Government that education standards in all States and territories be improved and maintained at a high level. We certainly would not acquiesce in a situation where one State or territory is discriminated against in any way and thus is unable to contribute to improved educational standards. I will seek information about the allegations raised in Professor Willett's reported comments and inform the honourable senator of the results. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. By what principles of natural justice or good government does he justify the Prime Minister's action of depriving his former friend and colleague , Mr David Combe, of his livelihood without a fair hearing? Senator BUTTON —I do not propose to discuss the principles of natural justice involved. The Prime Minister will make a statement about this matter later today . Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the Minister for Social Security received representations regarding funding for the centre for intellectually handicapped persons in Alexandra, Victoria? If so, can he give an indication of the likely outcome of those representations? Senator GRIMES —I have received many representations from organisations such as the organisation in Alexandra which runs the Dame Pattie Menzies Centre and which received from the Minister for Social Security before last approval for a grant for a training centre on its site. This organisation since then has had some difficulty because of the uncertainty of the Government's response. For instance, I have learned that many promises and many guarantees of funding were given by the last Minister and by the Minister before last. They will have to be financed by this Government, and they go back a very long way. It may be that many of the priorities of the previous Government in this area are not mine or are not necessarily the Government's. Where such organisations, which are doing good work for those in the community who need assistance, have received such assurances, unless there are very strange circumstances, I and this Government will honour those commitments, as any government should, so that the people who have worked so hard and the people for whom they are caring will not suffer. For this reason I have just approved a grant of about $90,000 under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act for the Dame Pattie Menzies Centre in Alexandra. It will be able to proceed with its project. As I have said, other projects have piled up over the years. We are reviewing many of them, particularly those which have been on the drawing board since before 1981, with a view to finalising them one way or another-by asking the organisations whether they are capable of getting on with the projects which have been approved, seeing whether they need assistance to get on with them or seeing whether the funds would not be better used in another area. However, the Dame Pattie Menzies Centre has had its grant approved. I hope now that the uncertainty which has bedevilled it in recent years will be gone to enable it to get on with the job it wishes to do. Senator CHANEY —I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and preface it by noting the apparant linkage in the answers given by the Leader of the Government and the Attorney-General to the separate questions which were asked of them relating to Mr David Combe and the report in the Sydney Morning Herald concerning a senior Australian Labor Party figure. I ask: Is that linkage one which should be made? Are the statements referred to by the two Ministers in their answers the same statements? Given that Mr Combe has been barred from access to Ministers for lobbying purposes, has any similar ban been placed on contact with Mr Wran, the National President of the ALP? Senator BUTTON —I do not propose to comment on Senator Chaney's dragging red herrings into the issue. A statement will be made later today. Senator CROWLEY —I direct my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Last week the Minister for Health introduced a new pharmaceutical benefits form, a form that meets current needs for identifying patients and their various eligibilities while doing away with the chaos, confusion and distress that the previous forms caused. In the light of recent changes to the revised Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, suspending for six months the changes proposed under that Scheme, has any thought been given to incorporating the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme under the general Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, particularly as the new form now seems readily adaptable to repatriation requirements? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Crowley has asked me a question which relates to the rationalisation of the existing benefits available under the assistance from the Department of Health and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. A number of matters are currently under review by the two departments and the two Ministers concerned, Dr Blewett and me. We are anxious to facilitate such rationalisation but not at the expense, of course, of any of the existing beneficiaries. The informal discussions we have had at the ministerial level will be discussed by our departments. It is the Government's intention to introduce the Medicare proposals in the Budget session, or maybe even prior to that, with a view to their implementation early in 1984. Extensive changes are mooted in those new proposals. If it is possible for us to minimise the degree of bureaucracy or form filling by patients, whether under the National Health Scheme or the Department of Veterans' Affairs, we will certainly be seeking to simplify the whole process because that is in the interests of citizens generally, whether they are covered by my Department or the Department of Health. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. The Special Minister of State has in recent days declared the Government's intention of legislating for public funding of elections. Obviously one of the main concerns of the public will be the cost of such a scheme. Can the Minister inform the Senate, firstly, of the approximate cost to the public of elections under the present arrangements, particularly the current unlimited claims that can be made via the taxation system and, secondly, the prospective cost of the Government's contemplated scheme and whether it will cost more than the current scheme? Senator GARETH EVANS —Rather than try to produce figures out of the air, I undertake to refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister and to get an early reply for him. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister for Social Security to the fact that the unemployment benefit for 16 and 17-year-olds fell by something like 50 per cent in real terms during the life of the Fraser Government. Whereas it represented 24.5 per cent of average weekly earnings in June 1975, it now represents only 11 per cent. I ask the Minister: When will the Government grant an increase in the unemployment benefit paid to 16 and 17-year-olds? Does the Government intend to restore the level of this benefit to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings or at least to a more humane and realistic level? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Foreman has said, the unemployment benefit for those under the age of 18 years was $36 a week in 1975 and stayed at that level until the last Budget, when it was increased to $40 a week. It is my recollection that over that time the drop in value of that benefit was indeed 50 per cent, taking into account inflation. The great tragedy, of course, was that over that time youth unemployment rose rapidly so that people of this age group now have, in some regions of the country, an unemployment level of anything up to 40 per cent . The tragedy of that is that that unemployment resulted of course from the direct policies of the previous Government, first of all by its contracting of the economy and screwing down on the economy generally and, secondly, by its doing nothing about providing alternatives for young people of this age group. We have a tragedy of considerable proportions. Certainly I accept, as I think most honourable senators on both sides of Parliament should accept, that the unemployment benefit is inadequate. It is particularly inadequate for those who are living away from home, as so many are, to seek work or for other reasons. Whether the unemployment benefit for that group will be increased, and to what extent, is a matter for Budget discussions. It is not a matter on which I can commit the Government at the moment, but obviously we will view it with considerable sympathy. What level the unemployment benefit eventually will be increased to and how this will be done, will involve wider considerations. For instance, in this country 66 per cent of people aged 15 to 19 years are in the work force or receiving an unemployment benefit. Quite clearly they are there because basically they have the alternative of either working or taking the unemployment benefit, as inadequate as it is. In comparable countries-for instance, the social democracies of Western Europe and Canada-the participation rate in the work force is only 30 per cent or 34 per cent. I think we should look at why this is so. It is for this reason that a working party under me, Senator Ryan, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and Mr Willis, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, is looking at this whole area, and indeed at the some 16 various forms of income support payments we make to young people in this age group, to see whether we cannot, through a better scale of benefits, a better and more appropriate education system, better training schemes and even assistance to private industry to assist in training, reverse this situation in Australia where so many young people are in the work force when it may be appropriate that they not be there. In addition, of course, our employment projects will be aimed at the young unemployed and our general economic policy will be aimed at improving employment opportunities for the young unemployed. The previous Government apparently viewed this situation with no concern. It showed no concern for the young unemployed for the seven years it was in government. This is demonstrated by the fact that the unemployment benefit did not increase, as Senator Foreman pointed out. In fact, it made no effort to do anything about the difficult economic situations in which these people and their families found themselves. But the matters that the honourable senator has raised and the matters that I have raised are matters for budgetary consideration. They are under active consideration. I can assure Senator Foreman that we have this group in particular in mind in making our decisions. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will the Government consider the appointment of a judicial inquiry to enable Mr Combe to clear his name? Senator BUTTON —The Prime Minister will be making a statement about that matter later this afternoon. If I can convey to him in the meantime Senator MacGibbon's bizarre suggestion I am sure that he will look at it. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate assure the Senate that he will make a statement in the Senate similar to the Prime Minister's report? If so, at what time will that report be delivered? Senator BUTTON —In answer to the second part of the question, I am unable to say . The answer to the first part of the question is yes, a statement will be made in the Senate. Senator GILES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to several instances of Western Australian visitors to Singapore who were found to be carrying prescribed medications having been harassed by Singaporean officials and, in one case, arrested, manacled and locked up overnight? What action has been taken to protect Australian tourists from such treatment in the future? Has any official complaint been made to the Singapore Government on behalf of these Australian citizens whose holidays have been ruined? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, the recent cases to which Senator Giles refers and the Press report of them in the West Australian of 26 April have been drawn to my attention. As yet no official complaint has been made to the Government of Singapore. The Department of Foreign Affairs has been told of the cases by the Australian High Commission in Singapore. A booklet entitled 'Hints for Australian Travellers' is provided to all Australians travelling overseas. That booklet is designed to assist Australian travellers; I am told that it does. It indicates that all persons are subject to the laws of the country which they enter and that extreme care should be taken in respect of drugs. No specific action has been taken to warn Australian travellers in this case. However, it is proposed that the next edition of that booklet of helpful hints will include a section about this problem, which does not appear previously to have arisen. Senator TOWNLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation seen the results of a Spectrum Research Pty Ltd poll which was held in February this year in which some 72 per cent of almost 2,000 people surveyed considered that South African Airways should be allowed to continue operations into and out of Australia and only 9 per cent expressed a negative view, and 78 per cent of people considered that Qantas Airways Ltd should be allowed to fly to South Africa whereas only 10 per cent indicated the opposite, once again a very strong positive response? Is the Government considering allowing Qantas to fly direct to South Africa instead of forcing Australians to fly to Zimbabwe, then to join a South African Airways aircraft which is scheduled specially to meet the Qantas plane and in which most of them then fly on to Johannesburg in South Africa? I am sure the Minister will agree that that is a quite ridiculous situation. If the Minister is not able to advise me, will he undertake to have the matter examined and report to the Senate as soon as possible? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Townley asked a question about the availability of transport by air to South Africa. The honourable senator referred to a survey which I have not seen and on which I have no advice. I am aware of the fact that the Government curtailed the number of flights from Australia to South Africa. I presume that two factors were involved, namely, the economic factor as well as what I understood to be the bipartisan attitude in the Parliament in respect of our relationship with that country, which practises the evil of apartheid. However, as the honourable senator seems to believe that there is a demand for an increased passenger service to South Africa and objects to the current arrangements continuing, I will undertake to have the matter discussed with Mr Beazley, the Minister whom I represent in this place. I do not know of any circumstances that would cause this Government to change the decision. Senator JONES —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: Does the Queensland Rural Reconstruction Board receive any funding from the Commonwealth Government? If so, what amount? Does the Commonwealth have free access to the financial records of the Queensland Rural Reconstruction Board? Further, can the Minister supply the names of the members of that Board and their occupations? Senator WALSH —Assuming that the Queensland Rural Reconstruction Board is the State body which administers the rural adjustment arrangements, the answer to the first part of Senator Jones's question is yes, the Commonwealth does provide funds to it. Indeed, the Commonwealth provides all of the funds less only the cost of administration. As to the second part of the question, I cannot say, at this stage, how much is provided, but I can find that out from the Treasurer. The third part of the question asked who were the members of the Board. I cannot say who they are at this stage, but I will consult with the Treasurer and find out. Senator HAMER —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. My purpose is to probe a little further into the rather peculiar ministerial relationships of the present Government. Is Mr Duffy, the Minister for Communications, ministerially responsible for the Australian Broadcasting Commission? Is Senator Button his ministerial assistant? If so, if he had complaints about the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission which were sufficiently serious for him to write formally about them-they seemed pretty trivial to everyone else-why did he not tell his ministerial superior about them instead of leaving him in embarrassing ignorance? With regard to Senator Button's quaint likening of his petty complaints to the Falklands war it is obvious that he has cast Professor Kramer as Mrs Thatcher. Whom has he cast as General Galtieri-himself, Mr Duffy or the Prime Minister? Has he noticed what happened to General Galtieri and who won the war? Senator BUTTON —I will deal, first of all, with the reference to the Falklands war. Senator Hamer, as a keen student of all these matters, will know that the Falklands war was escalated over a considerable period from what to many people seemed to be a relatively small incident. That was the context in which that reference was made. The answer to the first part of the question is yes, Mr Duffy is the Minister for Communications. I am the Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications. I am the Minister who represents the Minister for Communications in the Senate. I think anybody who was not desperately thrashing around to create an issue but who was studying gallup polls and the declining fortunes of the Liberal Party would understand why its fortunes are declining when he looked at the level of questions raised in the Senate today and in the last week or so regarding this and other issues. Let me make the simple point for Senator Hamer that when I first responded to that question I said that in my view a certain situation relating to the ABC had pertained in the past-I emphasise the words 'in my view'-and that it was a matter peculiarly within my knowledge. For that reason I expressed the answer in those terms-'in my view'. It is not the responsibility of anyone else to substantiate my view or otherwise . If honourable senators opposite want to go back over the years in relation to this chamber where Ministers-leaders of the government-have expressed views about the ABC, I will read a few of those views to honourable senators after lunch. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. I refer to the Government's provision of $90m in extra capital to Trans Australia Airlines. Will the extra capital funds enable TAA to meet the heavy demand for cheaper air travel in Australia by introducing new lower air fares? Senator GIETZELT —The undercapitalisation of TAA has worried the Australian Labor Party for a considerable number of years. It is fairly clear that the Liberal conservative governments have deliberately carried into effect policies which were designed to constrain that organisation. I remind the Senate that on every occasion in the post-war years when the airline agreement has been renegotiated it has been done by the Liberal conservative governments and, invariably, on the eve of an election. So the Labor Party would have had very little influence on that agreement. Of course, if an organisation operates in an undercapitalised way it would have a lot of economic difficulties, particularly if those difficulties occur during a period of economic downturn. The Government's decision to increase TAA's capital by $90m was designed to improve the efficiency of the organisation. That step reflects the Government's commitment to a public airline and, of course, to the principles that exist in the two-airline agreement, which is of a competitive nature involving both the Government airline and the private airline organisation. Therefore, if we are to have an efficient air service in Australia it is essential that both organisations-Ansett Airlines of Australia and TAA-be given a real opportunity to compete on an equal, commercial basis. That has not been the position in the past. As a result of that competition consumers as well as the airlines will benefit. Without that capital which the Government has recently made available to TAA the two-airline system, in the view of the Government, will not satisfy the requirements of the Australian travelling public. As the honourable senator would know, air fares for both TAA and Ansett are set on a nationally consistent basis by the Independent Air Fares Committee. However , the Government believes that the improvement of TAA's capital situation will lead to decreased interest payments for the airline which, together with self- help arrangements and measures already instituted by TAA, will allow it to contain costs and thus minimise the extent of future general air fare increases. This will put it on a competitive basis. The Government is confident that that will also enhance TAA's ability to develop new low-cost discount fare initiatives. I believe that answer replies to the purport of the question asked of me by Senator Maguire. Senator MARTIN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and refers to the decision by the Brisbane City Council that Brisbane bid for the 1987 World Student Games which, of course, is second in size only to the Olympic Games. Is it a fact that, as reported in the Press, Brisbane's Lord Mayor has been lobbying Federal Cabinet Ministers for several weeks in an attempt to get a continuing commitment of support from the Hawke Government and that all he has for his trouble is an agreement from some Ministers that they will inspect the project? In view of the fact that Brisbane must bid for the 1987 World Student Games during this year's games at Edmonton in July, will the Government give an immediate undertaking of financial support for this world sporting event? Senator RYAN —Despite the honourable senator having indicated to me yesterday her interest in this matter, I have not been able to get up-to-date information from the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, in reply to her question. However, I will make sure that he is aware of her interest and her requests for confirmation of Government intentions in this matter as soon as possible. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Will the Government resist the temptation to amend Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports in order to gain domestic political advantage? Secondly, will the Government encourage the OECD to include comparative tables that would measure Australia's economic performance with that of other comparable countries? Senator WALSH —I can safely assure Senator Ray that this Government would no more fiddle OECD reports than it would fiddle estimates of Budget deficits. Of course , as I am sure Senator Ray knows very well, the discredited Government which was thrown out of office a couple of months ago was exposed before the election as having fiddled the OECD report, and was exposed after the election as having fiddled the Budget deficit. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, arises from his answer to the last question that he was asked. Is he telling the Senate, on behalf of the Government, that the Department of the Treasury will not be permitted to comment on draft reports which are prepared by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or to put views to the OECD which differ from those contained in the draft report and that in turn Ministers will not, in consultation with the Department of the Treasury or alone , put views to the OECD as to what should be in the reports? Senator WALSH —Of course information will be supplied to the OECD as it is supplied by all member governments. What will not be done in the future is a blatant attempt by the Treasurer-as the previous Treasurer did-to amend for partisan, political purposes the conclusions which the OECD comes to. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I again ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Is he saying that, if a draft report is prepared by the OECD with which the Government and/or the Department of the Treasury do not agree, contrary views will not be put by the Government and/or the Department of the Treasury to the OECD before the report is published ? Senator WALSH —The situation outlined by Senator Chaney does not cover the actions of the previous Treasurer; it refers to a different set of circumstances . One of the things that struck me immediately after the election was to see on the Sunday television program the former Treasurer, who two weeks before had been speaking with the prestige and authority of his office and the Department of the Treasury, looking and sounding like a sordid bookkeeper who had been caught out fiddling the accounts. Senator COLSTON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware that the Brisbane City Council's transport operations are being severely affected by the failure of the Queensland State Government to allocate funds, including Commonwealth funds for metropolitan public transport, to the Council for its bus operations? Will the Minister ask the Department of Transport to investigate the way in which Federal funds associated with metropolitan transport have been applied by the State Government and what can be done to channel an acceptable amount to the Brisbane City Council? Senator GIETZELT —The problems of urban transport systems are viewed by the Minister for Transport and, indeed, the Government with quite a degree of concern because we are interested in improving urban transport systems. However, the matters specifically asked by Senator Colston refer to matters on which I have not been adequately briefed. I will certainly seek to have the matters discussed with Mr Morris, whom I represent in this place, with a view to providing the honourable senator with some information which I hope will be of assistance to the citizens of Brisbane and ensuring that the funds made available are spent for the purpose for which they have been allocated. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Attorney-General and relates to his contradictory answers as to whether all documents relevant to the Royal Australian Air Force spy flights over South West Tasmania have been tabled. I ask: Why has he not tabled documents held by the Department of Aviation? Will he now table those documents? Does he not agree that the aviation documents on the spy flights might have some relevance? Senator GARETH EVANS —This is the first time on which I have become aware of a request for the tabling of documents from the Department of Aviation. If the honourable senator-- Senator Walters —You said that all relevant documents were tabled. Senator GARETH EVANS —There were two flights over Tasmania relating specifically to photographic surveillance of the dam site. If the honourable senator wants the precise navigational details of those flights-the mapping co-ordinates and the radio frequency on which the pilots communicated to miscellaneous control towers around the nation in the course of those flights-I am sure that information can be made available to her. What on earth she proposes to do with it remains a matter of considerable mystery to me, but I would be only too delighted to assist her if that is her request. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Those are not the documents I am referring to. I ask Senator Evans whether he believes that the aircraft movement messages might have some relevance in the area. Senator Grimes —Do not be tempted. Senator GARETH EVANS —No. Many movements are assuming relevance, but not aircraft movements at this stage. Senator Walters —I have sought them and have been told I cannot get them without the Minister's permission. Senator GARETH EVANS —If the honourable senator seeks information about aircraft movements or any other kind of movements I will be only too delighted, as I keep saying, to extract the information for her. If she wants information about aircraft movements and messages that may be relevant to those movements I will endeavour to ascertain whether such documents exist and, if they do exist, to make them available to her. Senator CHANEY —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I again ask him: If this Government receives draft reports from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with which the Government does not agree, or with which the Department of the Treasury does not agree, does he say that that disagreement will not be recorded with the OECD and that changes in those draft reports will not be sought? Senator WALSH —I have in my files, and I will bring them along for Senator Chaney tomorrow if he likes, several letters written during May and April of 1982 from the Secretary to the Treasury in which he assured me that it was not normal practice-indeed, if I recall correctly, he went beyond saying that it was not normal practice; he gave an unequivocal assurance that officers of the Treasury did not attempt to do it-to bring pressure to bear on the OECD when it was writing its reports concerning the conclusions which were reached about the Australian economy. Twelve months ago the Secretary to the Treasury said that that just was not done. We know that in, I think, January this year the former Treasurer virtually instructed the OECD to change the conclusions contained in the report which was about to be issued and certainly leaned on Commonwealth officers with a view to having that done. That was completely incompatible with the previous practice followed by the Treasury and outlined by the Secretary in his letters to me of May last year, which I will be happy to bring in-- Senator Button —It was shonky, too. Senator WALSH —It was certainly shonky-just as shonky as fiddling the accounts and misleading the electorate in the week before the 5 March election. Twice during that week he had received official advice from the Treasury on the deficit: In the first case that it would be $9 billion; in the second case that it would be $9.6 billion. He then told the public it would be $6 billion. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The same question has been addressed to the honourable senator three times. He has refused to answer the question. He has addressed himself to a quite separate matter relating to the previous Government. I ask that he be sat down. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition knows that it is the prerogative of any Minister to answer a question in the way he chooses. Senator WALSH —Thank you, Mr President. If I may proceed with the point I was making immediately before being interrupted, the former Treasurer was told by the Treasury on the Tuesday before the election that the projected 1983-84 deficit on the then Government's expenditure program was $9 billion. On the day before the election he was told that it was $9.6 billion. On one or both of those occasions he went to the then Prime Minister and said: 'What should be done with this?' Both of them had been telling the public that the projected deficit was $6 billion. Of course, the then Prime Minister said: 'Keep the lid on it until after the election'. That is precisely what the former Treasurer did . The former Treasurer is now the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. It is a fair indication of the depths to which the Liberal Party has sunk, that it could elect as Deputy Leader somebody who had so grievously misled the public for the most sordid political reasons in the week prior to a Federal election. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest to the Minister that he should look at Standing Order 100 which states: In answering any such question, a Senator shall not debate the matter to which the same refers. Senator WALSH —Mr President, naturally I accept your ruling. Senator Durack —Sit down. Senator WALSH —Oh no, I have not finished with you by a long way. If Senator Chaney wishes, tomorrow I will bring into the Senate the relevant extracts of the correspondence-or the letters, if he prefers-between Mr Stone and me about one year ago, with the assurances Mr Stone gave in that letter as to what was normal behaviour by Treasury officers when dealing with the OECD. I will also provide-if I can find them in time, and I think I can-transcripts and other reports of what the former Treasurer did with regard to the OECD in January this year, when he completely departed from what the Treasury Secretary said was normal practice. In other words, the former Treasurer established a new practice of leaning on the OECD, attempting what was tantamount to falsification of the OECD conclusions, for the most sordid political reasons which were expedient for the government of the day. Senator ELSTOB —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade take steps to correct the current trade practice whereby some goods produced overseas are labelled 'Made in Australia'? Will the Minister also inquire into the common practice whereby packaged goods are labelled in small print with the country of origin, but the labelling of the packaging itself, which is made in Australia, is prominently displayed, thus deceiving members of the public into thinking that they are buying locally made products? Senator WALSH —I certainly was not aware of the mislabelling or misrepresentations, if that is a fair term to use, to which Senator Elstob referred. I will refer the inquiry to the Minister for Trade. I am sure that he will have the matter thoroughly investigated and will supply an answer to Senator Elstob either by private correspondence or by providing additional information for the Senate. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. It concerns the union bans presently in force on the mining and export of coal from the Drayton mine in New South Wales. Is the Minister aware of reports that this ban, together with the decision to block South Korean investment in the Jackson pipeline in Queensland, could have wide ramifications for future employment growth on the Queensland and New South Wales coalfields? Does this situation not run contrary to the Government's pre-election promises of greater employment opportunities under a Hawke Labor Government? Is the Minister not concerned that these two setbacks could bring retaliation from the Koreans by their taking their coal, iron ore and beef business elsewhere, not only significantly reducing Australia's export earning capacity but also helping to compound the unemployment problem in this country? What does the Minister intend to do about this situation? Is he content to let Australia's trade relations suffer and dwindle as the unemployment queues grow longer? Senator WALSH —The Government has, of course, been concerned throughout its period in office, and members of the Government were concerned even before their party came to office, about the industrial dispute surrounding Drayton. We have endeavoured in various forums to have negotiated a settlement which will enable that mine to commence producing and which will resolve the industrial dispute. Among those initiatives are the original meeting of the Coal Conference which was held in this chamber on 30 March, a subsequent meeting of the Australian Coal Consultative Council, the involvement of Commonwealth officers in discussions between Mr Dolan and other officers of the Australian Council of Trade Unions with the unions concerned and a number of other private discussions involving Ministers in the New South Wales Government as well as Ministers in the Federal Government. I do not want to have too much made of this matter, but I believe that there are some grounds to be more optimistic about a satisfactory resolution of this dispute than appeared to be the case a few weeks ago. As to the first part of Senator Bjelke-Petersen's question, concerning the Jackson pipeline, I can only repeat what I said here yesterday: There seems to have been an extraordinary departure from the free enterprise rhetoric of the Queensland Government for that Government to have interfered against the wishes of the Australian partners in this proposal. The Australian partners in the Jackson pipeline had the plans made, they had all the money, construction had actually commenced and the Queensland Government, with a heavy dose of Brisbane centralism, intervened and compelled the Australian partners to take a 25 per cent ICC equitity. That move, of course, was ultimately blocked by the Foreign Investment Review Board with the support of the Treasurer. I do not believe the Jackson incident will have any ramifications on subsequent Australian trade with Korea. It might have some ramifications on contributions to the Bjelke-Petersen trust. Sitting suspended from 1.4 to 2.15 p.m. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Mr President has received a letter from Senator Peter Baume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to justify charges against the Chairman of the A. B.C. and the implications of this for the future independence of the National Broadcasting Authority. 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 PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(2.16) —This matter of public importance is not about criticism of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The issue is not criticism of the ABC; it never has been. No doubt governments and oppositions will criticise the ABC on issues as they have done in the past. They will continue to do so. It is not a debate about public criticism of the ABC. But to use an inelegant phrase introduced into public debate a few weeks ago by the President of the Australian Labor Party, this has been an exercise by Labor politicians of applying a blowtorch to the belly of the Chairman of the ABC. It has been seen as such in the public place. It carries with it threats for the future of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. This is not a debate about this Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Dame Leonie Kramer; but it is a debate about the most senior Minister of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, what he and his Government stand for and matters on which they stand condemned. It is about the conduct of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is about his failure to justify his allegations and his failure to produce adequate explanations for an ungenerous, unnecessary, unsubstantiated and cowardly attack in this place upon a distinguished Australian. It is about the subsequent revelation that he and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who was then Leader of the Opposition, had tried to influence the programming of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It is about his confirmation yesterday that he would have expected interference with the staff of the ABC by the management in response to complaints of the kind that he made. I remind him of the response that he made to an interjection by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. The series of events which have come to light recently are matters of grave concern to the Opposition. This Government has been in office just three months and already it has displayed its ineptitude on this as on so many matters. To trace the extraordinary set of circumstances surrounding this most unfortunate affair-- Senator Tate —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to Standing Order 406. The honourable senator, despite his years of experience in the chamber, is clearly reading his speech-prepared by somebody else. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator PETER BAUME —I will trace this most extraordinary set of circumstances. First of all, Senator Button, in this place, cast aspersions on the impartiality and, thus, on the integrity of the Chariman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Under parliamentary privilege he alleged here that the Chairman had not always acted without fear or favour. At best, Senator Button's remarks in the Senate on 4 May could have been attributed to a slip of the tongue, even if it was an unfortunate one. At worst, it could be seen-it is seen now-as a deliberate slur and reflection on the current Chairman. Senator Button's spirited and continuing defence of his comment indicates that it was deliberate, that it was intentional and that he stands by it. In addition, Senator Button, having made the slur, was not prepared to elaborate with details here in the Parliament. Instead, he offered to elaborate privately to members of the Senate outside the chamber in the privacy of his office. His attack in Parliament is serious enough. It is hard enough for Dame Leonie Kramer to be able to defend herself. But it was impossible for her to try to defend herself when no details were given of the offences which she was supposed to have committed and when Senator Button, in this place, refused an invitation to produce the details in the Parliament where he made the allegation. To make the serious allegation under parliamentary privilege and then to refuse to substantiate it in the Senate was reprehensible. The place to elaborate the charge was here where he made it. That Senator Button should then go on and express his surprise that Dame Leonie Kramer should mount a defence on her own behalf is incredible. After all, she was, like the Falkland Islands, to use Senator Button's own unfortunate analogy, the subject of a sneak surprise attack last week. Understandably, the Chairman of the ABC immediately called for Senator Button to spell out the nature of allegations which he made. He declined to do so here. He was not prepared to do so at the time of his statement; he elected to write to Professor Kramer. The contents of the correspondence reveal that the hapless Senator Button could not even establish a case to justify what he said. As I understand it, the nature of Senator Button's complaint, certainly from the letter he wrote, went as follows: That a supervisor had reprimanded or counselled a reporter; that knowing of this Senator Button informed Dame Leonie Kramer of the matter and of his concern arising out of it. Senator Button, in his letter, acknowledged that Dame Leonie did investigate the matter. She made a judgment; and he disagreed with the judgment she made. This series of events, as I have set them out now, was offered by Senator Button as evidence to support a most serious charge, probably the most serious charge one could make against someone holding an office of the kind held by Dame Leonie. That is what he used to justify the charge. Dame Leonie Kramer responded by letter. Her response was, first, that Senator Button was wrong in terms of the context he set; he was wrong as to the nature of the interaction; he was wrong as to whether there was a Press conference or the circumstances in which the comments were made. But she went on to put it in these terms. I will use her words. She said: You then refer to those aspects of this incident which are 'not a matter of public knowledge'. Again, your recollection is at variance with the facts. It was not you who raised the matter with me, but Mr Hawke. He telephoned me on February 8, 1983, and having informed me that you were present, proceeded to register his displeasure at certain aspects of the programs of February 4, 1983. That is what Dame Leonie Kramer said. It was not Senator Button who raised the matter with her; it was Mr Hawke who raised the matter with her. I wonder why the honourable senator got that wrong. She went on to refer to certain other matters in which criticism was raised of the fact that an ABC officer is supposed to have had ties with the Liberal Party. She said: In referring to Ms O'Neil's comment, and the rebuke she received, he remarked that a member of the A.M. Staff 'had ties with the Liberal Party,' and criticised the senior officer who spoke to Ms O'Neil, adding, 'This warrants a change.' Mr Hawke then said, 'I'm damned if I'm going to put up quietly with this situation.' What are they talking about? I know an officer who is associated with AM who was previously a Press officer for a Minister in a Liberal Government. The Minister was Senator the Honourable Sir Robert Cotton. He stopped being a Minister on 20 December 1977. He left the Senate in July 1978. This officer may, I think, have spent some time in Macquarie Street in the State Parliament, but he then went back to the ABC to take up duty as an officer with the ABC. I do not know whether he has ever been a party member. I do not know and I would not ask him. But, has no one heard of George Negus who worked on the staff of Mr Murphy? Has no one heard of Kerry O'Brien who worked with Mr Bowen? Has no one heard of Mr Holgate who worked on the staff of Mr Barnard? Has no one heard of Garry-- Senator Chipp —Who? Senator PETER BAUME —Mr Holgate, who worked with Mr Barnard and who later went on to be Labor Premier of Tasmania. Has no one heard of Gary Scully who even now will be moving to head the Government Information Unit or whatever it is called? Of course, officers of the ABC can move in and out of government. What is it supposed to mean when Mr Hawke talks about supposed links with the Liberal Party ? It does not mean a thing, except that it was another way for Mr Hawke to display some kind of paranoia about what was going on inside the ABC. Dame Leonie's letter raises one other very important matter which reflects credit upon her. It stated, in part: I think you should know that great care was taken to keep the source of the complaint confidential so as not to give rise to any suspicion within the ABC or outside it, that Mr Hawke and you were trying to influence its internal affairs, particularly during an election period. I would say that that is an act of great generosity by Dame Leonie Kramer. She went to great lengths to protect Mr Hawke and Senator Button even while, as she said, they were moving to try to influence the internal affairs of the ABC during an election campaign. It is pathetically indulgent and is asking too much of the credibility and intelligence of the Australian public to offer such a piffling incident as justification for the attack the honourable senator made in this place under privilege on Dame Leonie Kramer. No commentator, no newspaper and no editorial writer in the country has accepted what Senator Button said, has accepted the argument or has accepted that it is adequate. I will give the Senate some examples of what the papers had to say. Mr Geoffrey Barker of the Age said: The whole exercise . . . stinks of a witch hunt. It is the politics of the smear made under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege. He is talking about Senator John Button when he says that. He continues: His examples are frivolous and vexatious and do not justify the grave allegations he made against Dame Leonie. The Australian Financial Review in its editorial of 9 May stated: At the start it has to be said that the examples of supposed political partiality cited by Senator Button are trivial in the extreme. The Australian newspaper in its weekend edition of 7-8 May said: . . . the instance he cites scarcely justifies the magnitude of his charge that she failed, has failed, to act 'without fear or favour'. Finally, what did Michelle Grattan say in the Age newspaper? She wrote: When Senator Button released the correspondence yesterday and his 'notes' of complaints made by Labor during the campaign his position appeared weaker than ever-and left some serious questions about his performance. That is what the newspaper writers had to say. That is how they regard the charge he made and his failure to substantiate it. It is not good enough for Senator Button to suggest that the reason his letter mentioned only the Helen O' Neil incident was that this was all that was needed to prove his point. No editorial writer accepted that it proved his point. No writer of a newspaper article accepted that it proved his point, and his own office later fed out other material which was the subject of complaint. The fact is that he must have realised the frivolous nature of his objection and he must have sought to put out more material to try to bolster a weak case. The rest of Australia certainly made the judgment that he had failed to substantiate a most serious charge made against a worthy Australian. But most importantly, Senator Button's letter misrepresented the central fact: It was not he who raised the matters with Dame Leonie Kramer; it was Mr Hawke, now the Prime Minister of Australia. What has emerged is that he and Mr Hawke have acted to put pressure on the Australian Broadcasting Commission. They have attempted to put pressure on its programming policy, and this goes right to the basis of ABC independence. Senator Button and Mr Hawke sought, first, to interfere with an AM program and to interfere with its staff. What did the phrase 'there has to be a change' mean ? It means that they wanted some change either in the staffing or the program. It means quite clearly that Mr Hawke was seeking more favourable treatment for himself during the election campaign and doing this by way of a quiet and tough approach behind the scenes in an attempt to heavy the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Senator Button and Mr Hawke are trying now to punish Dame Leonie Kramer, because her response to the queries, and her response throughout, has been impeccable; it has been fair. In fact she went to some lengths to protect members of the Australian Labor Party by not revealing to officers of the Australian Broadcasting Commission that it was they who were making the complaints. She did not carry out the partial and what would have been improper interference with programming which was sought. Against this action by Senator Button and Mr Hawke we have a reassurance by Senator Button on AM on 6 May that the role of the Chairman should be in asserting the independence of the ABC without fear or favour in all circumstances. This is precisely what Dame Leonie Kramer did. She did assert the independence of the ABC without fear or favour even in the face of pressure from the man who hoped to be the Prime Minister of Australia. When examined in the context of the imminent changes to the ABC this whole episode is particularly significant. At this moment the Government is seeking parliamentary approval to dismantle the existing Commission and to establish a broadcasting corporation. This change will give the Government the power and the opportunity to sack all the existing commissioners and to establish a new board. The Opposition has recently sought assurances in the Senate that there will not be a wholesale sacking of the present commissioners. The responses we have received give little confidence that the present commissioners will receive a fair go. We seek other assurances, and we have received some, that there will be no interference with the defence case mounted by the ABC in the current defamation proceedings and that a hand-picked board will not settle with Mr Wran out of court, thus preventing an airing of the defamation charges. We sought assurances that there will be no threat to the independence of programs of the kind that has already been attempted. Far from modifying his position or giving assurances to the Senate and the Australian public, Senator Button actually continued and extended his attack upon Dame Leonie Kramer in the Senate yesterday. The real basis of Senator Button's complaint is the opposite of what he alleged. He alleges that Dame Leonie Kramer did not act without fear or favour. Clearly, she did. She acted without fear or favour, and that is why the boot has gone in. He demanded that she intervene directly in a program about which he had a complaint. She refused to do this. The Prime Minister called her on the telephone and abused her-he has so much to say about consensus-and she refused to intervene. It appears that consensus today means the capacity to do what Mr Hawke asks and to agree with him. Senator Button seems incapable of comprehending the difference stressed by Professor Kramer between defending the principle of non-intervention in management decisions and condoning the action taken. They are different matters. She did carry out the principle of non-intervention, even though Senator Button and she disagreed on the subject. The continued independence of the ABC is fundamental. It is widely recognised. On AM on 6 May Dame Leonie said: Well, the Government has said what I can only endorse-that it regards the independence of the ABC as absolutely important and I take it that that means it doesn't expect the Chairman to be sensitive in a way which means yielding to pressure. Of course, that is what it means even when Mr Hawke and Senator Button phone her during an election. Let the Australian Labor Party declare that what is good for other political parties and groups is good for the ALP as well. This is not just an Opposition exercise; it is a genuine matter of public distress and concern. Every editorial writer and every newspaper article has said so. The cartoonists have had a field day with Senator Button. Not one article that I have seen in a major newspaper has anything but derision for Senator Button. Not one article has anything but criticism for what he has done or concern for the implications. Not one of them has anything but contempt for his performance and approach. But the role of Mr Hawke is more sinister. The man who tried muscle on the ABC by attempting to bully its Chairman is now Prime Minister of Australia. The Chairman-the person who stood up for the independence of the ABC when it mattered-has now come under attack in the Parliament. It reflects little credit upon the Government. It is not fair. It is not fair treatment of the Chairman. It is unncessary. It was done deliberately in Parliament by a senior Minister in such a way as to hurt someone not able to answer him here. Inevitably, it leaves a feeling of unease and suspicion about the fate likely to befall anyone who does not do just as is demanded. The incident shows just how shallow is consensus-the right to agree with Mr Hawke or to suffer attack. It is not good enough for Australia. Dame Leonie Kramer and the ABC deserve better. I submit the matter of public importance as one that warrants the serious consideration of the Senate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(2.36) —I suppose that the motiviations for this matter of public importance were revealed at the end of Senator Baume's speech when he said that the issue shows how shallow is consensus. That is the most profound wish of the Opposition; having failed in seven years to establish any consensus in this country, it is now critical of the consensus which the new Government has obtained. That, of course, is the main concern. Senator MacGibbon —Where is the consensus? Senator BUTTON —Senator MacGibbon is, of course, desperate to establish a lack of consensus because it is upon that that he thrives. Let us look at the charge by Senator Baume, first of all that I behaved ungenerously and in a cowardly fashion by raising the matter in the Senate in the way in which I did. It is now suggested that it may have been a slip of the tongue. Senator Baume did not give me that indulgence on the day I said it; he said it was a deliberate attack. He implied that it was defamatory and that I should say it outside. Everything I have said in Parliament on this matter I have been prepared to say outside. Senator Sir John Carrick —You want to say it privately. Senator BUTTON —I have been prepared to say it outside and I will continue to do so. Senator Walters —You invited us to your rooms to tell us. Senator BUTTON —I did not invite the honourable senator to my room and I assure the Senate that I never will. I am not going to fall into that trap. Senator Sir John Carrick —We didn't fall into your trap. Senator BUTTON —Senator Sir John Carrick is very clever. Such an old fox ought to know better. We will hear about him in a minute. I want to go back to what actually took place. On 4 May in the Senate I applauded the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission for saying that the Commission had acted without fear or favour in what we can now call the Four Corners Wran matter, the matter about which the Opposition was directing questions at that stage to try to suggest that this Labor Government would connive in some way to nobble the ABC. Senator Baume is at it again today. It was in that context that I applauded the Chairman of the ABC for acting without fear or favour. I volunteered the additional comment that she had not always acted without fear or favour in the past. If honourable senators are interested to follow that set of facts through again, let us do so. I want to establish one thing: If the Opposition says that it is not the right of a member of parliament to criticise the Chairman of the ABC in this place, the Opposition has found some new values in the past fortnight or so. Senator Peter Baume —Give us some details when you do it. Senator BUTTON —I am going to give some details. Senator Peter Baume —That was the criticism. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator must decide what the criticism is. He has not mentioned that today. He has levelled a number of others. First of all, this whole issue arose in the context of a grubby campaign to discredit the Premier of New South Wales, to do it in the context of the ABC, and to try to dictate from Opposition what the Government should do about its relationship with the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Senator Teague —Four Corners was grubby, was it? Senator BUTTON —I think I said the Opposition was grubby; I did not mention Four Corners as being grubby. As I have already mentioned, I said that 'without fear or favour' was the appropriate comment for the Chairman of the ABC to make in relation to the Four Corners program. I turn to the issue of the complaint made by Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister and then Leader of the Opposition, and me in relation to matters which were on ABC programs on 4 February, I believe. Let me be quite clear about that: In one day on ABC programs three things were said relating to Mr Hawke, and by implication to me, as well as to the then Prime Minister. These three matters were put to the Chairman of the ABC, who is the self-acknowledged receiver of complaints on behalf of the ABC, in a sense as one complaint as they all happened on one day. Look what happened. It is said that we were trying to muzzle the ABC. One of the matters which were put to Dame Leonie Kramer as Chairman of the ABC was that the AM program had said that the Leader of the Opposition in Australia was named in a secret volume of the Costigan report dealing with criminality amongst ship painters and dockers, that that report was in a safe in Canberra and that the truth would come out in the course of an election campaign. That was said by an ABC program at the start of the 1983 Federal election. That rumour about the secret volume of the Costigan report was about throughout the lobbies and the Press Gallery in Canberra. Not one newspaper or other media outlet in Australia covered it. Senator Lajovic —It just shows how they think. Senator BUTTON —If the honourable senator wants to cover it, let him go outside this House to say it when he talks about cowards. Let Senator Lajovic, the great beneficiary of libel actions, talk about the Prime Minister and see how he gets on. Not one media organisation covered it, except the independent national broadcasting service. The same thing was said about me in relation to negotiations with Mr Hayden; the same sort of allegation was made. No newspaper or other media outlet in Australia mentioned it, although that story was about, because they realised that it was defamatory and untrue. Only the independent national broadcasting service ran those two stories on 4 February. On the same day, when a journalist for the ABC asked a totally innocuous question of Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, in answer to a stupid comment which he made, she was reprimanded. That was the package that was put to Dame Leonie Kramer by way of complaint. If we had wanted to silence the ABC in respect of those first two complaints we would have issued writs then and there. The ABC would not have talked any more about any of those things for the duration of the election campaign. But we did not want to do that against the Australian Broadcasting Commission, so we made a complaint to the Chairman. That was the appropriate course for us to take. If any honourable senators complain seriously about that, I really do not understand it at all. What happened after 4 May this year, when I referred to that matter? Dame Leonie Kramer ought to have known what I was talking about. She involves herself in decisions of program makers in the ABC. She ought to have known what I was talking about. On the evening of Wednesday 4 May she said on television that there were no complaints in the course of the election campaign. She was probed by interviewers about the issue of complaints. Honourable senators can all read the transcript for themselves. I make no comment about it. She said: 'There were no complaints'. I thought it would be appropriate to jog the good Dame's memory about what took place. The appropriate way to do that, of course, was to send her a letter. That is the course of events which took place. Senator Teague —Why did you mention only one incident in that letter? Senator BUTTON —I mentioned one incident because it seemed to me to be the most politically neutral issue to mention to her. I thought it would jog her memory about what took place. It has been said in the Senate in the course of debate-Mr Deputy President, this morning it was said impliedly by you-that I, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, should not say anything about Dame Leonie Kramer. Mr Deputy President, I do not know whether that was your view because she is a Dame or because she is Chairman of the ABC, but you said that I, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, should not say anything about her in this place because to do so is the function of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). Is that seriously the view of honourable senators opposite? If it is, I want them to have a little look at the record of Liberal Ministers in this place in relation to the ABC. In 1976, Senator Withers, then Leader of the Government in the Senate-- Senator Peter Baume —We made no such assertion, Senator. Senator BUTTON —Senator Baume should stop giggling like a girl and listen. Senator Withers said: Do not raise the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Australian Labor Party has been leaning on it for years. It is full of the Labor Party's supporters and has been pumping out the Labor Party's propaganda . . . That is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of notoriety. The sooner it is cleared up the better as far as I am concerned. That is what Senator Withers, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, said in the Senate. Was he not entitled to say that? Where is the answer from all the noisy people opposite? I ask them whether Mr Nixon was entitled to say, prior to the 1975 election: Never in its history will the Australian Broadcasting Commission be under such close scrutiny as during the coming election campaign. . . . . ABC news and public affairs programs must expect unprecedented watchfulness by the National Country Party . . . He talked also about the then Chairman of the ABC and said: ABC Commissioner (Professor Downing) is either a naive academic or is part of the plot to disseminate socialist propaganda Australia-wide over ABC radio news. At best, Professor Downing is so naive that he has had his head in the clouds for the past 20 years. But they are all matters of history. Only last year, after the Premiers Conference, David Barnett, the Press Secretary to the former Prime Minister of Australia, leaned on two ABC journalists to stop a program going ahead which embarassed the Prime Minister and the then Treasurer, Mr Howard. I raised this matter in the Senate but did not get much of an answer from the then Minister responsible. When this matter was raised Senator Sir John Carrick, on behalf of the then Prime Minister, gave an answer in the following terms: I am advised that my Press Secretary, David Barnett, did express to John Penlington his concern that Nationwide should have a balanced presentation on the final two evenings of television before the electronic media blackout. Senator McIntosh —Who said that? Senator BUTTON —That was said by Senator Sir John Carrick in answer to a question. That was his advice from the then Prime Minister. That was a nice way of saying what the journalists concerned said-that they were leant on to stop a program going ahead. I invite honourable senators to contrast that behaviour with the sort of complaint about which honourable senators opposite are bellyaching today-the complaints made by Mr Hawke and me. I invite them to contrast the response we got then and the sort of response which has been given by Dame Leonie Kramer-a series of silly little points in a letter about whether it was actually Mr Hawke or me who spoke to her, as if that were relevant to the substantial issue about which she was quite clear. The latter part of the matter of public importance states that honourable senators opposite are concerned about the future independence of the ABC under a government that they allege does this horrendous sort of thing. We are babes in the woods compared with the mob opposite and the way in which it has leaned on the ABC over the years. I have just given four examples out of many. Mr Hawke and I tried to save the ABC from repeating untrue allegations, made by no other media outlet in Australia, and from being sued, because that is what would have happened. It was in that context that these three matters were put to the Chairman of the ABC-the recipient of complaints. Senator Peter Baume has given a lot of attention to these past matters and has not dealt at great length with his concern about the future independence of the ABC under a Labor government. Senator Baume even went out of his way to suggest that we were introducing legislation to get rid of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and to replace it with a new corporation. The former Government introduced that legislation, not us. It was introduced last year and we supported it. Senator Peter Baume —No argument. Senator BUTTON —That is not what the honourable senator tried to suggest in his speech today. Senator Peter Baume —You misheard me, Senator. Senator BUTTON —I did not mishear Senator Baume at all. That is what he was trying to suggest. It was his Government's legislation; essentially it is bipartisan legislation. But there is one important difference between the legislation which will be introduced this year and the legislation which the former Government introduced last year. The important difference is that enshrined in the legislation introduced last year was the most classic and notorious interference with the Australian Broadcasting Commission that this country could ever imagine. The former Government had included in that legislation a procedure for dealing with complaints which would have enabled journalists, program makers, members of the management and staff of the ABC to be investigated in relation to program content, to be penalised, fined and otherwise dealt with in a punitive way in the course of their work as members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. There has been no more horrendous potential interference with the Australian Broadcasting Commission and its future than the legislation that the former Government introduced. I just want to tell honourable senators opposite what the Chairman of the British Broadcasting Commission, who was in Australia last year, had to say about the former Government's legislation for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He said that it was the most terrifying legislation. He went on to say: 'The whole package of legislation is so bad and so discriminatory that if I were a member of the ABC I would say, Let's down tools and walk off in protest,' . . . Mr George Howard, Chairman of the British Broacasting Commission and owner of a stately home in the area where Brideshead Revisited was made, also stated when visiting Australia last year: If such legislation were introduced in Britain I could not speak for the consequences . . . He went on to make other comments of the same kind. But he described the former Government's legislation for the ABC-in respect of its interference, its punitive powers with journalists-as 'terrifying legislation'. That legislation was introduced by honourable senators opposite, yet they talk about their concern for the future of the Australian Broadcasting Commission under a Labor government on the basis of this petty little incident which arose in the Senate a week ago. Of course they are doing it because they have nothing better to talk about as an opposition. They are going down the slippery pole of political fortunes day after day. Every election shows that they are getting worse and worse because they have nothing to talk about. Honourable members opposite are an empty-headed lot. They will thrive on any little bit of scuttle-butt that comes into this place. Senator Walters —You did well in Wannon! How many per cent did you lose? Senator BUTTON —I am sorry if I have disturbed the honourable senator in any way . I was going to say to her that I would think again about that invitation to my room, but on second thoughts I will not. Next week we will introduce into the Senate legislation which deals with the ABC. It will not have in it a complaints procedure which will make it, in the words of the Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation, 'terrifying legislation', as was that which was introduced by honourable senators opposite last year. It will have procedures for the appointment of a new corporation which is bipartisan and common ground. In conclusion, in determining the membership of the board of that corporation we will be guided by only one set of criteria; that is, business competence, knowledge of broadcasting and capacity to serve on a board for what can again be a great broadcasting organisation. It will not be a broadcasting organisation which, in the words of Sir Henry Bland, the Chairman in 1976 under the Fraser Government, was cut to the bone by that Government. Five years later it said that its funds had been cut by the Government by 22 per cent since that description of being cut to the bone was given by the Chairman. Those are the things that go to the independence of a great broadcasting service, those are the things which will be enshrined in the legislation which we will introduce in this Parliament. We, as a party, look forward to a much more independent and vigorous Australian Broadcasting Commission than any we have seen in recent years. Senator HILL(South Australia)(2.56) —The Senate is today debating a matter of public importance in the following terms: The failure of the Government to justify charges against the Chairman of the ABC and the implications of this for the future independence of the National Broadcasting Authority. The Senate has just listened to a somewhat spirited defence by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) but, unfortunately, not in answer to the charge that has been laid. Nobody on this side of the chamber disputes the right of the Government or anyone else in this chamber to criticise the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The charge in this matter relates to the personal attacks of the Leader of the Government against the current Chairman of the ABC and the implications of those attacks. It is a most important subject to debate. There is now considerable public disquiet as to the relationship between the ABC and the new Government. It follows the unsubstantiated attack by Senator Button on Professor Kramer, which I just mentioned, which one can only suspect was linked with the annoyance of the Australian Labor Party with the ABC Four Corners program in which such serious allegations were made against Labor's Premier Wran. It follows the attempted bullying of Professor Kramer by Mr Hawke during the election campaign and what that means in relation to the future independence of the ABC. It follows the concern as to who actually takes responsibility in this Government for the Department of Communications. Is it the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in the other place, or Senator Button ? I will detail further the amazing lack of communication between the two of them. It is also feared that the new board will be structured to reflect the Government's view arising from comments from Senator Button that he regretted the appointment of Professor Kramer. There is real concern in the ABC and in the community in relation to this matter. It is a matter of public importance notwithstanding that Senator Button, late in his speech, attempted to laugh it off. The debate is timely and appropriate and it is important that it is taking place today. I will remind the Senate and those listening to the debate of the brief history of this unfortunate matter. It began just over a week ago after the Four Corners program, when Senator Button was asked whether the ABC had resources to defend itself in litigation arising from the program, litigation instituted by Mr Wran, and to assure the Senate that there would be no interference with the ABC in defending itself. They are both quite reasonable and legitimate questions. But Senator Button, exhibiting considerable irritation, presumably at the subject being raised at all, said in passing that the Chairman of the ABC, Professor Kramer, had not always acted without fear or favour. He therefore imputed a lack of professional integrity, possibly the most serious charge that could be laid against the chairman of a national broadcasting commission. Having raised the subject publicly, he condemned her in vague and unspecific terms. He then said he would explain what he meant only privately; he would leave the Parliament, the media and the Australian public to speculate. He lost all credibility on the subject when he added that he would not use Question Time to 'enumerate a long history of what I would regard as a lack of independence by the Chairman of the ABC'. He has not attempted to substantiate that charge to this day. It is not surprising that this led to speculation as to what the Government intended in relation to the current Australian Broadcasting Commission and the composition of the future board. That speculation was inflamed by the Minister for Communications in the other place refusing to deny that mass changes were planned. He said: No decision has been made in respect of the board at this stage. I have no further comment. Was this a planned exercise to soften the public for the changes, or an attempt to justify them? Was it even a plan to remove the Chairman of the ABC in order to change the ABC's policy in relation to not settling defamation actions, as has been suggested by some, the defamation action in relation to this matter being that instituted by the Labor Premier in New South Wales? It is not surprising that the Minister's attitude inflamed speculation that the Government was annoyed that the Four Corners program had not been censored and raised questions of whether the ABC would be independently secure under this Government . It emphasises how important it is to protect the ABC from political pressure which is a particularly important reason why this debate is of such consequence today. The ABC will stand or fall by the responsibility exhibited by its officers. Accepting that the subject matter was properly researched and verified it would have been a disgrace if the Chairman had not had the courage to support the integrity of her staff and the program had been censored. As a result of that courage, the allegations are now the subject of a royal commission. That is the proper place for the charge to be laid. I will deal further with the history of this matter. Senator Button's allegations left Professor Kramer no ability to respond because the accusation was in such a general form. It was an impossible and embarrassing position in which to find herself. It exhibited a lack of respect not only for her, but also for the position she holds. We gather that Senator Button is particularly critical of one raising the subject, but what did the editorial writers say? I refer to the Age of 6 May. The editorial is headed: 'Button puts his foot in it' . It states: Senator Button does himself and the Government no credit when he uses parliamentary privilege to attack the chairman of the ABC. It is an odd-- I ask honourable senators to note this point- position for the senator to take, to stress the Government's commitment to the ABC's independence, while at the same time publicly impugning the integrity of its chairman. . . . . Senator Button's incautious statement about Professor Kramer is a surprising display of ineptitude on the part of a senior Minister. His allegation that Professor Kramer had not always discharged her responsibilities without 'fear or favour' is a serious one. What Senator Button is saying, in effect, is that Professor Kramer has exhibited bias in the conduct of her duties, that she has not fulfilled the obligations laid down for members of the ABC under its charter . An editorial in the Australian of the same date speaking of Senator Button stated: He has cast a serious reflection on the integrity of the nationally-owned radio and television service and on an individual unable to confront her accuser inside the Parliament. Senator Jessop —Didn't one of the papers say he should button his lip? Senator HILL —I think it did say that he should button his lip. We then had the astonishing admission of Mr Duffy that he did not know of the examples Senator Button had of Professor Kramer's alleged lack of objectivity. What form of communication does that exhibit within the Ministry? Astonishingly, Mr Duffy then added: I've no doubt he has instances. He said that having admitted that he has no knowledge of them. Is that a responsible statement from the Minister? Senator Button then wrote to Professor Kramer but, equally astonishingly, he did not even show the letter to the Minister for Communications in the other place. Just how is the Ministry to operate within this Government? How it is to operate is difficult to imagine. It appears to have a communications problem. Then the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) waded in and said that it is up to Professor Kramer to make the letter public. It is not up to her at all. Senator Button, who made the allegation in such vague and ambiguous terms, made it in public. He should have substantiated it in public and the Government should have taken appropriate action. What did Senator Button say? Firstly, he said that he thought the issue fairly insignificant. It appears to have been insignificant for him and insignificant for no one else. Secondly, he said that the issue had concerned what objective commentators now call an aside-a somewhat inappropriate aside-in an interview with the Prime Minister in which the interviewer somewhat harmlessly, I concede, commented on President Reagan having been an actor. That interviewer was warned to be more careful about asides. That was the alleged bias-that the interviewer was warned to be more careful about asides. When Professor Kramer was told to take action what did she determine? She determined that: It was not an unreasonable caution at the start of a campaign in which the ABC saw itself as having to be particularly careful to be evenhanded. That was Professor Kramer failing to act without fear or favour! The situation is ridiculous. It shows how unsubstantiated the allegation was and how improper it was to make the allegation. Then we learn that during the campaign the Opposition Leader, Mr Hawke, had got involved also. He telephoned Professor Kramer and in not mild terms said: I'm damned if I'm going to put up quietly with this situation. He demanded an investigation within 24 hours. They were the bully tactics of the man who is now Prime Minister of Australia. What did the editorial writers say about these activities? Firstly, in regard to Senator Button and his further involvement I refer to Senator Jessop's good memory of an editorial appearing in the Daily Telegraph headed: 'Button your lips'. The article appearing in the Daily Telegraph stated: Hard on his heels came Senator Button with his off the cuff remark about the impartiality of the Chairman of the ABC. In his letter to Dame Leonie Kramer elaborating on his comment, Senator Button then wrote: 'I thought the matter was fairly insignificant, and I did not anticipate that this remark would become a matter of public controversy'. It is an amazing admission that a Federal Minister should think that he can impugn the motives of the chairman of the ABC with a loaded aside in the privileged sanctuary of the Senate and not expect to be called on to explain. In one respect, however, Senator Button was right. The matter he was complaining of was fairly insignificant. It's challenge to Dame Leonie's impartiality rested on a mere three instances of alleged anti-Labor reporting by the ABC during the entire month long federal election campaign. The Australian Financial Review of 9 May, speaking of Mr Hawke's involvement, stated: Attempts to intimidate the ABC are usually crude and ineffectual. For the then Leader of the Opposition to attempt to bully the chairman of the ABC over the telephone is evidence of his errors of judgment, not of partiality by the ABC. There is indeed much to complain of in terms of prejudices and bias expressed by members of the ABC staff, and there is occasional evidence of political commitment, usually not to any major political party. But these are matters which a strong management, given sufficient authority by the board and the Government, should be able to deal with. That, of course, is the strong position of Dame Leonie Kramer, a courageous person who is prepared not to be bullied by the Hawkes of this world. Finally, we have the allegation that the Vice-Chairman of the ABC, Mr Laurie Short, who recently retired as Federal Secretary of the Federated Ironworkers Association, described in the Sydney Morning Herald as a close friend and adviser to Mr Wran, wanted references to Mr Wran censored. All major public institutions need to be headed by men and women with courage who will not act in fear or for favour. It appears that the ABC is so headed. Professor Kramer deserves a public apology. It appears from the actions of Senator Button-the principal author of the Labor Party's policy on communications -Mr Duffy and Mr Hawke that the public disquiet in this area is well justified. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(3.10) —I happily oppose the matter of public importance and support the Government and my colleague and leader, Senator Button. I have heard a definition of junk food as being something prepared for profit but not for nourishment. Indeed, that definition can be extended to junk mail and junk information. But I think that in the Senate this afternoon we can apply that definition to a new area-a junk MPI. This matter of public importance has been put forward for political profit but not for the nourishment of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It is, after all, a storm in a teacup or, some could say, a storm in a radio dish. It is an attempt by the Opposition to try to beat up a Melbourne Truth-like headline out of a matter which does not in any sense merit that. Senator Teague —Does Professor Kramer agree with you? Senator COOK —I know the honourable senator wants to stifle my contribution but I will not be so stopped. Let me turn to the terms of the junk MPI that has been advanced by the Opposition. Firstly, it calls on the Government to justify charges against the Chairman. I believe Senator Button has rebuked those who framed those words more adequately than I. Therefore, I turn to the second part of the MPI which states: . . . the implications of this for the future independence of the National Broadcasting Authority. I think it is proper to take those words and to look at the record of the Opposition when it was the Government in terms of the ABC. We should see what the record of the then Government and now Opposition was on the integrity, the authority and the independence of the ABC. Shortly after the Fraser Government was elected in 1976, in an effort which obviously showed that the Government could not wait to get its hands on the ABC, the famous Sir Henry Bland appointment was made. Quite clearly that appointment had the effect of dismaying and outraging many people in the community and most of the listeners, staff and employees of the ABC. I remind the Opposition that it gave rise to the establishment of a friends of the ABC organisation as a community organisation to protect the ABC from the acts of the now Opposition, the then Government. As well, a legend began to appear on bumper stickers around Australia stating: ' Stop screwing the ABC'. That is what the public of Australia thought about the Fraser Government's appointment and the move of Sir Henry Bland into the ABC. Perhaps more important than those comments is an examination of what the Fraser Government did to the ABC. An examination will reveal its true intent. If we look at the net operational appropriations per annum, starting with 1974-75 and taking that analysis through until the 1981-82 period, we find that in 1974-75, under Mr Whitlam, an appropriation of $110m was made. Using constant figures, in real terms the appropriations declined under Mr Fraser and under Sir Henry Bland 's axe to $98m the next year, $95m the following year, $93m the year after that and $91m-the rock bottom allocation-in 1979-80. It is true that in 1980-81 the allocation rose again to $95m but that figure, in real terms, was still below the level of allocation in 1974-75 under Mr Whitlam. They were the appropriations for the operational activities of the ABC. Capital appropriations have suffered even more devastatingly. In 1974-75, under Mr Whitlam, an allocation of $18m plus was made to the ABC for capital appropriations. Let us look at 1978-79. Under the administration of Sir Henry Bland there was an allocation of $7m. That was a savage reduction. In 1981-82, when in real terms there was an appropriation of $14m, that in real terms was $ 4m below the appropriation in the period of the Labor Government. One can talk about the independence of an organisation but if one starts cutting off the flow of funds one causes that organisation to suffer considerable deprivation. Its services, morale and ability to deliver the services Australians expect will fall. The cuts in funding have had three major effects. The quality of transmission and staffing have been affected. Those cuts in staff have been matched by a reduction in real terms. The reduction in staffing has been brought about by the inflexible law of natural wastage. This means that the ABC, in various aspects of its operation, has developed gaps in its administration and has developed an unbalanced structure by not replacing people when they leave or retire. In the regrowth of some fundings towards the latter period it has also meant that the ABC has created some high positions without the base backup of staffing. It has maintained the concentration of its national and State office in Sydney and this has led to a confusion of roles and consequential problems for the regional areas. If we look at the Fraser record, in relation to money and staffing, we see that they are the conclusions that we come to. Of course we have had an inquiry into the ABC-the Dix Committee of Review into the Australian Broadcasting Commission-and that paints a sorry picture of what happened to the ABC during the period of the Fraser Government. I want to take some time in order to cite some of the quotations from the Dix report. The Dix Committee identified acute management problems in the ABC. It received submissions that stated: low morale was pervasive in the organisation and was reducing efficiency; there were organisational and management shortcomings; staff had lost faith in senior management; there had been a failure of communications between management and staff; there was no confidence among staff that management would stand up for them. Criticisms of management were borne out by the ANOP survey commissioned by the Dix Committee. ANOP found that contributing factors to lack of confidence within the ABC were: insufficient resources-- given to the ABC-something over which the Fraser Government had control-- insufficient information about audiences; lack of clear management guidelines and direction, particularly in relation to overall goals. I will quote some of the findings of the Dix Committee as set out in volume 1, paragraph 68, which state: The organisation structure of the ABC has developed by increment, rather than rational appraisal and review in many areas. Several current organisational groupings conflict with one another, generating waste and inefficiency. This lack of harmony contributes to the general sense of unbridled bureaucracy which people within and outside of the organisation often feel. It is a major factor in the alienation of staff, including some who have left the organisation. Elsewhere, in paragraph 65, volume 1, it is stated: Successive Commissions seem to have given high priority to creating a 'career service' and this has diverted the ABC from concentrating on the creative aspects of its role. Paragraph 55, volume 1, states: A degree of criticism and restlessness among staff is a characteristic of a healthy organisation, especially one engaged in creative activities. We were bound to find some in the ABC. But the level of morale in the organisation is poor to the point where its effectiveness is reduced. I have taken time to cite those quotations and discuss the funding given to the ABC by the former Government to come to the point of the Opposition's matter of public importance which is about the integrity and independence of the ABC. The Opposition's record in this area shows that it has tried, by one means or another, to impugn that integrity and independence. I believe that that demonstration of what has happened under the Fraser Government is clearly the greatest indictment of the honourable senators who have brought forward this MPI . However, I want to contrast that with the position of the current Government. The Labor Government wants a free, independent ABC with a bipartisan charter. It wants to give the ABC its own Act and bring it out from under the Broadcasting and Television Act. It wants to give it a clear charter to be innovative and provide comprehensive radio and television services. Under the charter it wants to provide a contribution to our national identity, to reflect cultural diversity and to recognise the multicultural nature of Australia. The Government's attitude to the appointments to the Board of the ABC is clear. There is no ambiguity. The arguments that have been forthcoming from the Opposition benches cannot be sustained. The position of the Government, in terms of appointments to the ABC Board, is that those who will be appointed must have business competence or competence in some relevant area of broadcasting and television, or some ability that is useful to the running of a free and independent ABC. On that basis people will be appointed to the Board to carry out the charter that has been established. Senator Button made this point extraordinarily clear in his address on the MPI: The ALP has introduced into the Bill a provision for a community affairs officer to be appointed so that complaints can be dealt with properly within the ABC. That is to be compared with provisions of the Dix report, provisions that the Liberals under Fraser wanted to support. The MPI is wrongly founded. It attacks the Government; it attacks the implications for the ABC. None of those attacks have been sustained. Senator Button has made the defence par excellence in terms of his role but the role of the ABC in the future is one that the ALP is committed to ensuring is independent and free from interference. That is in marked contrast to the activities of those who have supported the MPI today. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.23) —This matter of public importance raised by Senator Peter Baume is a political exercise. By saying that I am not being critical at all of Senator Baume or the Liberal Party of Australia. It was a political exercise that was virtually invited by some indiscreet comments made by Senator Button. It is the nature of this chamber and of this place that if an opponent makes an error, even though it might be a small one, one jumps in and tries to score points off it. The matter of public importance before us has two components. One is the preservation of the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and about that ongoing saga of Button v. Kramer which brings one to remember that other saga of Kramer v. Kramer. The Button v. Kramer saga is no less dramatic, no less intense or no less entertaining than its counterpart which was made on film. Senator Button —We never had that initial relationship, though, I assure you. Senator CHIPP —Those sorts of remarks make me lose my rhythm. I wish Senator Button would desist. Firstly, I will talk about the first component relating to the alleged independence of the ABC. Senator Peter Baume and the Liberal Party are absolutely right in raising this question as often as they can in Opposition because we cannot talk often enough in this place about the preservation of the independence of the ABC. Why? Because Australia has an extraordinary concentration of ownership of the media in so few hands in the private sector. If one takes away the Packers, the Murdochs, the Fairfaxes and the Melbourne Herald group one has very few owners in print, electronic or radio media left in Australia. Therefore, if at any point of time that little quartet becomes fused to a stage when it denies the rights of a political party or a minority group to a fair go then the whole process of democracy is at threat. When Senator Baume talks about the independence of the ABC we are looking at a situation that is so near disaster proportions. If that quartet fused, became one, and became corrupt in a sense that it would deny or distort news, we have only the ABC left in this country upon which to rely for fair reporting. Therefore it is well worth while discussing the matter of public importance that Senator Peter Baume introduced today. Let us look at the independence of the ABC. How independent is it? In my 23 years as a politician I suppose I could point, with any sort of vivid memory, to five or six times when I have been badly misrepresented by the ABC, which I think is a fantastic average for the ABC and something about which it can be proud. When I look at those incidents closely I concede that some of them were honest errors. All of us who have been to the studios of the ABC here or over in Civic know the pressure of time and space under which the staff members work. If a crisis blows up here at 5 o'clock it is broadcast on national radio with exquisite efficiency one hour later for one million or two million people to hear. Of course there will be errors, and many of those errors will be unconscious errors. There are none more paranoid about themselves than politicians, particularly when they think they either have been misrepresented or are not getting a fair go. Generally speaking, the record of the ABC over the years has been quite outstanding, which of course is no reason for us to become complacent. I, as one of the many champions of the ABC in this place, have a very high regard for the journalists it employs. Not many of them-if any-are people of my own persuasion, but every time I walk into an ABC studio, whether it is a television or radio studio, I know I am in for a rugged time. I know that I will meet a most efficient, well-informed and very aggressive interviewer, which of course is the very kind of interviewer a politician should want and should appreciate because the milk run interviewer causes the interviewee to perform less efficiently than he or she otherwise may perform. But the sort of aggression in such interviews should not be interpreted as being against the persuasion of the interviewee. Of course, the documentaries that have been made about us as individuals or as parties are never exactly what we want. Why should they be? The documentaries of the ABC quite properly portray us and our political parties warts and all. The precious independence that the ABC has enjoyed, sometimes notwithstanding the wishes of governments, and the objectivity the ABC has maintained, despite pressure by various governments of both political complexions, are qualities that we ought to maintain. But 'the independence of the ABC' is the sort of phrase that we can pass over almost like a cliche. What does it mean? Does it mean that every member of the staff has to be fair, unbiased? That would be an impossibility. Very few members of the staff of any media enterprise are unbiased and do not have a political point of view. If I were a newspaper editor I do not think I would buy a political neuter as a journalist. I would expect the person to have some sort of bias one way or another, some sort of political philosophy and some sort of gut feeling about issues. Otherwise, that person would not be the kind of journalist I would be looking for. What would we look for in a journalist? We would look for professional integrity, notwithstanding his or her bias. We would also look to the supervision, management or proprietorship to ensure that objectivity was maintained. How do we get that? Do we appoint unbiased managers of the ABC? That again is an impossibility because of the points I made a moment ago. So we come to the proprietorship, the commissioners, the corporation or the directors-call it what you will; the people who control the staff. We have to look to them to maintain and supervise objectivity. How in the name of goodness do we get independent, objective directors or commissioners of the ABC? It is all very well for the Liberal Party to be critical of Senator Button's or the Australian Labor Party's interference or lack of objectivity. Let Senator Peter Baume nominate one rampant socialist that his Government appointed to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Let us see recorded in Hansard the name of someone with known left wing sympathies. I will not name anyone, but let Senator Peter Baume contemplate how many people of right wing sympathies were appointed by his Government. Let us not kid ourselves. Let us not be pious or hypocritical. Senator Peter Baume and the Liberals should not blame the Labor Government for trying to do something. Notwithstanding that, the ABC has maintained its objectivity and its independence. I do not know how we can take political interference out of this area. I suppose it is human nature. If the Liberal Party is in government is there any motivation for it to appoint to the Commission a group of left wing socialists who are capable of bias and appointing biased journalists? It is human nature. How do we take out human nature from the appointment of directors or commissioners? One way I suggest, with respect, is by means of a joint party committee. If I may be mildly critical of my friend Senator John Button, I shall quote his letter to the Australian of 8 March 1982. It is a very commendable letter in which he deals with the ALP policy regarding the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Amongst other things, he stated: The further suggestion in our paper is that the board of directors should be chosen in a bipartisan way. Applications would be called for publicly and an all-party parliamentary committee would make recommendations to the minister. In that way, criticism of politically-motivated appointments to the commission would abate. That proposition is in fact Australian Democrat policy. We can think of no fairer way of removing this danger to objectivity than by means of an all-party committee. Unhappily, the Government has departed from that in the legislation. Senator Button —In the legislation, but do not assume that we have departed from it. Senator CHIPP —I am now more confused than ever, Mr Deputy President. Either the Government has departed from it or it has departed from it in the legislation. I do not see the distinction. I hear Senator Button's point but I do not understand it. Another way, of course, would be to ask electors to elect ABC commissioners at a time at which politicians are elected. The only difficulty with that course is that previous governments have truncated the terms of parliaments. If we had done that we would have had a turn-around of ABC commissioners every two years and five weeks, or whatever the time is. Once we have fixed terms of parliament I think the people ought to be allowed a voice about who should be the commissioners of the ABC. I do not regard that as an impossibility, particularly if by then we have electronic voting. Let us look at the second prong of the matter of public importance; that is, the reference to Dame Leonie Kramer. I think she is a woman of remarkable courage, remarkable intellect and untouchable integrity. Leaving aside the subject matter of the Four Corners interview that is in dispute, think of the courage that it must have taken for this woman to say yes, knowing full well that the program would automatically attract at least one or two writs for defamation against the Commission which she administers. In the belief that it was in the public interest to run that program, she agreed to do it. That is the kind of courage I want in the management of the ABC. One can argue whether Dame Leonie has acted a little impulsively since the event, whether she has offered herself for too many ABC or radio interviews or whatever; but certainly one cannot argue against the woman's integrity. When I was Minister for Customs and Excise I had no hesitation in appointing-in fact, I regard it an honour to appoint-this remarkable women to the National Literature Board of Review, where she served with great distinction. What sort of people do we want on the proposed corporation? I genuinely believe that this Government still has the name of Dame Leonie Kramer before it for consideration. I do not think that it will be petty or small minded about this. She is a remarkable Australian. Nothing that Senator Button has said has indicated that the Government is turning its eye against this woman. When she was appointed Robert Milliken, in an article in the National Times in March 1982, had some rather colourful things to say about her. The article stated: ''She enjoys controversy,'' says one of her colleagues from the conservative literary magazine Quadrant. ''She is one of nature's controversialists.'' Prior to that, the article states: Her rise to power over the past 10 years has coincided with a conservative, right-wing political phase in which the values of elitism and conformity, which she champions, have resurfaced in Australia. No matter what is said about Dame Leonie Kramer, she is a women of rare courage and outstanding integrity and is someone who, I believe, ought to be contemplated when the decision about the composition of the new board of directors is made. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(3.37) -We are discussing this afternoon a matter of public importance raised by my colleague Senator Peter Baume, namely: The failure of the Government to justify charges against the Chairman of the ABC and the implications of this for the future independence of the National Broadcasting Authority. It is no news to any honourable senator in this chamber, or anybody who is listening, that this has been brought about by some rather flippant or, as Senator Chipp has said, indiscreet remarks by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, in answer to a question asked last week. As a matter of fact, one might well say, at a time when we are discussing whether frozen viruses should be allowed to be kept in the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong, that foot and mouth disease is alive and well in this chamber. We have progressed further down the track than anybody would have imagined when Senator Button offered those flippant remarks. I also say, with some relief, that the terms 'fear and favour' have taken over from the terms ' consensus and reconciliation'. I think we were getting a little sick of those terms. We now have other terms that are high in the vocabulary of the Australian Labor Party. It is interesting that when the Labor Party was in opposition it twice proposed matters of public importance in the Senate-I believe that they were discussed concurrently in the House of Representatives-once in September 1976 and once in September 1978, about the integrity of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The one proposed by Senator Button in September 1976 was: The failure of the Government to ensure the independence, integrity and high repute of Australia's National Broadcasting Service. In May 1978 the matter of public importance was: The failure of the Government to maintain the independence, objectivity and high standard of national broadcasting. It is interesting that in May 1978 the then Senator James McClelland took part, as I did, in the debate. Following the then Senator Carrick in the debate, he opened his remarks by saying: Despite the lofty tone adopted today by the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, the attitude of the conservative parties towards the Australian Broadcasting Commission can only be described as paranoid. Mr Acting Deputy President, I put it to you: Who is paranoic about the ABC? The present Government, when in opposition, was paranoic about the ABC. The reports in the Press, including the published letters to and from Professor Dame Leonie Kramer, show that the present Government, particularly Senator Button, is very paranoic about the ABC. As I said, the first of those matters of public importance was raised by Senator Button. In those days the proposer of the motion spoke for 30 minutes. His speech for the entire 30 minutes was taken up in castigating the then Chairman of the Commission, Sir Henry Bland. Nothing else was introduced during his speech at that time. A further interesting thing, upon reflection, was that the debate concerned the fact that Sir Henry Bland had chosen to have the ABC withdraw one episode-my recollection is a little hazy-of the serial Alvin Purple. Senator Button has had some sort of twisted consistency because today we are discussing once again a matter of public importance about a chairman of the ABC. It happens to be the current Chairman, Professor Dame Leonie Kramer. This time the attack is not because of the withdrawal of a program; it is because a program which, for obvious reasons, was repulsive to the ALP was not withdrawn. One can draw conclusions about Senator Button's television tastes. It is interesting that during the debate on the second matter of public importance Senator Ryan, who proposed the motion, made some remarks with regard to the Four Corners program. She is recorded at page 2133 of Senate Hansard of 31 May 1978 to have stated: The program Four Corners, now in its eighteenth year, was the first to attract controversy because it broke new ground in Australian journalism. It was consistently innovative and I think most honourable senators would agree that it brought depth, maturity and respectability to television journalism. I suppose most people would say that is what the Four Corners program, which caused all the furore, was all about. I think that most of us, even though we might disagree with some of the Four Corners programs, would agree with Senator Ryan's summation of Four Corners. That summation was made in 1978 and I believe it stands now. Of course, Senator Button disagrees because Four Corners is doing what it set out to do and what Senator Ryan believes it is doing. Surely Four Corners-as I said, even though I and many of my colleagues disagree with some of its programs-is attempting to do all of those things enunciated by Senator Ryan. Another interesting point with regard to Senator Ryan's speech during that debate is that she said: Only two women are members of the Commission. The Fraser Government introduced an amendment to provide for two women commissioners. One hopes that in future appointments that very small number will be increased and that the interests of women staff members will be reflected in the choice of commissioners. Of course, the previous Government, I think for the first time in the history of the ABC, appointed a woman Chairman of that Commission. I think honourable senators of every political persuasion in this chamber will agree that Professor Dame Leonie Kramer is a remarkable woman. Yet, because she exercised her right as Chairman to sit back and let the current affairs journalists do their job and put to air a program that did not meet with the best wishes of the ALP she has been criticised and castigated in this place. That has happened because the Commission did precisely what it was set up to do. The sequence of events has been discussed by my colleagues during the debate today. But it is worth repeating the point at which the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) bought into the subject. Of course, honourable senators will recall that it concerned an interview with the then Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Malcolm Fraser. It has been brought out in Professor Dame Leonie Kramer's reply to Senator Button that this occurred not at a Press conference but during a telephone interview between Parliament House and the Lodge. Part of Professor Dame Leonie Kramer's letter states: The transcript clearly reveals that Ms O'Neil did not ask a question relating to the President of the United States, but made an aside about him to which Mr Fraser elected to respond. Having myself heard the recording of the interview, I did not form the impression that Mr Fraser had difficulty in developing his remarks. It is a fact, as you say, that Ms O'Neil was telephoned by senior officers of her department, who warned her to be careful about asides in interviews. This was not an unreasonable caution at the start of a campaign in which the ABC saw itself as having to be particularly careful to be even-handed. All those who have had anything to do with the ABC during an election campaign would agree that it bends over backwards, almost too much, to try to be even handed. A government has no chance of getting on an ABC program if the opposition has not had the same amount of air time. Once again, I disagree with the ABC's version of even handedness. I instance as a criticism-I will not ring up Professor Kramer and go crook-the two Four Corners programs on which the three interviewers interviewed first Mr Hawke and secondly Mr Fraser. They almost handed Mr Hawke marshmallows, the questions were so mild. When it came to Mr Fraser I had never seen such unabashed and unashamed confrontation and hostility to a person in any interview on any television program anywhere in the world. That is my criticism. Be that as it may, members of the Liberal Party never rang the ABC saying: 'You had better ease off'. That is because we accept the role of the ABC. Senator Robertson —That is a load of rubbish and you know it. Senator COLLARD —The point I am making is that we criticise but we do not interfere as Mr Hawke did. Professor Kramer went on to say: You then refer to those aspects of this incident which are 'not a matter of public knowledge'. Again, your recollection is at variance with the facts. It was not you who raised this matter with me, but Mr Hawke. He telephoned me on 8 February 1983, and having informed me that you were present, proceeded to register his displeasure at certain aspects of the program of 4 February 1983. In referring to Ms O'Neil's comment, and the rebuke she received, he remarked that a member of the AM staff 'had ties with the Liberal Party'- My colleague Senator Peter Baume quite effectively dealt with that matter in his opening remarks- and criticised the senior officer who spoke to Ms O'Neil, adding, 'this warrants a change'. Mr Hawke then said, 'I'm damned if I'm going to put up quietly with this situation.' Not only was a criticism made in public but also a rebuke-it was more than a veiled threat-was given over the phone to the Chairman of the Commission. Professor Kramer then went on to point out very vividly that she had never brought this matter to public light. She said that she had tried to remain even handed as Chairman of the Commission. She said: I think you should know that great care was taken to keep the source of the complaint confidential, so as not to give rise to any suspicion within the ABC or outside it, that Mr Hawke and you were trying to influence its internal affairs, particularly during an election period. I make the point that there is every right to criticise, and we all do it. It has been done in this chamber. Members of the Liberal and National Parties disagree with the points of some of the programs and the way in which some of the programs are handled. There is a vast difference between our right as elected representatives to criticise and our right to interfere or even to utter veiled threats, as apparently has been done. I think the case has been made by the Opposition and for the Opposition by its speakers in this debate this afternoon that there is room for criticism of Senator Button's action and, of the interference of the now Prime Minister before the election took place. What concerns me and my colleagues in the Opposition is the fact that the structure of the ABC is about to be changed. That has been legislated for. Attitudes such as those of the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, are prevalent, and those who hold them are quite unashamed of them. It worries us considerably what influence they will be seeking to have, now that they are in power, on the ABC and on those people who are appointed to the Commission. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(3.51) —The Opposition has laid a charge in the matter of public importance which is raised today that somehow the remarks of Senator Button last week placed the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in some sort of jeopardy. I say quite frankly and honestly that I have listened to the debate as objectively as possible, and I assert that the Opposition has failed absolutely to forge any such link between Senator Button's remarks and the future integrity and independence of the ABC. It has failed dismally. It has been shameless in its raising of this matter of public importance. The charge comes very ill from a former government which only last year conceived and brought into this Parliament legislation concerning the ABC which provided for a monstrous, censorious creature under the title commissioner for complaints. It comes doubly ill from the proposer of this matter of public importance, as I will demonstrate. The legislation, brought in last year by the now Opposition, contained a proposal to establish a censor on the ABC. From where did this proposal emanate? It did not come from the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That independent inquiry spent many months travelling around Australia. It took evidence from all those who wished to participate in that review of the ABC and the creation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in which we can all take pride. After months of travelling around the country and after hearing many hours of evidence and submissions, the Dix committee proposed not a commissioner for complaints with draconian powers to force people under threat of heavy fine or imprisonment, to incriminate themselves; it merely concluded that the community affairs officer could handle such complaints as were made. But the then Government decided that it would create this censorious commissioner for complaints. What did the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills have to say of this proposal? This Committee was established by the Senate, as is well known, in order to protect the liberties of Australians. The thirteenth report to the Senate in September 1982 of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee-a bi-partisan committee, let it be added-alerted senators, in that restrained and formal language which is its custom, to its view that certain powers to be vested in the commissioner for complaints might be regarded as trespassing unduly on personal rights and liberties. It went on to question the severity of the penalties to be imposed, such as a $1,000 fine or imprisonment for three months for refusing to comply with directions given by the commissioner. We also found that the Bill introduced by the former government in relation to the ABC reversed the onus of proof in many serious aspects. Once again this drew comment from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee which this chamber established in order to help us to protect more effectively the rights and liberties of Australians. What did the Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation have to say of this proposal and its colouring of the whole legislation which the then Government brought to this chamber last year? He saw clear-sightedly enough what it indicated about the present Opposition's attitude to the ABC. Speaking, I believe, in an interview with the media in Australia, he made a statement to the effect that the legislation was so discriminatory and horrifying to a man of his sensibilities and in light of the traditions of the BBC that employees of the ABC ought to pack their bags and go home rather than be employed under those conditions. There we had it-a proposal brought to this chamber last year by the now Opposition concerning the ABC which was spoken of in such terms by the then chairman of the BBC concerning a matter which, as I have said, did not emanate from the Dix Committee report. It must have come from some dark and musty room in the confines of the government corridors of this place. Who was the Minister who then represented the Minister for Communications in this place? Who was the Minister who introduced that legislation with those terrible effects-it was spoken of in those terms-into this chamber and justified and defended it in his second reading speech? Why, it was the very shadow Minister who today raised this matter of public importance, Senator Peter Baume. It comes very ill from his lips to mount this sort of attack. I do not think there is any need for the full derision of this chamber to be visited solely on Senator Peter Baume because it was the Liberal-National Party of Australia coalition as a whole which, with a few honourable exceptions within the confines of the party room, did so much to seek to undermine the independence and integrity of the ABC in the last seven years of office. It sought to sap the strength and the resolve of the ABC to produce, so fearlessly, as it does, and with as much expertise as it can command, its news gathering and news distributing programs and its current affairs programs which are of such excellent quality. The Opposition sought to do that; it sought to undermine that ability but it never quite succeeded. This charge is not merely made by me as a member of the Australian Labor Party. It can be found in the forty-eigthth annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission which was presented in this chamber. Senator Cook ably pointed out in his contribution this afternoon that nothing is more threatening to the viability, integrity and independence of the ABC in gathering and relaying news and its ability to conduct and present public affairs programs, exposing and highlighting areas of life and of national interest which are of concern to us all, than starving it of the funds it needs to carry out that task which we wish it to carry out to the maximum of its ability. We have found that in the years when the Opposition held power over the purse strings of the ABC constraints were placed on its funds and personnel. These were meant, I believe, to lead to an allocation of resources away from the areas of news gathering and public affairs programs, which are, of course, the core of its independence in our national lives. The forty-eighth annual report of the ABC to Mr Staley, then then Minister for Communications, stated: The Commission recorded its view that the ABC has carried an unreasonably heavy burden in this matter. That relates to staffing. It continued: Public Service Board figures reveal that staff reductions in the ABC are running at significantly higher levels than the proportion within the Public Service . . . The imposition of staff ceilings is clearly in conflict with section 43 (2) of the Broadcasting and Television Act, which states 'the Commission shall appoint such other officers and engage such temporary employees as it thinks necessary'. It is quite clear that the former Government, in setting staff ceilings at an unrealistically low level, was preventing the Commission from appointing those employees which were necessary for the discharge of its functions. In relation to finance and funding, the Commission, at the end of 1980, stated: For the past five years the Commission has received from the Government continually smaller amounts, measured at constant prices, with which to provide programs for the national radio and television service . . . The falling real income of the ABC has prevented the Commission from maintaining former levels of output, regardless of any wish to extend and improve services. That was the tone of the report that year. What a cry and a plea to come from the commissioners of the ABC. It was not listened to by this Opposition which had the hide to bring this matter of public importance before the chamber this afternoon. In fact, in the middle of 1981 the cries from the ABC commissioners became more well known to the general public as the then Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Mr John Norgard, felt obliged to go public in June of that year with the claim that Canberra had broken its pledge on funding of the ABC. One recalls that famous letter to the National Times of 14 June 1981 written by Robyn Williams, Huw Evans, Norman May, James Dibble, Tim Bowden, Paul Murphy, Peter Manning, Gary Scully, Julie Rigg, Robyn Ravlich, all well known to the Australian public as broadcasters. It stated: Sir, What can be done to save the ABC? Make no mistake about it, the future of the organisation is in grave jeopardy due to the punitive financial treatment it is receiving from the Federal Government. Indeed, that was one of the conclusions of the independent Dix committee a few days later. The conclusion of that independent inquiry was, amongst other things , that there was no question that cuts in staff funding and consequent staff shortages had adversely affected the ABC over recent years. There we have it. There is no doubt that the record is very plain that the Opposition, when in Government, sought to so constrain the funds available to the ABC that the allocation of resources to enable it to maintain its independence and integrity as a news gathering and public affairs programmer was very seriously put in jeopardy. In contrast to all this the platform of the Australian Labor Party, under the heading 'National Broadcasting', states among other things: The ABC is to be funded by parliamentary appropriations with no advertising or corporate underwriting, to a level necessary to establish the ABC as a great national broadcasting institution. Again, it states: Maintenance of an independent adequately funded ABC National News gathering operation and separately organised Public Affairs service without reliance on any commercial domestic news service. One can reveal-although I think it is well known-that the author of that commitment to adequate funding to enable the ABC to maintain its independence and integrity was Senator Button who, as shadow Minister for Communications over the two years immediately preceding our coming to Government, so strenuously argued for and put forward schemes and plans to enable the ABC, under its new structure, to maintain its independence and integrity. That is why the raising of this matter of public importance has been such a miserable failure. The man whom it is meant to embarrass, the man whose words, spoken publicly in this place, not in some dark and murky corridor of power, are said to have signalled some assault on the independence of the ABC, is renowned in this chamber and, dare I say, in the community at large as the man who laboured most over the last couple of years, as the shadow Minister for Communications, to ensure that a new structure would emerge for the ABC which would ensure its independence and integrity. I believe that the House of Representatives this evening-certainly the Senate over the next few weeks-will debate the Bill introduced by this Government. It will be given its fullest airing. It is a Bill which all respectable and responsible commentators have applauded. It is a Bill which we intend will provide that charter of independence for the ABC which is required. Clause 6 of the proposed Bill, which sets out the charter of the corporation, amongst other things states: The Corporation shall take account of- . . . . The responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting and television service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs and television programs of wide appeal and specialized broadcasting programs and television programs; There is a clause dealing with the duties of the Board. This Government has written into the legislation which is before this Parliament the words: It is the duty of the Board- . . . . To maintain the independence and integrity of the Corporation; To ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards of objective journalism; There, I believe, lies the final answer to this matter of public importance raised so shamelessly by the Opposition. This Government, within a few weeks of assuming office and within a few sitting days of this Parliament being brought together by the Governor-General, introduced a Bill which will guarantee the independence of the ABC. In this chamber only a few weeks ago the Governor- General told the assembled parliamentarians: You will be asked to consider legislation to establish the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to give the ABC a clear charter, a modern structure and effective, businesslike management. I assert that that is what the legislation which is now before the Parliament embodies. As I say, given the reputation and renown in which Senator Button is held as a fervent advocate of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the ABC, there is no doubt that in its new structure, in the way devised and put forward in the Bill, we will ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will enjoy in the future the reputation which it has so richly deserved in the past. Debate resumed from 4 May 1983, on motion by Senator Coleman: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(4.6) —I understand that a number of honourable senators wish to speak to this report later on, so I seek leave to continue my remarks later to make that possible. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the first report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Navigation (Protection of the Sea) Amendment Bill 1983 and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-The Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment presented its first report on Pesticides and the Health of Australian Vietnam Veterans to Parliament on 25 November 1982. The Government believes this is a helpful report of the Senate on the health of Vietnam veterans based on the then available evidence. It is clear to the Government, however, that there still remains considerable uncertainty in the minds of some Vietnam veterans and many observers about possible effects of exposure to toxic chemicals in Vietnam on the mental and physical health and well-being of themselves and their families. The Government believes that the only way that these issues can be answered to the satisfaction of the people directly concerned is to establish a royal commission to inquire fully into the effects of herbicides and pesticides on Vietnam veterans and any problems faced by them and their families. I will be announcing the details of that royal commission soon. Action planned as a result of a number of the recommendations made by the Senate Committee should help to improve the services provided by the Government to Vietnam veterans and veterans generally. The Government has considered the 18 recommendations in the Senate Committee's report and has prepared responses to them. One of the recommendations was that the case-control study on birth-defects among the children of Vietnam veterans, undertaken by the Commonwealth Institute of Health, be completed as soon as possible. This study has since been completed and the results were released by the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Messner, on 20 February 1983. I tabled a copy of the report in the Senate this morning. Its primary finding was that there is no evidence that Army service in Vietnam increased the risk of fathering a malformed child. This, of course, will be considered and further investigated by the proposed royal commission. Briefly, the Government's responses to the Senate Committee's recommendations on the handling and use of pesticides and the health of Vietnam veterans are: The Department of Defence will shortly disseminate widely within the Defence Force a new manual on the safe handling, storage and use of pesticides; the promotion of understanding among the scientific and medical communities of heritable genetic effects from exposure to certain chemicals will be referred to the National Health and Medical Research Council for recommendations on action to be taken; and the nature and origin of birth defects will be included in public education programs promoted by the Commonwealth Department of Health. The Government has decided that the Commonwealth Institute of Health should proceed with a limited scientifically-based neuropsychiatric investigation among Vietnam veterans. The CIH is charged with the responsibility of proceeding with this study and reporting to the royal commission by early 1984. The Senate Committee recommended that a morbidity study should proceed with due emphasis being placed on attempting to establish whether psychiatric symptoms in Vietnam veterans are due to a war neurosis or exposure to harmful chemicals. The Government has decided that the morbidity study should not proceed, given the time and expense obviously involved and the need of the royal commission to consider the health problems of Vietnam veterans. As I mentioned already, there will be a neuropsychiatric investigation by the Commonwealth Institute of Health . The Senate Committee recommended an examination of the way in which repatriation determining authorities apply evidentiary provisions of the legislation. Following a recent re-organisation of the top structure of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the decisions of determining authorities are now being regularly monitored by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to ensure that the legislation is applied correctly; and more effort is being given to ensuring that these authorities fully comprehend and act upon court and tribunal decisions which deal with the onus provisions under the repatriation legislation . The Committee recommended that the proposed remodelling of the repatriation claims system be undertaken as a matter of urgency. The Government agrees that this is desirable. A priority task is to minimise claims-handling delays, many of which are outside departmental control. As a positive step in reducing the times taken in processing claims, in areas where the Department can help speed up the process, additional staff have been provided to permit the introduction of a new system of delegates of the Repatriation Commission with the power to accept, but not reject, claims. This system should reduce the investigation work load and eliminate the need for referral to Repatriation Boards of straightforward claims for acceptance. The Department has already introduced in all States a system for the fast processing of claims and appeals in cases where normal processing would lead to unreasonable hardship. Other initiatives to minimise delays in the claims investigation process will be sought on a continuing basis. The Government will give urgent consideration to proposals by the Administrative Review Council when they are received. As a further step to assist veterans living outside the metropolitan area, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has implemented the Telecom Inward Wide Area Telephone Service-INWATS-system on a trial basis in Queensland. This system allows a country veteran to call the branch office in Brisbane for the price of a local call. The effectiveness of the system will be reviewed after six months with a view to making the system permanent in Queensland and in other States. The Department will also implement a program to increase the knowledge of doctors in its local medical officer scheme of the repatriation system and related matters. The Committee made several recommendations on the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service which advises veterans and their families on their problems. Since the first counselling centre was opened in January 1982, the VVCS has been collecting data on work load and basic statistical information about clients and their problems. The National Advisory Committee, which advises the Minister on the VVCS, has commenced an evaluation of its services, staffing and administration. Long term needs of the counselling service will depend upon the demand made upon it by Vietnam veterans and their families. New centres are to be opened in Townsville and Canberra and the staff numbers at Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth will be increased. Once the evaluation of the VVCS has been completed, the Government will decide on the extent to which the service should be maintained and developed. The Committee recommended that the Department of Veterans' Affairs maintain statistical data relating to veterans in prison. The Department has no such data and the data are not available elsewhere. Since prisons are primarily a State responsibility, the then Acting Primary Minister wrote to the State Premiers on 10 January 1983 seeking their agreement to discussions between the Department and prison authorities. So far the responses received have been favourable. Nevertheless, the Government believes that this matter now comes within the purview of the proposed royal commission on Vietnam veterans. Another recommendation was that the VVCS provide services to veterans in prison. The Government supports this in principle but, again, the custody and welfare of prisoners are primarily State matters. Access by veterans in prison to the VVCS was raised with State Premiers by the then Acting Prime Minister in his letter of 10 January last and so far assurances of co-operation have been received from all States which have replied. The Department has reviewed its data collection system and is planning to develop a computerised epidemiological index in all States, on a prospective basis but with selective retrospective data collection, in response to a Committee recommendation along these lines. In evidence to the Senate Committee, the Vietnam Veterans' Action Association made a number of charges against the Department of Veterans' Affairs relating to the unco-operative attitude of staff towards Vietnam veterans and delays in processing claims. The Department has investigated claims of rudeness by departmental staff and found that there is no clear evidence that staff had been unhelpful or rude, either deliberately or otherwise, to the veterans concerned. But the Department recognises the need for special arrangements to deal with veterans' complaints and inquiries. The Department is introducing a Customer Liaison Service in all States which will monitor customer relations, implement training and education programs to ensure that high standards of ace to face dealings with clients are maintained, and provide a focal point for complaints and inquiries and ensure that these are handled promptly. The initiatives outlined in my statement, which are covered in detail in the Government's response to the Senate Standing Committee report, are consistent with the Government's resolve to assist Vietnam veterans and their families with their health and social problems. The Government has further underlined this resolve by announcing its intention to establish the royal commission. I present the following paper: Government's response to the first report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment on Pesticides and the Health of Australian Vietnam Veterans. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate)(4.17) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I welcome the statement made in the chamber this afternoon. It expresses the response of the Government to the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment report entitled 'Pesticides and the Health of Australian Vietnam Veterans'. I think it is worth commenting that this report certainly signifies the capacity of a standing committee of the Senate to come to grips with a major problem, to carry out successfully and responsibly an in-depth examination of that problem and to produce recommendations which can be only of service to the Government and the Australian people-and, in this case, particularly Australian Vietnam veterans. I believe that there was an occasion when it was doubted in some areas whether a committee such as this could make a useful and proper contribution on a problem which so many Australians were well and truly aware of . I believe that the report of this Committee indicates quite clearly that it can make and has made a useful and proper contribution on this matter. It is a contribution that is of value to the Parliament, the Government and the Australian people. As I said, it is particularly pleasing in view of the doubts that have been expressed from time to time as to the capacity of such a commitee to do this sort of thing effectively. Of course, there are always some unanswered problems in any investigation. One can only hope that the matters that still remain to be sought out in this particular area can be successfully covered by the proposed royal commission. If it can contribute to the ultimate solution of these problems it will have been worth while. One thing is clearly evident; that is, the contribution of the Senate Standing Committee in its inquiry must be of significant aid to the royal commission when it begins its investigation. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) noted that the action planned as a result of recommendations should help services to Vietnam veterans and, indeed, veterans generally. One can only agree with that. A study by the Commonwealth Institute of Health which was instigated some time ago by the previous Government has been completed. It revolved around the problem of birth defects. Its findings were that as yet there is no evidence that birth defects are greater in the case of Vietnam veterans or of people who have served in Vietnam than they are in the case of those who have served elsewhere. The recommendations which the Government highlights and which are to be implemented include: Firstly, that concerning the Department of Defence manual on safe handling, storage and use of pesticides; secondly, the promotion of an understanding of inheritable genetic effects of chemicals being referred to the National Health and Medical Research Council; and, thirdly, the nature and origin of birth defects being included in public education by the Department of Health. These are all substantial and important areas to be covered. I am pleased that the Commonwealth Institute of Health investigation into neuro- psychiatric circumstances among Vietnam veterans is in fact to be continued and, as I read it, to be reported upon by early 1984. I am not quite sure what meaning should be given to the word 'limited'. The Minister may be able to give us some indication. I think it is a matter of regret that the other investigation in train, into morbidity, is to be discontinued. I assume that its findings would be just as important to the royal commission in its research into the problems of health related to pesticides and chemicals in Vietnam as would the findings in the neuro-psychiatric area. The problem of prisoners, their health and their mental state, has been improved quite significantly by what is clearly close co-operation by the State authorities involved, the Vietnam veterans and the Department. The Customer Liaison Service is a useful and proper response to what was deemed to be a very definite need in the relationship between the Vietnam veterans and the Department. I can only say, as I said earlier, that I am pleased that the Minister has brought down this government response promptly. I believe that it is a constructive and proper response to a very excellent and in-depth observation by the Standing Committee involved. Senator JONES(Queensland)(4.26) —On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment I wish to make only a couple of comments on the response by the Government to that Committee's report, brought down in November 1982. In doing so one has to trace back through the history of the Committee-its establishment, the preparation of its report and its request for a response to it. In November 1982 the Committee brought down its report, in which it made 17 recommendations. It sought from the former Government a response to its recommendations by, at the latest, 31 March 1983. But, as every honourable senator knows, history caught up with the Committee's request. Senator Coleman —And the Minister. Senator JONES —History certainly caught up with the then Government. As every honourable senator knows, there was an election on 5 March. Little did we members of the Committee realise when we were writing recommendations and seeking a response by the Government by 31 March 1983 that we would be getting a response from a Labor government after an election on 5 March. However, we are again in the Senate chamber. I believe that the response which has been given by the Government is very reasonable and responsible and has been given at the earliest possible date. The requests in the recommendations of the Committee certainly have been met to a great extent in the Government's response. It goes without saying that people such as Senator Jessop, the then Chairman of the Committee, ex-Senator Mulvihill-in fact, every member of the Committee- worked very hard to bring down a responsible report which sought from the Government responses that would help in some way to settle the problems suffered by Vietnam veterans. I think the Committee worked very hard towards seeking non- political responses. I see that the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs is nodding his head in agreement. I believe that, even from his point of view, there was a certain amount of co-operation between the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Minister and the Committee to try to make available an accurate report which argued the case of Vietnam veterans and got for them the best response possible from the government of the day. I believe that that was what the Committee set out to do. I believe that we have that sort of response from the present Government. The report entitled 'Case-Control Study of Congenital Anomalies and Vietnam Service (Birth Defects Study)' that was tabled this morning by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) was brought down by the previous Minister for Veterans' Affairs prior to the opening of this Parliament. That report, together with the report of the Committee, the transcript of evidence taken by the Committee and the Committee's findings will be of great assistance to the present Government in setting up a royal commission and making available to the commission the evidence and points of view of some of the people who came before the Committee and gave evidence, I believe, in a non-political way. There is not a great deal that I can say on the Government's response at this stage. The Government has stated that it will go ahead with a royal commission. I believe the Committee now has a responsibility to look in detail at the Government's response and to make a further statement to the Senate in relation to that response. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.32) —I congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and the new Government for bringing in its first major response to a Senate committee report-in this case its response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. If the Government responds with such alacrity and such detail to subsequent Senate committee reports I think the enourmous amount of work that senators put into those reports will certainly be seen by them as being much more worth while than has often been the case in the past. The Senate Committee's report, of course, was received with some controversy within the veteran community, in particular members of the Vietnam veteran community, who felt that many items that they had brought forward had not been dealt with in the way in which they would have liked. I had some other critical comments to make when the report was tabled last year. However, I wish to confine my remarks basically to the Government's response, in particular to those items relating to the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Government's willingness to seek a new manual on the safe handling, storage and use of pesticides is long overdue, within not only the Department of Defence but all government departments, at both the Commonwealth and the State levels. Increasingly we are coming to understand within the community that pesticides not only are of assistance to society but also can cause enormous cumulative damage. We need much more detailed information about the handling, storage and use of pesticides. Certainly Commonwealth employees should be operating under a relatively rigid manual of operation. Whilst there still exists within the community a relatively low level of knowledge about the long-lasting effects of many pesticides, sometimes it is very difficult, particularly in the tropical parts of this country, to convince people that they must have adequate protection; in other words, that they must wear gloves, protective clothing and masks, if necessary, when using particular pesticides. This is very difficult as many people using those pesticides are inclined to say: 'It is only a spray; it can't hurt me'. The Government is to be commended for seeking to ensure that at least Commonwealth employees are adequately protected by the new manual. I believe that the Government's initiative in seeking to disseminate, through the Commonwealth Department of Health, more information to the public on the nature and origins of birth defects is to be welcomed for the same reason. We hope that the general community will take more care in the use of these pesticides, many of which are necessary and desirable. The last point that I wish to raise, although I do not wish to detract from the Government's response in all areas, is the point made in the Minister's tabling statement in regard to additional staff that will be provided for the new system of delegates to the Repatriation Commission. These delegates will have the power to accept, but not reject, claims. This proposition is one which I have been putting forward for quite some time and I know it is a propostion which many members of various veterans' assocations have been canvassing. I think the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs will be speaking on this matter later. I believe this suggestion was one which he may have had a hand in implementing. I am not sure of the time frame; possibly Senator Messner can clarify that. Certainly the previous Minister instituted the fast lane system, of which this is one aspect. I hope that in the not too distant future the new Minister for Veterans' Affairs may be able to inform the Senate of the operation of the fast lane system and, indeed, of whether the Repatriation Commission is actually getting over its still undesirable backlog of claims. Certainly the notion of the Repatriation Commission having delegates, or even the Department of Veterans ' Affairs accepting claims and rejecting only the ones which are controversial is a necessary element. I hope that the Minister will proceed further with the other suggestion I have made; that is, to have groups of veterans' claims made automatic when they fall under certain designations. I believe we have sufficient material now within the Department-certainly within the computerisation of the data within the Department-to know which claims under which headings are likely to be accepted no matter what system we use. If we look at the claims that are upheld at the tribunal level we get an even clearer view of the fact that certain groups will eventually have their claims upheld. I believe that the cost that is currently involved in taking many of those claims through every level-that is through the Department, through the Repatriation Commission, through appeals and through the Tribunal-could well be avoided with savings to the Budget of this country rather than costs by making automatic many of these claims. I believe that that type of notion is probably one which can be best dealt with in the general review of the Repatriation Act. On behalf of my own State I add that Queenslanders are grateful that the Government has moved for the opening of new centres, in Townsville in particular, which were proposed by the previous Government and which have now come much closer to fruition with the additional staff in Brisbane. However, there is still one outstanding point that I believe it is necessary to address; that is, the possibility of additional travelling entitlements to the staff in Brisbane. Their travelling entitlements are currently severely limited. They generally run out of entitlements very early in the financial year. I believe that the staff ought to have wider travelling entitlements to enable them to undertake very important trips, not only at their own behest but also-as occurs everywhere in Australia- at the behest of many other groups in the community. I will give an instance in Queensland. The police requested the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service in Brisbane to attend a domestic situation which had developed which could have resulted ultimately in the loss of life. The police felt unable to deal with it and they requested that a counsellor from the counselling service should attend. He did so, but he had to use his own car at his own expense. This situation seems to me to be absurd. These people are professionals. There is a demand for their services. They can be trusted in an extremely delicate situation not to abuse their entitlements. I believe that if we look around this Parliament we will see that many of our staff and many staff attached to ministerial offices and other parts of the Department have unlimited travelling allowances. It seems to me the least we can offer to the veterans in this country is to provide an equal entitlement to those professionals who are engaged in this extremely important task. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.38) —I certainly welcome the Government's response to the report of the former Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. I would like to add to what Senator Jones has said with respect to the help given to the Committee by former Senator Mulvihill who was the Deputy Chairman. I am sure his assistance in getting over some difficulties with respect to the report was appreciated by us all. This, of course, resulted in a unanimous expression of opinion in the report. We regarded it as quite a significant report because of the emotional effect that agent orange was having on Vietnam veterans and their families. We pointed to the need for further scientific and statistical evidence to be produced dealing with the morbidity of certain diseases within the group of veterans who served in Vietnam. That is why I am a little concerned that the Government is not going ahead with the morbidity study. I think it is very important to establish a pattern of incidence of diseases among these people. I am anxious to learn as soon as possible the terms of reference of the royal commission. I do not think it can come to any positive conclusions without the scientific evidence that we have requested. That is the reason why the committee presented its first report. It would have been its intention to proceed following further evidence presented as a result of neuro-psychiatric investigations and the morbidity study. However, I understand that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) will very shortly be presenting the Senate with the terms of reference associated with the royal commission. I look forward to examining those. It was interesting for me to read the report of the Commonwealth Institute of Health which largely substantiated some comments that we made with respect to birth deformities. I notice that the Minister has referred to that matter. On 20 February this year Senator Messner released a report, which concluded: . . . there is no evidence that Army service in Vietnam has increased the risk of the birth of a child with an anomaly. There is a lot of ignorance among the community concerning genetic effects as a result of exposure to pesticides and herbicides. That is why the Committee asked the Government to provide an educational program which would inform people more adequately. I am pleased to see that the Minister has indicated that this is a possibility. It will be a great help if we can get the message through as to the causes and effects of exposure to these pesticides and the possible risk to the foetus. I certainly welcome the Government's responce. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(4.42) —I enter this discussion briefly to make a couple of comments relating to the response by the Government. I am pleased to see that the Government has kept almost to the timetable that we requested. The interruption caused by the election made it more difficult for the Government and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to respond. I am also pleased to see the number of recommendations that have been accepted by the Government. I have been a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment when it has put in other reports that have not had so many recommendations accepted. I do not believe this is due to the change of government; I just believe that we were given some very good advice and help on this Committee. I was one of the few people on the Committee with any sort of scientific background. It took me quite a while to understand the nature and cause of birth defects. The matter is fairly complicated. The point that should be emphasised once again is that it is usually the female who has to be exposed to the causative agent, usually at a very critical time during pregnancy. We have all heard of thalidomide. For that drug to take effect it had to be taken and be present in the mother at a certain very short period of the pregnancy. I believe it was only a matter of days. If it were taken at any other time it could not have had any effect. The point I would like to make quite clear to the wives of Vietnam veterans is that in my opinion they should have absolutely no worry about having children. I think that when anybody has a child who is deformed in one way or another they always look for some other reason than themselves for the cuase. They would like to blame something else. But throughout the human species a statistical number of defects will occur in every so many thousand births. It is quite evident from the information we were given that the number of any deformities or whatever in Vietnam veterans' children would be exactly the same as the number in the rest of the community. If we did nothing other than put that matter to rest I believe the work we did on the Senate Committee was very worth while. It was an important matter, a major problem, and it certainly needed examination. We even found some confusion among some people who were giving us advice as to the cause of defects. It was quite surprising to hear some of the people who came before us as witnesses, people who held reasonably high positions. They just did not understand the situation at all. I am pleased to see in I think, the second response in this statement that the Government recognises that much more attention has to be paid by Australian scientific and medical communities to promoting an understanding of the heritable genetic effects that may result from exposure of humans to mutagenic chemicals. I repeat that it has to be the female who is exposed, not the male. But one has to remember too that a lot of chemicals within Australia could cause trouble to people if they do not realise how dangerous the chemicals are. As a pharmacist I have had to deal with poisons quite often. One comes to recognise the danger from contact with just very minute quantities of certain substances. When one realises the danger of incorrect use of some of the garden sprays that are relatively easily attainable, I would support quite solidly any education that can be given either to the general community or, particularly, to people who have to handle these substances. I am pleased to see that the Government is doing this. I want to raise just one other matter. I am not sure-I think I have said this before-that the money being spent on the royal commission will be well spent. I believe the royal commission will most probably come back to the Government at some stage and say: 'We need more information. We do not have enough scientific studies at our disposal'. I believe the money that is to be spent on the royal commission would be much better spent on research throughout the universities, even with special direction from the Government. I have always thought that there should be some direction as to how university money is spent, particularly on matters such as this. I think the money that is going to the royal commission , which will most probably run into millions of dollars over the time of the commission, would be much better spent on examination and research into this whole matter of pesticides and their effects. I know that members of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia have called for a royal commission for a long time but I do not think it will be the answer to their problem either. I think they would be much better off by letting that money be spent in other ways, and that is an opinion from which I do not think I will be easily dissuaded. Senator Macklin mentioned that there is a need for money, particularly in his large State, to help people in the Department of Veterans' Affairs to travel to help the veterans-not only the veterans of Vietnam but also some of the other veterans who are now getting very old and need a lot more help than they are presently getting. I hope the Government does insist, as it says it will, on helping the Department to put on a more human face. The Government has not said that in those words but that is what I would like to see the Department do. It is a bit frightening for many people, as they get older, when they have to go to a department and they are met by somebody who is not their age. Usually the veteran is a lot older than the person who is looking after him. I think it is very bad if our veterans are not looked after in a pleasant manner. Those are the only comments I feel I have to make. Of course, I have only just received this Government response. At this stage I would again like to thank Senator Mulvihill. I think he attended just about every Committee meeting we had . As he is no longer a member of this chamber and I think I am sitting in the seat he used to occupy I will try to treat my work on the Senate Committee in the way he would want me to. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.51) —I welcome this response from the Government on the problems of Vietnam veterans and, in particular, the response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. I might say that had the events of 5 March not changed situations I could very well have brought down the same report as the present Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, has brought down today. I think the responses included therein certainly are bipartisan, as I think Senator Macklin pointed out to us. In a sense I suppose we could call them tripartisan. I think there is some need for comment on one or two of the issues raised in the course of Senator Gietzelt's remarks, especially the reference to the establishment of the royal commission. There is no detail in this statement about the terms of reference, the nature of the inquiry or, or course, the people who will be undertaking it. In particular, I would be most concerned to know who will be the royal commissioner or commissioners and who will be the consultants and other people who will be advising the commission on detailed scientific matters from time to time. I think it is of the greatest importance in relation to this issue that justice be done to Vietnam veterans. I believe that would be best served by ensuring that the highest quality scientific people are made available to the commissioner-not only those of quality but also those who might be described as being independent of any group that has taken an interest in this matter until now. I think it is vital at this stage of the game that we have a proper, independent unbiased treatment of the material that has come forward either from sources already identified in Senator Gietzelt's remarks or from other sources which no doubt the commissioner will be seeking from the wider community. As is well known, the former Government did oppose the establishment of a royal commission in respect of this problem of Vietnam veterans. Senator Townley drew our attention to that problem area and made the point that some of the resources that might now be found to support the establishment of a royal commission could be better used for direct assistance and alleviation of the problems of Vietnam veterans. I believe that is a legitimate point to make. Nevertheless, the Government has made its decision and no doubt we will hear more about that in the not too distant future. Another point to make about why the former Government did not proceed to establish a royal commission is that, in fact, we believed that the royal commission would not achieve its result-that is, determination of the issue of health problems of Vietnam veterans-without receiving and examining very detailed scientific evidence. It seems clear that without that evidence a firm decision would not be reached by any royal commissioner. I think it is rather significant that in the course of Senator Gietzelt's remarks he admitted that a further neuro-psychiatric investigation of Vietnam veterans would need to be undertaken and presented to the royal commissioner in order for that issue to be settled. I think this makes the point which was made by the former Government that the royal commission, in itself, will probably resolve nothing without its having the full scientific support of studies that are, of course, currently in train or which perhaps still need to be set up and undertaken. Contrary to that point, I am interested to see that the Government has decided not to continue the morbidity study which was in the early stages of development by the Commonwealth Institute of Health in Sydney. No reasons are given for that but it does seem to be somewhat inconsistent with the approach evidenced in the earlier paragraphs of Senator Gietzelt's remarks which indicate that he is establishing another scientific study which will report to the royal commission. However, apparently the morbidity study is not deemed important or necessary and consequently the Institute will not be reporting to the royal commission. I wonder what is the Government's intention in this area. In the final analysis how will it settle the questions of health problems of Vietnam veterans if a properly established scientific examination is not undertaken? For those reasons, I am just a little concerned about what might be expected from the royal commission. However, I hasten to add that one of the most significant things that may yet be unfolded in the whole vexed area of the problems of Vietnam veterans may very well be the results of scientific inquiries being undertaken overseas, in particular, in the United States of America among the veterans of the Vietnam War. Those inquiries may provide us with more information on these questions and will go a long way towards answering the questions which are in the minds of Australians. Nevertheless, it is well known that those inquiries will take some time before coming to fruition . The best result that Australian veterans can expect will be from the successful conclusion of the scientific examinations that can be undertaken in this country . For that reason I commend the Government for its response to the Senate Committee report which, as Senator Jones rightly pointed out, was bipartisan. It did reflect very clearly a broad view of the problem without taking political considerations into account. Consequently, I believe it is a very fair analysis of the problem and the Committee's final statement is a very fair view of the examination of the problems of Vietnam veterans. To some extent it did set to rest some of the fears and worries in the minds of Vietnam veterans about the state of their health and of their families. Taken together with the results of the birth defect study, which I announced in the middle of February when I was the Minister, those two things do go a long way towards the achievement of the goal of setting people's minds at rest about the results of their very significant and valiant service in Vietnam on behalf of this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Coleman) agreed to: 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: (a) existing trade between Australia and China; (b) prospects of exports to China including: (i) goods, (ii) services, and (iii) technology; (c) prospects of imports from China; (d) impact of imports on local manufacturing industry; (e) prospects for a re-direction of trade; (f) economic and political considerations affecting trade with China; (g) factors inhibiting trade development; (h) identification and survey of key industries; and (i) trade promotion and services. Bills received from the House of Repre- sentatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. First Readings Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Bills be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Repre- sentatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to provide the legislative machinery to give effect to the decision in 1977 by the Australian people to amend the Constitution so that electors in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, which includes the Jervis Bay Territory, would in future have the right to vote at referendums. Members will be aware that prior to 1977 for a referendum amending the Constitution to be carried not only were a majority of the States required to be in favour of the question but also a majority of the electors on a national basis. Prior to the 1977 referendum, however, the national elector population was held to be comprised only of electors of the 6 States. The effect of this of course was to deprive tens of thousands of otherwise eligible Territory electors of the franchise insofar as referendums were concerned. The unreasonableness of this situation was recognised and in 1977, with the blessing of both sides of this Chamber, it was decided that one of the proposals which should be put before the Australian people at that time was that the electors of the Territories should have a vote in future referendums. The proposal was that their votes should be counted only as part of the national vote-that is to say they would not be regarded as being part of any of the States or of determining the majority view of the States but they would contribute to the determination of the majority view of the nation. Although this is essentially a machinery Bill and although the question of the rights of Territory electors has already been decided this nevertheless is an important franchise measure in itself. The Bill provides that the legislation governing the conduct of referendums in the States will, with certain modifications which reflect the different electoral circumstances of the Territories, apply to the conduct of referendums in the Territories. The Bill provides for the appointment of Electoral Officers for the Territories who will have powers and duties similar to those exercised and performed by the Australian Electoral Officers in the States. The Bill also recognises the independent status of the Northern Territory and makes provision for the forwarding of a copy of the Writ for a referendum and the Statement of Results, to the Administrator. As is the case in the States, the Bill also provides that the Northern Territory may, through its Attorney- General, challenge the results of a referendum by petition to the High Court. The legislation governing the conduct of referendums is, like the legislation governing the conduct of elections, in need of drastic reform and amendments will be brought forward in the context of the electoral reforms that the Parliament will be asked to consider. In the interim these machinery amendments are designed to ensure that Territory electors are not disenfranchised should Parliament approve a proposal to amend the Constitution being submitted to the people. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: (1) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 7 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. (2) That the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (3) The the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: (1) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 10 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters. (2) That the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (3) The the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.5) —The message we received set out in some detail a number of proposed terms of reference for the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters. I wish to move a series of amendments to those proposed terms of reference identical with the series of amendments moved in the House of Representatives by my colleague the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). There are five amendments and they have been circulated to honourable senators. The amendments are simple and they are offered to try to improve what we think is a laudable move by the Government, and one which we support. We make it quite clear that we support the establishment of the Committee and wish to be helpful. However, there are a couple of small matters to be raised. Amendment (a), which is to insert a new sub-paragraph (g) in paragraph (1) of the motion, would seek to add the words 'and numbers of Members of Parliament' to the words which are already there. This would merely provide for the proposed Committee a capacity to investigate something which at present is not included. The first amendment then would alter paragraph (g) of paragraph (1) only by the addition of some words and would give the Committee a specific capacity to look at the numbers of members of parliament. If this Committee is to carry out the task indicated by those who promoted its introduction, there would seem to be little disadvantage in adopting that amendment. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to move all amendments together. I indicate that amendment (d) would be consequential upon amendment (e) being agreed to. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I move: (1) At the end of paragraph (1) add ''subject to the following modifications- (a) Paragraph (1), leave out sub-paragraph (g), insert the following sub- paragraph: '(g) electoral distribution and numbers of Members of Parliament, procedures and systems.' (b) paragraph (1), at end of paragraph, add the following sub-paragraph: '(h) any other matters which are contained in or are affected by the operation of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.' (c) paragraph (2), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: '(2) The the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the National Party in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators.' (d) paragraph (4), at end of paragraph, add 'who shall have both a deliberative and a casting vote'; and (e) paragraph (15), leave out '31 August', insert '30 November'.''. (2) At end of paragraph (3) add ''with a request for the concurrence of that House in the Senate's modifications of the Resolutions transmitted to the Senate by that House.'' The second amendment would add a new sub-paragraph at the end of paragraph (1) to make it clear that the Committee to be appointed would have a capacity to look at all matters contained in or affected by the operation of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. In other words, a number of matters have been set out. They seem to cover many of the features contained in the Act. If the Committee is to do what the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) indicated it might do when he introduced this matter there would seem to be no disadvantage in agreeing to other matters contained in the Act being included within the purview of the Committee. Alternatively, if the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) indicated in response that the intention of that second amendment is acceptable to the Government, and the Committee would have that capacity, it might be helpful to those who are to serve on the Committee. Neither of those two amendments is a matter of enormous argument or substance; they are small moves which we thought might improve the operation of the Committee from our point of view and we hope they will receive favourable consideration from the Government. The third amendment, however, is more significant. If this Committee is to do its job and to be representative of the groups within the Parliament, it is important and essential that each major party grouping in the Senate have representation on the Committee. The terms of reference as proposed do not provide a place on the Committee for members of the National Party in the Senate . It seems to me that if what is being sought is an opportunity to develop proposals in relation to electoral matters and to present them to the Parliament in a bipartisan fashion, and if it is intended that the Parliament should then look favourably upon the Committee's findings when they emerge, each grouping within the Senate should be represented. It is possible to do this. Whether it is by inadvertence or whatever, National Party senators have not been included in the membership of this Committee. The amendment which we have proposed would provide one extra place for the National Party, and that would mean that the Government and non-Government parties within the Parliament would then have an equality of numbers on the Committee. Therefore, the fourth amendment, which is consequential to the third, would provide an assurance to the Government that there is no attempt to remove control of the Committee from its hands. It would also provide that the Government Chairman would have both a deliberative and a casting vote. We are trying, with those two amendments, to ensure a place for one recognised party in the Senate, at present not included, and to provide that the Government be protected; that is, that it have a casting vote and that it would not lose control of the Committee by doing that. I put it to the Government that this would improve the acceptability of the Committee and its findings to the Parliament. It would merely provide a demonstration that all parties in the Senate are represented. The fifth amendment is merely to give the Committee a little longer time in which to do its work. But it still accepts the Government's principle that it should be a committee with a limited life, with a set reporting date and that is should get its work done within that time. We have suggested within the fifth amendment that 30 November might be more appropriate than 31 August. I invite the Government to respond to each of the amendments. I hope that they are acceptable. They are offered in a genuine hope that we can expedite the work of the Committee and make it a success. Perhaps the amendments will also make it slightly more effective. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.13) —I indicate, I hope in the same consensual spirit in which Senator Peter Baume wrapped his remarks, that we do not accept the amendments moved by the Opposition. I shall briefly indicate why. We do not really see what the first amendment adds to the motion before the Senate. The motion is for an inquiry to report on all aspects of the conduct of elections for the Parliament, and some matters are then specified thereunder. There is a very broad reference in respect of all matters. The fact that certain matters are specified as being included indicates only that they are matters which the Government is specifically adverting to, but it does not exclude the possibility of other matters being considered by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters. Senator Peter Baume —Would you consider the matters mentioned in the first two amendments capable of study by the Committee? Senator BUTTON —That is a matter for the Committee to consider. They are not excluded, in my view. The second point I wish to make relates to the reference in amendment (b) to 'any other matters which are contained in or affected by the operation of the Commonwealth Electoral Act'. We regard that amendment as too wide because the Commonwealth Electoral Act refers to a vast variety of matters. This is what the Government has in mind as matters which should be considered as matters of priority, as indicated, and we regard that as too much of an ambit claim. The third amendment is to change the composition of the Committee by including, effectively, a National Party senator. We take the view that in terms of the numerical strength of the National Party in the Parliament, as distinct from isolating it into two chambers, its interests will be protected. After all, it is not as though-- Senator Peter Baume —They will have only one representative, will they not, for some 24 people? Senator BUTTON —That is so, yes, but the fact of the matter is that it is not as though the majority of the National Party and the Liberal Party in this chamber speak with discordant and diverse voices on matters in this chamber at any time. We are not seeking deliberately to slight the National Party. We believe that the arrangement which the Government has made is fair to all parties concerned. It follows from that view that the consequential amendment has no relevance. The fifth paragraph of the amendment seeks merely to extend the life of the Committee from 31 August to 30 November this year. The Government wants this matter resolved as quickly as possible. We believe there is no reason why the committee should not complete its deliberations by 31 August. The committee is empowered to seek from the Parliament an extension if, for any reason, it feels at the time of the expiration of its life that it is on to something new. In connection with this whole matter, the Government is regretful that during the period of the Fraser Government two reports were commissioned by it from the Commonwealth Electoral Office on the matters which are the subject of this discussion. One would have thought that members of the Opposition-certainly those who were Ministers in the previous Government-would have had some opportunity to seek advice from the Electoral Office on the views of that Office on the matters raised in this discussion. Unfortunately, none of those reports by the Electoral Office saw the light of day. We regret that they were not made available to the Parliament. But no doubt members of the Opposition will have copies of those reports and will be able to use them, certainly with the agreement of the Government, in any discussion which takes place during committee hearings. That may well facilitate the discussion and mean that the Committee can comfortably complete its deliberations by 31 August. While we see the point of the proposed amendments moved by the Opposition, they are not acceptable to the Government. I assure the Senate that if there is any concern about the way the Committee conducts its deliberations, we will no doubt hear about it and respond to it at that time. But we do not believe that that will occur. We would like the Committee to proceed with its deliberations in the manner suggested and report by 31 August. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate)(5.18) —Briefly, the National Party certainly supports the establishment of a joint select committee to examine electoral matters in Australia, to examine the Commonwealth Electoral Act and to make recommendations. I believe it is high time, in this vast country in which the population of electorates has more than doubled since such an examination occurred, that an in-depth investigation of the electoral system was made. At the same time, naturally, I support the amendments moved by the Opposition. I believe that the amendment which in general refers to an extension of time to 30 November for the conclusion of deliberations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters is a responsible one. An immense proposition is being put to the Committee and to assume that it can respond responsibly in less than three months seems to me a little beyond the area of probability. The size of the Parliament is also of interest and I believe it should be examined. It is possible that the motion, even as it stands, will cover that. I mention briefly the case that suggests that the National Party in the Senate should be represented on such a committee. We have, after all, made a contribution to this Parliament for a period in excess of 60 years. We represent a vast area of Australia. I believe we have a measure of expertise that is referable to the electoral circumstances in extra-metropolitan Australia. It is my belief that the National Party could, and should, make a constructive contribution to the considerations of this Committee. Indeed, with regard to statistics, we have today in excess of 20 members of parliament. Without going further into these problems, I seriously suggest to the Government that it may yet consider the advisability of admitting one National Party member from the Senate to this Committee. This would not in any way alter the Government's control of the Committee. Its chairman would have the casting vote and the control would remain where indeed it should be. But I ask the Government to consider yet again the advisability of equalising the representation by enabling the Opposition's amendment to be carried and by enabling the National Party to be represented on this proposed Committee. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.21) —I wish to outline the Australian Democrats position in relation to the five amendments moved by the Opposition. The first amendment, seeking to add to the motion the number of members of parliament, certainly has merit and is an element that one would hope would arise in any discussion of electoral redistribution. However, I believe that the comments made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) are adequate to cover events. I believe that the Committee, once it is established and looks at its terms of reference, would be quite willing to look at the question of the number of members of parliament. Indeed, I am not sure how one would address oneself in any detailed fashion to the notion of electoral redistribution without also addressing oneself to the notion of numbers of members of parliament. I merely draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that since 1949, when the last electoral redistribution of any substance, other than that dealing with movements between States, took place, the total number of electors represented by a member of the House of Representatives has almost doubled. Therefore, I believe that when the Committee addresses this matter it will need to look very closely at that question and also, as a consequence of the nexus which is established within the Constitution, at the number of senators. So I do not believe that the first amendment is necessary for the Committee to be able to undertake that task. With regard to the second amendment, I do not believe that the Committee will be excluded from looking at any matter within the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I do not agree with the Leader of the Government in the Senate that this is a wide ambit claim. If one looks at the motion moved, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, one finds that it states: That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon all aspects of the conduct of elections for the Parliament of the Commonwealth and matters related thereto . . . Indeed, one would assume that all matters within the Commonwealth Electoral Act are matters related to elections. In that sense, I suggest, one would have a very strong claim by simply saying that if a matter appears in the Commonwealth Electoral Act it is a matter relating to Commonwealth elections, and therefore comes under the aegis of this Committee. So the Australian Democrats will not support the second amendment moved by the Opposition. The third and fourth amendments deal with representation on the Committee. In this instance, in order to understand our position, it is vital to relate some history of the matter. Last year Senator Gietzelt, who was then the Opposition spokesperson on electoral matters, moved a motion for a joint committee to be set up with terms of reference very similar to the ones included in this reference. The Senate passed that motion against the wishes of the then Government-now the Opposition-which voted against the establishment of such a committee only a little over 12 months ago. That resolution then went to the House of Representatives where it lay on the table and was never proceeded with. The odd thing about the resolution passed in the Senate was that it included the idea that we were in a position immediately to advertise for submissions to that committee. Indeed, many submissions were received from interested bodies but, unfortunately, since no joint committee was in existence, those submissions are now in some type of committee limbo which is a little difficult to understand. I believe that we will probably need a resolution of the Senate to resurrect them out of whatever hole they have gone down. Those submissions were made in response to advertisements placed by this House in national media advertising. People went to a great deal of trouble to make those submissions to this Parliament at our request in response to the motion moved by Senator Gietzelt and I believe that there is an obligation on the new committee to take them up. If the previous Government had adopted that resolution it would have had a majority on the committee and could have appointed to it as many representatives of the National Party as it wished. We come now, of course, to a different ball game. I am not sure that the present Government was all that keen on having a committee inquire into this matter either. It probably would have been quite happy to proceed, as would most governments, and it might also have been able to argue that it had a mandate to proceed, to electoral reform without going to a committee as a result of the election of 5 March. It put a fairly comprehensive package of election proposals to the Australian electors, which proposals appeared in the complete text of the speech given by the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the opening of the Australian Labor Party campaign. Therefore, I think it could well have argued that it did not have a need for a committee. Some four weeks ago I put to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) the proposition that we ought to proceed to establish a joint committee because it is that proposal that the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party supported when the ALP was in opposition and it has the continuing support of the Australian Democrats. The alternative, of course, was to establish a select committee of the Senate. It does not take terribly much mathematical genius to work out that if there is to be a committee there will be a committee one way or the other. I think the Special Minister of State caught the drift of my comments in relation to that matter and thought that it was probably better, even if he was not contemplating it himself, to proceed with a joint committee. However, I do not in those remarks detract from the congratulations I give to the Government on proceeding with something with which it had no need to proceed. I believe that it is to the Government's credit that it would seek an open inquiry in this regard. I believe that the Commonwealth Electoral Act is the Act par excellence which belongs to the people, not to the politicians. Indeed, it is the Act on which the people ought to have as much say, and into which there ought to be as much inquiry, as it is humanly possible for this Parliament to achieve. So while having sympathy with the third and fourth amendments, but also having regard to the fact that the Government will oppose the amendments, the Australian Democrats cannot support them. As I have pointed out the Committee is to be a joint one. A resolution of this Senate has no binding force upon the other House. For the amendments to be passed the other House would be under an obligation to modify its motion and since there is a government majority in that House there would be no opportunity for that to occur. Therefore, with reluctance, we will not be supporting amendments (c) and (d). That leaves the last item, which is the date by which the Committee will report . In my discussions with the Special Minister of State he raised what I think was a very genuine concern; that such a committee could very well disrupt the legislative program of the Government. The Government had intended to introduce electoral reform at a particular time and the Committee could very well not enable that to occur within the program that the Government had set out. My response to that was that the Senate had a fair amount of experience in operating short, sharp inquiries, which, nevertheless, have had a fairly traumatic effect upon legislation. I instance but two such inquiries which honourable senators will probably remember. One was the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations into the Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill, which managed to get that Bill thrown out of this place about two weeks after the inquiry commenced. The other was the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania which, of course, had the final effect of having a Bill passed through this chamber and also of having another Bill presently under discussion in this chamber. So I do not see that it is necessary for us to extend the time. I for one am not quite sure whether 30 November or 31 March is the appropriate time. Either one of those dates would do. I think that given the fact that submissions are already in existence and that this Committee can proceed immediately to interview the people who made those submissions, given the fact that we can advertise immediately for more submissions and given the fact that we will have the break between now and the Budget session, I think we have a fairly good chance of getting a report into this chamber and the other place by 31 August. If we do not do so, the Committee will have leave to return to this chamber and request an extension, giving its reasons. Then it will be up to this chamber and the other place to deliberate upon those reasons and to see whether an extension is warranted. That seems to be the way in which previous committees have operated time and again. Those requests on the part of committees have always been treated most sympathetically by this place if the reasons that the committee wishes to adduce have convinced this chamber that such an extension is warranted. So I do not believe that we need concern ourselves over much about the closing date. I merely hope the Committee will go about its task with all due deliberation and that if it needs to seek an extension it will do so. Consequently, the Australian Democrats will not be supporting any of the amendments which have been proposed to the Government's motion to set up a joint committee on electoral matters. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.32) —The Government does not accept the amendments moved by the Opposition. Most of the questions have been canvassed by Senator Macklin. I wish just to remind the Senate that in the five years during which I was shadow Minister for Administrative Services I sought to have some changes made to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, principally because the report of the Government's own inquiry and the report it sought from the Chief Australian Electoral Officer had recommended substantial changes to the Act. Those two reports were never made public despite the fact that each of them suggested that there should be substantial changes to the Act, which they claimed-correctly so-was outmoded and needed modernising. As Senator Macklin has suggested, I tried on numerous occasions since 1980, when I was given more specific responsibility for electoral matters, to have the Senate appoint a select committee to look into the Act. That request was denied. The Opposition then sought the approval of the Senate to establish a joint parliamentary committee to examine the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Australian Labor Party was concerned about the deficiencies in the Act. I remind the Senate that in the period from 1972 to 1975 the Labor Government made several attempts to improve the contents of the Electoral Act, to remove many of the anomalies. It was thwarted in this very place by the then members of the Opposition because they held a temporary majority. As it required a substantive majority in the Senate to establish the select committee we were not able to reach that decision. We were thwarted by the obstinancy and the obstructive tactics that were pursued by the Liberal-National Party Government. Finally, the decision of the Senate was referred to the House of Representatives for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to examine the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I canvassed this matter with some of the more independent-minded members of the Liberal Party to get support for it. Of course, the former Prime Minister got a decision in the party room which stopped the establishment of that select committee. Having failed to establish the select committee I think it is difficult to suggest to the Government, the majority party in this place, that it should now agree to amend the decision of the House of Representatives to accomodate the views of the Opposition. Accordingly, we do not support the amendment that has been suggested by the Opposition. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Button, J. N. Harradine, B. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Watson, J. O. W. McIntosh, G. D. Archer, B. R. Ryan, S. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Ministerial Statement Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —I seek leave to make a statement that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the House of Representatives a few minutes ago-it is his statement-and to move a motion that the Senate take note of the statement. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —The statement reads: Events of the last few weeks relating to the expulsion of the Soviet KGB officer Ivanov involve fundamental issues of national security and individual civil liberties. My Government's approach to this matter has involved placing these issues above all other considerations, including political party or personal associations. For my part I have sought to ensure that because the issues of national security extend beyond which political party holds office the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was fully briefed. He expressed complete support for the Government's proposed course of action. I am appalled that the endorsement by the Leader of the Opposition of the Government's approach was of insufficient influence to prevent members of the Opposition making efforts to exploit for political purposes a matter in which issues of national security and individual civil liberties are concerned. The decision relating to the expulsion of Ivanov had the unanimous support of all members of the Cabinet Sub-committee on National and International Security, comprising the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). The subsequent decision regarding Mr David Combe's association with the Government had the full support of both my Cabinet and my full Ministry. The basis for the expulsion of Ivanov is not in question, and remains as set out in the Foreign Minister's statement of 22 April. As regards the action relating to Mr Combe, the Government has never been in any doubt about the validity of its decision. At the same time it was concerned that he should not become the object of public censure without some opportunity to defend himself. From the time that the Opposition used his name in the House yesterday, it was essential that he be given this opportunity. Mr Combe's association with Ivanov, and the subsequent decision made by my Government in regard to his contact with it, had been the subject of several hours of discussions today between Mr Combe and the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, during part of which time the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Mr Harvey Barnett, was present. During these discussions Mr Combe gave his detailed account of his professional activities as a public affairs consultant and his past relationship with the Soviet Union and the Soviet Embassy, and the Attorney-General set out, in the terms summarised in the following paragraphs, the considerations which have determined the Government's course of action. Following those discussions Mr Combe has now advised the Government that, having regard to all the circumstances as they stood at the time the Government made its decision, he 'understands and accepts' the Government's decision that Ministers not deal with him in his capacity as a consultant lobbyist. The Government's decision, which was made in the first instance by Cabinet in Adelaide on 26 April and endorsed by the full Ministry in Canberra on 2 May, followed a recommendation made by me explicitly based on the following considerations: Ministers' doors should be, and be seen to be, open without the need for leverage by a party insider; and it was not appropriate that a former Party official, by virtue of that status, have special advantages or access to Government denied to others. At its meeting on 2 May, the Ministry agreed that the Special Minister of State should bring forward a submission canvassing a possible scheme for the registration of government lobbyists generally, not just those with Labor Party connections. I now make it clear that there was a further consideration underlying my recommendation to the Cabinet and Ministry which was not explicitly raised with either body at the time, but which had been the subject of prior discussion and agreement by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on National and International Security. The information and advice then available to the Government suggested that Mr Combe's relationship with Ivanov had developed to the point that it gave rise to serious security concern. The view of the National and International Security Sub-committee was that, as events had developed, Mr Combe either had been, or appeared to have been, compromised by Ivanov to the extent that it was no longer appropriate for Government Ministers to deal with him. The deliberate cultivation by Ivanov of the relationship with Mr Combe, and the stage that process had reached on Labor's assumption to office, was one of the reasons-but by no means the only reason-which led to the Government's decision to expel Mr Ivanov from Australia on 22 April. It is the view of the Attorney-General and his Department that, on all the information available to them, no criminal offence has been committed by Mr Combe. There is certainly, in the Government's belief, no foundation for any allegation or imputation that Mr Combe is, or ever was, in any sense a 'Soviet spy'. I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Ivanov matter-including the position of Mr Combe and the advice of the Attorney-General and his Department-both on 21 April, the day the decision to expel Mr Ivanov was taken, and subsequently. He has expressed complete support for the Government's actions in this matter. Let me stress what I said to the House at the outset of this statement. When issues of national security are at stake, whether they be manifested in terms of foreign espionage activities or by such means as the articles published in the National Times last week, which are prejudicial to the national interest, this Government will not be deterred from resolutely defending that interest, whatever attempt may be made to misrepresent this principled position. Nor shall we attempt to exploit such issues for our own political gains. We will remain committed at the same time to ensuring that in defence of the national interest, there are no transgressions of individual civil liberties. It is perhaps inevitable that there will always be elements of doubt and suspicion in the minds of all Australians in circumstances where there can be less than full disclosure of information. That is a responsibility a Government must accept, and for my part I accept it. But I trust this statement will put to rest the uncertainty of the last few days, and convince all Australians, of whatever political persuasion, of the correctness and fairness of our handling of the matter. A climate of innuendo and deceit, which some have attempted to introduce into that matter, is not one which my Government will be guilty of creating or permitting to flourish. Finally, I am sure that our actions in respect of this matter, and of the National Times articles, will have made it clear to all other governments that in no way will my Government be compromised when matters of our national security are at stake. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.51) —The statement which has been put down by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) touches upon very serious matters. It has been available to the Opposition for a little over half an hour. For reasons which I suppose are apparent on the face of the statement, it was not possible for us to get it in the normal two-hour period before the statement was put down. I assume from the fact that discussions were held this afternoon between the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and Mr Combe that that was part of the reason for the statement not being ready in time for us to give it more careful consideration. Senator Gareth Evans —That is the only reason. Senator CHANEY —I thank the honourable senator. I will express a preliminary view only on behalf of the Opposition on a number of the points which are raised . I must address some, in part because of the fourth paragraph which refers to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in terms which I think are both unfair and inaccurate. I wish to make the general point-I put all these comments as preliminary comments-that we have before us a statement which, I am sure, honourable senators opposite wish were not before us and indeed honourable senators behind me wish were not before us because we have moved away from what I think has been the appropriate rule in these matters of refusing to comment on matters of security in a way which gives rise to the possibility of information coming out which is prejudicial to the national interest. The fact is that only yesterday Mr Hawke quite correctly stated that principle in response to a question which was asked by Mr MacKellar in the other place. He asked the question on the basis of one of the numerous Press reports on security matters which have appeared since last weekend and, indeed, I think as early as last Friday. Mr MacKellar asked a question about a report in the Press yesterday that a senior Labor man who had been one of the most important and influential figures in the Australian Labor Party over the past two decades had been closely associated with the recently expelled Soviet diplomat, Mr Ivanov. There was a longer response than perhaps should have been necessary because there were some interjections during it. At the end of his response Mr Hawke said: Therefore, I repeat the answer, which seems to escape the honourable member but nevertheless is in terms of the practice which was followed by the previous Government-one of the few practices that it did follow which was correct-that neither I nor any member of my Government will publicly canvass issues in which questions of national security are so obviously involved, as they were in the expulsion of Mr Ivanov. I welcome the acknowledgment by the Prime Minister that that was the practice of the previous Government. I recall the previous Attorney-General giving answers in those terms in response to questions which were, I think, properly addressed to him when we were in government and properly not answered by him in pursuance of that principle. Senator Gareth Evans —Why did you ask all those questions today then? Senator CHANEY The Attorney-General asked me why further questions were asked. That is a reasonable question. I thank him for it. The reason is quite simple: It is quite clear that at the time Mr Hawke made the statement of principle yesterday, with which the Opposition agrees, he had already breached that principle. It came to the attention of the Opposition through the Australian Associated Press report that in the Caucus meeting of yesterday the Prime Minister was not quite as circumspect. He chose to make statements about who was not implicated by the report. The fact is that the Opposition was given a report which was available to all of the media through AAP as to what had occurred at the Caucus meeting earlier that morning. It is quite clear from the Hansard record of the House of Representatives yesterday that further questioning followed the fact. I refer to the question asked by Mr Peacock, who referred to the answer given by the Prime Minister to Mr MacKellar. It states: I understand from news reports I have to hand now that he has in fact discussed the matter in the Caucus today and told his Party 'that the former senior Australian Labor Party official' is not a member of the Government. Why did the Prime Minister mislead the House? Mr Hawke, in his reply, said that he had not misled the House and that he would tell the House exactly what transpired in Caucus that morning. He said: One of the members of the Government raised the point that he had been approached in the light of the article in the Sydney Morning Herald and was asked whether he was the person involved. He indicated that to the best of his knowledge he was not. Of course, when that matter was raised what I told the member of the Government who had raised the question and told the Caucus was that neither he nor any member of the Government was the person involved. That is what I told the Caucus. That was the truth. I always, as distinct from some other members, tell the truth. The fact is that the principle which the Prime Minister so correctly laid down had been breached. I am not in a position to answer in full detail for the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has followed the proprieties in this matter and has in no way been involved in the mass of news reports which have appeared with respect to these matters and which indicate that many stories have been floating around in the national capital about them. On the question by Mr Sinclair, it seems to me that the Government, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate this morning, has shown a fair degree of carelessness in being prepared to link questions which cover separate reports , some relating to Mr Combe and the question of whether he was going to get any further consultancy work because apparently he was not going to be acceptable to this Government in future. The Government has been quite happy to link those questions to those which were asked about the separate reports about a senior Labor figure. In Question Time here this morning quite separate questions were put by the Opposition. The answers given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Attorney-General made it quite clear that the two separate streams of reports in fact referred to exactly the same person, Mr David Combe. On the face of the statement-again I have had but brief time to look at it-a perfectly honest answer was available to the Prime Minister with respect to the question which was addressed about Mr Combe. If one looks at the statement one finds that, on reasons which were given to the Cabinet and to the Ministry, there were perfectly sound reasons why the Government would not wish to deal with Mr Combe as a consultant. I refer to page 2 of the Prime Minister's statement which points out: The Government's decision, which was made in the first instance by Cabinet in Adelaide on 26 April and endorsed by the full Ministry in Canberra on 2 May, followed a recommendation made by me explicitly based on the following considerations: Ministers' doors should be, and be seen to be, open without the need for leverage by a party insider; and it was not appropriate that a former party official, by virtue of that status, have special advantages or access to Government denied to others. I would have thought that since that is apparently the basis on which the decision was made by the Ministry and the Cabinet, one could have quite honestly put that perfectly acceptable statement of principles before the Parliament without the sort of response that the Government has in fact brought forward over the last two days. What we are left with now is in a sense the worst of all worlds. We have a statement which, in quite an extraordinary way, at the top of page 5, and in the pious style we have come to expect, says: We will remain committed at the same time to ensuring that, in defence of the national interest, there are no transgressions of individual civil liberties. Apparently, the means of ensuring that there are no transgressions of individual civil liberties in this case is having the person who is under a cloud spend several hours with the Attorney-General and agreeing that the Government's course of action is acceptable. We are left with a statement which says: The information and advice then available to the Government suggested that Mr Combe's relationship with Ivanov had developed to the point that gave rise to serious security concern. The view of the National and International Security Sub-Committee was that, as events had developed, Mr Combe either had been or appeared to have been compromised by Mr Ivanov to the extent that it was no longer appropriate for Government Ministers to deal with him. The deliberate cultivation by Ivanov of the relationship with Mr Combe, and the stage that process had reached on Labor's assumption to office, was one of the reasons-but by no means the only reason-which led to the Government's decision to expel Mr Ivanov from Australia on 22 April. That is the position we are left with by this statement. Bearing in mind the extraordinary muddle of principles which I think is contained in the statement, some of which are basically important to this country and need careful consideration, I doubt that at this stage prolonged debate of the statement we have had so briefly will promote that consideration. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 10 May 1983 on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(6.4) —The Senate has before it the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill, which purports to enable the Government to take certain action in relation to properties which are of cultural value. The debate on this Bill in the other place, especially as reported in the Press, has been overwhelmingly of the flavour that this is a Bill on the subject of the proposed dam in South West Tasmania. The Bill involves a lot more than the building of a dam in South West Tasmania, which is not even mentioned, as it happens. The Bill is very much about the Hawke Government's approach to the Constitution and its relations with the States. I state at the outset that whatever attempts have been made to misrepresent the previous Liberal government's and this Liberal Opposition's attitude on matters relating to the environment could not be worse founded. The Fraser Government has a proud record on the subject of conservation and the environment. I remind the Senate that all the Australian listings on the World Heritage List to this day were placed there by Liberal-National Party governments, and that the efforts of previous Liberal governments in establishing national parks and in taking a stand on issues related to the environment are very highly regarded. I mention such matters as the Kakadu and Uluru national parks. I draw the attention of the Senate to the declaration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park . The parallels with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are probably particularly important in this debate. Lord Howe Island and the Willandra Lakes region were also placed on the World Heritage List by the previous Government. When in government we were vigilant on the subject of the environment. Our record is one of which we are proud. We reject and resist any suggestion that the attitude we have taken on the subject of damming South West Tasmania represents a cavalier attitude towards the value of that part of the National Estate and its value on the World Heritage List. The Fraser Government attempted to resolve the issue and made numerous offers to the Tasmanian Government; most recently it made an offer of $500m and other forms of assistance for alternative sources of power. I think our record on that subject indicated very clearly our attitude on this issue. However, we were not prepared to sweep aside the Constitution. Parliament, in dealing with this Bill, faces some very serious issues. Individual senators will have to examine their own beliefs and consciences on the subject of the Federation and the Constitution when they come to vote on the Bill. I state at this stage that we will be moving to the motion for the second reading an amendment which would not have the effect of negating the second reading. We intend to support the Bill's going into Committee. We shall be moving a number of amendments when the Bill is considered clause by clause in Committee, in which we will give more detail of our attitude to what is wrong with the detail of the Bill. However, at this stage I confine myself to the general thrust of the Bill and our general objection to sections of it. What the Government seeks to do under this Bill is based on the four heads of power-the external affairs power, the national power, the corporate power and the racial power. By this means this Government is seeking to intrude into what has been considered to be an area of responsibility of State governments. I draw to the attention of the Senate the views of a member of the Government-then a member of the Opposition-on this subject. I would like to quote from a letter to the editor of the Australian newspaper published on 28 January 1983. The letter, which was written by the Australian Labor Party member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) , states: Lawyers are arguing whether the High Court would grant the Commonwealth Government power to intervene and prevent the construction of the Tasmanian dam under the external affairs power of the Constitution. May I, as one who tends to oppose increased government powers of most kinds-- I acknowledge that Dr Klugman is a member who has always been active in the area of individual rights in this Parliament- caution those Labor supporters who may approve of the extension of such power in this case. What would prevent an Australian Government signing a treaty with South Africa dealing with 'subversion?' Could an Act endorsing such a treaty then give an Australian government unlimited powers, denied to it by the High Court (and a referendum) in the early 1950s? Before endorsing the use of the external affairs power to circumvent the Constitution, let us remember that an Australian Government could find a number of foreign governments prepared to sign all kinds of treaties conferring unpleasant powers on our government. Put in simple terms I think that is a very good point. I understand how tempted the present Government is to try to use the foreign affairs power in the Constitution as a way of extending its power, as a way of determining whether a State government may build a dam and whether a State government has the final right of decision as to how it will generate power in its own State. There has been much debate over the years as to the use of the external affairs power by Commonwealth governments in Australia. I would like to quote briefly from a writing of Chief Justice Latham, as quoted in a book by Sir Robert Menzies on this subject. I quote from it not as an authority on this debate but just to give honourable senators and others an idea of what is involved in attaching this sort of significance to the signing of treaties. Mr Justice Latham states: The list of bilateral international agreements extends over 18 pages-- This is in a 1935 publication of the then Department of External Affairs- and the list of general and multilateral international agreements extends over 11 pages. The subjects are so various it is impossible to classify them. They include matters affecting extradition, trade and commerce, navigation, legal proceedings, joint stock companies, war graves, commercial arbitration, international arbitration, tariffs, trade marks and other industrial property, friendship and amity, postal matters, medical practitioners, lunatics, submarine telegraph cables, maritime and land warfare, sanitation, white slave traffic, use of white phosphorous in manufacturing matches, copyright, obscene publications, peace after the Great War, labour matters, contagious diseases, dangerous drugs, economic statistics . . . limitation and reduction of armaments , and other subjects. Mr Justice Latham goes on: It is in my opinion, impossible to say . . . that any subject is necessarily such that it could never properly be dealt with by international agreement. That is a very real caution, as is the caution from the honourable member for Prospect. The Hawke Government, in basing so much of its thrust on this matter on the external affairs power, opens a Pandora's box for itself as well as for future governments. The High Court of Australia, of course, will ultimately decide on the validity of the use of that power. There will be many arguments before the High Court as to whether it is justified. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that this Government has deliberately taken the decision to use that power as its basis for proceeding. This is in strong contrast to the policy of the Australia Labor Party in previous years. I instance in particular the policy of the Federal Labor Party in relation to Tasmania when there was a State Labor government. When the Whitlam Government was previously in power there was a controversy in Tasmania called Lake Pedder. Of course, the actions of that Labor Government were rather different on that issue. Attention has been drawn previously to the attitude of the Federal Labor Party prior to the accession of Mr Hawke to its leadership. I would like to quote from a letter on this subject written by the previous Leader of the Labor Party, Mr Hayden. On the subject of intervention by the national Parliament in the matter of South West Tasmania, Mr Hayden said: . . . we would support a Parliamentary Inquiry into how best we could help the State Government preserve the South-West, but not as to interfere with the Tasmanian Government's efforts to produce power but for its people which may involve some construction in that area . . . The more fundamental matters of concern are very much a State responsibility and outside of the constitutional authority of the National Government. That was Mr Hayden's attitude in 1981. He also stated: . . . further negotiations will have to proceed with the responsible authority, and that is the Tasmanian Government. That was the attitude of the Federal Labor Party, as stated by its Leader, until quite recently. However, the temptation in the end has proved too much for the Labor Party-the temptation to move into this area and to take that extra power. I refer to the difference in attitude of the Labor Party under the leadership of Mr Hayden and under the leadership of Mr Hawke. Mr Hawke's attitude towards the Constitution and the States is extremely well known. Mr Hawke likes to travel Australia now, as he did before he became Leader of the Labor Party, saying that he considers the present Constitution to be an anachronism; that it is no longer relevant. In the Boyer lectures he said some very strong things on the subject of the powers of the States under the Constitution. He said many things, but I will quote just briefly from one section that seems to encapsulate his attitude. I might say that he used some very strong language in relation to the States and their powers on a number of occasions. He said: There is no justification now, in terms of the interests and the rights of fourteen million Australians, to perpetuate this dangerous anachronism. The dangerous anachronism to which he is referring is the federal system and a series of parliaments-Commonwealth and State parliaments. He continued: I believe the logical implication of this analysis is that Australians would be better served by the elimination of the second tier of government-that is the States-which no longer serve their original purpose and act as a positive impediment to achieving good government in our current community. There is some argument for saying that the present purpose of the States is not identical with the original purpose. There are certainly many elements of the original purpose which are identical with the current purpose of the States. We have had a series of referenda over the years in this country on the subject of changing the Constitution. There have been various results. On occasions the people have refused to extend the power of the central government. On occasions they have agreed to extend the power of the central government. It is not good enough for those who look at our Constitution and say: 'It is an anachronism', just as they look at our States and say: 'They are dangerous anachronisms', to try to alter by stealth the balance as it was intended. The Constitution is, of course, the property of the people. It is the basic political document in Australia. We must always accept the wisdom and the good faith of the people when they vote on matters relating to the Constitution. We must accept, not that the electorate is inherently conservative as those who rail on the subject on occasions are inclined to say, but that the people basically have a good reason for voting the way they do in referenda. That is bad enough but it is utterly unacceptable that one would try to side-step the issue that one ought to face; that is, do Australians really want the central government to have this sort of power? It is convenient for Mr Hawke to berate the constitutional structure but that does not address the central issue. At the Australian Constitutional Convention the Hawke Government had much to say about people's attitudes towards constitutional change and how important the Constitutional Convention was. It deplored what it claimed were the attitudes of some others towards the process of changing the Constitution. I will quote from an editorial of the Australian Financial Review of 2 May 1983 on this subject. It states: . . . there is a certain disingenuousness in the complaints of the Commonwealth Attorney-General on the outcome of last week's convention, when before the Federal Parliament this week is a bill which in itself is an attempt totally to bypass the Constitutional Convention or the referendum process as a means of changing the Constitution. This is the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill. Whatever the merits of the Tasmanian dams issue the four heads of power the Commonwealth is claiming as support for the constitutional validity of this bill would, if confirmed, radically alter the nature of the Australian Federation and the meaning of the Constitution. Yet it seems that at no time did the Commonwealth even consider submitting this bill to the Convention for consideration. Mr Deputy President, I submit to you that this is fair comment. The purpose of the Government in following this path is to bypass an arrangement, an accepted position in relation to power, that has obtained for a very long time. It does it by stealth. The Opposition, in the House of Representatives and in this chamber, raises a number of objections to the Bill. I reiterate what I said at the beginning: In no circumstances could it be construed that by moving to improve this Bill we are trying to damage it. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans)-who has taken it on himself to represent the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment ( Mr Cohen) in this chamber-made some comment in the second reading speech which did not specifically address itself to debate in the other place but attempted to move, to some extent, to meet some of the basic objections to the Bill that the Opposition had indicated it had in the Committee stage of the debate. I will refer to that comment very briefly in a few minutes. I do not believe that the Attorney-General has, in any way, met the matters that have been raised through amendments relative to the Federal Court or on the subject of compensation. Today we had presented to the Senate the first report for 1983 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in this Parliament. The Attorney- General, when he was shadow Attorney-General, was very fond of promoting Scrutiny of Bills reports as some sort of basis for objectivity in consideration of Bills. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee looked at this Bill and has drawn Parliament's attention to several sections of it. Last week the Scrutiny of Bills Committee put out an Alert Digest in which were outlined some problems with this Bill. The Digest was made available so that members of the House of Representatives would have it available to them in their debate on this Bill. The Committee report that came in today contains all that that Alert Digest contained and some additional points. But the Attorney-General did not address himself at all to these objections. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has raised particular queries in relation to compensation provisions in this legislation. I do not intend to go right through the report because it has been made available to honourable senators but I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard paragraphs 9 to 12 of the Scrutiny of Bills report presented in the Parliament today, that is, that section which relates to compensation. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Clause 17-Compensation 9. This clause sets out the procedures relating to the determination of any compensation that might be payable for land acquired under the Act or under regulations made pursuant to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. The procedures are intended to fulfil the Constitutional requirement that the Commonwealth acquire property ''on just terms'' (s. 51 (xxxi)). 10. Once it has been determined that the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation, the precise amount-the ''just terms''-is determined in accordance with a procedure spelt out in clauses 17 (7) to 17 (14). If the claimed amount is less than $5 million, and the Commonwealth does not agree to this amount, the claimant may apply to the Federal Court for determination of the compensation, under clause 17 (14). 11. However, in cases of disputed claims for $5 million or more, the Governor- General shall establish a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into and report on the compensation payable. Under clause 17 (10), a Commission has 12 months in which to report; and under clause 17 (12), the Governor-General has a further 3 months in which to determine the compensation payable. Although the Committee believes that the Report of the Commission of Inquiry would be admissible as evidence in any Federal Court action taken under this clause, the Committee is concerned that the Report may otherwise not be publicly available, either through tabling in Parliament or release to the claimant. If either the Commission does not report within 12 months or the claimant contests the amount determined by the Governor-General, the claimant may apply to the Federal Court to determine a just amount. 12. The Committee draws attention to the difference in treatment accorded disputed claims which fall either side of the $5 million. Disputed claims of $5 million or more are made subject to a process of resolution which may, in some circumstances, be less speedy and possibly involve undue delay in the payment of amounts for land acquired by the Commonwealth. The Committee draws attention to the departure from the usual procedure set out in the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 which in most instances lends itself to the possibility of a speedy resolution of disputed claims. Insofar as there may be some extension of the time in which compensation is payable for land acquired under this Act, the Committee draws this provision under clause 17 to the attention of the Senate under clause 1 (a) (i) in that it might be regarded as trespassing unduly on personal rights and liberties. Senator MARTIN —I thank the Senate. Of course, those points will be a matter of much more debate I am sure as we proceed with this Bill, particularly in the Committee stage. I reiterate that the Attorney-General in his second reading speech has not directed himself to the basic objections to the compensation provisions of the legislation. He has made some comments which do not meet the objections raised either in debate last week or by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The operation of section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution in relation to acquisition of property is, of course, highly relevant. It is always relevant to Commonwealth Government activities in the acquisition of property. The view expressed by Senator Evans on this matter is nevertheless unsatisfactory to us in terms of our objections or our suggestions in relation to the Bill. I appeal to the Attorney-General to consider whether, in acceding subsequently in the debate to our request for amendment to the compensation provisions, his Bill is in any way damaged. We do not believe it is. We can only conjecture at the reasons the Government would have for not accepting that someone who claims he has had his land acquired should be able to proceed through the Federal Court, and, if necessary, subsequently go on appeal to the High Court. To make provision in the legislation for the Federal Court does not of course eliminate the High Court. We accept that in a number of instances there would undoubtedly be appeal to the High Court. But to cut out the Federal Court in most cases seems unreasonable and an unduly perverse attitude. The Attorney-General claims that the Bill's arrangements for compensation are for the benefit of persons whose interests have not been affected by an acquisition of property in the strict sense but who would, nonetheless, have had some change in their position as a result of government action, for example, the employment opportunities that would be lost if the Gordon below Franklin scheme was stopped. If the thrust of the Government is successful in preventing the building of the dam it would always be open to the Commonwealth Government to enter into some negotiations with the Tasmanian Government and to make some offers which would achieve the purpose that Senator Evans outlined in his second reading speech. Acceding to the type of change we have requested to the legislation would not prevent the Government from doing that but would enhance other people's rights in other cases. At the Committee stage I shall be moving a number of amendments which will be circulated to honourable senators very shortly. I will not canvass them in much detail at the moment because I am sure honourable senators are quite familiar with what happened in the other place. I want to highlight just one other set of amendments for a very particular reason-because they were not included in the amendments moved by the Opposition in the House of Representatives. This is a set of amendments which relate to the Northern Territory. The reason they were not included in the amendments moved in the House of Representatives was that it had not been realised that the Bill had some implications that have now been pointed out by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Today the Honourable Paul Everingham, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, expressed some concern about the Northern Territory situation under this Bill and requested that we pay some attention to it. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard part of the text of a telex from Mr Everingham. Leave granted. The document read as follows- It has just been drawn to my attention that the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill which I understand has already passed the House of Representatives and is being considered in the Senate tomorrow has the practical effect of creating a discriminatory approach to the Northern Territory which causes my Government great concern. The practical effects in the Bill are in summary- (A) To ensure that the legislation would be valid in its application to the Northern Territory (the validity, or lack of it, in its application to the States is at least arguable in some respects); (B) To enlarge the range of Northern Territory property (as compared with the States) which could be the subject of a proclamation by the Governor-General under clause 6 (3); and (C) To deny any right of the Chief Minister to nominate a member of a commission of inquiry established to assess compensation in excess of $5,000,000 where operation of the Act amounts to an acquisition of property. Aside from these effects it is perhaps even more significant that the Bill departs from the established practice to treat the Territory on a basis of equality with the States. Senator MARTIN —That document outlines the basis of the reasons for those amendments. I just say that there is no intention of ambushing anyone on these amendments; they were drawn to our attention very late. We thought the objection raised by Mr Everingham was well-founded. We have, therefore, moved in a fresh direction in our amendments. I would like to seek from the Attorney-General, when he replies to this debate, some assurances about the Government's intention in relation to the legislation. It has been suggested to me that if the legislation is amended either the Government does not intend to proceed with it or it will not accept certain very reasonable amendments-in other words, it will attempt to hold the Opposition in this place to ransom on amendments which do not affect the Government's policy and which do not affect the main thrust of the Bill in a way that would make us appear to have a quite false attitude on the general issue of conservation. I think it is incumbent on the Attorney-General to indicate to the Senate when he replies to the second reading debate what the intentions of the Government are should this Bill be amended at all in the Committee stage. The Senate is a House of review. It is always our right to seek to improve legislation. Governments of all persuasions seem to find that an uncomfortable situation to be in. It is never predictable how a government will react if a Senate, exercising its review function, quite reasonably moves to amend legislation. Out of deference for the time available and the flow of the debate I intend to conclude my remarks now. Before concluding I move an amendment to the motion for the second reading, which I indicated earlier I would do. I understand that the amendment has been circulated. It is the same as the amendment moved in the House of Representatives, apart from a very small change in wording to meet the Standing Orders of the Senate. Accordingly, I move: At end of motion add: '', but the Senate- (a) while recognising the need for adequate protection of areas placed on the World Heritage List, urges the Government to amend the Bill to take account of the need for individual listings to be the subject of a joint request by both the Parliament of the State which has made the application and of the Commonwealth; and (b) is concerned that the Government has failed to develop adequate procedures for the provision of fair and reasonable compensation to States, corporations or individuals whose property may be the subject of proclamation under the Act''. In conclusion I repeat that it is the intention of the Opposition not to do anything to impede this Bill going into the Committee stage so that we can attempt to improve it. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator HEARN(Tasmania)(8.0) —State rights have been the main cry of the Tasmanian Liberal Government and most Federal Opposition members in Tasmania but there has been no recognition of the rights of the Tasmanian people to jobs or to information. The obligation of Australia under the United Nations Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage has been ignored. On 2 December 1982, as recorded in Hansard, Senator Peter Rae said: . . . I am supporting declared Liberal Party policy, which was a joint policy at the time of the Commonwealth and the State Liberal parties, which has never changed. But a unilateral about turn, without discussion, took place on the part of the State party which wants to take different action. I just make the point because it is part of the explanation of the difficult position and the sadness of the position in which I find myself. I find it particularly so when I hear the argument put about this being an invasion of States' rights. In the first place there was a joint policy in relation to this. In the second place Tasmania , through its lawfully elected Government, took certain steps which meant that, by necessary consequence, it had forgone rights which it might otherwise have had. It requested the Commonwealth Government to apply for World Heritage listing of the South West National Park. Tasmanians are being misled by Mr Gray and his Liberal Party colleagues, both State and Federal. The actions and attitudes of Premier Gray have brought upon the people of Tasmania undeserved discredit and great distress. One must question the motivation of Mr Gray, his fellow Liberals and his associates. At present his close associate Mr Kelvin McCoy, President of the Organisation for Tasmanian Development, is in Bulgaria studying Marxist trade union philosophy. Yet we hear people in Tasmania accusing the Tasmanian Wilderness Society of being in receipt of communist money. The very facts can cause strange fantasies to arise. Tasmanians are people who want jobs. The people of Tasmania have been denied the unbiased and factual information to help them judge the situation at present. Senator Peter Rae —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It is quite simple. The honourable senator who is speaking quoted me as recorded in Hansard but she did not define when she had ceased quoting me. I would like her to do so and to make it quite clear what were my comments that she was quoting and what were her own. Senator HEARN —I apologise. The honourable senator's speech ended with the words : 'It requested the Commonwealth Government to apply for World Heritage listing of the South West National Park.' The Liberal Party has been silent in Tasmania about the right of the Tasmanian people to control the exploitation of our resources. The people of Tasmania have not been given the right to know how many jobs will be provided by the energy produced by the proposed Gordon below Franklin Dam. They have the right to know what companies have been invited to set up in Tasmania, where they will set up, who owns them and whether profits will go to Tasmania, the mainland or overseas. The Tasmanian people have not been told what kinds of industries will be invited to Tasmania, whether they are environmentally safe and whether they will be of benefit to Tasmania in the long term or of benefit only to the Hydro-Electric Commission. The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce states: But above all Tasmanians must recognise that when it comes to attracting industry, we can't afford to be choosy. We must make every effort to attract any industry, or the expansion of existing industries for which long term viability exists. The Australian Industries Development Association stated: According to the 1977 Callaghan report, the structural problems of the state's economy were related to a number of factors including the highly decentralised nature of Tasmanian population and industry; an industrial strategy emphasising cheap energy which would within the foreseeable future reach the limits of generating capability; and an overall government approach which could not match incentives offered in other states, particularly payroll tax rebates and was unwilling to increase revenues from other government sources to increase its flexibility. There were other structural problems too; a greater reliance on exports than the other states, increasing Tasmania's vulnerability to external forces; an industry structure significantly different from the rest of Australia , with a declining manufacturing and mining sector and no compensating growth in the tertiary sector unlike other states; and an inappropriate industry strategy which had, by encouraging energy-intensive users, attracted industries with only low-linkages into the state's economy, reducing potential employment growth below that which might have resulted from other types of industry and incentive schemes, and in some cases, exacerbated regional dependence on a sole employer. The Tasmanian people are entitled to have security as well as jobs. More and more people are realising that multinational companies and hydro- industrialisation do not ensure that security. Tasmania and the people of Tasmania are coming to realise that we need to find a new direction. At a seminar held last weekend at the University of Tasmania it was found that Tasmania must seek new economic directions if it wants a better position in the Federal system. The seminar was held by the Tasmania University Political Economy Society at the University. A report on the guest speaker, Dr Frank Stilwell, an Associate Professor of Political Economy at Sydney University, stated: . . . an active partnership between small, co-operative, and private enterprises and the State Government must be developed. It was the role of the Government to foster specialised, job-creating enterprises which showed potential in new industries or markets. He said the dependence on overseas-based companies which were energy and capital intensive, were no longer appropriate for Tasmania. Firms such as Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd, Repco Corporation Ltd, Temco Pty Ltd, Savage River Mines and Renison Bell and Consolidated Gold Fields Australia Ltd make decisions in boardrooms outside Tasmania which make Tasmanian workers redundant when there is a surplus of supply. We have the instance at Geeveston where APM was closed down, putting 128 families at risk. Since 1981 employment in the mining industry has dropped by 10 per cent yet electricity consumption has increased in some cases. Capital currently earmarked for environmentally harmful or resource wasteful projects could provide more social benefits and many more jobs if invested in alternative, environmentally sound activities. In Tasmania there are alternatives which could create jobs. Other sources of energy could be developed. There could be the development of wind and solar power and the conservation of energy by insulation, which of course the State Government has discouraged. Overseas countries offer incentives to consumers to conserve energy and so create further jobs. Bass Strait, only 70 kilometres from the shores of Tasmania, we are told has a trillion cubic feet of natural gas and could supply some of Tasmania's energy needs. The Tasmania Government, with its concentration on the Franklin Dam issue, has failed to make urgently needed decisions in the areas of health, education and job creation. The Tasmanian Liberal Government has so far refused to reveal the findings of a report on the Hydro-Electric Commission's future role and pricing policies. The terms of reference include a proposal to establish a supreme energy authority. In the Melbourne Age on Monday, Kenneth Davidson made a number of comments about the economic situation in Tasmania. He pointed out that the zinc, paper and aluminium industries were in decline. The Tasmanian people need industries which consider the needs of the community and which have a viable, permanent future-a future for our children's jobs and for their security. In 1975 an agreement between the Federal Liberal Party and the Liberal Party in Tasmania was reached. The joint statement included these words: The enlargement of the boundaries-- Of South West Tasmania- will require sacrifice on the part of the Tasmanian State Government and the Tasmanian people in the national interest. In effect the Australian people will be asking them to forgo revenue that might otherwise flow from unchecked development of the area in order to preserve for the nation an area considered of immense national significance. . . . we believe Commonwealth assistance to support the project should take two forms, direct aid in preparing management plans and implementation of them and the provision of technical facilities and appropriate scientific personnel to assist in the maintenance program, a measure of compensation for development opportunities forgone in respect of electricity generation, mining and forests. The report of the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania stated: Any decision to alter areas as significant as South West Tasmania should only be taken after an extensive examination of the alternatives and only when the decision makers are satisfied that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives. It is the Committee's view that this detailed examination has not been undertaken. I believe that in the past the people of Tasmania have been very conscious of their natural environment and its value. As early as 1916, they started to declare Ben Lomond, Frenchman's Cap, Freycinet Peninsula, Hartz Mountains, Mount Field and many other such areas as of value. They are the treasured legacy of yesterday's men who, in truth, are still tomorrow's men. Given the more recent alienations, losses and threats, the balance sheet for Tasmania would have been considerably reduced had it not been for the vision of men such as Nicholls, Rodway, Weindorfer and Truchanas. They were men who loved the wild places of Tasmania and they recognised what was special and unique about them. They understood the importance of such places to the sanity of men and women. They sought to ensure that these places remain accessible in the form in which they found them and walked in them and that future generations are also able to find that peace and that naturalness that they found. How can we explain what wilderness means and why it is important? How do we convince someone that to diminish wilderness is to diminish part of man himself? It is very difficult, but at least we can say that in the wilderness-in the natural parts which man has not desecrated for greed-there is the opportunity to communicate with and to experience the wisdom that created it, and in doing that one is able to recreate a part of oneself. The scientists of this space age have informed us the earth is an inexpressibly unique possession. In the entire solar system it alone possesses the water and oxygen sufficient to nourish a higher life, and every day in every part of the world we are destroying those support sources at an alarming rate. The environment should be destroyed or damaged only if it is to serve the needs of people. Yet so often today we find that economic greed-not the need of people-is being served. We live in a world which is becoming increasingly mechanised, noisy and crowded. Common sense tells us that it is not necessary to destroy the South West and the Franklin River in Tasmania, that there are other ways of providing energy and that there are many other ways of providing jobs. If people use the intelligence of our hearts and the finer sense that says that the economic aspect of the situation is not the only thing to be considered, we may be able to pass on things of value to our children. Legislation in America allows concerned citizens to sue and to halt projects for which there has been no adequate environmental impact statement. This has provided the legal basis for effective citizens' action against numerous projects, including the Alaska oil pipeline, the Florida Barge Canal and the Everglades airport. Is it too much that the people of Tasmania have the same right to say that part of Tasmania is valuable to them and to their children? Is it not important that our children should realise that some things should not be destroyed for any reason that has an economic base? If the South West is destroyed a part of Tasmania will go, and it will take not only its own value but also part of the value of the dreams of our children and the things that they should be able to hold and realise as an example of what they are called upon to do in the future; that is, to protect this earth. I hope that the people in whose hands the future of the South West depends will use not only their common sense but also the finer sense with which men are endowed. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(8.20) —The Australian Democrats are very pleased to see the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983 before this new Parliament because the Bill is, of course, a development of the private member's Bill, the World Heritage Properties Protection Bill 1982, which I introduced into the previous Parliament and which indeed passed the Senate. The Bill asserts what seems to the Australian Democrats a clear principle: The use of the external powers of the Commonwealth provided in the Constitution to preserve and conserve national assets which have an acknowledged international value. We believe that one cannot have one's cake and eat it too. If a State is fortunate enough, as Tasmania is-as Queensland and New South Wales are-to have a region of such acknowledged value in its pristine state that it is on the World Heritage List, it should be willing to accept responsibility for maintaining it intact and undamaged for future generations. This, of course, is a respectable world view. Honourable senators who have been able to move around on the ground in Europe will understand that a country such as Holland, which is flat and uninteresting apart from its cities, and most parts of the world now, lack this kind of wilderness area. It is something that the planet has almost lost. Because of that, it must be cherished by the human race at large. People who have charge of a particular area have a particular and peculiar responsibility to take charge of it responsibly, not only on their own behalf but also on behalf of future generations. Those people who prate about State rights and the rights of a State to do whatever damage it likes to whatever it wants do not accept that responsibility. That is a very serious matter indeed to the Australian Democrats . If one does not accept that ground, one must take the view that it will be perfectly okay for a Queensland government-I do not say the present one, but let us say some future Queensland government-to say: 'We are very short of cement in Australia. We do not have any lime to make cement; therefore, we have enormous resources of cement-making facilities in the Great Barrier Reef and we will use them'. It is obvious that that government would feel, in the interests of the State, that this industry would produce income and jobs. Therefore, ipso facto, it should be done. That is the sort of argument that we hear brought forward time and again in the Senate to justify some sort of mitigation and limitation of this Bill or, in its most extreme case-I am referring to what this Bill is really about, that is, South West Tasmania-that it is perfectly all right to proceed not only with the dam but also with cutting down the trees and carrying out all sorts of commercial activities in that area, regardless of the fact that it is a World Heritage property. Of what use is the external affairs power in the Constitution? What is the point of having a Federation, as we have in this country? What is the point of having a Commonwealth if it is not allowed to exercise reasonable rights? A State government may believe that a municipality or an individual, going down the areas of delegated power and responsibility, is wrong or that an individual' s interest conflicts with that of a municipality. If I build a house by the sea and I want to have a striped green, yellow and red roof, the council may say: ' You can't do that because it is affecting other people'. One could equally scream that that intrudes on my individual rights. That analogy would be just as valid and accurate as that used by people who say that not to be allowed to build a dam in South West Tasmania is an intrusion on Tasmania's State rights. That is absolute balderdash and should be freely acknowledged as such. The people of Tasmania, like the people of New South Wales and the people of Queensland, are, before anything else, Australians. If they are not, they are indulging in an un-Australian activity. They are despising and wilfully going against the views of the rest of their countrymen. I suggest that is not reasonably tolerable. Of course States have rights. They should exercise them properly. They should be given the power to exercise them within the terms of the agreement between the States and the Commonwealth, which is perfectly clear and which states that matters that concern external affairs or any relationship with the rest of the world are matters for the Commonwealth to decide. That is as it should be. After all, if we did not have that situation, how would it be possible for the nation to deal in any kind of integrated or uniform way with the rest of the world? We might as well say that the States should usurp the defence powers of the Commonwealth, that if a State thinks that it is not provided with enough defence facilities-Western Australia might think that it wants more warships-it should say: 'No, we will have a treaty with Vietnam, Singapore and Indonesia which is separate from the Commonwealth'. The argument over this issue has debased itself to that level. The people putting forward that argument should look at it very carefully before they propose it again. This Bill is designed ultimately to protect a number of properties as it proves necessary. The Australian Democrats see a considerable responsibility on the Government to ensure that this happens, since the Bill does not now confer automatic protection to all World Heritage properties. I know there may well be good reasons for that. But, be that as it may, it is a cause for considerable concern not only to the Australian Democrats but also, from the feedback I have received from the conservation movement and from many other individuals, to the people of this nation, the majority of whom do not want the dam built and the majority of whom, I suggest, would want all of the other World Heritage properties protected. We are not a poor country. We are not a country without resources. It is not necessary for us to destroy what is good and beautiful and what cannot be replaced. It is certainly not justifiable for us to do so on the specious, dishonourable, and unworthy ground that it might provide a few jobs for a few people for a few years. There are other means of providing jobs. Many propositions have been put forward to the Tasmanian Government which would be viable and much more useful and flexible for the production of electric power if it wished to do so. That part of Tasmania has been assessed by international experts as possibly by far and away the best part of the world for the use of wind generators. This is not a possibility for the distant future. If we think that, we are back in Rip Van Winkle land. If we go to Hawaii and travel through the larger islands we will find that probably one-third of the properties-farms, businesses and so on-already use wind generators to generate power. There has been a large wind generator for many years on Oahu, the principal island. In Jutland, there is a wind generator that for years has been producing power in the megawatt range. Of course this could be done in Tasmania with much greater flexibility. I propose that if Tasmania wished to do so it could create a new industry to manufacture these machines in various sizes. This could be used to provide a source of power for Tasmania and would then be an export industry. This would be a very sensible approach to the jobs situation. It would not be a one-off case. All of the people will be out of work once the dam is finished. This industry could go on for decades and possibly generations. It would give Tasmania the new industry and the innovative technology which it really needs and which, in the meantime, would have had a genuine conservational effect. The present Bill, of course, provides for proclamation only if and when a region is damaged. I can best illustrate our concern by referring to the Wallandra Lakes area in New South Wales. This beautiful area is at present under no threat whatsoever of damage from the present State and Federal governments. But if in the future a less conservation minded government were to come to power that area could be in considerable danger. The Governor-General, acting on the advice of this theoretical Federal government of the future, might well consider that a large, multi-storey casino-hotel complex, with tourist roads, tennis courts and a golf course, stuck in the middle of the region, would improve rather than damage it. Many people see this as a respectable point of view. Obviously, Mr Robin Gray in Tasmania does. He believes in development. By development he means that, regardless of any other consideration, one could take a piece of nature and turn it to one's purposes. In that case, of course that theoretical government would not proclaim the Wallandra Lakes under the Act and no further action could be taken. I suggest that, whatever reasons there are, this is still a dangerous gap in the Bill, one which at some stage must be filled, for the reasons which I have stated. At present the Bill is concerned intimately with South West Tasmania. It is based on whether a hydro-electric scheme to generate 180 megawatts of power, at a cost estimated at as high as $1 billion, should be built on the Gordon River. There are two aspects which have a very close bearing on this matter. One is environmental and the other is economic. Environmentally, the Gordon below Franklin dam has become a bench mark issue of enormous importance in this country. That is as it should be. It is a sign of the progress of this community and this society that that is so. I think one of the most encouraging things about the world in which we now live, its great advantage over the generation which preceded it, has been the growth over the last two decades or so of a large area of opinion that some parts of this unfortunate planet should be pre- served intact and that the monkey-like quality of human beings that allows them to feel free to despoil and destroy anything in nature is no longer good enough. Indeed, that simian activity of the Hydro-Electric Commission has attracted the unfavourable attention of the majority of Australians. A number of polls have shown this to be the case. One fears such organisations as the Hydro-Electric Commission, which may have many advantages commercially and in other ways but which lack the humanity of the individual person. Organisations of that kind, if they can be said to have a conscience at all, certainly have a much easier conscience than an individual human being might have. Whilst that may seem an obvious statement or a truism, I think it is something which is not always taken sufficiently into account. It is not enough to accept uncritically that a collective group of people hiding behind the facade of an organisation say that something should be so. Of course, the majority of Australians-some 55 per cent, I think, according to the latest poll-have not accepted the view of the Hydro-Electric Commission that there is any justification for this dam. The view of those Australians is quite simple. It has been expressed to me many times. There is no doubt about it. The dam project is regarded as a disgraceful and completely unjustified mauling of a pristine natural wonderland so highly regarded as to be part of the world heritage. This simple fact alone makes it necessary that this Bill be passed as soon as possible and an effective injunction sought from the High Court to stop all work on the dam project as soon as possible. I used strong words when I said that the project was seen as disgraceful and completely unjustified. The word 'unjustified' brings me to the economic aspect. I could do worse than to quote more extensively the article mentioned by Senator Hearn-Kenneth Davidson's article in the Melbourne Age of 5 May. In deference to Senator Peter Rae I will try to get the quotations in the right place, even though it is not him that I am quoting. Mr Davidson said: It is clear that mainland generosity is paying for that dam . . . Compared with the other States, where the electricity commissions now have to borrow all their money for expansion on the open capital market, or from retained earnings which involves higher prices, the Hydro-Electric Commission gets about 20 per cent of its money for investment from the State Treasury, that is, largely from the mainland. He continued later: The HEC reckons it will need to meet a demand of 1200 megawatts of capacity by 1990, according to a forecast made in 1979. Senator Walters —Have you checked to see whether that is accurate? Senator MASON —I am quoting Mr Davidson. I thought I made that clear to the honourable senator. The article continued: According to an estimate made by the then Department of National Development and Energy in 1982- This is accurate; I recall it quite well. In fact, it was before a committee, as Senator Walters may recall. Mr Davidson continued: the demand in 1990 is more likely to be 1000 megawatts, which would postpone the need for the 170 megawatts of average generating capacity provided by the Franklin dam. I think the point made there is abundantly clear; that according to the estimate of the Department of National Development and Energy of the last Liberal Government-not the present Government-the dam is not necessary. I would have thought that was a perfectly plain and obvious fact that might be taken more into consideration by people who speak to this issue. Mr Davidson further stated : If the Franklin goes ahead, financed in part from excess funding from the Commonwealth, and the HEC has horrendous excess capacity in 1991 when Franklin is operational, what will Tasmania do? A hydro power station is not like a thermal one. Particularly, all the costs occur irrespective of whether it is generating electricity or not. This means the HEC will hawk the electricity around the world, for whatever price it can get. And whose throat will that cut? I hope by now you've guessed it. It will be the eastern State thermal stations . . . If Mr Hawke has the national interest at heart he must tell Tasmania that irrespective of the High Court decision, excessive funding to Tasmania will be cut, and this will force the Government of Tasmania to look at the Franklin with a commercial, rather than an emotive eye. This was not me speaking. I do not necessarily endorse that view but I will say that it is expressed by one of the most responsible economic commentators in this country. I will read on a little further. Mr Davidson said: The fact is, Tasmania is ripping off the Federal system. According to the Grants Commission, Tasmania is getting about $60m a year more than it should from the central pool in order to maintain equality of service and equality of sacrifice with the standard States of Victoria and New South Wales. This is a lot of money for a tiny State like Tasmania. To get it in scale let us put it this way: As a senator for New South Wales I say, with all respect to Tasmania, that the total population of Tasmania is about the size of the total population of Blacktown and the surrounding western suburbs of Sydney. If the Mayor of Blacktown came to the Commonwealth asking for an additional $60m a year I think he would be told where he could go. There are other reasons why the extra $60m is allocated. All of us here know why that is so. Mr Davidson continued: For instance, on the assumption that a decent job-creation scheme would cost $ 40,000 a year per job- which is high- that is 1500 jobs a year which the mainland is generating in Tasmania and which should rightfully belong on the mainland. Or if the Tasmanians wanted to maintain the higher level of services now provided gratis by the mainland, it would involve an increase of $350 a year tax burden on each Tasmanian taxpayer. I think that sets the matter in perspective. I do not necessarily agree with those points. I think there are good reasons why Tasmanians should have this additional assistance, but surely a place which is pleased to avail itself of this additional advantage from the rest of the community-for good reasons-might also feel that it has a certain responsibility to the rest of the nation. If it is good enough for it to take from the rest of the nation surely it is not unreasonable to ask it to give. I think it would be a very selfish person indeed who did not agree with that. I know perfectly well that those reasonable, responsible people in Tasmania-a place of which I am personally very fond and where I have many good friends-would agree with me on this matter and not with the troglodyte Tasmanian senators in this place who are interested mainly in confirming the power of a small grouping which occupies Parliament House in Hobart. That is really what they are on about. They are not on about the interests of Tasmanians in general at all. They are not interested in Australia. They are interested only in that little group of people who want to maintain their political hold on Parliament House in Hobart. That is really what this debate is about and that is why we get the story we do from Tasmanian senators in this place. I think the people of Tasmania are reaonable, sensible people who listen to good sense, who understand and who are deeply concerned about the fact that they now have a Premier who is going ahead bullheaded with something which he knows perfectly well, which I know and which they know is dangerously uneconomic. I hope that in the light of these facts all this nonsense we have heard today and will continue to hear in this debate-I see there are about 18 speakers listed for the second reading debate-that all this garbage about State rights will cease. It is not a viable argument in this connection. I repeat that the States have rights; of course they do, but they also have responsibilities and duties to the nation as a whole. There is a belief among the conservationists that the Hydro-Electric Commission is proceeding rapidly with damage to South West Tasmania because it is deliberately seeking that. I am told that there is a line of thought, which, if it exists, is stupid as well as dangerous, that if the High Court can be told that most of the damage has already been done, that the thing is so far advanced that the Commission might as well go ahead with it, the Court might rule against this Bill. I cannot believe that that is happening. I cannot believe that there are people, even in Tasmania, who would take such a cynical and unpleasant view as that. All I am saying is that there is a belief among conservationists that this is the case. Appearances in politics and events are almost as important as facts and I think it is very important that this situation should be changed. If Mr Gray wanted to see that that talk ceased he would have a very easy way of doing it. He would say to the people of Tasmania: 'I want to go ahead with this dam but I am in conflict with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has brought forward regulations and is passing a Bill which will stop it. It is going to the High Court. I, as a practical, reasonable politician have to say to myself and to you that there is a good chance of this being stopped. Therefore, it is not in your interests that I go ahead and create damage in this area at your cost, at the cost of Tasmanians and other Australians'. That risk exists. If Mr Gray wants to show himself as a statesman who will be remembered for statesman-like qualities and who will have earned the respect of Australians generally, he will have to take only a very small step and say tomorrow that he will stop work on that project until this matter is resolved. I do not see that as an unreasonable request. I would be very interested to hear from honourable senators who differ with me why they think it is an unreasonable request. Of course it is reasonable. It should be done, and the sooner the better. Today I have an update of the work that is actually going on at the dam site. This is one time that I wish the Senate were televised. If it were it might be possible to show people who are now listening on the radio pictures of the appalling damage which is being done in that area. I cannot begin to describe it . One glance at some of the photographs I have seen would make it quite plain to people that there is no question of this dam being built without damaging the region. As they say: One picture is worth a thousand words. I only regret that that cannot be done. I ask people wherever they see displays in conservation headquarters, through the Australian Conservation Foundation or through the Wilderness Society, to have a good look at them and see what damage is being done to that area. I ask them also to bear in mind what I said earlier: Quite likely this is being done to no good purpose but purely because some people have painted themselves into a pig-headed position from which they are too small- minded or too pig-headed to retreat. The temporary camp at Warners Landing now, we understand, houses some 40 workers. There are bulldozers there and a roller. The Warners Landing position is being widened and extended, as is the road near the so-called temporary camp. We understand that heating is being put into the cabins there in the expectation , presumably, that work will go on all winter. The road between Warners Landing and the dam site will probably be completed by the end of this week. It is now less than half a kilometre from completion. We understand that work has been speeded up to get it finished so that other more destructive work can commence as soon as possible. I am told that myrtle trees estimated to be between three centuries and four centuries old are being destroyed every day in this area so this work can be carried out. The new drill site directly above the dam site is now some 65 metres in depth. The last drill hole, I understand, struck water. We understand that solid rock for the dam base has still not been located. The other regrettable situation about this is that it appears that all this work is going on without any real knowledge as to whether a dam can be built in that area sensibly or not. It appears from the preliminary audits of exploratory tunnels that the proposed site for the dam may not be suitable anyway. Senator Jack Evans —Their engineering is as bad as their economics. Senator MASON —Senator Evans said that their engineering is as bad as their economics. If that is so, God help the people of Tasmania because they are likely to have not only a white elephant but also something which is dangerous and useless as well. I think there is good cause to investigate this and for the Premier of Tasmania to make some pretty positive statements about whether or not this project, which he makes so much of, is viable and what its cost really will be. It seems to the Australian Democrats that the prospect for Australia and especially for the Tasmanian people is one of a large immovable object being placed, at enormous cost, in an especially damaging way in a World Heritage area , one of the finest wilderness regions remaining in the world. I would like to read from a letter which appeared in today's Bulletin. It is all the more appropriate because it was written by a Tasmanian, Mr H. Donald of Westbury. The letter, which is quite short, states: A scratch across a record, a tear through the Mona Lisa, a stake through the human heart, or a dam in the wilderness affects one per cent or less of the total area. The end result in all cases is the same. That is the letter in its totality. The analogy presented in the letter is abundantly sound and ought to be an answer to those who say that there is no reason why a proportion of this region should not be despoiled because there will be some left. People who say that have failed to understand, or are incapable of understanding, the attitude of those of us who want the Tasmanian wilderness preserved intact as an asset for future generations. It is something which the world is extremely short of and which cannot be replaced. Those apologists for the dam, for all I know, would be quite satisfied with a Mona Lisa with the nose torn off or the eyes defaced. Again I suggest that the analogy is a reliable one. Senator Chipp —Senator Walters would draw a moustache on it. Senator MASON —Senator Chipp, with all respect to Senator Walters I believe she is a good Tasmanian and in her heart of hearts is very concerned about this matter. I do not really think that Senator Walters wants the dam built. When she speaks to us later I hope she will say to us that she has listened to what we have said and after all this time her better nature, which is there within her, Senator Chipp, has triumphed and she will agree with us. We will see when she comes to speak on this debate. It is because of the analogy of the Mona Lisa and the letter which I read from the Bulletin that I have said some very harsh things in the past on this subject ; that Tasmania, which is a well-loved and valuable part of Australia, is at present temporarily in the hands of barbarians. I say that again. The vandalism going on in South West Tasmania must be stopped and as soon as possible. Viewed from any point of view proceeding with the dam is an unmitigated disaster for Australia. It is a disaster environmentally and it is a disaster economically. One more aspect of importance is the further rapid growth of new technologies for smelting aluminium. Honourable senators know that Tasmania has the second highest consumption of electricity in the world, not because every Tasmanian has four television sets and three refrigerators but because it takes an appalling amount of electric power to smelt aluminium by the old Bayer process. However, I have been in touch with one of the world's not too small corporations, the Mitsui corporation in Japan. I think everybody would respect that corporation's integrity and ability in research. It has patented in Australia a new blast furnace system for smelting aluminium using a catalyst which expert people with far more knowledge in this area than I have say is likely to be a goer. I have written to Mitsui. It is at the first pilot plant production stage. Mitsui says that it is putting vast amounts of money into it and that pretty soon it will be a goer, in eight or nine years' time-ironically enough just about the time the Gordon below Franklin Dam will be finished if, indeed, it proceeds. I do not believe it should proceed. I do not believe that it will proceed because of the reasons I have mentioned. It is my belief that even in government sources in Tasmania there will eventually be some sanity and some basic intelligence. The point abut the Mitsui process is that it uses something like one-tenth of the electric power that the old process uses. So the last and most terrible prospect for this dam is that it will be built, will sit there as a great mass of steel and concrete, and in 9 or 10 years' time it will be a white elephant, utterly useless to anybody for anything, capable of generating electric power for which there is no use whatsoever. Assuming, as I said earlier, that wind generators had been used collectively to provide this power if Tasmania really had to have it, they could be dismantled and sold and exported to Tasmania's profit. But the Gordon below Franklin Dam cannot be pulled down and dismantled. When it becomes a white elephant it will stay there forever. If it is built it will lie there for centuries as a momumental testimony to the stupidity and narrow-mindedness of people in this country who retreat behind the silly hedge of what they perceive as States' rights. Finally, there are no better champions of genuine States' rights than the Australian Democrats. We are a party at all levels of government. We have members in State parliaments and we respect States' rights. There is no way in the world we would remove ourselves from that position. But this does not mean that peoples of different States can say: 'We are Tasmanians, we are Queenslanders, we are Victorians, we are New South Welshmen; we will do what we like with our little bit if Australia. We will mess up our backyard. To hell with you, you only live next door'. Because of that, I honestly and sincerely commend this Bill to the Senate. Senator HILL(South Australia)(8.50) —I want to put the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983 and my attitude to it in the context of events that have developed over the last 18 months. The Senate will recall the Australian Democrats' World Heritage Properties Protection Bill which was mentioned tonight and which was passed on 14 December last year. That was a Bill for an Act to give effect to the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. It was, therefore, limited to the World Heritage Convention. In the second reading debate on that Bill I said that I agreed that Australia must abide by the terms of conventions into which it had entered. However, the Government at that time was considering the action that it should take to protect South West Tasmania. It accepted its obligation with regard to identification and we understood that at that time Cabinet was determining what steps it would take. Therefore, I argued at the second reading stage of that Bill that it was inappropriate that it proceed at that time. However, it did proceed and I, therefore, voted against it. On 8 December the now famous ministerial statement on South West Tasmania was put down. In that statement the Government stated that it desired the listing to proceed and noted the qualities of the South West. I quote briefly from that statement. It noted: . . . the Government's firm belief in the international importance of this area and its outstanding biological and cultural qualities which have been recognised by its inclusion on the Register of the National Estate. Here I would make special reference to the archaeological sites, the Huon pine habitat, the temperate rainforest and the other unique features of this area. The statement went on to say that the Government did not intend to intervene in the construction of the dam-that is after stating the qualities that I have just mentioned-and then added a somewhat amazing statement in which it accepted the flooding but said that it would nevertheless endeavour to preserve the caves. I quote those few lines from the statement: Whilst Fraser Cave and other caves of archaeological significance will be flooded by the dam, I am advised by Mr McVeigh that every endeavour will be made to preserve this important part of our heritage. Of course, that was an amazingly inconsistent statement and, as far as I was concerned, was an abdication of the Government's responsibility under the international heritage convention. So when the third reading of the Democrats' Bill subsequently came on I voted in favour of it. The site, of course, was duly listed on 15 December of last year. It is interesting to note the observations given by the listing authority at that time. These are the observations in relation to the effect of the dam: The committee is seriously concerned at the likely effect of dam construction in the area on these natural and cultural characteristics which make the property of outstanding universal value in particular, and consider that flooding of parts of the river valleys would destroy a number of cultural and natural features of great significance as identified in the IUCN and International Council for Monuments and Sites Report. We recommend to the Australian society to take every possible measure to protect the integrity of the site. That is a highly respected international body which has made that statement. Somewhat embarrassingly the body had to continue to suggest that Australian authorities should ask the World Heritage Committee to place the property on the list of world heritage in danger until the question of dam construction was resolved. Basically the list of world heritage in danger concerns those countries which, for reasons of lack of resources, are unable to protect through their own ability sites that appear on the World Heritage List. I regard as highly embarrassing the fact that this body should suggest to Australia that perhaps it should consider putting South West Tasmania into that category. On 19 January of this year the Government did attempt to make co-operative federalism work. It did so in a statement which I applaud. The Senate will recall that that is the statement in which the Fraser Government made a considerably generous offer to Tasmania. I will quote from two small sections of that statement: The Commonwealth is prepared to provide a grant of the full capital cost of a modern environmentally-clean, coal-fired power station in Tasmania to generate an amount of electricity equivalent to that which would be generated as a result of damming the Gordon below the Franklin. Further, if it is necessary in order to reduce the cost of thermal power to that of hydro power, the Commonwealth will guarantee to provide on an annual basis a share of the cost of coal (which might be needed to be in the order of 40 per cent) for the life of the power station. . . . The Commonwealth's offer, estimated to cost around $500m at present day prices, comprising $250m for the capital and $250m assistance in meeting the cost of coal, would mean that additional electrical power would be available to Tasmania at the same price as if the Gordon below Franklin were dammed. Unfortunately, although this was an attempt to involve all Australia in paying for the cost of preservation, it was astonishingly dismissed out of hand. Of course, a change of government occurred in early March. Then the new Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) sent a letter to the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Gray, on 18 March 1983 confirming the commitment of his Government in relation to this matter. In a small section of that letter he said: . . . we repeat our commitment to: ensure the long term energy needs of Tasmania are met; assist in developing a regional economic plan aimed at both short and long term employment needs; and assist the development of a South West Tasmania Management Authority. Of course, that offer was also rejected by Premier Gray. On 28 March, not long later, Prime Minister Hawke wrote again to Premier Gray. In the letter he said: In our view the people of Tasmania want: guaranteed energy supplies to cover both the present and future needs; equivalent employment opportunities; and the resolution of this conflict. These legitimate objectives can only be attained by discussion and negotiation. We call upon your Government as an act of good faith to declare a moratorium on the current works on the Gordon below Franklin and to commence discussions with my Government on alternative power and employment initiatives. I know that that letter did not set out specifics but it was clearly an offer to negotiate something that I believe Tasmania really wants and needs. Again, unfortunately, that was rejected out of hand. That leads us to 30 March of this year when the Federal Government made regulations under section 69 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act purporting to prohibit construction works. Then unfortunately we had the foolish and antagonistic move on the part of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to send the Royal Australian Air Force to Tasmania to gain evidence for the Commonwealth's case. The Government then introduced this new Bill designed to give it maximum opportunity to succeed, but going far beyond its obligations under the World Heritage Convention. Queensland joined Tasmania in the action. The Labor States fell in behind the Federal Government. So we have in place a classic constitutional confrontation and a tragic and absolute failure of co-operative federalism. Why is it a tragedy? The answer is that all thinking Australians should want to protect South West Tasmania in the same way as Kakadu National Park, the Willandra Lakes Region, the Great Barrier Reef and the Lord Howe Island group-the other four listed Australian assets. The western Tasmanian wilderness national parks area covers a large part of one of the last remaining temperate wildernesses in the world. As such, its flora and fauna deserve much greater scientific investigation. Its archaeological significance is rapidly growing in stature. Although I have not time on this occasion, I commend to honourable senators the formal nominaton to the World Heritage Commission which details the justification for including this particular area on that highly prestigious international list. In terms of the Convention itself, by simply presenting the land area to the international body both the Commonwealth Government and the Tasmanian Government claimed it to be a natural and cultural heritage of outstanding universal value. Therefore, I would have thought it was almost unthinkable that any government of Australia would condone at least its partial destruction. However, I accept that there will often be a clash of interests between preservation of a natural resource and the commercial development of that resource, and that in assessing development programs there must be a balancing of the resource as part of the natural heritage and the value to be obtained from exploiting that resource in some other way. For example, with the milling of native forests, a value must be attached to both resources, the natural on the one hand and the commercial on the other. To some extent those values will be subjective, and on some occasions both can be accommodated. That assessment goes to the heart of our national park network. I invite the Senate to forget for a moment the obligations that exist under the international convention, which I will get to in a little while, and to look at that weighing process in relation to South West Tasmania. On the one hand, something is accepted as being of outstanding universal value. On the other hand , there is a large dam and a small power station capable of producing about 180 megawatts of power with a number of claimed advantages. The paramount claimed advantage is a cost advantage. I spent about 15 months as a member of the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania looking principally at the question of demand for power in Tasmania and alternatives for supplying that demand. The Committee concluded that there was no need from a demand point of view to commence on a major option for at least three years, if at all-the major options being either a coal-fired thermal plant, interconnection with Victoria or the Franklin-Gordon-King integrated or separ- ated schemes-and that contrary to popular belief in certain demand scenarios interconnection with Victoria may not be more expensive than hyrdo-produced power. If we add to the offer of the Fraser Government which offered, as I clearly stated some time ago, to compensate for any additional cost of a coal-fired power station-the offer that has since been made by the Hawke Government-there appears to be no cost advantage to Tasmania at all in proceeding with this project. In fact, it can be said that the offers that have been made are extremely generous. Also to be weighed on that side of the scales, it is suggested, are the short term jobs that will be maintained through the construction of this dam. That was also covered in the letter of Prime Minister Hawke. I remind the Senate that the jobs being spoken of are short term jobs and that various other small dam alternatives have been identified and were referred to in the Senate report on South West Tasmania, as were the sites upon which the Hydro-Electric Commission in Tasmania has already done a great deal of work. With the right attitude much of the work force could be moved to these alternative sites which do not have the same conservation value. It is also suggested on that side of the scales that if one looks to a coal plant there is the problem of greater pollution. That is technically correct but, I may suggest, not so significant in relation to the size of the small plant of which we are speaking, which is really a minute plant in comparison with coal-fired thermal electricity producing plants. It would also be a plant with modern technology, which has gone a long way to reduce the significance of pollution. Of course, if the interconnection possibility were proceeded with there would be no further pollution in Tasmania whatsoever. Therefore, very little is balanced on the one side against that natural resource which is accepted to be of outstanding international value on the other. I address the question of whether a compromise could work. The dam cannot be built without the destruction of the Fraser Cave. We know that there have been suggestions that the cave could be in some way transported to another site. This was suggested by a consultant to the Tasmanian Government. This suggestion was taken up by the Committee with Professor Mulvaney and Dr Rhys Jones, archaeologists of great note in Australia. I quote one line by Dr Jones which appears on page 1748 of the transcript of the proceedings of the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania. When the question of whether that possibility existed was put to him, he answered: . . . But once you have removed material out of a context it loses its value. So that suggestion does not appear to be an open alternative. There is no dispute that the building of the dam will destroy a large area of the wilderness . I have quoted from the international body its reaction to that destruction. We do have a Convention and obligations under it. Australia is a party to that Convention. Under Article 4 of the Convention the obligation is quite clear: The obligation is upon the party to the Convention to ensure the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and-I particularly ask honourable senators to note-transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage that has been identified. Under Article 5 of the Convention there is an obligation, insofar as it is possible and appropriate, for each country even to take such legal measures as are necessary to protect, preserve and transmit that heritage. If the Commonwealth cannot act constitutionally and exhausts its negotiating power, clearly it is not in breach of the World Heritage Convention because, as we are often reminded in this chamber, we have a Federation. The Federal Government does not have all powers within the legislative arena. It does have the powers enumerated in section 51 of the Constitution. It does have the so-called implied national power. After Koowarta's case, to me it is quite legitimate for the Commonwealth to claim power under the external affairs power, placitum (xxix). The power has to be interpreted in circumstances of contemporary Australia, not the Australia of 80 years ago. The High Court may find that it is not prepared to extend the power further but on the basis of the Koowarta case I can see no reason whatsoever why the Commonwealth should not legitimately claim that power. It can also legitimately argue that it has power under the 'other races' power, placitum (xxvi). It is certainly arguable that it has power under the 'implied national' power. In fact, I see that as particularly appropriate, because assets such as South West Tasmania are primarily Australian assets, the preservation of which all Australians should have an interest in. However, I accept that primarily land use is a State affair . But when we have a unique national asset of outstanding universal importance it becomes a national asset. If it is to be preserved for all Australians, all Australians have to bear the cost. If a State government determines to destroy it, all Australians have the right to expect the national Government to take whatever legal action is open to it to preserve that asset. I believe that it would be grossly negligent for the Commonwealth Government to fail so to act. But it should never occur because anyone would normally expect the State Government to bend over backwards to achieve the same aim. If the Tasmanian Government determined to proceed despite all offers made, the action by the Federal Government to protect appears to me to be totally legitimate. It is not the desirable course. The desirable course would have been co-operative federalism. But I regret to say that it appears that Premier Gray has acted with a blind determination to build this dam. I regret saying that because when this matter of South West Tasmania is over I am confident that he will offer good government to Tasmania. I was most impressed during the recent National Economic Summit Conference to hear his speech, which could be themed as getting Australia ready for taking off, his calling for greater confidence and a more positive approach. I thought it was an excellent speech. In the future I have no doubt that he will offer good government. But the matter of South West Tasmania seems to have blinded his direction for the moment Will legislation to destroy listed areas destroy the Federation? Of course, the answer is no. The High Court of Australia will determine whether the legislation is within the powers. That is how the Federation is designed to work and that is how it is working in this instance. It follows that an Act under which the Commonwealth acts to protect a world heritage listed asset will receive my enthusiastic support. But at this stage I must register my bitter disappointment . The World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill purports to go far beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose. Clause 6, sub-clause (2) paragraph (a) of the Bill would have been sufficient to have done so. But under the present provisions that the Senate has before it, the Commonwealth could take action where conservation is a matter of international concern 'for any reason'. That is a practically boundless provision. The Commonwealth can take action whenever it appears 'peculiarly appropriate' to do so. I do not know what that means. Further, the Commonwealth can take action to protect whenever it can get an advantage or benefit under a treaty by doing so. What a mysterious provision that is. I have to stand by how I vote. I am not prepared to vote for such ambiguous and open-handed clauses. I accept that we must go up the road of protection of unique national assets that are not necessarily of universal value. But let us have an open debate on that subject, not an attempt to get it through this Senate under the guise of something else. I do not know why the Government has gone so far with this legislation or why it has drawn it in such wide, vague and ambiguous terms. Some people have suggested that it is part of some expansionary scheme of the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke. I do not know the answer to that. But certainly the form of the legislation arouses suspicion. It is certainly disappointing to me because unless the Bill can be cut back to the real issue I cannot support it at its third reading, as I desired to do. The obligation is to transmit to future generations. I have no doubt that if we destroy South West Tasmania, we will be condemned, and rightly so, by future generations for our short-sighted, narrow-minded selfishness. In fact, it is not even selfishness on the basis of the matters that I have put before the Senate tonight which indicate that there is no financial advantage to Tasmania whatsoever. It is not selfishness; it is foolishness. Let us put the Bill in a form that all of us who accept our responsibilities to all Australians can support so that we can act responsibly for the benefit of not only those in this nation today but also future generations. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(9.15) —The World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983 has been introduced to provide for the protection and conservation of places in Australia or under Australian control that are recognised as part of the natural or cultural heritage of our world, not just our country. I think it is interesting to note that, over recent years, there has been an enormous increase-already alluded to by Senator Mason-in awareness of the values that we want to place on things on this planet. This has shifted considerably from what it was in, let us say, the time of our parents. We are now looking at people in our community who place a lot of value on the need to preserve certain areas and sites, not only for ourselves but for the world and our children. One of the things to which this Bill addresses itself is, if you like, adding to the list of the wonders of the world. When I was a child there were seven wonders of the world. I never did know them ; I still could not tell honourable senators what they are. But I think we are now saying that there are many wonders in our world. The Leaning Tower of Pisa is one of the wonders that I recall, but I never knew where the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were. I think one of the things that colour the way in which we now look at the wonders of the world is that we do not just want our community to vote for technological advances or wonders. We unashamedly commend things such as the Sydney Opera House or the Taj Mahal. I am sure that people are very pleased to celebrate those mighty technological advances. But at the same time people are placing a great value on things other than technological advances. They are now saying that there is a great value in preserving bushland. There are many examples of this in Australia. Already areas are preserved which are not on the World Heritage List but which are regarded with great favour by Australian people. In South Australia we have the preservation of what is called Flinders Chase on Kangaroo Island. A large part of that island is natural bushland, as it ever has been. I know that not only South Australians but all Australians are delighted that that piece of original Australian bushland remains. If any honourable senators ever have the chance to visit Flinders Chase they will find pens there to keep in the people and to keep out the animals. Humans are seen as intruders or temporary visitors. Another of the places that are on the World Heritage List or are on record as places of value in this country is Lord Howe Island. We are now talking about South West Tasmania. But other places in our world, such as the Grand Canyon in the United States of America, are not places of technological advance. In fact, the Grand Canyon is probably an ancient place with no technology but only that which has been performed by natural world forces, such as volcanoes and rivers. To return again to Australia, there are places such as the south coastland of Victoria, the rain forests of eastern Australia and the Flinders Ranges in South Australia. Any number of arguments will now be advanced to support the preserving or maintaining of these places unspoilt, as it were. There are places which some people regard as areas of peace and perspective-places to which people can withdraw and put into perspective their lives in the cities. These are temporary places for people. There are also places that allow the preservation of our native flora and fauna. One thing that is most singular about Australia-in fact, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, drew it to our attention last week-is the animal life in this country. Although the Minister is wont to say that there is more about Australia that is marvellous than our kangaroos and koalas, they are very distinctive to this continent and I think they are things that all Australians unashamedly want to see preserved. Other arguments that people advance for the preservation of such areas become more specific. We hear people talking about the need to preserve our ozone layer and to maintain a sufficient amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. One of the most important arguments for the preservation of rain forests embraces those two points. In fact, the rain forests in this world have been savagely reduced, to the point where they are worrying those people who understand such things as ozone layers. I admit to being one of those people who do not really understand what constitutes an ozone layer or what will happen if we do not have it. But I believe the evidence from people in a position to know who say that these things are most important to continuing life on our planet. There are other arguments in terms of environmental protection about what is on the ground rather than what is in the atmosphere. Other people advance very strong arguments along anti-pollution lines. What we see now, though, is a huge number of people in our world who are aware of an increasing amount of evidence. They are beginning to realise the significant price we have paid for the advances in our society-advances that we want and that all of us are working for -and I think we have come to a time when people will say: 'We want these advances in perspective, not mindless advances, not chopping down every tree and not destroying our atmosphere'. This argument is entirely different from what would have pertained 100 years ago or more when people in this country would have said: 'We need shelter. We need to chop down trees to build houses and protect ourselves. We need shelter to survive in this primitive country'. That argument has changed completely. One of the persuading things about it is the number of people who buy the argument now. We have a common view that we need to preserve our heritage. We need to preserve not only our flora and fauna, our ground spaces and wildernesses but also our past or at least places where we can find evidence of our past. Much, of course, is still unknown to us, but we seek a lot for our future by looking at and discovering our past. This points to the significance of the archaeological sites in the South West Tasmanian region. Not only will they tell us about ancient peoples in this world, but they will also tell us much more about the Aboriginal people and their culture and heritage. I am sure all Australians, not only Aboriginal Australians, will be interested in knowing that. It could be said, I suppose, that this is an argument in favour of the luxury of knowledge but I think many people will support it. I certainly do. The various aspects of the argument, as I am puting it, must not be ignored and will not be ignored by this Government. The interesting thing is that the Opposition in fact agrees. In particular, it believes in the force of this argument in relation to the South West Tasmanian area. I will quote from an editorial in the Australian on 3 April 1983. It states: Most Australians do not believe the proposed dam should be built. There are powerful environmental arguments against the dam. They are strengthened by anthropological significance of the area which would be flooded. The economic case for the dam is certainly not so strong-many experts would argue that it is remarkably weak-as to tip the balance in favour of the destruction of a rare and precious area of natural beauty. The point that I emphasise in the editorial in the Australian is the claim that most Australians do not believe that the proposed dam should be built. Further to the points I have been making, the Sydney Morning Herald on 22 April 1983 refers to Mr Cohen's speech in the House of Representatives in support of the World Heritage Properties Protection Bill. The article states: He pointed to a growing international awareness of heritage values and a 'sense of concern and shared responsibility for the protection of the cultural and natural heritage.' . . . This bill is to provide a means of protection of last resort . . . The point I stress is that many people are aware of the importance of a natural heritage. There are a number of references in the Age on 6 May 1983 indicating the Opposition's support for this position. An article written by Simon Balderstone states: The controversial World Heritage Bill passed through the House of Representatives last night, with members of both sides expressing strong anti- dam feelings. The Leader of the National Party, Mr Anthony, said that he did not want the dam built . . . He did go on to say, however, that the debate was about State rights. The article continues: Dr Edwards (NSW) said . . . many MHR and senators from the Opposition were strongly opposed to the dam and were convinced, as he was, that most Australians did not want the dam to proceed. Dr Edwards said the attitude was broad-based. 'It is not just the 'greenies', as some so vociferously proclaim, who hold that view' . . . He said many, if not a majority, of Liberal members in the NSW Parliament held the view, as did the Young Liberal movement and the Australian and New Zealand Academies of Science. A Liberal frontbencher, Mr Ruddock (NSW) said he was also against the dam. The former Minister for Environment, Mr Wilson (Lib. SA) spoke at length on the wilderness and heritage values of south-west Tasmania, said the bill was 'very bad' because of its wide powers. The quotes from those newspaper cuttings are evidence of what we do know; that is, that many members on the Opposition benches are also totally opposed to the dam being built. Their problem, which I will come to, is the nature of the Bill. We know from the last election and from any number of polls that the people of Australia, as well as the politicians of either side, are in opposition to the dam. I will quote from the Adelaide Advertiser of 19 February 1983 which refers to Dr Bob Brown. It captures another perspective which I think is relevant to the broader Australian populace. It states: As a politician he is determined 'to see the Franklin River running free, and to preserve a heritage which is more pressing than today's major issues, the only issue in this election which is going to affect the lives of Australians 100 years from now.' . . . The Franklin River is more than a fight for a wild river in a beautiful country -it is a fight against technological over-kill which is engulfing the industrial world . . . We need a sociological awakening in the general human section of what is going on on this planet if we are going to have this golden age where sanity prevails and we use technology to make life great. Dr Brown captures a very important range of attitudes that many Australians hold . Many people are confused by economic arguments and arguments by the Hydro- Electric Commission in terms of power but they are very well aware of what they want in terms of the preservation of the beauty of this country. I also want to comment on the number of young people I know-young can be anywhere from 15 years to 70 years or certainly 15 years to 50 years-who have found themselves so caught up by this issue that they have gone to Tasmania, risking arrest or choosing to be arrested. They have done this at their own cost because of a very passionate commitment to the preservation of this very beautiful area. This captures too another very important dimension; that is that in this deeply troubled time of recession in Australia any number of young people found this as a cause of optimism, something to which they could attach their ideas and ideals. They went to South West Tasmania much in the vein that here was something beautiful about which they could take a stand. They could be part of it and do something instead of sitting around with very little to do and certainly very little optimism. The whole question of support for the Heritage Bill and listing of this beautiful area of Tasmania is not new. The idea of world heritage listing is something Australia has been involved with since the origin of the World Heritage Convention in 1975. Australia was one of the first countries to support and be involved in that Convention. In 1981 the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser , 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 whole concept was good not only for individual people but also for the whole of mankind and was surely a profound expression of co-operation between people and a willingness to share. We have the record of the Opposition's support for the ideas and ideals of the World Heritage Committee. We have on record its opposition to the dam. We even have its offer of compensation for any loss accruing to Tasmania in terms of potential from the building of the dam, which was so well spelt out by Senator Hill. The big difference between this Government and the Opposition is still what this Government is prepared to do to make sure that this Tasmanian wilderness is preserved. The Government's intention in introducing this Bill is to enable the preservation of that area to be guaranteed. Of course, the Bill not only addresses itself to South West Tasmania, it also addresses itself to any heritage area designated in Australia. But the legislation has the immediate effect of supporting the Government's action and claims for South West Tasmania. Sometimes the Opposition argues that the question is one of States rights and whether the Federal Government can intervene in the affairs of a State on such matters. I do not think this Government flinches from that business. Although this Government is on record as supporting States rights, as is the Opposition, this Government is also prepared to say that governing is about right minded people drawing distinctions and trying to define what is the exact issue of debate in this chamber. The Government does not flinch from saying that that is what it is about. A general principle may be involved but in this case the Government's view will be different. There have been other examples or precedents and sometimes I am quite surprised at the Opposition's claim that there has been no precedent of this sort. I would have thought that the seeking of oil exploration licences in the Great Barrier Reef area would have been one such example. If the Tasmanian Government had acted to protect its wilderness, as listed on the World Heritage List, there would have been no need for any consideration of the Federal Government acting in this way to protect this area. This Bill, as people have often claimed, is a means of protection as a last resort. Australian do not want the dam. This Government has introduced this Bill to give effect to that wish of the Australian people. I will not go into the arguments for why this area should be listed in great detail. Again I think they have been very well spelt out by previous speakers. In summary, however, I say that it is a temperate forest wilderness area of great beauty. It has its own special flora and fauna. Most important, I think, are the archaeological findings in the caves . These caves were discovered only very recently and exploration has not really commenced. However, they show evidence that Australian man has been on this continent for perhaps 20,000 years. Other evidence seems to suggest that he has been here for 40,000 years. This throws open all previous evidence about humankind on this planet and that treasure is actually in Australia. I think that for that reason alone we should preserve this area. The other major argument against the preservation of this area as a heritage area or for continuing with the dam is the argument advanced by the Hydro- Electric Commission, and now the Tasmanian Government, about the need for power and jobs. I cannot actually make a clear case one way or another. I have heard Senator Mason speak about the evidence. He seems to suggest that there is not a good case for the need for electricity, as claimed by the Hydro-Electric Commission. On the evidence I am prepared to say that I do not care whether the Hydro-Electric Commission is right, whether all its estimates for power are as it says they are and whether all the jobs the Commission is prepared to provide are as it says. Even if that is the case, I think the crunch question with which we are faced is whether, in the face of that evidence, we will still act to preserve the wilderness and that rich heritage that is in South West Tasmania. I think it almost becomes a question of whether one would consider damming the Grand Canyon. I suppose that in some ways Australians still flinch from thinking that they have a richness or a wealth in their country of the calibre of the Grand Canyon. I find that that is how I can make a judgment on this matter. In the face of all the evidence for electricity needs and jobs I would still come down on the side of preserving that South West Tasmanian richness. On many occasions our Government has supported States rights and it has given Tasmania every chance to preserve its rights. It has even offered-as did the previous Government-to compensate Tasmania for electricity needs, alternative dams and job creation schemes. Finally the Government recognised that it had to act in the face of Premier Gray's stand and opposition to that offer. This Government has decided in favour of the majority of the Australian people and for an Australian treasure. Unlike Senator Hill I would say that this Bill is a thoughtful piece of legislation which will provide for the protection and conservation of other Australian treasures besides this one. As has been stated before, it will be necessary to use the legislation enshrined in this Bill only if and when it is required. Many of the areas I listed earlier in this debate do not need world heritage legislation to protect them. Local governments and State governments have already acted to preserve those treasures. Finally, this Bill enables us to honour our international agreements so that we can be held to be responsible in the international arena. I refer honourable senators to a quote of Mr Wran which appeared in the Australian of 6 April 1983. Mr Wran claimed that this is a 'national issue with international ramifications' . The article reported Mr Wran as saying: If Australia wants to be in the real world of international affairs then we have to accept our international obligations. This Bill is one piece of legislation-one act of this Government-which the people of Australia elected us to effect. We will honour that election promise. We support the Bill. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.37) —I am fascinated by the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is still talking about his Government of conciliation and consensus and bringing Australians together. What rubbish! It is the first time in the history of Australia that, less than a month after taking power, a Federal government has taken a State to the High Court of Australia and has used the armed forces to gather secret evidence to use in that law case against a State. Senator Grimes —Good on you Shirley; give it to them. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes had better be quiet because he is really in a lot of trouble back home. Senator Tate, Senator Hearn and Senator Coates are also in real trouble. I will come to that in a few minutes. Senator Coates —Tell us about the trouble. What trouble? Senator WALTERS —You two really scrambled in in the last election, fighting over the last two places on the ballot paper. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Lewis) —Order! Senator Walters will address the Chair. Senator WALTERS —I am not the only person who thinks that the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, had better watch himself. The editorial in the Australian Financial Review of 8 March stated: A major constitutional crisis is really not a good way to kick off a government committed to consultation and unity. The editorial went on to state: But there must be a limit to the extent to which the Commonwealth can enter into international agreements in order to override the States. It also states: If Mr Hawke is really committed to reconciliation he will have to forget about using a legal bludgeon to bring Tasmania into line. That article finally states: What we may end up looking at is not the price of the dam and its alternatives but the price of living in a true federation and maintaining States rights within it. Labor senators opposite-Senator Coates and Senator Grimes are the only two Tasmanian senators present-may be interested if I mention a few comments made by unionists back home. One comment is: 'Big union ditch ALP over S-W policy'. The Australian Workers Union said that it would not reaffiliate until the Federal Labor Party changed its stance on the dam. Yesterday it was reported in the Examiner newspaper that two more unions, the Amalgamated Metal, Foundry and Shipwrights Union and the Electrical Trades Union, both challenged their presidents because they were taking too much political power into consideration and those unions did not like their executives' attitude in relation to the Gordon below Franklin Dam. Those two unions are standing people against the executive in our State. Three unions are reprimanding Federal Labor senators, saying: 'For God's sake stick up for your State. Do the decent thing'. What do they do? They are caucused. They are not sticking up for their State. They are not sticking up for their true supporters. If they had had the courage-which they surely did not-to electioneer down in the South West and in Tullah as we did then they would have realised what the people there were thinking. We got 62 per cent of the votes in those areas. Having held discussions with Mr Hawke, a report from the Combined Union Council at Tullah states: He is adamant that NO DAM will be built on the Gordon River. In our estimate- This is the Combined Union Council at Tullah- He offered no viable alternative to that scheme. We might well wonder why this new Government has decided to act in this way. Its theme is bring Australia together and yet it is taking our State of Tasmania to the High Court of Australia within the first couple of weeks of Parliament meeting. We may well ask why the Prime Minister is acting in this way. He has hoodwinked all his back bench members. They have not bothered to really look at what that man is doing. He does not just want to stop the dam. He has tried to convince them, and the Australian population, that all he is interested in doing is stopping the dam being built in Tasmania. He has told the back benchers: 'Don 't worry, we will gather a few votes this way, so all play it cool and we will stop the dam'. What that man is really about is a grab for power from the States . We only have to look at the Boyer Lectures in 1979 when Mr Hawke said: I believe . . . that Australians would be better served by the elimination of the second tier of government-that is, the States- He believes in the abolition of the States- Which no longer serve their original purpose, and act as a positive impediment in achieving good government in our current community. This would give us, like the great majority of other countries, one Parliament with powers available to the government to match the responsibilities upon it of protecting and advancing the interests of Australian citizens. The back bench had better wake up to its leader because he is not stopping the dam, and this legislation before the Senate proves it beyond a doubt. I will come to that in a few minutes. It has been said that we do not need the power. This has been said by everybody outside Tasmania who has no knowledge of whether we need power. On Thursday 24 March a newspaper article in relation to the Electrolytic Zinc Co. stated: The Electrolytic Zinc Co. at Risdon said yesterday that it could increase production by a further 10 per cent. This could be done if it could have cheap electricity and if it did not have to use Bell Bay. The article continued: . . . Mr Reg Barker, said that for the past year, the plant had been operating at only 90 per cent of capacity. If the company had further cheap hydro-power it would be able to expand and use the full capacity of its work force. The Australian Newsprint Mills has also said that expansion hinges on power. The Mercury states: A multi-million dollar expansion program at Australian Newsprint Mills at Boyer hinges on the company being able to obtain adequate electricity at reasonable cost. Mr Acting Deputy President, how far would honourable senators like me to go? Would they like me to go on and mention a few more industries in our State which want more electricity? Mr Risby also said that he needs more power to expand. He would use it to increase his exports. Let us have a look at what the Hydro- Electric Commission has proposed in Tasmania. The proposition is that we dare to try to increase our energy needs by 2.7 per cent, the lowest of any State in Australia. The other States want to increase their energy needs by between 4 per cent and 10 per cent. If I had time I could go through the needs of the States. We dare to say that we want to increase our energy needs by 2.7 per cent and we are being told by all the other States that that is too much, that Tasmania does not need it. What a hide those States have. It is absolutely incredible. For 20 years our energy needs have increased by 7 per cent. Now, because of the downturn-the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, has said in the other place that new technologies are becoming available-we have as an increase in our power needs 2.7 per cent, and not the 7 per cent that has been the average increase for the past 20 years. Yet we are still told that we do not need the energy. We have been told that the cost of building the dam is way out of all proportion and that it is not an economic proposition. The hydro costs in our State are the envy of the world. If only the other States could equal them-it is jealousy, nothing more-they too might seek to use more hydro-power. However, it is not available to them and so they have to charge an additional amount. I will cite a few of the facts. The average quarterly bill for the average Tasmanian household without off-peak is $113; in Queensland it is $139; in South Australia $140; in New South Wales $157; in Victoria $173-no wonder we have a lot of Victorians going crook-and in Western Australia $173. We had the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania and the only two parliamentarians on that Committee, who were not already committed and who had not been caucused, were Senator Robert Hill and Senator Brian Archer. All the rest of the Committee members were either caucused or publicly committed to a view before they took that stand in the Senate Committee. We must look for an independent view that came out of that Committee. The independent view came from the McLachlan group. I am sure that Senator Hill would agree that that was a very worthy group. It was certainly not challenged by any member of the Committee. Before it came down on the side of Tasmania, Committee members thought that it was pretty good. I will quote a few of its statements. It stated: The Gordon below Franklin is a good hydro-electric scheme economically. It can provide 172 megawatts of extra electricity power to the Tasmanian grid if used near its capacity more economically than any other hydro or coal fired thermal options. When inflation is taken into account it is clearly demonstrated that the Gordon below Franklin will probably be the most economic hydro-electric power station ever built in Tasmania. We have built many hydro-electric power stations that were expensive, but when inflation is taken into account this will probably be the best. We are told that we do not need the power. Tasmanian Wilderness Society members have been lobbying me. Young public servants say to me: 'Save the dam'. They have a secure job and indeed they cannot even be sacked, so they are all right. The Tasmanian Wilderness Society people say: 'We in Tasmania do not need high power consumption industries. Get rid of Comalco'. When I ask them 'What do you suggest we do?' they say: 'Let us go back to the crafts'. Who would like to go back to the crafts? The Tasmanian people want proper jobs; they do not want to go back to the crafts. That is a ridiculous statement and does little justice to the cause of the wilderness. I also have another quote from Mr McLachlan. He says that there are only two viable alternatives. As usual, we have heard Senator Mason speaking about wind and sun. He said: 'Let us use the wind and sun '. He is as airy-fairy as the wind and the sun. However, the McLachlan group says that we really have only two viable alternatives. I would like to add one because I believe that in future nuclear power will be a very viable alternative . The only thing I have against nuclear power is that I do not believe that it is acceptable in Australia today. It may be acceptable in another 10 or 20 years . However, let us look at the two acceptable alternatives as far as the rest of Australia-not Tasmania but the rest of Australia-is concerned; namely, thermal power and the interstate undersea cable. Again I shall quote this eminent consultant. Referring to the undersea cable he said: While these technologies are developing, it is not likely that they will have significant cost competitive, reliable supply available at least until the late 1990's. Therefore they are not appropriate as a basic or back-up option for this study period. Then he said: 'Of course, as far as thermal power goes we have a little pollution problem'. But we have been told that we do not really have a pollution problem and that the new technologies now overcome pollution. Tasmanians are not interested in having their beautiful air polluted by coal. If one suggested that to the people of the Fingal Valley where coal comes from one would be thrown out . Honourable senators should go to the Tamar Valley, suggest that it have coal- fired power and see what the reaction is. Senator Grimes —We all agree with you. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes lives near the Tamar Valley. I am quite sure he would shrink from that suggestion. Let us mention the cost to the Tasmanian consumer per unit of thermal power in 1982 figures. When we compare costs we see that coal-fired power is 4.07c a unit, the Gordon below Franklin power is 1.64c a unit and the power from the undersea cable 4.1c a unit. So as far as cost is concerned there is certainly no chance that Tasmania will burden itself with either coal or an undersea cable. We have had a lot of advice from Labor Ministers and Labor back benchers in the other place, and even here tonight, to the effect that we ought to be satisfied with thermal power. Senator Grimes —Who is suggesting thermal power? Senator WALTERS —We are not satisfied with thermal power. If Senator Grimes reads the Hansard he will find that his back bench has said that to us. Indeed if he wants names, they are Mr Campbell, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Humphreys and Barry Jones. They said: 'You should use thermal power'. I shall read a letter from Mr Bob Hawke. It is headed: 'A letter to the working people of Tasmania from Bob Hawke, Leader of the Australian Labor Party'. He stated: I am writing to all Tasmanian workers to outline the Labor Party's policies in relation to your State's future energy needs. Our policy is clear. These are the facts. He really should have consulted with his party because it had been telling us that we ought to use thermal power. But Bob Hawke did not do that. Honourable senators should not forget that this letter was sent a couple of days before the electors were to vote. Mr Hawke said: First, the Labor Party is committed to an all Hydro policy for energy development. Coal-fired thermal power stations in Tasmania have been rejected as unsuitable. Yet members in the House of Representatives last week told us that we in Tasmania had to have thermal power. Mr Hawke went on: Second, we will maintain the present Hydro-electric Commission workforce as part of our policy of preserving jobs in Tasmania. He will! He does not employ them; our State employs them. What does he mean, he will employ them? He goes on: We believe there are skills in the Commission workforce . . . Then he stated: Thirdly, with our proposed Hydro Electric schemes-- Get a load of this, Mr Acting Deputy President- Tullah will continue, as a viable township instead of construction workers and their families being forced even further into the wilderness. It is all right to send that sort of letter to the Sydney and Victorian mobs-it is quite all right-but it is not all right to send it to the men at Tullah. They ridiculed him. They asked: 'What in the heck is he on about?' When I was campaigning in Tullah I was handed this letter and told: 'Go back and tell Bob Hawke that we are in Tullah; it is no use writing that rubbish to us'. Mr Hawke then stated: Fourth, for those in isolated areas our policy is to increase the zone . . . allowance . . . He then went on to try to drop a few lollies. Remember that that letter was delivered to the workers of Tasmania a couple of days before they were to vote in the election. Let us come to the next alternative, the undersea cable. For those who think we ought to have the undersea cable, let us get the matter quite clear. The Victorian State Electricity Commission said: 'I am sorry, mates, it is not available'. Yet Government senators and Government members say we should use it. Victoria cannot supply it but we should still use it! As if Tasmania would line itself up with the problems associated with the industrial disputes in Victoria. Good heavens, we would no more line ourselves up with that rabble than fly. Mr McLachlan's final summary referring to hydro-power, states that its ingredients might be summarised as: Reliability; lowest possible cost to consumer; the use of Tasmania's natural resources, namely hydro-power; and providing employment in Tasmania for Tasmanians. Yet honourable senators opposite say: 'Do not use it. Do not use your natural resources'. I am not referring to short term employment or to the hydro-workers alone. I am not referring to those thousands of men working on the dam or the 29 people it will take to run it. I am referring to the jobs that will be created once we have that additional power-the jobs that industries will take up. As EZ and ANM have already said, industry will be able to expand. This is a Tasmanian issue. Telling Tasmania that it should not use its hydro-electric power is like saying to the Victorians: 'Don't use Yallourn', and telling South Australians that they should not use the Cooper Basin. We made a mistake in Tasmania. We started to build the dam. We debated it for three years, believing it was a Tasmanian issue . We did not take the issue to the mainland of Australia. The Tasmanian Wilderness Society found that it could not get the issue across in Tasmania, that it could not change the Tasmanians' point of view, so it took the issue to the mainland. The Society had money running out of its ears. It produced shopfronts and literature and it advertised in every paper. Indeed, it even set up a shop in Paris while the World Heritage Committee met. It took the issue to the mainland and convinced the Labor Party that it had more votes in Tasmania than it needed to worry about if it supported the Society stand on the issue. I assure the Labor Party that it will never return to government in Tasmania. It will succeed in having elected fewer and fewer Tasmanian senators as the years go by. I turn to the next three Tasmanian issues. One is the World Heritage Committee, which accepted the area, dam and all. I will read a statement that the previous Government sent to the World Heritage Committee: . . . the Government has indicated to the World Heritage Committee that the Tasmanian Government is constructing a hydro-electric power scheme in the nominated area . . . . The Government does not intend to intervene . . . The Government received a letter in response, addressed to the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, which stated that the area had been inscribed on the World Heritage List. I do not have time to read the letter. As Senator Hill has already done so, I am sure people will know that it set out some concerns that may occur. The Committee knew that the State Government was building a dam and that the Federal Government had said it would not interfere with it. But the Committee said that when the work was completed the area ought to be put on the List of World Heritage in Danger to see whether any real damage had been done. As I said, Senator Hill has already quoted from that document, so it is already in Hansard. With regard to the constitutional matters, I refer to what the Labor Party said at one stage. I refer to a letter from Mr Hayden. Of course, he was the Leader of the Labor Party at one stage. Do honourable senators remember what Bob Hawke did to Mr Hayden? He did not only knife him in the back; he also changed his view on the Australian Constitution. Mr Hayden said that he did not believe that the Federal Government had any power at all in the area of States rights. In a letter to Mr Kelvin McCoy Mr Hayden stated: The more fundamental matters of concern are very much a State responsibility and outside of the constitutional authority of the National Government. Mr Hayden assured us that it was outside the Constitution. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, wants to use the external affairs power which states that because we belong to a convention the Federal Government should have the power to take over a group of areas in various States. Do honourable senators know how many conventions and treaties there are? There are 16,000 conventions and treaties. I am quite sure that by looking at one of those 16,000 conventions and treaties, anyone would be able to find something enabling him to take over some of the responsibilities and areas applying to any State. Mr Acting Deputy President, my time to speak in this debate has almost expired. I will have to debate during the Committee stage the Bill which is before us tonight. I say now only that the breadth of this Bill is a disgrace and is proof that Mr Hawke is not interested in just the dam but is seeking all the powers of the States. Anyone who says that the Federal Government should take over the States' responsibilities because we are signatories to the World Heritage Convention should understand the situation very clearly. The World Heritage Convention has a schedule, which contains the guidelines by which member countries should abide. Article 34 of the Schedule very clearly states: The following provisions shall apply to those State Parties to this Convention which have a federal or non-unitary system. . . States, countries, provinces or cantons that are not obliged by the constitutional system of the federation to take legislative measures, the federal government shall inform the . . . States, countries, provinces or cantons of the said provisions, with its recommendation for their adoption. That Schedule to the World Heritage Convention states that any country that has a federation, such as Australia, which does not have the constitutional power to walk in and order a State to do something or take over an area, has no further obligation but to inform the State of its recommendation. The World Heritage Convention imposes no obligation on the Commonwealth Government to do anything also. In the few minutes I have left to speak on this matter, may I say that today we heard Senator Crowley tell us that there are some members of the Liberal Party of Australia who believe that the dam should not be built. I will quote what was said by a few members of the Labor Party. I refer to a letter from the honourable member for Prospect, Dr Klugman. He is a very well known Labor member in the House of Representatives. Senator Hill —He is well respected. Senator WALTERS —He is a well respected one. Prior to the election he warned his colleagues of the use of the external affairs power of the Constitution. He stated: May I, as one who tends to oppose increased government powers of most kinds, caution those Labor supporters who may approve of the extension of such power in this case. What would prevent an Australian government signing a treaty with South Africa dealing with 'subversion'? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-Mr Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. Senator Lewis —You poor fellow. You have been misrepresented. You are always doing it. It is childish. Senator GRIMES —I normally do not do this. Senator Walters, in the course of her speech, said that Ministers and backbenchers told us that we, that is, the Tasmanians, should have a thermal power station. I was the only Minister in the chamber at the time. She also mentioned the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, who, incidentally, is opposed to a thermal power station. I point out that I am now, and always have been, opposed to a thermal power station. The only Minister in this place during the last 12 months who was in favour of a thermal station was the Right Honourable Malcolm Fraser, the ex- Prime Minister. We all know what happened to him. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.9) —It is very sad that in the speech of Senator Walters, which preceded my contribution to the discussion on the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983, there was no recognition at all of the values that lay behind the presentation of this Bill. This Bill is concerned with asserting that there are places, both man-made and natural, throughout the world which are of such outstanding universal value that they are recognised as part of the cultural and natural heritage of the world. This growing international awareness of heritage values and a sense of international concern and responsibility for our cultural and natural heritage and its protection has obviously passed Senator Walters by. It would not be so bad if, having recognised and acknowledged the growth and validity of these values, the honourable senator had gone on to say that nevertheless there are countervailing values peculiar to Tasmania's economic situation or the need to provide work or energy for its people which overbalanced the considerations which might lead one to take a certain course of action if one had an eye simply on the preservation of our natural heritage. But no; there was not even this recognition of the values which genuinely, I believe, lie behind the Bill, its presentation and the support of the Australian people in the last election for the action which is embodied in this legislation. The Bill attempts to carry into effect the recognition that the disappearance of any item of great cultural or natural heritage constitutes a great impoverishment of mankind-not only the present generation but the many hundreds of years of human civilisation which, putting aside the threat of nuclear holocaust that hovers over us all, we hope will be the lot of human beings into the distant future. It is very sad that there is no recognition of those values in much of the opposition to this Bill. I think it is also rather sad that there was no recognition in Senator Walters's speech of the fact that the Australian people and the Australian Labor Party-I say this quite openly-grew in their understanding of the issues and the Tasmanian people's point of view over the past 12 to 18 months. I say that that understanding grew in no large measure because of the contribution by Tasmanian senators, in particular, from both sides of this chamber. We have tried to say to our fellow Australians-we are Australians-that Tasmanians are not unmindful of aesthetic and environmental values. In fact, I believe that no people in Australia are more akin to, conscious of and likely to engage in activities involving the enjoyment of our natural environment. This is because of the nature of the towns and cities in which we live and the type of recreation which we pursue. Tasmanians are very well aware of environmental values. But what we needed to convince our fellow Australians was that for Tasmanians the issue was not the environment but jobs- jobs for present families and for children and grandchildren to come. I believe that the Governor-General's Speech delivered in this chamber only some weeks ago paid due recognition to the need of the Parliament to address itself to both those issues. Sir Ninian Stephen at the opening of Parliament, in setting forth the Government's program, having noted that the Australian people overwhelmingly endorsed the Australian Labor Party's intended action in relation to South West Tasmania, said explicitly that it was recognised that the generation of energy and the generation of jobs were equally important to this Government in dealing with all the issues raised by the prevention of this project going ahead in South West Tasmania. I believe that in the correspondence between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Mr Gray, the energy requirements of Tasmanians and the need to create jobs were well recognised. Indeed, I refer to the magnanimous statement of the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, on election night. We can all recall that in the flush of victory, having suffered a humiliating defeat in Tasmania, he nevertheless said quite openly that there would be no discrimination against Tasmania and that Tasmania and Tasmanians would share in the generation of jobs generally which is, of course, the key objective of this Government. I believe that opposition to this Bill would be better served by recognition of those values which have grown in international understanding and, I believe, in the understanding of Australia and the Austraian Labor Party. I see my task tonight as quite minor in the context of the many speeches which will be made on this Bill. I have followed some excellent contributions from both sides of the chamber-I emphasise the word 'some'-and I know that more will follow. It is my intention to add two points to the debate. They can be made quite shortly and are directed simply to exposing some of the hypocrisy and partial truths which are being peddled by opponents to this Bill. In the Senate late last year, in the spirit of Christmas cheer-it may have been in the cheer of Christmas spirit-a Liberal senator came into the chamber and of the South West Tasmania issue said: . . . whilst it may be convenient to say that a democratic decision was taken whereby 51 out of 54 members of the new State Parliament said something, the lawful Government of the State-- He was speaking of Tasmania- at the appropriate stage said something else and asked the Commonwealth to act. The Commonwealth did act in consequence of that request. I do not think it-- That is, the Commonwealth Government- has been given sufficient credit for the fact that it acted in good faith upon what was asked of it by the lawful Government of the State of Tasmania acting on behalf of the people of Tasmania. The senator who came into the chamber and alerted us to that fact was, of course , Senator Peter Rae. I think we need to keep that point very firmly in mind. When people speak of action by the Australian Government in submitting South West Tasmania for inclusion on the World Heritage List as being a tearing-up of the Constitution, a repudiation of federal values and the presaging of a completely unitary State, one has to keep in mind that that action was a direct result of co-operative federalism. In 1975 the then Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, put forward as part of his national policy a particular objective in respect of the establishment of a wilderness of world significance in South West Tasmania. That policy commitment made by Mr Fraser in 1975-Senator Peter Rae has spoken of it in this chamber-led to many years of inter- governmental negotiations. Those negotiations were undertaken quite properly between the Federal Liberal Government and the Tasmanian Labor Government of the day. It was only as a result of those many years of negotiation, that example in practice of co-operative federalism, that formal nomination of the area for World Heritage listing came from the Tasmanian Government in accordance with the convention. My authority for saying that that was the sequence of events is none other than the Tasmanian Premier of that time, Mr Doug Lowe, who only a couple of weeks ago at the Australian Constitutional Convention in Adelaide stated: The commitment that was always given to me, as Premier of Tasmania, by the former Prime Minister of Australia-- he was speaking of Mr Fraser- was that he would see that World Heritage listing honoured in every respect, and that is what the present Federal Government is simply endeavouring to achieve. The continuity of events adds up to an exercise in co-operative federalism. There has been by no means a trampling of the rights and an ignoring of the sensibilities of the State Government, lawfully elected to engage in these sorts of negotiations with the national Government as a prelude to the submission of the area to the World Heritage Committee. In that respect I hope that that piece of history lays to rest some of the argument that is put from the other side of the chamber. It also exposes some of the hypocrisy that has entered into this debate. I think one needs to recall that in May 1982, some 12 months ago, in the High Court of Australia, a judgment was delivered in the case of Koowarta against Bjelke-Petersen and others and the State of Queensland against the Commonwealth of Australia. That case concerned the following situation: In 1975 the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission contracted to buy a Crown freehold pastoral property in north Queensland. However, consent to transfer the lease was refused by the State Minister for Lands pursuant to a policy of the Government to view unfavourably proposals to acquire large areas of freehold or leasehold land for development by Aboriginal groups. The plaintiff, Koowarta, had been active in procuring the purchase and expected the land to be used by himself and other members of the Winychanam group of Aboriginal people. That Aboriginal sued members of the Queensland Government under the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act on the basis of breaches of sections 9 and 12. Without going into any technical details, the fact is that the High Court, by a majority, upheld the validity of that Commonwealth legislation which had the effect, therefore, of overriding decisions by the Queensland Government in relation to the disposal of freehold or leasehold land in Queensland. I think anyone would agree that this is a very large entry by the Commonwealth Government into a field of activity which is generally regarded as being more commonly the province of State governments. The point I wish to make, quite apart from the precedent value of that decision , is that Sir Maurice Byers, the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, was sent into the High Court to argue as vigorously and robustly as he could on behalf of a notion of the external affairs power supporting the Racial Discrimination Act and therefore the overriding of State law in relation to freehold and leasehold land and the granting of tenures. He was sent there to argue that it is quite proper, in fulfilment of an internationally assumed obligation, to legislate internally in a way which modifies the usual balance of powers and activities domestically and internally within Australia. He was sent in to conduct that argument by a Liberal Commonwealth Government. I notice that the argument was conducted in the first week of March 1982. I thought it might be of interest to honourable senators to see who was in the Ministry at the time that Sir Maurice Byers was instructed by the Commonwealth Liberal Government to argue so vigorously for the validity of that legislation, internal in effect, but carrying into domestic law an obligation assumed under an international treaty. The Government of the day was led by the Prime Minister , the Right Honourable John Malcolm Fraser. The Deputy Prime Minister was the Right Honourable John Douglas Anthony who led the attack on this Bill in the House of Representatives. If one looks for honourable senators in the list of Ministers one finds the following names: The Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator the Honourable Sir John Carrick; the Minister for Finance, Senator the Honourable Dame Margaret Guilfoyle; the Attorney-General, Senator the Honourable Peter Durack; the Minister for Social Security, Senator the Honourable Fred Chaney; the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator the Honourable Tony Messner; and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator the Honourable Peter Baume. All those honourable senators, all those Ministers, in fact all members of the Fraser Ministry, concurred in the direction to Sir Maurice Byers that he go into the High Court and argue vigorously and robustly that the external affairs power enable some intrusion into what might normally be regarded as a proper area for State government activity. The argument put so forcefully by Sir Maurice Byers-I read the transcript only an hour or so ago-was accepted by a majority of the High Court. As I said, in the short time available to me I wanted to bring those fresh elements into the debate. In doing so I hope that I have helped bring about a more rational environment in which we can conduct our consideration of the Bill. I thank honourable senators for listening attentively. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 2 dated 11 May 1983. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —I seek leave to amend Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) relating to the reappointment of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing in accordance with the terms circulated to honourable senators. Leave granted. Senator RYAN —I move: (1) That the Committee known as the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing, consituted by Resolution of the Senate on 25 March 1982, be reconstituted, unless otherwise herein provided, under the same terms, and with the same functions and powers; (2) That the Committee have power to consider the Minutes of Evidence and Records of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing appointed in the previous session; (3) That paragraph (4) of the terms of appointment of the Committee contained in the Resolution of the Senate of 25 March 1982 be varied to read as follows: ''(4) That, unless othewise ordered, the Committee shall consist of the President and eight other Senators- the Leader of the Government in the Senate or such other Senate Minister as may be nominated to represent him from time to time, and three other members of the Government to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or such other Senator as may be nominated to represent him from time to time, and three other Senators not being members of the Government to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators: Provided that, in the absence of agreement between the Opposition and any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators, as to nominations, duly notified to the President, the question as to representation shall be determined by the Senate.' '. (4) 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. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Ryan)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the Committee known as the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, constituted by Resolution of the Senate on 24 September 1981, be reconstituted, unless otherwise herein provided, under the same terms, and with the same functions and powers; (2) That the Committee have power to consider the Minutes of Evidence and Records of the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes appointed in the previous session; (3) That paragraphs (2) and (7) of the terms of appointment of the Committee contained in the Resolution of the Senate of 24 September 1981, be varied to read as follows: '(2) The Committee consist of six Senators as follows: (A) three to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. (B) two to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. (C) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats '(7) three members of the Committee be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Committee for the exercise of its powers;'; and (4) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that the President has received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney), the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) and Senator Harradine nominating senators to be members of certain committees as follows: Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing President, Leader of the Government in the Senate, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (in accordance with the Resolution establishing the Committee), Senators Elstob, Harradine, Jessop, Mason, Robertson and Sibraa Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Senators Bjelke- Petersen, Crowley, Giles, Haines, Walters and Zakharov Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory Sentors Giles, Lajovic, Reid and Reynolds Joint Committee on the New Parliament House Senators Colston, Georges, Martin, Reid, Sibraa and Teague (In accordance with the Resolution establishing the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House, the President, together with the Speaker and the Minister for Territories and Local Government, are ex officio members of the Committee.) Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege Senators Gareth Evans, Georges , Jessop, Macklin and Peter Rae Motion (by Senator Ryan)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the senators indicated, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolutions agreed to by both Houses, be appointed members of the respective Joint Committees in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators; (2) That the senators indicated by the list circulated, having been duly nominated in accordance with resolutions reappointing the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing and the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, be appointed members of the respective committees. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator Ryan resigning as a member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Motion (by Senator Ryan)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964, the Senate appoint Senator Coleman to be a member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies till 20 August 1983 to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Senator Ryan. United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Motion (by Senator Ryan) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(10.29) —Over the last week or so many honourable senators have received petitions urging that the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women be not ratified by Australia. Those of us who wish to dissociate ourselves from that position will, of course, make certain that those petitions are presented. I think it might be useful though to take this occasion to explain the facts of the Convention and to put to rest some of the inaccuracies which are currently being circularised. The history of this Convention is that it was initiated as the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1945 at the Third Session of the United Nations. In the years intervening this Declaration has been supported by all the reputable international women's organisations. They have been working over the decades to the point where in 1979 the Declaration became a convention and was ready to be presented at the 1980 mid-decade conference of the International Decade for Women. All reputable Australian women's organisations over those decades have also supported first the Declaration and now the Convention. Those organisations include such prestigious bodies as the National Council of Women, with its 583 affiliated organisations and a total of more than one million members; the United Nations Association of Australia Status of Women Committee; various branches of the Soroptimists; the Women's Electoral Lobby; the Young Women's Christian Association; the National Women's Advisory Council; the Federal Women' s Conference of the Liberal Party of Australia; and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. In Copenhagen in 1980 this Convention was signed by Mr Ellicott, the then Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment, despite noisy opposition from a small group of Australian women who represented no one but their own small group of wealthy, sheltered women who want, we believe, to be dependent women and who appear to want to raise that dependency to a virtue or an art form. It is strongly suspected that these 4Ws, as they are known, are supported by the 4Ms-macho males for the maintenance of misogyny. Senator Martin —You mean 'male, middle-aged and married'. Senator GILES —I thank the honourable senator. It is also widely acknowledged that the League of Rights, an organisation which is known for its extremely reactionary and regressive policies, is lending comfort and support to this campaign of opposition to the Convention. This Convention is one of very many which have been used as a basis for human rights legislation over the years by Australia and by many other countries which are members of the United Nations. An example of these is the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 111 ratified by the Whitlam Government in 1973 and used as the basis for our 1974 race discrimination legislation which, as all honourable senators have been aware and as was pointed out by my colleague Senator Tate this evening, was used as the test case known as the Koowarta case before the High Court last year. Another widely known convention is the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is the basis for the Australian human rights legislation and the establishment of our Human Rights Commission. The Convention which is the subject of my speech tonight is to be used as the basis for the sex discrimination legislation which will be introduced very soon by this Government. The interpretation of the Convention as reflected in the petitions being sent to this place is misrepresentation at its best and mischievous falsehood at its worst. Were the issue not so important, one might be highly amused at the notion that any government, even if it would, could legislate to eradicate gender differences, to draft women into combat services or to drag wailing babies from their mothers and segregate them in state care. I wonder how many of the signatories to these petitions have actually read the Convention or even a dispassionate summary of the Convention. Copies are available from United Nations Association offices in each capital city. Unfortunately an understanding of such international institutions and instruments is lacking in this country-apart from acknowledgments of the Year of the Tree, the Year of the Child or the Year of Disabled Persons, very worthy acknowledgments but rather superficial in a sense when compared with the very important instruments which underlie so many of the laws of this and of other countries. The Convention has an excellent introduction which in part states: A major step towards the attainment of the goal of equal rights for women was taken on 18 December 1979, when the General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The 30-article Convention sets out in legally binding form internationally accepted principles and measures to achieve equal rights for women everywhere. Its adoption climaxed consultations over a five-year period by various working groups, the Commission on the Status of Women and the General Assembly. The comprehensive Convention reflects the depth of the exclusion and restriction practised against women solely on the basis of their sex, by calling for equal rights for women, regardless of their marital status, in all fields- political, economic, social, cultural and civil. It calls for national legislation to ban discrimination; recommends temporary special measures to speed equality in fact between men and women, and action to modify social and cultural patterns that perpetuate discrimination. The Convention acknowledges the fact that laws are relatively simple to change but that customs and attitudes take a great deal longer to adapt. Measures to be taken to modify social and cultural patterns of men and women with a view to eliminating prejudice based on the inferiority or superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women are very clearly specified in one of the articles of the Convention. 'Different' does not mean better or worse ; it simply means different. We are all a mixture of masculine and feminine characteristics which have little to do with our intrinsic worth. Children encouraged to recognise the common responsibility of men and women in their upbringing and development and to recognise maternity as a social function have a greatly expanded view of society and of their own potential. Surely all women and all men wish for their children this expanded range of models from which to make their own decisions. This has been denied disproportionately to our mothers, to us and to our daughters. There is no hint in the Convention of reducing society to a dreary sameness, which would ' massively distort the natural interrelationships of the sexes in society', to quote from one of the documents accompanying the petition. One could well argue that there is nothing natural in a society in which the skills, intelligence and wisdom of 50 per cent of the population are circumscribed or wasted on the basis of ancient biological shibboleths. Choice and expanded opportunity toward equality is the tone of the whole Convention. To this end, many measures are required. In Australia we have made a modest start in providing community health services, family planning, pregnancy support and child care-the sort of support services which will allow for greater actualisation of parents and children alike. As yet, we have not tackled the much more difficult task of persuading the average husband and father that his responsibilities are changing too. In my office I have a beautiful poster of an ordinary looking chap poised by a kitchen stove saying: 'I am Joe Average. My family means more to me than anything else. That is why I share the responsibility of the housework and caring for the kids' . This poster is published, I am happy to say, by the Australian Government. Eighty-nine countries including Australia have signed the Convention. Fourty- four have ratified it, as Australia intends to do. Of the ratifying countries, Sweden, Norway and Austria are probably closest to Australians in level of industrialisation and standard of living. None of those countries gives any indication of rushing headlong into gender free purgatory; quite the contrary. Women are better represented at all levels of society. Health and education standards are high. Unemployment and inflation are much lower than in Australia. Under the Convention such countries, among a wide range of others, could be involved in a committee set up by the United Nations to consider reports submitted annually by ratifying nations and to report annually to the General Assembly of the United Nations, a procedure similar to that attending ratification of all the other instruments signed by Australia. The committee of experts shall be elected with consideration of the different forms of civilisation as well as the principal legal systems. That shows the care that is taken by the United Nations to make certain that the committee of experts is not judging member nations by the standards of any one group of nations or any one particular nation. It is quite wrong-dishonest in fact-to oppose ratification of the covenant on the grounds that Australia will thereby be placed under the control of foreign powers, as claimed by the Committee for Family Freedom, alias the '4Ws'. If it were so, such has been the case for the 60 years since Australia ratified early conventions of the International Labour Organisation. Another grim warning of these fear and confusion merchants is that we are moving along the way to world government. Would that it were so. The hysterical emphasis on the sanctity of the family and well-being of children which is used to threaten and distress those who have no better information is a shabby and unworthy ploy copied from the American opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment, the so-called 'moral majority' who are neither moral nor a majority. Senator Haines —And awfully noisy. Senator GILES —Indeed, they are. Under the Australian Labor Party Government, Australians now have the opportunity to move out of the straitjacket of the past . Not only will women benefit from this; society generally will be richer. It is the best chance for equal relationships to flourish and for children to develop their skills and potential as befits the precious resource that they are. Scandinavian women talk now of 'equivalence' rather than equality. It seems an easier concept with which to proselytise. I invite the Women Who Want to be Women to claim their equivalence and joint their sisters in supporting the Convention. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.45) —I rise to speak briefly on the same subject as Senator Giles. Along with other senators, I have been receiving a quantity of mail and petitions. The content of an amount of that mail distresses me very much. It is very clear that a number of the people who are writing those letters are very genuine in the worries that they have on the subject of the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. However, a number of the letters have had attached to them a single sheet of paper which is obviously the basis of the letters. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to have this sheet of paper incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Last Monday, March 28th, it was reported in the Press by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, that the Federal Government will move quickly to ratify the United Nations Convention on: The Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. The Attorney-General said that such legislation would operate nationwide. Some of the implications are as follows: 1. The changing and wiping out of our traditional ''gender'' roles of man and woman. In order to bring about this change of thinking among the young people there would be revision of school textbooks so as to eliminate male and female roles. This would be done in the books from kindergarten level upwards. Changes are already being made to the Bible so as to obliterate differences between the roles of masculine and feminine. 2. If such changes were controlled by law it would involve an intrusion into the privacy of private individuals and families. 3. The above Treaty or Convention expresses strong incentives for mothers to join the workforce. Mothering would, by implication, become a second class calling or profession. 4. A network nationwide of baby creches and childcare centres is already planned, so that the mothers can be freed to go out to work from the early weeks of the child's life. In the long term the result would be that the State would have the care and control of the child from infancy to maturity with the opportunity and power to mould its emotional life and its thinking. 5. One of the results would be the likely development of emotional problems among the children and young people as a result of early separation from both parents. Such deprivation can be a serious cause of childhood psychiatric illness. 6. The exchange of sex roles, or ''gender'' roles, within a marriage, with the women becoming the main breadwinner and the man doing houshold work which is the traditional sphere of the woman, is likely to cause further increase of marriage insecurity and even further marriage breakdown. 7. One serious and far reaching implication is that Australia's ratification of this internation treaty places her under the control of foreign powers; she is no longer free; she has to submit to laws and regulations imposed by international courts and powers. 8. The cost of such legislation would be exceedingly great. The taxpayer-the rank and file of the nation-is the one who pays the bill. The next sitting of Parliament in Canberra will be in May. Petitions are being sent to both Houses and to the Governor-General asking that the Australian Government refrain from ratifying this United Nations Convention because of its profound, long lasting and widespread effects on the family life of our nation. For further information telephone- 07-201 6244 Dr A. Rendle-Short 07-396 9472 Mrs Jackie Butler 07-286 2498 Mrs Robyn Sully Senator MARTIN —I wish to comment very briefly on the statements made in this document because it is a grotesque misrepresentation of the provisions of the United Nations convention on discrimination against women. It says, for example, that: Changes are already being made to the bible so as to obliterate differences between the roles of masculine and feminine . . . Mothering would, by implication, become a second class calling or profession. . . . In the long term the result would be that the State would have the care and control of the child from infancy to maturity with the opportunity and power to mould its emotional life and its thinking . . . One of the results would be the likely development of emotional problems among the children and young people as a result of early separation from both parents. Such deprivation can be a serious cause of childhood psychiatric illnesses . . . Australia's ratification of this international treaty places here under the control of foreign powers; she is no longer free; she has to submit to laws and regulations imposed by international courts and powers. That piece of paper, which I gather is very widely distributed-certainly in my State of Queensland and apparently in other States as well-bears on it the names of three individuals who certainly know better. They certainly have access to the Convention and know what it says. Unfortunately, the Convention is a very long document. Much as I would like to have it incorporated in Hansard, it is too long for practical purposes to do that. However, it is my intention to send to everybody who writes to me or contacts me copies of the Convention so that people who are genuinely concerned about its contents can read the words for themselves and judge for themselves just how obscenely they are misled by this document which has on it the names Rendle-Short, Butler and Sully. I might say however that everybody who has contacted my office on this to date has been sent a copy of the Convention. As Senator Giles pointed out, copies are available from United Nations offices. They are also freely available from parliamentary sources. So nobody even has to spend any money if he really wants to know what is in the Convention. In contrast to that wretched document from which I just read extracts, I would like to draw a few words from the Convention to give some idea of just how strong the contrast is. The fact that I do not mention certain parts of it should not be construed to mean that I am trying to conceal anything that is in the Convention, because I reiterate that I will provide the full Convention to anyone who wants it, whether or not he is genuinely interested. The Convention contains such sentiments as faith in fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women. Equal rights are not the same as being carbon copies or sameness. It states: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. It affirms the equal right of men and women to enjoy all economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights. It is concerned to promote equality of rights of men and women. It states: . . . discrimination against women violates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity . . . hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family . . . It, far from denigrating the family as is claimed, very strongly supports the family and the significance of woman's role in the family. It is opposed to taking advantage of women who are mothers in a way that would put them at a disadvantage to other members of society. It recognises: . . . the great contribution of women to the welfare of the family and to the development of society, so far not fully recognised, the social significance of maternity and the role of both parents in the family and in the upbringing of children, and aware that the role of women in procreation should not be a basis for discrimination but that the upbringing of children requires a sharing of responsibility between men and women and society as a whole. I do not intend to quote further at any length. I think just those few pieces show the essence of the terrible lie that is being promoted by the people who are conducting this campaign. One is tempted to treat it with the contempt that it deserves. However, I know from experience that these sorts of campaigns genuinely alarm people with very genuine beliefs on matters. These people are not radicals or fringe lunatic groups at all, they are people who consider the Bible to be an important document, who put a very high value on mothering-be they men or women-who are concerned about the welfare of children and who are concerned that Australia remains a sovereign nation and free, not having to submit to laws and regulations imposed by any other country or power. To those people who have that sincere concern I say: Since you have taken the trouble to involve yourself in this issue please take the trouble to read the document you have been urged to denigrate and draw your own conclusions about the motives of those who have so upset you. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.53) —With my colleagues from the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia I add my support to the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The Australian Democrats intend to support the ratification of that Convention. It is particularly distressing, as has already been said this evening, to note that the debate on this issue is anything but rational, is based on anything but logic and seems to be designed to frighten people-male and female alike-rather than to educate them on what is the purpose of this Convention and Australia's ratification of it. I say to those women who want to be women, who I suspect are really women who want to be doormats: If at the moment what they want to be is women will they please tell me what they are now so that I have some way of knowing how to discuss things rationally with them. I have always believed myself-perhaps mistakenly-to be a woman. However, I believe that I am a person; an individual in my own right. It is rights that we are talking about in this Convention-the right to choose what we are, what we do and what we become. The petitions that are pouring in, the letters that are accompanying them and the rather oddly worded broadsheets that are coming in, talk a lot about the dangers of removing the concept of stereotyping. Something far more dangerous is the continuation of stereotyping, which is an essentially restricting practice. It restricts not only women in society but also men. It means that both men and women as individuals have their own individual inclinations and rights made very secondary to the inclinations and rights of so-called social traditions. No one is forcing women or men, through this Convention, into the work force. It gives both sexes the right to choose and the right to develop the talents that they have in the way that they wish. For too long the talents of women in business, in politics, in industry and in the community generally have been overlooked and wasted, to the detriment of Australian society. By the same token, the male has been forced to forgo any inclination he has to develop his role in the family as a partner in child rearing. I do not happen to believe that 'real men don't eat quiche' or that ' real women don't pump gas'. Not only do I do the latter but also my husband does the former. Indeed, he bakes quiches that are greeted with some considerable acclaim by my children, both of whom are female, both of whom assert that male drivers are worse than female drivers and both of whom are aware of the fact that they have no restrictions placed upon them by either my husband or myself on what they want to do in the future. If they choose to take up parenting as a full time role that will suit me fine, although I do not know where they would get the inclination from-certainly not from me. Nevertheless, they will be entitled to do so. If they want to pursue a career in politics of course I will try to dissuade them, but they are entitled to pursue any other area as far as I am concerned. This Convention does not force people to do anything; it allows them to do some of the things they have always wanted to do. Nobody is telling these women who want to be parents, women, mothers or anything else that they have to be something different. Nobody is trying to turn them into surrogate males, much less actual males. We are simply saying: Allow freedom of choice; remove the shackles that are placed on both men and women in society and society as a whole will benefit. I point out that anybody walking down the corridor to my office will come across a poster which probably encapsulates as well as anything my views on the matter. It has the headline 'Anything a woman does she has to do twice as well as a man to be considered half as good'. Under those words appears the following statement: 'Fortunately, this is not difficult'. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.58) —The Government is indeed indebted to the three honourable senators who have contributed to the adjournment debate this evening. Each from her own perspective has clarified the nature of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which is the subject of this evening's adjournment debate. Each said things which should be very reassuring to those women and men in our society who have been led by the very mischievous campaign against the Convention. It is the Government's intention to proceed to the ratification of this Convention at the earliest opportunity. I gather from the contributions that have been made in the Senate this evening that this step will have bipartisan, or shall I say tripartisan, support. This is a very heartening occasion in this Senate. We have support across all the major political parties which represent women and men in this place for action by the Government which, as Senator Haines said in her contribution, will not restrict possibilities for anybody but in fact will increase possibilities for women and men. It is particularly heartening that this support is being given at a time when the Senate has a record number of women members. During the adjournment debate tonight it was evident that women senators were greatly in the majority in the chamber, although it is very pleasing to see some male fellow travellers in the chamber supporting our cause. Senator Teague —Senator Teague was one of them. Senator RYAN —Senator Teague wishes his name to be placed on record. Senator Cook —And me. Senator RYAN —I must place it on record that my new colleague from Western Australia, Senator Cook, has supported this. Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition in this place, has just come into the chamber so I am not entirely sure whether his late appearance betokens support of our tripartisan effort here tonight. I hope that it does. I think that the Senate and those who will have the opportunity of reading the record of this adjournment debate will be indebted to the contributions that have been made. Senator Giles recounted the history of what was originally the declaration concerning the rights of women to live free of discrimination and described to us how that declaration became a convention-the United Nations Convention. In 1979 it was presented to a mid-decade conference in Copenhagen and subsequently ratified at the United Nations Assembly in the same year. Senator Martin concentrated, in a way that I think was very constructive, on the mischief and the distress that are caused to genuine people, the victims of these mischievous campaigns, with regard to the misleading allegations that are being made about the Convention. I hope that the people who have been writing to Senator Martin will accept her advice and read the Convention which she has undertaken to send them. Senator Haines also expressed her support and the support of the Australian Democrats for the ratification of the Convention and contributed to the debate by elucidating the provisions in the Convention which will enable both women and men to have wider choices. It is important I think, when the Australian Government is undertaking a major reform such as the ratification of the Convention and, of course, is prepared to undertake the legislative reforms with the Commonwealth which will give expression to that Convention, that such measures are widely supported throughout the Parliament. I said at the outset that I am very heartened at the support of Senator Martin who is a shadow Minister in the Opposition, Senator Haines who is a spokesperson of the Australian Democrats and, of course, my own colleague Senator Giles from Western Australia who has a long and very proud history of supporting civil liberties and reforms, nationally and internationally. I conclude the adjournment debate this evening by reaffirming the Government's intention to ratify the Convention at the earliest possible opportunity and to enact the legislation which will give effect to the intentions of that Convention which will, as all honourable senators have pointed out tonight, not restrict in any way the freedoms of any man, woman or child in our society but, indeed, will enhance and expand them in a way that all persons concerned with the development of the human spirit must heartily endorse. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.3 p.m. The following papers were presented: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister, describing lands acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act for specified public purposes. Public Service Arbitration Act-Public Service Arbitrator-Determinations by the Arbitrator, accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law-1983- No. 102-Australian Journalists' Association. No. 103-Commonwealth Medical Officers Association.* No. 104-Hospital Employees Federation of Australia. No. 105-Printing and Kindred Industries Union. No. 106-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). No. 107-Australian Public Service Artisans' Association. No. 108-Commonwealth Medical Officers Association.* No. 109-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service. Nos 110 to 112-Meat Inspectors' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and Others. No. 113-Australian Workers' Union. No. 114-Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees. No. 115-Merchant Service Guild of Australia. No. 116-Civil Air Operations Officers' Association of Australia. Nos 117 and 118-Transport Workers' Union of Australia.* No. 119-Minister for Communications and Australian Broadcasting Commission.* No. 120-Australian Public Service Artisans' Association and Another. No. 121-Amalgamated Metal Workers' and Shipwrights Union and Others.* No. 122-Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees.* No. 123-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). (*Not accompanied by statement.)