Tuesday, 17 May 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 1.45 p.m. , and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, will now represent the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, in the other chamber. I also inform the Senate that Senator Ryan will be absent during Question Time today. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Ryan in relation to her portfolio or those portfolios which she represents should today be directed to Senator Grimes. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Allens Creek, Australian Capital Territory To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are gravely concerned that a residential suburb shall be built in Allens Creek near Kambah in the Murrumbidgee Gorge Corridor of the Australian Capital Territory. Your petitioners declare that the Murrumbidgee Gorge Corridor near Canberra in almost unspoilt native forest should be part of the National Estate. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled shall take all possible steps to prevent the building of a residential development in Allens Creek in the Murrumbidgee Gorge Corridor. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 287 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That the plan by the Australian Telecommunications Commission to withdraw public telegram facilities and downgrade telegram standards by: (1) planning to withdraw the 24 hour telegraph service at the Chief Telegraph Office in each capital city and in Canberra and Darwin (2) closing country telegraph offices (3) increasing telegram charges whilst downgrading the service (4) withdrawing telegram operating facilities from a large number of suburban and country post offices (5) generating serious delays in telegram delivery by reducing standards of service through centralisation of the network and reduction of operating and delivery staff will reduce an available means of communications in commercial enterprise, deny the opportunity for people of Australia to make contact with family and friends in times of emergency, and civil or natural disasters, particularly for the 30% of Australians who are not telephone subscribers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take measures to ensure the maintenance of an efficient, effective public telegram service to meet the needs of the Australian people socially, publicly, commercially and in times of emergencies and civil or natural disasters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Georges (from 22 citizens) and Scott (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3, Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3, Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 180 citizens), Georges (from 92 citizens), Kilgariff ( on behalf of Senator Archer) (from 15 citizens), Lewis (from 51 citizens), Macklin (from 99 citizens), Martin (from 140 citizens), Peter Rae (from 30 citizens), Robertson (from 84 citizens) and Withers (from 85 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, to repeal certain Acts, and for related purposes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That Standing Order 242 be suspended to enable the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill 1983, Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1983, Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill 1983, and Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill 1983, to be passed without a call of the Senate. Senator DURACK —I refer the Attorney-General to some statements made by the Prime Minister in another place last Thursday, 12 May, in answer to a question from Dr Theophanous and as recorded on page 506 of Thursday's Hansard. The Prime Minister said, amongst a number of things, that Mr Combe had been given an ' historically unprecedented opportunity of knowing why the Government had acted as it did'. The Prime Minister also said: . . . this Government moved to do everything immediately within its power to see that Mr Combe had every opportunity to look at the facts as we, the Government, knew those facts. I ask: Is the Attorney-General aware of a statement by Mr Combe on the Sunday program last Sunday in which Mr Combe referred to and described the way in which he was given knowledge of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation tapes? He described that opportunity as follows: . . . to sit pat, on my own, without my solicitor, while the Director-General of ASIO read excerpts to me. As the Attorney-General participated in these talks with Mr Combe, will he tell us whether it is the Prime Minister or Mr Combe who is telling the truth about the discussions held last Wednesday? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of a number of statements that have been made by Mr Combe since last week, including the one to which the honourable senator refers. I simply make the point that no request was made to me-certainly no request that I can recall-by Mr Combe that his solicitor be present during the morning session when the extracts from the transcripts in question and other material were put to him. Certainly, when his solicitor was present in the afternoon I made it clear that if there was any desire on the part of either Mr Combe or his solicitor to go back over any matter of fact that might be relevant in determining the content of the statement-to which statement Mr Combe agreed line by line-there would be no question of that access being denied. I make the further point that undoubtedly there are likely to be a number of matters of disputed fact not only as to the circumstances of the original Government decision, but also as to the subsequent handling of the case by the Government, which honourable senators opposite may wish to pursue and, indeed, other people in the community may wish to pursue. There is now an opportunity for them to do so in the context of the judicial inquiry, the terms of which are being announced by the Prime Minister early this afternoon. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question because Senator Evans has avoided answering the major point of the question, namely, the accuracy of the Prime Minister's statement: . . . Mr Combe had every opportunity to look at the facts as we, the Government, knew those facts. Mr Combe makes it perfectly clear that only excerpts of the full story available to the Government were read to him. I want to know who is telling the truth-the Prime Minister or Mr Combe? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Prime Minister is undoubtedly telling the truth in his account of the events. Mr Combe was given an unprecedented opportunity. He did not seek to take that opportunity any further than in the circumstances as I have described them. Should he wish to do so, in the context of the inquiry, no doubt he will take that opportunity. Equally, that opportunity is available to anyone else, including the honourable senator, who may wish to put evidence or argument to the inquiry. Senator CROWLEY —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware that recently two staff members of the Australian Wine Research Institute were summarily dismissed and that no reasons were given for their dismissals? As the Research Institute is partly funded by the Department of Primary Industry, and as this organisation provides valuable research for the wine industry not only in South Australia, where it is based, but also Australia-wide, could the Minister say what the current situation is, whether his Department proposes to take any action in this dispute and if so, what action? Senator WALSH —I am aware that this incident took place and I believe it went before a commissioner a few days ago for negotiation. I am not sure of the latest developments. I will refer the question to the Minister for a complete answer. Senator MacGIBBON —In light of widespread concern about confusion in Government decision-making, I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he misled the Senate last Thursday in regard to the Government's moves to establish a royal commission into the Combe-Ivanov affair. I ask him whether he recalls stating, in answer to a question by Senator Chaney directed specifically at, and emphasising the point of, whether or not the Government would hold a judicial inquiry into Mr Combe's role: The Prime Minister set in train over a week ago the mechanisms for establishing a judicial inquiry into this matter. As it now appears from subsequent statements of the Prime Minister and Senator Gareth Evans that the decision to include Mr Combe was taken only last Thursday morning, will the Leader explain exactly when the decision to inquire into the Combe affair was made and when he was first aware of that decision? Senator BUTTON —The decision to include Mr Combe and associated matters in the terms of the royal commission was made, as I understand it, last Thursday. I say 'as I understand it, last Thursday' because the point of Senator MacGibbon's question, as I understand it, is whether, in answering a question that day, I said that the question of setting a royal commission in train had been undertaken a week before. That is perfectly true. If one reads the question the Opposition asked me last week in relation to this matter one sees that the question asked today is a misleading question in this sense: The question that Senator Chaney asked me last week-I do not have it in front of me-was whether the Government would set up a judicial inquiry into this whole matter. The ' whole matter' which I took him to refer to was the question of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Of course, the answer which I gave was yes, because that was Australian Labor Party election policy, it was a matter which I knew was already in train in terms of the Prime Minister consulting with a potential royal commissioner about his availability to conduct such a commission , and the 'whole matter' to which I took Senator Chaney's question to refer was the question of an investigation into ASIO. The decision about Mr Combe's involvement was, as I say, I believe made on the Thursday after the matter had been raised in the Parliament on the Tuesday and Wednesday by members of the National Party. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree that his unfortunate use of the word 'bizarre' last week would be the best description possible of this decision -making process on the run and his lack of knowledge of the subject? Senator BUTTON —The use of the word 'bizarre' was made in the context of the Opposition's question, which was: Would the Government set up a royal commission to clear Mr Combe's name in this whole matter? Senator MacGibbon —To allow Mr Combe. Senator BUTTON —That was the question. Would the Government set up a royal commission to clear Mr Combe's name? Senator MacGibbon —To allow Mr Combe to clear his name. Senator BUTTON —All right; to allow Mr Combe to clear his name. The answer to that question was no, because if we embarked upon a course of setting up royal commissions every time somebody had to clear his name-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —Just a minute. Having already foreshadowed a decision to set up a royal commission in relation to ASIO and, at the time the question was asked, consultations taking place with Mr Combe, as they were, in relation to his position-consultations which produced an agreed statement on the Wednesday evening-it was an extraordinary request that a royal commission be set up into those matters. Senator BOLKUS —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate what action Australia took in the reconvened United Nations General Assembly when it last week considered a question on Cyprus? Senator GARETH EVANS —On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I am pleased to inform the Senate that when a resolution on the question of Cyprus was submitted to the resumed session of the General Assembly last week the Australian delegation was instructed to and did vote in favour of that resolution in its entirety. The resolution included the following operative paragraphs: (7) Considers the withdrawal of all occupation forces from the Republic of Cyprus as an essential basis for a speedy and mutually acceptable solution of the Cyprus problem. . . . . (8) Demands the immediate withdrawal of all occupation forces from the Republic of Cyprus. . . . . (15) Reiterates its recommendation that the Security Council should examine the question of implementation, within a specified time frame, of its relevant resolutions and consider and adopt thereafter, if necessary, all appropraite and practical measures under the charter of the United Nations for ensuring the speedy and effective implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations in Cyprus. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy a question concerning an Australian Associated Press report in the weekend Press that the Director- General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr Hans Blix, told Mr Hayden: Supplier countries with less concern about safeguard arrangements would step in to fill the gap if Australia ceased exporting uranium. Does the Minister recall that on 22 April this year, in reply to a question from Senator Macklin, he stated that he fully endorsed that item in the Australian Labor Party platform which states quite explicity that as long as France continues to test atomic weapons, Australian uranium, regardless of all other constraints which may be in that platform, will not be supplied to France? Is the report true in saying that the Government has not suspended sales of uranium to France, such as the sales by Queensland Mines Ltd to Electricite de France? If this is true, will the Minister explain the apparent contradication that the Government would not be allowing sales of uranium to France to continue ? Finally, will the Minister assure the Senate that so-called threats of the type used by Dr Blix will not lead the Government to adopt the morality of a heroin pusher and continue to export uranium just because some other country might step in to fill the gap? Sentor WALSH-I have not seen the AAP report to which Senator Chipp referred, but I have seen similar reports in a number of other papers in the last few days. As I recall, Senator Chipp quoted correctly what I said in the Senate on 22 April when, in answer to a question from Senator Macklin, I referred him, although I did not have a copy with me-and I still do not-to the relevant item in the Australian Labor Party Platform. The second part of Senator Chipp's question asked whether the Government had suspended sales of uranium to France. In March Mr Bowen terminated the negotiating rights-that is not the precise term but that is the meaning-or licences of all uranium producers. I am not sure whether he has restored the negotiating rights to Queensland Mines Ltd. I will have to seek further information from Mr Bowen on that. Perhaps I should add, because there has been some confusion about this, that the administrative arrangements provide that the question of export licences for uranium or anything falls within the Department of Trade, and is therefore Mr Bowen's area of responsibility and not mine. In regard to the final part of the question concerning the statements that have been coming out of Europe, Mr Hayden announced some time ago that a review of safeguard arrangements was under way. I would expect the question of sales to France to be one of those matters considered, in conjunction, of course, with the Party's platform requirements in this area, by Mr Hayden and other relevant Ministers when finalising that review of safeguard arrangements. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. It is not my task to put the Minister in difficulty, but I just want a categoric answer, if it is possible, stemming from his last sentence. Can I take it from that sentence that at this point the Government does not have a final policy position on stopping all sales of uranium to France while testing is taking place? Senator WALSH —I have said that Mr Bowen is the Minister who actually will be administering this decision. Senator Chipp —But you are a member of Cabinet. Senator WALSH —Yes, I am a member of Cabinet. I am not trying to evade the question, but the matter, in conjunction with other similar matters in relation to uranium mining, is currently under review. I am sorry that I cannot give the honourable senator a categoric statement of government policy at this stage; the matter is still under review. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer . In view of last month's reported unemployment figures which show the number out of work in Australia for April as being 707,300, or 10.2 per cent of the work force, but on a seasonally adjusted basis show 715,000 out of work, or 10.3 per cent of the work force, I ask: Firstly, what is the Government's interpretation of the significance of the seasonally adjusted figures? Secondly, will the Government consider bringing back monthly Commonwealth Employment Service reports of registered unemployed? Thirdly, does the Minister share the view of the former Liberal Premier of Western Australia and now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Ray O'Connor, as reported in the West Australian last Friday? He is reported as saying: There was a significant decline in employment probably because the Labor Government abandoned the Liberal Government's initiatives. Senator WALSH —In response to the first part of Senator Cook's question, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, from my recollection, has made public statements of an intention to restore-I am not sure whether on a monthly basis or at some longer interval than that; I am reminded that it was on a three-monthly basis-the regional unemployment Commonwealth Employment Service statistics, the publication of which the previous Government suspended in accordance with its policy of providing the mushroom treatment for the electorate. It had a vested interest in suppressing from the electorate just how serious the unemployment problem was overall and a particular vested interest in suppressing from the public knowledge of the facts about regional variations in that overall appalling level of unemployment. I turn to the statement by Mr O'Connor. Mr O'Connor is a discredited former Premier whose life expectancy as Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia I would not assess as being very long. The discredited former Prime Minister had the good sense to resign before he was sacked by his own party. I would be surprised if Mr O'Connor survived very long as Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia. To assert, of course, that in a period of two months the current level of unemployment has anything whatsoever to do with the election of the Labor Government is absurd, as are most of the other misstatements of fact for which Mr O'Connor is renowned. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows the question asked by Senator MacGibbon as to whether an answer given by Senator Button last week misled the Senate. I remind the Leader of the Government that, in my question last Thursday, after referring to the question asked by Senator MacGibbon, I asked: In view of the serious questions left unanswered by Mr Hawkes' 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's response is recorded in Hansard as follows: 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. I ask: Does the Minister not agree that the question I asked him clearly raises the issue of a royal commission into the whole affair, including the implication of Mr Combe, and that the answer given by the Leader of the Government clearly suggests that a judicial inquiry of that scope was set in train more than a week before the question was asked? Is it not a fact that a judicial inquiry of that scope was not decided upon until that morning and that in fact the answer is, therefore, misleading? Senator BUTTON —No. On Wednesday last, I was asked a question by Senator MacGibbon in relation to a royal commission to enable, as he put it, Mr Combe to clear his name. In my view, on the Wednesday no circumstances existed or were publicly known-other than the fact that Mr Combe alleged he had been defamed in a Sydney newspaper in respect of which he had taken action-which would entitle Mr Combe or any other citizen in those circumstances to warrant the establishment of a royal commission for those purposes as described in Senator MacGibbon's question. On the Thursday, Senator Chaney asked me a question which related in part to Senator MacGibbon's question and included the expression: . . . will the Government establish a judicial inquiry in regard to the whole affair? I took the expression 'the whole affair' to mean the allegations which had been published in the National Times, the expulsion of Ivanov, the public discussion which had taken place about the role of ASIO and, as at Thursday, in part of course, the allegations which were floating around about Mr Combe as a result of the statement made on the Wednesday night. In those circumstances I say that the answer that I gave to the Senate on the Thursday was an accurate answer. As I have said earlier today, the decision to include Mr Combe was made on the Thursday morning, as I understand it. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Referring to the answer just given, is it not a fact that the royal commission or the judicial inquiry which was envisaged to Thursday morning was an inquiry into ASIO and not into the Ivanov involvement or into the Combe involvement? Senator BUTTON —When I was asked that question I took it to be an inquiry into this whole affair, which embraced ASIO, Ivanov and all those matters which were currently public knowledge as at the time the question was asked. Senator Chaney —Mr President-- Mr PRESIDENT —I call Senator Tate. Senator Chaney —I wish to put exactly the same question. The PRESIDENT —With great respect, the honourable senator cannot do that. He has had a question and a supplementary question. The rights of other honourable senators have to be protected. Senator Chaney —I cannot put the question when it is not answered. The PRESIDENT —I call Senator Tate. Senator TATE —Has the Attorney-General seen a letter published in various newspapers today which criticises the Governor-General as identifying himself with a controversial political point of view in launching the book Australia's Constitution-Time for Change? Is the Attorney-General aware of that book? Will he comment on the allegations made by these two puny professors of politics against the Governor-General? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the book in question since I was its joint author along with Haddon Storey, a former Liberal Attorney-General of Victoria under the Hamer and Thompson governments. The third joint author was John McMillan. The book is not a partisan work in any way, shape or form, as might be appreciated from its authorship, but is an attempt at an even-handed discussion of some of Australia's, indeed all of Australia's, obvious constitutional problems, or what are alleged or argued by different people around the country from different points of view to be constitutional problems. The object of the book which forms part of a project-as this chamber would no doubt be well aware, set in train and funded by the New South Wales Law Foundation, itself a non-party organisation-was, in the language of its preface, 'to canvas in as dispassionate and non-partisan manner as is humanly possible the full range of problems, or potential problems, to which the present constitution gives rise, to explore the possible solutions and to suggest some options for the machinery by which they might be solved'. I have indeed seen the criticism which has been directed to the Governor- General, Sir Ninian Stephen, in launching that book in the company of many distinguished judges, including Sir Laurence Street, and a whole range of members of the legal and political establishment a few weeks ago, just before the Australian Constitutional Convention held in Adelaide. I believe that the concept of criticism of the very idea of constitutional review which is inherent in the criticism of these two gentlemen-Professors Kemp and Davis-is quite misplaced. Divisiveness on this issue springs from the way in which such tasks are sometimes approached. I think it demonstrates a regrettable narrow-mindedness that the whole issue should be viewed in this way by Professor Kemp. I remind the Senate-not that it will need much reminding-that Professor Kemp was formerly on the personal staff of the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, in a most senior private position and was the primary author, as I understand it, of the Edmund Barton Lecture in March 1982 when Mr Fraser, the then Prime Minister, said: There is no prospect of a new constitution by 1988 as some are suggesting. Nor is a totally new Constitution in any way required. The effort to achieve such an objective is indeed one of the most divisive proposals that can be contemplated in Australia. Mr Fraser may be politically dead, but it is apparent that his spirit lingers on through the voice of people like Professor Kemp. I finally say simply that the subject of constitutional review is one to which Governors-General in the past have quite properly addressed themselves in the context of lending their name and their office to the encouragement of rational debate on this issue although not, of course, to any particular proposed solution. I remind the Senate of the role played by Sir Zelman Cowen in this respect in his opening speech to the Perth Constitutional Convention in 1978 and , indeed, of the speech of Sir Ninian Stephen to the opening session of the Constitutional Convention in Adelaide a few weeks ago in which he made exactly the same points as he made at the launching of the book. It seems to me that opponents of a balanced and serious discussion of constitutional reform of the kind that is endeavoured to be contained in this book are simply demonstrating not only their prejudices but also their fears at what such a balanced and rational discussion might disclose about the present state of constitutional affairs in this country. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is Mr W. P. Butler a member of the Government's Ministerial Staff Advisory Panel? Does he participate in decisions to select staff for employment in ministerial offices? Does he sign letters to successful applicants? Is this the same Bill Butler who is an associate in a lobbying business with Mr Richard Farmer, at one time a potential partner of Mr David Combe? Does Senator Button see any potential conflict of interest in a situation in which lobbyist is involved in placing staff in ministerial offices? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the first part of the question is yes. I believe it to be same Bill Butler, although I do not know him. The answer to the last part of the question is no. Senator RICHARDSON —Can the Minister representing the Special Minister of State indicate whether the Australian Federal Police action in seizing thousands of video recordings from Electronic Sales and Rentals in Sydney last month was undertaken at the request of a former Commonwealth Police officer who is now working for the Australasian Film Security Office, which acts on behalf of the American Motion Picture Association Inc. Senator GARETH EVANS —The actions of the Australian Federal Police in this matter do not appear to constitute one of the finest hours of that force. I hasten to add that it is unfortunate that it appears that the search warrant, in this instance, was in fact executed by the officers in question or without recourse to what is normally the case, and that is advice from the Attorney-General's Department. However, I am advised that the reason the action was taken to seize the tapes was thoroughly well motivated-namely, belief in possible breaches of the Commonwealth Copyright Act. I understand that the AFP received information alleging breaches of that Act through the Australasian Film Security Office, as was mentioned by the honourable senator in his question. I am informed that two members of that office are former members of the Commonwealth Police. Beyond that it would not appear proper to comment because the matter is still currently before the High Court of Australia. I believe it would be inappropriate to make further comment about the substantive merits of the case or the issues lying behind it beyond what I have already said. Senator HAMER —Does the Attorney-General recall attempting last week to blame the Opposition for making Mr Combe's name public in connection with the Ivanov case? How does he square this charge with his comment on the Sunday television program that information involving David Combe had dribbled out 'not least through David's own conversations around town, I suspect' and Mr Combe's statement on the same program 'that the dogs were barking my name in the halls of Parliament House early last week'? In view of the admitted gross security indiscretion by the Special Minister of State, Mr Mick Young, over the Ivanov affair, does the Government accept that Mr Young did not leak Mr Combe's Ivanov connection, despite claims to the contrary? Will Mr Young remain a member of the Cabinet committee dealing with national security? Finally, will the Attorney- General now accept that the Government's bizarre handling of the Ivanov case was the reason for Mr Combe being publicly identified and that, in the words of one senior Press gallery journalist, Mr Hawke has nobody to blame but his own Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —Dogs may have been barking around the halls of Canberra- indeed, the cats may have been miaowing-but no one mentioned Mr Combe's name in any public context, let alone under the cover of privilege, until that honour was performed by Mr Sinclair as part of a deliberately orchestrated Question Time in the other place as, indeed, there was a similar attempt at an orchestrated Question Time in this place. It was quite contemptible in all circumstances of the case, including the circumstance of a very elaborate briefing of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, who knew well the nature and extent of Mr Combe's involvement in the circumstances leading up to the expulsion of Mr Ivanov. The Government has nothing whatsoever to apologise for in identifying the Opposition as the key agent in bringing this matter to the public's attention. I believe that the air has been thoroughly cleared on the question in relation to the Special Minister of State by the public statements that have been made by Mr Young describing what he readily conceded to be an indiscretion in his one sentence comment about the anticipated action of the Government later in that day, which statement was, of course, also confirmed by the statement of Mr Cameron made last week. Again this desperate attempt by the political down and outs opposite to rummage around the rubbish bins to produce a matter of this kind does no credit to their performance as an Opposition. I repeat that the Government has nothing to apologise for in respect of any aspect of its handling of this case at any time. To the extent that any honourable senator opposite or anyone in the community believe to the contrary, the avenue is now open for them to lay such charges before the inquiry that has been established for this purpose, amongst others. Senator PRIMMER —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to the editorial in last Saturday's Australian newspaper which, amongst other things, expressed grave doubts about the wisdom of a resource rent tax. It claimed: The arguments against a Federal Government resource rent tax . . . are compelling. The tax would be inequitable and arbitrary in its nature and in its impact. Is there any substance in any of these claims? Senator WALSH —I did see that editorial. At least two editorials of similar tone have appeared in the Australian newspaper recently. I suspect that they have a common author, although I do not know who that author is. However, it is quite clear from reading those editorials that the right wing political prejudices of that author eclipse whatever knowledge of the facts he may have or comprehension of the issues involved. The common denominator of both of those editorials has been ignorance of the facts and economic illiteracy. The author can call that tax arbitrary. I suppose people can call any tax arbitrary but I would have thought that any reasonable person would conclude that a tax related to profit was less arbitary than a tax related to production, a tax which must be paid by an enterprise whether or not it is operating profitably. It is a fixed tax on output and it is such fixed taxes on output which the Government proposes to replace by a resources rent tax. The writer of that editorial-as I said before, whatever capacity he has to understand the issues is eclipsed by his right wing political prejudices- suggested that the only reason the Government was not imposing a resource rent tax on wheat or wool is that it would incur the wrath of most Australians. There is, of course, no tax on wheat and wool production and therefore no tax on marginal production. I would have thought that that fact would have been noticed by any editorialist less ignorant and prejudiced than the author of the editorial to which the honourable senator refers and the previous editorial. Senator KILGARIFF —I refer the Attorney-General to his statement in Hansard of 12 May, page 435, when he said: 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. I ask the Minister whether he is aware of Mr Combe's comment on the Sunday Television program on which he said: Now what I can't accept is that I was never confronted with the allegations against me and given the opportunity of defending myself against those allegations before my livelihood was taken away from me. Was it not a further breach of his rights for him to be read only excerpts from the security tapes, in the absence of his solicitor, and for access to be denied to the full records of conversations which, Mr Combe claims, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has misinterpreted? Senator GARETH EVANS —There does not seem to be such co-ordination among the tactical geniuses on the other side of the chamber because the question that Senator Kilgariff has so laboriously read from his notes was essentially the same question as that asked at the beginning of Question Time by Senator Durack, and I have nothing to add to that answer. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. I refer to an article in the Adelaide News of 9 May which stated that confusion over sales tax could be costing the public millions of dollars a year because some retailers were setting profit margins on top of sales tax levied at the wholesale level. I ask: Will the Government investigate whether this practice is widespread? If it is the case, what action can be taken to prevent retail prices to consumers being inflated by this device? Senator WALSH —Senator Maguire, if I remember correctly, raised this issue at an Estimates Committee meeting last week. The Income Tax Assessment Act requires sales tax to be levied on manufacturers or wholesalers at the time an article is sold to retailers and at the appropriate rate levied on the wholesale price. I am advised that the administration beyond that is not a matter for the Australian Taxation Office and that so far as the Taxation Act is concerned retailers can charge whatever they like. If they like to add on a notional sales tax to the retail price instead of the wholesale, that is not an offence under the Taxation Act although, if retailers misrepresent the magnitude of the sales tax being imposed in a way, for example, that adds on sales tax to the total price, including the retailer's mark-up, and does that on a docket or an invoice , I am advised that that could be a matter for prosecution under the Trade Practices Act, but it does not entail a breach of the Taxation Act. The practice, if it does exist, of adding sales tax on to retailers' margins as well as the wholesale price upon which it is properly levied is dishonest and anti-social. I will see that this request is passed on to the appropriate Minister to see what evidence can be gathered and whether, in the event of some retailers misrepresenting the magnitude of sales tax, appropriate action can be taken against them. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is it true that the Government acknowledged in its electoral platform that small business requires urgent support and, in particular, relief from the many restrictions imposed upon it? Did the Government promise to rectify specific problems? Does it acknowledge that some of the major difficulties of small businesses flow from the constraints imposed by law on partnerships, sole proprietorships and private companies which are not applicable to public companies? In view of the fact that small business is crucial to the economy and is a major employer will the Government, in consultation with small business, review the appropriateness of the legal structures which are available for use by small business? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the honourable senator's question is yes, the Government did made pre-election undertakings in relation to small business. The implementation of those pre-election undertakings is currently a matter of investigation and detailed consideration. In June I will meet with representatives of the Small Business Advisory Council to discuss some of these matters and reach, one would hope, agreement about the implementation of the Government's policy. The honourable senator also asked about the legal constraints which apply to small businesses and which do not apply in all circumstances to other companies. That is also a matter which is subject to review in the current assessment of the implementation of the policy. Senator JONES —I ask the Attorney-General, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that statements are being made in north Queensland that the Australian Government is planning to change the terms of the Australia- Papua New Guinea Border Agreement. Is the Government planning any changes and, if not, when will the treaty be ratified? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have heard some such suggestions, which have been conveyed to me largely through the medium of Senator Jones in conversation. The situation is this: The Torres Strait treaty beween Papua New Guinea and Australia was signed by the Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers of both countries in December 1978. It has had the full support of successive governments in both countries since its signature as an imaginative solution to a very complex border problem. I have heard no serious suggestion at all that it should be changed in any way; certainly, the present Government is not contemplating any such change. The agreement will be ratified when the necessary legislation has been passed in both Papua New Guinea and Australia to give effect to its provisions. The drafting of this legislation, which is by no means a simple matter, has been proceeding in both countries and I am informed it has reached an advanced stage in both. I expect on present information that it will be possible for the enabling legislation to be introduced into this Parliament during the Budget sittings. Senator CHANEY —I address my question to the Attorney-General. It relates to a meeting which he attended and which was held less than a week ago. I ask him: Is it a fact that at the meeting which was held between him and others and Mr Combe that Mr Combe, in the words of the Prime Minister 'had every opportunity to look at the facts as we, the Government, knew those facts'? Or is it true that as Mr Combe has put it, he was required-I use his words-'to sit pat, on my own, without my solicitor, while the Director-General of ASIO . . . read excerpts to me'? If I may simplify the question, was Mr Combe given access to the full facts or were extracts from the facts read to him? Senator GARETH EVANS —As has been made clear by myself in this Question Time and previously, it is only a matter of extracts from the relevant materials being read to Mr Combe. Senator Durack —When did you make that clear? Senator GARETH EVANS —Earlier in this Question Time, if the honourable senator had been listening. I guess his ears were as usual blocked with an accumulation of the-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Evans, will you answer Senator Chaney's question? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will, Mr President. The reality of the matter is that sufficient of the material on which the Government was basing its conclusions and on which it had based its decisions was put to Mr Combe to make him appreciate the basis on which those decisions were taken. As I indicated earlier in Question Time, Mr Combe expressed no desire at that stage to have any further material put to him and the balance of the meeting with him, which as I indicated was joined in the afternoon by his lawyer, was devoted to working out a mutually acceptable word by word, line by line agreed statement in which Mr Combe fully participated. Mr Combe has subsequently chosen to resile from the situation in which he found himself on that day. That is a matter for him. As has been indicated by me publicly, the fact that he did so resile from that position and demonstrated an unhappiness with the state of affairs as to procedures and so on that he had not demonstrated on the day was a major consideration in our wishing to clear the air by proceeding immediately to the appointment of the general inquiry which we had long contemplated and to establishing the Combe-Ivanov matter as a specific term of reference of that inquiry, as will be made clear later this afternoon when the reference is announced. There has been no attempt by the Government in describing its course of actions in this matter to tell anything less than the truth, to be anything other than frank and honest. However, we are not proposing to go further than I or anyone else already has in putting on the record the substantive material on the basis of which our decision was made. It will be a matter for the inquiry to consider in its fullness that substantive material and to make an appropriate decision as to how much of it it recommends ought to be put into the public domain. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister seen reports in last Thursday's Press that foreign capital surged into Australia during April, reaching its highest level since last September? Does the Minister agree with the comments made on last Thursday' s AM program by Professor Perkins of the Melbourne University that these figures would seem to indicate a higher level of confidence amongst overseas investors-- Senator Lewis —And the need for a revaluation, too. Senator FOREMAN —In the new Labor Government? Senator Lewis —We will see what Walsh has to say about a revaluation. Senator WALSH —It is interesting that while Senator Foreman was asking that question Senator Lewis saw fit to chirp in with a comment about a revaluation of the dollar. Honourable senators opposite still have not stopped speculating about the currency. We know that Senator Lewis's present leader, in the run-up to the election, touched off a run on the dollar by telling the world that if the Australian Labor Party were elected the dollar would have to be devalued. As a result of that grossly irresponsible and improper statement, a run was started on the dollar. Firstly we had Mr Fraser trying to start a run on the banks. That failed. Then we had the present leader of the Liberal Party deliberately trying to start a run on the dollar, and that succeeded. These people are economic saboteurs. The first, the original, economic saboteur decided to retire from parliament before his own party had the opportunity to sack him, but his replacement was an even more irresponsible economic saboteur. I hope that in the unlikely event of the Liberal Party returning to government in the near future it can find a leader with a somewhat greater sense of responsibility than the one it so ill-advisedly chose after the March election. The PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh, I take it that you are answering Senator Foreman's question? Senator WALSH —I am certainly answering Senator Foreman's question, Mr President . I understand that the facts are as Senator Foreman stated them. The level of capital inflow into Australia from overseas in the month of April was higher than it had been for the previous seven months. Certainly that demonstrates confidence by the global money market in the stability of the Australian economy and the responsibility of the present Government. It is a vote of confidence in the most telling and significant manner and a recognition by the international monetary market that Australia now has a government which is fiscally responsible. That is something it has not had for many years. Senator BOSWELL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. In view of the inclination of the Australian Labor Party and the Government towards referendums to reinforce their position on questions of party policy, are the ALP and the Government prepared to put to the test of a referendum their policy on public funding of elections and in particular the ALP's policy of compulsorily acquiring party contributions from union members who have no opportunity to put their views on this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Boswell seems to fail to appreciate the difference between referendums on matters requiring constitutional change and those which do not. The only matters which the ALP is proceeding or is ever likely to proceed to put to referendum are those demanding constitutional change, not in the interests of advancing Labor Party policy but in the interests of advancing good government in this country. That is exactly a commodity that has been in very short supply for the last few years. It is something that naturally one can expect to encourage the rage of the people opposite when it is put to them in the form of the propositions that will be going to referendum later this year. The question of public funding and disclosure, as is well known, is a matter now being considered by a parliamentaary committee with a view to the preparation of legislation-because legislation is all that is needed to implement such a system at the Commonwealth level-later this year. Senator GILES —Is the Attorney-General aware of newspaper reports that the Australian Law Reform Commission has almost completed its investigation of proposals to recognise Aboriginal customary laws? Will he agree that when the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission is received it will be given prompt attention and not buried pending yet further investigation? Will he also give consideration to discussing with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs the possibility of introducing a committee of commitment, as has been negotiated on other continents, to set out the legal and cultural relationships between the Aboriginal and Islander people and the wider Australian community-a matter which assumes greater importance in view of a recent statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that in his view Australia was conquered and not settled? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am familiar with the progress of the Law Reform Commission on its report on Aboriginal customary law. I am happy to hear that the investigation is now in the home straight, that this week the Commission has been actively discussing its tentative conclusions around the country, including Western Australia, and that a report is soon to be presented to me. Certainly, I undertake that it will not be buried in the way in which these reports were so often buried by the previous Administration. As I have indicated publicly, we will bring to the treatment of Law Reform Commission reports a very different procedural approach. Given the enormous amount of public discussion that goes into them-the Aboriginal customary law reference has certainly been no exception in this respect-and given the expertise with which they are prepared, this Government takes the view that the onus ought very much to be on those who would wish to resist the implementation of the report, rather than on those who would seek to implement it. This is very different from the approach adopted by the previous regime. Accordingly, it can be expected that the legislation that will be recommended in the report will receive prompt and favourable attention, subject to the Government being satisfied-I believe we will be satisfied-that the conclusions are supported by Aboriginal men and women throughout Australia. That is existing Australian Labor Party policy on this matter. I assure the Parliament that my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and I will be very keen to ensure, on behalf of the Government, that that undertaking is honoured. On the subject of the treaty of commitment, or makarrata, as it has sometimes been referred to, I have noted the recently expressed views of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It is ALP policy for such a treaty of commitment to be favourably considered, again in light of support, if that finally emerges, from the Aboriginal people of Australia. I understand that close to fruition is a report from the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the legal and constitutional aspects of implementing such a makarrata or treaty of commitment between black and white Australians. I, for one, believe that it is a very worthy endeavour, and one that I will certainly be discussing with my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the hope that we can advance it before too much longer. Senator PETER BAUME —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to Press reports today which indicate that the Deputy Prime Minister has now joined him in putting the boot into the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Mr Bowen attacked working journalists at the ABC when he said: What's wrong with the ABC these days? They're so anti-Labor, they're anxious to exploit any situation at all. Does this statement represent the view of other Ministers and of the Government? Senator BUTTON —The statement by Mr Bowen is the sort of statement which has been made by parliamentarians over a number of years, particularly by parliamentarians of the National Party and the Liberal Party. I remind the Senate of statements made by Senator Withers-a former Leader of the Government in this place-Mr Peter Nixon, both as an Opposition spokesman and as a Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser and others which have all, in some way or another criticised the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Having said that, I should say that personally I do not attach tremendous weight to statements which are made by various people. It is not my purpose to offer opinions on statements made by other Ministers, except insofar as they concern my portfolio. Of course, this is another grubby attempt to prolong and enlarge the dispute over program matters in the Australian Broadcasting Commission. This Government, as distinct from the previous Government, is moving quickly to establish appropriate procedures for people to make complaints against the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That will assist in ensuring the independence of the ABC from the necessity, as perceived by particular individuals, of making these statements from time to time. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Am I to understand that, having been offered the opportunity in Question Time, the Minister has declined to endorse the comments about the ABC made by the Deputy Prime Minister and the deputy leader of his party? Senator BUTTON —As I said earlier-Senator Baume is one honourable senator who clearly did not understand the answer-it is not my role to pass judgments on statements made by other Ministers. Mr Bowen's statement does not reflect the views of the Government, if that is what Senator Baume is seeking comment about. Just the same as I assume in relation to the instances which I mentioned in the past, including the instances which occurred last year under the Fraser Government-- Senator Peter Baume —It was made under stress perhaps? Senator BUTTON —Senator Baume has asked whether it was an answer made under stress. That would be something for him to assess professionally perhaps and then he could send a bill for it. If he is concerned about those sorts of professional matters, he will have the opportunity to disclose his outside pecuniary interests when this Government legislates shortly for members of parliament to disclose their sources of income, other than those obtained from being a member of parliament. I would have thought that was not an appropriate matter for me to make a judgment about, any more than it is for Senator Baume. Senator ELSTOB —Has the Minister for Social Security made any decision on the future of the training and residential facilities for Orana Inc., an organisation which looks after the welfare of a large number of severely intellectually handicapped people in my State of South Australia? Senator GRIMES —Yes, the Government has made a decision about Orana which, as Senator Elstob said, is a very large organisation which looks after intellectually handicapped people in South Australia. Orana has been in considerable financial difficulties for some time. This has been the concern of this Government, the previous Federal Government and the State Government in South Australia. An inquiry was held last year into Orana and, as a result of that, the organisation now has a new management and new procedures are being put in train to ensure that the management of Orana and the conduct of Orana in the future will not reach the unsatisfactory stage they did before. The Government is to provide $170,000 as a one-off grant to Orana Inc. This is a special payment to prevent the closure of what in fact are 19 services throughout South Australia, services which, if they closed, would not be able to be taken up by any other organisation, public or private. The decision was made in the conviction that Orana will now be financially viable following that inquiry and under the guidance of the State Government. This is a special, one-off grant. It is not to be taken as a precedent that this Government will proceed to fund, without considerable consideration, any organisation which gets into financial difficulties. Senator Walters —You can sit down now. Senator GRIMES —I wish that the Opposition would take this seriously. It is unfortunate that people such as Senator Walters-they have been described as distinguished in their ignorance; they have but one idea and that is wrong- persist interjecting during a reply on what is a very serious matter to the parents and the relatives of intellectually handicapped children in South Australia. Senator WALSH(Western Australia) —I wish to make a correction to an answer I gave in the Senate on 4 May. It is a trivial matter but I just wish to set the record straight. On 4 May Senator Hearn asked me a question about the possibility of supplying gas from the Pelican field off the northern Tasmanian coast. In reply Hansard recorded me as having stated that the estimated reserves of the Pelican field were one trillion cubic feet. I do not remember what I did in fact say but what I intended to say was that it is one-quarter of a trillion cubic feet, a fact which is reflected in the comparisons which I made at that time between the known reserves in the North West Shelf and in Bass Strait, the known reserves of Pelican being 2 per cent and 4 per cent respectively of those other two fields. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I asked that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Overseas Project Corporation-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 47 of the Australian Overseas Project Corporation Act 1978. 2. Recognition of Overseas Professional Qualifications in Australia-Report of the Committee of Inquiry-Vols 1 and 2. 3. Royal Australian Air Force Schedules of Special Flights for the Period 1 July 1982-31 December 1982* 4. Marine Sciences and Technologies Grants Scheme and Queens Fellowships-Report of Grants Approved and Fellowships Awarded for 1982-83. 5. A.C.T. Schools Authority-Financial Statements 1980-81-pursuant to section 63M of the Audit Act 1901.* 6. Joint Coal Board-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 20 of the Coal Industry Act 1946. 7. Curriculum Development Centre-Annual Report 1980-81.* Annual Report 1981-82 Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —by leave-I would like to make a small contribution to this particular item. Once again we are looking at the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation report. I think this is the third year that I have had occasion to remark that all too frequently these reports come into this place so late that the information contained in them hardly appears to be relevant. For instance, information contained in this particular report is of interest to me in view of the activities of the Corporation. I am a little concerned to find that whilst there were a large number of projects on the current project list at the end of the 1981-82 period, we have no way of knowing at this point whether those projects are still on the current project list, whether contracts have been let for them and whether any of the Australian businesses that participate through the Australian Overseas Project Corporation have, in fact, been successful. I do not think this is very satisfactory from the point of view of this house of parliament. If we are to have corporations acting on behalf of industries which operate in the Australian community but overseas we need to have some indication fairly quickly after the end of the financial year as to the current situation. There is very little point, for instance, in having a statement to the effect that of the 30 projects carried forward from the previous year, eight remain on the active list when we have no way of knowing what those eight projects are, whether they have now been let to Australian projects or whether they have been let to competitors overseas. Therefore, I make the suggestion once again, as I seem to be doing all too frequently in this chamber, that where an annual report is due at the end of a financial year we should be making sure that it is presented to the Parliament as soon as possible after the end of that financial year. Report Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(2.54) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The two-volume report of the committee of inquiry is an excellent document. It is one of those reports which show that the committee's inquiry has been comprehensive, thorough and detailed and that its recommendations probably need very little by way of additional contributions from any interdepartmental committee or the Government before they can be accepted in toto. I think the summary of the various recommendations in volume 1 of the report illustrates the comprehensiveness with which the Committee of Inquiry undertook its task. I wish to draw attention only to one recommendation which I believe is crucial. It is Recommendation 23 on page 139 of volume 1 and it deals with the necessity for a permanent body. When they read these reports, honourable senators may be interested to know that the assessment of overseas qualifications will be seen as a fairly complex matter requiring not only a great deal of delicacy of judgment but also a fairly detailed working understanding of tertiary institutions and sub-tertiary institutions in countries other than Australia. There are a variety of degrees, diplomas, certificates, courses and standings of various institutions in other parts of the world. I take the example of a person from another country who comes to Australia, presents his or her qualifications to the appropriate body and requests employment of the same standing in Australia as enjoyed in his or her home country. Up to the present, such a request was presented to a board which was a temporary part of the process of sifting through these qualifications. In that respect, we can entertain grave doubts as to the capacity of that temporary body to make a thorough and detailed investigation and a comprehensive and justifiable judgment on a request put to it by such a migrant. Obviously prior to and post World War II, a vast amount of injustice was done in relation to migrants and their qualifications. It was not until the establishment of the committee which is the subject of the inquiry that we had any rationalisation in this area or any opportunity of operating in a fair and reasonable way. I think the Committee has now shown the quality of its work. That quality can only be enhanced by making it a permanent body. I am unsure, on reading the report, as to the nature of the body that is requested. But I believe that in essence we should not be looking at a body in which the final determiner is permanent. It could very well be a body which is made up from time to time of suitably qualified people. However, one part that ought to be permanent is a small research secretariat which will be able to make recommendations on the basis of understanding and knowledge of overseas qualifications and educational structures. I hope that all the recommendations, in particular Recommendation 23, which are so sensible and reasonable, may come to fruition and that the council proposed in Recommendation 28, chapter 10, may soon be established by the Government so that this task can be put on a permanent footing and this work, which is so necessary for migrants coming to this country, can be maintained at the high level at which it is currently taking place. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(2.59) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report is a very interesting element in a saga that has been going on for some years. There has been uncertainty about the proper way in which to deal with the finances and accounts of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. Considerable toing and froing has been set out in this very brief paper about the events which have occurred between the Department of Finance, the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority and successive Ministers of Education as to the proper procedure. The year referred to goes back I think to the time of three Ministers before the present one, and certainly to two Ministers before me. When I became Minister for Education this problem existed, and it continued throughout my time. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the recommendation contained in this report that an amendment to the Schools Authority Ordinance is needed to clarify the position in relation to financial reporting within and by the Authority. The problem has been some difficulty in knowing the way in which schools' moneys other than those received from the Appropriation Bills should be treated. For example, there is concern on the part of schools as to how moneys raised within the school communities should be regarded and dealt with and the accounting requirements in relation to these moneys. Concern has also been expressed as to whether the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority should go on to an accrual system of accounting or whether it could carry on with the system which it had been using for some time. The matter has been one of considerable difficulty. Although the report is some time out of date, I have moved that the Senate take note of it to try to make it clear that the Authority, throughout this time has been active and diligent in pursuit of this question; that it has been seeking an answer but the question has been bogged down both within the advisings department-within the Attorney-General's Department-and within the Department of Finance, that it has been awaiting advice from the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations; and that it has been trying to deal with different Ministers to try to get an amendment to its Ordinance. It is desirable that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority get some clarity and certainty on this matter, that it is able to bring its financial statements for the next year up to date and that it has solved for it some of the quite difficult matters of knowing how moneys received by its schools as well as moneys received by the Authority through the Appropriation Bills should be regarded. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate)(3.3) -I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1980-81 Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(3.4) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Once again we are looking at a report which is now totally out of date. Unfortunately in the few brief moments I have had to view it the only reference to a very important happening is recorded on page 5 where it states: As a consequence of the Review of Commonwealth Functions decision to wind down programs, the CDC faced a severe reduction in experienced staff which affected financial and accounting controls. It should be put on record that the Review of Commonwealth Functions under the former Government meant that a number of projects which were well in hand were suddenly stopped. I refer to those relating specifically to Aboriginal education . As a person who comes from a State, Western Australia, which has a large number of Aborigines and having been over most of the schools that operate in the Aboriginal communities, my concern was that the Curriculum Development Centre was, at long last, providing some material which was of great benefit not only to the students, but also to the people who went to teach at the community schools. I am sure that all honourable senators remember the Noonkanbah situation which developed under the former Western Australian Liberal Government. It had the effect of sheltering the Noonkanbah community to the extent that it was almost impossible for teachers to concentrate the children's attention on education. It also created other social problems in that community which meant that teaching became a very difficult area. Shortly after that time the CDC was savagely hacked by the former Government, which meant that valuable information, advice and literature that should have been made available to the Noonkanbah community were no longer available. I think that was a tragedy. It has effectively set back the educational programs of some Aborigines, particularly those in the Kimberley and Pilbara areas in the north-west of Western Australia. Therefore, it was heartening to learn last week, when I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education what was to happen about the CDC, that in fact it will be restructured and that these projects will come back on stream . A lot of valuable material is available through the Centre's language development project. One hopes this material is still somewhere at the CDC or in one of the vaults in the labyrinths that seem to be a feature in Canberra. It would be a tragedy not to have all of the work that has gone into the compilation of educational exercises, particularly for Aboriginal children, available any longer. As I have said, very important projects to meet the educational needs of a significant group of Australian people have not been carried out within the last couple of years because of the savage cuts recommended by the task force of the previous Government. The report of the CDC is out of date. I am aware that an interim report was brought down in May 1982. But I would have preferred it had the Centre been able to present the report without having to say that, purely because of cuts by government, it was unable to have the experienced staff necessary to enable it to bring down a report to this Parliament on time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.7) —I share the concern of Senator Coleman. We had an opportunity last year to debate the interim report of the Curriculum Development Centre. I must say that I am still confused as to what will actually happen with the Curriculum Development Centre. I read the various Press releases of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) with ever-widening eyes because it seemed that the Curriculum Development Centre would go back to its own building but now it seems that it will actually go into the Department of Education. What happens with this group will probably depend on what day it is. I wish to draw attention to one item appearing on page 24 which discussed the core curriculum for Australian schools. I refer to a news item appearing over the weekend which referred to Professor Leonie Kramer. She had on a hat different from the one for which she has become renowned over the last week. In criticising the points she made I have no intention of criticising her in her other capacity, as Senator Button does. As a professor of Australian literature she decided that she would talk about educational standards and she obviously displayed that she knows nothing at all about them. She impugned teachers in Australian schools in a way which I think cannot be put up with. The evidence of standards in schools-this evidence has been available for quite some time-is not as Professor Kramer said or as editorialists continually write. These standards have not gone down. They have been maintained. They may not have increased as rapidly as we would like but that is a totally different matter. She made a statement about the glorious past and our parents being better educated than we were. It displays a complete ignorance of educational history in this country to continue to perpetrate and peddle that conception. The facts are that large numbers of those people now show up as problems only because they are in schools. In the times of our parents they were jettisoned out of school; they were not in school to be a problem. If someone-particularly a person of the standing of Professor Leonie Kramer-would kindly look at the number of people who were in our schools in the times that she is referring to, it would be noted that we have made an enormous jump in the past 15 or 20 years in terms of being able to maintain many more children in schools and at least giving them some basis and some hope of being able to make their way in our society. There was no golden age of education in Australia, as is constantly referred to , when everybody could read and write. True, all of those who passed the last year in primary school could read and write because the ones who could not worked on the farm, helped at the shop or were somewhere else. They were out of school by the time they reached grade 3 or grade 4. That is simply a matter of history. I wish that when people make comments on education they would get their facts right and not engage in peddling this type of idiotic rumour and idiotic suggestion about falling standards and thereby constantly undermine the morale of teachers in our schools. They have a difficult enough job as it is. The changes in our social structure and in society are bearing down constantly on the schools. For people who are in positions of authority and who ought to know better to make such silly statements does not help anybody. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(3.12) —I support Senator Coleman in regretting that the report of the Curriculum Development Centre is only just available; so we cannot comment on it in any great detail. Obviously it is late because the previous Government cut back the finance for it. The report deals with activities in the period 1980-81 and we will have an opportunity at a later stage to debate the events of that time and perhaps also to debate the future development of the Curriculum Development Centre. It has been said that the Centre was grand in its concept and it certainly has the support of educationists all over Australia. I remember that at the Australian College of Education conference in Hobart that august body broke with tradition by moving a motion which was critical of the Government's action in cutting back funds for the Curriculum Development Centre and its decision to abolish the Centre. I understand that this is the first time that the Australian College of Education 'became political'. I remember being very moved at that conference when I heard people from all over Australia talk about the value of the Curriculum Development Centre and the contribution that it had made to the development of education in Australia. There is an obvious need for assistance in Australia with educational planning. I do not think anyone would question that. Some of the comments that were made by the previous speaker, Senator Macklin, indicated that people in Australia have made comments about the falling standards in education. I support entirely the proposition he put, that a lot of inappropriate comments have been made. Nevertheless, I am sure that the honourable senator would agree with me that with the number of comparatively small State authorities there is a need throughout Australia for some sort of assistance with planning. There is also a need for the development of resource material and the Centre is the ideal place for this to be done. We have to go back only to the first exercise in Australia- the development of an Australia-wide mathematics plan-to see that the States profited by coming together. We also need co-ordination to develop curricula to meet the changing needs of our community. Let me reinforce what Senator Macklin said about the fact that the changing needs of our community have been developed because in our clement society we have a different group of people at school. That sets the lie to some of the comments made by people to whom Senator Macklin referred. It is the Australian Labor Party's policy to re-establish the Curriculum Development Centre. I hope that funds will be provided to allow this to be done fairly soon. Let me assure Senator Macklin that the appropriate decision will be made about where the Centre will be established and what its role will be. I hope that we will have greater debate in this place to allow the Government to seek the advice of eminent educationalists, such as Senator Macklin and others, who will perhaps make a contribution to the shape that the Centre ought to take. To allow this debate to take place, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —by leave-On behalf of the House Committee I present an interim report on matters raised following the publication of the Committee's report on the organisation, operation, functions and financial administration of the Joint House Department together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLEMAN —I seek leave to move a motion in connection with the report. Leave granted. Senator COLEMAN —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. In so doing, I wish to inform the Senate that following this further inquiry the Committee has concluded that it stands by its original report. I would also draw to the attention of the Senate that the Committee has responded to the request of Senate Estimates Committee F and has reported on the proposal to spend $52, 000 for the removal and replacement of two pergolas in the Senate and House of Representatives courtyards. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) 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 Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.16) —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- Mr President, I am pleased to be able to introduce this Bill into the Senate. The Report of the Committee of Review of the ABC (known as the Dix Report), which was tabled in Parliament on 29 May 1981, has generated a geat deal of enthusiasm for the modernisation of the ABC. In its 273 recommendations the Dix Committee examined all facets of the ABC's structure and operations and identified many areas requiring change. Many recommendations relate to programming and the internal administration of the ABC and will require urgent attention by the Board of the new Corporation. Accordingly, one of the early priorities of this government is to reintroduce legislation to establish the Australian Broadcasting Corporation so that the important work of reconstruction and modernisation of Australia's national broadcaster can proceed. It is now two years since the Dix Committee reported to government. Unless immediate action is taken to proceed with the restructuring of the ABC and the implementation of the Dix Report, the enthusiasm for change generated by that Report will inevitably wane. Until new ABC legislation is passed there can be no effective implementation of the Dix Committee's recommendations. Mr President, this Government is committed to maintaining a strong and independent ABC, able to meet the broadcasting needs of the Australian people. This Government believes that as Australia's only national broadcaster the ABC has served and must be able to continue to serve in the fore-front of Australian broadcasting. This Bill and its companion Bill, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ( Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983, establish the legislative basis for the new Corporation. They are largely based on the Bills introduced last year by the former Government. However, a number of changes have been made to reflect Government policy and I shall draw attention to these as I outline the major features of the legislation. The provisions in the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 covering the ABC were drafted many years ago and are now largely outmoded. This Bill modernises the legislative base for the ABC. An important innovation is to establish the ABC under its own Act of Parliament. This will help make the ABC's legislation more accessible to the public at large. Mr President, for years the ABC has suffered from the lack of an adequate definition of the role it should play in the Australian broadcasting system. Over the years, this has led to uncertainty in the organisation about which direction it could take-whether to concentrate on wider appeal programming or whether to provide the sort of specialist programming not available on commercial stations. It is appropriate that Parliament should take this opportunity to provide that direction. This Bill gives the ABC a Charter which clearly sets out its functions and obligations. The Charter, included in Clause 6 of the Bill, requires the Corporation to provide innovative and comprehensive radio and television services of a high standard-to provide programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and which inform, entertain and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. The Charter makes it clear that there will need to be a balance between programs of wide appeal and more specialised programs. It also acknowledges the ABC's role as an international broadcaster and as provider of educational programs and reaffirms the ABC's role in encouraging and promoting the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia. The Dix Committee criticised the ABC for failing to take account of changes in the composition of the Australian community. The Charter has been expanded to include a provision requiring the Corporation to recognise the multicultural character of today's Australian society. In addition to spelling out the functions of the Corporation, the Bill places certain statutory responsibilities on the Board and prescribes the role of the Corporation's Managing Director. The responsibilities of the Board will include: (1) ensuring that the Corporation's functions are performed efficiently and to the maximum benefit of the Australian people; (2) maintaining the independence and integrity of the Corporation; (3) ensuring that the gathering and presentation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism; and (4) ensuring the ABC's compliance with the Act and other relevant legislation. The Managing Director will be responsible for managing the affairs of the Corporation and will exercise significant administrative powers in his own right . In exercising those powers, the Managing Director will be required, by Clause 10, to act in accordance with any policies determined, or any directions given, by the Board. Clause 12 of the Bill provides that the new Board will consist of the Managing Director and from 6 to 8 non-executive Directors. The Managing Director will be appointed by the Board on a full-time basis for a period of 5 years, and will be eligible for reappointment for a period not exceeding 5 years. He will be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. Non-executive Directors, including a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman, will be appointed on a part-time basis by the Governor-General for terms of up to 5 years. Non-executive Directors must have experience in either radio, television, communications, management, a financial or technical field, or must possess cultural or other interests relevant to the operation of a public organisation providing radio and television services. The Government has decided that one of these Directors should be a staff-elected Director. The Government will be considering how consultations can be held with other political parties regarding nominations to the new Board. To assist in programming matters, clause 11 of the Bill makes provision for an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council. The Bill also allows the Board to establish Advisory Councils in relation to any State, Territory or region of Australia. These Advisory Councils will consist of such persons as the Board from time to time appoints. The Board may also appoint advisory committees to furnish advice on matters relating to the Corporation's functions. Under clause 25 the Corporation will be given broad powers which are consistent with the powers provided to other comparable statutory bodies. It will be able to enter into contracts, acquire and dispose of real and personal property, erect buildings and structures, appoint agents and attorneys, act as an agent, and engage persons to perform services for the Corporation. It will be able to accept gifts, devises and bequests made to the Corporation. However, it will not have power to borrow money, and it will not be permitted to broadcast or televise advertisements, or to engage in corporate underwriting. The Bill closes a major loop-hole in the 1982 legislation in relation to corporate underwriting. Sub-clause 25 (3) will now expressly prohibit the Corporation from accepting any payment or other consideration for the broadcasting or televising of any announcement, program or other matter. The only exceptions to this will be in relation to payments received from Commonwealth, State or Territory Governments or authorities, or from bona fide producers or publishers who have entered into specified co-operative arrangements with the ABC. The 1982 legislation would have virtually prevented the Corporation from accepting services, facilities, gifts, devises or bequests, except in relation to its concert or merchandising activities, whether or not there was any risk to the independence or integrity of the Corporation. This provision has been modified to allow the Corporation to accept such assistance where there is no such risk. The Government is committed to maintaining the ABC's independent news service. The provisions of Section 66 of the Broadcasting and Television Act covering the ABC's radio news service have been incorporated in clause 27 of the Bill but have been extended to cover television. This will, for the first time, provide statutory recognition of an independent ABC news service for television. In addition the provision has been amended to make it clear that allowing the Corporation to procure news and information from international or domestic news agencies does not affect the statutory obligation placed on the Managing Director to employ an adequate number of persons for the collection of ABC news and information. The legislation will thereby ensure that the Corporation does not reduce its own news staff by relying, for example, on news and information procured from a domestic news agency. Clauses 28 and 29 of the Bill make provision for the ABC's use of orchestras and bands, for ABC concerts and other entertainments and for the ABC's merchandising activities. In line with the proposal in the Dix Report, clause 30 enables the Corporation, if it thinks fit, to submit children's television programs to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for classification. In an important change to the 1982 legislation the Government has decided not to proceed with a Commissioner for Complaints. The establishment of such a statutory position outside the ABC with broad powers to investigate a wide range of complaints smacks of political censorship. However, the Government does accept that there should be some mechanism within the ABC to investigate complaints regarding errors of fact or invasion of privacy. The Bill therefore provides for the Corporation to establish Community Affairs Officers to deal with such complaints. Under clause 82, a National Community Affairs Officer appointed by the Managing Director will co-ordinate the work of Community Affairs Officers in each State, the A.C.T. and the Northern Territory. If a complaint is found to be justified the Managing Director will be notified and will be required to arrange for a prompt apology or retraction to be broadcast. The ABC will also be required to include a summary of the activities of these officers in its Annual Report to the Parliament. The Bill extensively updates provisions relating to the administration of the ABC. Part V of the Bill deals with staffing matters. A key change to the current provisions in the Broadcasting and Television Act is the severance of all statutory links with the Public Service Board. The ABC will be free to set salary levels and terms and conditions of appointment for all ABC officers and temporary employees. It will, however, continue to participate in existing arrangements administered by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations for the co-ordination of industrial relations policy and practice in Australian Government employment. Other changes include deletion of the so-called ''No Work as Directed-No Pay'' provisions; deletion of seniority as a criterion for promotion; and provision for appeals against temporary promotions and for more than one Promotions Appeal Board. The Bill also updates provisions relating to disciplinary matters and the redeployment and retirement of ABC staff. In regard to the latter, ABC employees will be able to retire at 55 years and there will be a Tenure Appeal Board to hear appeals relating to redeployment action. The Promotions Appeal Boards, the Tenure Appeal Board and the Disciplinary Appeal Board shall each be composed of a Chairman appointed by the Governor-General, and members nominated by management and by the relevant staff association or union. Clause 48 of the Bill contains provisions for redeployment of staff on the grounds of excess numbers, physical or mental incapacity, inefficiency or loss of an essential qualification. The Government is to reassess redeployment provisions applying to the public sector generally as part of its review of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979. The redeployment provisions in the Bill will be reconsidered as soon as that general review has been completed. I would draw honourable senators' attention to sub-clause 62 (4) of the Bill. This relates to the payment of a pension benefit to any ABC employee who has been retired because he could not be redeployed within the ABC. The provision would enable such a benefit to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund as if it were a benefit payable under the Superannuation Act 1976. Part VI of the Bill contains the financial provisions applying to the Corporation. These are similar to those applying to the Australian Broadcasting Commission except that the ceiling on contracts for which Ministerial approval is required has been lifted from $250,000 to $500,000. There is also an express provision preventing the ABC from entering into any lease-back agreements unless the approval of the Minister has been obtained. Part VII of the Bill relates to technical services for the Corporation. This part of the Bill has been re-drafted to remove a number of anomalies in the 1982 legislation and to simplify the provision covering transmission facilities. Under current arrangements in the Broadcasting and Television Act the Minister is generally responsible for the provision and operation of transmission facilities for ABC services. By administrative arrangement Telecom operates and maintains National transmitting stations on the Minister's behalf. Because many other broadcasters share the facilities of National transmitting stations-including sites, roads, buildings, masts, aerials and so on-it is not appropriate that the stations as such should be controlled by one of their competitors, the ABC. The Bill therefore allows for the continued provision and operation of National transmitting stations by the Minister. However, it also recognises the ABC's need to control its transmitters if it is to be seen to be independent of the Minister. It therefore provides for all ABC transmitters to be transferred to the Corporation and establishes a mechanism allowing the Minister to transfer complete transmitting stations to ownership of the Corporation if he so decides. The result will be that the ABC will have the same control of its transmissions as commercial and public broadcasters sharing National transmitting stations. No transfer of Telecom staff to the ABC will result from these new arrangements. Part VIII of the Bill incorporates provisions covering the broadcasting or televising of matters in the national interest along the lines of sections 64 and 77 of the Broadcasting and Television Act. It also includes provisions covering annual reporting requirements; the establishment of a Joint Consultative Committee of management, staff and staff associations; and the making of regulations and rules. The Bill empowers the Corporation to make rules , particularly in relation to matters of administration. This will obviate the need to prescribe regulations to cover what are essentially administrative matters. Any rules made by the Corporation will be tabled in the Parliament in accordance with relevant sections of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The above is only a brief general outline of the major features of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983. For more details I would refer Honourable Senators to the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. If the ABC is to continue its historic role as the pacesetter in Australian broadcasting, it is essential that its legislation be modernised and improved as proposed in this Bill. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) 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 Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.18) —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- Mr President, this Bill is a companion measure to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983. It provides for certain transitional arrangements associated with the replacement of the Australian Broadcasting Commission by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and makes consequential amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 and a number of other Acts. This Bill is substantially consistent with the Transitional Bill introduced last year by the former Government. However, the Government has decided not to proceed with provisions covering the transfer of Telecom staff to the ABC. In addition, a saving provision relating to 'No work as directed-No pay' has been deleted as there are now no such provisions in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill. Part II of the Bill includes all the transitional provisions required because of the establishment of the Corporation. It provides for the cessation of the terms of ABC Commissioners, and includes saving provisions in relation to contracts, awards and other instruments to which the Australian Broadcasting Commission is a party. It makes clear that the alteration in the name and constitution of the Commission does not affect any property, power, rights, liabilities or obligations of the ABC. There are also provisions covering legal or other proceedings involving the ABC, on-going investigations by the Ombudsman and any provisional promotions or disciplinary actions outstanding as of the commencing day. The Bill makes clear that officers and temporary employees of the Commission continue as officers and temporary employees of the Corporation. All positions established in the service of the Australian Broadcasting Commission will be continued, with the exception of the position of General Manager which will be abolished. There are also a number of transitional provisions in relation to payment of moneys, estimates, bank accounts and the auditing of the accounts and financial records of the Commission. If the Commission is unable to finalise its Annual Report prior to commencing day, the Bill provides for that report to be finalised by the Corporation. Part III of the Bill relates to amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act. Most of the amendments omit provisions in that Act relating to the Australian Broadcasting Commission or replace references to the Commission with references to the Corporation. Other provisions preserve the application of certain sections of the Broadcasting and Television Act to the Special Broadcasting Service. An important change to the Transitional Bill is included in Clause 24, which amends section 31 of the Broadcasting and Television Act relating to the compositiion of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Government intends to establish the new Corporation as soon as possible after the legislation has been passed by the Parliament. However, five ABC Commissioners are due to retire during or at the end of June. Because the provisions in the Broadcasting and Television Act were drafted many years ago, they do not include any provision allowing for the continued operation of the Commission if for some reason, and for some limited period of time, the number of Commissioners falls below the prescribed minimum number. Clause 24, which comes into effect on Royal Assent, inserts such a provision in the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 along the lines of equivalent provisions relating to the composition of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the Special Broadcasting Service. This will avoid the need to replace ABC Commissioners in the few weeks prior to the establishment of the Corporation. Parts IV to VII of the Bill make consequential amendments to the Copyright Act 1968, the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946 and the Telecommunications Act 1975 by replacing references to the Commission with references to the Corporation. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) 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 Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to provide for bounty assistance to the manufacturer in Australia of certain refrigerated room air conditioners. Kelvinator Australia Ltd, South Australia is the manufacturer concerned. The bounty assistance was recommended by the Temporary Assistance Authority ( TAA) in its report No. 56 of 1 October 1982 entitled ''Certain Room Air Conditioning Machines and Parts''. The bounty recommended by the TAA was accepted by the previous Government and this decision was announced on 27 October 1982. My Government endorses the decision. The Bill provides for bounty payments on locally produced room air conditioning machines of a portable or fixed window type, designed primarily for use without ducting and having a nominally rated cooling capacity of 5.4 kilowatts or less. The bounty rates are $60 each for smaller units not exceeding 3.528 kilowatts cooling capacity, and $90 for larger units. The bounty will apply to locally produced room air conditioners sold for use in Australia during the period 27 October 1982 to 30 June 1983, with the total bounty payable being limited to $1. 5m. In its report of October 1982 the TAA found that urgent assistance was necessary to protect Kelvinator against import competition. The TAA concluded that bounty was the most appropriate means of assisting Kelvinator as most of the imports for the 1982-83 summer selling season were already in the country. While the bounty scheme provides some incentive for Kelvinator to continue production, it does not insulate the company entirely from normal market forces. The company has advised that without temporary assistance, desirable investment to improve its competitiveness would be unlikely to proceed. The local industry is still facing difficulties and the Minister for Industry and Commerce sent a further reference to the TAA on 21 April on the question of the continuation of temporary assistance after 30 June 1983. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) 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 Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(3.22) —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 proposes short term bounty assistance to the industry producing certain high alloy steel products. The goods proposed to be eligible for bounty include a range of high alloy bar products and stainless steel flat products. These steels are used in applications where strength, corrosion resistance, resistance to chemical attack or other special attributes are required. In addition, these steels are essential for a very wide range of direct defence applications and also underpin general support capabilities for defence activities. The bounty was recommended by the Temporary Assistance Authority (TAA) in its report No. 57 of 23 December 1982 entitled ''Certain High Alloy Steel Products'' . The previous Government announced on 1 February 1983 that it had accepted the Authority's recommendation and this Government, having reviewed the circumstances, agrees that the assistance should be granted. The TAA found that imports had secured an increasing proportion of the declining market for these goods, such that the market share held by the local industry had declined from about 80 per cent in 1979-80 to less than 50 per cent at the time of the TAA's inquiry. The particular form of assistance chosen-that is, bounty-was appropriate in the circumstances where it was estimated that imported stocks already entered into the country were estimated to represent at least six months' sales. Thus, tariff associated measures would be ineffective for some considerable time and provide little short term relief. The Bill provides for the bounty to be paid at the rate of 5 per cent of the price paid or payable for bountiable products produced and sold for use in Australia to a maximum limit of $3m. The Bill further proposes that the bounty be applicable to manufacturers engaged in the production of eligible goods as at 7 February 1983 and be payable on such goods from 1 January 1983 to 31 December 1983 or the date of implementation of the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on the iron and steel industry, whichever occurs first. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Debate resumed from 12 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: '', 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 BOLKUS(South Australia)(3.24) —When I was speaking on the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill last Thursday I had the opportunity of making a number of points both in respect of the conduct of this debate and the subject matter of the Bill. I mentioned that the performance of the Opposition in this place and in the House of Representatives indicated a modern form of guerrilla politics. We had almost 50 hours of tiresome, repetitive debate from a rather small group of uncontrollable back benchers in both places. However, I also went on to mention and comment on the subject matter of primary concern to people speaking in respect of this Bill-that is, the South West region of Tasmania-and I also commented on the attributes and values of that area. I then turned to the argument of States rights which has been endlessly pursued by conservative back benchers in this place. I made the point that the powers that this Government-the Australian Labor Government-was seeking to exercise under this Bill were ones that it had not initiated by way of legal process through the High Court of Australia. In fact it was the previous Liberal Government and the relevant and responsible Minister at the time, who is now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in the other place, who initiated court proceedings and sought these powers. That was in the Koowarta case, which the Australian Government took to the High Court to seek to have the validity of the legislation upheld. In that case, the High Court did uphold the right and power of this Parliament to act in regard to the implementation of international treaties to the extent that they affect individual Australians. I repeat that the power being exercised pursuant to this legislation is one that was substantially, though not totally, sought by the conservative forces in this country. They recognised that power as being valid within the armoury of federal powers pertinent to the workings of a federal constitutional system. The point I wish to make is that, if a national government abdicates its responsibility in respect of matters such as the South West of Tasmania, the way is open for conservative State governments, with parochial interests and on extremely parochial issues, to upset our international responsibilities and arrangements. We do not have to look too far to see a situation such as that which arose in regard to the Great Barrier Reef. Generally, Australians understand that the intentions of the conservative National Party Government in Queensland in respect of that area of national heritage are less than holy. We have from the Opposition the rather curious ethic that States should have power but no responsibility; States should have the power to go to hell in their own way and to work in some kind of anarchistic system without responsibility towards national planning and rational and national resource use, without adequate discussion and recognition of important matters whether they be economic, social or related to employment or the environment. We on this side of the House acknowledge that both the national Government and State governments have a responsibility to take these sorts of features into consideration. We do not accept that either tier of government can proceed without recognition of responsibilities in the exercise of its rights. I turn briefly to the position of the Tasmanian Government on this matter. This Government has had a number of different attitudes expressed to it as being relevant and of concern to the Tasmanian Government. In December 1982, the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Gray, claimed rather loudly that Tasmania needed more power for industry. When he was asked what industry and whether Tasmania should be looking at, say, the steel industry from Wollongong or Alcoa of Australia Ltd from Portland, Mr Gray very quickly changed his line of attack. He then started talking about the need for power for home heating but did not stick to that line of argument for very long. His latest theory is one of State rights. The line of argument that his Government is now pursuing is: Tasmania, as a State, has State 's rights in this matter. Damn the national interests; it is going to exercise its rights. The line from Tasmania has been inconsistent. As I mentioned in my remarks last Thursday, it is one that has effectively let the Tasmanian people down. When one analyses the economic arguments put forward, one recognises the fallacy behind them. The ethic put forward by the Opposition in this place and elsewhere is that with more capacity for electrical power Tasmania's economy will self-generate, will kick-start and pick up and go. Let us analyse the recent history of this matter to see whether that view is a truism. Between 1947 and 1979, Tasmania's electrical generating capacity increased by over 1,032 per cent. In that same period, employment in the manufacturing industry in Tasmania actually decreased from 20.5 per cent of total employment to 16.1 per cent. There was not a commensurate increase in employment creation. On the misguided theory that has been propounded and put rather forcefully to us, employment in manufacturing industry should very well have increased. In fact, it had gone down. When one makes a closer analysis of the more recent figures, between 1976 and 1979, one notes that the statistics in both areas show that the trends have been downhill all the way. Electrical generative capacity has increased by over 564 per cent while manufacturing employment has decreased by approximately 35 per cent. So there is not an increase in employment commensurate with the increase in electrical generative capacity. That very much gives the lie to the position that has been rather glibly put forward by blinkered interests from Tasmania. I have spoken on this matter twice. I wish to close my contribution to this debate by reiterating the point I made at the start. We are concerned with an extremely important conservation issue. It is an issue which affects one of the last areas of wilderness in this country, if not the world. It has been accepted by the United Nations Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage as being of importance in terms of its cultural and natural heritage. It has been accepted on all four criteria on which that body makes its assessments-not just one but all four. The United Nations Convention regards that area as being extremely important. It is one that the Australian Government also sees as extremely important. As I mentioned earlier, the South West of Tasmania is one of those areas that we have not only the right but also the responsibility to step in and protect. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.32) —Today and tomorrow, Tasmania's rights are being sacrificed at the altar of modern day pantheism. This ceremony is being conducted in this chamber as the debate on the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill draws inevitably to its conclusion. The genesis of this legislation is in itself a revelation. There are people so dogmatic about revering what they call the wilderness that they are prepared to deify it and seek to preserve each species of flora and fauna intact. Does not this reveal a pantheistic view of nature which is both inhuman and inconsistent with the proven body of scientific knowledge of mutations of organisms? Compare their concern to preserve all such species of non-human life with the support that some of them give to the destruction of life of infinitely greater value, that is, the life of unborn human beings. True, there are supporters of this measure who adhere to the principle that the world was created for our benefit. It is possible to engage in rational discussion and debate with these supporters. They agree that the environment may be disturbed for an overriding common human good. They are distinct from those people who are so dogmatic about not disturbing the environment and so dogmatic, in an unscientific way, about 'preserving' all species of flora and fauna. I hasten to add that with those supporters one can have some common ground. My common ground with them is that what must be done is what is best for the common good. They have a different opinion from mine on how best this can be determined . So far as I am concerned this question surely must be determined, and appropriately determined, by the group with the information and the responsibility so to do. So far as South West Tasmania is concerned, the group with the information and the responsibility is the members of the Parliament of Tasmania-the members of the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council. Fifty-one out of the 54 members of the Parliament of Tasmania have made that decision. Members of the current Liberal Government and the Australian Labor Party Opposition in Tasmania -51 out of the 54 members of both Houses of Parliament-have decided that matter and there that matter should have rested. It is said that this is a matter of concern to all Australians, but are not the members of the Tasmanian Parliament Australians as well as Tasmanians? Are not these members vitally concerned with the environment of Tasmania as well as with its development? Of course they are. They have a record of protection of the environment which exceeds the record of some persons who are in opposition to this measure. (Quorum formed). The most telling point I want to make for my colleagues from other States is that the members of the Tasmanian Parliament, 51 out of 54 of whom voted for the development in South West Tasmania, are Australians as well as Tasmanians. They are as concerned-or even more concerned-about the environment of Tasmania in which they live as they are about its development. I point out that 27 per cent of the land mass of Tasmania is dedicated to reserves and national parks-a far greater percentage than in any other State in the Commonwealth. Here, by implication, we have a proposal that we in the Federal Parliament have a greater perception of the environment of Tasmania than does the Tasmanian Parliament. This Bill seeks to draw on a number of constitutional powers to impose the will of the Government of the Commonwealth on the people of Tasmania. It seeks to draw on the external affairs power provided by section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution, the corporations power, the trade and commerce power, the Aboriginal power, the inherent power of the Constitution in order to impose its will on the people of Tasmania. Now is not the time to address remarks to the particular clauses of the Bill but I foreshadow, if not warn, that in the Committee stage I will be drawing attention to grave deficiencies within this Bill, which attacks the very fundamentals upon which this Federation is based. I say in passing, however, that it is most ironic that the Commonwealth Government should adopt, as it were, a Bill introduced by the Australian Democrats which was so vigorously debated in the Senate last year and which seeks to clothe decisions made by the World Heritage Committee with a power to usurp the appropriate functions of the State governments of this nation within the Commonwealth. That is a very dangerous situation. I suggest that the Senate reflect on what was revealed in this chamber only a few days ago; that is, only about 30 of the 150 member states of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, of which the World Heritage Committee is part, have freedom of the Press. Are we to subvert our functions as a nation to this world heritage body? I suggest that the Government must be very concerned that we are going along this path. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth Government is proceeding inexorably with its legal and political moves. I believe that this is being done at great cost to the democratic principle of subsidiarity and to the public purse. I agree with the Opposition that the compensation provisions in this Bill are totally inadequate. But even if they are inadequate, they will be very costly to the people of Australia. A State government considers that a power development project is necessary in the public interests of the people of Tasmania. It is prepared to pay for it. The Federal Government, for one reason or another, is saying that it will tax the people of Australia to pay for something for which the people of Australia do not really have to pay. This Government was not elected on the issue of whether a dam would or would not be built. I challenge any honourable senator to say that the Government was elected because of the Franklin Dam issue. What a lot of hooey! Honourable senators should analyse the figures. They will see that the figures do not bear out that assertion. Let me remind the Senate that the so-called conservation groups advocated a vote for the Australian Democrats in the Senate and the Labor Party in the House of Representatives. The Labor Party won the election by a mile-by a 5.6 or 6 per cent swing. If we maintain that that was a result of the Franklin Dam issue, we would naturally expect that the vote for the Labor Party in the House of Representatives was 5 or 6 per cent less than the vote for the Labor Party candidates in the Senate. Senator Robert Ray —It almost was. Senator HARRADINE —No, it was not. That is the point. The vote for the House of Representatives Labor candidates was a little over one per cent different from the vote for the Senate Labor candidates. So honourable senators owe those people who attacked them during the Senate campaign absolutely nothing. The Government was elected on a number of issues. One principal issue was unemployment and the fear of future unemployment if the Fraser Government were to continue with its priority on economic solutions to what is both an economic and a social problem. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was elected, rightly, on the issue of bringing Australia together. I suggest that on this issue the Prime Minister and the Government are not proceeding with their mandate of bringing Australians together. The action which has been taken underlying this measure will do untold damage to the Federation of Australia and to those principles which brought the States together in the Federation. I know that what I am saying today will not have any effect on the ultimate vote on this Bill in this chamber. But I believe that a number of supporters of the present Government feel, as I do, that the Government should concentrate on overcoming the problems of unemployment and not divide the country as it is doing in this measure. I agree with, and commend the Government for, the statement that it has made that we should pass this Bill and let the High Court decide the matter. I do not agree that we should pass the Bill because of the broad net that has been thrown to encompass so many powers within the Constitution, because I believe that is damaging to the fabric of our democratic society. I believe it is particularly damaging to the aspect so dear to the heart of the Government-the principle of subsidiarity. The Prime Minister has been called a centralist. My association with the Prime Minister and my understanding of his basic views lead me to believe that he is not a centralist. He believes in the devolution of power. In my view, he believes in the principle of subsidiarity-that power should reside with the smallest group capable of efficiently performing the functions for which that power is required so that those over whom the power is exercised have closer control over those who exercise the power. After all, that is the quality of a true democrat and, in my view, the Prime Minister, despite what has been said about him, stands for that situation. I am concerned only that somehow or other he has been diverted from this principle and from the thrust of bringing Australia together and of protecting the unemployed by those who dogmatically wish to impose their will on Tasmania in respect of the power development issue in South West Tasmania. No matter what we do in this Parliament or what is done in the High Court, the matter will not end there. People such as Bob Brown, the leader of the push, say that the South West Tasmanian dam issue is possibly the greatest crisis this century. We have had two world wars, fires, floods and famine; yet he says that this is possibly the greatest crisis this century. This is the sort of imbalance being injected into this debate. I do not say that Brown is a modern-day pantheist-I have not had such a discussion with him-but should the moves which are being undertaken by the Commonwealth Government in this chamber and in the High Court fail, the matter will not end there. Mounted on their sacred cows, the modern-day pantheists are set to deposit democracy and the law. It has already been announced that there is an eight-year program to stop the development in South West Tasmania, no matter what the High Court says or what the Senate or the House of Representatives say. The view of the modern-day pantheists does not permit of any development in South West Tasmania, which they call the wilderness. The previous speaker said in support of the measure that those who are opposing it do not understand and have not taken into consideration the tourist value of South West Tasmania. Let us analyse that for a minute. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have South West Tasmania as a wilderness on the one hand and as a tourist area on the other. What do we want of South West Tasmania? By definition, if we are not recognising the value of this wilderness for tourist potential, surely we are the ones who recognise its value as a wilderness. If it has tourist potential and if the dam does not proceed and thousands of tourists flock into the South West wilderness area, then by definition it ceases to be a wilderness. Those people have declared their intention to stop development in this area and to impose their will on the rest of us, irrespective of democracy and civil liberties. I suggest that the responsible members of the Government have regard to what these people have said and recognise that they are not interested in what we are doing. They have a single-minded, dogmatic approach to this aspect which, irrespective of what the Parliament or the courts do, they will proceed with, to the detriment of civil liberties and the law. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(4.2) —I have not participated in the debate on this topic, although I have seen a rather debased debate meander over some 60 hours since I have been a member of the Senate. We have had matters of public importance and debates in Estimates committees; whenever some harmless environmental report came up for discussion we were back on South West Tasmania; and we have had the private member's Bill introduced by Senator Mason, the debate on which was filibustered to a point of exasperation at which we, when in opposition, eventually had to move the gag to get the Bill through because certain intractable elements in the Senate had no intention of letting the debate be curtailed for any reason at all. I must reply to only one aspect of Senator Harradine's speech, because on the whole I agree with him. I refer to his assertion that the Australian Labor Party in some way is being pressured by a series of one-issue fanatics and trendies. I assure him that that is not the case. I doubt whether anybody in the Senate would accuse me of being a trendy. I do not even like pumpkin soup or nouvelle cuisine; so I doubt that I will be accused of being a trendy. I am also aware that nothing is more dangerous in politics than a one-issue, dogmatic and narrow -minded attitude that certain groups in society have. I will not concede one way or another whether the Tasmanian Wilderness Society falls into that category. But certainly the Labor Party and its branches from time to time are invaded by one-issue freaks who drive the mainstream people out of politics. I assure Senator Harradine and others on that side of the chamber that many people in the Labor Party oppose the development of the dam not for trendy issues. On the question of whether they had an influence on the last election, I would not go as far as Senator Harradine has gone, yet I certainly do not accept the claims of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society as to the effectiveness of its campaign. But I would concede that the results in maybe two or three Victorian seats in particular may have hung in the balance according to the Society's activities. It is true that the differential between the Senate and the House of Representatives vote is affected by a whole range of things, including donkey votes and the nature of the electorate. But on the whole I think they had a marginal influence on the result of the election campaign. They were certainly not the major influence. Senator Harradine —No donkey would have voted for you. Senator ROBERT RAY —I am absolutely sure that would be the case, Senator Harradine. What I am really trying to show is that the Australian Labor Party's attitude is not the result of pressure from trendies or anyone else. It is a genuinely felt belief that the dam should not proceed on two bases. We have had the environmental argument here time and again: I refer to the beauty and unique quality of the area and the fact that once this particular area is developed, much of it will disappear. I do not really wish to explore that. The one argument we have never had here successfully is the economic argument. We have the report of the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania. We have had claims and counter-claims, none of which have ever been measured against each other. I am still waiting for the evidence that the building of this dam will create jobs in Tasmania. It is almost like being a supply side economist to say that if electricity is produced jobs will follow. That has never been proved to me. We may have an overabundance of electricity in Tasmania by going ahead with this scheme but there is no evidence that secondary manufacturing industry will naturally follow that without other activity. None of that evidence has ever been produced. The third issue that has intruded and, I suppose, has taken most time, is the States' rights issue. I have some sympathy with the Tasmanian Government. No State government likes a federal government interfering in what it regards as its own domain. In the ultimate we are a country, and a national government and the rest of Australia have a right to say what happens in Tasmania or Victoria if it is regarded that a major national asset is being interfered with. If at any time a Queensland government decided to drill into the Great Barrier Reef, I , as an Australian, albeit living in Victoria, believe I would have the right to try to prevent that sort of activity. Anyway, in the end this whole matter will be resolved by the High Court based on its interpretation of external powers. Once that decision is made, I believe that this whole issue had to be resolved in some way. Nothing in this debate has shown that it will be resolved. What we have is virtually trench warfare, where both sides have dug in and where Premier Gray and the Federal Government have taken a position that they cannot back off from. What if the High Court says that the dam cannot go ahead and that federal powers are supreme in this matter? We have to come to a point where both sides have to negotiate. Someone has to lose face, but the victims cannot be the working class of Tasmania. If this dam is not to go ahead alternative methods of creating employment-probably better methods in my view-have to be agreed to and funded by the rest of Australia. The bottom line in this whole argument is that if the rest of Australia wants the dam to proceed, the rest of Australia has to foot the bill and make it up to the Tasmanians in that regard. At the moment the problem is that with both sides being so entrenched there is little possibility that we can come to that sort of agreement, when the High Court rules. I hope only that we can and that what is left of the good will around the place is there and that we can make it. If we lose the High Court action I believe that the responsibility falls back on the Federal Government to take a similar sort of stance. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(4.10) —I feel that the issue involved in this debate is far more important than the argument over a dam. The whole nation is involved in a bitter debate about the fundamental rights of the States and about an attack on those rights by Hawke Government. What really is at stake here is the basis of relationships between the Commonwealth and the States. I do not feel that this argument is about the future of a wilderness area in South West Tasmania alone, no matter how important some people think the wilderness area may be. I quote part of a letter that appeared in the Queensland Country Life on 21 April 1983, which stated: This issue is a dangerous precedent. It is basically a move to disregard the clearly expressed will of the Tasmanian electors, to bypass State rights and to surrender State sovereignty to an international organisation without the consent of electors. I believe in States' rights and that elected State governments have the right to make their own decisions. In Tasmania the people have voted overwhelmingly for the construction of the dam. They voted in Federal, State and local government elections and in a referendum. Every time the people of Tasmania said, in no uncertain terms, 'We want and need the dam'. I remind honourable senators that in the local authority elections those who supported the dam were defeated. Australian Labor Party members in the Tasmanian State Parliament support the construction of a dam. I really cannot understand why the Tasmanian Labor senators who represent Tasmania in the Senate, which is a States' House, are so stubborn about the issue. Bringing Australia together is the theme of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Mr Hawke can certainly claim to have brought Tasmanians together as nothing else ever has. The people are standing shoulder to shoulder with their Government on this issue. However, I feel that what is at stake now is not simply whether the wilderness area should be left as it is or whether a dam should be built. It is about an established agreement regarding the nature and extent of the powers of the Federal and State Governments; in fact, the basis of the Constitution at Federation in 1901. The Labor Government wants to alter that basis and greatly increase the Commonwealth powers at the expense of the States. If by any chance the High Court rules in favour of the Commonwealth Government, the action proposed opens the door for the circumvention of the constitutional rights of all Australians into the hands of people overseas through international agreements. I refer the Senate to clause 3 (1) of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983, which states inter alia: ''Convention'' means the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage that has been adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. I remind the Senate that the United Nations has long since become the springboard for communist tactics and Third World country pressures. We find so many of the communist countries on the World Heritage Commission, states such as Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Poland, Cuba, even Libya under Colonel Gaddafi, Iraq and Iran, telling us in Australia what we ought to do and not to do. The Federal Government is coming out strongly backing and supporting them. Why should the countries on the World Heritage Commission meddle in the affairs of the States that comprise our Federation? I think they ought to mind their own business, and that Canberra ought to concentrate on minding its business and try to overcome the national problems of unemployment, high costs and inflation, instead of trying to aggravate the situation by seeking to dismiss thousands of workers in Tasmania. Tasmania has a need for cheap power because of its isolation and high transport costs, and it also needs jobs, both of which would be provided by the construction of a hydro-electric plant. I wonder how many honourable senators have actually been to South West Tasmania and in fact, how many protesters have seen it for themselves. My attitude is that if the dam and all the access roads are built not only will many jobs be provided but also people who want to visit South West Tasmania will be able to do so with more ease. Indeed, I think it will no doubt become a great tourist attraction like Milford Sound in New Zealand became when it was opened up. South West Tasmania, is certainly a vast area but before all the talk about the dam only really small numbers of people went rafting up the river. Senator Coates —Down. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Down the river. I thank Senator Coates. I have seen plenty of boats going up and down it too. Probably the easiest way to see the area at present is to fly over it provided the weather allows one to do so. The last time I went there- Senator Harradine —And you have the money. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —The money might also be needed, Senator Harradine. The last time I went to Tasmania, the weather was very rainy, cold and cloudy so I was not able to see too much. One flies over range after range and gorge after gorge until one finally comes to the spot. If one were sent back on one's own, one probably would never be able to find it. Not only will this area be made more accessible but also, will Tasmania as a whole benefit from this hydro-electric scheme. Coming from a State that has suffered for a long time from drought-although I must admit that recently we had floods, for which I suppose, a lot of people were glad but about which a lot of people were upset-I know how sad it is in flood time when one sees so much of the water going to waste to appreciate that it could be saved if only the Commonwealth Government would give more money to making dams. Another matter about which I am very sad is that the Commonwealth Government has decided not to go ahead with the Bradfield feasibility study in North Queensland-a scheme to turn the waters inland. I just wonder why the Tasmanian Government does not go ahead with its scheme as it will benefit Tasmania as a whole. Why should people from the mainland States and the Commonwealth Government in particular impose their will on Tasmania? I draw to the attention of the Senate an article from the publication Cross Currents dated April 1983 which is entitled 'Forestry was Big Business in South West'. The writer of the article is a Mr George Smith who is 83 years old and comes from Zeehan. He stated: There are no virgin native forests in the area generally described as 'Tasmania 's South West wilderness.' Many of the trees admired by Gordon River cruise passengers are regrowth, less than 50 years old. In other words, the original millable timber has already been harvested. So, when people talk about the south west wilderness, they are just talking about regrowth, according to Mr George Smith. I have always felt that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I behold beauty in dams. Senator Gareth Evans —Ha, ha! Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —There is beauty in the provision of water in a dry continent like Australia. It is all right for the Attorney-General to laugh. If he lived in a dry State such as Queensland, that would be his idea of beauty too . Many more people will be able to behold the beauty of South West Tasmania and the beauty of their dam when it is built. I believe that the Government, in bringing forward this Bill, is taking a line of action which is detrimental to one of the States of the Federation. It will divide the nation, not bring it together. I have no option but to vote against the Bill. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(4.19) —The Senate is debating the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983 which arises out of the Australian Labor Party 's election commitment to ensure that the Franklin River is saved. Previous speakers have made reference to the fact that we had many hours of debate on this issue last year and we have had many hours of debate on this issue this year. We had urgings to drop the idea after the election because we did not need those people who voted on that issue to help us into government. I do not think there is any way in which anyone, whether he supported us or the idea of the dam , would have any respect for us as a government if we went back on that promise. Senator Harradine said earlier in this speech that it was a lot of hooey that we were elected on that issue. I say in response to him that nobody can assess exactly how many people voted precisely and only on that issue. But at least one can say that partly it was an issue that assisted the Australian Labor Party into government on 5 March. I almost feel sorry for the Liberal Party because it is in a bind about this issue. Many Opposition senators, of course, say that they are against the dam but they hide behind the other issue of opposing so-called interference in State rights. They grasp at what they say are extreme aspects of the Bill. I suggest to them that the Bill is just being thorough in the way in which it is dealing with the question. The Government could be justly criticised if it did not take all steps possible to frame the Bill in the way in which it committed itself during the election campaign. I would exclude a couple of members on the Opposition side from this criticism. For example, the other night Senator Hill gave a very well reasoned speech on the Bill to which I would hope other Opposition members would give thought. I hope that he will give thought to his reservation about voting for the third reading of the Bill once he has had a closer look at the reasons for the Bill being drafted in the way in which it was . I wish to mention briefly the amendment that the Opposition has moved to the second reading. The Opposition wants to add the following words: . . . while recognising the need for adequate protection of areas placed on the World Heritage List, urges the Government to amend the Bill . . . Honourable senators opposite really are trying to have it both ways. If they recognise the need for adequate protection of areas placed on the World Heritage List, they will support the Bill. I do not want to spend a lot of time debating the environment issue, the need to preserve the area-it is not really an issue that concerns most people with the exception of a minority on the other side of this House-nor will I go into the details of the Tasmanian electricity supply and demand question. We dealt with that matter ad nauseum in the debate last year on the Australian Democrats version of this Bill and, of course, in the debate on the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania report on Demand and Supply of Electricity for Tasmania and Other Matters which I helped to write. The one issue to which I would like to refer is the caves on the Franklin River. This was one of the prime reasons why the Senate Select Committee said an obligation should be put on the Commonwealth to protect South West Tasmania and the Franklin River valley . That issue has been supported by the frantic efforts of the Tasmanian Government in the last few weeks. It has rushed around trying to find more caves . Very little interest had been shown in discovering more caves of archeological interest in the area. We now have the Tasmanian Government, in support of the Commonwealth's emphasis on the importance of preserving these caves and at the urging of its lawyers in preparation for the High Court case saying: 'We must find as many other caves as we possibly can outside the area in order to try to downgrade the importance of those in the area to be flooded.' I find that a faintly ridiculous operation on the part of the Tasmanian Government. I am a representative of the Tasmanian people, one of the four Labor senators in this chamber. We have been accused of not acting in Tasmania's interests by supporting this Bill. I find ridiculous the suggestion that all Tasmanian senators should take the same attitude on the matter just because some proportion-whether it be 50 per cent or 60 per cent or something of that order is arguable-of Tasmanians support the building of the dam. I suggest that the representation in this chamber is a pretty fair reflection of the Tasmanian people's position overall. It is not true to say, as Senator Bjelke-Petersen said a few minutes ago, that all Tasmanians are standing shoulder to shoulder behind their State Government. A very strong proportion of the Tasmanian people are right behind the Federal Government's efforts to protect the area. They may not represent a majority, but they represent a very significant proportion. I am pleased to represent them here. One could argue anyway, without going into the details of the economics of the issue, that in fact we will be doing our State a very big favour by ensuring that the dam is not built. Any one who says that we do not know anything about the area is wrong, as I certainly do. I have visited the area. I have visited Tullah, I have visited Strahan and I have visited the blockades; so I have certainly taken note of all sides of the issue. One matter about the listing of the area by the World Heritage Committee needs emphasising: Some speakers have suggested that the World Heritage Committee listed the area for protection knowing that the dam was going to be built and condoned the building of it. Professor Slatyer, as Australia's representative on that Committee and as the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee, in an article published in various newspapers, including the Age, on 8 January and the Mercury, made it clear that listing by the World Heritage Committee was intended to stop the building of the dam. He has denied that the listing was with the knowledge that the dam would be built no matter what. I will cite some paragraphs of that article by Professor Slatyer. It states: When the committee considered the nomination it was confronted with a difficult decision. On the one hand the property was clearly quite outstanding and fully warranted its place on the list. On the other hand the committee had been officially advised by Australia-- That is, the former Federal Government- that the dam was going ahead, so that many of the features on which the nomination was based would be damaged or destroyed. The committee had to decide whether to accept the nomination, defer it or reject it altogether. It knew that , so far, only preliminary work had been undertaken and that serious damage had not yet occurred. The committee took the view that accepting the nomination was the best course. It was aware that listing would considerably enhance public and government awareness of the value and importance of the area. It was also aware of Australia's impressive record in conservation and heritage matters, nationally and internationally. Acceptance of the nomination was therefore most likely to lead to a reconsideration of the dam project. It has been suggested that, knowing that dam construction had commenced, the committee's action in listing south-west Tasmania condoned the dam project. This was definitely not the case. In addition to accepting the nomination, the committee adopted the following statement emphasising its serious concern about the dam: 'The committee is seriously concerned at the likely effect of dam construction in the area on those natural and cultural characteristics which make the property of outstanding universal value. In particular it considers that flooding of parts of the river valleys would destroy a number of cultural and natural features of great significance, as identified in the ICOMOS and IUCN reports. The committee suggests that the Australian authorities take all possible measures to protect the integrity of the property'. Although couched in the respectful language characteristic of UN bodies addressing a nation of high international standing, this statement is the strongest made by the committee in the four years that I have been associated with it. It amounts to a plea to the Tasmanian and Australian Governments to find an alternative to dam construction so that this magnificent area can be protected and conserved, not just for the enjoyment of those of us alive now, but so that future generations can also visit and marvel at it. There are several matters I want to respond to which have been raised by Opposition speakers. They have used terms such as 'the Commonwealth is trespassing on the State's powers'. May I answer that by saying that the Commonwealth is trespassing on the State's powers only if those powers are not allowed to the Commonwealth by the Constitution. That issue will be decided by the High Court of Australia. The matter of whether the Commonwealth has those powers will be dealt with over the road, by the High Court. In view of the fact that it is an international treaty, a multilateral treaty, surely we cannot have a situation where the national Government and its obligations under that treaty can be vetoed by the actions of a State government. That would be a farce. Senator Martin in her remarks in the second reading debate accused us of not referring the Bill to the Australian Constitutional Convention. Once again, I point out there is no need to refer the matter to the Constitutional Convention because the matter is going to be decided under the Constitution as it now stands. We are not changing the Constitution by stealth, as she accused us. How much more open can we get than to introduce a Bill, allow for debate in this place, have the matter become law and be tested in the High Court? The interpretation of the Constitution is a continually changing matter. Senator Martin —I was alluding to an editorial in the Australian Financial Review. Why don't you address yourself to the subject of that editorial? Senator COATES —The honourable senator supported the expressions of view in that editorial and used words to the effect that there was need to refer the Bill. We have not done so. I am explaining why we have not done so. As I say, the Constitution is continually changing. It happens by governments legislating and by not having that legislation challenged at all; it happens by governments legislating and winning in the High Court of Australia when that legislation is challenged; and it happens by other decisions of the High Court with or without specific legislation by the Government. Look how the Constitution was effectively changed in respect of trade and commerce by court action in the concrete pipes case a few years ago. That is a matter where the Constitution was changed. Nobody did it by stealth or by the matter not being referred to the Constitutional Convention; it was by the natural evolution of constitutional interpretation which is provided for in the Constitution. Members of the Opposition oppose the use of the foreign affairs power in this issue; yet they supported the use of trade and other powers by the former Government in respect of Fraser Island when there was a refusal of an export permit for minerals. There are many ways in which members of the Opposition are being quite hypocritical about this matter. They continually go on about States' rights and the lack of Federal rights in these matters when what we ought to be talking about are responsibilities. Whether the members opposite like it or not, Australia is a party to the World Heritage Convention. It has obligations under that convention and it has particular obligations in areas that have been listed . The area was listed with the support of the previous Tasmanian Government and the previous Federal Government. Unfortunately damage is being caused in that area at present, much more damage than any one wants to see at the moment, until the High Court hears the matter at the end of the month. I believe that work should stop until the issue is determined in the court. Apart from anything else, it is a vast waste of money or what we hope is a vast waste of money. The Bill provides a means of protection of last resort. As Senator Hill said it would be best if this measure did not have to be used, it would be best to negotiate and come to a consensus. Sometimes, as in this case, when consensus is not possible, legislation is necessary and this measure of last resort has to be used. I point out that the Bill, in taking action to protect areas, is breaking new ground and giving standing to persons and organisations other than the Government. An indication of the Government's magnanimity on this matter is that it accepted very sensible amendments after the Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives- amendments assuring the protection of properties once they were proclaimed. I could say a lot more on this Bill, but we wish the matter to come to a vote as quickly as possible. I conclude by reiterating that the matter is for the High Court to decide ultimately once this Bill is passed and assented to and the proclamation is made. I cannot understand why Opposition members are so scared about having the matter judged there. They fought it when they were in Government last year and they are continuing that fight. The present Government is going ahead with its election commitment and is doing what it can to ensure that, under the Constitution as it stands, the South West of Tasmania can be preserved. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.34) —In speaking to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill I wish particularly to discuss some of the major issues which I have discussed publicly over quite some considerable period. The last speaker, Senator Coates, said that the Australian Labor Party Government is acting with magnanimity on this Bill. I do not think this is so much a matter of magnanimity . It is a matter of national duty and responsibility which I believe the Government has and which I believe we on this side of the chamber also have. I hope I discharge that obligation today. I believe that we as Liberals have had for a long time a responsibility to protect the wilderness areas of Tasmania. I believe that the policies we laid down in 1975, which were outlined by Senator Peter Rae in debate on the Australian Democrats' Bill last year, remain obligations which we should be following. I will remind the Senate of what they were. We were elected as a government on the basis of an agreement between the Liberals of Tasmania and the Commonwealth, from which agreement the Tasmanian Liberals have resiled by their own wish since that time. In that policy which we had in 1975 and which is completely unrevoked we said it was important that the South West National Park should be extended. We said that there should be an agreement and that early action should be taken to preserve this area. We wanted an enlarged South West National Park and finance for it. Indeed, the Fraser Government did provide some finance for that. We pointed out the need for co- ordination of activities in regard to that area. In particular the policy commitment we had at that time went on to state: . . . a firm commitment by the Liberal and Country Parties to provide Commonwealth financial assistance to support enlargement of the boundaries. The enlargement of the boundaries will require sacrifice on the part of the Tasmanian State Government and the Tasmanian people in the national interest. I stress 'in the national interest'. We went on to state: In effect the Australian people will be asking them to forgo revenue that might otherwise flow from unchecked development of the area in order to preserve for the nation an area considered of immense national significance. That policy, as Senator Peter Rae pointed out, meant a foregoing of developments in respect of electricity generation, mining and forestry. That policy, unfortunately, has not been carried out. Indeed, we are still obligated to it and should be carrying it out. In the Liberal Party we have a very large number of people who are still committed to the responsibilities in the Tasmanian wilderness area. I will read just two of the paragraphs from a letter circulated to many honourable senators on 18 November 1982 by the then national President of the Young Liberal Movement of Australia, now the Honourable Mark Birrell. Speaking on behalf of the Movement, Mr Birrell said: We believe there are overwhelming economic, legal, political and, of course, environmental reasons for the Commonwealth Government to stop the construction of the Gordon-below-Franklin dam. The Government should move quickly to protect the Wilderness and should then work with the Tasmanian Government to encourage energy-related development projects in other parts of that State. Young Liberals have long held the belief that this beautiful area must be saved . At each of the Movement's past two National Conventions, overwhelming support has been given to policy resolutions that condemned the proposed dam and called upon the Commonwealth Government to ensure the area's preservation for all Australians. In addition, the Tasmanian Division of the Young Liberal Movement adopted a resolution opposing the damming of the Gordon or Franklin Rivers in 1979 and has maintained that position ever since. So many views are held in my party. Many members who were in this Parliament suffered fates in the last election partly because of this issue and I believe I can speak for them today as they are not present. I believe the last poll indicated that we should have a further commitment. A new government was elected in part on the support it gave to the stopping of the construction of the dam and to the preservation of the wilderness area. That is very evident from the figures in Victoria and New South Wales. One can look at the comparative figures for the Democrat vote in the Senate and the way in which people followed the voting the Tasmanian Wilderness Society and other conservation groups recommended to them. Many of my colleagues suffered their fates because of that. I believe that we on this side of the chamber should be honouring their loss today by doing something about the matter. Senator Harradine —Have a look at the figures. Senator MISSEN —I say that the figures amply demonstrate that. The Hawke Government was elected on this commitment. It was elected partly because it stood for preserving and stopping the building of this dam. Indeed, it has responsibilities in regard to the wilderness area and the archaeological caves which are threatened with very early disaster. I will quote from one typical example of the representations made to the previous Prime Minister. Experts from the School of Botany in Melbourne stated: We stress the interdependent relationship of rivers with the surrounding catchment; actions which alter part alter the whole. The building of a dam necessitates massive destruction from consequential works. By these works and by flooding the Franklin and Gordon valleys rare river-bank and gorge communities will be destroyed, precious temperate rainforest will be wiped out or altered and the endemic, slow-growing and ancient Huon pines which have persisted here for thousands of years will be killed. On scientific grounds we are convinced that these are unacceptable ecological costs. These forests must be preserved for all time in their entirety as part of our natural heritage; they must not be destroyed for short-term and doubtful economic gain. That statement puts another consideration in this area. Upon this basis there is an obligation on the Government. It is not a matter of magnanimity, but an obligation on government. The Government has introduced regulations. I am sorry the Government did not press for injunctions under those regulations but no doubt it wants to be as safe as possible in its constitutional stand. I can understand that, but I also understand the widespread devastation which has been going on in the Franklin area for some considerable time now and which has speeded up. All this has been brought to a head by the fact that this area has been placed on the World Heritage List at the request of the Commonwealth and the Government of Tasmania. That was not done in secret, nor were the various proclaimed parts which have made up the national parks and the area of that listing. All that was done openly and we had that responsibility. As has been pointed out by Senator Coates, Professor Ralph Slatyer, who is the eminent chairman of the World Heritage Committee and our representative on that Committee, has made it perfectly clear that it was of great concern to the Committee when it found that this was being done. I remind honourable senators of this statement by the Committee: The Committee is seriously concerned at the likely effect of dam construction in the area on these natural and cultural characteristics which make the property of outstanding universal value in particular, and consider that flooding of parts of the river valleys would destroy a number of cultural and natural features of great significance as identified in the Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and International Council for Monuments and Sites report. We recommend to the Australian society to take every possible measure to protect the integrity of the site. The Committee suggests that the Australian authorities should ask the committee to place the property on the list of world heritage in danger until the question of dams construction is resolved. As was pointed out by Dr Harry Edwards in a very excellent speech in the House of Representatives, Professor Slatyer also pointed out that in no way did the Committee condone the building of the dam. Indeed, he pointed out that the area could be delisted if, in fact, the building of the dam went ahead. Dr Harry Edwards pointed out-I agree with him-that this would be the first time this has happened and that would be terrible for Australia if it were the first country to have an area delisted. Therefore, there is no doubt about the international obligation which we have accepted and which we must carry out. When people talk about State sovereignty and say how States rights should intervene at this junction and that the States should be allowed to do as they like, I say there is no State sovereignty. There has not been State sovereignty in this sense since 1901. We have ceased to be colonies. There is no federal sovereignty either. The Commonwealth is not free to do as it chooses. We have a sovereign Constitution which divides the various powers amongst governments of Australia. There have been changes in the way those powers have been interpreted over the years and I will come to that in a moment. We on this side of the chamber cannot say that we have not used national responsibilities for the purpose of overriding State rights in some limited sense. Even last Christmas we insisted that the New South Wales and Victorian governments should not charge outpatient fees at hospitals. We interfered with those governments' Budget requirements because we believed that there were national responsibilities with regard to the health scheme. Likewise, we have done this in the conservation areas-in the protection of the Great Barrier Reef and Fraser Island. The previous Governments saw these as responsibilities which override State desires which at times may be expressed. I turn to this Bill which is designed to strengthen the powers of the Commonwealth and to provide a method whereby South West Tasmania and other areas on the World Heritage List can be protected. The Bill is based on four different heads of power. I remind honourable senators-as the High Court of Australia has reminded people over the years-that they are all independent heads of power. One occasionally reads in debates reported in the House of Representatives Hansard that some people think that these heads of power are subsidiary to some other power, but they are not. If this Bill is upheld on any one of those grounds it will, of course, be carried to fruition. I remind honourable senators of the four powers. The Bill is based first and foremost on the external affairs power-in section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution, a power which has been used many times by different governments and which has seen expansion and development over the years. We know that governments, mostly of a conservative persuasion, have used it to develop aerial navigation. The powers which we have obtained in that area very largely come from genuine treaties that have been entered into on a world scale. They have enabled the Commonwealth to fill some defects and some gaps in the Constitution. At the turn of the century, when the Constitution was being formed, aerial navigation was not particularly prominent. The placitum has also been used for diplomatic legislation; it has been used in relation to the pollution of the sea by oil, in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act and, of course, most recently in the Koowarta v . Bjelke-Petersen case in which the Racial Discrimination Act was upheld by the High Court. I have noticed in some of the arguments that have been used in the other chamber and elsewhere a regrettable tendency to quote only the Chief Justice, for whom I have great respect. However, the Chief Justice of the High Court happened to be in the minority in that case and therefore it is not his view which has prevailed; it is the view of the majority judges that should be quoted and that should be of great significance. I will quote two small extracts from those majority judgments because I believe it is amply demonstrated-I am sure it will be demonstrated in court-that this Bill is properly based on the external affairs power. It uses the power properly and this treaty that we have entered into is a genuine treaty. This is the answer to those people who talk about 16, 000 treaties. I think Dr Klugman, who is on the other side of the fence on this matter, has come up with some weird arguments in this area. He suggests that the Government might enter into a treaty with South Africa and introduce apartheid or some other unpleasant forms of life. Of course, one cannot misuse a treaty with another country to invoke the external affairs power. Obviously the treaty must be genuine. However, there is great width within the majority judgments in the Koowarta case for the expansion of the external affairs power which has accrued over many years. Page 50 of Mr Justice Mason's majority judgment states: And I do not accept the suggestion that Australia's capacity to participate in world affairs would not be seriously inhibited. Increasing emphasis is given in the United Nations and in regional organisations to the pursuit by international treaties of idealistic and humanitarian goals. It is important that the Commonwealth should retain its full capacity through the external affairs power to represent Australia, to commit it to participation in these developments when appropriate and to give effect to obligations thereby undertaken. Nor is there a solid foundation for implying a restriction that the treaty must relate to a matter which is international in character or of international concern, if the suggested restriction is intended to convey more than that the treaty is a genuine treaty. It is difficult to perceive why a genuine treaty, especially when it is multi-lateral and brought into existence under the auspices of the United Nations or an international agency, does not in itself relate to a matter of international concern and is not in itself an external affair. Could not those words be said in relation to this Bill which is being debated in the chamber today? Perhaps I should quote from another judgment, that of Mr Justice Stephen, now the Governor-General. Although he takes a perhaps more moderate view on the extent of the external affairs power, he said: The great post-war expansion of the areas properly the subject-matter of international agreement has, as Henkin points out and as J. A. Thompson emphasized in his article, at pp. 164-6, made it difficult indeed to identify subject-matters which are of their nature not of international but of only domestic conern-see also Howard, Australian Federal Constitutional Law (2nd ed., 1972) pp. 445-6. But this does no more than reflect the increasing awareness of the nations of the world that the state of society in other countries is very relevant to the State of their own society. Thus areas of what are of purely domestic concern are steadily contracting and those of international concern are ever expanding. Nevertheless the quality of being of international concern remains, no less than ever, a valid criterion of whether a particular subject- matter forms part of a nation's ''external affairs''. I submit that there is no doubt about the international aspects of this matter, even on the slightly more limited view which Sir Ninian Stephen takes. I believe there can be no doubt that this Bill is rightly based firstly on that power. I refer briefly to the other three powers. The foreign corporations power and the trading and financial corporations power, on which the legislation is likewise based, obviously give a great deal of power to the Bill and specific parts of the Bill are related to those powers. I refer also to the race power, the right to protect races and to make special laws in respect of particular races. Is there any doubt about the destruction of the early records of the Aboriginal people of this country and the great danger that they are in? This legislation is designed to ensure the protection of those records. I have no doubt that the special power in regard to race has great relevance to this legislation. Finally, I refer to the national power-the nationhood power-which is inherent in a nation and is incidental to its existence. It is the very power that was used to uphold the Australian Assistance Plan and, I think, is a further defence of this Bill. I will not say anything very much about the Tasmanian attitude and the whole economic situation which is involved in the building of this dam which, I believe, should have never been contemplated. Last year I was denied the opportunity to speak in this chamber on the report of the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania. I made a long statement on 21 December-I do not resile from one word of it-in which I set out my views that, of course, the Government should not proceed with a dam at this stage. I think that those matters have been well set out in the speech which Dr Harry Edwards made. After stating that the demand for power is so uncertain, he concluded: . . . I can respond only by pointing out that to construct a dam for that purpose would surely be the most perverse and expensive make-work program one could possibly conceive. If we read the evidence and see the lack of determination by the Tasmanian Government to investigate the various alternatives that are available we realise the very grave doubt that must be raised. The Honourable Barry Jones, in his speech in the other chamber, made it clear that the future for Tasmania obviously does not lie in this direction but in the direction of other developments that are likely to bring employment back into Tasmania. The Tasmanian Government is spending all its money on power and it has the highest level of unemployment, and the two facts are not coincidental. One needs also to read-I sent copies to all colleagues here-two excellent articles, which appeared in the Age, both written by Kenneth Davidson, the Age's finance writer, of 5 May and 9 May headed 'Parasites have gone too far' and 'Who pays makes dam national' . These articles have been quoted in this debate and they indicate the great extent to which the Australian people are paying excessive amounts of money to Tasmania, the extent to which the building of these dams will likely turn out to be unnecessary, how Tasmania will have its power sold off at ridiculous rates elsewhere and what that will do to other power users throughout Australia. I invite the reading of those articles because they indicate the financial folly of this move to which the Tasmanian Government has committed itself. That is perhaps not the issue mainly concerned with this Bill because the Australian people have voted and determined that the building of this dam should be stopped . Meanwhile the destruction goes on. Meanwhile the siting of the dam has not even been fixed because they are not even certain of where it can properly be put. As Professor Mulvaney pointed out in a letter to Senator Don Chipp, a copy of which he sent me, there is also the fact that a coffer dam will have to be built , apparently within about three years, which will raise the level of the waters and destroy the archeological evidence forever. We do not hear Premier Gray talking about that matter. We do not hear anyone in Tasmania talking about that at the moment because, unfortunately, 10 years is not sufficient time for the testing of these things. It will be three years at best. Therefore there is urgency in stopping the building of the dam. Let me say, turning to the Bill, that a number of Opposition amendments have been proposed. There are queries about the details of this Bill. These have been raised by both the committee of which I am Deputy Chairman, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, and Opposition members. People from the Tasmanian Wilderness Society have also raised others. I hope that in reply the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will perhaps indicate why he does not provide automatic protection for all the areas that are listed. There is the system of proclamations. Maybe it is to placate the susceptibilities of the States, I do not know, but I rather wonder why they are not at least automatically protected. Senator Gareth Evans —We wanted it to survive challenge in the court, that is why. I will explain it. Senator MISSEN —If that is a good reason-- Senator Harradine —Prudence. Senator MISSEN —If it is prudent, I will accept it. I also would like to know why he has gone beyond the listings and intended listings to the vaguer area of significant items which will never be applied for listing. It seems to me that the Bill did not need to go that far, but on the other hand if that is knocked down by the decision of the court not doubt it will not affect the rest of the Bill. In any event, if the Government endeavours to bring under this Bill items which should not be brought under it and makes regulations to that effect, of course they will be subject to disallowance by either House of the Parliament. I think there probably is adequate protection, but I query the reason it was done. I think the Opposition amendments in respect of substituting the Federal Court of Australia for the High Court of Australia in determining questions of compensation are valid. I am sorry that the Government so far has not accepted them. I likewise think that the provisions in respect of compensation have certain defects. People will no doubt in due course get their just terms but I wonder whether, if an item worth over $5m is determined by this special commission, the commission's report will be made available in the Parliament. Will it be tabled? Will we be able to see whether the Government has acted correctly or incorrectly in rejecting a claim and preferring some other means of compensation? Will the report be available during litigation? I believe that most think the report will be discoverable if there is a challenge in the Federal Court or in the High Court, but I would like to be sure that that is so. I believe there is some validity in a number of Opposition amendments which will have my support. I make it clear that I support this Bill. I shall vote for it at the second reading stage and throughout its passage. I shall vote for a number of amendments because I believe they will improve the Bill. I shall support the Bill because I believe it is the obligation of Australians to do so. The Australian people have spoken. I note that we in the Opposition propose what is known as a pious amendment because it does not affect the second reading stage. The second part of that amendment, I think, is excellent because it suggests a better means of determining fair and reasonable compensation. But I would not agree to the first part of the amendment which suggests that we write into the legislation a provision that there must be a joint request by the State and Federal Parliaments before any further items are put upon the World Heritage List. I believe that has been the practice-it should continue to be the practice -but I do not think, in view of the destruction that could be done in some States at some time, that the Commonwealth should forgo its power in that way in the case of an emergency. On the other hand, I believe one ought to address these matters as a member of a nation, a nation with responsibilities. I believe we have accepted heavy responsibilities by signing the Convention and by listing these various areas. They are matters of great pride to the Australian people. They are of concern also to the people of the world. The people of the world are entitled to expect us to defend these areas. Senator Harradine —Who are the people of the world? Senator MISSEN —'Who are the people of the world?', asks Senator Harradine. Senator Harradine would not know. He knows only the little spot where he gets a little support. Senator Harradine —I am asking you who are the people of the world. Senator MISSEN —The people of the world are the ordinary people of the world and their descendants; they are entitled to know that wildernesses will be preserved , that we will not destroy or defile the whole of this planet but will protect it. We are in a world which is getting smaller and smaller and where damage to one part of it is damage to all of it. Senator Harradine —Ninety per cent are under dictatorships. Senator MISSEN —I am not interested in Senator Harradine's cynicism. I am concerned with my obligations as a citizen of Australia, not just as a citizen of Victoria. Therefore, with that in mind-- Senator Harradine —How many have a free Press? Senator MISSEN —Ignoring the claptrap around us, I point out that I understand my obligations. I went to the electors, was re-endorsed and re-elected in Victoria. People knowing what-- Senator Harradine —Where were you elected? Senator MISSEN —I think it was seventh. I was No. 3 on my list. I was well endorsed and easily elected. Senator Harradine —You just scraped in-a short term senator. Senator MISSEN —I am glad to be a short term senator. I therefore recognise the right of my constituents to expect me to vote according to conscience. Hundreds- indeed thousands-of people have indicated they want me to do so. I will do that, and therefore I will support this Bill. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.4) —I support the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill, and I do so for two reasons. The first reason is that I think it is essential to support many of the comments Senator Missen made when concluding his remarks on the Bill, and the second reason is that I think it is important to try to cut through the voluminous comments that have been made and the controversy that has been stirred up which clouds the fundamental and core issues as to why this Bill is necessary. I should say as well that my intervention in this debate will be short because most of the arguments have been put and also the passage of the Bill should not be slowed by continual laborious debate. The arguments are understood. I believe that we should get to the voting stage as soon as possible. My starting point in analysing the Bill is not to look at the Bill itself but to go to the United Nations Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage as set out in the attachment to the Bill. Article 2 of the Schedule, under the heading 'Definitions of the Cultural and the Natural Heritage', reads: For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered 'as natural heritage'; natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view; geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation; natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty. The purpose of the Bill, as we know, is to provide a means whereby areas of this country, once registered, can be protected under world heritage provisions. The areas that this Bill aims to cover are the Kakadu National Park, the Great Barrier Reef, the Willandra Lakes area and the South West Tasmania wilderness area. These areas are to join 136 other properties on the World Heritage List- properties such as Yellowstone National Park in the United States, Serengeti National Park in Tanzania, the national park in Nepal of which Mount Everest is a part and the Great Barrier Reef. All those international features of geography make this world an interesting, varied and aesthetically appealing place. By introducing this Bill, we are trying to provide a means by which we can join in and have Australia's natural features preserved along with those that I have mentioned. To me, that is not something that we should be ashamed of. It is a matter of great pride that this continent has natural features that are worthy of inclusion alongside those I have mentioned-Yellowstone, Serengeti, Mount Everest, et cetera. Perhaps it is a feature of the Australian view that if it moves, shoot it or if it does not, cut it down, that we do not seem to accord such features the primacy that other countries do. It is interesting to contemplate- Senator Harradine —If it moves, sign it up. Senator COOK —That might be the honourable senator's philosophy. Senator Harradine —No, it is the TWU philosophy. Senator COOK —I am not sure what that has to do with this debate. It is interesting to note that, if Tasmania, the Northern Territory or any part of Australia had a gold medal winning Olympian, we would celebrate the achievement of that world conquering feat. We would praise the competitor and hold ticker- tape receptions and mayoral balls to celebrate the achievement. While we celebrate sporting achievements, we do no accord the same primacy to the natural features of this country. I cannot quite understand why there should be any controversy when it would seem to me that the natural view would be one of great pride that nature has chosen to adorn, amongst other places, South West Tasmania and make it one of the most unique creations on the face of the globe. The second point I make is that the Australian Labor Party has a mandate for this legislation. There is no question that it figures prominently as a key issue in the election campaign. That is a matter of common knowledge. Anyone who reads any number of the pot boilers that were churned out which analysed the election results will see that all the pundits concurred in the view that the Australian electorate supported legislation to protect South West Tasmania. It seems to me that the conflict, expressed in its barest form, is a conflict between what the overwhelming majority of people of Australia, as a united federation, want and what the majority in a region think is suitable for them. If one analyses the question in the face of that sort of conflict and asks whose rights should prevail, one comes to the clear conclusion that, if the vast majority of the community conflicts with a minority in one area, given certain protections of the minority, the majority right ought to prevail. If I were to move away from the controversy that has raged about this legislation and give an example, I could cite the case of a worker who makes money painting chocolate box tops. In a corner of his store he finds the original Mona Lisa gathering dust. He wants to expand his chocolate box top painting industry and he needs more material, so he decides to clean off the old oils that clog the canvas of the Mona Lisa in order to make more material. Everyone who uses his store complains that that is a desecration of something of value that cannot be reproduced anywhere. The question is: Who has the right? Does the chocolate box tops painter have the right to destroy an artefact that is recognised universally as being of outstanding merit, or does everyone else who appreciates its value have the right to say that it shall not be destroyed? Where such conflict occurs, the first obligation on all parties is to negotiate an acceptable solution. In regard to this legislation, the former Fraser Government attempted to do that. It offered $500m, as an alternative to proceeding with the project, to ensure that the damming did not go ahead. The Australian Labor Party, under the leadership of Bill Hayden and after the election under the leadership of Bob Hawke, attempted to negotiate with the Tasmanian Government. These were reasonable, rational attempts to come to grips with certain needs in Tasmania that do exist and that have to be recognised. The fact that the reasonable approach at negotiation is militantly rejected means, I think, that a determination between each of the competing rights-the right of the region or of the country-has to be made. In its final decision, that determination turns on what is the greater good for the greatest number. As has been said in the earlier contribution to this debate by Senator Missen- it was also referred to in the second reading speech-there are four independent heads of Commonwealth power under which the Commonwealth can move. They are the external affairs power, the corporations power, the race power and the nationhood power. Those powers can rightly be seen in the context of providing instruments which give effect to the moral power whereby, in a case of this sort , the rights of the overall community should prevail, given that the overall community has made an attempt to come to grips with the needs of the region concerned. If the region then rejects those attempts and militantly slams the door in the face of the reasonable approach, the determination should be made in moral right. I hope that the legislation can be seen in those terms. As I said at the beginning, I think it proper that my contribution be short and to the point to enable this legislation's passage to be complete. I do not support the amendments. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.15) —I oppose the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983. It is regrettable that this Bill not only has divided the nation but also has divided families. I think it is regrettable also that the issues surrounding this Bill are far wider than might be suggested. They involve not merely the building of the dam; what is now envisaged is States' rights. The Bill tends to alter the Australian federal system by back door methods. It seeks to alter the balance between the States and that between the States and the Federal Government. This is normally done through a referendum, but the Government is seeking to change these various rights by an Act of Parliament. The issue is now seen by many outsiders as a struggle similar to that between David and Goliath. We all know where world sympathy lies in such a struggle between unequal partners. I only hope that the High Court of Australia follows the precedents that have been set by its counterpart in the United States of America which throughout its history has upheld the purpose of the federation. Any change to that philosophy by our High Court would, I think, be regrettable. Any such change would mean a tremendous increase in the powers and the functions of any State government. This Bill seeks to usurp the rights of the States. I believe that the Tasmanian Premier Robin Gray, in just 12 months in office, has done more to hold back socialism and centralism than has any other government in the Commonwealth in the past 20 years. The Bill involves the giving up of State powers not only to a central government but also to an outside organisation. I believe this is a dangerous precedent. Although I am unhappy about the Bill, I think the careful wording of Senator Martin's amendment which requires that the listings be requested by both State and Federal parliaments, overcomes a loophole which was cleverly exploited by the former Premier of Tasmania, Doug Lowe. The Federal Government says that the nomination for the listing was made by the Tasmanian Government. I believe this is a slight exaggeration, unless decisions by one man mean government. After last week's announcement of the royal commission concerning the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, perhaps the Federal Government believes that the judiciary provides a legitimate way of making important decisions. But no evidence has ever been offered contrary to what my colleague Senator Missen said today about openess of the decision-making process in relation to this issue. No evidence has ever been offered to show how the former Premier Lowe discussed the matter in Cabinet or Caucus. Certainly, there has been no evidence to show how he discussed it in parliament. That could not be construed as open, honest government as such. Although the World Heritage Commission currently has 136 properties from 36 countries on its list, I am concerned that there will be tremendous problems in accepting the World Heritage Conservation Bill because of its wide-ranging nature. Clause 6 (2) states: A proclamation may be made . . . in relation to an identified property . . . (d) the protection or conservation of the property by Australia is a matter of international concern . . . whether by reason that a failure by Australia to take proper measures for the protection or conservation of the property would, or would be likely to, prejudice Australia's relations with other countries . . . That provision means that although there may be no local concern about an issue, the Federal Government could proclaim a particular area because a David Bellamy or somebody from outside believes that it may raise an international concern or because he may exert some pressure. This legislation has tremendous implications for the whole of Australia. It is a very wide-ranging Bill. I think it ranges far too widely for this Senate to accept. Further, we have a very wide provision in clause 11. It lists certain unlawful acts in relation to Aboriginal sites. We know that there are literally hundreds of Aboriginal cairns in the area of the west coast of Tasmania and that there are thousands throughout the whole of Australia. Some are of great significance to the nation; others are of very much less importance. The clause does not indicate the extent of the importance or the nature of a particular cairn, relic or area. It does not say how far away from the centre of the area its provisions apply. We will run into tremendous legalistic problems as to the extent of action in these areas. The Bill is far too wide-ranging for practical application. I can see the provisions of clause 11 being used to thwart almost any major mining development not only in Tasmania but also in the whole of Australia. So I say to the mining developers in Australia: 'Look out, because your ability to exploit your mine to its full potential could be severely affected as a result of the provisions of clause 11'. Tasmania, particularly the west coast, is rich in minerals. It has tremendous potential. We will find the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act being used time and again to thwart development in such areas. Senator Coates —Is that your party's policy? Senator WATSON —I think it essential that we preserve significant Aboriginal areas, but I think we have to recognise that there are many hundreds of cairns in that area, as the honourable senator, being a scientist, would well know. Some of them are of fairly minor significance. I think we must acknowledge that. The potential of this legislation to stop mining development is very significant . It worries me that some radical elements have tended to take over the Australian conservation movement. A suggestion was put forward-I think I raised it in the Senate about 18 months ago-about the Anthony-Henty scheme. Bob Hawke mentioned it as an alternative. But what has happened? The Tasmanian Wilderness Society and the conservation movement have stated that although the area in question is outside the defined wilderness area they will oppose its development . I think we will see any future hydro-electric development in Tasmania come under this umbrella of criticism from this narrowly vested radical group which I believe has been infiltrated in some sectors by the more radical anti- development elements. Unfortunately, Tasmania does not have the alternatives to which the other States can turn. Hydro-electric development under the scheme that is envisaged in the South West is undoubtedly the cheapest. I think it is unfortunate that the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania, in its report, showed some bias in selecting the least favourable projections on a fairly consistent basis, but I do not think that excuses us from opposing the legislation. I think we should therefore oppose the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill. We have to look at this issue from a practical point of view. Tasmania needs the energy. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has not demonstrated publicly the alternatives to the construction of the dam or the extent of the compensation. It is, therefore, no wonder that the Tasmanian people are somewhat cynical and concerned about the issue. 'Reconciliation' and 'reconstruction' are very hollow words in relation to what we have seen in recent times with regard to South West Tasmania. The Government is ignoring the expressed wishes of Tasmanians. It has resorted to enacting regulations which have not been debated. Legal opinion has indicated that some of those regulations may not be acceptable to the High Court. We are now faced with this Bill. It is unfortunate that we have reached this impasse. The external affairs powers of the Commonwealth, as stated in the Constitution, were never intended to block a State domestic public works program. The people of Tasmania have shown that they have the right to make this internal decision by themselves. The Tasmanian Government cannot be accused of taking the decision lightly. There has been lengthy discussion in the State Parliament. In the referendum held in December 1981, a majority voted for the construction of the dam. In the State election held in May 1982 two anti-dammers were elected. I believe that the Hare-Clarke system is very fair and gives the best opportunity for proportional representation, including representation of the minority groups. But those groups were soundly defeated. In March 1983 there was an overwhelming endorsement of the decision in Tasmania. We retained not only the five House of Representatives seats, but also our five Senate positions. We were given increased support. Many Labor people, particularly on the west coast, for the first time in their lives voted for the Liberal Party. They were concerned, and I am concerned, about jobs. The extent of the compensation that has been offered is limited merely to Hydro -Electric Commission employees. That does not include the hundreds of self- employed people working on the site, all those people who have entered into tremendous hire purchase and leasing commitments for specialised equipment to be used in that area. Those people will be declared bankrupt if the dam does not go ahead. There is to be no compensation for them. What about compensation for firms such as Goliath Portland Cement Co. Ltd and all the other firms which are providing materials? Again, it is regrettable that we have not had a clear statement of the alternatives that should have been and could have been offered at a far earlier stage than this. We are still waiting. Is it any wonder that the Tasmanian people are fairly cynical on this issue? Employment is needed in Tasmania. The thermal power station option would be fairly costly, if not impossible. The quality of Tasmanian coal is not very high . The importation of coal from the mainland would be subject to the industrial disputations that occur within the coal industry and in the maritime unions. It would be difficult to site the power station in or near a port which is not in an environmentally sensitive area. A suggestion has been made to site it in Bell Bay. But local opinion in that area is against this proposal, because Bell Bay, in the Tamar Valley, has problems with fog. A thermal station sited there would cause a tremendous smog problem. The siting of the station in a suitable area near a port and importing coal from the mainland, would be difficult and costly. In the last day we have seen a 30 per cent increase in the cost of natural gas to manufacturers in Victoria. This is one example of the cost of alternatives. Tasmania does not have alternatives. We must rely on hydro-electric power. Will the opponents of the dam permanently place Tasmania in such a position that it will never be any more than a tourist State? Because of the climatic conditions, tourism is essentially seasonal. The Bill lacks adequate compensation provisions. The debate and the delay could go on for six years. The Bill contains nothing about adequate compensation and the extent to which the State would be assisted by the Commonwealth Government. We need definite answers, before this debate is concluded, to satisfy the Tasmanian people that they will not be held to ransom. I oppose the Bill and I hope my colleagues will do likewise. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(5.31) —I also oppose the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983. I do so without any qualms whatsoever. To agree to legislation such as this would be giving away Tasmania's right to determine its destiny in development. It would be a serious interference with our State rights . The people of Tasmania have certainly shown over the last few years that they want the dam and development in South West Tasmania to go ahead. It has already been pointed out that 51 of the 54 members of the Parliament of Tasmania voted for the dam and the power scheme to be developed. That is almost a unanimous vote. I imagine that the only vote nearer to a unanimous vote would concern a pay rise. In the last election the people of Tasmania very solidly supported Robin Gray because he was in favour of the building of the dam. The Government has attempted to stop the dam by bringing in amendments or regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 and by bringing this Bill before the Parliament. This is one of the reasons why it is already in trouble. Its priorities are wrong. The statement by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, that he believes in consensus and conciliation, has already been shown to be completely wrong by his actions on the dam. Senator Coates —He tried. Senator TOWNLEY —So did Mr Fraser try. The point is that Mr Hawke's priorities are wrong. Why on earth should he try to interfere with what a Tasmanian government almost unanimously wants, what a Tasmanian parliament almost unanimously wants and what he wants? Senator Coates —We have a responsibility to our electors. Senator TOWNLEY —Rubbish! Let me assure honourable senators that the people of Tasmania do not like the intervention of the Prime Minister in this matter. I agree that some people are against the building of the dam; I know many of them. But I believe that the majority of people are in favour of it, and I would like to think they show a considerable amount of sense. If one looks at the future of Tasmania one does not have to be an Einstein to work out that if more power is needed it has to come from such a scheme. I have made my position quite clear on this matter previously. The generation of electricity by atomic energy is not practicable; it really has to be done on a big scale to be feasible and to keep the price of each unit down. In addition, I believe that the tremendous difficulty of dealing with the waste has yet to be solved. I know that some people think that Synroc, developed by the Australian National University, will be of some use, but I still do not believe the problem has been solved to the extent that it needs to be before we can build an atomic power station in this country. Anyway, what would be the attitude of people such as those in the Tasmanian Wilderness Society and those who live on some of the Tasmanian islands if we attempted to put an atomic power station in some of those areas? I think I should mention another point about atomic power stations. At their present stage of development they are very complex installations. They have very large control rooms which are comparable with the size of this chamber . To put the people who operate them, who have to be very well trained, in a very remote area is not a practical solution. That is just one point that always has to be borne in mind when we even think about atomic power stations. I turn to the question of damage to the environment. Perhaps the most damaging thing that could be done would be to build a coal-burning power station. I am advised that quite a lot of uranium falls out of the smokestacks of such places and that that certainly cannot be controlled; and there is acid rain and so on. As Senator Watson said, if such a station were put in the foggy Tamar area it would not do very much for the environment of the area. We can discount an oil- fired power station very simply because of its cost. To bring a power cable across Bass Strait from the mainland to Tasmania is not practical. As I have said before, that would cost probably about $600m and it would be twice as long as any existing undersea cable anywhere in the world. Just the cost of that would make it prohibitive. Solar power and wind power which some honourable senators have mentioned are not reliable enough or proven enough even to bear consideration at this stage of development. As I see it, a hydro-electric scheme is the best scheme. Hydro-electric dams could be built in other places, but from the information I have, I believe the present dam will produce power at the most reasonable cost. We have to remember that the people who plan the use of power in Tasmania in their estimation of whether we will need power have calculated an increase of only 2.7 per cent per annum. That is a fairly small increase; it has been much more than that over the last few years. Seventy per cent of the power to be produced by the dam will go to commercial, domestic and light industry users and 30 per cent will go to, I think, 19 contractors whom we could class as heavy industry. It is my great belief that this dam should be built. The issue has been debated for many years. Quite obviously this Bill will enable Canberra to impose its will on some of the States, which I think not only Tasmania but also other States may live to regret. It may also allow people internationally to impose their wills on Australia. I do not believe that the international view is more important than the national view, and I will not agree that Canberra should have overriding power over Tasmania. Countries involved in ratifying decisions which are submitted to the World Heritage Committee include Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Poland, Cuba and Ethiopia. I could go on. They are not countries which should be telling the people of Tasmania what development they will go ahead with. I believe that by developing that area of Tasmania many more people than would otherwise be the case will have an opportunity to see it. The area is not a bushwalking area-it never has been-and it is not virgin forest; it was logged many years ago. Senator Coleman —But it was not massacred as it is being now. Senator TOWNLEY —Has the honourable senator been there recently? Senator Coleman —About 12 months ago. Senator TOWNLEY —The point is that when the honourable senator did go there, how did she get there? If the dam were built then an access road would obviously have to be built; and if that were done in a reasonable way, thousands of people who otherwise would not be able to get there would be able to do so. I was against the flooding of Lake Pedder for a mechanical reason. Lake Pedder was flooded not to get extra water but because water had to be siphoned from one area to another and the easiest and least expensive way of doing that was to lift the level of the whole lake. Had a siphon been built at a cost of about $2m , the old Lake Pedder, which I enjoyed very much, would have been left in its original state. Having been to the new Lake Pedder, having seen the number of people who go there, having talked to some of them and having heard the reports they give of it, I would say that for me to have wanted it left as it was rather than being changed would have been a selfish view. That is how I think this whole matter is turning out. The people of the mainland of Australia are trying to use an international agreement to control what the people of Tasmania want. That is something I will not stand for. I will be supporting the proposed amendments to this Bill. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.43) —It was with considerable pride that I heard earlier this year the announcement of an offer consistent with Liberal Party policy for the preservation and development of a world standard park in South West Tasmania. The former Government offered $500m negotiable, plus $50m towards a management plan. That was consistent with a policy which in 1974-75 I had participated in developing. I regret, as I shall point out, that things have not worked out as I would like them to have done. I did not support, and do not support, a thermal power station in the Tamar Valley. I was the only honourable senator who chose to give evidence to the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania. I indicated in that evidence that I believed it would be criminally insane to provide a thermal power station in that valley. Yet I find that such is the head of steam which has been developed in relation to the issue of thermal power stations that I am accused of advocating a thermal power station for the Tamar Valley. It already has a temperature inversion problem. It does not need to have that problem exacerbated by a coal-fixed thermal power station. I would not have built any sort of thermal power station in that valley if I had had a say in it. As I said, I took the trouble to give evidence to the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania. That evidence was the product of many years of study and experience of, amongst other things, the accountability of statutory authorities , of economics, of the financing of electricity generation, of the tourism industry and policy development in relation to tourism and, I hope, a rational concern for the environment as well as a fairly deep knowledge of South West Tasmania which I fear that a number of the other people involved in this debate do not appear to reflect. I have the best interests of my beautiful State of Tasmania at heart when I say that I regard what has now developed as one of the matters for great regret. Opinions may vary, and I believe that we are all entitled to our opinions. The opinion I have and which I hold very deeply is the result of not only love, knowledge and experience but also an attempt to combine those factors in the development of something which is rational and possible. I adhere entirely to what I said in evidence to the Senate Committee and in speaking in this chamber last December. On the economics of the proposal for further hydro-electric development is Tasmania, I believe that the debate has gone past the stage where it is a matter of great relevance. The parties have chosen the path to the High Court and the economics or otherwise of the proposal are not relevant to that path. Let me cite certain figures which I think may help if they are put on the record. An impression has been given in relation to Tasmania and the relative size of its national parks and conservation areas. The geography of Tasmania is such that it has a large number of sensitive highland areas which in any country would be national parks. It is not the real world to suggest an undue amount is reserved when the fact is that 13.4 per cent of the State-this includes Macquarie Island which has an interesting history relevant, perhaps, to some lessons that might have been learnt in relation to this issue-is national park or the equivalent where no other statutory powers apply. Macquarie Island represents 1.4 per cent of that park land. A further 10 per cent of conservation areas are subject to certain controls but timber cutting, hydro-electric development, mining, et cetera, may be carried out. So, when we hear talk of 23.4 per cent of the State being reserved for national parks, that is not strictly accurate. Thirteen point four per cent of the State is reserved as a national park and a further 10 per cent is classed as conservation areas, quite a large part of which is in the highland country which has been protected from undue use for grazing and from tracks being run all over it because of its sensitivity to erosion and similar problems. It is subject to a management plan and is available for most purposes. So I think some slight misunderstanding is sometimes created when such figures are cited. Another factor which has been referred to a number of times is the circumstances of the listing by the World Heritage Committee in relation to the application for South West Tasmania. Professor Ralph Slatyer, writing in the recent edition of the Heritage Newsletter, Volume 6, No. 1, March 1983, says: It has been suggested that, knowing that dam construction has commenced, the committee's action in listing South-west Tasmania condoned the dam project. This was definitely not the case. He then went on to quote: 'The Committee recommends that the Australian authorities take all possible measures to protect the integrity of the property.' He went on to say a little later: It amounts to a plea to the Tasmanian and Australian Governments to find an alternative to dam construction so that this magnificent area can be protected and conserved- I do not wish to say that from the point of view of encouraging further debate about that aspect but simply to place on the record what Professor Slatyer, the leader of the Australian delegation and the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee, had to say about the circumstances. In regard to the compensation question, which I believe will be debated in greater depth during the Committee stage of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983, I simply say that at no stage in my thoughts and my attempt at development of a policy in relation to this matter was there ever any contemplation that the State of Tasmania would not be compensated properly and fairly, in relation to any development of a world heritage national park in South West Tasmania. I believe that there are shortcomings in this Bill which can be debated during the Committee stage. The division of society in Tasmania has been tragic. It will take many years to heal. Such divisions are the result of the failure of all parties to adhere to the policy which was developed in 1975. Had that course been followed by the various governments of various political colours, the problems would have been avoided. I believe it is to be regretted that those divisions were heightened by actions taken both by the Tasmanian Wilderness Society and the Hydro-Electric Commission unions and contractors' organisations, which is known as the Organisation for Tasmanian Development. Blockades, demonstrations, marches and the like are neither the vehicles nor the handmaidens of democracy. Political parties, families, friendships, business and union relationships have all been placed under tremendous strain. I do not wish to do anything to exacerbate those divisions. I have tried to see a balance in not only the resources of nature and their exploitation but also the political approach. In 1975 I thought I had succeeded. In 1983 I must admit that I have failed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.52) —A torrent of words has been spoken in this debate and on numerous preceding occasions when the South West Tasmania issue has been debated. I do not believe that I can do very much more in reply than to state the essence of the debate from our point of view in language which was used in the course of the election campaign by the present Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, when he said that the destruction of South West Tasmania would be 'both an environmental obscenity and an economic absurdity'. I think that phrase encapsulates precisely the nub of the dual objection that is felt and experienced by not only those people on this side of the House but also a great majority of Australians as to what is going on down there. The World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983, of course, necessarily has its most immediate impact in the context of South West Tasmania, although equally obviously it has been drafted to be available for the protection of areas of Australia's cultural and natural heritage that demand protection generally and are not getting it from the States. In reply I want to deal with no more than three different matters; the two issues that are raised in the Opposition's second reading amendment and, finally , the matter that was raised by Senator Missen from the left, as it were, representing perhaps the extreme environmental position in which he sought an explanation as to why it was that the Bill was not directed in terms so as to have immediate application to at least all those areas on the World Heritage List without requiring the necessity for government proclamations. Let me address myself quite swiftly then to these various different matters. The first criticism that is involved in the second reading amendment moved by the Opposition is that it urges that the Bill be amended in such a way as to require it in effect to operate only when there is a joint application for the listing of a property on the World Heritage List by the State and the Commonwealth. In other words, this legislation is to have no application other than in circumstances where there is complete identity of approach and attitude between the Commonwealth and the State-presumably also the Territory-where the property in question is. This, of course, goes to the nub of so much of the argument that we have experienced during this debate about the supposed overweening reach of Commonwealth power. I simply make this very important point on that argument: The legislation is not drafted in any way so as to attract to the Commonwealth the power of control and management of areas of State and Territory property, except in circumstances where that property is capable of clear identification as being of outstanding, universal significance and, in addition, where that property is under threat, in situations where it is likely to be destroyed or damaged. This applies in situations where the State in question has abdicated its responsibility to the world community, the national community and indeed its own members within the State. Only in those circumstances is the Commonwealth claiming the capacity to exercise the power to intervene to protect the area in question. The need for the Commonwealth to have this capacity, quite apart from the question of its power to do so, must be amply demonstrated by the course of events in relation to the South West Tasmanian dam. It has been suggested on various occasions, rather faintly for the most part, that, at least since the change of government, the Commonwealth has not seriously sought consensus with the Government of Tasmania; that it has made no real attempts to offer alternatives to that State to compensate for the Gordon below Franklin Dam not going ahead. The facts, of course, are to the contrary and show that our record not only is consistent and entirely sensible but also has been publicly demonstrated over and over again to be so. Our pre-election commitment, which we have sustained throughout the whole tortuous course of this affair, was not only to oppose the construction of the hydro-electric power scheme on the Gordon below Franklin River for economic and environmental reasons but also to provide assistance to the Tasmanian Government to enable it to diversify, or extend by other means, its energy production and to ensure the economic livelihood of those who might otherwise be employed as a result of the dam proceeding. As we all know, the question of the dam was one of the really significant issues in the election campaign extending in its public interest to the whole of Australia. We believe that we have a clear mandate from the people of Australia to act; we are so acting. The Opposition has claimed, occasionally noisily, that the Bill is anti-people. Our view is that the stance taken by the Government in this Bill is pro-people in that it reflects a concern, endorsed by the majority of Australians, in returning us to power. Since the election, we have consistently attempted to get Premier Gray to the negotiating table with a conspicuous lack of success which is now notorious and hardly needs to be detailed. The threat to the environment there is clear. The international significance of the area is clear. There is no other way that that area will be protected except by Commonwealth action and that is exactly what is now involved . The second point in the second reading amendment moved by the Opposition is an attempt to focus on the purported failure of the Government 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. Since this matter undoubtedly will be the subject of some discussion during the Committee stage of this debate, I will try to pre-empt some of that debate by stating as succinctly as I can what this Bill does and does not do as far as the compensation issue is concerned. Certainly, there is no attempt within the four corners of this Bill to lay out in any way the procedures whereby any appropriate compensation to Tasmania of the kind that the Commonwealth has been promising throughout the whole attempt at negotiations in this area would be determined. This Bill does not in any way seek to establish procedures which would pre-empt the process of consultation and negotiation-horse trading-by which an acceptable compensation package involving not just purely formal legal criteria but also the whole political complex of economic and social criteria can be taken into account. The Bill is not in any way attempting to reach into that area of a possible final negotiated compensation solution in the event that the dam either is built or is not built. The Bill is essentially silent on that subject. It is not to the point to criticise the legislation for not anticipating that and somehow dealing with it. Nor-this is getting closer to the sort of technical legal points that will occupy us in the Committee stage-does the Bill expressly provide in any way for the land that is the subject of the operation of this Bill to be acquired by the Commonwealth. This is not a Bill which makes explicit provision for the acquisition of threatened property. It is not some sort of attempted and less detailed rewrite of the existing Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act. The Bill, on its face, does not make provision or establish procedures for the acquisition of land. If the Commonwealth wants to acquire land, whether it be the Franklin River valley or anywhere else in the country that satisfies the criteria of this legislation, the Commonwealth would need to do so-assuming that it had the constitutional power and it was within the purposes of the Commonwealth- employing the procedures of the Lands Acquisition Act. All that this Bill does is tackle one exotic situation that may arise in the course of the implementation of this Bill. This has been totally misunderstood in most of the debates so far. What the Bill is getting at in the provisions which purport to deal with compensation is simply this: If, by the exercise of one or more of the prohibitory powers contained in this Bill-the powers to stop the construction of dams or roads or whatever-the Commonwealth so interferes with the use and enjoyment of the land in question by its owner or occupier that the court is moved to find that that amounts to an acquisition of land, under those circumstances a procedure is set out for the determination of appropriate compensation. There is a considerable degree of uncertainty in the law whether a really extensive set of prohibitions by a government in relation to the use and occupancy of land could amount to an acquisition in a technical, legal sense or for the purpose in particular in section 51 placitum (xxxi) of the Constitution which says that, where there is an acquisition of land by the Commonwealth, just terms have to be provided. This Bill simply attempts to anticipate the possibility that the exercise of these powers, even though the Commonwealth has no intention of acquiring the land in question, would be construed by the Court, notwithstanding that absence of intention, as being an acquisition. In dealing with that situation, the Bill goes on to lay out a procedure. It says that, where the sum in question-that is, the amount that is in issue by virtue of this course of events-is less than $5m, claims of this kind will be dealt with by the Federal Court. If it is more than $5m, provision is made for a commission of inquiry to be established. The reason why a commission of inquiry is to be established, in short, rather than simply leaving it to the court or to the procedures of the Lands Acquisition Act is that we are talking about very different situations from those that normally arise under the Lands Acquisition Act where the Commonwealth is purchasing land for a defence rifle range, the erection of a post office or something of that kind. For example, we are talking about the possibility that what happens in South West Tasmania will be construed under the Constitution as amounting to an acquisition of land. When it comes to compensation that will raise very real questions related to the whole economic future of Tasmania-matters which are not usually within the compass of courts and are certainly not dealt with by using the procedures of the Lands Acquisition Act which the Opposition, in the amendments which it has foreshadowed, would have us regard as thoroughly applicable to that situation. One could go into a lot more detail about that. I will save it all up for the Committee stage if it is necessary to use it in the Committee stage. I hope that in the light of that explanation the Opposition will change its attitude to some of the whole series of amendments which are based on a quite different theory here, that what is involved is something that is a denial of the rights of individuals of the kind they have under the existing Lands Acquisition Act. Another point I make, and make very briefly, is the sort of point that Senator Missen was making and that a lot of the environmentalists have continued to make ; that is, a concern about why this Bill does not, on its face, immediately apply at least to all the World Heritage listed land and maybe to all other land that can satisfy the criteria of being part of the nation's cultural and natural heritage. There are two reasons basically why the Bill is not expressed to have automatic application of this kind. The first one is obviously that to give the Bill automatic application in this way, without a prior course of consultation and negotiation with the States or Territories in question, would be not an exercise in comity, not an exercise in good government. The reality is that there has not been such a course of negotiation in the context of the Great Barrier Reef with Queensland; the Willandra Lakes and so on with New South Wales ; and Kakadu with the Northern Territory. There has not needed to be. But there has not been, and for that reason the Commonwealth would not wish here and now to have the Bill automatically applicable in that way. The other reason, which I hope will be appreciated, is a profoundly important constitutional one. We are anxious to enhance the constitutional chances of this Bill surviving scrutiny before the High Court of Australia and we believe that it will enhance its chances of being upheld as constitutionally valid if it is drafted in the way that it is, rather than being automatically applicable to anything in sight which potentially satisfies the description of World Heritage property. The way the Bill is drafted at the moment, it is applicable and the Commonwealth can act only where the land in question or the property in question is under threat. In other words, the States are given a fighting chance to go in and protect the property themselves before the Commonwealth, in the exercise of its obligations under the external affairs power or otherwise, in fact is entitled to move in. We believe that the provisions should be couched in those terms. I hope Senator Missen will appreciate this and I hope every one else who has been critical of the Bill for its supposed weakness in this respect will appreciate the force of the point I am making. Thousands of other points could be made in response to the issues that have been canvassed during the debate. I do not think this is the time or place to rehearse them once again. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.10) —I believe that the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill is incorrectly named. Only a few clauses have relevance. The Bill is far broader than the World Heritage Convention and many of the clauses have absolutely nothing to do with the Convention, any treaties or indeed anything else at all. Most of the Bill refers to 'for any other reason' and includes anything that has come to the present Government's head. I stress my concern that this Bill has been so named in an effort to get across to the people of Australia that really it is about nothing except the dam in the South West of Tasmania. It is, I believe, most important that the people of Australia realise that this Bill has nothing to do with the dam except in some very peripheral sense. It has to do with this Government taking a grab at any area in any State which it so desires. This can be seen in clause 6. No doubt this clause will be discussed at a later stage. I will have words on that clause then . I believe that this Bill ought to be renamed. I appeal to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to explain to me exactly why this Bill is so named. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.12) —I find myself in agreement with Senator Walters on this matter. I think that the short title, the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, is most inappropriate. So far as I can see, the Bill is a heritage Bill only in the sense that it tramples on the heritage of our civil rights and liberties. I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the intention of the Bill-despite its wording-is to stop development in South West Tasmania as determined by the properly elected Parliament of Tasmania. I emphasise the word 'Parliament', because I take a different point of view from that of the Premier of Tasmania on quite a number of issues. The fact of life is that the decision has been made by those persons who have the information and the responsibility to make that decision; namely, the members of the State Parliament of Tasmania. We should bear in mind that honourable senators, particularly the newly elected senators, do not realise that the original proposal put forward by the Hydro-Electric Commission was not accepted by the State Parliament of Tasmania, including the members of the Legislative Council. The middle Franklin scheme was not accepted by the State Parliament of Tasmania. As I mentioned at the second reading stage, the members of the State Parliament are concerned as Australians and as Tasmanians about the environment of Tasmania as well as its development. The Liberal Party members of the Tasmanian Parliament, the bulk of the Australian Labor Party members of the Tasmanian Parliament and the bulk of the Independent members of the Tasmanian Parliament, came to the conclusion that the development should take place. This Bill, particularly where it relies on the external affairs power of clause 51 (xxix) of the Constitution, seeks to override that decision. In so doing it attempts to impose a regime which will be detrimental to the heritage of our civil liberties . I ask that the Committee bear this fact in mind in considering the first clause which is before us; namely, the short title of the Bill, the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. I emphasise the point that, contrary to what Senator Missen said when he appealed to us to have regard to what the peoples of the world have to say about it, the peoples of the world do not have any say in 80 to 90 per cent of the countries that are signatories to the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. It is a matter of fact that only 30 of the 150 countries that make up the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation have a free Press. Therefore, the majority of people in those countries would not know what the issues were. We, as a democratic parliament, are being asked to pass what is called a world heritage Bill, a Bill which appeals to the people of the world who, firstly, do not have any democratic rights and, secondly, have no responsibility for what happens in Tasmania. I simply ask: Who is to be responsible in the final analysis if this Bill is successful and is upheld by the High Court of Australia? Who is to be responsible when the lights go out in Tasmania? Who is to be responsible when workers in Tasmania are stood down in the not too distant future as a result of lack of power? I certainly will be asking the question at that time. I wonder whether the people who are supporting this measure will be able to stand up and say: 'Yes, I am responsible for you losing pay as a result of the fact that there is not enough electricity to provide for the operation of the industry in which you are employed. Yes, I am responsible for the lights going out. I am responsible for the tea not being cooked'. I am just waiting for that day to occur. I will then remind those who support this measure of what I have said today. I fully expect them to be man and woman enough to stand up and be counted at that time. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.19) —I have concerns about the purpose, the intent and also the naming of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill. On the face of it this Bill appears to have some very laudable objectives. But behind this facade we see it as really being an attack on the States and a mechanism whereby the power and control of central government will be significantly enhanced. This Bill is certainly a manifestation of what we might term single issue politics in Australia. It is a back door method by which to alter the balance of powers between the Commonwealth and the States. We are using a mechanism which I believe was never envisaged by the founding fathers of the Constitution. I believe that despite all the laudable objectives that might appear to exist it is not the right way to go-to attack the sovereign rights of an independent State. I think history will show that this is, indeed, a bad Bill . Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.20) —To the extent that it is necessary to reply briefly to comments about the inappropriateness or otherwise of the title of the Bill, I simply say that it is an appropriate title because the whole thrust of the Bill is directed towards property which, in turn, has to satisfy the description of either 'cultural heritage' or 'natural heritage'. The definitions of those terms, in turn, are established by a reference to the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. So the whole thrust of the Bill throughout is geared to the language of the Convention and the principles embodied in it, which refer to areas of cultural and natural heritage which are of outstanding universal value. So the concept of universality or world-wide significance is very much built into the operating criteria of this Bill. I hope that what might be thought to be legitimate criticism of the Bill can be answered in those terms. Mr Chairman-I hope it will not be necessary to make this point too often-I draw your attention to the necessity for Committee stage debate to proceed by close reference to the terms of the particular clauses which we are debating. Whilst I have no wish to deny Senator Harradine his, it is hoped, dying oratorical flourish in his last contribution, it did not bear awfully much resemblance to the title of the Bill. I hope that strict adherence to the rules of debate can be enforced from the Chair from now on. The CHAIRMAN —Thank you, Senator Evans. I was listening to Senator Harradine with close attention. He was skirting the boundaries, but just staying within them. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.21) —Mr Chairman, I am quite sure that we are all very grateful to Senator Evans for his little lecture to you. I ask that he please stick to the questions that are asked of him. Senator Evans said that the wording of the name of this Bill has to do with cultural and natural heritage. I would like him to explain this to me. I am sorry that I have to refer to clause 6 (d) now but it brings me to question the naming of this Bill. The Minister says it relates to anything that has to do with natural and cultural heritage. It has nothing to do with that, as I see it, because it is- Senator Gareth Evans —Which clause is it? Senator WALTERS —It is clause 6 (2) (d), which states: The protection or conservation of the property by Australia is a matter of international concern (whether or not it is also a matter of domestic concern)-- Really it does not matter whether the people want it. It is the Government's worry whether it is of international concern. It is not worried about local concern. The clause goes on to state: whether by reason that a failure by Australia to take proper measures for the protection or conservation of the property would, or would be likely to, prejudice Australia's relations with other countries or for any other reason; Nothing in that paragraph deals with natural heritage or cultural heritage. I ask Senator Evans whether he could possibly relate that clause to cultural and natural heritage. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.22) —I would be absolutely delighted to do what Senator Walters asks. If she casts her eyes to the top of page 3 of the Bill she will see that clause 6 (2) states: A Proclamation may also be made . . . in relation to identified property-- Honourable senators should notice that expression-- . . . to which one of more of the following paragraphs applies or apply: The following paragraphs, including paragraph (d), apply only in relation to identified property which satisfies one or other of those descriptions. So one goes back to the description of 'identified property'. The definition of that is shown in clause 3 (2), which states: property forming part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage- That is, for one or other of the two reasons then set out. If one goes back further to definitional clause 3 (1) one sees that 'cultural heritage' and ' natural heritage' are defined by reference to the language of the Convention for the Protection of the World Heritage Cultural and National Heritage. So in each instance there is a chain to the concept of cultural heritage or natural heritage-in other words, property which does satisfy this description of universal value. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.24) —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans): referred to 'identified property'. Is it property that is identified when this Bill receives royal assent or property that can be identified at a future time? The CHAIRMAN —Senator Evans may answer that question if he wishes. It is more properly a matter to be raised under the relevant clause. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.24) —Perhaps I can answer the question now to save time being wasted in asking the question again. 'Identified property' is the threshold consideration which applies before anything is proclaimed. The Bill comes into operation only at the stage of proclamation of some 'identified property' or part of 'identified property' as being within the proper subject matter of the Bill. Then, in turn, there have to be further stages of prohibition and so on before anything happens under the Bill. The threshold condition is that of being identified property. It is the proclamation that triggers the application of the Bill. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.25) — How does the property become identified? By whom and at what stage is it identified? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.25) —I do not want to take Senator Walters on too tedious a course through a process of statutory reading. However, clause 3 (2) states: A reference in this Act to identified property shall be read as a reference to- (a) property forming part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage- That is identified in one of the following two ways: Firstly, either the Commonwealth has submitted it for inclusion in the World Heritage List or, secondly, it has been identified by virtue of being declared by the regulations to form part of the cultural heritage. So there is a change of machinery that is set out on the face of the Bill for all to read. Clauses agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(6.26) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, clause 3, paragraph (2) (a), line 15, after ''property'' insert '', land or interest in land''. (2) Page 2, clause 3, sub-paragraph (2) (a) (ii), lines 21 and 22, leave out the sub-paragraph. The first amendment, which inserts the words 'land or interest in land' after the word 'property' clarifies this clause a little further. We believe that the word 'property' is used imprecisely here and we submit that there could be occasions when people do not own land but have an interest in it. We fear that the clause, as it stands, could have the effect of applying to only certain property that is owned or alternatively that it may not apply as we would wish to land or interest in land. I do understand that the term is used in the Convention and that it was the Government's intention to cover that point. I do not believe it was the Government's intention not to have covered that point. I seek a statement to that effect from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) . However, it is our opinion that the Bill does not adequately cover such interests, in which case the owner of an interest in a property or interest in land would not be entitled to compensation pursuant to the Bill. The second amendment relates to the deletion of clause 3 (2) (a) (ii). It raises some of the fundamental issues of this legislation. We are told that the Bill is essentially to protect South West Tasmania and the basic thrust of the protection of South West Tasmania is because the area has been certified by the World Heritage Committee. Therefore, we query why it is necessary to include matters declared by the regulations which form part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage. I think this matter was partially raised earlier in the Committee stage of the Bill. If the Commonwealth has a view that this measure is necessary, we ask: Why does not the Commonwealth bring in legislation to that effect? Part of the difficulty of this debate is that we seem to seesaw from one side to the other. One minute we are talking about South West Tasmania, as the Attorney-General indicated in his reply in the second reading stage, and the next minute we have to talk about something much more general because the risk is that if we do not the Government will not be able to achieve what it wants in relation to South West Tasmania. In casting that very wide net, a number of problems and real objections arise. The difficulties that many people have with this Bill-certainly we believe they will arise under the Bill-arise from the fact, as I have just stated, that the Bill is for South West Tasmania but it has had to be dressed up in general terms which give it a much wider application and with special procedures which are necessary because it is South West Tasmania. The Attorney-General shakes his head. I do not want to go into the matter of compensation in any detail at this stage because it will come up later in the debate on the Bill. But one of the reasons we are given that special provisions are necessary is that we have to deal with something that is a bit different from the things that the Government is used to dealing with under normal compensation provisions. That is, we have to deal with this South West Tasmania situation which is not necessarily as easily identified as a piece of land that has to be resumed because an airport or something like that will be built on it. I seek, most earnestly, the Attorney -General's serious attention to the first amendment because it is meant to be a helpful amendment. I do not believe that in replying to this matter in the House of Representatives, Mr Cohen, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, who is the Minister responsible for this Bill, dealt with the situation that had been raised. Progress reported. Ministerial Statement Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.32) —I seek leave to make a ministerial statement concerning the Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence Agencies and to move that the Senate take note of that statement. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —I thank the Senate. I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- A Royal Commission has now been appointed to conduct a major review of Australian security and intelligence agencies, with a term of reference relating to all the circumstances surrounding the expulsion of Mr Ivanov-including the actions of the Government-and the involvement of Mr David Combe in those circumstances. The Terms of Reference have already been circulated to Honourable Senators. I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. The Royal Commissioner is Mr Justice Hope, Judge of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Counsel assisting the Royal Commissioner will be Mr D. M. Ryan, Q.C., of the Melbourne Bar. I wish to express my gratification at the availability of Mr Justice Hope, and His Honour's acceptance of the Commission. As Honourable Senators will be well aware, Mr Justice Hope has already inquired into and reported on the intelligence and security services of the Australian Government in a series of major reports in 1976 and 1977. The appointment of the Royal Commission initiates the implementation of my Government's policy for regular judicial audit of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization and close scrutiny of the role and activities of the intelligence community generally. On the occasion of the opening of Parliament the Governor-General conveyed my Government's commitment to amending the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act of 1979 to define more precisely the Organization's jurisdiction and to ensure its private and public accountability. As I have already indicated to the Parliament, this is not something that is being imposed on the agencies concerned. I have had discussions with their heads , making it clear to them that it was appropriate that there should be a judicial review. That point has been accepted by them, and indeed it has been welcomed by them. As foreshadowed in Parliament last week, the first matter on which the Royal Commissioner is being asked to report concerns the circumstances surrounding the expulsion of Mr Ivanov, and the involvement of Mr David Combe in those circumstances. The Terms of Reference have been drafted to enable the inquiry to extend to the actions of all relevant persons and organizations, including the Government, in respect of these matters. The Royal Commissioner has been asked to make his report on these matters as soon as possible. Honourable Senators will see, when they read the Terms of Reference of the Royal Commission, that this inquiry goes far beyond the particular matter of the expulsion of Mr Ivanov, and that it will ensure that the commitment of this Government to a more effective intelligence system is advanced. Also, the Royal Commission is specifically empowered, by virtue of paragraph (e ) of the Terms of Reference, to make recommendations as to possible changes to the processes and procedures available to Government for dealing with the kind of situation that developed in relation to Mr David Combe. The Royal Commission will have the full co-operation of the Government. I am sure it will also have the full support of all honourable senators. Senator GRIMES —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.33) —The statement which has just been incorporated in Hansard is in the same terms as the statement which was made earlier this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and relates to a matter which has received a great deal of attention in the Senate over the last week, namely, the Combe affair and the establishment of a royal commission to examine what has colloquially been termed the Combe affair. The intention of the Opposition in the Senate is the same as the intention of the Opposition in the House of Representatives which is to move an amendment to the motion that the Senate take note of the paper, the object of which is to ensure that the terms of reference of the royal commission area are as wide as the Government says that they are. In debate in the other place the Government indicated that it believes that the terms of reference, which have been laid down by the Government, are wide enough to encompass all of the matters of concern which have been raised in Question Time and in debate in this place. It is the concern of the Opposition in the Senate merely to ensure that that is so and to ensure that the royal commission is not prevented from investigating matters which are relevant to the concerns which have been expressed here and elsewhere and which would result in our having an incomplete resolution of these very important matters. I think the first point that needs to be made is that the inquiry is one which, in part at least, is in line with announced Opposition policy and announced Government policy in this field. I would like to remind the Senate that before the last election the then Government issued, as part of its supplementary policy proposals, a statement which was confirmatory of previous statements of the then Government-that is the Fraser Government-that the Government would set up a review of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation towards the end of this year by a senior judge. The object of the inquiry will be to ensure that the Organisation works efficiently and within its charter. To an extent the inquiry which is now announced reflects the intention of the present Government to carry out a similar judicial audit of the security organisations. As the Prime Minister indicated, that is a matter which is welcomed by the security organisations, and it is a matter which is welcomed by the Opposition which itself proposed a similar course of conduct through the words of the now shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack. The concern that we have is that the inquiry may not be as broad as has been claimed. We are entitled to be a little concerned at the way in which the Government has approached this matter when we look at the quite extraordinary way that the Government arrived at the point at which it was prepared to have an inquiry which touched upon the Ivanov-Combe matter at all. What is quite clear now is that we have had a chance to examine the earlier answers by Senator Button which were given in the Senate on 12 May is that the judicial inquiry which he told us we were to have and which had initially been set in train a week before the question was raised in the Senate was in fact the judicial audit to which I have referred, and it was a very late decision taken in fact on the day of the announcement to extend the royal commission to pick up the matters which had become matters of public controversy. It is that late change which explains Senator Button's inability, to quote his words, to answer the question put to him as to why what he described as bizarre on the Wednesday became Government policy and the Government's intention on the Thursday. That fact is quite clear from the Press conference which the Prime Minister held outside Parliament and which was reported extensively in the Sydney Morning Herald of last Friday, but the decision was made on Thursday morning. Our concern is, as I said, not that what is in the terms of reference is something that we would object to but rather that it is potentially incomplete. I specifically refer the Senate to paragraph (c) on page 4 of the terms of reference which States: Further, to the inquiry in relation to paragraphs (a) and (b) above, all the cirumstances, including the actions of the Government, surrounding the expulsion from Australia of Mr Valeriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, First Secretary, Embassy of the Union of Soviety Socialist Republics, and the involvement of Mr Harvey David Mathew Combe in those circumstances. On behalf of the Opposition I move: Leave out all words after 'That', insert: 'the Senate is of the opinion that the terms of reference should be amended by omitting paragraph (c) and substituting the following paragraph: '(c) further to the inquiry in relation to paragraphs (a) and (b) above: (i) all the circumstances, including t actions of the Government, surrounding the expulsion from Australia of Mr Valeriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, First Secretary, Embassy of the Union of Soviety Socialist Republics, and the involvement of Mr Harvey David Mathew Combe in those circumstances; and (ii) whether or not the Prime Minister, the Special Minister of State or any other Minister or any senior Government adviser disclosed confidential information in any way relating to the decision to expel from Australia Mr Valeriy Nikolayevich Ivanov; and' '. Senator Grimes —Why did you leave out the Leader of the Opposition? He was consulted too. Senator CHANEY —If there were any validity in the argument being put forward by the Government that the existing terms of reference encompass all matters which have been brought into controversy or dispute, it would be true that an inquiry extended in the terms recommended by the Opposition would be more likely to encompass those matters, including the matters raised by the honourable senator by way of interjection. There is certainly no concern on the part of the Opposition to any such inquiry. The positon of the Opposition has been made quite clear in a personal explanation by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), and the fact is that the Opposition is not the source of these matters . It is quite clear, in part at least, on the admission of a Minister from this Government, that there has been a disclosure out of the proper course of important security information by Mr Young. The concern of the Opposition is a narrow concern with respect to what is put forward here, and that is whether the words 'all the circumstances' are sufficiently wide to ensure that we get access to or that there is an inquiry not only into the actions immediately surrounding the expulsion but also those various actions which followed the expulsion and which gave rise to public disquiet and concern. The Government has raised, by way of interjection, suggestions about the Opposition. The important question which I think is exercising the minds of many Australians, and certainly the minds of those in the Opposition, is this: Who has been responsible for the leaks? It is abundantly clear that there has been government involvement in the release of security information. Even the best public case for Mr Young indicates that he has given out some security information. Indeed, the Government's own case is that Mr Young has been rebuked by the Prime Minister. I do not know what a rebuke by the Prime Minister means in any substantial terms. Rebukes have been handed out very frequently by the Prime Minister. They appear to cover a range of misfeasances on the part of Ministers-everything from criticising koala bears to authorising the use of Royal Australian Air Force planes to gather evidence for a case against the State of Tasmania. It does not seem to matter what degree of impropriety is involved; a rebuke from the Prime Minister is apparently the only solution and the only remedy that is required. The Opposition would assert that a mere rebuke is not very substantial and seems to cover a multitude of sins. But in terms of where these leaks come from there is a plethora of material. I do not wish to delay the Senate long but I must touch on some of it to indicate why the Opposition regards it as essential that these matters should be inquired into. In an article by Brian Toohey in the National Times of last Friday Mr Combe was quoted as saying that the Honourable Mick Young had referred to an Australian Labor Party person being involved. That is a matter which gave rise to a great deal of other Press cover. The article stated: At the Press Club, Combe says, Cameron told him that he had been talking that afternoon to the Special Minister of State, Mick Young, who had suggested that Ivanov had been expelled because he was getting too close to a Labor Party person with influence on the Government. Combe assumed that he was the person referred to. In the Sunday interview on television, Mr Combe stepped back from that. He indicated that he was being fairer to Mick Young than Mick Young and his ministerial colleagues were being to him. In part of the interview which was not reported until the Sydney Morning Herald article of 16 May Mr Combe made it clear that when he left the Press Club on the same day as his conversation with Mr Cameron he was aware of the involvement of a Labor Party figure. I refer to the Sydney Morning Herald article which says a number of points made in the interview were not included in what was televised but were subsequently released to the Press Gallery. Let me throw in Mr Kelly's conclusions from the additional points which were submitted. He said: Their significance is that Mr Combe makes it clear that when he left the Press Club on April 22 just a few hours after the Ivanov announcement, he knew it was connected with a KGB man's Labor Party connections. There are doubts; the Opposition does not claim to know all the facts in this matter, and of course it cannot. But the fact is that on the assertions of Mr Combe over the weekend there have to be significant doubts about what was the source of information which made him so sure that some significant Labor Party figure was involved on that day by the time he left the Press Club. It is quite clear, as I said earlier, that Mr Young stands convicted out of his own mouth. In the PM interview which he did on 13 May he made it quite clear that before there was any public announcement after there had been government consideration of this matter he said to Mr Cameron: . . . I just said you will understand, you know we are kicking a Russian out this afternoon and we left the office and went to lunch and there was no more said about it. Of course there is a total lack of knowledge on the part of the public or on the part of the Opposition as to what subsequently transpired and what was a very lengthy lunch for a Minister who has described himself as being so very busy. It would appear from the speech delivered on behalf of the Government by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) that it is the belief of the Government that all these matters are within the jurisdiction or the scope of the Royal Commission, and all that the Opposition is seeking to do in moving this amendment is to put that beyond doubt. If it is not a matter of doubt, why should this amendment not be accepted? In the argument which took place in the other place, the Government again raised the canard that the Opposition was the source of leaks regarding the involvement of Mr Combe. Mr Peacock responded to that in a personal explanation on 12 May in which he made it quite clear that he had not breached the confidential briefing he was given and, indeed, he confirmed that on 21 April, following the briefing, he advised the Prime Minister that he would not even brief his senior colleagues with respect to allegations about Mr Combe. I will not repeat the points which were made at length by Mr Peacock but I refer honourable senators who are interested in them to the House of Representatives Hansard at page 492 of 12 May where that matter is dealt with in detail by the Leader of the Opposition. Senator Gareth Evans —If you accept his word, why not Mick Young's? Senator CHANEY —The fact of the matter is that if, as the Attorney-General interjects, we are not simply to accept his word and let the matter rest, we might look at the views of some other, perhaps more impartial, observers of this scene to see what they regard as the possible source of this matter. The fact is that it was a matter of public notoriety that a senior Australian Labor Party figure was involved and the name of Mr Combe was being freely booted about before he was mentioned in a question raised by the Opposition. It should be noted that, when the name of Mr Combe was raised by the Opposition, it was in relation to the fact that he was no longer acceptable as a lobbyist. Again, that was a matter of public notoriety in the sense that others were acting on the basis of their knowledge that he was not acceptable. Understandably, the public is confused when it is faced with Opposition and Government trading allegation against allegation. I suggest that it is instructive in this case to look at what is on the record, at the views of senior Canberra observers and at the sequence of public references to the involvement of a senior Labor Party figure in the Ivanov affair. There has been reference in the Senate to the fact that, as early as 6 May, the National Times made the following comment: The Labor Government's recent expulsion of a KGB official is causing deep consternation among the very limited number of people in the ALP who have information about an alleged Australian collaborator . . . It goes on to say: The accusations were that the collaborator of the KGB official was, in effect, trying improperly to influence the new Government on behalf of the Soviet Union. That first report was followed by a column written by Mr Laurie Oakes in the Sunday Telegraph of 8 May. This was followed by a new story written by Mr Paul Kelly on the following Monday, 9 May. I wish to quote from what some senior Press Gallery journalists have written in retrospect. Paul Kelly in the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 May said: There was no way the lid could be kept on the story. This was because the Government leaked it out. Mr Hawke has nobody to blame but his own Government. Michelle Grattan, in the Age of 14 May, concluded: But Mr Combe's name was widely about as the Labor man in the Ivanov affair. Peter Bowers, in the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 May said; The Government tried to blame the Opposition for dragging Combe's name into public. The Deputy Leader of the National Party, Ian Sinclair, certainly was the first to name Combe in Parliament, but already the Ivanov-Combe connection was an open secret in Canberra. They are all observers who are not relying on the unfounded and unsupported assertions of the Leader of the Opposition or his supporters; they are people who have examined the information which was available in Canberra and who have drawn conclusions from it. There are serious issues quite apart from the issue of confidentiality. Who could fail to be perturbed about the way this whole issue was handled by the Government and by the fact that it is now clear that what were described as the unprecedented privileges which were given to Combe in fact amounted to his being given selected extracts of the evidence against him in the course of settling a statement. It is quite clear from what Mr Combe said last weekend that he does not accept the bland assurances that the Government has been trotting forth in this matter. I do not believe that any lawyer could be satisfied with the statement produced, prepared and acquiesced to on the basis of a selective quotation of facts. Senator Gareth Evans —They do not call you 'crocodile tears' Chaney for nothing, do they? Senator CHANEY —We have further interjections from an Attorney-General who has placed himself at the forefront of the civil liberties push in Australia. I do not believe that a single supporter or admirer of his would be even vaguely satisfied with his record in this matter. The ultimate disquiet of the Opposition can be reflected in the differences between what the Prime Minister said as reported at page 506 of Hansard on 12 May and what Senator Evans said here earlier today during Question Time. On 12 May, the Prime Minister said: . . . this Government moved to do everything immediately within its power to see that Mr Combe had every opportunity to look at the facts as we, the Government, knew those facts. On the basis of those facts, we believed in terms of the interest of this country that we had to act. Mr Combe understood and accepted our decision. It is not possible to marry the words of the Prime Minister, that the Government had done everything within its power to see that Mr Combe had every opportunity to look at the facts as the Government knew those facts, with what was admitted by the Attorney-General here today and what was inferentially known from the statements of the Government up to that time, namely, that only selected quotations had been read to Mr Combe in the course of this interview. The fact is that there is no room for doubt in these matters. They are required to be settled once and for all to the satisfaction of the Australian people by their being subject to a proper inquiry. It is the wish of the Opposition simply to ensure that the inquiry is wide enough to encompass these matters. The two versions of what was done with respect to Mr Combe I think alone ought to satisfy the Senate that there is a problem which demands attention. There is a developing chasm between what Senator Evans and the Prime Minister now say was Mr Combe's attitude and the way he described it over the weekend. The Opposition believes that the Government is taking huge backward steps in an effort to justify the earlier sweeping assurances from both the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister. We want to see the terms of reference for the royal commission tightened up so that there is no chance of those involved in the post-expulsion actions escaping the scrutiny of the commissioner. Accordingly, I have moved the amendment, circulated in my name, which had previously been moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and I urge the Senate to support it. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(6.52) — The Australian Democrats welcome the appointment of the royal commission on Australia's five security and intelligence services particularly since it is some nine years since the last royal commission was appointed to inquire into those services and some six and a half years since it reported. Security services and organisations are in receipt of some $37m annually in order to preserve law, order and public safety in this country. Therefore, I believe it is not unreasonable that some accountability both to the Government and to the general public pertains. I cannot therefore quite understand the apologetic tone of the comments in paragraph 2 on page 2 of the ministerial statement, which are rather redolent of a forelock tugging exercise. At the end of paragraph 1, the Government announces the setting up of the commission as being in keeping with a statement made in the Governor-General 's Speech at the opening of Parliament. Paragraph 2 of the statement goes on to say: As I have already indicated to the Parliament, this is not something that is being imposed on the agencies concerned. I have had discussions with their heads , making it clear to them that it was appropriate that there should be a judicial review. That point has been accepted by them, and indeed it has been welcomed by them. I cannot quite understand why the Government has to apologise for calling these agencies to order or for reasonably requesting that that take place. Indeed, had they objected, I would have expected the Government to impose those very requirements. A non-accountable security service, or any other authority, invites at best the squandering of public money of the sort that was revealed recently concerning the Peanut Marketing Board of Queensland and at worst the sort of draconian and irrational invasion of individual liberties and privacy normally only expected of totalitarian regimes. I hasten to point out that in that instance I am not necessarily referring to Queensland. The keeping of secret files on who meets whom, where, how often and for how long has no place in a democracy. Witch hunts and sneaky leaks to selective journalists are, or at least ought to be anathema in a free society. It is certainly not a legitimate role of our security agencies that they undertake these sorts of activities. The Australian Democrats support the existence of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and its brother or sister agencies that are mentioned in the ministerial statement, although we regret, of course, that we do not have the perfect society that would allow us to live without them. It is, unfortunately, necessary for us to have organisations such as these to ensure the safety and security of the country and of its citizens. We believe, however, that given the constraints of preserving national security, those organistions charged with the brief of maintaining law, order and security in this country must operate efficiently, effectively and properly and must be accountable. The terms of reference of this commission will ensure that a full and complete inquiry into the operations of Australia's security agencies is undertaken. We believe that the Opposition's amendments add nothing to those terms of reference . I believe that the first amendment is superfluous since it repeats word for word, and indeed, comma for comma, paragraph (c) in the Government's own terms of reference. The second is unnecessary since it is, we believe, essentially covered in paragraph (d) which refers to 'any other related matters to which the attention of the Commission is directed by the Prime Minister in the course of the inquiry '. I do not believe that either the Government or the official Opposition has much to be proud of as far as the Combe saga is concerned. They have willingly, whether deliberately or not, conspired to ruin an individual's reputation and livelihood. I would therefore probably be more inclined to accept the Opposition 's amendment if it included in its second paragraph the words 'the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the National Party'. I say, therefore, that the only good that appears to have come from the whole sorry affairs is that it appears to have hastened the appointment of this royal commission. We support this inquiry. We hope that it will be able to report as fully and as expeditiously as possible and, if necessary, in the case of Mr Combe as far as justice and fair play are concerned, bring down an interim report at least on that section. The Hope committee of 1974 took some two years to bring out its report. Senator Gareth Evans —It is in the terms of reference. Senator HAINES —That is fine, as long as it is clearly there. The man has been damaged enough as it is without his having to wait for two years or more before the report is brought down. We will oppose the Opposition's amendments to the terms of reference, as I have said, on the grounds that they are both unnecessary and superfluous. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Peter Rae) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for automatic and simultaneous dissolution of both Houses of the Parliament in the event of disagreement between the Houses in relation to the passing of proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for ordinary annual services of the Government, and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Peter Rae, and read a first time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(6.59) —by leave-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- Mr President, the long title of this proposed law is 'A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to provide for automatic and simultaneous dissolution of both Houses of the Parliament in the event of disagreement between the Houses in relation to the passing of proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for ordinary annual services of the Government, and for related purposes'. The question of the Senate and Supply has been under consideration by the Australian Constitutional Convention and its Standing Committee 'D' for a number of years. It arises from concern over the possibillity that the Senate has, at present, the capacity to force the House of Representatives to an early election without necessarily being required also to face election. Many Australians, including me, regard this as a major deficiency. It was at Perth in 1978 that the Convention, after considering competing proposals and a report from Standing Committee 'D', took the first positive step toward reaching a resolution of the matter, when it was decided to recommend that the Constitution be amended to provide for automatic dissolution of the two Houses if the Senate rejected or failed to pass within a certain time an appropriation for the ordinary annual services of the Government. This decision and related matters were referred again to Standing Committee 'D' for detailed drafting consideration-taking into account the matters raised by delegates during the debate. Standing Committee 'D' comprised 17 members and, in addition, Senator Gareth Evans and myself were members during consideration of the resolution on the Senate and Supply. The Standing Committee was representative of all States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Standing Committee 'D' made a number of reports, the most recent being the fourth report (dated 27 August 1982), the recommendations of which were, with an amendment I shall come to, adopted at Adelaide last month. Honourable Senators will find the reports, particularly the fourth report which is in two volumes, of great value in their consideration of the proposal now before the Senate. Let me stress immediately that the Bill faithfully expresses the decisions made by the Australian Constitutional Convention held at Adelaide in April of this year. The governing principle of the Bill is that the Constitution should be altered to provide that, if the Senate within 30 days fails to pass a Bill appropriating revenue or moneys for ordinary annual services of the Government of a particular year only and dealing only with such appropriation, the Governor -General shall forthwith dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. I submit that such a provision is consistent with the high principle of Westminster style government that a Government which has been denied Supply by the Parliament cannot govern and should advise a general election or resign. It is also consistent with the, I think, general opinion that, if the Senate blocks Supply to force an election of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the whole Senate, should also face the judgment of the people. But, Mr President, what are ordinary annual services of the Government? Clearly , the meaning of the expression is open to differences of opinion. However, Standing Committee ''D'' did not spell out what were, or what were not, appropriations for ordinary annual services of the Government. If that position were to remain, there is the danger that any or all appropriations might be classified as appropriations for ordinary annual services, thus not only undermining the Senate's amendment power but also creating possible unreal double dissolution situations where a dispute between the Houses over an appropriation-perhaps minor and unconnected to the mainstream of Supply for ordinary annual services-and which is not resolved within 30 days or less, may lead to a mandatory double dissolution. Such a consequence would be totally unacceptable. Fully to make my point, Mr President, which I believe is vital to a proper operation of the proposed Constitutional changes, I find it necessary to expound the matter of ordinary annual services. The expression ''ordinary annual services of the Government'' is employed: (a) in section 53 of the Constitution to classify the expenditure in respect of which the Senate's powers of amendment are restricted to requesting the House of Representatives to make amendments; and (b) in section 54 to protect the Senate against the tacking of extraneous matters to an Appropriation Bill for the ordinary annual services of the Government, which the Senate may not amend. The very first budget bills were in 1901, returned to the House of Represenatives by the Senate insisting that the form of presentation be changed to a more appropriate form. Over the years the Senate has been vigilant in ensuring a proper classification of ordinary annual services, thus protecting its amendment power which, I submit, is of even more importance than the veto power. Matters were arranged reasonably well for some 50 years. Then in 1952 the practice of processing the Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill as a Bill not for the ordinary annual services of the Government was challenged, but the Senate confirmed the ruling of the then President that it was a Bill which a Senate may amend. Then in 1964 the Government of the day made a statement announcing that the contents of the Appropriation Bill and the Appropriation ( Works and Services) Bill would be amalgamated except for some small special expenditure. This announcement led to the appointment by the Government Senators of the day of a Committee on Appropriation Bills and the ordinary annual services of the Government. The recommendations of the Committee, consisting of Senators Cormack (Chairman) and Senators McKellar, Wedgwood and Wright, were largely adopted by the Government and became known as the Compact of 1965. This was the product of careful consideration and negotiation between the two houses. In brief, the Compact excluded from the ordinary annual services of the Government appropriations for the construction of public works and buildings, acquisition of sites and buildings, certain plant and equipment, section 96 grants to the States, and new policies not authorised by special legislation. Under the Compact, all such appropriations were to be subject to Senate amendment. Later, in 1976, the Chairman of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee (Senator Missen) brought up a report stating that, on behalf of the Committee, he had written to the then Treasurer seeking his views as to whether or not the procedure contained in the Compact of 1965 in respect of ordinary annual expenditure would be followed in future appropriation legislation. The Treasurer replied in the affirmative. Arising from the report the Senate resolved on 17 February 1977, on the motion of Senator Missen, to reaffirm the Compact of 1965. With that history in mind, and supported by an opinion of Mr Ewart Smith ( formerly Deputy Secretary, Attorney-General's Department) who in a paper to Standing Committee 'D' observed that the Compact of 1965 may be seen as approaching the status of a convention, I proposed at the Australian Constitutional Convention, to the motion that the report of the Standing Committee 'D' be adopted, an amendment to insert a new section 53A in the constitution to give statutory recognition to the Compact of 1965, with drafting modifications, and the addition of appropriations for the services of Parliament which under current practice are the subject of a separate Appropriation Bill not deemed to be for the ordinary annual service of the Government. The amendment was agreed to by the Australian Constitutional Convention and forms clause 3 of the Bill now before the Senate. There are difficulties in defining what are ordinary annual services. Honourable Senators will note that clause 3 approaches the question of classifying appropriations from the point of defining what is not 'ordinary annual services'. This is seen as a more workable approach than attempting to define what is comprised in 'ordinary annual services'. I cannot, I believe, overemphasise the need for new section 53A of the Constitution as contained in clause 3 of the Bill. Let me give the Senate an illustration. Without the amendment, and with the wide open interpretation by Government of what are ordinary annual services, the proposals put forward by Standing Committee 'D' may have led toi a situation where the Senate, in the exercise of its function as a States House, and in attempting to ensure the rectification of an inequity between the States-say, for instance, by amending or rejecting some grant, or form of financial assistance, to one State to the detriment of another , might find itself forced into a double dissolution on the grounds of blocking Supply. That surely would be a strong dissuader to the Senate to act in its proper role in ensuring equity between the States and the Commonwealth. But the dissuader would exist if grants to the States were to be processed as appropriations for ordinary annual services and not in accordance with the amendment contained in new section 53A. Let us, therefore, entrench in the Constitution this amendment which has at its roots the ensuring of some certainty in the protection of the interests of the States and of the relationship between the houses of this Parliament and the workability of the other proposals for resolving the issue of the Senate and Supply. It will control the content of Appropriation Bills and, furthermore, be of assistance to the Governor-General in determining whether grounds for any double dissolution are proper. It is true that it is proposed by sub-section (4) of proposed new section 54 of the Constitution that within 30 days after assent an appeal may be made to the High Court challenging matter in an Appropriation Bill on the ground that the matter is other than an appropriation for ordinary annual services of a particular year only, and the High Court may declare the matter of no effect. However, the proposed appeal to the court is after the event-that is, after double dissolution is involved. Nevertheless, the provision could prove useful, although with new section 53A the need for the involvement of the High Court should not arise. From what I have said, I trust that honourable Senators will be persuaded of the importance of having defined, at least what are not ordinary annual services of the Government. I see it as crucial to the whole scheme of the Bill. The Senate-and of course the Governor-General-must know where they stand and know what proposed expenditure may be the subject of double dissolution. I turn now to certain other important features of the Bill. Of much importance are amendments to the second paragraph of section 53 (restrictions on Senate's power of amendment of appropriations for ordinary annual services), section 54(1 ) (protection against tacking), and proposed new section 54A (providing for double dissolutions), which make it clear that those several provisions apply only to appropriations for a particular year. As the notes contained in the report of Standing Committee ''D'' explain, the Senate would be free to reject or amend, without exposing itself to dissolution, any Bill that proposed to make appropriations, in whatever form, covering ordinary annual services for a period of more than one year. Another important and related matter is that contained in proposed new section 54(2), which is designed to prevent long term supply for salaries and allowances of public servants, administrative expenses of departments, and Defence pay and allowances. It is provided that any appropriation for such expenditure shall not have effect unless it is made by a law that relates to services of a particular year only and is passed, or is deemed to have been passed, by the Senate not earlier than six months before the commencement of that year. The effect is to prohibit standing appropriations for those classes of ordinary annual expenditure without which it would be virtually impossible for a Government to carry on and prevents possible abuse by a Government obtaining supply for the whole of its term in its first year. Mr President, I refer now to the proposed amendment to section 57 of the Constitution, which is the existing mechanism for double dissolution when there is disagreement between the Houses. Section 57 is to remain, but it is proposed by the Bill that the section not apply in relation to a proposed law appropriating revenue or moneys for ordinary annual services of the Government of a particular year only and dealing only with such appropriation. However, it is proposed that the one dissolution may be founded on both new section 54A and section 57, circumstances permitting. Next I draw attention to the eminently sensible provision in the Bill that the Governor-General in Council may authorise expenditure for a double dissolution election and to maintain ordinary annual services of the Government after dissolution until 21 days after the House of Representatives next meets. If I have a reservation about the Bill, it is the provision that after dissolution the Appropriation Bill which was the subject of the dissolution may be presented for assent after passing the House of Representatives only, the Senate having no say in the matter. I see this proposal as a down-grading of the Senate in the federal system and a rejection of the Federal Compact and the States which demanded as the price of federation a States Assembly having equal financial power with the House of Representatives, except for the financial initiative. It follows that the Senate's continued participation in the legislative process following a double dissolution is necessary to uphold the time-honoured Constitutional and Federal principle that Supply is the joint grant of the two Houses. My preference, therefore, in the event of a deadlock after dissolution over Supply is to apply the joint sitting device, as in section 57 of the Constitution. If the majority will of a totality of elected members of Parliament be against supply, then it should be a matter of the whole disagreement and decision being sent back to the people. That is in the spirit of the Constitution. However, I face the fact that the Bill before the House represents the collective wisdom of the Australian Constitutional Convention and, accordingly, I give way on this point for the sake of the greater good in the Bill. There is one final matter to which I should refer. This Bill is all about resolving disagreement between the Houses in relation to the blocking of Supply with respect to ordinary annual services. There is, I recognise, a significant area of Supply which is not for ordinary annual services; but, if the Constitutional changes proposed in this Bill are adopted, I do not believe that there will be a problem in respect of Supply for appropriations which are not for the ordinary annual services. If the Senate is intent on blocking Supply and forcing a double dissolution, the battleground will be on an appropriation Bill for ordinary annual services and there would be no point in blocking a Bill for appropriations other than for ordinary annual services. So far as the latter appropriations are concerned, the Senate's main concern is to have and to retain the power to make any necessary amendment and that objective is achieved by the proposals in the Bill. So, with an understanding of what are and what are not ordinary annual services as proposed in the Bill, any continuing legislative disagreement between the Houses in respect of appropriations not for ordinary annual services may safely be left to the operation of section 57, which is the existing mechanism for resolving disagreement. Mr President, I conclude as I began by re-stating that this Bill for the resolution of the question of the Senate and Supply faithfully expresses the decisions of the Australian Constitutional Convention. We are much indebted to the Convention and its Standing Committee ''D'' for their long and patient deliberation of the matter and for their considered resolution reached at Adelaide last month. In the spirit of consensus, which is the prevailing mood of the electorate, let us thank the Australian Constitutional Convention, accept the careful and well considered findings and recommendations, and give this Bill a speedy passage. Mr President, I thank the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Australian Wine Research Institute-Death of Kenneth Dax-Royal Military College, Duntroon The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being a little after 7 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(7.1) —I want to raise in the adjournment debate tonight a matter that was the subject of a question by an honourable senator earlier today to which no definitive answer was given. I refer to the sacking of two scientists employed by the Australian Wine Research Institute. I am taking the step of discussing the matter in the adjournment debate since no question, however lengthy, can canvass all the issues relating to this matter, nor cover all the background. I wish to go back to 13 October 1982. To begin with, I refer to a staff memo headed: 'Staff request for elected representative to be at Council Meetings'. A letter which was sent to the staff from the Chairman of the Council, Mr G. L. G. Anderson, stated in part: The members generally can understand and appreciate the motivation leading to this request and are very sympathetic to suggestions for improving communication between members of the staff and the Council. However, he stated in a subsequent paragraph that the Council took the following view: . . . the Director of the Institute is the most appropriate person to act as liaison between the Council and staff. He could be responsible for briefing council members on the operations of the Institute and at the same time should be making representations on behalf of the staff professionally as well as in matters pertaining to employee welfare. I am not sure that those two elements are not mutually exclusive in some cases. The third paragraph stated: It is the wish of Council to give the incoming Director, Dr Lee, every opportunity to develop, in his own way, correct and harmonious relationships between the staff and the council and we have every confidence that he will direct himself to that end as a matter of priority when he commences duties. Dr Lee did launch his career as Director of the Australian Wine Research Institute with some enthusiam, but I am not sure that it was in the best interests either of the employees of the Institute itself or even of wine research in this country. On 8 April 1983 Dr Lee issued a directive entitled ' Employment terms and conditions' in which he set out the new system, having pointed out that in the past the Institute had never adopted its own terms and conditions of employment for staff but had used those of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation-a matter which was apparently satisfying as far as the staff was concerned for some quarter of a century. He stated: In 1981 the Institute became a respondent to 'The Professional Scientists Award and Agreements'. He informed the staff on 8 April 1983: The Council of the Institute has agreed that the Institute should develop its own terms and conditions of employment, complementary to, and in addition to, the terms and conditions of the Professional Scientists Award and Agreements. On 26 April a number of employees of the Australian Wine Research Institute wrote to Dr Lee protesting at this change in terms of employment, saying that they did not see any good reason at this stage for changing those conditions and that they were disappointed that there was no consultation with them prior to receipt of the letter. They said that they seriously considered the matter and at that stage were not prepared to accept the proposed changes, particularly as they did not know specifically what they were. At least two members had found out some days prior to that that the proposed changes included termination of employment at the discretion of the Director and at a moment's notice, something which was hardly conducive to improving staff morale. On 22 April, that is, four days before the staff letter was sent to the Director, two members of the Institute, one of whom had been employed for 11 years and the other for 16 years , received a letter from Dr Lee which, in two short paragraphs, terminated their services on the grounds that those services were 'no longer required by the Institute'. One month's pay was given in lieu of notice. The research which is done by the Institute and by the two scientists concerned has received not only national respect but also international respect. A flood of protest poured into the Institute not only from Australian scientists and organisations, but also from overseas organisations, and included a telegram-a copy of which I have-from France. This is not some small bicker between a director of an organisation and a couple of superfluous staff. It is a problem which has arisen between a new broom and the dust of which he is apparently trying to sweep the place clean. The Press took up the issue late in April and early in May, and contacted not only the two scientists who had been sacked, but also their superior, Dr Somers. An article in the News stated: . . . he still did not know why his assistants had been sacked . . . 'Their scientific data had been thrown out as if it was a load of rubbish.' The work of the Institute at Urrbrae had been set back, and the sacked scientists had been treated with contempt. The reputation of the institute had been hit fairly severely, 'not only locally , but overseas.' The Chairman of the Council, when contacted, said that the Council had approved the sackings on the recommendation and advice of the new Director, Dr Lee. No wonder, one presumes, a staff member was not wanted on the Council. Dr Forrest, who retired as Institute Director last July and, therefore, should have some knowledge of the competence of the staff, said that he was astonished at what was happening at the centre and that he regarded the two scientists concerned as competent. I understand that the Department of Primary Industry has a representative on the Institute Council and was presumably, therefore, involved in the vote which was taken approving those dismissals. At no stage has anything I have seen shown whether the Council was unanimous in supporting Dr Lee's recommendations or whether there was some dissent. No details of the debate have been made known. But because the Department is involved, and because Federal Government money is directed to research at the Institute, the Parliament and the people concerned are entitled to know what action the Goverment will take to see to the reinstatement of the two scientists concerned-it is hoped with some compensation for whatever damage has been done to their reputations-and that a full inquiry is instigated into the whole sorry affair. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(7.10) —I raise an issue which I have raised on a number of occasions. This is merely the next sorry episode in the saga. I refer to the tragic death of Kenneth Dax. I refer to a letter that Mrs Dax received from the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) in relation to the still outstanding claims made by Mr and Mrs Dax on their son's death. The present Minister for Defence has gone part of the way towards meeting those outstanding claims. The present Minister for Defence, unlike the previous Minister, at least has shown some compassion and has now undertaken that the costs will be met. The Minister has also released to Mr and Mrs Dax a copy of the review of the board of inquiry report, with appropriate deletions, and has outlined fully in his letter how the parents may go about appealing against the deletions that were made. Kenneth Dax was gassed while on cadet training on HMAS Tobruk. The Minister has seen fit not to resolve the final outstanding point and allow an ex gratia payment to the parents. The Minister's letter shows yet again the hidden hand of the people in bureaucracy who have been in charge of this matter for so long and who are still unwilling to admit liability. The Minister stated that the Commissioner for Compensation had informed the Daxes on 14 May 1982 that there was no liability on the Commonwealth. The Daxes have accepted that position. I do not know why every letter that is sent out wishes to reinforce that point. There has been no contention on the part of the Daxes that the Commonwealth had that legal liability. The discussion was in relation to the moral liability that the Commonwealth ought to assume in this case. The Daxes, because of the death of their son, have been attempting to establish some precendents so that other parents in like situations will have automatic redress, rather than the enormous pain, hurt and distress that have been caused to them. The Minister's letter states: The award, instead of compensation, of an ex gratia payment has been carefully considered but that would amount to circumvention of the provisions of existing legislation. The absurdity of that point is revealed only if one carefully reads it again. The whole idea of an ex gratia payment is that it is not covered by legislation. That is the point that has been constantly made. There is no legislative liability on the Commonwealth at all; that is accepted. It must be accepted, and it will be accepted eventually by this Government that there is a moral liability in this case, although it was not accepted by the previous Government and is not accepted by the present Minister. The parents will not give up, and those who are supporting them in this matter will not give up. This is not a situation in which private individuals can be brushed off. The Commonwealth must eventually accept the moral responsibility for what occurred in this most tragic case. It must not only accept the moral responsibility and undertake to pay the ex gratia payment but go further. It must examine the legislation in this regard so that legislative action can be taken to ensure that no further incidents of this kind arise on Commonwealth property. This situation must not be allowed to continue. I simply urge the Government to consider this case yet again, because it will not go away with the writing of a polite letter. It will remain, and the parents will continue to fight for that moral justice which is their just desert . Senator MASON(New South Wales)(7.14) —I raise again the matter of bastardisation at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, because I am not yet completely satisfied that it has been resolved on a permanent basis. I have believed for some time, in fact since the announcement was made that five cadets were to be expelled, that cadets should not have been expelled. This is not because I in any way approved of their actions, but because I thought the role of the military staff at Duntroon had not been sufficiently examined, and because I have been getting information from areas of the community I feel I can trust that bastardisation has been very much part of the tradition at Duntroon for a long time and that the military staff have ignored it, if not actually connived at it. Because of this I applaud the decision of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) last week not to expel those cadets. Indeed, he has stated an intention to look more carefully at the role of the military staff at Duntroon. It seems to me axiomatic that effective discipline should be intrinsic to any military operation. If the bastardisation processes are being connived at or tolerated by the military staff, that is to be greatly deplored. In fact, it would be a disgraceful situation. But if, indeed, the custom cannot be controlled by the military staff, there would seem to be a breach of discipline equally to be deplored. Either way the matter must be pursued and I now seek from the Government some undertaking that it will keep a close eye on the matter , over the next few years if necessary, to see that it stops absolutely, that the military staff at Duntroon make it a matter of discipline to see that it stops, and that they are in a position to see that it stops. There have been reports, which I think are reliable, that this sort of excessive behaviour has been common at Duntroon for quite some time and has become traditional. Colonel C. W. T. Kyngdon is on record as saying that, when he was at the college between 1929 and 1932, it was thought that the practice started around 1920 when an RMC officer visited West Point in the United States of America and introduced bastardisation at Duntroon on his return. Colonel Kyngdon has recalled some extremely revolting examples from his time. I think the recent things do not seem to have been as extreme as those. I have received reports that junior cadets had cups of coffee poured over them, that they were smeared with buttered toast, that they were taunted with offensive suggestions about female relatives and friends, that they were sent on useless errands during work, sleep and eating times and that they were locked in a cupboard filled by smoke from burning toast. I suggest that these are rather juvenile actions and I cannot for the life of me see how they will contribute to the development of any great military spirit. Only one case that has been reported to me is perhaps worth recording as being of a more serious nature. I have heard of a case in which a loaded gun was pointed at a cadet's head and the trigger was pulled without mentioning to the cadet that the bolt was missing from the rifle. I do not find that very funny. This behaviour has been justified in letters to various editors of newspapers in the last week or so. That is my second reason for raising it now. It has been said by people who ought to know better that Duntroon is not a girls' school, that its graduates must be tough and that bastardisation develops the instinct for survival and produces qualities of endurance, tolerance and determination that are often lacking in young Australians of today. I suggest that the types of behaviour I have cited lamentably lack the ability to develop those sorts of qualities. I do not think any sort of justification for them exists. As a result , this sort of behaviour should not be justified on any terms whatsoever. The fact is that many fine officers have been produced in other military establishments around Australia without this sort of punishment. I will conclude by quoting briefly from a letter which Mr Francis James wrote to the Age on 29 April and in which he makes the point very well: It is entirely proper for the commandant to show that loyalty to his staff that some of them have obviously not shown him: some of them were clearly not energetic enough in preventing 'excessive behaviour'. This is not good enough for me and other citizen taxpayers. A constructive suggestion is this. Duntroon should at once abolish the system of separate cadet messes. Cadets should mess with their officers. If that happens not be the RMC tradition, then it is time a new tradition started. At Point Cook in my time, nearly 50 years ago, officers and cadets shared the same mess, the same anteroom. We were not told by another mere cadet how officers and gentleman behaved: we learned by example-and what a splendid example it was. Nothing remotely resembling 'bastardisation' ever occurred. 'Supervision' was minimal by day, nil at night. I am not aware that RAAF officers, as a result, proved professionally inferior to their army counterparts. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(7.19) —Senator Haines raised a matter which was first raised by Senator Crowley during Question Time today. Senator Walsh at the time said that he would seek further information from the relevant Minister and is doing so, but as yet has not received sufficient of information sought by Senator Haines. I assure her that that is being pursued and that we will get a reply for her as soon as possible. Similarly, I have no personal knowledge of the details of the cases referred to by Senator Mason and the matters involved in the investigation of bastardisation at Duntroon. I will refer that to the relevant Minister to see whether we can get a reply. However, Senator Macklin's problem affects me as the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act and the Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation come under my portfolio. I was made aware of the Dax case recently and asked for a report from the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. I have received an initial report. Certainly the compensation available under the Act for the unfortunate parents of this lad is not sufficient in my view or in anybody's view. It is interesting that the Queensland workers compensation Act, as do the Victorian, Western Australian and Tasmanian workers compensation Acts, provides for a lump sum to be paid on the death of a minor without dependants. At present the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act provides that unavoidable costs associated with such a death can be met by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and this is done through an ex gratia payment with the approval of the Minister for Finance. But as Senator Macklin said, more than this is needed. The Act needs to be looked at under these circumstances. I assure him that I am in the process of doing that with the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and the Department. Certainly it is a most unfortunate case. The distress caused to these people was difficult enough without their having the hassle they have had under our inadequate compensation laws. I will let Senator Macklin and other honourable senators know of progress as we look at this case in more detail and work out how we can amend the legislation satisfactorily. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.22 p.m. The following papers were presented: Family Law Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 56. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) by the Minister, describing lands acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act for specified public purposes. Public Service Arbitration Act-Public Service Arbitrator-Determinations by the Arbitrator, accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law-1983- No. 124-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.* No. 125-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others. No. 126-Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers. Nos 127 to 140-Amalgamated Metal Workers' and Shipwrights Union and others. No. 141-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Australian Government Employment and another.* No. 142-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). No. 143-Association of Professional Engineers, Australia.* No. 144-Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights' Union and others. No. 145-Australian Journalists' Association. No. 146-Commonwealth Foreman's Association of Australia, Australian Public Service.* No. 147-Printing and Kindred Industries Union.* No. 148-Commonwealth Works Supervisors Association.* No. 149-Australian Public Service Artisans' Association. No. 150-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). No. 151-Civil Air Operations Officers' Association of Australia. No. 152-Australian Journalists Association. No. 153-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service. Nos 154 and 155-Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia. (* Not accompanied by statement.) The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 75 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) Were any fuel costs for the visit of HMS Britannia to Australia in association with the Queen's October 1982 visit borne by the Federal Government; if so, what are the full details. (2) Were any other costs associated with the visit of the Britannia borne by the Federal Government; if so, what were those costs and their full details. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) Yes. In addition to the costs included in the answer to House of Representatives Question No. 5559 (Hansard, 8 December 1982, page 3232) costs in excess of normal operating costs were incurred by my Department in providing an escort vessel and in-port security by Navy clearance diving teams. Related costs were not specifically recorded however they are estimated at $15,000 for port services including tug hire, $13,700 for travel, accommodation and allowances for diving team members and $650 for diving equipment operating costs. Question No. 33 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) Has an inter-departmental committee on naval dockyard development studied the question of visits and/or base porting of nuclear powered or armed ships in Australian ports; if so when did the committee report. (2) Did the committee report that 'Sydney Harbour is generally unsuited for either the routine operation or the occassional refitting of nuclear warships'; if so, what were the reasons. (3) Did the committee make any recommendations with respect to other Australian ports; if so, what were the recommendations and the reasons for them. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) An interdepartmental committee in 1970 was charged to investigate and make recommendations concerning the development of naval dockyards and associated facilities for the maintenance, repair, refit, et cetera of warships in Australia during the 1970s. As part of its report it considered the issues that would be raised if, at some time in the future, it was decided either to acquire nuclear powered warships for the Royal Australian Navy or to provide home port and dockyard repair and maintenance facilities for foreign nuclear powered warships. Dockyard repair and maintenance work on nuclear powered warships involve considerations significantly different from those that apply to port visits by those vessels. Any quotations drawn from the report should be understood within the general context of maintenance, repair and refit of a dockyard kind. (2) The report stated that Sydney Harbour is generally unsuited for repair maintenance or dockyard maintenance of nuclear warships for the following reasons: the naval berths and dockyards are closely surrounded by dense urban population ; there is no area suitable to provide a remote berth or anchorage for use in an emergency or for 'cooling off' the reactor before entry to the port area; the congested port increases risk of collision; the port is of such commercial importance that it would have serious consequences to the economy if incapacitated by a nuclear accident. (3) The committee considered sites at Williamstown, Cockburn Sound, Garden Island (Western Australia) and Jervis Bay: (a) Williamstown was deemed unsuitable as an operating or refitting base for nuclear ships due to objections similar to those raised in relation to the use of Sydney Harbour; (b) the committee thought that Cockburn Sound could probably satisfy the safety requirements as a support facility for nuclear warships; (c) it was recommended that Garden Island (Western Australia) should be investigated to determine its suitability as an operating base for nuclear ships ; (d) Jervis Bay was considered to have some potential for development as an operating and refitting base but I would note that population growth and development in the area over the past 12 years would require reconsideration of this assessment were circumstances in the future to suggest a need. I would however point out that present government policy would not permit: (a) acquisition of nuclear vessels (b) establishment of service or maintenance facilities for nuclear ships (c) basing or homeporting of nuclear ships.