Thursday, 12 May 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth 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 distrubances 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 deprivating 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 as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 132 citizens), Button (from 111 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 156 citizens), Chipp (from 21 citizens), Coates (from 111 citizens), Coleman (from 120 citizens), Elstob (from 141 citizens), Harradine ( from 119 citizens), Missen (from 76 citizens), Primmer (from 109 citizens), Peter Rae (from 17 citizens), Reid (from 85 citizens), Richardson (from 110 citizens), Robertson (from 1,146 citizens), Teague (from 175 citizens) and Townley (from 95 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This Petition of concerned people, believes the Dingo, Australia's Native Dog, is an integral part of our wildlife and national heritage, and deserving of our conservation and humanity. We therefore request: 1. That the Dingo be removed from the classification of 'noxious', or vermin throughout Australia. 2. That the Dingo be given the same measure of protection as other wildlife, or breeds of dog, and that the persecution, and destruction of the Dingo as a breed be stopped, and outlawed. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Richardson (from 1,356 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I table papers in accordance with the list that has been circulated to honourable senators. I ask for leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australia-China Council-Annual Report 1981-82. 2. Department of Transport and Construction-Annual Report 1981-82. 3. Uluru-(Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management-pursuant to section 12 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. 4. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 30 of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964. 5. Science and Industry Endowment Fund-Statement of Income and Expenditure and Balance Sheet 1981-82. 6. National Standards Commission-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 19 of the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960. 7. Royal Military College Duntroon-Text of a statement by the Minister for Defence made in the House of Representatives on 11 May 1983. 8. Commonwealth Legal Aid Council-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 33 of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977.* 9. High Court of Australia-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979.* 10. ACT Schools Authority-Interim Annual Report 1981-82.* Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.4) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I have not actually seen the statement in detail which was put down by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) but I am aware of the topic to which it relates and the Press publicity that has gone on concerning activities which were alleged to have occurred at the Royal Military College at the beginning of this year. Allegations about Duntroon come up from time to time at the beginning of a year. I think all people would agree that the sort of extreme harassment that was alleged again this year ought not to go on at Duntroon. I do not think any of us would doubt that rigorous training is needed to teach self-reliance and leadership to the men who are to be the leaders of the Army of the future. But there has to be a happy balance and sufficient discipline among the people at Duntroon to see that that extreme harassment-if it occurs-does not occur. I take this opportunity to say that we should make sure that it does not occur at any time after the college moves into the Australian Defence Force Academy. Perhaps consideration should be given to new students going to the Academy at least one month before the older students return with a view to there being an orientation period which is of value so that this type of harassment does not occur. I do not know what really goes on but this matter does come up from time to time and there is little doubt that the community at large does not agree with extreme harassment. Perhaps some new approaches should be adopted in the Defence Force Academy. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.6) —I would like to say a few words on the Royal Military College Duntroon report. I grew up in a university college in which there was a rather extreme form of initiation ceremony. I do not condone such extreme actions in any way at all because they do give a licence to people who are immature to exercise authority in a rather irresponsible way. I do not condone in any way what was reported to have gone on at the Royal Military College. But the facts of life are that something like this is difficult to control. My objection to the report concerns the reaction of the Government initially to ruin the careers of five Australians who were really outstanding. Getting entry into any of the Service academies is quite an achievement these days from the intellectual, character and physical points of view. For the Government to move as it initially did to expel the students who were responsible for this action was quite the wrong move. The correct approach of the Government was to discipline the people who were responsible for the dormitories or who were in charge at a lower level at Duntroon because they were negligent in their duties for such extreme action to occur. As I understand it, there has been a later statement in which the Government has rescinded its decision to expel those five students. I hope that is true. Quite clearly, the action should have been taken against the military staff at the College because it was their responsibility, not the responsibility of the senior students, to make sure that that bullying and that ragging did not go on. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Interim Annual Report 1981-82 Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.9) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. As honourable senators will see, the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority interim annual report is marked with an asterisk on the circulated list. It was not available until tabling and I have had only approximately eight or nine minutes in which to look at it. There are a few things that I would like to say about this report and about the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. As the previous Minister for Education-Minister for part of the period covered by this report-it was a pleasure for me to be associated with the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority and with its operation. It was a particular pleasure to be able to work with the Chairman of the Authority, Dr Campbell, and with the Chief Education Officer, Dr Hancock, from both of whom I received the most positive and loyal assistance. I found it quite distressing last year when those officers and members of the Authority, when considering certain difficult problems, made recommendations to me which were then reported in the Press in such a way as to bring into some question either the competence or the dedication of those officers and of the Authority. I should like to place on record my belief that the Authority worked on all the difficult matters-I will mention one of them in a moment-in a way which I think would bring credit upon all officers in the Public Service, and certainly upon the Authority they served. The issue which caused most controversy last year was that concerning the rationalisation of schools in north Canberra, an area in which the population of school aged children diminished while it was increasing in other parts of the Australian Capital Territory. The matter for the Authority to work out was whether one or several schools needed to be closed or in some other way phased down. The Authority had a very difficult task. There was pressure from the community to keep all the community schools running. The Authority, on the other hand, had to make decisions which were fair to all citizens of the Australian Capital Territory and which were educationally sound. In the event, the Authority recommended that Watson High School should be phased out, and I accepted that recommendation. Just before the election I was examining an alternative proposal that the present cohort of students from years 7, 8 and 9 should be allowed to finish their time at Watson High before it finally closed. In any event, the decision has now been taken that Watson High School will remain open. That is fine; that is a new recommendation from the Authority and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has accepted it. But the retention of a smaller Watson High School will be an expensive option. If this is the course to be followed the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority will require extra resources. Without those extra resources children and parents somewhere else in the Australian Capital Territory system will have to yield resources. They will have to receive less to take up what is a fairly expensive option of keeping Watson High School open. It is incumbent upon Senator Ryan, as Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and the Minister responsible for the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, to indicate clearly and quickly that she will provide extra real resources to the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. If she fails to do that it follows that somewhere else in the system resources will have to be diminished in order to keep Watson High School open. I hope the Minister will come forward with this information and with this assurance. Two things in this report should be mentioned. This is an interim annual report because the Authority has had some difficulty with the Department of Finance in working out an appropriate means of presenting the accounts. Honourable senators will, I think, indicate their approval of the action taken by the Authority. As it has not yet been able to get agreement from the Department of Finance, or the process is still continuing, it has produced an interim report pending the resolution of its arguments as to what is an appropriate accounting method. The only difficulty it has had is that because it operates in a very special circumstance some of the accounting methods available were not appropriate. The only other thing to say is that the attendance records shown in this report indicate that three members of the Authority had outstandingly poor attendance records for 1981-82. They were Mr Lee, Mr White and Ms Connors. They each attended only six meetings of the Authority. One of these people has now become a full time member of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. I hope her attendance record there will be appropriate. The other two were school principals, one at Woden Valley High School and one, I think, at Hawker College. It was an indication that neither of them could really attend the Authority meetings as often as is appropriate. It just highlights the need to have community members who can commit time to the Authority and it gives us the warning that some of the people who attended ex officio or as principals of other schools may not have had the time required to do what is a very exacting job. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —Mr President, I seek leave to make my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Opposition Whip (Senator Kilgariff) nominating Senators Elstob, Hill, Jones, Lewis, MacGibbon, Sibraa and Tate to be members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That the senators indicated, having been nominated in accordance with the terms of the resolution, be appointed members of the Committee. The PRESIDENT —I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), the Opposition Whip (Senator Kilgariff), and the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) nominating Senators Sir John Carrick , Macklin, Robert Ray and Richardson to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the senators indicated, having been nominated in accordance with the terms of the resolution, be appointed members of the Committee. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.17) -I wish to speak very briefly to this motion. I will not oppose the motion but I wish to make just a couple of points. We are dealing with appointments to committees; that is, to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence-- The PRESIDENT —No, that motion has been dealt with, Senator. We are dealing with the motion to appoint members to the Committee on Electoral Matters. Senator HARRADINE —We are also dealing with the appointments to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters. I think it would be agreed by all members of parliament that this Committee could well have far reaching effects on the electoral processes in this country. It would therefore be agreed that all parliamentarians would have a vital interest in the work of the Committee, in any recommendations which emerge from the Committee's considerations and in the final outcome of those recommendations. In those circumstances it would seem to me to be appropriate for the Committee's membership to include all facets of opinion held by members of the Commonwealth Parliament, both within the Senate and the House of Representatives. When such a committee was first considered by the Senate-it was the year before last, from memory-I was one of those who suggested that it ought not be merely a Senate committee because it would be considering issues which were of vital interest to members of the House of Representatives. At that stage it was agreed that the committee should be a joint committee and accordingly the Senate passed a motion to that effect. In the event, the Government of the day did not consider the establishment of the committee to be appropriate and therefore the House of Representatives did not agree to the establishment of a joint committee . The resolution which was adopted by the House of Representatives was transmitted to the Senate yesterday. There was debate on it yesterday afternoon. That resolution, on the face of it, provides for a wide spread of opinion to be put to that Committee. In other words, it provides for membership by the Government party, by the Liberal Party and by the National Party of Australia and also for a member from the minority, an independent senator or senators. Yesterday I was rather surprised that the Opposition sought an amendment, not to include me but to include a National Party senator. Of course, the opinions of the National Party are already catered for by reason of the resolution which was adopted by the House of Representatives. That amendment was put forward without any consultation; nor should consultation necessarily have taken place. In the event, the resolution was adopted. I then proceeded to make contact with the Australian Democrats, the presumed minority party that is mentioned in the resolution. In accordance with the spirit of Standing Order 36AA I sought to obtain an understanding as to who would go onto the Committee. I found that already a nomination had been made. But nevertheless, I believe that the Australian Democrats and other members of parliament desire to ensure that all opinions are able to be expressed and that there should be a participation by those representing those opinions at the deliberative stage of the Committee. The question arises as to how that can be done. I presume it would be rather awkward for one member of the Australian Democrats to serve for half of the time , three-quarters of the time or five-sixths of the time and then for me to serve the extra one-fifth of the time. I am not so sure whether the opinions that would be expressed would be exactly in line, but I have now been given an assurance. I register my concern that I will not be on the Committee. But I have been given an assurance by the Government that so far as is possible, all of the information will be provided and, at particular stages, I will be able to have some input. I suppose that half a loaf is better than none. I therefore accept the situation although it is not the optimum situation. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(10.25) —in reply-As far as Senator Harradine is concerned, that will be done. Of course, the half a loaf which he has may be more tasty than the much bigger cake which members of the Committee will have to absorb and which may be more indigestible, if I may continue the honourable senator's analogy, because he does not have to serve on the Committee but the Government will ensure that he has every opportunity to see the documents and to have an input to the Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Interim Annual Report Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I wish to make a very brief statement to correct something I said a few moments ago. At about 10 o'clock the interim annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority was tabled. At about 10 past 10 I rose to make some comments on it. I had read only part of it and made some comments then about the attendance of several members of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority at meetings, pointing out that they had attended very few meetings. On reading a bit further it is revealed that there are very good reasons for this: Two of the members involved served only part of the year because they then resigned and one of the members involved attended very few meetings because she was appointed only late in the year and only very few meetings were available to her to attend. I apologise and put it down to the short time in which I had to try to digest the report. Motion (by Senator Button for Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: 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. Motion (by Senator Button for Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: 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 Commonwealth Parliament and the State parliaments. Motion (by Senator Button for Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: 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. Motion (by Senator Button for Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution by removing certain outmoded and expended provisions. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Bill be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) 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)(10.30) —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- I present Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 1982-83 in which appropriations totalling $407.4m-additional to those made by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1982-83 and Appropriation Act (No. 4) 1982-83-are sought for capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory and for other services. The proposed appropriations are needed to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures for which provision was not made in those Acts. The additional appropriations sought in this Bill reflect, in part, cost and price increases which have occurred since the time of the Budget; post-Budget decisions of the previous Government; certain unavoidable increases related to the depressed level of economic activity; and other smaller additional requirements which the Government has considered appropriate to meet this financial year. I now mention some of the major items in respect of which additional appropriations are sought. Under the Department of Administrative Services $10m is sought for the purchase from the Australian Telecommunications Commission of the exchange building at Deakin in the Australian Capital Territory to accommodate computer facilities for various Government departments. An amount of $7.7m is also sought to purchase additional motor vehicles to meet increased requirements as a result of post-Budget decisions of the previous Government substantially to increase staff ceilings of certain departments and in respect of an increase in the departmental vehicle replacement program. $175m is sought under the Department of Aviation for additional capital injections to Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas, reflecting the deteriorating profitability and liquidity positions of the airlines due to the downturn in the airline industry. Part of the increase for TAA was approved by the previous Government in December 1982; since that time it has become necessary to approve an additional $90m injection of capital for TAA and $60m for Qantas. $25.5m is included under the Department of Communications representing a further payment on the 75 million part-paid shares in Aussat Pty Ltd now held by the Commonwealth. $3.2m is provided to the Australian Taxation Office for the purchase of facilities for a national integrated computer system, a second computer site and equipment to assist the office in the implementation and administration of the proposed labour and services withholding tax legislation. $2.1m is provided under the Department of Home Affairs and environment for additional housing costs associated with the recruitment of additional staff by the Supervising Scientist and the Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute. The additional costs will be offset by an increase in revenues of the Department of Administrative Services. $7.2m is included under the Department of Housing and Construction for the CSIRO buildings and works program. $11.0m is included under the Department of Primary Industry for payment to South Australia in respect of concessional loans for reconstruction of the forestry industry in the wake of the recent bushfires in that State; and $4.1m is sought for payment to New South Wales as a concessional loan to assist the Letona Co-op Limited. $7.4m is provided under the Department of Resources and Energy in respect of an advance to the Pipeline Authority to cover costs resulting from a blow-out in the Moomba to Sydney pipeline and to meet a shortfall in estimated revenue. Included under the Department of Territories and Local Government is provision of $8m for the National Capital Development Commission, primarily to meet cost escalation provisions in contracts and the better-than-expected progress on construction works in the Australian Capital Territory due to prolonged favourable weather conditions. A further $10m is sought to meet the favourable progress on the construction of the new Parliament House, due also to the favourable weather conditions prevailing in the A.C.T. $90m is included under the Department of Transport to meet an urgent need to increase the capital of the Australian Shipping Commission resulting from liquidity difficulties. The amount comprises a direct capital injection of $30m, and $60m to enable the immediate conversion of that amount of outstanding government loans to equity capital. The provision of additional equity to the Commission is subject to satisfactory arrangements being agreed with the unions on reductions in manning levels across the ANL fleet. Finally, $15m of additional capital is sought for the Defence Service Homes Corporation to meet its approved loans program which has been affected by a higher than expected number of loan settlements and a shortfall in the availability of recycled funds for relending. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.32) —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- Pursuant to the arrangement arising out of the previous Government's consideration of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing, I present the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1982-83 which seeks appropriation of $288,000 in addition to the appropriation made in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1982-83. The additional appropriation is sought mainly to provide for increased salary costs in respect of staff employed in the House of Representatives. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.34) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is part of the unfinished taxation legislation of the former Government and is one of the measures which the Minister for Finance announced on 30 March 1983 would be proceeded with by this Government in these sittings. The Bill will provide legislative authority for the Commissioner of Taxation to pay interest on certain refunds of tax made as a result of a successful objection or appeal by a taxpayer against an assessment or other specified decision of the Commissioner. Interest is to be payable in respect of those taxes which are, under existing law, exposed to an additional (penalty) tax of 20 per cent per annum, if they are not paid by the due date for payment. Taxes in this category are income tax (including provisional tax) ascertained by assessment or similar procedure, recoupment tax payable under the Taxation ( Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act and the bank account debits tax. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act (No. 6) 1982 which was passed last year with the support of the Labor Party increased with effect from 14 February 1983 the rate of penalty tax for late payment of income tax and related amounts. The rise was from 10 per cent per annum to 20 per cent per annum. The Act also restricted the power of the Commissioner of Taxation to remit that penalty tax to cases involving specified or special circumstances. These amendments mean that disputed income tax will have to be paid by the due date or run the risk of additional penalty tax at the rate of 20 per cent per annum. Similarly, under legislation establishing liability to recoupment tax and bank account debits tax , any amounts not paid by the due date for payment will, subject to remission in specified or special circumstances, incur additional penalty tax at the rate of 20 per cent per annum. This Government supports the concept, as we did in opposition, that interest should be paid where tax is refunded to a taxpayer as a result of a successful objection or appeal against an assessment or other decision of the Commissioner. This Bill will achieve that aim. Interest will also be payable where tax is, instead of being refunded to a taxpayer, applied by the Commissioner of Taxation against any other tax liability. Honourable senators will note that the rate at which interest is to be calculated is initially to be set in the Bill at 14.026 per cent per annum. This rate is the weighted average of yields of the longest term Treasury bonds contracted for in the most recent Treasury bond tender, the results of which were announced on 19 April 1983. The Bill provides that subsequent variations in the rate of interest to reflect changes in the benchmark rate are to be made by regulation. Interest will accrue for the period during which tax was, by reason of the decision on the objection or appeal, found to have been overpaid. Typically, this will mean that interest will accrue from the later of the date on which the tax was paid, or the date of the disputed assessment or other decision, to the date the overpaid amount is refunded to, or applied against another tax liability of, the taxpayer. Interest will not accrue however in respect of periods before 14 February 1983, which is the date on which the increased rate of 20 per cent per annum for late payment of income tax commenced to apply. The Bill provides that interest is not to be paid to taxpayers who, in accordance with administrative procedures commonly known as the '50/50 rule' in operation prior to the commencement of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act ( No. 6) 1982 on 13 December 1982, made an arrangement with the Commissioner of Taxation for the remission of additional penalty tax accruing in respect of part of outstanding income tax pending resolution of a dispute, provided the remaining tax was paid. I mention that, as was indicated by the previous Government last year, interest paid on overpaid tax will form part of the assessable income of the recipient in the year of receipt and be subject to income tax. An explanatory memorandum providing detailed explanations of the provisions of the Bill is being made available to honourable senators and I do not think it necessary to say more at this stage. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) adjourned. Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Martin had moved by way of amendment: 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''. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.35) —Mr President, this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate you on your election to office. I am sure that you will show the impeccable impartiality, fine judgment and distinction that you showed when you had your previous position. I look forward to your generous indulgence from time to time. We are debating the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983, which is a clear, precise and unambiguous commentary on the Australian Labor Party's attitude towards the relationship between and the relative rights and responsibilities of the governments of the sovereign States of Australia and the Commonwealth Government of Australia. It is an unequivocal statement of the Australian Labor Party's position on the Federal system and the ultimate role it sees for the sovereign States. The Federal Labor Government is seeking, by the most brutal and perverse application of the Australian Constitution, to strip all power from the individual States of Australia. In my view it is a naked grab by a blindly obsessed government to snatch away from the States the right to make the most fundamental decisions and laws affecting their people. To add insult to injury, it is not even the Federal Government that ultimately decides whether an area is to be added to the World Heritage List; that decision is left to a committee of representatives from foreign powers. Senator Button —As a result of the decision of your Government. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I give them no marks and no credit. To give force to the legislation before us countries such as Bulgaria, Iraq, Libya, Zaire and Panama all sit in judgment on whether our recommendations might be accepted. Let us just look at some of the signatories to this wonderful United Nations Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. They are: Iraq, Iran, Yugoslavia, Poland, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, the Seychelles and Cuba-just to name a few. Can honourable senators not imagine those countries with undying dedication and enthusiasm ensuring that there is no destruction of their environments or their cultures? Imagine that being enforced and reinforced . Imagine also their compassion and understanding in protecting their cultural and environmental heritages for the benefit of all mankind so as to ensure that tourists and future generations can look with wonder upon their achievements which they have retained as a result of being signatories to this Convention! Frankly, I have always been pretty sceptical about the Federal Government's motive in becoming a signatory to this Convention. Without being a signatory to it, but by co-operation and good will between the States and the Commonwealth, using current State laws, those areas that are considered by the States to warrant or justify preservation now and for the future could and can now be reserved and preserved. The difficulty for the Federal Government with that proposition is that it requires co-operative federalism. It requires a spirit of good will, of togetherness, of consensus-all the things about which we hear the Labor Party speaking so often. It requires acceptance that matters of the environment are fundamentally the responsibility of the States. It does not provide a mechanism which allows the Federal Government to ride roughshod over the States and to ignore their views. To me the first discernible legislative move by the Commonwealth Government towards inevitably assuming control of large parts of the States for the purpose of conservation was the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1975 which clearly relies upon, amongst other things, the implied national power, external affairs power and commerce and trade power. None of these powers was ever intended or ever conceived to be used for the purpose for which the Federal Government now intends to apply them. I think it can be safely assumed-if I am not being presumptuous-that the provisions upon which the Federal Government will most heavily rely in the current case in the High Court of Australia against Tasmania will be the external affairs powers. They are relevant only because Australia is a signatory to the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Hence the significance of the agreement to the legislation. However, not satisfied with that the Australian Labor Government has sifted through every word of the Constitution looking for a loophole whereby it can destroy the spirit and intention of the Constitution. The Commonwealth has now introduced the diabolical legislation presently before us just to make sure that it has all the power it can find to destroy the rights and responsibilities of the sovereign States. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you regard the Racial Discrimination Act as equally diabolical? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I think it is diabolical in terms of its application to this legislation. It was never intended and the founding fathers never intended it. In fact, it is the reverse of the intention of the original constitutional provision. Senator Gareth Evans —Is the Racial Discrimination Act diabolical, based on the same power? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —This legislation is diabolical in its application to try to stop the dam in South West Tasmania. Just to make sure that the Government has the legislative means at its disposal to trample over the wishes of the Tasmanian Government, the Tasmanian Parliament and the Tasmanian people, the Commonwealth Government has now introduced the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill which incorporates a number of constitutional sleight of hand devices to corrupt the Australian Constitution. The Federal Government is now relying upon the implied national power, the external affairs power, the commerce and trade power, the power to make laws in respect of other races and the corporation power, as the heads of power. No doubt Senator Evans has a few other tricks up his sleeve that I have not yet been able to discover. Almost without exception not one of the powers of the Constitution I have mentioned was ever intended by the draftsmen of the Constitution or by the people who voted for it to be used in such a way. Without question, conservation would not at that time have been uppermost in the minds of the founding fathers when they drafted and agreed upon the Constitution but one can be certain that if it had, they would certainly not have intended that the provisions presently being applied should be invoked in the way that they are. I am quite certain that if it was a matter upon which they had laboured, they would have come to the conclusion very quickly that the matter is very much one for the States. As Alfred Deakin stated: From the first day Federation is consummated-heaven hasten that day-the people will divide themselves into two parties. The instant Federation is accomplished, the two Houses will be elected on that basis. State rights and State interests, I venture to say, will never be mentioned because they will never be imperilled. Both sides, in order to secure support, will make the first plank of their platform the maintenance and defence of State interests. How wrong he was. Senator Button —He didn't foreshadow you, did he, Senator? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —He did not foreshadow me. That is another one of his aberrations. Senator Robert Ray —Was he a pinko? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Of course he was a pinko, so I do not give him any credit. I understand why he made so many mistakes. Senator Reynolds —A pinko? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Does the honourable senator not know what a pinko is? Senator Robert Ray —Go on. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thought the honourable senator might have something else inane to add, so I was giving him a chance. Let us look at the way the Constitution is being bent or irreparably damaged in the name of centralism. I refer honourable senators to the corporation power which was introduced into the Constitution to give uniformity and, more particularly, protection to the community from the failure of companies who were involved in both finance and land and further, to provide uniformity of regulation to foreign companies. The matter of banks had already been dealt with and it was a natural progression and extension that further consideration would be given to other corporations. Certainly the legislation was not intended to be discriminatory or selective in the activity and operation of companies. Least of all, it was not intended to be used by the Commonwealth for ulterior reasons such as to prevent companies or corporations from undertaking construction within areas where the Federal Government did not want construction to occur. Nor was it intended to prevent the importation of equipment or machinery by corporations which were to undertake construction work. Clearly, the corporation power is included in this legislation to prevent private enterprises or the Hydro-electric Commission from undertaking construction work on the dam in South West Tasmania. One point that was made clear in the constitutional debates and which has been made clear again and again in recent times was that it was corporations such as the HEC which were to be specifically excluded from the constitutional provision , for very good reasons. One of the participants in the 1897 Constitutional Convention debate asked: 'Why not just leave the wording as corporation?' Deakin responded and said that they wanted to include all limited companies because the class of companies he was speaking of dealt with lands and with deposits and they required careful regulation, especially land and finance companies which had in the past caused so much litigation. In the debate Mr Barton added that the reason for the difference was that it had been seen that the word 'corporations' as it existed covered municipal corporations. So the words were changed to trading or financial corporations with the exclusive intention of ensuring that municipal corporations were not to be trapped by the legislation. It is not without significance that in the St George case a corporation generating and supplying electricity was found to be outside the Constitution because regard was paid to its intention, purpose and activities, and, more particularly, because it was of a municipal or non-private enterprise character. To seek to use the corporation power is to ignore totally the intention of the Constitution. I turn to the external affairs powers. Clearly this constitutional provision was not intended to allow the Federal Government to enforce domestically upon the people of Australia an agreement or treaty which the Federal Government so chooses for the purpose of drawing all power from the States unto itself. On the use of external affairs powers, Chief Justice Harry Gibbs said in the Koowarta case: The distribution of powers made by the Constitution could in time be completely obliterated; there would be no field of power which the Commonwealth could not invade, and the federal balance achieved by the Constitution could be entirely destroyed. Zines, in his book The High Court and the Constitution, made the obvious observation that: The crux of the problem is that the Commonwealth may enter into an agreement with other countries for the sole or main purpose of acquiring power to legislate in an area that would otherwise not be available to it, and the rules of law and the methods of our courts provide no protection against such an attempt. I find that to be very regrettable. It was Chief Justice Gibbs, also commenting on the Koowarta case, who, observing that if that view is correct-meaning, of course, the hypothetical situation in which there would be unfettered power to implement domestic legislation as a result of external affairs agreements- . . . the Executive could, by making an agreement, formal or informal, with another country, arrogate to the Parliament power to make laws on any subject whatsoever. It could for example, by making an appropriate treaty, obtain for the Parliament powers to control education, to regulate the use of land, to fix the conditions of trading and employment, to censor the Press or to determine the basis of criminal responsibility-it is impossible to envisage any area of power which could not become the subject of Commonwealth legislation if the Commonwealth became a party to an appropriate international agreement. In other words, if section 51 (xxix) empowers the Parliament to legislate to give effect to every international agreement the Executive may choose to make, the Commonwealth would be able to acquire unlimited legislative power. Mr Justice Kitto, in Airlines of New South Wales Pty Ltd v. New South Wales, said: The Australian union is one of dual federalism and until the parliament and the people see fit to change it, a true federation it must remain. In the Koowarta case, Wilson J. stated: It is no exaggeration to say that what is emerging is a sophisticated network of international arrangements directed to the personal, economic, social and cultural development of all human beings. The effect of investing the Parliament with power through section 51 (xxix) in all these areas would be to transfer to the Commonwealth virtually all unlimited power in almost every conceivable aspect of life in Australia including health and hospitals, the workplace, law and order, the economy, education and recreational and cultural activity, to mention but a few general heads. Yet, that is just what is happening. Zines, in his book The High Court and the Constitution made the obvious observation: The crux of the problem is that the Commonwealth may enter into an agreement with another country for the sole or main purpose of acquiring power to legislate in an area that would otherwise not be available to it, and the rules of law and the methods of our courts provide no protection against such an attempt. I find that very regrettable. What needs to be clearly understood is that the very dangers to the Constitution in our Federal system of government, which are referred to by the High Court judges, are deliberately and provocatively an intrinsic part of this legislation which is now before us. It is not without significance to note that the first major piece of legislation introduced by the Labor Government is exclusively a reflection of the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to State governments. Again, I refer the Senate to the Boyer Lectures in which Mr Hawke stated inter alia: 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 . . . It is true that all heads of power that the Commonwealth Government seeks to use in this legislation were never intended for, nor were they ever vaguely related to, the purpose to which the Federal Government now seeks to put them. As I have said from the outset, this legislation is a crude attempt by a centralist government in Canberra to assume control of the resources of a constitutionally elected government of a sovereign State. One cannot help but note in passing that while the Government has shown unbridled enthusiasm for amendment to the Constitution our newly elected Attorney-General, Senator Evans, has committed himself to re-writing the Federal Constitution by 1988. I wonder with fascination and bated breath what that will do to us except, of course, destroy the Senate, destroy the States and leave the House of Representatives to run this country in a unicameral system which we have never seen before. There has been no attempt and no suggestion that the Australian Labor Party would seek, by way of a constitutional amendment, to have a power included which provides the Federal Government with direct and specific powers to assume responsibility for conservation and environment from the States. The reason for that is all quite clear. Members of the ALP are not half as silly as they act. They know that they would be voted against overwhelmingly on any constitutional amendment which proposed to take power from the States and have it reside in this monolith here in Canberra. I am always fascinated by the frank and uninhibited but conceited belief by central governments that they are the repository of all wisdom, all knowledge, all judgment and have a unique feeling for and understanding of what is good for Australia as they see it. The very basis of the principle of the devolution of power from the Commonwealth, through the States and down through local government is that the best, most effective and sensitive form of administration is that which is closest to the people. Senator Teague —Wisdom is often closest to the people. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Of course, inevitably. The best decisions are those which are made nearest to the administrative effect of the decision. The fallacious argument has been put that the people and Government of Tasmania have no care or love of their natural environment; that they are hell bent on destroying their heritage; and that they lack the sensitivity and care of Tasmania which is so dear to all those caring people on the mainland. From my experience the reverse is the case. Tasmanians, I have found, are immensely proud of their State and what it offers. Senator Bolkus —Did Robin Gray write your speech? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Robin Gray did not write it, but no doubt when he reads it for the first time he will think it is a knockout and will probably use it himself at the first chance. Senator Button —There must be some reason for giving it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thought Senator Button might for a moment be moved by some of what I have to say. I know Senator Button is not myopic, prejudiced or biased. I know he has an open mind and I go forward with hope, vain as it might be. The people of Tasmania have a natural love and care for their island, their home. They know better than anybody that the decisions they make in regard to development and conservation will be visited upon their children, their families and their children's children. They are more concerned than anyone to ensure that there is a balance between the retention of the natural environment and a sensible and proper development of the natural resources which are available for exploitation and have a God-given right to be used by man. There is a sensible balance to be struck, of course, and I am not moved by the view that people on the mainland-who may well have secure and comfortable jobs and a secure and comfortable lifestyle, who are not threatened or stifled by outside influences, who in all probability will never visit Tasmania and who will never have a wish to visit Tasmania-are best able to judge what is in the best interests of the people of Tasmania. Frankly, I am moved to the view that those on the mainland who clamour for the Federal Government to intervene in the affairs of Tasmania have little or no regard for the welfare of the people of Tasmania. What price are the mainland people prepared to pay to retain the area in question? Would they sacrifice their jobs? Are they prepared personally to have their taxes increased to the level required to compensate for the cost to the jobs, the development and the future in Tasmania? Are they prepared to have their taxes increased? What price for their principles? What price are they prepared to pay? Nothing except a lot of rhetoric, a lot of superficial emotion concerned with South West Tasmania. They may never go there. They have no interest in it. It is all very well for them, as long as they are ensconced in their own grotty little homes in parts of the mainland of Australia, to suggest that the people of Tasmania ought to be out of a job. Senator Robert Ray —Homes that your Government provided. Don't attack the trendies like that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —With respect, there are those on our side who are trendies. However, I think there are many born again Liberals now rising out of the mess of the last few years. I ask: What price are these people on the mainland prepared to pay for their principles? Absolutely nothing, knowing that all they have to do is bleat and support this cause-for dubious and ulterior motives, I suggest, in many cases. I am sure that very few people, for example, in Western Australia, 3,000 kilometres away from Tasmania-about one per cent of whom is likely to go there and none of whom is likely to run the risk of destroying himself or breaking an arm as Don Chipp did when canoeing down the Franklin River to show how principled he is and how much concern and compassion he has-would want to go there. They can look at the beauty and natural environment with which Western Australia has been blessed. I think that view is true of most Western Australians. I take exception to any suggestion by this Parliament that the Western Australian people should impose their wishes, views, misinformation and misjudgments on the people of Tasmania. What right do they have to dictate to the people of Tasmania what parts should be preserved and what parts should be developed-what rivers, trees, shrubs or wildlife should be preserved? How ridiculous! I have no doubt that the people of Tasmania have a clear knowledge. They have made wise, carefully judged distinctions and balances between development-limited as it might be-and preservation for that island. I am sure they are able to balance that with what should be preserved for mankind in the future. I do not believe as so many people in this Parliament believe, that all divine wisdom, divine right or divine knowledge resides in this building. More mistakes have been made here than in any other organisation I know of, including the Sydney Swans. Senator Cook —Have a talk to the Western Australian Liberal Party. They have made a few. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Mistakes? Senator Cook —Yes, sir! Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —They go from record achievement to record achievement. Senator Cook —From record defeat to record defeat. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —We lost the last State election because the Federal Government decided to have an election in the middle of our campaign. People said that the then Prime Minister had no regard for the remarkable performance of Ray O'Connor and his predecessors. In the same way-- Senator Cook —Ray Incompetent. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —You sacked three of your leaders before you could find a half-wit. Senator Walsh —Tell us about the Poseidon shares. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —What would you like to know about them? You are supposed to be the full bottle. You are fully informed on all these things. Senator Walsh —Tell us-- Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Would you say that again, Senator Walsh? Senator Walsh —Tell us about the Poseidon shares. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —What would you like to know? You are hard to hear; you are still down in the gutter. Speak up. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! I suggest, Senator Crichton -Browne, that you direct your remarks through the Chair. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am doing my best, Mr Acting Deputy President, but when I am being pestered by pests on my left hand side it is not easy. The fact of the matter is that the best, most sensible and most balanced judgments to have been made since Federation-- Senator Cook —They have never been made by the Western Australian Liberal Party. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —This is one of the few occasions when the honourable senator's party has been in government. It has not yet had time to make a mistake. It is regrettable to so many Australians that the new Labor Government has shown such dedication to fulfilling its electoral promise on this occasion. I just wish, as do I am sure so many Australians, that it would show the same enthusiasm and the same dedication for implementing the rest of its promises instead of whingeing, whining and complaining about the achievements of the last Government. I find it ironic that the Australian Labor Party was elected to office on a platform of creating jobs and bringing Australians together, yet its first major piece of legislation is guaranteed and designed, wilfully and with the knowledge of the ALP, to destroy jobs, not to create them. It is designed to set Australians against Australians. It is designed to divide this country, not to bring it together. Debate (on motion by Senator Evans) adjourned. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.3) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill was first introduced into the Senate on 11 November 1981. After a long and lively debate, in the course of which a number of amendments were made to the original Bill, it was passed by the Senate on 17 November 1982. It is the most important of the four proposals that are now to be put to referendum. The present Bill is the same as the 1982 Bill except for the incorporation of a convention relating to section 13, which was unanimously approved by the Adelaide meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention, and some drafting changes. The section 13 matter concerns the division of senators into 'short-term' and 'long-term' senators after a double dissolution and I shall deal with it later. Since the Bill was passed by the Senate we have had yet another example of an early election-that of March 1983-and now we learn that the British Parliament is to go to the polls 11 months ahead of the due date, ending a lengthy period of speculation about the date of its election. While the Bill may appear at first sight very complex, its basic content is quite simple. The basic fixed term rule is that elections for the House of Representatives are to be held on a constitutionally fixed date-namely the third Saturday in November every three years-which cannot be varied at the discretion of the Prime Minister or Government of the day. This basic rule is subject to two qualifications: An early House of Representatives election can be held in the event that the Government of the day loses a no-confidence vote in the lower House and no alternative government can be formed; and double dissolutions can occur, as at present, in the event of a prolonged deadlock between the House and Senate. But in either case the incoming Government does not commence a new three -year term, rather it merely serves out the term of its predecessor, ensuring that the basic three-year cycle is quickly restored. Although opposed by the previous Government at all stages, the Bill in its final form received very substantial cross-party support, with the Australian Labor Party being joined at the third reading not only by the five Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine, but also by six Liberal senators. The Bill has also had at all stages strong and consistent support in newspaper editorials, and from the nation's most prominent and respected public affairs commentators. The reasons why the Bill has received such support are not hard to identify. Essentially, it has been seen as a moderate and constructive attempt to solve-or at least go a long way towards solving-two quite fundamental kinds of constitutional problems that have become apparent in recent years, and to do so in a way that is in the long term interests of all sides of politics and of the community as a whole. Problems Addressed by the Bill The first problem addressed by the Bill is the utter lack of stability and predictability in the Australian electoral cycle. The present constitutional rules allow the Prime Minister of the day to call an election for the House of Representatives more or less at whim, and moreover, to demand a double dissolution more or less at whim in the event that the formal precondition of a deadlock with the Senate over some matter has been established. In recent decades, early elections have become the rule rather than the exception. Since the Second World War, the average life of the House of Representatives has been not three years, but two years and four months. Cynicism and opportunism have become the order of the day. Acute uncertainty constantly reigns, often beginning very early in the life of a parliament, as to how long the parliament will last. Rational planning, in both the public and the private sector, becomes difficult to the point of impossibility, with ad hoc decision making being the norm, and short term political advantage the yardstick against which policy is formulated and implemented. Bad enough in good times, this spells disaster in times-like the present-of economic crisis. If accepted at referendum the Bill will obviously do a great deal to restore predictability, stability and sanity to the political system. The second basic problem to which the Bill is addressed is the instability of our democratic political system flowing not from the Prime Minister's power to pick an election date of his own choosing, but from the existence and use of the Senate's power to force a government to the polls by blocking Supply in a situation where that Government retains its majority in the lower House, that is the problem of 11 November 1975. The 1975 constitutional crisis was undoubtedly one of the most traumatic events in Australia's political history, with the community deeply divided-not always on strict party lines-as to the legitimacy of what occurred. A legacy of bitterness was created by the actions of the Senate and the intervention of the Governor-General which still shows little sign of dissipation. Perhaps even more importantly, an institutional legacy was also clearly established by the events of 1974 and 1975, such that no government lacking a secure majority in the Senate can any longer look forward to seeing out its full term. If an opposition sees it as politically advantageous to use them, the weapons are ready to hand every six months with the recurring Supply and Appropriation Bills. The potential for instability inherent in the letter of the Australian Constitution has at last been fully realised. Since 1975 nothing has changed. The constitution has not been amended in any relevant respect. It remains within the power of the Senate to block Supply and, in these circumstances, within the power of the Governor-General to dismiss governments retaining the confidence of the House of Representatives and to dissolve the parliament. There are various ways of tackling the problem posed by the 1975 precedent which, until resolved, will continue to haunt both sides of politics. The two most direct, and extreme solutions are those which have been championed respectively by Mr Whitlam on behalf of the ALP and Sir Charles Court on behalf of the Liberal and National Parties at meetings of the Australian Constitutional Convention. The Whitlam solution is simply, without more, to remove from section 53 of the Constitution any power of the Senate to reject or 'in any other manner block' money Bills. The Court solution, on the other hand, would confirm and institutionalise the Senate's existing stranglehold over the House of Representatives by requiring an automatic double dissolution, without vice-regal intervention, in the event that the Senate failed to pass a Bill ' Appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government' within 30 days. When these provisions were debated at the Perth Constitutional Convention in July 1978, the Court proposal was adopted following a close division on party lines. Standing Committee D of the Convention subsequently gave the Court proposal detailed drafting consideration, and, with some alteration, it was ' noted and approved' by the Adelaide Convention but, given the record of abject failure of referendum proposals that have failed to secure a significant measure of cross-party support, it remains unlikely that it will ever be put to referendum. Equally it must be acknowledged that the Whitlam proposal, were it to be put to referendum in the reasonably foreseeable future, would probably not have a much greater chance of success. The fixed term parliaments proposal, in the form in which it has emerged from the Senate, amounts to an indirect solution to the problem-a second best solution, perhaps, for everyone, but one which does not involve for either side a confession of past error or loss of present face, and which as such is more politically realistic than any available alternative. The Senate's Supply- blocking power under section 53 of the Constitution remains unamended by the present Bill, as does the Governor-General's reserve power to dismiss a government. The overwhelming likelihood in practice, however, if the Constitution were amended as proposed, is that the power to block Supply would not be destructively exercised, and that the occasion would not, accordingly, arise for the Governor-General to exercise his own power to dismiss. The argument, in summary, is that the basic constitutional prohibition of premature elections would make the blocking of Supply in most circumstances pointless and politically counter-productive. To the extent that the basic prohibition could be avoided in a particular case-for example by the existence, at the time of the blocking, of some deadlocked measure, for which the double dissolution 'trigger' was already cocked, as was the case in both 1974 and 1975- then the rule that an incoming government could only serve out the term of its predecessor would operate in nearly every case as an overwhelming practical disincentive to the Senate pursuing the matter. The Bill It is appropriate at this point to explain the main elements in the Bill in a little more detail. BASIC FIXED TERM RULE New section 28 of the Constitution-clause 6 of the Bill-provides for a three- year term for the House of Representatives, with elections in future being required to be held, subject to two specific exceptions, on the third Saturday in November every third year, following expiry of the Parliament on the last Thursday in October. New section 5-clause 2 of the Bill-provides that the Governor-General has no power, subject again to the two exceptions, to dissolve the Parliament other than at this time. By amendments to sections 7 and 13 of the Constitution-clauses 3 and 5 respectively of the Bill-Senate terms are described as equivalent to two House of Representatives terms, and the conditions are created for Senate elections to be always held at the same time as House of Representatives elections. Further, amendments to sections 12 and 32 of the Constitution-in clauses 5 and 7 of the Bill-ensure that writs for House and Senate elections are issued at the proper time. FIRST EXCEPTION: NO CONFIDENCE RESOLUTION New section 5 of the Constitution-clause 2 of the Bill-provides for the House to be dissolved in the event that a formal resolution of no confidence, of which at least 24 hours notice has to be given, is passed against the Government, and that there is no further resolution passed by the House within seven days expressing confidence in an alternative Ministry. The House is expressly required to meet within seven days, if it is not otherwise scheduled to do so, in order that this confidence question can be tested. SECOND EXCEPTION: SENATE DEADLOCK The only other circumstance enabling an early election to be called in breach of the basic fixed term rule will be the case of a sustained deadlock-of 90 days or more-between the House of Representatives and the Senate, which the Government in the House of Representatives chooses to break by advising a double dissolution. Under the provisions of existing section 57 of the Constitution which govern double dissolutions, this exception will not apply in the six months before the due election date. RESTORING THE ELECTION CYCLE AFTER AN EXTRAORDINARY DISSOLUTION New Section 28 of the Constitution-Clause 6 provides that following extraordinary dissolutions of the Parliament under one or other of the two exceptions, the newly-elected Parliament will only serve out the remainder of the original term, rather than commencing a new three-year cycle-unless the dissolution occurs within three months of the expiry of the House of Representatives, in which case a three-year cycle would commence thereafter. This means that, in the case of a successful no confidence resolution under the first exception, only the House of Representatives would go to the polls, with the next House of Representatives and half-Senate elections occurring at the ordinary scheduled time. In the event of a double dissolution under the second exception, both Houses would go to the polls. The 'short term' senators this elected would be due for re-election at the House of Representatives/half-Senate election at the next ordinary scheduled time. Section 13 Amendment At this point it is convenient to explain the one addition of substance to the 1982 Bill-there are other drafting changes-namely, the incorporation into it of the Convention regarding section 13 of the Constitution which was unanimously approved by the Adelaide meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention. After a double dissolution the Senate is required by section 13 to divide its members into 'short term' senators and 'long term' senators so that the cycle of Senate rotation can recommence. The practice of allocating senators to 'short term' and 'long term' lists according to their relative success at the preceding election has invariably been followed and the view has now been unanimously accepted by the Convention that this practice is of such importance that it should be written into the Constitution. The opportunity is now being taken to do just that. Objections to the Proposal-and Responses A number of objections to the Bill, and the concepts underlying it, were made in the course of the Senate debate last year, which it is reasonable to anticipate may recur in the course of the present debate. Although these objections were either accommodated by Committee stage amendments, or answered in the second reading reply on 19 August 1982 and in the subsequent Senate Committee debate, it may be helpful to honourable senators to summarise those objections which have been most vigorously pressed, and indicate the way in which they may be answered. 'IMPOSSIBLE TO REMOVE A BAD GOVERNMENT': It is said there must be a provision for an election to be held when a government in the House of Representatives loses its majority and no other government can be formed which has the confidence of the House of Representatives. The answer to that objection is that the fixed term concept must of course be qualified in order to retain a Westminster parliamentary system which accommodates that contingency. The Bill makes express provision for this in the no confidence procedure set out in new section 5, clause 2. 'A NEW GOVERNMENT COULD BE FORMED WITHOUT AN ELECTION': It is said there must be an election whenever a new government is formed, and that the Bill is deficient to the extent that it does not allow for this. The system of responsible government demands, so the argument runs, that there not be new governments formed simply by the ebb and flow of majorities within a chamber but that whenever a government loses the confidence of the chamber for any reason, then without waiting to test whether some other government can be formed with a majority, an election ought to be held. To the extent that the fixed term parliament concept as here proposed would rule that out, it is said to interfere with the principles of responsible government. In answer to that objection, it is acknowledged that the Bill does not provide for any mechanism to deal with that situation. On the contrary, it makes provision for a new government to be formed, after the existing one loses the confidence of the House of Representatives, without an election being held if that new government can win a confidence vote in the House of Representatives. But it amounts to a misunderstanding of the Westminster system of responsible government to demand more than that of this proposal and require that an election be necessary in those circumstances. Precedents for such changes of government, under the existing Constitution, occurred in 1903, 1904 twice, 1905, 1908, 1908, 1909, 1917 and 1941. 'THERE WOULD BE NO OPPORTUNITY FOR A GOVERNMENT TO RENEW ITS MANDATE': This objection is put in two different ways. First it is argued that the government of the day needs to have the opportunity to seek a double dissolution if it is being obstructed in its legislative program by a hostile Senate. In reply, it need only be said that the Bill in its present form accommodates this form of the objection by providing for the retention of the double dissolution provision in its present form. The second version of this objection says that the opportunity is needed for the Government to renew its mandate if it has some controversial measure that it wants community support for, or if it is in a position where it lacks, on most of the measures that it puts up, the support of the House of Representatives but where no-one is prepared to move a no confidence motion in the government. The answer here is that it simply is one of the restrictions which the fixed term parliament concept imposes-in our view clearly outweighed by the advantages which the fixed term confers-that a government is not able to renew its mandate in situations of real or imagined difficulties within the lower House itself. Such situations are relatively unlikely to arise as long as the party system continues to operate in its present fashion, and to the extent that they do arise, we consider that the limitation of the Government's ability to call an early election is amply compensated by the benefits of fixed terms systems, above all in terms of stability and predictability of the electoral cycle. 'THE QUALIFICATIONS MEAN THAT THERE ARE NOT REALLY FIXED TERMS AT ALL': It is said that if there are any qualifications at all to enable an extraordinary election of the House of Representatives or to enable a double dissolution in the circumstances of upper House disruption, this is no longer a fixed term parliament system. It is not really a fixed term system, it is said, as long as the government of the day can manipulate these kinds of exception provisions to its own advantage. One way it could do so, it is suggested, is by passing a no confidence motion in itself in the House of Representatives as a purely formal device to get itself to the polls on an earlier date-as has now happened twice with a similar provision in the West German Constitution. Another possibility, much more likely in practice, is that the double dissolution provisions could be very easily manipulated by a government simply by throwing up to the Senate some manifestly unconscionable proposition and using the Senate's rejection of it as a trigger in the hands of the government, to be used any time it pleases, to obtain a dissolution not just of the House of Representatives at a politically opportune time but of the whole Senate as well. This objection highlighted a problem in the original version of the Bill but it has largely been countered by an amendment to the Bill introduced during the Senate debate. The Bill now contains a very significant disincentive to the artificial manipulation of the extraordinary election exceptions. The disincentive is that the government which is elected following an early election , held under either of the extraordinary procedures, holds office only for the remainder of the original three-year cycle. Thus if a government has served two years of its term and decides that an immediate election would be preferable to an election in 12 months time, it obtains no advantage from seeking an early election since, if re-elected, it would hold office only for the remainder of the cycle; that is, 12 months, at the end of which time it would again have to face the electorate. 'THE CHANGE WOULD NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF SENATE POWER': It is argued that there is nothing to stop the Senate blocking Supply just because of the fixed term rule being in the Constitution. Either there may be double dissolution Bills already in existence of which the Senate can take advantage at the time it blocks Supply, in exactly the same way as occurred in 1974 and 1975 when there were, fortuitously, double dissolution Bills already in existence; or alternatively, it is said, the Senate could block Supply, and insist that the House of Representatives resolve the impasse thus created, by passing a vote of no confidence in itself. One possible answer is that these are theoretical options only as far as the Senate is concerned and that the Senate just will not block Supply as a matter of practical political dynamics: If it cannot easily force an election by doing so it will not risk the hostility or political obloquy that would be involved in doing so. Another practical answer is that the House of Representatives will be careful in future to avoid creating double dissolution triggers to avoid just that possibility of the Senate taking advantage of a fortuitous section 57 trigger being in place. But the best answer is an extension of that previously given: The combination of technical obstacles to early dissolution, and the rule that the new government could see out only the remainder of the term of its predecessor, would operate in nearly every case as an overwhelming practical disincentive. A further argument is put that the Senate might block Supply not with the intention of forcing the government of the day to the polls but rather with the intention of forcing concessions from the government of the day as far as the Budget was concerned, forcing actual changes to the Bill rather in the way that occurs in the United States of America at the moment. The most one can say here is that this option has always been available under the present arrangements, that it has never been exercised, and there is no reason to suppose that the establishment of the fixed term system will make it any more likely in practice. Senator Peter Rae —That is not so. Senator GARETH EVANS —It can make requests. 'TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CHANGE WILL LIMIT THE SENATE'S POWER TO BLOCK SUPPLY, IT WILL UNDERMINE ITS STATUS AND CREDIBILITY': It is objected, finally, that to the extent that the fixed term parliament concept will solve the problem of Senate power with respect to money Bills, it is inconsistent with the credibility and status of the Senate as an institution for its powers to be limited in this way or its status to be changed in this way. The answer is simply that there is no necessary connection between the powers of the Senate, formal or practical, with respect to money Bills and its status and authority as a chamber of the Parliament. The two are not inextricably intertwined. Indeed, the Australian Labor Party is of the view that the status of the Senate will be considerably enhanced if its powers over money Bills are removed altogether and its role as a House of review is clearly defined. There is much that this and other upper Houses can do in improving legislation, scrutinising the Executive, monitoring the bureaucracy and initiating and generating ideas. None of those functions will be impinged upon in any way by the implementation of the fixed term system. Conclusion Mr Deputy President, as you will appreciate, this Bill is-as was said at the outset-a serious minded and realistic attempt to grapple with questions of fundamental constitutional importance, and of crucial importance to the future practical working of our parliamentary system. It is a genuine attempt to find a possible middle-of-the-road solution to problems which have been-and should be- weighing heavily on those of us on both sides of the chamber who simply want to ensure, in the interests of the Australian people, that the political system can work-not only in times of serenity but also in times of passion and crisis. The subject matter is such that the temptation to score cheap political points is obvious. But it is a temptation which has been resisted in this speech-as it was in most contributions to last year's Senate debate-and hopefully it will be in subsequent contributions to the debate in this house. The only way constitutional reform on this or any other issue can be achieved is through consensus. The Senate has shown how that consensus might evolve and it is now up to us to put the proposal to referendum. The overwhelming support indicated by a recent public opinion poll for the idea of fixed terms, which was of the order of 70 per cent in every State, is an encouraging sign that the referendum will be carried. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Significance and Purpose This Bill, which has been developed over a decade, commencing with the Sydney meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1973, is being put before the Parliament with a view to enabling the people of Australia to express their views on a proposal to facilitate flexible interchanges of power between the Commonwealth and the States. The objective which we are trying to accomplish through this proposed constitutional amendment is to establish machinery whereby legislative powers can be vested by the Commonwealth in the States in areas previously outside their jurisdiction and to facilitate also the reference of powers by the States to the Commonwealth. The Constitution at present makes provision in section 51 (xxxvii) for references of legislative power by the States to the Commonwealth Parliament. This provision has been used relatively little, largely because of the doubts that have been held by the States at to whether a reference one gives could be revoked and whether a reference could be limited in time to a term of years and made subject to conditions. Examples of how the existing reference power has been used are the references by the governments of Queensland and Tasmania which have enabled Trans Australia Airlines to provide air services within those States over the last 30 years. The constitutional amendment proposal before the Senate contains two principal reforms. First, it corrects the present one-sided situation in which the States may refer powers to the Commonwealth but the Commonwealth is unable to refer any of its exclusive powers to the States. The Bill authorises references, which for technical reasons are described in the Bill as 'designations', of powers by the Commonwealth Parliament to the States. These references may be made only on the basis that they are available to all States and not just to particular States. If this proposal is adopted it will mean that the Commonwealth is in a position where it can confer on the States the power, for example, to impose duties of excise, and to legislate in respect of matters involving Commonwealth places- both heads of power which are at present exclusively in the Commonwealth domain. Secondly, the Bill will overcome any doubts which the States have held as to the basis on which references may be made by them to the Commonwealth. The Bill makes it clear that a reference given by the States will be revocable, that it may be given subject to conditions, including conditions regulating the type of laws that can be passed under it, and that such references may be made for a limited period. Designations of matters by the Commonwealth Parliament will be subject to the same provisions as those relating to references by the States in relation to revocation, the power to impose conditions and like matters. History The history of this proposal is worth recounting briefly. The original interchange of powers proposal arose from formal submissions made to the Sydney meeting of the Convention in 1973 by the then coalition Government of New South Wales and the then Liberal Government of Victoria. The New South Wales submission was in these terms: At present uncertainties exist as to the manner in which placitum (xxxvii) of s. 51-the 'reference power' -operates. The limited use made of the power in the past is no doubt attributable in large measure to such uncertainties. It is considered that, by constitutional amendment, these uncertainties should be removed by providing, for example, that references of legislative power by States to the Commonwealth may be made for limited terms and that repeal of a reference Act has constitutional efficacy, and also that the Commonwealth Parliament might refer to the States any legislative power of the Commonwealth. The Victorian submission was along similar lines although it focused on removing the uncertainties as to the scope of the reference power in section 51 (xxxvii). At the 1973 Convention the heads of the Commonwealth and all of the State delegations except that of Queensland met and agreed on the principle of references of power either way and the removal of existing doubts about the operations of the reference power of the States under section 51 (xxxvii). The then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, announced to the Convention the intention of the Commonwealth Government that in any interchange of powers, whether from the Commonwealth to the States or vice versa, the same provisions should apply as to duration, revocability and the power to apply terms and conditions. The Prime Minister's announcement was followed by statements from the leaders of all State delegations welcoming the proposal. The Convention referred the matter to Standing Committee B which endorsed a Bill prepared early in 1974 by the Commonwealth, subject to a reservation that was later met by the Federal Government, by incorporating in the Bill a requirement that a designation by the Commonwealth must be made in favour of all States, as the present Bill does. The 1974 Bill, after passing through the House of Representatives, was deferred by the Senate until after it had been considered by all State governments and the Australian Constitutional Convention . The Bill lapsed before these requirements could be met. At each of the following four convention meetings held in Melbourne in 1975, Hobart in 1976, Perth in 1976 and late last month in Adelaide the proposal-- Senator Peter Rae —Perth in 1978. Senator GARETH EVANS —Perth in 1978. I am indebted to Senator Rae. I am delighted to see that he is still listening. At each of the following four Convention meetings held in Melbourne in 1975, Hobart in 1976, Perth in 1978 and late last month in Adelaide the proposal, as embodied in a Bill drafted in September 1975, was endorsed either in detail or in principle, on the last two of these occasions unanimously. I hope Senator Rae's interjection indicates that we will get his support when it comes to the referendum on this matter. Senator Peter Rae —I'll do a deal with you. If you support mine I will support yours. Senator GARETH EVANS —Will the honourable senator show me his too? In 1976 the then Premier of Victoria, Mr Hamer, said in relation to the motion before the Convention approving the 1975 Bill that it was the Convention's: . . . greatest single chance of achieving a really important change in the Constitution which will at one stroke give it a flexibility and responsiveness it does not yet have, and an ability to deal with situations as they arise, without any of the partners-Federal or State-surrendering any of the powers or discretions they now have. Since 1978 the proposal has been closely considered by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, by the committees of Solicitors-General and Parliamentary Counsel prior to its most recent endorsement by the Australian Constitutional Convention meeting in Adelaide. Despite this long history, the people of Australia have not yet had the opportunity of voting on the matter at a referendum. Given the advantages of the proposal, the time and effort that have been expended in refining the original idea and the Adelaide Convention's unanimous endorsement a few weeks ago of a resolution, in terms which are faithfully reflected in this Bill, it is appropriate that the referendum question be now submitted to the electorate. The resolution was as follows: That this Convention approves a constitutional amendment to enable an interchange of powers between the Commonwealth and the States in the form of the Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1975, provided that the matters which can be designated under section 108A are confined to: (A) matters which are already within Commonwealth power; and (B) the empowering of State Parliaments to vest in Federal courts (other than the High Court) Jurisdiction, both original and appellate, in matters arising under state law. In all the circumstances I believe it can be said that this is truly a consensus proposal. All of the principles developed over the years in relation to the proposal-principles which have been supported on all sides-are fully implemented in this Bill. Criticisms of the 1975 Bill The principal criticism made in respect of the 1975 Bill, which has been reiterated for some years by the former Attorney-General of Western Australia, Mr Medcalf, related to a clause which would have meant that the power of the Commonwealth Parliament to designate a matter was not limited by other provisions of the Constitution such as sections 51 (ii) and 99 which prohibit the Commonwealth from discriminating between States. The Government has been sympathetic to the objection, and at Adelaide supported the amendment to the form of the Bill put forward by an Opposition member of the New South Wales delegation to the Convention, to the effect that subject to one exception the Commonwealth's power to designate matters should be restricted to matters in respect of which it clearly has exclusive power under the Constitution. The exception is in relation to the power of the Commonwealth to empower State parliaments, should they so wish, to vest some matters of State jurisdiction in Federal courts. As I said at the Adelaide Convention, this notion of an ability in State parliaments to vest matters of State jurisdiction in Federal courts can be one solution to the problem of divided jurisdiction that has been the subject of much discussion recently in the context of the proposed integrated court system. The only reason for making specific provision for the vesting of State jurisdiction in Federal courts is that there is at present some constitutional uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament can empower State parliaments to vest State jurisdiction in Federal courts. To put the matter beyond doubt appropriate language has been used in the Bill to ensure that such a power can be conferred should the States be willing to exercise it in particular cases. Summing Up This is a highly constructive measure. It creates a framework which has considerable potential to facilitate greater co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States in the interests of the public. The interchange of powers provided for by the Bill involves voluntary action by the Commonwealth and the States which could assist the States to raise additional revenue and to have firmly based powers in relation to Commonwealth places such as airports and post offices. By clarifying and facilitating references of State legislative powers to the Commonwealth the chances of obtaining uniform defamation laws and comprehensive family law powers at Commonwealth level should be increased. The reference of a matter by a State to the Commonwealth or vice versa would not, of itself, prevent the parliament which had referred the power from passing legislation concerning that matter. This aspect, together with the power of the referring parliament to impose conditions upon its reference of power and to revoke the power at any time, makes the proposal a very flexible one. This should improve the efficiency of government at both Federal and State levels. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.37) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. A proposed constitutional alteration to allow Commonwealth and State governments to obtain advisory opinions from the High Court on certain important questions of constitutional law was recommended by the Judicature Committee of the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1977. At about the same time, and quite independently, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs compiled its report in favour of an advisory jurisdiction for the High Court. When the Constitutional Convention met in Perth in 1978 it endorsed-by 54 votes to 36-the Judicature Committee's recommendations by a substantial majority. The Senate Committee's recommendation, which differed on points of detail, was not put to the vote but was circulated for the information of delegates. Following the Perth meeting, the Convention's Standing Committee-Standing Committee D-undertook a range of inquiries on matters referred to it by the Perth Convention. At Senator Durack's initiative it reactivated consideration of advisory opinions with a view to synthesizing, if possible, the recommendations of the Judicature Committee and those of the Senate Committee. Discussions took place between representatives of the two committees and agreement was reached on a revised proposal which slightly broadened the jurisdiction. The revised proposal was again considered by the Convention at its recent Adelaide meeting and again was approved by a substantial majority-51 to 35. At both the Perth and the Adelaide conventions the advisory opinions proposal was-I am pleased to report-supported by Federal Liberal and National Party delegates. In moving the endorsement of the revised proposal at Adelaide Senator Tate pointed out that an advisory jurisdiction is perfectly consistent with the exercise of judicial power and the independence of the judiciary. Senator Tate stated: It needs to be emphasised from the outset that the proposal sought to confer on our highest tribunal a further dimension of judicial power, which it had disabled itself from exercising in 1927. We are not dealing with mere political advice or some adjunct to the Executive of Parliamentary functions, but with questions of law only, and that needs to be emphasised. We are dealing with questions of large and radical moment, undoubtedly, but nevertheless true questions of law, particularly apt to be vested in the ultimate arbiter of constitutional issues. Indeed, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has stated that, in relation to a similar Canadian jurisdiction, it is a true exercise of judicial power and, indeed, the court of the Judicial Committee itself exercises such an advisory jurisdiction. The Arguments The arguments in favour of and against advisory opinions have now been canvassed in some detail in the reports of the Senate Committee of the Convention's Judicature Committee and of Standing Committee D as well as in the proceedings of the Perth and Adelaide conventions. In broad terms the arguments in favour are: First, advisory opinions would save taxpayers expense and resources by enabling governments to check the constitutional validity of major proposals at an early stage; secondly, by enabling rulings to be obtained at an early stage, they would reduce the tendency for differing perceptions of major constitutional issues to develop into matters of political confrontation; and thirdly, they would assist in the development of a more rational basis for the planning of major constitutional initiatives. The arguments that have been put against advisory opinions can be broadly categorised as follows: First, the independence of the judiciary-it is said that advisory opinions would make the High Court into an adjunct of government and sap its independence; secondly, the danger of overloading the Court; thirdly, the difficulty of giving an opinion in the absence of a concrete fact situation; fourthly, the uncertain status of advisory opinions; and, fifthly, the availability of alternative means of adjudication such as the declaratory judgment. In relation to the fears expressed for the Court's independence and work-load the simple fact is that these fears have not been realised in Canada where the Supreme Court has had an advisory jurisdiction for many years. Moreover, the careful limitation on the making of references that is contained in the Bill would, I believe, rule out any abuse of the process. Provision is also made for facts to be specified in some detail for the purpose of a reference and, where necessary, for references to be amended. So far as the status of advisory opinions is concerned, it is clear that governments would observe them as they observe other court rulings. It is true that advisory opinions would be subject to being overruled at a later date but that is also true of any High Court decision. The last argument is that other means-the declaratory judgment is usually instanced-are available for testing the validity of legislation. While it is true that the increasing readiness of the High Court to hear actions for a declaratory judgment, at the suit of the Commonwealth or a State attorney- general, has assisted good government, there are still occasions where such means are not available or are inappropriate. By way of example of the potential usefulness of an advisory jurisdiction I mention the lengthy time it took for the establishment of an effective Trade Practices Commission and the virtual paralysis for a year of the office of the Commissioner while the first legislation was under challenge. Even where the declaratory judgment procedure is available, there are advantages in being able to obtain a ruling without seeking it in the adversary system. The Bill It only remains for me briefly to explain those aspects of the Bill which I have not dealt with in outlining the arguments for and against it. References may be made on the validity of any Act or any Bill which is before the Parliament and on certain questions of great constitutional importance which have arisen or are likely to arise. References on Commonwealth matters are to be sought only by the Commonwealth Government and references on State matters are to be sought only by the State government concerned. Provision is also made for the Northern Territory and any other self-governing territory to avail itself of the procedure in relation to its own legislation and territory constitutional questions. Conclusion An advisory jurisdiction will not eliminate the need for judicial review. Nor will it reduce the responsibility of governments to act within the constraints of the Constitution. Used selectively, however, it should be effective in minimising unconstitutional legislation and in facilitating the proper development of major government initiatives. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Australian Constitution is now 82 years old. One of the tasks it performed in 1901 was to unite six British colonies into a Federal Commonwealth and to lay the basis for full national sovereignty. In so doing it was necessary for it to include a large number of provisions dealing with transitional matters which ceased to have any significance five or ten years after Federation and which should now be removed. It was also necessary for the Constitution to make interim provision for a number of other matters pending the enactment of Federal legislation. Provisions of this kind are scattered throughout the Constitution and can be readily identified by the draftsman's tag 'until the Parliament otherwise provides'. To some extent these provisions are a source of Commonwealth power and care needs to be taken in identifying those provisions which can safely be regarded as 'outmoded' or 'spent'. A third category covers those provisions which, having regard to Australia's status as a fully sovereign nation state, are no longer appropriate since they derive from, and reflect, an earlier colonial way of thinking. The removal of outmoded provisions of these kinds from our Constitution will amount to a pruning of dead wood so that the document will be uncluttered-or at least less cluttered-by irrelevancies of a bygone era. It will not, however, make any change of substance to the Constitution and is therefore an exercise which can be justified only when other proposals are also to go to referendum. An attempt to identify all the constitutional provisions which could safely be removed so as to modernise the text of the Constitution without making changes of substance was carried out by a bipartisan working party of the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1974 convened by Mr Terry McRae, the present Speaker of the House of Assembly of South Australia and Chairman of the recent Adelaide Convention. Following the completion of that working party's report most of its recommendations were endorsed by the then Standing Committee C of the Convention and that Committee's recommendations were unanimously approved by the Hobart Convention in 1976. There the matter rested until the recent Adelaide Convention unanimously approved a further proposal for the incorporation of particular 'practices' into the Constitution. That resolution also involved the removal of some outmoded provisions. The Bill The Bill largely reflects the Hobart resolution of the Convention and incorporates the recommendations made by the Adelaide Convention. Two further matters are included. The first is the removal of the transitional provisions which were inserted in 1977. They related to Senate casual vacancies at the commencement of that constitutional alteration and no longer have any operation. The second is the repeal of section 89, which provided for the distribution of the 'federal surplus' before the uniform tariff was imposed. That provision is clearly of no further relevance and ought to be repealed. It appears to have been inadvertently left out of the Hobart resolution. Some recommendations contained in the Hobart resolution have not been incorporated in the Bill. In most cases this is for technical reasons. For example, changes to the 'covering clauses' of the Constitution raise a number of esoteric issues and it may be more appropriate to regard the covering clauses- which are not part of the Constitution itself but form the first eight sections of the British Act which contains the Constitution-as simply part of the historical context of the Constitution. Some other recommendations from the Hobart resolution have been omitted because they would themselves involve further complicating the text of the Constitution by writing in lengthy savings clauses. Others are superseded by the fixed term proposal. Without going into excessive detail of the various changes in the Bill, it may assist the Senate if I briefly indicate the provisions in each category which it is proposed to remove. The transitional provisions are: The last four paragraphs of section 15 dealing with Senate casual vacancies; section 26, which deals with representation in the first Parliament; the second paragraph of section 83 which deals with expenditure in the first month of the life of the Commonwealth; the last paragraph of section 84 dealing with the rights of State public servants transferred to the Commonwealth at its establishment; that part of section 85 which provides for the contingency that certain property transferred from the States at Federation may be returned to the States at some stage-among the property transferred at Federation were some post offices and Customs houses; if it were proposed to transfer such property to a State this could be done independently of section 85; section 86, by virtue of which, the collection and control of duties of Customs and of excise and control of the payment of bounties passed to the Commonwealth; section 89, which provided for the distribution of surplus revenue to the States until the imposition of the uniform tariff; the savings provision in section 90 concerning grants or agreements for bounties made before 30 June 1898; the second paragraph of section 92, which provided for duties to be imposed on the interstate movement of goods which had been imported into a State before the imposition of the uniform tariff; section 95, which made special provision for Western Australia during the first five years after Federation by enabling that State to impose Customs duties during that period which were to be collected by the Commonwealth; and the last paragraph of section 125, which provides that the Parliament shall sit at Melbourne until it meets at the seat of government. In the second category of interim provisions employing the formula 'until the Parliament otherwise provides' are: Section 87, which provides for the distribution of three quarters of the Commonwealth revenue from customs and excise to the States for the first 10 years after Federation and thereafter 'until the Parliament otherwise provides'. I interpolate that this became known as the 'Braddon clause' or the 'Braddon blot' and was a compromise typical in the nineteenth century concern with the allocation of Federal revenue. It no longer has any practical application. The Commonwealth abandoned the formula in 1910 and instituted a States grants scheme in its place. Section 93, which provided for the payment to the States of surplus revenue during the first five years after the imposition of the uniform tariff 'and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides' on a similar basis to that provided for in Section 89. This provision ceased to have any practical effect in 1907. The final category of provisions-those which have been unanimously accepted by the Convention as no longer appropriate to Australia's status as a sovereign nation-are: The reference in Section 58 to the Governor-General's power to reserve Bills for the Queen's assent; Section 59 which empowers the Queen to disallow any Commonwealth law within one year of the Governor-General's assent; Section 60 which concerns signification of the Queen's assent to reserved Bills; and the reference in Section 74 to the reservation of Bills limiting appeals to the Privy Council. The alterations of Sections 58 and 74 and the repeal of Section 59 were included in the Adelaide resolution. The repeal of Section 59 was also included in the Hobart resolution. The unanimous endorsement of these resolutions provides ground for hope that the removal of all the outmoded provisions dealt with in the Bill will represent a start on the task of modernising our Constitution in a systematic way. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —by leave-Mr Deputy President, I wish to make a personal explanation. I will be brief. Earlier this morning when the report of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) relating to the Royal Military College at Duntroon was tabled I made certain comments. After making those comments I left the chamber and went into the reading room of the Senate. I looked at the daily Press. Today it includes many articles on the Duntroon matter. Whilst those accounts are all incomplete, there is a clear statement in today's Canberra Times that: Mr Scholes disclosed yesterday that he had not accepted the recommendations of the commandant of the college, Major-General H. J. Coates, that five cadets charged with excessive behaviour be discharged . . . The burden of my comments was that it was the Government that recommended that those five cadets be expelled and I thought it was wrong for the Government to do that. I accept the statement by the Canberra Times. I therefore apologise to the Government for blaming it for that action. This in no way diminishes my charge that it is the responsibility of the staff to maintain discipline, particularly the Commandant who was a cadet 32 years ago. The obligation is quite clearly on him to accept responsibility. Debate resumed. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(11.55) —This debate has taken the time of the Senate for a number of months. In fact we are now in our fiftieth hour of debate on a topic which in many ways could have been dispensed with in a much shorter period. This morning's news reports led with headlines to the effect that the same tired old arguments had been brought up in the Senate as a consequence of the introduction of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill. In fact, in the last two days we have had another stanza of the long, tired and drawn-out debate. Nothing new of substance has been raised by those uncontrollable back benchers on the other side. All we have had is a continuation of the frustration of the orderly workings of this place. We could analyse the performance of the Opposition back bench as parliamentary guerrilla tactics at their worst-45 to 50 hours of tiresome debate. The people who are losing because of this performance are the Tasmanian people. Because of the low-level, fear politics which have been exercised both in this chamber and in the other place, because of the obsession with tags such as 'spy flights' and because of the obsession with some antiquated concept of what are now paraded as States' rights the Tasmanian people and their interests have been forgotten altogether. It is no wonder that people in the rest of Australia are starting to tire of the performance of the Liberal Party Opposition. It is no wonder that we have reached the stage at which people in many places, including South Australia, are referring to the incident of the F111 flights-to use a film title-as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Part 2. It is no wonder that not only the rest of the Australian people but also the Tasmanian people are concerned about what is happening in this place. We as a government are concerned about the protection of our natural and cultural heritage. We maintain that we have a moral and a legal obligation to do that. In this instance the heritage we are concerned about is the wilderness section of South West Tasmania. Wilderness has been defined many times and I need not go into a lengthy definition of it. Wilderness, for the purpose of this debate, is an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammelled by man. I submit that there is no real contest in respect to this point. I recollect towards the end of last year talking to Senator Walters, who asked me what I would be doing over the Christmas break. I suggested I might go to Tasmania. She said that in doing so I should make a point of seeing the South West because it is a most beautiful part of the world. Even Senator Walters accepted quite grudgingly that that area has some extreme value. Without going to the extent of recognising that it should be preserved, she accepted that it had some value which made it important for me to see. What is in question in this debate is the survival of a uniquely beautiful area of both cultural and environmental significance world wide. This is what we are concerned about. I need not say any more but quote the Tasmanian Director of Tourism, Mr J. B. Holten, who in 1979 said: Within the bounds of flexible planning, including reasonable access and strict management, the South West could become one of the great visitor destinations in the world. That presents the side of the economic argument to which the Opposition is not prepared to address itself: As a tourist attraction that untrammelled part of the world, with planning and management, could provide industry and jobs for Tasmania. We are, and we have been this morning, continually confronted with the argument of States' rights but one thing that should be mentioned again and again in response to the speeches of people such as Senator Crichton-Browne, who made a point this morning about the mad grab for power by Federal Labor governments, is that it was a Federal Liberal Government which pursued the Koowarta case to the High Court. It was a Federal Liberal Government which sought the power that the High Court then gave it and it was a Federal Liberal Government which, in fact, wanted to exercise that power. That grab for power, as it has been called, is not something that this Labor Government initiated. We do not classify it as a grab for power. The point has to be made that at the moment we are witnessing from the Opposition a selective application of not only principles but also the Constitution. It is something that, despite 50 hours of debate, the Opposition in this place has not been able to understand. Senator Crichton-Browne —Do you think that is what the corporations power intended? Senator BOLKUS —The corporations power, as were many other powers in the Constitution, was introduced and put into the Constitution about 80 years ago. I am sure that even Senator Crichton-Browne can understand that in the last 80 years there have been developments not only in South Australia but also in Western Australia and the rest of the world which demanded a flexible and changing constitution, a constitution that can meet the problems that have arisen over the last 80 years. Debate interrupted. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It follows the reply which he gave to Senator MacGibbon in the Senate yesterday about the possibility of a judicial inquiry to enable Mr Combe to clear his name. Senator Button indicated in reply that he would convey to the Prime Minister what he described as Senator MacGibbon's 'bizarre suggestion' and that he was sure that the Prime Minister would look at it. In view of the serious questions left unanswered by Mr Hawke's statement and the devastating effect it has had on Mr Combe, will the Government establish a judicial inquiry in regard to the whole affair and the manner in which the Prime Minister has handled it? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question is yes. The Prime Minister set in train over a week ago the mechanisms for establishing a judicial inquiry into this matter. The name of the presiding judge and the terms of reference will be announced next week. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer . Has the Australian Government approved a proposal by two Korean companies, Pohang Iron and Steel Corporation Ltd and Ssangyong Corporation, to each acquire a 20 per cent interest in the Cook colliery in central Queensland? Will the acquisition enable the mine, which was destined for closure, to remain open? Does this approval put paid to criticisms by the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, of the Australian Government's foreign investment policy? Senator WALSH —I understand that the situation is as suggested in Senator Colston 's question-that the Cook colliery, which previously had been destined to close, has been kept alive because of the equity partnership of, I think, 40 per cent from the two Korean firms Senator Colston mentioned. The second part of his question is also correct; the Australian Labor Party is not hostile to foreign capital provided the entry of foreign capital is in the national interest. This of course is a clear case where the involvement of a foreign equity partner is in the interest of the people directly employed at the mine, of the region of Queensland and of the nation as a whole. The application of the Government's policy in that correct way contrasts sharply with the attitude towards foreign investment displayed by the Queensland Government a few months ago. The Australian equity partners in the Jackson pipeline, who had already arranged finance for the project and who already had it fully designed and, indeed, under construction, were stood over by the Premier of Queensland and forced to take a foreign equity partner which they neither needed nor wanted. Confronted with that clear case of foreign equity, which was not needed and was probably not in the national interest, the Treasurer last week made the correct decision in endorsing the Foreign Investment Review Board recommendation that the Jackson pipeline equity-foreign equity unnecessarily enforced on the Australian partners by the Queensland Government-not proceed. In the case of the Cook colliery the circumstances are quite different. This Government applies the foreign investment rules in the national interest. The Queensland Government applies them apparently for capricious reasons or whatever other reasons it may have. Mr DAVID COMBE Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It follows the question I asked a few moments ago. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has just told the Senate that a judicial inquiry is to be held and that arrangements have been in hand for about a week. If that is the case, why did he describe the suggestion for a judicial inquiry made by Senator MacGibbon yesterday as bizarre? Why was that very important information withheld by the Prime Minister when he made to the House of Representatives the statement which was later repeated in the Senate? Senator BUTTON —I suppose that I answered the question yesterday in the context of regarding most suggestions which come from Senator MacGibbon as bizarre. I do not wish to make light of it in that-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —In any event the important part of the question was why the Prime Minister did not disclose this matter yesterday. I am not in a position to answer that. I take it the reason was that arrangements had to be made for the establishment of a royal commission. It is a matter which will be discussed again on Monday by the Cabinet, but that is the Government's intention. I cannot take that matter any further at this stage. Senator SIBRAA —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, refers to newspaper reports of the possibility of a new Syrian- Israeli war and that this war could commence in Lebanon. As the situation is causing deep concern to the Lebanese community in Australia, can the Minister inform the Senate of the Government's view of the latest developments in Lebanon ? Senator BUTTON —The Government welcomes the agreement which was reached in principle last week between Israel and Lebanon on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. This has at long last been secured with the assistance of the United States of America Secretary of State, Mr Shultz. The rejection by the Syrian Government of the draft agreement is a matter of concern to the Government. It is hoped that negotiations between Lebanon and Syria will produce agreement that Syrian and Palestine Liberation Organisation forces should also withdraw from Lebanon. The Government has been concerned for a long time by the continuing division of Lebanon by foreign occupying forces. That is a most unsatisfactory situation. It has been the view of the Government that all foreign forces should be withdrawn from Lebanon. We believe that the step which was taken last weekend is a step towards the finality of that process of negotiation and discussion which has gone on for a long time. Australia fully supports the independence and integrity of Lebanon and the restoration of the sovereignty of the Lebanese Government throughout the whole of this territory. We are very anxious that any influence this Government can exert will assist that process. Senator DURACK —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, refers to part of an answer he gave to a question asked by Senator Mason in the Senate on Tuesday, 10 May. I will just quote the relevant part. When he was being questioned about the authenticity of articles in the National Times he said: The authenticity of the articles as a whole,or of any particular part of them, is not a matter about which I believe it is proper to comment, certainly at this stage, for reasons that are quite familiar in dealing with security matters of this kind. In a sense an endless succession of questions as to the authenticity of each part of the document-while it may be doing no damage in one particular case-can result in the authenticity, by a process of elimination, of some remaining part being thus established. I might add that I entirely agree with that totally correct statement of the Attorney-General. I ask: Did the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister agree on the principle of not publicly canvassing issues in which matters of national security are involved at any time prior to the Prime Minister's statement to Caucus on Tuesday? Does the Attorney-General agree that the Prime Minister, by excluding a certain group of people from allegations involving security matters about which questions were being asked-I am not suggesting for one minute that the Prime Minister mentioned Mr Combe's name; he has made that quite clear and I accept that-but-- Senator Button —It has been suggested by some of your colleagues. Senator DURACK —Not at that stage. Does the Attorney-General agree that, by excluding a certain group of people in the same way as he was being pressed to do by Senator Mason's question, the Prime Minister breached that principle and opened up the whole question? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not concede anything of the kind. Of course it is the case that as a matter of general principle and as a general rule the strictures which I advanced in answer to Senator Mason are those which should apply. There are of course, as has always been acknowledged, however, exceptional circumstances that can arise. The honourable senator, indeed even in his question, quoted the phrase I used, which was that 'at this stage' it would be improper for me to canvass any questions of authenticity. That was because no situation of acute need had arisen such as would justify any such answer being given at that stage. Questions of acute need can arise and it may be as important to protect the reputation, credibility and effectiveness of a security organisation on occasion to release some information as to deny the possibility of information ever being given. It is a matter for judgment in all the circumstances of each particular case. It does not sit well in the mouth of anyone in the Opposition to chastise the Government for giving a degree of information about a matter when that information has been actively sought by the very people who are now doing the chastising. Senator Lewis —By then it was public knowledge. Senator GARETH EVANS —The crucial reason it became public knowledge was of course the activities of the now Opposition parties-in particular Mr Sinclair-in designating Mr Combe openly in Parliament in circumstances in which the scuttlebutt of this Parliament and this capital and indeed most of the informed sources around this nation were identifying the name in question. As to the circumstances of the Caucus meeting, I do not propose to give Senator Durack or anyone else a blow by blow description or a sally by sally description of anything that happens in Caucus except to say that one knows perfectly well what contribution would have been made to reasoned debate on this issue by the Opposition had Mr Hawke on that occasion not explicitly denied that any member of the Government or Caucus was the person involved. Had Senator Durack been willing, or if he were willing now, to give an undertaking, as Mr Peacock gave an undertaking privately to Mr Hawke, that no political abuse would be made of information conveyed in private, it would not be necessary for these particular courses of action to be taken by the Prime Minister to set at rest the very hares that the honourable senator has set running. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of the tirade we have just had from the Attorney-General-we have become used to them-I ask: Is it not a fact that the question of the association between Mr Ivanov and a leading figure in the Australian Labor Party had become a subject of Press reporting on the Sunday and Monday, long before any such questions were asked by the Opposition? Is it not a fact that there was an Australian Associated Press report of what the Prime Minister said to Caucus before the questions were asked ? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have nothing further to add to my previous answer. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. Is the Commonwealth prepared to make available to the State of New South Wales Commonwealth land at Wallgrove in New South Wales for the development of a major recreational park? Senator GIETZELT —There have been protracted negotiations over the years between the Commonwealth and New South Wales-I presume there were similar negotiations with other States-about the release of Crown land or Commonwealth properties for use as recreational areas. This has been the subject of many questions in the Senate. Those negotiations have been protracted. There has been much criticism about the fact that much of the land that is required for recreational purposes in New South Wales has not been readily available. However, I am advised by my colleague Mr John Brown, whom I represent in this place, that he personally favours the proposal that land at Wallgrove should be made available to New South Wales for recreational purposes. However, as so often happens in public administration, the Department of Defence has opposed such a proposal because it believes that the land is suitable for the purpose of a communication facility in the region. However, I am advised that it is the view of the Government that the recreational needs of the people who now live in such numbers in the western part of Sydney are important. I remind the Senate that more people now live west of Parramatta than east of it, so that Parramatta in fact now is the centre of the city proper in terms of population. The State Government is very much concerned about the provision of adequate recreational facilities in the developing parts of Sydney. The Government has agreed to discuss with the Royal Australian Air Force section of the Department of Defence the proposal that it should be provided with a site, but not necessarily in the Wallgrove area. The answer to the honourable senator's question is that the Commonwealth is agreeable to meeting the needs of the New South Wales Government and steps are being taken to expedite the discussions with a view to meeting the wishes of the State Government. Senator CHIPP —My question, which is addressed to the Attorney-General, is based on the proposition that the Government has, wittingly or unwittingly, jeopardised the career of an Australian whose only apparent crime was to earn a living partly from work concerning the Soviet Union. The question is in six parts. Can the Attorney-General state categorically that Mr David Combe at no time-- Senator Tate —Put it on notice. Senator CHIPP —I am sorry, I did not hear what was said. Is it not the wish to have this man's name aired and cleared in this place? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chipp,will you ask your question, please? Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I earn your protection from interjections. If I do not get that I am entitled to answer those interjections. The PRESIDENT —I am seeking your co-operation in ignoring the interjection and asking the question. Other honourable senators want to ask questions too. Senator CHIPP —I want to ask a question in peace, Mr President. Can the Attorney -General state categorically that Mr David Combe at no time has committed any offence against the Commonwealth? Can the Attorney further state that there is no evidence that Mr Combe gave or was contemplating giving information to Mr Ivanov which could have endangered Australia's security? Does the word used by the Prime Minister that Mr David Combe had been 'compromised' by Mr Ivanov, refer only to a proposed business deal whereby the Soviets were interested in obtaining Mr Combe's services to assist them in buying wheat from Australia and to promote increased trade? Is it a fact that Mr Combe's legitimate journey to Russia, at its Government's expense, to discuss future business arrangements was the main reason for the Government deciding to act as it did? Does not this Government encourage trade with the Soviet Union, as did its predecessors? Does not the Government maintain a diplomatic mission in the Soviet Union whose members have and must have contact with Soviet officials with the aim of increasing trade with the Soviet Union-which we are led to believe was Mr Combe's role, albeit in a private capacity? Finally, why was Mr Combe not given the right of appeal against and rebuttal of confidential Australian Security Intelligence Organisation recommendations concerning his career beyond the closed meeting with the Attorney-General and the head of ASIO yesterday? Senator GARETH EVANS —I thank the honourable senator for his question, of which he did have the courtesy to give me two minutes notice. I do not accept the premise on which it is based, namely, that the actions of the Government jeopardised the career of a person in the circumstances he described. I believe that throughout this matter the Government has acted with honour and rigour and with a very real concern for the protection of the rights of the individual concerned. It is only a pity that others have not been so motivated and have not so acted. As to the first question, I state categorically that at no time has Mr Combe committed any offences against the Commonwealth-I take it that Senator Chipp means in the context of this affair. Yes, I am able to say that on all the information available to the Government, both at the time it made its relevant decisions and subsequently, it is my opinion and belief and that of my Department that no offence has been committed. As to questions two, three, four and five which seek the detail, as it were, on which our judgments have been premised and based, I am afraid that I must say to Senator Chipp at this stage that questions of detail of this kind are simply not appropriate to put on the public record except in the most really exceptional circumstances. We have gone some of the distance down the track in order to endeavour to clear the air. But certainly we do not propose, unless some extraordinary situation should arise, to answer specifically-for familiar security reasons-the questions which he has put to me. The final question asked why Mr Combe was not given a right of appeal and rebuttal against confidential ASIO recommendations concerning his career beyond the closed meeting with the Attorney-General and the head of ASIO yesterday. I simply say that first of all no such right of appeal is available under existing law for an aggrieved individual. I regard that as a regrettable state of affairs . As I have foreshadowed on many occasions previously, and recently in the context of this affair, this will be one of the matters which will be very much- - Senator Walters —But you could have given it to him. Senator GARETH EVANS —Oh, shut up! This will be very much one-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Of course all interjections are disorderly but there are interjections in this place which are part of the normal debate. To tell honourable senators to shut up is, in my view , not part of the dignity of this place. I believe the Attorney-General should apologise for that comment and withdraw it. The PRESIDENT —If the Attorney-General used the expression about which the Leader of the Opposition complains-I did not pick it up-I ask him to withdraw it . Senator GARETH EVANS —Of course I withdraw but I state for the record that it was simply a sotto voce ejaculation of exasperation and not something that was intended to be heard. I will continue where I left off. There is no right of appeal for an aggrieved individual under the existing law. It is proposed that the establishment of such a right of appeal, the arguments for and against it and the way in which it might be accomplished, be one of the terms of reference of the judge whom it is proposed to appoint, as Senator Button said, to a royal commission of inquiry into the operation of security agencies or, at least, ASIO . The terms of reference have not yet been settled. One of the terms of reference will be the circumstances surrounding the expulsion of Mr Ivanov. It is proposed that for the future machinery will be established and that we will have a basis on which that can occur. As to the circumstances in which Mr Combe' s position was heard and responded to yesterday by the Government, every facility was made available to Mr Combe to present fully, in both documentary form and orally, his view of events. I say further, because it was not perhaps made clear enough yesterday in the Parliament, that the particular statement that was put down yesterday by the Prime Minister was seen and agreed to by Mr Combe as an appropriate statement in all the circumstances of the event. Senator Chipp —The whole statement? Senator GARETH EVANS —The whole statement. I spent most of yesterday, with the exception of one hour at Question Time, negotiating with Mr Combe the text of that statement. It was, in that sense, an agreed statement which accurately reflects Mr Combe's assessment of the situation and the propriety of the Government in responding to the situation as it did. The text of the statement makes that clear to the extent that it quotes Mr Combe as saying that he understands and accepts the reasons for the Government's decision being made at the time that it was made. I hope that that puts at rest to at least some extent-although of course I can understand the sense of indignation and concern that many people feel about the course of events-the circumstances of this case to the extent that they can be put into the public domain and that it will be appreciated that every attempt was made to accommodate Mr Combe's position and to articulate the very real sympathy that the Government felt for him and his position. Senator CHIPP —I have a supplementary question. I sincerely thank the Attorney- General for his very frank answers to questions one and two. At least that goes some way down the track of establishing Mr Combe's position. The supplementary question I intended to ask concerned the Attorney-General's failure to answer my question about the word 'compromised' used by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said: 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. In the event that the Attorney-General will give me an undertaking that every word of this statement was agreed to by Mr Combe I will withdraw that question because obviously it would embarrass the Government for security reasons. It is not my wish to do that. May I have an assurance that every word of the Prime Minister's statement was agreed to by Mr Combe? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator has that assurance. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I understand that a second report on Tasmania by Sir Bede Callaghan has been completed but has not been released. Can the Minister give me the reasons for this long delay of almost six years? When will this report be released? Senator BUTTON —I do not think it is technically correct to say that there was a second report by Sir Bede Callaghan. In June 1977 he reported on the structure of industry and the employment situation in Tasmania. The report was then published and a Commonwealth-State officials committee was established to consider proposals submitted by Tasmania following the publication of the report . A number of projects were subsequently supported by the Commonwealth Government, such as the Port Arthur development, the native forestry development , the Legana industrial estate and matters such as that which arose from the report. During the four years between June 1977 and August 1981 discussions took place in relation to those matters. In August 1981 the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and the Premier of Tasmania agreed on a review of special assistance under the Callaghan proposals for Tasmania, but there was no second Callaghan report. The review, which started in August 1981, is now, I believe, substantially completed and it addresses some of Tasmania's economic problems, but it cannot be finalised until the comments of the Tasmanian Government are received. We hope to receive them in the near future. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I address my question to the Attorney-General. It covers some of the ground already traversed by Senator Chipp and the Attorney -General's response to him. I also refer to the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister that Mr Combe ' ''understands and accepts'' the Government's decision that Ministers not deal with him in his capacity as a consultant lobbyist'. I seek a clear interpretation of the comments in the Prime Minister's statement as to whether Mr Combe accepts both the Government's decision of 2 May and the reasons given to Cabinet for it as well as the view of the National and International Security Sub-committee that he had been, or appeared to have been, compromised by Ivanov to the extent that it was no longer appropriate for Ministers to deal with him. I accept that the Minister has said that Mr Combe agreed with the wording of the statement yesterday, but to me the wording of the statement is not clear enough to extract the information as to whether Mr Combe accepted that he had been, or appeared to have been, compromised by Ivanov to the extent that it was no longer appropriate for Ministers to deal with him. Senator GARETH EVANS —There were two bases on which the Government decided to sever dealings at a ministerial level and a senior ministerial staff level with Mr Combe, although not in such a way as to destroy his livelihood completely. There is certainly no desire to deny him access to the Public Service or to Ministers' staff or Ministers' offices in order to arrange appointments and so on. I make that point clear for the record because I think there has been some misunderstanding of it. There were two bases on which the Government so acted. The first basis was that which was put to the Cabinet and the Ministry on the dates mentioned in the statement, which was fully debated by the Cabinet and Ministry on the dates mentioned and which was in itself a sufficient reason for the Government to act as it did. That is, as the statement says, the Government' s acceptance of the principle that Mr Combe was in something of a special position by virtue of his very senior position with the party. The Government took the following view: 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 note that that rationale for the decision made with respect to Mr Combe is not a view of the world that was accepted by our predecessor in office-more is the pity-in relation to some of its previous senior staffers. In relation to that view of the world, and the principle lying behind it, I can say that Mr Combe understands and accepts that that position, viewed entirely in isolation and distinct from the security issue, was a legitimate position for a government to adopt. I cannot pretend that he is happy about it, obviously, because differential access to government is what he was selling, but he does understand and accept that fact. The statement says that and is meant to encompass that. The second basis for the decision in relation to Mr Combe was, of course, as the Prime Minister has now made abundantly clear, the concern that was felt-not by the whole Government, because the whole Government did not know about it, but by the National and International Security Sub-committee of Cabinet-as the statement said, that Mr Combe's relations with Mr Ivanov, whether wittingly or unwittingly, had got to the point where it was believed that no government could continue to allow that level of direct access. Again as to that, the statement says and is intended to state clearly-I hope there is no ambiguity about it-that Mr Combe does understand and accept that as a basis for the Government's decision. Again, I do not pretend that Mr Combe is other than wounded and distressed by the course of events in which he has found himself caught up. Again I repeat my personal reaction to that wounded feeling and that distress. It has been a difficult period for all of us. But Mr Combe does understand and accept that the Government, on all the information available to it-which was for the most part made available to him yesterday-had effectively no practical alternative to making the decision that it did, on security grounds, quite apart from the other independent ground in relation to dealing with a former party official as a lobbyist. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Special Minister of State aware of comments made by the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, and by the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Doug Anthony, labelling the public funding of elections as corrupt? Given that the New South Wales branch of the National Party is now registered for public funding in New South Wales and its leader, Mr Leon Punch, has stated that the National Party will now accept public funds for election purposes, and given that the Liberal Party in New South Wales is now participating in a desperate and hypocritical grab for public funding after campaigning against it in the last State election, is the Minister aware of any moves by the national bodies of the Liberal and National parties to dissociate themselves from or proscribe their New South Wales branches for daring to accept public funds? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not aware of any such dissociation moves. I simply make the point that the absence of such moves would appear to amount to yet another ample demonstration of that unfortunate disposition toward hypocrisy which afflicts our political opponents in most matters, political and financial. Senator JESSOP —I direct a question to the Attorney-General. I refer to the fact that Mr Combe's association with Ivanov and the Government's decision on the matter was the subject of several hours of discussion yesterday between Mr Combe and the Attorney-General, part of the discussion being held in the presence of the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, as a result of which Mr Combe allegedly fully understands and accepts the Government' s decision. Does the Attorney-General believe that his role as investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner is consistent with the basic principles of human rights and civil liberties of which he is such an ardent exponent? Does he also believe that the procedure adopted is consistent with the now announced intention to hold a royal commission? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept the premises on which the question is based . I simply make the point that also present at those discussions yesterday for most of the period was Mr Combe's solicitor. If I had endeavoured to act as either judge or executioner, or in any of the other sordid legal ways that Senator Jessop suggested, I think there would be no difficulty about the appropriate legal action being taken. I do not think I have anything to add to my previous answers. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Attorney-General aware of serious delays occurring in programming Family Court hearings in provincial areas? Can the Attorney-General outline his Department's policy in regard to the appointment of Family Court judges in major regional centres? Can he comment on the urgent need for the appointment of a Family Court judge to be based permanently in Townsville? Senator GARETH EVANS —The three largest regional registries of the Family Court are Parramatta, Newcastle and Townsville. I understand that delays in dealing with a defended matter, from the time the matter is ready for hearing to its being heard, are as follows: Parramatta, six months; Newcastle, three months or less; Townsville, approaching 12 months. So there is undoubtedly some foundation for what Senator Reynolds put to me. The placement of judges at particular registries of the Family Court, as opposed to the appointment of new judges to that Court, is a matter for the Chief Judge of the Family Court, who is primarily responsible, of course, for its proper administration. I am in the course of reviewing the judicial requirements of the Court overall and in terms of the possible need for further placements of this kind. My understanding is that until recently, at least, an urgent need for the placement of a Family Court judge in Townsville has not been perceived. But, in the light of the honourable senator's question and the statistics just made available to me, I will certainly examine the reasons for those delays and discuss the matter with the Chief Judge. Might I say further that by virtue of the recent appointment of a further Family Court judge in Brisbane I anticipate that delays in Townsville will very soon be reduced. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General and follows the answer which he gave to the last question from the Opposition. I ask: Was Mr Combe made aware, at the time of the interview yesterday and at the time when Mr Combe apparently agreed to the statement that was to be made by the Prime Minister, that a judicial inquiry was to be held? Senator GARETH EVANS —I foreshadowed at one point of the discussions with Mr Combe that a royal commission or a similar judicial investigation into the operations of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation was likely to be the subject of imminent announcement, as had been foreshadowed by Mr Hawke earlier in the week and by me in more general terms elsewhere. The question of a specific judicial inquiry into the circumstances either of the Ivanov affair or of any particular event associated with that was not raised by me with Mr Combe- on my part simply because the matter had not been the subject of any discussion at a ministerial level. I make it clear that there was certainly no such request from Mr Combe to me for any such-- Senator Durack —I thought you believed in new rules of criminal investigation. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will be forced to another sotto voce ejaculation and be less polite. I think I have probably answered the question. I have lost track of my sentence. No doubt the honourable senator will pick it up in a supplementary question if he feels I can further assist him. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The other place has been told by the Prime Minister this morning that there will be a full judicial inquiry into three matters, including the involvement of Mr Combe. Was the fact that there would be a judicial inquiry into the involvement of Mr Combe known to Mr Combe yesterday when he agreed to that statement? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, because no decision had been made to that effect at that time. Senator MAGUIRE —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Is it a fact that there have been sharp falls in interest rates this week, including a declining yield on 26-week treasury notes from 11.28 per cent last week to 9.86 per cent yesterday, a reduction in the Commonwealth Trading Bank's investment deposit rate by 1.5 percentage points on Tuesday, and a 0.5 per cent reduction in prime overdraft rates by the Australia and New Zealand Bank and the National Australia Bank this week? If so, do money market trends encourage the view that the previous upward spiral in interest rates may at last have been halted? Will the Government closely monitor rates charged by the banks on home mortgages to ensure that interest rate reductions flow on to home buyers at the earliest opportunity? Senator WALSH —I will deal with the last part of the question first. Yes, the Government will monitor the movement in interest rates in the way that Senator Maguire suggested. On the first part of the question, from memory very substantial interest rate reductions of the order that the honourable senator indicated have taken place. Indeed, the interest rate on treasury notes-I think it might be the 13-week notes-has fallen by almost 2 per cent to the lowest level in three years. As to what that indicates for the future, experience suggests that people ought to be a little cautious when making predictions. There is no better demonstration of that, I suppose, than the previous Prime Minister's rash assertion in December 1977 that a 2 per cent reduction in interest rates in the next 12 months was a target that could and would be achieved. The Deputy Prime Minister at the time, Mr Anthony, said that if interest rates did not fall by 2 per cent he would eat his hat. Interest rates in the next 12 months in fact went up by 2 or 3 per cent and kept going up for virtually the rest of the life of the thoroughly discredited former Government. They hit record levels-up to 16 per cent on housing borrowings from building societies and just below that on housing borrowings from banks. They were interest rate levels which had never been thought possible at any time in Australia's history. The fact that interest rates are on a clear and, at this stage, quite rapid downward trend is, of course, a clear vote of confidence by the financial market that this Government is fiscally responsible, unlike the previous Government, and that inflation will be coming down. Senator Chaney —What does it say about the money supply? Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney says: 'What about the money supply?' That gives us some indication of the simplistic views which apparently are still dogma on that side of the chamber. That is one of the reasons why honourable senators opposite are on that side of the chamber. They have all these nostrums based on the belief that there is a simple one-to-one cause and effect-one-shot causes and one-shot solutions, always in a one-to-one ratio. One manifestation of that dogma is that interest rates must increase if the deficit increases. At the very time that the previous Government was pushing interest rates up to all-time record levels the deficit was in fact falling. Interest rates are now declining, in spite of the enormous $10 billion impending deficit which this Government has inherited from its fiscally irresponsible predecessors. If honourable senators opposite cannot think through the theory, one would have thought it would have penetrated even their consciousness that the empirical evidence is in conflict with their dogma. In closing I should make one observation about why the previous Government was so insensitive to the enormous interest rates which have done so much damage to so many Australian families and to the Australian building industry. Some members of the previous Government were insensitive to them because they were quarantined from their effects. For example, Mr Anthony had a 45-year loan at 4. 75 per cent for his second house in Canberra. That remained fixed. While everyone else was paying 14 per cent, 15 per cent or 16 per cent, Mr Anthony was paying 4.75 per cent. Senator Button —Is that the house the CIA bloke rented? Senator WALSH —That is right. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Walsh not to debate the answer and to be precise and brief. He has had about five minutes. Senator WALSH —I was making the point that leading members of the previous Government were certainly insensitive to the interest rates that ordinary people have to pay. Mr Anthony was paying 4.75 per cent interest on a loan for a house that he had lived in for 20 years. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. You intervened at the point when I was rising on a point of order. I draw attention again to Standing Order 100 which states: . . . a Senator shall not debate the matter. There has already been an extensive debate in this answer which is not relevant to the question. The PRESIDENT —I have already drawn the Minister's attention to the appropriate Standing Order. I asked him to be brief in the rest of his answer. Senator WALSH —I shall be very brief. I only had about another six words to say. Mr Anthony was insensitive because he had a loan at 4.75 per cent for a house that he had lived in for 20 years, except for the brief period when it was let to the Central Intelligence Agency agent, Mr Stallings. Senator HARRADINE —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware of the desire of quite a large number of persons who served during World War II and who are now over 65 years of age to be transferred from the age pension to the service pension, these service people being those who did not qualify for the service pension? Why cannot their legitimate desire be fulfilled and why can they not now be transferred from the age pension to the service pension in view of the fact that it would cost the Commonwealth little or nothing at all? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Harradine asks a very obvious question that has been widely canvassed in ex-service organisations for a number of years. It is a matter that my Department will be discussing in connection with the forthcoming Budget. There is certainly a recognition by the Government that a considerable proportion of World War II veterans are now approaching the age of 60 and therefore qualifying for the service pension. However, it is a matter that involves some degree of extra funding. The Government has a great deal of sympathy for the matter that has been raised by Senator Harradine but I cannot give any assurances, having regard to the very difficult economic climate the Government has inherited from the conservative regime over the last seven years. Our difficulties are compounded by the size of the deficit and the commitments that the Government has made in the social welfare area. However, I assure both the Senate and the honourable senator concerned that I have a compassionate attitude in respect of this matter and I will do my level best to accommodate the request. Senator HARRADINE —Mr President, I apologise for asking a supplementary question , but my question related to people who are 65 years of age and over and who are currently receiving the age pension, and asked for a simple transfer of at least those people, in the interim, to the service pension. Will the Minister give that request consideration in the interim, before proceeding to transfer those who are 60 years of age? Senator GIETZELT —That would require legislative changes. These are matters which, as I have indicated, will be considered in the Budget context. Senator ROBERT RAY —Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate provide the Senate with statistics on how many questions the Opposition has asked in this place in the eight Question Times so far this session on the issues of unemployment, interest rates, economic growth, inflation and government deficits ? Senator BUTTON —I am totally surprised by the question and do not have the statistics available. I will hazard a guess and say that there have been two such questions since the former Government was defeated in the 5 March election. But I will get the information and make it available to the Senate. Senator CHANEY —I direct my question to the Attorney-General and ask him not to hazard a guess at the answer. I refer to an answer given by Senator Button to the effect that the Prime Minister had set in train over a week ago the mechanisms for establishing a judicial inquiry and his more recent answers with respect to decisions made concerning the judicial inquiry and its relationship to the talk with Mr Combe. When was the decision made to hold a judicial inquiry ? If that decision was taken in stages, what were those stages and when were the various decisions made with respect to the inquiry? By whom were the decisions made? Were they made by the Ministry, by the Cabinet or by a small group of Ministers? Senator GARETH EVANS —Maybe I will strike a deal with the honourable senator. If he on behalf of his party adopts an attitude to freedom of information legislation that would accommodate answers to questions of that type being given , I would be happy to answer them now. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, refers to the importance of having adequate career advisers and counsellors, particularly in the Commonwealth Employment Service. In view of both the sharpening increases in unemployment and the depressed job market that the Labor Government has just inherited, can the Minister advise whether greater resources will be made available to streamline and promote these services so that there is effective co -ordination of manpower planning and policies? Senator BUTTON —In the last few years it has become increasingly clear, and, I think, probably desirable, that career counselling of students is best done through the education system. There has been a considerable increase in the level of available career counselling in that system. Basically, that is designed to help students with questions of choice about future careers if, indeed, future careers be available to them. On the other hand, the Commonwealth Employment Service has provided some other services; it has provided career reference centres. There is one in each capital city and in a number of provincial cities. These centres provide a full range of printed, audio and other visual material about occupations and training courses which students might follow. The services of the CES in this regard are widely publicised in schools and are used quite extensively. Work information centres have also been established in each office of the CES. They do not provide, perhaps, as comprehensive information as reference centres but they are more widely dispersed and available. Services are also provided by the CES to schools in terms of an occupational information library and training and on request assistance is provided to counsellors by the CES. The Government takes the view that an increasing amount of information should be made available to help young people with employment. That information, as a progressive measure, will increasingly be made available, both in schools and through the services of the CES. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, refers to the announcement by the Minister today that a judicial inquiry will be held into the Ivanov-Combe crisis and to his attempted explanation of why the Prime Minister did not mention such an inquiry yesterday. Is not the whole substance of yesterday's statement a clear implication by the Prime Minister that no inquiry and no further action would be taken and that, in the Prime Minister's words, the matter would be put to rest by that statement? If not, I ask the Minister to explain the meaning of the following paragraphs in the Prime Minister's statement: 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. I ask: Does this not indicate clearly that yesterday the Government had no intention at all of a judicial inquiry in the Combe affair as distinct from any thought that there might have been a judicial inquiry in the future into the structure of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation? Senator BUTTON —Let me answer that question in this way: First of all, what I said earlier at Question Time was that the Prime Minister had taken steps a week or so ago to set in train a judicial inquiry. I might elaborate on what those steps were. I take it that the Prime Minister saw the most important question in relation to the establishment of a judicial inquiry as being the selection of an appropriate judge. That was the step that was taken a week or so ago, as far as I know. No other steps were taken, but that step was taken. Secondly, the honourable senator suggests that the implications of yesterday's statement by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives are that this matter should be put at rest in relation to Mr Combe. That statement was made in the context of full discussion with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives from beginning to end regarding this matter. The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives then allowed a series of questions from his own benches about this matter yesterday and there was discussion on a matter of public importance today in total conflict with the discussions which had taken place between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. It became quite apparent and it is quite apparent that this matter-because of attempts to obtain political advantage from it in this place-could not be put at rest by the statement that was made yesterday.That is the position which has affected the capacity to put this question at rest. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Senator Button did not answer or attempt to answer the nub of my question; that is, the nature of the judicial inquiry sought about a week ago, whether the decision to include the Combe affair in a judicial inquiry was made before or after the statement yesterday and, incidentally, whether Mr Combe was in any way in possession of any knowledge that he was going to be involved in a judicial inquiry? Senator BUTTON —The second part of the honourable senator's supplementary question has already been answered by Senator Evans. Insofar as the question relates to the nature of the judicial inquiry, it has already been said here in the Senate today that the terms of reference regarding that matter have not yet been determined and were not determined yesterday. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Large numbers of Australians now use bicycles as a preferred means of transport as well as for recreation. Does the Government intend to make provision in its Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program for the funding of bicycle tracks and routes, thereby contributing to health, safety and energy conservation? Senator GIETZELT —The honourable senator has asked a very interesting question. It is one which I believe should be considered in the context of our responsibilities in transport. I am aware of the fact that steps have been taken by many local government bodies, and indeed in the Australian Capital Territory, to provide bicycle tracks or paths. That is a matter which the Government would very strongly support, not only because it has some aspects of energy conservation, although I suppose one could argue that a different sort of energy is being expounded in the use of bicycles. I think there is a growing tendency in this country to use such bicycle tracks. It could be seen as part of a conservation policy in respect of petroleum products. It is an interesting observation and one which I will certainly refer to my colleague Mr Morris, whom I represent in this place, with some enthusiasm because I believe that in all developed and, indeed, developing areas such a proposal ought to be considered as part of providing an alternative mode of transport. Accordingly, I will refer the question not only to Mr Morris but also to Mr Uren, whom I also represent in this place. Senator LEWIS —I also direct my question to the Attorney-General. It is about the proposed review of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, whether that be by way of a royal commission announced today or by way of whatever the Attorney-General was referring to yesterday. Does not the Attorney- General understand that if the Prime Minister of this country can condemn a citizen of Australia on the basis of information that he will not or cannot reveal, he, the Prime Minister, has destroyed civil liberties in this country and any review of our security forces is totally irrelevant? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator seems to have overlooked several key pieces of information which have been made abundantly clear in the course of discussions both yesterday and today. One is that there was a long period of discussion and consultation between the Government and Mr Combe before any statement was made by the Prime Minister. Secondly, Mr Combe agreed with the text of that statement. In the discussions he said that he understands and accepts the Government's position. If the honourable senator chooses to categorise the matter in the terms he used that is his prerogative but he does himself no credit in doing so. Senator RYAN —Yesterday Senator Martin asked me a question in respect of the Federal Government's attitude and commitment to the Brisbane City Council's bid for the 1987 World Student Games. I am now in a position to respond to Senator Martin. The Council has not made any formal approach to the Federal Government for assistance other than a request for the Prime Minister to provide a letter of support for the bid. This has been provided. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has had discussions with Alderman Harvey and representatives of the Council and he is aware of details of the Council's proposal. However, until such time as a decision is made on the location of the 1987 games it is not appropriate for the Government to enter into any comments in respect of them. Should Brisbane be awarded the games it would then be appropriate for the Council to determine its own financial arrangements and ascertain the level of Queensland Government assistance before it makes specific requests to the Federal Government. However, should it want to know before July whether the Federal Government will assist it should feel free to approach us, provided that the attitude of the Queensland Government is known at the time. Senator GIETZELT —Yesterday Senator Colston asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, a question concerning funding of public transport services in Brisbane. I am now in a position to provide the following information: The development and operation of urban public transport services is primarily a matter for the States. As a consequence, the adequacy of the funding available to the Brisbane City Council for its bus operations is ultimately a matter for which the Queensland Government must take responsibility. The Commonwealth Government for its part recognises the important role which urban public transport can play in the movement of people in the cities. The States have the option whereby up to 25 per cent of the funds available for urban arterial roads under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program may be allocated to urban public transport capital projects where such projects will reduce traffic or wear and tear on urban road systems. It is therefore a matter for the States to determine, on the basis of their priorities, the urban public transport projects for which they seek funding under that program. Earlier this year the Queensland Government sought and obtained from the then Minister for Transport and Construction approval for funding of two major projects involving extensive work to the Brisbane electrified rail network, as well as the construction of a number of smaller rail and bus passenger interchange projects. There is no question of the importance of the role played by the Brisbane City Council's bus services in meeting public transport requirements within the Brisbane area. In fact, figures suggest that Brisbane City Council buses account for about half of public transport passenger journeys in the Brisbane area. The honourable senator may therefore be assured that any proposals that may be submitted by the State relating to the upgrading of the Brisbane City Council bus services will receive careful and sympathetic consideration by the Commonwealth. United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(1.6) —To enable Estimates committees to meet, I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(1.7) —Last night the Senate had an organised adjournment debate on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Unfortunately, I had no knowledge that this debate was taking place. Senator Robertson —Shame! Senator WALTERS —It appeared that some women senators had got together and chatted about this matter but what was discussed was not told to the rest of us and I was not aware that such a discussion was taking place. At the last minute, as the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, was concluding her speech, I did become aware of it. Before Senator Ryan leaves the chamber, I point out that I am addressing my remarks to her, and I would like a reply if possible. Senator Grimes —I will reply. Senator WALTERS —I think Senator Ryan is in charge of this area but if she has passed on her responsibility to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes , that suits me fine. Last night I turned on the speaker in my room to hear Senator Ryan saying that all honourable senators were in agreement and that everything was sweetness and light. I assure her that that is not so. I read the record of the debate in Hansard. Senator Giles, who opened it, said that all reputable women's groups agreed. She then set out to attack one particular group of women, that named the Women Who Want to be Women. She seems to think-all Australian Labor Party people seem to think-that the worst thing they can say about any group is that they might be sheltered, wealthy women. I do not see what that has to do with it, but that seems to be the general way in which the Labor Party tries to denigrate people. Senator Giles went on to tell us that it is widely acknowledged that the League of Rights has some influence in this matter. I am not sure whether she was implying that the Women Who Want to be Women are also members of the League of Rights, but if she was it would be a good idea for her to claim that outside this place and not to use the Senate to make those inferences. Each of the speakers on the matter seemed to resort to using posters. Senator Giles said that she has in her room a poster showing an ordinary looking chap poised by a kitchen stove. It states: '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'. He hasn't got to stand over a stove to prove his love for his family'. It seems to me to be rather pathetic. Senator Giles said that the Women Who Want to be Women claim that Australia will be placed under the control of foreign people if it signs the Convention. I do not believe that Australia will be placed under the control of foreign organisations, but they certainly have influence. Senator Giles pointed to the International Labour Organisation. She said that if foreign organisations had a great influence in Australia, it would have been the case with the ILO. I can assure her that is the case. What is the point of Australia ratifying any agreement with the ILO if it does not have some influence on government legislation? I assure her that it does. She has not been in Government for long. She probably is not aware that it does. Conventions certainly have an influence on government legislation, and no doubt she will learn that that is so. Senator Coates —World heritage. Senator WALTERS —We will talk about the world heritage if Senator Coates wants to bring that matter on again. As I said last night, the Schedule to the World Heritage Convention states very clearly that a country that has a federation, as we have, and whose constitution does not allow it to take any action, just passes recommendations on to the States. That is where the World Heritage Convention has landed. I now refer to Senator Giles's remarks about Scandinavia. She is obviously a great lover of the Scandinavian people. She said that Scandinavian women no longer talk about equality but about equivalence. She suggested that the Women Who Want to be Women should claim their equivalence and join their sisters in supporting the Convention. I am not quite sure what she means by 'equivalence'. I wish she were here because I would be only too pleased to let her have a couple of seconds to tell us what she means by 'equivalence' in the context. She certainly did not explain it in her speech. I looked at the dictionary to check the meaning of 'equivalence'. It means interchangeable, equivalent, or exactly the same. Senator Haines —It does not. Go back to first year maths. Senator WALTERS —Go and look at the dictionary because you might learn something . 'Equivalence' means completely interchangeable. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest the honourable senator address her remarks through the Chair. Senator WALTERS —I assure Senator Giles that nature does not permit her to be interchangeable. No matter how much Senator Giles, Senator Ryan or Senator Haines would like it to be, nature does not permit that to happen. I now turn to Senator Haines's example. Senator Haines also resorted to the fact that she has a poster in her room. Her poster is different and it states: 'Anything a woman does she has to do twice as well as a man to be considered half as good. Fortunately that is not difficult'. For heaven's sake, that shows the depth of the debate in this place last night. It is rather ludicrous. Senator Haines then told us that she has brought up her two girls in such a free way that they say: 'Women drive better than men'. Good heavens, I have never heard anything so pathetic. She brought up her girls so freely that they say that women drive better than men. I brought up my girls quite a considerable time earlier than Senator Haines brought up hers. My girls have had complete equality with my boys in every single way. They have all gone through university; they have had every advantage. There has been no suggestion that they should resort to this idiotic nonsense of saying: 'We drive better than men'. They consider themselves to be equal with boys in every way and always have. They have been brought up that way . They do not have to resort to this trivial nonsense of saying: 'We have to work four times as hard as men to get acknowledgment', or 'Fortunately it is not very hard to work four times as hard as a man.' They have not been brought up in that stupid, idiotic fashion. They do not resort to saying such things as: ' Women drive better than men'. Senator Haines then went on to say that if her daughters chose to take up parenting as a full time role it would suit her fine although she would not know from whom they got that inclination; it certainly would not be from her. Senator Haines went on to ridicule full time parenting by women. This is really what the group Women Who Want to be Women is all about. Their point has been made by Senator Haines's ridiculing of this very worthwhile job of women who decide to take up parenting as their only priority, as a full time role. There is no reason for these feminists to ridicule the job that many women-the majority of women-in Australia want to do. There is no need for the ridicule. Women have a choice of taking up parenting as a full time role, without being ridiculed, or of not having children, as the case may be. If they want to have children at least they cannot hand over that role to anyone else. Senator Coates —Why can't men also have a choice? Senator WALTERS —If Senator Coates wants to know why they cannot I will give him a biology lesson later. Women cannot hand over the role of giving birth to children, nor can they hand over the role of nurturing them straight after the birth. It seems to me to be a very sad situation when a female member of the Senate stands up and says that she would not encourage her girls to take up parenting as a full time role and she could not imagine from where they would get the inclination if they chose to do so. When Senator Ryan's Bill eventually comes before the Senate I will have more to say about this matter. I think Senator Giles put her view rather well when she said: 'The hysterical emphasis on the sanctity of the family and the well-being of children has been put abroad by the Women Who Want to be Women'. I do not believe that it is hysterical. In this country there is one divorce for every 2 1/2 marriages. I think we should be looking very closely at what is happening to our families and to the children of those divorces. Mr President, I think it would be more appropriate for me to debate this matter when the Bill comes before the Senate. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(1.19) —Mr President, this is my first opportunity since your election as President to congratulate you. It is the first time that you have been in the chair when I have spoken. I rise only very briefly to put the record straight on a couple of matters. I do not want to recanvass the subject of last night's debate. There was a suggestion early in Senator Walters' s speech that the adjournment debate last night was something on which a number of us had got together. I wish to explain that I have some responsibility for the Opposition on the subject. Whilst Mr Macphee is the shadow Minister responsible for the status of women I have a responsibility in the Senate to represent him in that portfolio. I indicated to Senator Ryan, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, that I wished to raise the issue of the ratification of the Convention at the appropriate time in the Senate. That appropriate occasion had not eventuated when I was informed by Senator Giles that she had approached Senator Ryan to raise the matter on the adjournment. Senator Ryan did me the courtesy of telling Senator Giles that I had indicated that it was a subject that I intended to raise. So, not unnaturally, we took the opportunity to speak on the matter at the same time. The only other thing that I wanted to say is something that I omitted to say last night. It was our policy while in government to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We were moving towards that eventuality. It is still the policy of the Opposition that the Convention be ratified. The anti-discrimination legislation has been mentioned in the Press today. I make no comment because we have not seen the Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(1.22) —I wish to talk on the same subject, having had the opportunity of reading a debate which occurred last evening relating to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women which is under discussion. I think the issues that were raised last night are extremely important. Earlier this week I met with the various people who were mentioned in Senator Martin's contribution to the debate last night; that is, Dr Rendle-Short, Mrs Jackie Butler and Mrs Robyn Sully. I met those people on Monday to discuss these matters. It was a robust and interesting meeting over some two and a half hours. I cannot say that we agreed on all that much, except possibly that it is a subject which ought to be a matter of debate in the community. I certainly support that. On items such as this where Australia is to ratify a convention I have always said that the broadest possible debate should take place and the larger the input which can be made to the ratification the better. I believe that if one looked at how these conventions operated in practice, the Government of the day, in terms of its own legislation, would use or not use those conventions as it sees fit in relation to its own legislation. But the conventions may have some worth in altering the perceptions of people one to another of how they might act and what might be the most appropriate way of acting. The people who came to see me on Monday expressed a wide range of concerns and a range of specific concerns. I do not think I was able to allay any of their fears in relation to these items. However, I did not feel that the items which they raised with me warranted any action to prevent the ratification going ahead . I raise a further point that it seems to me that prior to these items being ratified there ought to be a major parliamentary debate. Indeed, I believe that the best way in which these ratifications could take place would be by a majority vote of both Houses. Senator Martin —We did that of course in the Senate in October 1981. Senator MACKLIN —Right. I believe that that would then bring into the Parliament and into the general political debate the issues which are currently outside this chamber. Some of those matters were raised last night. But specific items such as concern about whether this Convention would trespass upon the rights of certain churches not to have women ministers is one which is of concern to a number of people. I do not believe that that is a valid concern. I believe that any reading of our Constitution would show that the Government is not capable of using the foreign affairs power to override another section of the Constitution. This makes it impossible for the Commonwealth to legislate in that area. But when we go through the Convention I think we need to pay attention to individual items because there is a lot of fear being raised in the community at the moment , as was mentioned last night. I believe their fears are genuine but unfounded. That is a matter for further input. I must say that I finally got to the point of wondering whether there was a capacity for rational debate in this area. That may have been a reaction to two and a half hours of discussion. Senator Haines —On the male ego. Senator MACKLIN —On the male ego, possibly. That may not be the type of reaction that one ought to have in this area, and one should perhaps press on and hope that rational discussion may eventually prevail. No one would want us not to ratify the Convention because not to ratify it might be seen, not only in the world community but also in Australia, as this chamber and this Parliament not having a commitment to eliminating discrimination against women in all the forms it can take within society. I would like to make one comment on an item raised by Senator Walters earlier on. I refer to Senator Haines's comments last night when she was wondering, I feel in her relatively well-known facetious way, from where her children may have got the idea that they wanted to take up parenting. I know both her children and I know that they have a sense of humour, which enables one to get a long way in the world. But Senator Walters then said that Senator Haines last night went on to denigrate the role of parenting. I will read the passage immediately after the one quoted by Senator Walters to show that that is not the case. Senator Walters quoted the following passage from Senator Haines's speech: 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. The next sentence is: Nevertheless, they will be entitled to do so. The only denigration she undertook, in the next sentence, was upon our profession when she said: 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. I wonder whether in the ensuing debate it may be possible to have less invective against personalities and possibly more substance, because I believe that in Australia in 1983 there is still a long way to go in this area. I do not agree with Senator Walters that women in Australia can do exactly what they want. She may very well have been able to do so. I strongly disagree that it is the experience of all women in Australia that they are able to do so. Indeed, there are very evident discriminations against women in many areas. Finally, I believe that a discussion should take place about the notion of parenting rather than about whether it should be done by men or women. I believe that both males and females have a role in it. It is acknowledged now that it is an extremely important role which both fulfil. I think that in 1983 we as a chamber should seek to support and further that role which is under a great deal of pressure within our community. It does not necessarily follow from that support of the role of parenting, as far as we are able, that government must say in legislation that the role of women is in some way lesser than the role of men. Indeed, if one looks at the role that women fulfil in our society I think it can be seen that there is one area in which this comes out very strongly. I refer to migrant women, who are in extremely difficult circumstances in this country-particularly those migrant women who come from countries where English is not the language. They are often isolated from the rest of the community and find great difficulty in really developing themselves, and the roles which they may be capable of having, anywhere as much as I am sure they would like to. That is merely one area in which discrimination still exists. When we have a debate on this I hope that we will be able to discuss those items in a more reasonable and responsible way and that, flowing from that, legislation will be introduced here which will assist us to overcome the very real concerns and the very real discrimination which still exists against women in this country in 1983. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(1.30) —In closing this adjournment debate I wish to make a couple of points. The first point is that I represent the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, because she has an engagement she cannot avoid. She knew that this matter was going to come up for debate today only a couple of minutes before the motion for the adjournment of the Senate was moved. I think it is unfortunate that Senator Walters, and by interjection Senator Lewis, made remarks about Senator Ryan's absence. It is particularly unfortunate when Senator Walters started the debate and then soon after making her contribution left the chamber, before hearing the contribution to the debate by any other honourable senator. I agree with the remarks of Senator Macklin that it is important that we have a wide-ranging and less emotional debate than we sometimes have on this and other subjects, particularly when we are talking about the ratification of conventions of this type. In regard to my own area of social security, I find Senator Walters's assertion today that women are equal in this community incredible. I think of how women are disproportionately represented amongst the poor, amongst the homeless and amongst the unemployed; how the levels of education which they reach are disproportionately lower than those of men; and how amongst the echelons of industry and the Public Service in this country they are also disproportionately represented. However, I think that is a matter for another time and another debate. I thank all honourable senators for their contributions . I wish that all contributions could be less emotional and less rhetorical and could contain less hyperbole than did Senator Walters's contribution, but I suppose that is a hope I will live with for a long time before I see it achieved . Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates committees D, E and F will meet at 2.15 p.m. Estimates Committee D will meet in committee room 6, Estimates Committee E in the Senate chamber and Estimates Committee F in committee rooms 1 and 2. Prior to the sittings of the committees, the bells will be rung for three minutes. The Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday next, 17 May 1983, at 1.45 p.m. Senate adjourned at 1.32 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 72 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) Did an Australian Financial Review report of 14 April claim that clothing manufacturers are avoiding Customs duty. (2) What investigations have been made as a consequence of this report. (3) What has been the result of such investigations. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) None. However, users of the by-law concession to which the article refers are required to furnish Customs securities and quarterly returns to ensure its purpose is complied with. Customs checks against these returns during 1982 did not reveal any widespread abuse of the concession which is intended to allow entry of lightweight woven fabrics at minimum rates of duty for use in the commercial production of garments (including parts) or for sale to the general public for normal private and domestic use. (3) See 2.