Thursday, 19 May 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Gambling Casino, Canberra To the Honourable The President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra would debase the National Capital and increase crime in Canberra. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should seek to preserve the dignity of the National Capital by disallowing any ordinance to authorise the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (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 Peter Baume (from 77 citizens), Jack Evans (from 111 citizens), Peter Rae (from 46 citizens), Robertson (from 86 citizens), and Watson (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That in 1911, as part of its new responsibility for the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth accepted a binding legislative commitment to construct a railway from Adelaide to Darwin-a promise which has never been fulfilled. The lack of essential transport links has had, and continues to have, serious consequences for the economic and social development of the Northern Territory, and indeed all of Australia. That the future expansion of new industries in the Territory and new trade opportunities for Australia, particularly with South-East Asia and the Western Pacific, depend on the development of the railway to link the port of Darwin with the rest of Australia. The railway is therefore an essential national project related directly to Australia's overall prospects for future economic growth. We therefore protest the Commonwealth's continuing failure to construct the railway. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Prime Minister and members of the Federal Government honour the promise made by the Commonwealth over 70 years ago , the promise made by the previous Commonwealth Government this year, and endorsed by the present Government in opposition to complete the construction of the railway by 1988, Australia's bicentennial year. We call on the Prime Minister to give his personal assurance that the Commonwealth will honour its past and present promises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 1,260 citizens). The Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 12 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I table papers in accordance with the list that has been circulated to honourable senators. I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. 'One Step Forward'-Youth Homelessness and Emergency Accommodation Services- Report of the National Committee for the Evaluation of the Youth Services Scheme . 2. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-Review of Activities to 30 June 1982-the Report also covers those matters on which a report is required pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971. 3. Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee-Report for the year ended October 1982. 4. Commercial Television Translator Stations, Foster, Victoria-Report by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. 5. Australia's Immigration Policy and Program-Text of a statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs made in the House of Representatives on 18 May 1983. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the National Committee for the Evaluation of the Youth Services Scheme. The report is titled 'One Step Forward' Youth Homelessness and Emergency Accommodation Services. The Youth Services Scheme is a program providing joint Commonwealth and State funding for services providing emergency accommodation and support for homeless youth. The Commonwealth funding is being provided under the Children's Services Program. During 1979-1982 the program operated on a pilot basis, and funding was extended for this financial year pending the completion of this report and the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, which was tabled in Parliament last August. The Government now has at hand two substantial reports on youth homelessness, and is carefully examining them in the process of making decisions for future assistance in this area. The evaluation of the Youth Services Scheme was conducted by a committee of officials representing Commonwealth and State governments, and reporting to all the Ministers involved. As required by the Committee's brief, the report focusses entirely on the Youth Services Scheme, and the assistance it was or was not able to provide for homeless youth. It is not a general research document on youth homelessness as such, nor does it provide a comparative analysis of other methods of assistance to the homeless supported by other programs of the States or the Commonwealth. The principal focus of the report is on the youth who used the services, assessing their common situations, their needs, and the degree to which the Youth Services Scheme, as established within its guidelines, was able to meet these needs. The conclusions and recommendations concentrate on the type and level of demand, the needs of the youth, including preventive measures to reduce homelessness, and the features seen as required in future guidelines of any national program of accommodation services to improve the ability to respond effectively to the needs of the youth, and to make national administration more efficient. The recommendations are not drafted as a policy document ready for implementation, but rather suggest parameters and essential features for inclusion in a future policy document. The report itself contains a summary (on pages 2 to 7). Briefly, the main findings of the Evaluation Committee are that: The scheme as established was not able to meet all the continuing demand for emergency accommodation. Reasons suggested for this are the volume of demand and the number of youth remaining in accommodation for extended periods. The Committee estimated that for about half the users the principal need was for long term accommodation-that is, independent housing. There is a significant demand from young adults in the age range 19 years to 25 years not covered by the guidelines for the Scheme. A recommendation is that the eligible age range be extended in a future funding scheme. The youths predominantly lack support from their families for a variety of reasons, and when this is combined, as it almost invariably is, with unemployment, the youths' ability to attain independence is hindered, rendering them homeless. Recommendations cover the need for employment opportunities for youth, so they may achieve independence, and for improved support for families with adolescents , to help them provide a more supportive environment for the youth. A new expanded youth accommodation program is recommended and it is suggested that a program which can better respond to youth homelessness needs to have three components in an integrated network on a regional basis, namely: A front line of emergency accommodation services; a secondary group of services accepting referrals from the frontline services, providing medium to long term supportive accommodation, and services providing assistance in obtaining housing; and a third group providing services directed at the needs of the younger and particularly disadvantaged-that is, those who are handicapped or who have health problems, or institutionalised youth. Recommendations covering administration of the recommended new, expanded program suggest continued Commonwealth and State involvement in funding, with the Commonwealth component provided through specific purpose block grants to the States. The report emphasises the need for employment and adequate income for unemployed youth as a means of preventing longer term homelessness. As the Senate is aware, job creation programs are a high priority for this Government, and we will be moving as soon as possible to get the programs under way. It is our hope that these will go a long way to redress some of the problems highlighted by this report. It is also Government policy that the young unemployed living away from home and all unemployed people renting privately should be paid supplementary rent assistance. The Government is concerned that young people should have the opportunity through schooling, or other technical and further education or community courses, to have appropriate training before attempting to enter the work force, but, of course, for those unable to obtain work, the income benefits should be adequate to allow them to live with dignity. This Government will be establishing a task force to examine the programs currently available which provide educational allowances and other income support for 15 to 24-year-olds. We see this as an area in need of urgent review, and we will be examining this report and other information closely in this regard. The Youth Services Scheme is presently being examined as part of a review of all Commonwealth crisis accommodation programs. This review was instigated by the previous Government in 1982 and it is being undertaken jointly by the Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of Social Security. It is expected to be completed in August 1983. I will also be consulting with my colleague the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) on matters which relate to her portfolio. The recommendations contained in 'One Step Forward' and the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, 'Youth Homelessness', will be considered in the crisis accommodation review. The Government will not be responding separately to these reports until decisions are announced following consideration of the review. Pending finalisation of decisions relating to the long term, the Government is giving urgent attention to the immediate funding requirements of the services; as honourable senators will be aware current funding is approved only until 30 June 1983. I hope to be in a position to make a statement about this matter shortly. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.9) —I move: That the Senate take note of the Paper. Very briefly, as the report of the National Committee for the Evaluation of the Youth Services Scheme has only just reached my hands, I have not had an opportunity even to look at it except to acknowledge the points made in the speech by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). Several of the points, I think, are highly relevant. The problems of homeless youth comprise one of the most significant areas of need in this community at present. This matter has been gaining a great deal of prominence and attention not only from community workers but also from the media and certainly from members of the Senate. Of course, that has been evidenced by the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare in this area, and the worth of its report brought down last year has been acknowledged in all quarters. Apart from that, at the moment the Standing Committee on Social Welfare is engaged in an ongoing inquiry into institutionalised care for homeless youth. No doubt that will add further to the weight of evidence in this area. I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to release the report and to bring us up to date with his thinking in this regard. Indeed, several of the thoughts that he has acknowledged in his statement today are the kinds of points that we would want to see developed in his forthcoming discussions with the States in relation to funding. Certainly many matters require urgent attention. I am pleased that he is undertaking an early review of this matter and that we will not be waiting for further reports from the Government in this area before decisions are taken. We look forward to immediate action and I will be watching very closely the steps the Government takes as a result of this report. Many of the interlocking matters that were mentioned by the Minister in his statement, such as those relating to training and education, are of the deepest concern and the Opposition gives its support in regard to the way in which the Minister will approach further negotiations with the States. I see that the Minister intends to underake further discussions with his colleague the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). That area is of critical concern when dealing with this problem. I hope that we will be kept up to date on the Minister's thinking and on the development of policies not only in the Department of Social Security but also in the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. As regards the task force that the Minister will establish to review this matter, and in particular with regard to income support, I hope that he will make available to the Opposition from time to time access to that task force so that we may obtain information. I also hope he will ask for input from the Opposition into this vital area. I look forward to working with him on that. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.13) —I note very briefly the importance of the report of the National Committee for the Evaluation of the Youth Services Scheme which has been tabled by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), dealing as it does with youth homelessness and the provision of emergency accommodation. Those of us who yesterday met with some of the several hundred young people who came to Parliament House to press their concern upon us would be well aware of how dire the situation is in which those young people find themselves. Having read the report briefly, it is not surprising that it establishes that the scheme is not able to meet all the continuing demands for emergency accommodation. Indeed, in a situation of continuing distressingly high levels of unemployment, particularly in the younger age categories, one can understand that the problem has been exacerbated in the present economic conditions rather than being in any way ameliorated by a generally more bouyant situation in the economy. I have had only a very brief chance to look at the report and I notice that on page 79, after citing some figures, the report states: This is a clear demonstration that often a youth may suffer from lack of support from the family, which precipitates an accommodation crisis for the youth, but when this is also combined with inability to gain employment and an income to support himself, the lack of the employment becomes the primary problem for the youth, and the temporary crisis is exacerbated and often perpetuated. So while it is a fact that family breakdown and virtual eviction from the home under the tensions and strains that might be in the household are the initial causes of the homelesness, it is quite clear that unless problems relating to income support for these homeless youths are addressed by way of social security benefit-one would hope in the long term by the provision of employment opportunities-then we will have the continuing cycle of young people being so inadequately supported by the community, as I say either by the provision of benefits or jobs, that they will almost inevitably drift into that sub-culture where drug taking and prostitution become a means of either escape or alleviating some of the financial hardship and distress in which those young people find themselves. I am surprised to see that the report says that there is a significant demand by young adults in the age range of 19 to 25 years. My impression from talking to refuge workers and young people who came to see us yesterday was that the age groups which are now going into refuges are becoming lower. In fact, I was informed that it is not uncommon to have 15-year-olds and 14-year-olds going to refuges. Of course, if the accommodation cannot be provided by the refuge, 15- year-old girls in particular are finding themselves drifting into other forms of association in order to get the shelter, care and sustenance which they require. I notice with pleasure that the Minister in his response says that income benefits should be adequate to allow such homeless youths to live with dignity. Indeed, unless that is the case we can hardly claim to be a civilised, fair and just society, let alone a compassionate society when confronted with this distressing phenomenon in our midst. Senator CHIPP —Have you any rough estimate of the number of homeless youth? Senator TATE —I have not been able to determine that. Senator CHIPP —It does not appear to be in the report either. Senator TATE —It does not appear to be in the report but I am sure that the Minister by interjection could help me to answer the honourable senator's question. I notice that there is a recognition in the report of the need for financial assistance to young people who go into emergency shelters or refuges in order to enable them to go into other forms of housing. Indeed, it was found that for over 70 per cent of the youth who required this financial assistance to enable them to go into rental accommodation such as boarding houses or other forms of accommodation such assistance is just not available because when the service was set up it was not anticipated that the shelters or refuges would need to have a cash reserve to enable them to help young people after a period of weeks in the shelter to move into other types of accommodation. That, of course, just compounds the distressing situation of young people who live in the refuges endlessly rather than moving into other types of accommodation such as boarding house and low rental accommodation. The availability of small cash subsidies to enable this to occur would be most helpful. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.18) —Like previous speakers, I have not yet had the time to read in any depth the report of the National Committee for the Evaluation of the Youth Services Scheme. This is not a new problem. I recall speaking to the Senate last year on the question of homeless youth and homeless families. I cited a number of cases that had been drawn to my attention in my home State of young people in their mid-teens who were reduced to living in abandoned cars and bus shelters and moving from place to place to avoid being apprehended by the law-often of course, for their own good. It is, as has been said, a tragedy that family breakdowns, social pressures and, in some instances, the absolute abdication of parental responsibility should lead to the sort of situation that produces these reports. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that unpalatable fact. Governments have to act, if they are at all to be seen as responsible governments, to mitigate as much as possible the disastrous consequences of this situation. We need to supply suitable and adequate emergency and long term accommodation that is readily accessible to those young people who are in need when they need it and not a week or two later, when it could well be too late. We need to provide adequate and suitable community support services which are palatable as well as accessible to the young people in need. Of course, we need to provide funding that will allow us to set up those services and that accommodation. The Youth Services Scheme which the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) mentioned on the first page of his statement is a commendable program, but it is only a short term program. We must incorporate in our planning some long term preventive measures as well as the curative actions we have taken to date. It is therefore pleasing to see on page 4 of the Minister's statement that the Government recognises the vital importance of job creation schemes for young people and, I am hopeful, the permanent types of job creation schemes that are needed, not the one-off type which eliminate a problem only for a short period. There is no doubt that the provision of jobs is essential if we are to go any way at all towards curing the problem of homeless youth. I was interested to note the comment on page 4 of the Minister's statement with regard to the payment of supplementary rent assistance to unemployed young people who are renting privately. This, of course, has been the Australian Democrats' policy for a considerable number of years. I hope that it is a hint of what may be announced in today's mini-Budget. If not, I ask, why it is not provided. The Minister goes on to say that income benefits should be adequate to allow people in this predicament to live with dignity. Again, I remind the Minister of some comments I made a week ago about the discrepancy that exists between the unemployment benefit and the poverty line. The Minister said at the time that it was admirable for that gap to be closed. But I wonder when it will be closed, since no real action on income support for young people has been undertaken since the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty said it was an urgent necessity some five or more years ago. I hope that the action that the Minister says will be taken some time between now and 30 June, which is only six weeks away, will be undertaken after the Government has consulted with the National Youth Coalition for Housing and the major youth organisation, the Youth Affairs Council of Australia. Only when the needs and knowledge of those organisations are taken into account will any satisfactory result occur with regard to youth housing. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(10.23) —I endorse the remarks that have been made by previous speakers. The extent of youth homelessness that exists is, indeed, a national tragedy and a scandal. Of course, I am not surprised that there is some debate and doubt about the actual numbers, because in actual fact there has only been a limited study of the number of young people affected. Of course, it is very difficult area to determine just how many young people are affected. I would like to see urgent consideration given to increasing the benefit for those under the age of 18. It is obvious from the report of the National Committee for the Evaluation of the Youth Services Scheme that the under 18 age group is severely disadvantaged, particularly in the current economic climate in which employment opportunities are few. This group, of course, needs realistic income support. We need job creation schemes directed specifically to this age group. Obviously, rental assistance is important. But if we can provide job opportunities for young people, they could achieve independence without rent supplements. A point I make in regard to the emergency housing program is that we must give an assurance and a guarantee of funding. I know that in Queensland too frequently we find that organisations do not know when their next grant will be available. There is an overbureaucratisation of finance handling. Organisations which are usually dependent on voluntary assistance are completely confused about when additional financial grants will be forthcoming. This seriously jeopardises very good emergency programs. Another thing I would like to mention is the report's concern with family support. This is obviously a much more complex issue than I can go into on this occasion. We are living in times of grave uncertainty. It is very simple to say that more families should support young people, but it is another thing to ensure that this in fact happens. Obviously any innovative program that can give increased counselling to families who are having difficulty in regard to their young people would be welcome. But I think we have to realise that this is a very complex issue and that the greater need is for job creation and independence for young people. Senator Susan Ryan has foreshadowed this Government's interest in innovative programs such as communes which could provide both job opportunities and housing. Senator Peter Baume —How much do you think the Government should put into all these programs? Senator REYNOLDS —I was merely looking at ideas that I think the Government must further investigate. It is a great pity that the present Opposition did not spend the last seven years investigating such programs. The final thing I would like to say is that I think it is well to highlight the numbers of young, homeless people who are drifting north in the hope of finding job opportunities in Queensland. Far be it from me to suggest that they are not welcome in Queensland, but I certainly emphasise that the job situation in Queensland is very serious. Any young people who think that life might be easier up there will find that it is in fact much more difficult for a number of reasons. Obviously there is the Queensland Government's attitude to a whole range of issues but also many young people find that it is difficult to get their social welfare benefits transferred. There are delays, and they actually find that they are not able to find work and they do not have the family support that they may have in the areas from which they come. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(10.27) —I also wish to make some comments on the statement put down by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare which investigated the problems of homeless youth. We found that many of the problems were derived from the fact that families had insufficient means to support their children. I believe it is that stage-before young people have to leave home because of financial reasons-which should be taken care of. If more support was given to the family structure we would have less homeless youth on the streets. It is an impossible situation when homeless youth are out on the streets. They cannot obtain employment. If they have no home and no base to work from it is impossible to gain employment. In the past we have looked to the family. We have provided homes for regular families and the elderly and now we are providing homes for single parents, but we do not provide homes for young people. Senator Chipp asked how many young people out on the streets are homeless. Nobody in this country could give an accurate figure. A large number is double counted, but we do know that the number is immense and the problem is increasing. I think that governments should take very firm action. If the problems increase in the future they will be so immense that we will not be able to cure them. I believe that when families get into difficulty family structures should be supported so that parents will be able to afford to keep their children. There are many causes of youth homelessness but one of the main causes is poverty. We should all address ourselves to that situation. I believe that young people should be given a guarantee of work. Young people finishing their education have no opportunity to enter the work force. They get into bad habits such as drug taking, prostitution, and all the rest of it. If young people were given a guarantee of work rather than the Government working out how much unemployment benefit to pay them, there would be fewer problems. Governments in the future should look seriously at this problem. In places such as Japan no legislation is laid down, but it is traditional that young people are employed. When one goes into an hotel one finds that half a dozen young people try to give one service. If this attitude were adopted in this country we would have fewer problems. It is very important for young people, after finishing their educational studies, to get into employment. Even to overemploy people would be far better. If we do not take action now the cost will be immense in the future. We will have all the ills and evils of crime in the community. We have seen this in many countries: Where governments do not take action in particular areas, the problem just festers and multiplies. Sooner or later the whole community must pay. Action taken later is much more costly than action taken earlier. I admire what the Government is attempting to do. I think this is a very serious problem. I believe that action should be taken earlier rather than later. There is a whole range of problems. For example, young people cannot afford to pay the bonds necessary to rent homes. That should be taken into account. If we have some sensible solutions this problem would most certainly be overcome to the benefit of all concerned. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.33) —I was Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, which looked at this problem of homeless youth. As Senator Elstob has already said, we were unable to get any figures on the number of homeless youth throughout Australia. The surveys that were done were far from accurate. Surveys were done in most States but their multiplying effect rendered the figures completely unusable. Not only did the surveys involve double and treble counting-sometimes the figures were even counted six or seven times-but also they did not take into account those homeless youth who were in the first stages of homelessness, living with friends-perhaps in another family situation- or perhaps even sleeping in parks-sleeping rough, as it is called. So the figures were completely useless to the Committee. We found that the typical homeless youth came from a background of family breakdown or from a one-parent family-either a single mother or after a divorce. We found that the average homeless youth had been more or less discarded by the family for security's sake: The mother would become involved in another relationship and, if the children were incompatible, they seemed to be discarded . The Committee was even told of a case of two very young people coming home from school to find that their mum and dad had actually moved all their goods and chattels. They had nowhere to go and slept under the school building for a time. It is a tragic situation. In the cases that we had given to us it was a rare occasion when the parents wanted the children back and the children were not going back. Senator Chipp —Did you get any reliable estimates as to numbers? Senator WALTERS —None at all. It was impossible. I will give an example. A survey was conducted of all shelters in the Melbourne metropolitan area. The survey was conducted over, roughly, a three-week period, but the results were brought down to a weekly period. Those which replied gave figures of 300 requests for shelter in one week. They multiplied that by 52 and came up with this remarkable figure of 15,000 homeless youth in the metropolitan area. Of course, when we went into it we found that the average stay in a shelter was 1 1 /2 to 2 nights. In other words, the youths moved from shelter to shelter so that one person could be counted four or five times. Therefore, the surveys were extremely inaccurate. As I say, the people who did the survey did not take into account the children in the first stage. When these children moved out of home or were thrown out of home they lived with a friend for a number of nights until the mother of that friend got sick of having them in the home and said: 'You have got to go'. They then slept rough in some of the parks until they heard by word of mouth that there was a shelter down the street that would take them, and so they moved into this area. The typical homeless youth came from a family breakdown situation; some family crisis had occurred and the family had broken down. They usually came from a disadvantaged group and, in the majority of cases, they were unemployed. We had situations, as Senator Elstob said, where some of them had held a number of jobs . They said 'I could not do that. It is boring', or 'I am not going to stick to that because I could not put up with it'. When one looks at the jobs they held one wonders whether one could put up with it oneself. I am not being critical, but these young people are not educated enough to realise that they should keep the job. We said: 'If you stick to that job for just a while you will get a better job'. They are not educated enough in the work situation to know that if they stick at one perhaps boring job for a while then the next job might be better. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.38) —As representatives of a community within a civilised society, each one of us must be appalled at the details that are before us in this report 'One step forward. Youth Homelessness and Emergency Accommodation Services'. That report has only just come into the hands of honourable senators. Therefore I, as well as other honourable senators, have not had an opportunity of thoroughly studying the report and considering the implications of it. Senator Gietzelt —Why don't you set the debate aside for another day? Senator HARRADINE —I am going to. I will seek to continue my remarks in a very short time. I want to say two very short things in support of what Senator Elstob and Senator Walters said. It is clear from my cursory glance at the report that what those two honourable senators have said, with their experience in the field, is correct. Clearly, financial pressures are experienced in the homes from which many of the youth come, and the typical homeless youth comes from a family breakdown situation. In respect of those two issues we should ensure that economic policies are designed not, as they are now, to force a situation in which people must almost have a two-income family to live at a reasonable standard, but to ensure that a family is able to live with dignity on one income. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator JONES(Queensland) —by leave-The Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment has resolved to resume the inquiry into the implementation of the recommendations of the 'Appraisal and Implications of a Survey (1979-1980) of Abbott's Booby on Christmas Island', dated 23 January 1981. This was a matter which the Committee's predecessor had decided to inquire into, pursuant to a resolution it passed on 19 May 1982, as a matter arising out of consideration of the annual reports for 1980-81 of Christmas Island and of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. It has been decided to undertake a field visit to Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in mid-July 1983. Just before the dissolution of the last Parliament on 4 February this year the Committee had reached the final stages of its inquiry into this matter, and we considered it desirable to complete an inquiry into which so much work had already been put. The question of the adequacy of preservation measures for the Abbott's Booby has attracted international attention, as indicated by resolutions carried by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in 1978 and by the International Council for Bird Preservation in August 1982. Ministerial Statement Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-The involvement of Australian service personnel in the war in Vietnam has led to concern among veterans of that war and their families that ill health and other related problems which they have experienced since discharge from the forces may have their origins in that service in Vietnam. In particular, many feel that their disabilities may be related to exposure to certain chemicals used by the Allied forces in Vietnam, in particular the phenoxy herbicide agent orange, and other herbicides, insecticides and chemical irritants. In recent years considerable public disquiet has been raised about this matter, a disquiet shared by the Government. The Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment inquired into this matter and presented a first report in November last year. Notwithstanding the Committee's conclusion, among other things, that it was unlikely that the majority of Australian troops were directly or indirectly exposed to the herbicides used by United States forces in Vietnam, the Government believes that the matter is still not resolved. For this reason, it was decided to establish a Royal Commission to inquire into the effects of the use of chemical agents, including herbicides and other pesticides, on Australian personnel who served in Vietnam. I publicly announced the details of the inquiry at the fourth Annual Congress of the Vietnam Veterans Association on Saturday, 14 May. Honourable senators will no doubt have read newspaper reports on this. The inquiry will be chaired by the Honourable Mr Justice Phillip George Evatt, D.S.C., a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. Mr Justice Evatt, I might add was first appointed to judicial office in 1974. He served in the Royal Australian Naval Volunteer Reserve during the Second World War. He is well qualified to serve as Royal Commissioner. Mr Justice Evatt will commence work on the Royal Commission once he has discharged his present judicial commitments. He will be assisted by senior counsel. The terms of reference are purposefully wide and comprehensive so that as many relevant matters as possible can be canvassed by the Commission. They were drawn up in close consultation with the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia so that its concerns would be addressed by the Commission. The Returned Services League has expressed some concern with the terms. In the light of these concerns I should stress to the Senate that the Royal Commission in no way threatens the rights and benefits currently offered to ex-service men and women. In general the terms of reference require the Royal Commission to look at and report on the use of chemical agents in Vietnam, the effect of any exposure to such chemicals on Australian personnel, the operation and administration of the repatriation legislation as it applies to claims regarding chemical related disabilities and the adequacy of current Government assistance afforded to Vietnam veterans. The Royal Commissioner's attention has been drawn specifically to the following matters: The conditions under which Australians served in Vietnam; the details of the chemical agents used; the time and place of their use; the adequacy of safety precautions in their use; the toxic properties of the chemicals; their effects upon humans and the extent and duration of exposure necessary to have such effects; evidence of the effects on the mental and physical health and well -being of veterans and their spouses; the possible extent to which chemical exposure may have caused congenital anomalies; and the extent of safety precautions in the disposal of unused chemicals. The Royal Commission has a formidable task in front of it. It will be a broad- ranging inquiry involving extensive consideration of written material, oral evidence and divergent opinions on many issues, including on medical matters. The material to be studied includes records held in Australia concerning the use of chemical agents in Vietnam and the conditions of service there generally. There is also a large body of medical literature to be examined. There are relevant studies to be considered, both in Australia and overseas, many of which are not yet finalised. The Royal Commission has full powers to summon witnesses and documents and to take evidence under oath in the conduct of its inquiry. An important part of the Commission's work will be in hearing the evidence presented on behalf of Vietnam veterans and their families. Witnesses will have statutory protection concerning their evidence. Legal and other assistance will also be given to the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia to ensure relevant matters are able to be presented properly to the Commission. Consultants will be appointed to assist the Royal Commission in relation to the scientific, medical and other issues before it. The governments of the United States of America, New Zealand and Vietnam, all of which have an interest in this matter, have been informed of the terms of reference of the Commission. Mr Deputy President, the Government places great importance on the work of the Royal Commission. It is important that, in the interests of all those who served in Vietnam, the concerns of Vietnam veterans and their families should be adjudicated in a high level forum constituted by a judge. I hope the Royal Commission's work will be completed as speedily as possible. Mr Justice Evatt has been asked to report by the end of June 1984. The matters which the Royal Commission will be required to inquire into and to report on are set out in the Letters Patent. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to have the letters patent incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth: TO THE HONOURABLE PHILLIP GEORGE EVATT DSC, LL.B. GREETING: WE DO by these our Letters Patent issued in Our name by Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia on the advice of the Federal Executive Council and in pursuance of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and other enabling powers, appoint you to be a Commissioner to inquire for the purposes of the exercise and performance of the powers and functions of the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth, into the following matters, namely- (a) the use of chemical agents in the course of hostilities in Vietnam during the period commencing on 31 July 1962 and ending at the expiration of 11 January 1973, insofar as they may have affected Australian personnel; (b) the effects on Australian personnel of exposure to the chemical agents used ; and (c) the operation and administration of the Repatriation Act 1920, the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962 and any other relevant Acts, as applicable to claims by Australian personnel of chemical-caused disabilities: AND, without restricting the scope of your inquiry, We direct you to inquire particularly into the following matters, namely- (d) the conditions in which Australian personnel served in Vietnam; (e) the nature, scale, purpose and manner of use of chemical agents; (f) the periods during which chemical agents were used, the locations of use, their subsequent spread and the location from time to time of Australian personnel; (g) the extent to which adequate safety precautions were taken and the extent to which adequate action was taken when any possible harmful effect of chemical agents became known; (h) the toxic properties, resulting from use separately or in combination, in relation to humans of each of the chemical agents used, with particular emphasis on, but not limited to, any direct or indirect carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic or neurotoxic properties and the extent and duration of exposure necessary to affect humans; (i) evidence relating to the effects of any exposure to chemical agents on the mental and physical health and well-being of Australian personnel and any effects on the mental and physical health and well being of their spouses; (j) evidence relating to the extent to which exposure to the chemical agents used has resulted in congenital anomalies among the children of Australian personnel; (k) notwithstanding any limitations contained in paragraph (a), the nature and extent of the safety precautions taken, during the disposal at any time by or on behalf of Australia of surplus chemical agents that were in Vietnam during the period commencing on 31 July 1962 and ending at the expiration of 11January 1973 : AND We declare that in these Our Letters Patent- (1) the expression ''Australian personnel'' means any persons, including members of the Australian Defence Force, who were engaged in performing defence service or any other function for or on behalf of Australia in Vietnam, whether as employees or otherwise; (m) the expression ''chemical agents'' includes any herbicides (including defoliants), insecticides or chemical irritants; and (n) the expression ''Vietnam'' means the areas specified in the First and Fifth Schedules to the Repartriation (Special Areas) Regulations in force under the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962. AND We require you to make such recommendations arising out of your inquiry as you think appropriate, including recommendations regarding the legislative or administrative changes, if any, that are necessary or desirable and the adequacy of present assistance available to Australian personnel: AND, in particular, we require you to make such recommendations as you consider appropriate in relation to assistance which any Government Department may be able to give relating to the health problems of Australian personnel and the power of a Department to grant, and the adequacy of the present method of granting assistance, with a view to ensuring that Australian personnel receive the full benefit of all available assistance: AND We direct that, in making your inquiry, you have regard to any other matters which may appear to you to be relevant to any of paragraphs (a) to (k) ( inclusive): AND We further direct that, in making your inquiry, you have regard to the records kept by the Defence Force and to published studies and reports relating to the use and effects of chemical agents: AND We require you as expeditiously as possible to make your inquiry and, not later than 30 June 1984 or such later date as We may be please to fix, to furnish to Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia a report of the results of your inquiry and your recommendations. WITNESS His Excellency the Right Honourable Sir Ninian Martin Stephen, a member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight of the Order of Australia , Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of British Empire, Knight of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force. Dated this Thirteenth day of May 1983. Governor-General By His Excellency's Command, Prime Minister Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) proposed: That the Bill be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) 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)(10.52) —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 seeks interim appropriations, totalling $998.7m, for expenditure on capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory and certain other services for the period 1 July to 30 November 1983. The amount is $201.5m, or about 25.3 per cent greater than provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1982-83. The main increases include: $55m for estimated established costs associated with the proposed medicare medical benefits arrangements, the Government's commitment to which was confirmed in the Governor -General's speech to the Parliament; $41m under the Department of Housing and Construction for payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory to give effect to the previous Government's decision to increase grants for welfare housing; $28m for construction of the new Parliament House; this reflects the planned expenditure pattern for the stage of construction now reached and is necessary to enable completion of the building in time for the official opening in 1988 as part of the bicentennial celebrations. The sum of $1.2m is included under the Department of the Special Minister of State to enable the Government to publicise initiatives flowing from the National Economic Summit Conference, as called for by the Summit communique. For reasons similar to those I outlined in relation to the No. 1 Bill, this Bill also includes $120m for the Advance to the Minister for Finance, an increase of $20m over the equivalent amounts provided in recent years. While provision is made in this Bill in respect of establishment costs for the medicare arrangements, concerning which the Government's broad intentions have already been announced, the provisions do not otherwise anticipate decisions yet to be taken in the Budget context. This is fully in accordance with convention. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) 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)(10.53) —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 seeks interim appropriations to meet expenditure by the parliamentary departments during the period 1 July 1983 to 30 November 1983. The appropriations sought total some $14.0m which is $3.1m or about 28.4 per cent greater than the amount provided for the same functions in the supply period 1982-83. This reflects, in large part, an additional pay day that falls in the supply period in 1983-84, and wage and salary increases. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) 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)(10.55) —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 the winding up of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission, and the termination of the Christmas Island Agreement with New Zealand. As indicated in the Schedule to the Bill, both the Australian and New Zealand governments have agreed to these changes being made. Honourable senators will recall that in June 1981 the Christmas Island Agreement Act was amended to enable an Australian Government company-the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Ltd-to replace the British Phosphate Commissioners as the managing agents of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission. As was indicated in the second reading speech on that legislation, those amendments were of an interim kind, and a completely new Christmas Island Agreement was to be negotiated with New Zealand. The legislation now before the Senate takes that process further. Article I in the Schedule provides that the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission shall cease to function as soon as practicable, following which the Christmas Island Agreement will terminate, in accordance with Article IV. As to Article II, the intention is that the assets of the Commission on the Island-the phosphate rock, buildings, plant, etc.-will pass to the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Ltd, which will then mine the phosphate deposits in its own right rather than as managing agents. Agreement is close to being reached with New Zealand on arrangements which will operate in future between the two countries in respect of Island phosphate. This agreement will be embodied in an Exchange of Notes, which will begin to operate when the legislation before the House comes into force. Mr President, just as the 1981 legislation affecting the Christmas Island Agreement paved the way for the British Phosphate Commissioners to be wound up, so does this legislation spell the end of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission. The Commission was established in 1949 by the Australian and New Zealand governments after they had on 31 December 1948 purchased the assets on the Island of the Christmas Island Phosphate Company Ltd. That Company had been mining phosphate on the island since the 1880s. The purchase price was two million six hundred and ninety thousand pounds sterling. The original 1949 Agreement was revised in 1958 when Christmas Island became an Australian territory. The Commission always has been an unusual organisation. There are three part- time Commissioners, but no employees, the Commission having always had managing agents-for 32 years the British Phosphate Commissioners and since July 1981 the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Ltd. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the present Commissioners-Mr M. C. Timbs, A.O, the Australian Commissioner; Mr W. D. M. Bremner, C.M.G., the New Zealand Commissioner; and Mr W. B. Marston, O.B.E., the Joint Commissioner. It is a measure of the relationship between Australia and New Zealand that a body under the authority of both of them could for 25 years be responsible for conducting a mining operation on a territory under the authority of one of them. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That, during the consideration of General Business this day, the order of consideration be as follows- (1) Further consideration of Government papers pursuant to Sessional Order; (2) Government Business, Order of the Day No. 15 relating to the Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence Agencies; and (3) General Business Order of the Day No. 24, Australian aid to Vietnam. Reference Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(10.57) —I move: (1) That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources: The need for and the implications of the introduction of a system of Plant Variety Rights in Australia. (2) That the Committee be empowered to consider the Minutes of Evidence and the records of the previous Standing Committee on National Resources relating to its inquiry into the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1982. Prior to the dissolution of the Parliament on 4 February 1983, the Standing Committee on National Resources was inquiring into the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1982 which had been referred to it by the Senate on 15 September 1982. Eight days of public hearings had been held and further hearings were planned for Adelaide, Perth and Canberra. The previous Committee found that to examine the provisions of the Bill it was necessary to consider the basic issues relating to the introduction of a system of plant variety rights. Whilst the Plant Variety Rights Bill 1982 lapsed with the dissolution of the Parliament, the present Committee believes that the inquiry commenced by its predecessor should be completed as the introduction of a system of plant variety rights in Australia could have potentially wide- ranging implications. Our aim therefore will be to present a report to the Senate during the Budget session which will examine the need for and the implications of the introduction of a system of plant variety rights in Australia. Two other matters were referred to the Committee in the previous Parliament and not disposed of by 4 February 1983, namely, the importation of live viruses and a number of issues relating to animal welfare in Australia. In relation to the importation of live viruses the Committee has noted a recent report by the Australian Science and Technology Council in relation to the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory, subtitled 'The Use of Live Exotic Animal Pathogens'. This report examined in some detail the issues contained in the Committee's terms of reference, and the Committee has therefore decided not to continue with its inquiry particularly as it would be seeking advice from basically the same persons and organisations who were consulted by ASTEC. In relation to the reference on animal welfare the Senate may recall that this matter was originally raised by Senator Chipp, Leader of the Australian Democrats, in March 1982, when he proposed that a select committee be established to examine animal welfare in Australia. At that time it was felt that it would be inappropriate to create another select committee so Senator Chipp's reference was divided between the Standing Committee on National Resources and the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. It is the view of the National Resources Committee that the issues raised by Senator Chipp would be more appropriately dealt with by a single Committee and I therefore suggest to the Senate that consideration should be given to the feasability of establishing a select committee as originally proposed by Senator Chipp. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.59) —I was pleased to hear the speech by Senator Robertson, particularly that part which dealt with the suggestions and requests I made last year for the formation of a select committee to examine animal welfare. I hope that Senator Robertson is expressing not only the view of the Standing Committee on National Resources but also the consensus of his party, from which last year I received a great deal of support when the reference on animal welfare was split between two committees. The Australian Democrats and I are encouraged by Senator Robertson's suggestion to refer immediately to the Senate a request to establish a Senate select committee into animal welfare and animal rights. We are encouraged by his remarks to believe that that suggestion might be received positively by the majority of members of this place. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —I present the report from Estimates Committee A on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1982-83 and the votes contained in the Schedule to Appropriation Act (No. 3) 1982-83, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —On behalf of Estimates Committee B, I present the report from the Committee on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1982-83 and the votes contained in the Schedule to Appropriation Act (No. 3) 1982-83, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria) —I present the report from Estimates Committee C on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1982-83 and the votes contained in the Schedules to Appropriation Acts (Nos 3 and 4) 1982-83, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I present the report from Estimates Committee D on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1982-83 and the votes contained in the Schedule to Appropriation Act (No. 3) 1982-83, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —I present the report from Estimates Committee E on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1982-83 and the votes contained in the Schedule to Appropriation Act (No. 3) 1982-83, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator SIBRAA —I also table additional information received by Estimates Committee E and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I present the report from Estimates Committee F on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1982-83 and the votes contained in the Schedule to Appropriation Act (No. 3) 1982-83, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Mr Deputy President, may I suggest that it would suit the convenience of the Senate to have a cognate debate involving all six Constitution Alteration Bills now before the Senate, namely, the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill, those being government measures, and the two private members' measures, the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill introduced by Senator Peter Rae and the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill introduced by Senator Mason. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.5) —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has indicated that the Senate is to debate the four Bills which he has introduced on behalf of the Government which propose alterations to the Constitution, and two further Bills, one introduced by Senator Peter Rae two days ago, and one which was originally introduced some time ago by Senator Mason , providing for electors' initiative in the Constitution. At the outset, on behalf of the Opposition, I indicate the position of the Opposition in respect of all six measures. The opposition will oppose the Constitution Alteration ( Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill 1983. Senator Gareth Evans —Some of you will oppose it. Senator DURACK —The Opposition will oppose it. The Opposition will support the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1983, the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill 1983 and the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill 1983. It will, of course, support Senator Peter Rae's proposal for the Constitution Alteration ( Appropriation Bills) Bill 1983 because it is one that the present Opposition has maintained since the Australian Constitutional Convention held in Hobart in 1976 . It will oppose the proposal for the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1982 [1983]. I find it rather strange that the Parliament and, indeed, the people of Australia are being asked to consider these constitutional proposals at this point and by way of a referendum to be held on 20 August. The attention of the Government-certainly, this was the basis on which it was elected-should have been directed firmly to the state of the economy. We are told that a mini-Budget will be brought down tonight. Of course, in August, a few days after the referendum is held, the Budget for 1983-84 will be brought down by the Government. I would have thought that that was a matter to which the attention of this Government and the people would be mainly directed. But at the moment the Parliament is being diverted-the people will be diverted on 20 August-to consider some referendum proposals, not one of which, I suggest, is of such immediate importance as to justify the Government's proceeding at this time in this way and at this cost. We are constantly reminded of the huge Budget deficit . We will be told further in the mini-Budget tonight about the Government's efforts to cut it back; yet we are to face an additional and unnecessary cost of $21m, which is the estimated cost of the referendums with which the Government now wants us to proceed. Let us speculate about the real reasons why the Government is proceeding with unseemly haste. I venture to suggest that there are probably two main reasons. One is that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wants to have a more convenient election timetable for himself in the immediate future because there must be a half Senate election before 30 June 1985. It will presumably be very convenient for the Prime Minister to be able to postpone that until the end of 1985. In fact he may even have to hold an election at the end of 1984 or early in 1985. It is obvious that the real, but unstated, reason for these proposals has a lot to do with the situation with which the Government and the Prime Minister are faced. I also believe that another reason for these referendum proposals being brought on with such great haste has something to do with the self-image of the Attorney -General as a great constitutional reformer. He is dragging the Government and the people through this unnecessary process to give some substance to that self- image. Also, for an Attorney-General who promised so much and who has performed so little as far as law reform is concerned, I think it probably has something to do with soothing his bruised ego. I also ask, and I think the people of Australia should be asking, what is the benefit of these proposals for them? What is the benefit in them for the people? If one quickly looks through the four proposals of the Attorney-General, one finds that there is really nothing in them for the people. The fixed term parliaments proposal is alleged to be of benefit to the people in that it will mean fewer elections. But when we analyse it, we see that the likelihood is that there will be more elections. In any event, the proposal for fixed terms of parliament and for allegedly fewer elections is likely to be of more benefit to politicians than to the people. The proposal for interchange of powers is simply to convenience both Federal and State governments in Australia, in jiggering the division of powers amongst themselves without referring to the people at all. The advisory jurisdiction of the High Court is again for the benefit of Federal and State governments to be able to get the opinion of the High Court as soon as possible about its legislation. The removal of outmoded and expended provisions does not seem to be of any benefit to anybody. In opening this debate on these proposals, I ask fairly and squarely, and I ask the people of Australia to ask the Government fairly and squarely, what is the point of it all? At a time when very great restraint is being asked of the people, why is $21m being spent on these rather wild goose chases? I propose to spend the major proportion of my time dealing with the proposal for fixed term parliaments, because that, of course, is a proposal of great magnitude, and because of that, of great importance. If it was passed it would make very great changes to the Constitution. That is not to say it would make good changes to the Constitution, but it would certainly make great changes. On 23 March last year, when I was putting the then Government's case against Senator Evans's Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill 1981 which he first introduced with great flourish on 11 November 1981-I was only really paraphrasing what Senator Evans himself said about this proposal-I said: The Bill proposes an elaborate and drastic reordering and restructuring of the Australian constitutional system. If adopted, the proposal would involve shifts of a fundamental kind in our institutions of representative and responsible government which would become entrenched in our political system. It is true that in principle and in theory the idea of having an election on a set day every third or fourth year-or every second year as occurs in the United States of America-has a lot of appeal. Therefore, one naturally gives such a proposal a very great deal of consideration. But what we have to ask ourselves is whether such a system is compatible with our particular system of democratic and responsible government. Of course, the proposal is, in the public mind I am sure, equated with the American Constitution which provides for elections on a fixed day every second year for the Congress, and every fourth year for the Presidency. Naturally, people think that this proposal would provide the same thing for Australia. Although on the face of it it seems as if that is what the proposal provides for, on analysis one sees that it does no such thing. In any event, the United States of America has a completely different constitutional structure with a separation of powers. Not only does the United States have a fixed term parliament-or Congress as it is called-but also a fixed term Executive; an Executive popularly elected for a fixed term of four years. Now that has no relation to Australia's constitutional system, the Westminster system, the system of responsible government. That in itself presents a very grave problem-in fact, it presents what I have already called an insoluble dilemma-for anybody proposing a fixed term parliamentary system in this country. Before I proceed with any further analysis of the problems that would be presented if such a proposal became part of our Constitution, I turn to the real reason why Senator Evans has produced this measure. I am not speculating about this. One thing I will say about Senator Evans in relation to this matter-in fact I would probably have more than one thing to say about him if I really thought about it-is that he has been perfectly frank about his motives. His motives are to emasculate the powers of the Senate in relation to not only Supply and Appropriation Bills but also money Bills. He presents this proposal as his solution. He tells us that it is the second best solution, but it is his solution to the problems of 1975. Other people who support fixed term parliaments have, I think, higher and perhaps more worthy motives than Senator Evans has in proposing this measure. But Senator Evans has made no bones whatever about that fact. That is underlined by the great flourish with which he introduced his original proposal on 11 November 1981-the sixth anniversary of the events of 1975. He has also made no bones about the fact that his wishes are the same as the wishes of his party. His Government's wishes would be to have a very clean cut solution to the problem of 1975 simply by directly removing altogether from the Constitution the powers of the Senate on money Bills. That is the Government's preferred solution , but it does not dare propose it. It knows that it would be utterly rejected by the people because it has been made clear in so many gallup polls over the years that the people support the retention of those powers in the Senate. The Government knows that and, for that reason, does not propose that idea directly. This proposal intends to do indirectly what the Government is not prepared to attempt directly. I want it to be clearly understood in this chamber and everywhere else by the people of Australia that, on Senator Evans's own admission, throughout the whole of this long debate which started in November 1981, it is his and the Government's intention to destroy the power of the Senate by this measure. On Senator Evans's reasoning-whether it is good or bad does not matter-the Senate will not use those powers if it cannot force an immediate election. Those are the real reasons for this proposal. Those reasons of course are rejected by the Opposition because the Opposition believes that the Senate's powers must be preserved. The Opposition also believes that the only constitutional alteration that is justified is the proposal of Senator Peter Rae -the proposal originally made by Sir Charles Court at the Hobart convention in 1976 and passed by the Perth convention in 1978; that is, that the Constitution be amended to provide, where the Senate blocks or defers Supply, that the Senate must go to the people at the same time as it forces the House of Representatives to do so. In other words, there would be an immediate and automatic double dissolution in those cases. That is what the Opposition says is the only required solution to the problem of 1975. Any solution of a more drastic kind which Senator Evans really believes in and which the Government really believes in, such as the proposal of Mr Whitlam after 1975, is of course anathema to us and would be opposed by us. But because Senator Evans's fixed term proposal is quite unashamedly and quite clearly directed at preventing the Senate from exercising those powers in any circumstances or at any time, as Senator Evans sees it, we are opposed to it, and the result it would achieve. I turn to the insoluble dilemma, as I have called it, that is faced by anybody proposing a fixed term under the Westminster system. The proponent is seeking to engraft this system on one of responsible government. This means that the Executive is created by and is dependent upon the Parliament. It is a completely different situation in the United States, as I have already said. So any proponent of the system of fixed terms has to face that fundamental problem. He has to evolve provisions to resolve a conflict between the Executive and the body which creates it and to which it is responsible, namely, the Parliament. On the other hand, the more that is done to resolve that problem, to provide for all the situations that may arise in the life of our parliamentary democracy, the further and further away one gets from the fixed term concept. Senator Evans is again faced with that dilemma, as are all proponents of this fixed term concept within our Westminster system. Senator Evans, to give him his due, recognises that and seeks to provide a solution to it. His solution is to provide for a formal vote of no confidence as the only way in which the House of Representatives can resolve that conflict if it arises within the House of Representatives. The other problem that is faced under our Constitution is conflict between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Senator Evans does not propose-except with regard to the effect of a double dissolution on the life of a parliament-any changes to the existing provisions of section 57 of the Constitution. So the double dissolution provisions remain in full force and effect. Clearly, this proposal-the Evans proposal in this Bill-may well result not in a fixed term for the Parliament at all but for early elections to occur if there were a vote of no confidence in the government of the day in the House of Representatives and no other government were installed within seven days. In those circumstances there would be an election regardless of the fact that there is a fixed term for parliament and a requirement for an election to be held on the third Saturday of every third November. Whenever that situation happened there would be an early election. Thereby, there would be a fundamental derogation from the fixed term concept, in point of fact. Under the double dissolution provisions, as we well know, there have been early elections in recent years. There were double dissolutions for the elections of 1974, 1975 and , recently, 1983. When people think that this proposal will do away with early elections they should all bear in mind the fact that these early elections, including the one in March this year of which people are most critical, were, in fact, the result of double dissolutions. This Bill does nothing to change that situation except in one respect, with which I will deal later. After making those major qualifications to the proposal for fixed term parliaments which this Bill makes, I wish to put down some further major criticisms of this proposed solution. They are criticisms in the sense that they do not meet the requirements of the Westminster system. The principal criticisms are that there could be a situation in which the Government does not have or loses control of the House of Representatives for a number of reasons, but at the same time nobody could be prepared to move a vote of no-confidence in the government. That is quite likely to occur because those who are opposed to the government and who may have the numbers to pass a vote of no-confidence may not wish to have an early election at that time. Of course, we remember the situation which occurred last year in West Germany when the Free Democrats left the Schmidt Government and joined the Christian Democrats. The Christian Democrats wanted to have an election at the time in order to get a mandate for their new coalition government, but the Free Democrats did not want an election in the middle of last year. The deal was made that they would have an election in March this year. The irony of it all is that that election happened on 6 March, the day after our so-called early election. That election in West Germany was brought on by a manipulation of a fixed term parliament system which, in fact, operates in West Germany and which is similar to the proposal Senator Evans is putting in this legislation. I digressed somewhat because that is another objection to Senator Evans's proposal-that such a system could be so easily manipulated by either members of a government or its opponents who wish to bring on an election at a time of their choosing and not at the expiration of the fixed time which had been allotted. Let us look at the situation regardless of the West German experience. The fact is that in a Constitution we have to provide for situations even though we do not think they are likely. In our recent experience there has not been that situation of instability in the House of Representatives. That is not to say that that situation will not occur in the future. It certainly was a feature of the House of Representatives for the first 15 or 20 years of the operation of this Parliament under our Constitution. Difficulties were experienced by government in getting the necessary majority to govern. The only ultimate solution to that problem would be by holding an early election, by resort to the people. What is wrong with that under our system? In the end the Parliament is dependent upon the people. They are sovereign and not the parliament or the members of parliament. It is the people who are sovereign in this country. I think it is about time Senator Evans and the Government learnt and acknowledged that. If there is no solution to the constitutional problems within a parliament , the only and proper course is to go to the people. As I said, what is wrong with that? Why should the people object to being asked to resolve the problem amongst their representatives in the Parliament? That is not only the traditional but also the appropriate way of solving the problem in a parliamentary democracy. The next matter which is ignored by Senator Evans's Bill is the problem of Supply. This Bill by its design, not only emasculates the Senate's powers over Supply but also has that effect on the House of Representatives. If the Senate refuses Supply there is no way in which that problem can be resolved under Senator Evans's Bill. Of course, it could be resolved by the Government manipulating a no confidence motion against itself. That would be the only way the problem could be resolved. If the Senate defers or defeats a Supply Bill, an Appropriation Bill or a major money Bill that action does not and cannot result in an election under the Bill. This also applies to the House of Representatives . The majority in the House of Representatives, however it is made up, might refuse Supply to the Government. There would be nothing that the Prime Minister could do about it. No solution to the problem of Supply is contained in Senator Evans's Bill. Another major deficiency in the Bill is the way it emasculates the powers of the Governor-General. Under this Bill a Governor-General will be rendered powerless to dismiss a Prime Minister who may be acting illegally even or acting in fundamental breach of a constitutional convention or conventions. If the Primer Minister commands a solid majority in the House of Representatives, of course there is simply no way in which he can be removed. On the other hand, if there is a destabilised situation in the House of Representatives in which the Government cannot get its legislation through because it is constantly harassed and frustrated by minority groups joining forces with the Opposition, amongst themselves or whatever, the Government cannot do anything except manipulate a vote of no confidence in itself. Therefore, we could have a completely lame duck , useless, powerless government stumbling along until the fixed date for an election comes around. It is a most undesirable situation for any country to be placed in. For all these reasons the Opposition is opposed to Senator Evans's Bill. We have looked at it and thought about it. I looked at it very seriously when I was Attorney-General. We looked at it when we were in Government; we have looked at it again. We have thought about it over and over again. We do not think there is any way in which it can be improved. It is a Bill which will impose upon us a straight-jacket of an unworkable system. It makes a major change to our constitutional structure for the wrong reasons. Even if they were not the real reasons for having a fixed term-I know that many people believe that a fixed term is a good idea-this Bill creates so many problems and provides such inadequate solutions to existing problems that the Opposition opposes it. (Extension of time granted). I thank the Senate. Mr Acting Deputy President, I shall proceed immediately to the other proposals about which, of course, I do not need to say very much. The Opposition, as I said, supports the interchange of powers proposal, although I doubt, frankly, whether it is of any great significance. The proposal has been accepted more or less as an article of faith since the 1973 Constitutional Convention. It had, as far as I could see, unanimous support at the Adelaide Constitutional Convention in the amended form, which Senator Evans wisely agreed to, and it seems that it perhaps may in some circumstances be a useful facility to have in the Constitution. Whether it is conceivably worh $21m is an entirely different matter, but it could be. I think the people ought to know, though, that the real reason for the proposal in the first place-probably it is still the reason for it-is to enable State governments to impose sales taxes and indirect taxes. I do not think the people will be very impressed when they know the real reason for it, but still that is a matter for them. It is for them to say whether they want to allow State governments to do these things. Although it is a two-way process, State governments have been said to be reluctant to refer powers to the Commonwealth because they were not too sure what the effect of that referral would be. I do not believe that. I believe that State governments do not refer powers to the Commonwealth because they like to keep their powers. I do not think this move will make any difference to real reasons why that reference of powers proposal has not worked. Having tried for 5 1/2 years to get a reference of powers from the States which made and still make great public play of how much they support the power of the Commonwealth to make uniform laws in relation to the custody and maintenance of children, I did not notice any great enthusiasm on the part of the States when it came to the nitty- gritty of making a reference of powers. The recent big song and dance act by Mr Landa is highly ironical. The advisory jurisdication proposal is another one of those constitutional proposals that have been around for so long that I have forgotten when it began. I happen to think it would be a good idea if the High Court of Australia could give advisory opinions. I think it could save a great deal of litigation, time and cost in determining the actual parameters of a power. We have had plenty of examples of that point. We still do not know the ramifications of the corporations power. I do not know how long it took-perhaps 10 years-to find out just what sort of road maintenance taxes the States could impose. I can see some benefits in the proposal, but again I do not really see the urgency of it. I now turn to the fourth proposal about the removal of outmoded and extended provisions. I suppose it is a good idea to tidy up the Constitution. If we are to have a referendum anyway we might as well tidy it up. I have already referred , of course, to Senator Rae's proposal which the Opposition strongly supports. Senator Rae recently introduced his proposal in a very extensive and clear second reading speech, and I have nothing to add to it. I trust that the Senate will give that proposal a speedy passage. I do not think Senator Mason's proposal-I think it is his Bill; it always has been-to provide for the elector's initiative, although it has been put down for debate by Senator Mason on a number of occasions, has ever in fact been debated in the Senate. It provides that following the signing of a petition by 250,000 voters a change in the law can be sought. It can be any law, not just an alteration in the Constitution. A new law can be proposed and if 250,000 people sign a petition then the proposal has to be submitted to the people at a referendum. It is passed in that way, not by the Parliament. I do not propose to go into the other details. The Opposition is opposed to such a proposal because it would lead to quite fantastic and fundamental change in not only our parliamentary democracy but also our notions of democracy and of representative and responsible government. Of course we know what happens when provisions of this kind are exercised. California has a similar provision and the first thing that the people were asked to vote on was Proposition 13, which just about destroyed the finances of the State of California. So there are a number of objections to this provision but the Opposition really opposes it because it is so contrary to our whole system of parliamentary democracy. I thank the Senate for giving me the opportunity to complete the Opposition's case on these matters. I trust that the Senate will reject the proposal for a fixed term and will reject the proposal for electors' initiative in making laws in this country. We strongly support the proposal of Senator Peter Rae. We see no reason why the people themselves should not decide whether they want to allow governments to exchange powers between themselves without reference to the people or why the High Court should not be allowed to have an advisory jurisdiction. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(11.42) —It is with pleasure that I rise to support the Government's proposal to put before the Australian people by way of referendum propositions concerning alterations to the Constitution in relation to a fixed term for the Federal Parliament, the removal of outmoded provisions from the Constitution, provisions for an interchange of powers between Federal and State governments and a proposal to confer an advisory jurisdiction on the High Court. It is interesting to hear, amongst all the bombast of the shadow Attorney- General, Senator Durack, about the rights of soveriegn people, that the Liberal- National Party members of this Parliament, including honourable senators opposite, intend, if their vote is effective today, to deny to the people of Australia-that sovereign body of Australians-the right to consider this matter by way of referendum. It must be recalled and asserted that all this Parliament will do is send the proposal to the people. It is interesting, and I think it reveals the hypocrisy of the Opposition members, that they do not intend that that opportunity be given to the Australian people. Their opposition at a political level could be understood once the campaign was under way, but they do not want to allow the Australian people that opportunity. The espousal of opposition to the concept of a fixed term parliament by the shadow Attorney-General on behalf of the Liberal and National parties was totally unconvincing in that it was muddled, confused and in some instances I believe quite incorrect. It was a confused performance because Senator Durack said that none of the four propositions would be of any benefit to the people. Having asserted that he then said that the Opposition would support three of them but would not support one of them. When we have such evident muddle- headedness as that we are entitled to wonder where the real conviction of the Opposition lies. It is simply wrong and a deliberate misleading of this chamber, this Parliament and the people for Senator Durack to suggest that if this referendum were passed by the people then the Govenor-General would lose his present power to dismiss a Prime Minister who was acting illegally. That power is untouched by this proposition and would continue to be vested in the Governor -General. So in that respect I believe Senator Durack, in order to bolster his confused and weak case, deliberately misled this Parliament and raised fears and misgivings which need not have been raised. I want to spend the great bulk of my time in relation to the fixed term parliaments proposition. I think it is well understood in the general community, if not by the Opposition, that the best argument for fixed term parliaments was the election forced and foisted on the Australian people on 5 March so opportunistically and so characteristically by a Prime Minister who manipulated and perverted the Constitution to suit his own political advantage whenever he deemed it necessary. I believe that both those points are important. Such action was taken always with a view to his own political advantage. It was a manipulation of the Constitution to suit party political prospects as he saw them. But more important is the fact that he did so whenever he deemed it necessary. There we have the core of the problem. An undue discretion is vested in a Prime Minister under our present constitutional arrangements. One recalls an article by Hood Phillips, a very well known, and perhaps Great Britain's leading, constitutional lawyer, in which he said: This squalid practice of the leaders of both main parties as it has developed-- That is, the practice of calling an early election- is the least creditable aspect of the British Constitution. This proportion does not affect the core concept of the Westminster democracy at all, but it is no doubt a fact that the least creditable aspect of our present constitutional arrangements derived from Britain is this undue discretion being vested in a Prime Minister to call on an early election before the parliamentary term has expired because he thinks some political advantage may be gained. Incidentally, I believe further support will be generated for the proposition when it is put to the people at a referendum by the fact that the calling of the early election on 5 March had the effect-I believe it was a deliberate effect-of preventing tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Australians, new citizens and young people in particular, from casting a vote. Without forewarning an election was thrust upon them before they had an opportunity to register and get on the electoral rolls. It is a further argument for saying that with a definite fixed term parliament, with an election held every third Saturday of November in every third year, the people would know that they were required to be on the electoral rolls by the due date in order to exercise their rights as citizens, which rights were denied to them by the opportunistic calling of an early election by Prime Minister Fraser earlier this year. The basic contention of this proposition is that elections for the House of Representatives be held on the third Saturday in November every three years-on a constitutionally fixed date. That is what occurs in the democracy of the United States of America. No one would deny that that country has a democratic system of government. We are saying that that system ought to apply in Australia. Indeed, the people support that view. Senator Durack-I am getting support even from the galleries in putting this point of view-asks why the people should object-- Senator Messner —That is the only place you will get it from. Senator TATE —That is where the voters are, so I am very pleased to get it from there. The fact is that people do object to going to the polls at the behest and opportunistic whim of a Prime Minister. The opinion polls are very supportive and confirmatory in putting this matter to the people. State by State, Territory by Territory, seven out of ten Australian voters, the overwhelming proportion of the voting population, have indicated their desire to have fixed terms to our parliamentary process. That is why the proposition deserves the support it is getting. Of course, there is a fundamentally good reason, quite apart from stripping a Prime Minister of this power, for supporting the proposition. It will bring an era of predictability and stability in public and private sector planning, of which this country had not had the benefit, particularly in the last 10 years or so. There is no doubt that planning for a public sector expenditure policy and a private sector expenditure policy is needed. There is also a need for an environment within which planning is not brought to the point of virtual impossibility by the constant leaking of the possibility that an election might be held, with all the ramifications that that has for creating nervousness in the stock market and in those, for example who make investment decisions. The fact is that the proposal retains the key features of the Westminster system. It merely strips away the least creditable parts of that system-as outlined by the great constitutional lawyer Hood Phillips, Q.C.-to which I have already adverted. The key element of the Westminster system is that a Prime Minister is entitled to lead a government so long as he retains the confidence and support of the House of Representatives. Governments are created in that House. We all know that that is what the electoral process is designed to do. A government is given the right to govern by enjoying the support-continuing to enjoy that support and being sustained by that confidence-of a majority of elected members of the House of Representatives. This proposal acknowledges two instances in which the fixed term of the Parliament may be foreshortened. The first exception-this is in harmony with the Westminster system-is when the confidence of the House of Representatives is lost and no alternative government commands majority support within that chamber . This proposal endorses, reinforces and strengthens the Westminster tradition. It certainly does not destroy it, as was quite mischievously suggested by Senator Durack. Indeed, the only other way for a fixed term to be foreshortened is by the existence of a dispute between the House of Representatives and the Senate as to the passage of legislation-that is, a double dissolution situation under section 57 of the Constitution. The actual occasion on which the Prime Minister may seek a double dissolution may concern either the simple existence of a dispute about certain legislative proposals-section 57 is not touched at all-or where there is a refusal of Supply by the Senate. This proposal, despite everything that Senator Durack tried to suggest, does not take away that power insofar, of course, as it is asserted to exist. If the Senate obstinately and obdurately refuses Supply to the government, a government which still enjoys the confidence of the House of Representatives, a general election will be able to be called either because a double dissolution situation exists-a dispute between the Houses as to other legislation upon which a double dissolution can be based- or there can be a technical vote of no confidence in the House of Representatives. In that way, as I say, the power of the Senate to refuse Supply is sufficiently acknowledged. On the contrary, of course, Senator Rae's proposal-the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill-would give explicit constitutional sanction to the 1975 situation. Senator Rae's proposal is based on the proposition put by the then Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, to the Australian Constitutional Convention in Perth some years ago. Senator Rae's proposal explicitly enshrines expressly into our Constitution the 1975 power to refuse Supply. But what it does-all that it was conceived to do by the conservative forces which pushed this proposition at the Perth Constitutional Convention-is to remove the Governor-General from the fulcrum of political controversy. The proposal put forward by Senator Rae was conceived-I think probably correctly so- to remove the Governor-General from the exercise of discretion in relation to the granting of a double dissolution. Of course, in that sense, his proposal would be of benefit and be pleasing to the holder of that office and to the Sovereign, who must have been aghast at what happened in 1975. The Opposition refuses to explicity entrench and expressly acknowledge that particular power of the Senate. We believe that Senator Rae's proposal goes nowhere near solving this crucial, central dilemma of our constitutional arrangements, which is that there may be a majority hostile to the Government in this chamber whilst the Government continues to enjoy the confidence of a majority in the House of Representatives. Insofar as Senator Rae's proposal in no way addresses that crucial, central problem, we on this side of the chamber cannot find it in our hearts to support it. This proposal recognises, in a way which Senator Durack apparently did not perceive, that the people are sovereign and that when they elect their representatives to this Parliament they are entitled to have those representatives see out their parliamentary terms and work for the better peace, order and good government of Australia over the three years of the parliamentary term for which they are elected. The people deserve that the Parliament should see out its full term. It is within the context of the Parliament being conceived as working over a three-year period towards national goals for which a government has a mandate that I believe this referendum proposal will generate the support which it so deserves. Three other propositions are to be put to the people by the Government. One is to strip the Constitution of provisions which have become outmoded and which time has seen emptied of content or meaning within our national life and within the arrangements of our Executive and Parliament. I believe that the whole of the community will support that proposition. I believe that the proposal relating to the interchange of powers between State and Federal parliaments will be a little used power, but insofar as it will provide for the representatives of the people, at both the national and State levels, to exchange certain legislative powers in full view of their electorates and after full parliamentary debate-there is nothing done by subterfuge, nothing done in the dark and murky rooms-and insofar as it would enable the occasional transfer of some legislative power, perhaps in relation to a particular form of tax or family law matters, I believe it can only be beneficial. It is my wish, after Question Time, to say some words about the proposal to confer an advisory opinion jurisdiction on the High Court, because I believe it is extremely important that the High Court be given a true judicial power to deliver an opinion on questions of law which are of large and radical moment and which ought to be aired before the High Court-that bench of impartial justices- before legislative action, perhaps, is finally undertaken and certainly before administrative arrangements are entered into on the basis of what might, in a constitutional challenge, emerge as unconstitutional, invalid or beyond the powers of the Parliament. However, I will deal with that particular proposal after Question Time. Mr President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator DURACK —In view of the widespread public concern about the extent and ramifications of organised crime in Australia, will the Attorney-General, firstly, review the leisurely approach he has adopted to the establishment of a National Crimes Commission, despite the fact that legislation has passed both houses of Parliament and the former Government was about to establish the Commission at the time of the election? Secondly, does he agree that the extent of purely federal crime justifies the early establishment of the Commission regardless of the desirability of including the States as a part of it? Thirdly, will he expedite the Green Paper foreshadowed by him and presumably being prepared by his Department in view of the very extensive work that has been done by his Department on this subject since at least this time last year? Finally, will the Attorney-General indicate when his proposed seminar on the subject will be held and who will be invited to it? Senator GARETH EVANS —For a question like that to come from the bottom-of-the- drawer man, as Senator Durack is known, is a bit of a cheek. Let me deal directly with the questions that have been asked. In respect of the establishment of a Crimes Commission, issues of real complexity are involved in getting the right kind of model on foot which strikes an appropriate balance between on the one hand, the need for an agency armed with effective investigative powers and, on the other hand, the need for such an agency and all that it implies to have due and proper respect for the traditional liberties of the subject. There are, no doubt as Senator Durack is aware, basically two competing models around which the argument revolves. On the one hand there is the royal commission model armed with very extensive powers but not necessarily directed towards the efficient or effective accumulation of admissible evidence which can subsequently be used to sustain actual prosecutions. On the other hand, there is the other sort of commission model which perhaps is less well geared towards the production of public reports but may be better geared towards the production of admissible evidence and more appropriately focused towards the prosecution of the criminals whose activities it thus reveals. It is quite a complex business to unravel the competing considerations that are involved in these two basic approaches to the proper investigation of organised crime. The Government is not wanting to rush into either the enactment or proclamation of legislation in this area without making sure that it has those basic principles right. In the meantime, of course, nobody is letting any grass grow under his or her feet. The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union continues in operation. I note that the Special Minister of State has indicated that there will be some expansion of the resources of the Costigan Commission, notwithstanding the fact that its formal life will not be very long; in fact, it is proposed to wind it up at the end of this year. Certainly, as I have said on numerous occasions, the Costigan Commission is acting, for all practical purposes, as a de facto crimes commission. There is no slackening in the Commonwealth's endeavour both to investigate and expose organised crime in this country. That, of course, is not the only body operating in the field. The Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking has just completed one inquiry and is now about to embark on another in relation to Nugan Hand Ltd. We have corporate affairs commissions investigating a number of related matters. We have the Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking in which Commonwealth and State police forces are engaged in pursuing particular matters. In fact, we have a whole series of reports from previous royal commissions in respect of which complete follow-up action has by no means yet been taken. I am advised that the Green Paper, to which the shadow Attorney-General referred, will be completed within a matter of days, at least in draft form. I certainly hope to have it publicly circulated as soon as possible in the month of June. As to the proposed seminar at which that Green Paper will be discussed and the issues canvassed, I hope in order to reach some agreement or to obtain a meeting of minds as to what the permanent crimes commission body should look like, all I can say at this stage is that it is still proposed that the seminar take place during the parliamentary winter recess. I imagine on present indications that it will be some time later in July. The attendance at that seminar is still to be resolved. I have indicated already that it is not intended that it be a closed shop affair. There will be an opportunity for public observance of the proceedings. The matter of who will be officially invited to participate on the floor, as it were, at the seminar is still to be resolved. It is not our intention to exclude any party or organisation with a genuine interest, or any individual who might have something useful to contribute in this very difficult policy area. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to reports in the Courier-Mail earlier this week that a Paraguayan businessman Dr Oskar is still seeking from the Queensland Government a $6m loan guarantee for the construction of an oil seed processing plant. I ask : Is this the same person who earlier this week was ordered by the Western Australian Supreme Court to pay $280,000 which he owed by way of a guarantee to Nissho Iwai Australia Ltd? How does the Federal Government view a proposal to provide Dr Oskar with a State government loan guarantee of $6m? Senator Martin —It is none of their business. Senator BUTTON —Senator Martin interjected that it is none of our business. It is a view which of course is quite tenable. The honourable senator's question relates to Dr Oskar who has been entrepreneurial in the oil seeds field. All I can contribute to the debate which seems to be going on in Queensland as to whether the Queensland Government should guarantee a substantial sum of money for investment in Dr Oskar's project is to make the point that the Australian Government is currently suing Dr Oskar on the guarantee for a loan to Bunbury Foods Pty Ltd, of which Dr Oskar is the principal shareholder and promoter, for the sum of $1.6m. That matter is currently being dealt with by the Western Australian Supreme Court. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on it. I suppose the point of the honourable senator's question is that all governments in this country should conduct their business in the best way possible and with the prudence which the Premier of Queensland has always advised governments of other States and the Commonwealth to show. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to the Minister's assurance given, I think not for the first time, at the Australian Minerals and Energy Council meeting last week that the Government's proposed resources rental tax would be a replacement rather than an additional or extra tax. Given what the Minister has described as the difference in 'quality and locational advantages' between deposits of minerals such as coal in various States-this observation of the Minister is borne out by the varying profitability of the companies involved-does the Minister agree that the proposed tax will raise revenues in a quite different pattern from the present mixture of taxes; that is, that the proportion of overall revenue raised in particular States is likely to vary from the present pattern? If each State's revenue is to be unaffected, is it not likely that there will have to be substantial transfers of funds raised in one State to another? If that is so, what incentive will there be for a likely donor State to agree to the new tax? Senator WALSH —There were several sub-questions in the honourable senator's question. I hope I can remember all of them. Certainly it is true that we have stated that the Government's intention is to impose, in some areas, a resources rent tax as a replacement. It is correct, as Senator Chaney has said, that there would be some variations in the incidence of that new tax system as it affects particular companies or particular States. I will deal with the companies first. A major reason why the Government proposes to introduce such a tax is that the existing tax, with minor variations, falls on producers of a particular mineral regardless of the company level of profitability-- Senator Chaney —I haven't raised the companies. I am not concerned about that point. Senator WALSH —Well, I will just give the honourable senator some background information. The existing tax, with minor variations falls on producers of a particular mineral regardless of the reasons, the level of profitability of the company or the economic rent component of the price it receives. That is certainly a major reason, if not the major reason, why the Government wants a change. Such a tax would not affect companies in a period of low prices to nearly the same extent as raising the same amount of revenue in the present way affects companies in a period of low prices, as exists today. It is also correct -I would expect at least for coal-that there would be variations in the relative amount of tax raised inside various States. In seeking agreement with the States on our proposal I would expect that allowance would be made for that in the final distribution of Commonwealth funds to the States. Finally, the Government's view of the question which is of primary importance in this matter is not who imposes the tax. The type of tax which is imposed is of overriding importance. As I mentioned yesterday in reply to a question asked by Senator Chaney it is, of course, a fact with respect to this or any other matter affecting State revenue, that the bottom line regarding both the absolute amount of payments of State revenue and the relative amounts of State revenue is written by the Commonwealth now and can continue to be written by the Commonwealth in the future, depending on what decisions the Commonwealth makes about total State payments and State relativities. Any changes to State revenue bases resulting from our proposal to introduce a different type of tax, of course, would be taken account of in determining that bottom line. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What is the Government's view of the latest developments in the shearers' dispute over the use of wide combs? Is the Government confident that the issue is now close to resolution? Senator BUTTON —Senator Zakharov has asked a question about the wide comb dispute about which Senator Scott asked last week. It is a source of great gratification to me that honourable senators on both sides of the chamber should display an intelligent interest in this matter. To borrow a comment by the Prime Minister, honourable senators on the Opposition side of the chamber have been obsessed with what he has been pleased to describe as the wide Combe dispute in the last week rather than the dispute which is the subject of this important question. The Government welcomes the fact that since Senator Scott asked the question last week-I am not attributing the results entirely to him-the shearers in New South Wales have ended their strike and have resumed normal work. The Government has established-- Senator Walters —Do you mean normal work? Senator BUTTON —Oh, Senator! The Government has established an inquiry into this matter which will involve all the parties. The Government will be giving that inquiry every assistance to try to bring about a long term resolution of this complex problem. We believe that more issues are involved than just the use of the wide comb. All those matters will be before the inquiry. We believe there is now a realistic and co-operative approach to determining this difficult problem. The Government will give that approach every support. Senator CHIPP —Is the Leader of the Government aware that the present Australian Broadcasting Commission which, whether or not its membership varies, will be replaced by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation upon the passage of relevant legislation, is making wholesale appointments of staff on a permanent basis to senior positions? Is the Minister aware that these appointments are to positions that are either under review or very senior, up to and including the level of controller? Is the Minister aware that such appointments, even if made on the basis of merit alone, could prejudice the effective rejuvenation of the ABC which the new legislation will, I hope, produce? Senator BUTTON —I am asked whether I am aware that the Commission will be replaced by a corporation following the passage of legislation. I am aware of that and I regard that essentially as a bipartisan policy. It is true, as the question suggests, that a number of senior positions in the ABC have been filled within the last three months. When I say 'senior positions' I refer to those above level 1 of the Second Division and they include a chief manager of a State , a controller of administrative services, controller of personnel and establishments, director of finance and director of information systems. Altogether 10 such positions have been filled this year. I am not able to make any comment about that. In answer to the last part of the honourable senator's question, the Dix Committee of Review into the Australian Broadcasting Commission observed that there was a need for a substantial improvement in the efficiency and capacity of senior management within that organisation. The Australian Labor Party, when it was in opposition, accepted that view; albeit somewhat reluctantly the Government of the day also accepted that view. I hope that anything which has taken place in the last few months will not be prejudicial to the rejuvenation of the ABC as a great independent national broadcasting organisation. Senator GEORGES —I direct a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Recently I received a delegation representing Torres Strait and Aboriginal ex- servicemen who served the nation during the Second World War. They complain that they are being discriminated against as far as benefits are concerned. What is the Minister doing to correct what I consider to be a sorry affair? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Georges is correct. Some concern has been expressed about the Australian Government's obligation to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. This was brought to the notice of the previous Government as a result of an article in the Defence Force Journal in 1980 by a Mr Hall, and it has been hanging around in the various government departments since that period. I find it somewhat disturbing that an issue involving the rights of a considerable number of people of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island descent has not been resolved satisfactorily from the point of view of those persons. The allegation that was made by Mr Hall relates to underpayment and was taken up by my Department and referred to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Defence. When it was brought to my attention I immediately instructed my Department to step up the investigation with a view to resolving the claim which, I believe, is thoroughly justified and is one that hangs somewhat in the area of shame so far as governments in the post-war years are concerned. The background to the issue seems to be that an estimated 680 Torres Strait Islanders and 100 mainland Aboriginals served in special Defence Force units raised in the Northern Territory as a result of a decision made by the War Cabinet in 1941. Their rates of pay were determined by the Department of the Army and the Department of Native Affairs. As a result of that decision, rates of pay were considerably lower than those paid to other members of the defence forces. The Government believes that that is an unacceptable position. Similarly , it seems that repatriation benefits given to these Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were both unjust and discriminatory. I believe the previous Government is indicted for not taking action to rectify that position. The matter in respect of pay lies largely in the area of the Department of Defence. I have drawn the matter to the attention of the Minister for Defence. His Department failed to advise him of this underpayment and failure to recognise our obligations in this matter. However, the Government's view is that this wrong should be righted and it will be righted. I am currently having discussions within the Department of Veterans' Affairs with a view to having the matter dealt with retrospectively so that the Repatriation Act 1920, which is the legislation under which we have our obligations, will be applied with a view to having the matter properly attended to. Whatever repatriation matters are outstanding, my Department will accept its responsibilities. I am assured that that is also the view of the Minister for Defence. Senator COLLARD —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. It follows one asked by Senator Chaney yesterday. I remind the Minister of a statement made by his colleague Mr Keating last year. When speaking to the Australian Coal Conference on 21 April Mr Keating stated: The States would take a lot of convincing to lift State charges in favour of Commonwealth taxation even with commensurate reimbursement on the part of the Commonwealth Government. He then said, and I put emphasis on it: Nevertheless it has to happen. He went on to say: We would be concerned to consult with the States to secure a rationalisation of the various taxation regimes with the ultimate objective of replacing most existing charges with a profits-related mechanism. Agreement would need to be reached with the States for the sharing of the proceeds. Should such an approach prove unsuccessful a Commonwealth Government could consider as a last resort embarking upon the more direct course of removing the incentive State mineral taxation. In simple terms this would involve reducing Commonwealth general revenue grants to individual States by the amount of the mineral taxation in question. Is this not a simple declaration that the Hawke Government will resort to coercion in its pursuit of a resources rental tax? Senator WALSH —The position at the moment with the coal industry in particular is that the level of production taxes-with minor variations that is what the present system of taxation is-which is quite high on export quality coal, has reached the point that a number of higher cost mines have either been forced out of production or are on the brink of being forced out of production. This Government proposes to change the tax system so that that situation will no longer happen. I would have hoped that in pursuit of the objective of keeping higher cost mines in operation we would have had the support of all political parties and of all governments. But if that is not to be the case, those governments or political parties which have resisted the achievement of that objective will bear the political odium of having done so and the political odium flowing from the unnecessary closure of higher cost mines and the unnecessary bankruptcy or insolvency of some producers. Mr Keating just stated in different words what I mentioned to Senator Chaney yesterday and repeated today; that of course the bottom line determining total State revenue and the relative distribution of revenue between the States has for the last 40 years been written by the Commonwealth Government. That is an option that is available to the Commonwealth Government and an option that Mr Keating said would be considered. As to coercion, I am reminded that last year the Victorian Government exercised its autonomous right to fund part of its public hospital system through imposing a levy. We then had the unseemly spectacle of the phony champions of States rights who populate the Liberal-National Party benches in this Parliament and in other parliaments, giving the Victorians a healthy dose of Canberra Fraser- Liberal Party style centralism and attempting to stop the Victorian Government from imposing that levy. I wish the Liberal Party would make up its mind on questions like this. Does it believe that financial inducements-or, if it prefers the harsh term, coercion-ought to be applied to State governments? Does it accept the principle of applying coercion to State governments which do not tailor their policies in accordance with Commonwealth desires? It would be a major moral improvement if the Liberal Party were to make an unequivocal statement about that instead of applying in the future the principle that it has applied in the past; that is, that Labor State governments will get a heavy dose of Fraser-Liberal Party style centralism and non-Labor State governments can do whatever they like. Senator BOLKUS —Can the Minister representing the Treasurer advise the Senate, firstly, of the net increase in the total number of people employed during the seven years of the Fraser Government and, secondly, of the net increase in the number of people unemployed during those seven years? Thirdly, is this the worst record of unemployment of any government in this country over the past 50 years? Fourthly, can he assure the Senate that the present Government-- Senator Lewis —In percentage terms or in true figures? Senator BOLKUS —The Opposition still jests about unemployment. Can the Minister assure the Senate that the present Government will take the problem of unemployment a lot more seriously than its predecessor? Senator WALSH —I think that Senator Bolkus asked four questions. The net increase in employment-that is, the number of people employed during the period of the Fraser Government, specifically from November 1975 to April 1983-totalled 297, 000. In round figures there was a growth of 300,000 in total employment. The net increase in the number of people unemployed was 397,000-in round figures, 400, 000. So in the seven years that the Fraser Government was in office total employment increased by 300,000 and unemployment increased by 400,000. At the time the Fraser Government came into office unemployment was around 300,000. According to that Government, that was a catastrophic and wholly unnecessary level of unemployment. During the seven years it was in power the Fraser Government more than doubled that level of unemployment. I am not sure whether the Fraser Government's record in regard to unemployment is the worst for the last 50 years because I am not sure about the precise levels of unemployment which prevailed in the mid-1930s. But it is without doubt by far the worst unemployment record over which any government has presided in the last 40 years. I draw honourable senators' attention once again to the fact that in seven years the number of people unemployed increased by 400,000. That was the record of those seven dark years. I remind the Senate that this is the record of a government and of political parties which came into office promising jobs for all within three years, predicting real economic growth of between 5 per cent and 7 per cent in the first year and every year thereafter. In none of the seven dark years that the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government was the bottom figure of that range actually achieved. When the Government was elected in 1975 it said it would achieve five to seven per cent real economic growth in the first year and every other year. Senator Messner —When are you going to blame the Western Australian Liberal Party? Senator WALSH —If the honourable senator would like me to make a statement about the Western Australian Liberal Party, I will. As a distinguished former member of the House of Representatives said the other day-- The PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh, I suggest you make that statement after Question Time. Senator WALSH —I was about to forecast that, Mr President. Senator Crichton-Browne —Back into the gutter. Senator WALSH —The insider trader is in no position to talk about gutters. As a distinguished former member of the House of Representatives said the other day, this is only a half-hour program and I do not have time to go into all of that. Only half an hour of Question Time remains, so I do not have time to go into a full examination of the Western Australian Liberal Party. With the vastly exacerbated problem of unemployment confronting the present Government-I think it is important to note this-it is necessary to achieve real economic growth rates of close to 5 per cent a year in order to reduce unemployment at all. That that growth rate was achieved in only one year during the last decade is a sobering thought. This Government certainly will take the problem more seriously than did the previous Government. The first major instalment, if I may use that term, of the implementation of the Government's policy will be announced tonight. As has been publicly stated by a number of responsible Ministers, measures will be announced to stimulate employment and to distribute more equally the burden of sacrifice imposed by the present level of unemployment. When that statement is made, particularly with respect to the equality of sacrifice, I hope that those proposals will not be met with carping criticism or irresponsible endorsement of the greedy bleatings and complaints of privileged groups. I hope that the Opposition will not respond to the statement in that way although I fear from its record that that is a forlorn hope. Senator HAINES —I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, who is also Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Is the Minister aware of an article which appeared in yesterday's Australian newspaper headed '$10,000 scholarship to ''give women a go'',' which describes an award initiated by an anonymous Western Australian to encourage women to enrol in the male-dominated field of geophysics at the Western Australian Institute of Technology? Does the Minister support this concept? If so, will she see that the Commonwealth Government institutes its own similar affirmative action incentive so that women are not only encouraged but also enabled to take up tertiary courses leading to careers in traditional male fields? Senator RYAN —I did see that article very briefly. I noted with approval the fact that members of the Government and members of the Australian Democrats are not the only people who are concerned about more educational opportunities for women , particularly in fields from which they have been traditionally excluded. The Commonwealth Government intends to do a number of things which should lead to more access by women to such courses. I have already had discussions with the Tertiary Education Commission about the Government's objectives, which include a much higher participation by women in all forms of tertiary education, but with particular attention to areas such as nuclear research, engineering and so on in which women have been discriminated against by prejudice within institutions. I expect that in the guidelines I will be issuing to the Tertiary Education Commission for the funding of all tertiary institutions for the next triennium there will be some very clear statements of the Government's objectives. I hope that by that time the tertiary institutions will have discovered ways in which they can increase access of women to these courses. We do not have in mind at this stage any special scholarships aimed particularly at women, such as the one provided by a private donor, but we believe that all the resources of our tertiary institutions should be accessible to women students and researchers. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I am concerned that veterans who receive treatment through the repatriation hospital system have access to the same high standard of health care that is available to the general community, including access to high technology diagnostic equipment. I note that the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, is now the second largest hospital in this country, after the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital; yet Concord does not have a CAT scanning facility. Can the Minister inform me whether it is the intention of the Government to provide veterans with the benefits of this high technology equipment at Concord? Senator GIETZELT —The question of standards in the repatriation general hospitals gives me some concern. Unfortunately, there have been 11 different Ministers in the Veterans' Affairs area in the last 12 years. I assure the Senate that that does not lead to the sort of administration that is necessary to have our repatriation hospitals regarded as an integral part of the public hospital system. There is a morale problem, along with other problems which need the attention of the Government. However, with respect to the repatriation hospital in Yaralla Street to which Senator Richardson referred, I and the Department have been concerned that the repatriation hospital system should be of the highest standard. I am sure that that is what the community wants too. With regard to new technology, we intend to have installed a computerised axial tomographic scanner, which is an absolutely essential piece of equipment in order to increase the standards within our repatriation hospitals. This piece of technology has the objective of significantly improving the level of diagnostic accuracy and, as I understand it, it is an essential piece of equipment in all of our hospitals. In 1979, the previous Government made a decision to have such equipment approved, but it was not until the last Budget that the funds were actually provided. That seems to me to be an unnecessary delay in providing our hospitals, which look after war veterans, with essential pieces of equipment. The scanner, as it is commonly called, reduces the risk to patients of many invasive diagnostic procedures which can and should be avoided. It will improve patient care considerably by the elimination of waiting times and the need for transport facilities to be provided for patients who currently must travel to units in other hospitals in order to have access to it. It also has the effect of reducing the operating costs at the hospital. Therefore, the CAT scanning facility is vitally essential in any modern hospital system. We will shortly be introducing that piece of equipment. I hope ultimately to convince the Government that such facilities should be provided in all of our repatriation hospitals. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Senator Colston —This will be good. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I will not indulge myself. I refer to the Minister's assurance that the proposed resource rental tax will be a replacement rather than an additional tax. Can he explain to the Senate whether he intends merely to replace the former tax or whether the proposed tax will be used to raise additional revenue for the Commonwealth? The PRESIDENT —I call the Minister. Senator Chipp —Now restrain yourself. Senator WALSH —I will. The proposal-I do not know how many times I have to say this-is that it be a replacement tax. The question of the absolute amount of tax which would be collected in various areas is, of course, one which governments decide from year to year. Perhaps I should lodge one caveat to that: The discredited former Government introduced a whole heap of tax concessions in its last 12 months in office, the cost of which, of course, was deferred to a future government. Apart from being a replacement tax, the intention is that a stable tax regime be introduced, the precise details of which are yet to be worked out, but which will remain fixed for as long as possible. I add that this will be in marked contrast to the record of the discredited former Government when, in its last three years in office, it made changes to the taxation laws affecting the mining industry on no fewer than five occasions-five changes in three years-thereby showing its complete disregard for one of the important principles affecting the growth and health of the Australian mining industry, that is, that the tax regime which the industry must cope with must be predictable and must remain stable. That is the objective of this Government. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Walsh might first of all give us an assurance that the revenue raised will be of the same scale as that which has been raised in the past, explain to us whether there will be a distraction from the revenue presently received by the States and give us an assurance that there will be no additional revenue to the Commonwealth. I wonder whether he might tell us what process and calculations will be used in achieving his objectives? Senator WALSH —I thought I had answered that already. When I heard the States mentioned, I though that Senator Crichton-Browne might say something about States' rights which would have prompted me to repeat a comment I made yesterday . In reply to Senator Crichton-Browne I said that the precise details-I have said this on numerous occasions both outside the Parliament and, I think, inside it-are yet to be worked out, and they will be discussed over an extended period with the industry. So far as the same amount of revenue is concerned, the one area where, of course, the Commonwealth does have virtually unimpeded power to change the tax system is the taxing of crude oil. It is the intention that in that area the amount of revenue raised will be comparable to that raised by the current levy, but it will be raised in a more efficient way. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. During the election campaign a promise was made by the then shadow Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to provide funds to help establish a Chair of Modern Greek at Flinders University, South Australia. I understand that funds were to be provided by the Federal Government sufficient to meet the salary costs of a professor in modern Greek and that the local community and the South Australian Government would also provide support funds. Will the Minister say whether any further consideration has been given to this promise? If so, what stage have the deliberations reached? Senator RYAN —Further consideration has been given to this proposal. I am aware that there is a great deal of interest in it in South Australia and that a Committee for the Teaching of Modern Greek at a University in South Australia has been formed and is very active. The progress that has been made is as follows: I understand that the Flinders University has included a proposal to establish a Chair in Modern Greek in its submission for the 1985-87 triennium to the Universities Council of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. The Universities Council will be discussing the submission with the University during its visit to Adelaide at the end of June this year. Of course, the honourable senator will be aware that the Government receives advice on developments of this sort from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. The Government will have the opportunity to consider the Commission's advice in the light of its pre-election undertaking when the Commission reports in April 1984. Senator Peter Baume —Mr President, in accordance with the Standing Orders, I ask that the document quoted from by Senator Ryan be tabled. Senator RYAN —I am perfectly happy to table the document. I now table the document. Senator REID —Does the Minister for Resources and Energy agree that the oil pricing arrangements for new oil found in Australia were a considerable incentive to oil exploration in Australia? If so, does he agree that any change in taxation which lessens that incentive will prejudice both exploration and future domestic production of oil in this country? Senator WALSH —The present exemption from levy of oil discovered after 1975-76 was based on a presumption that any new discoveries would be high cost oil, because it was in small pools, in remote locations, at great depth, or off-shore . If that expectation, upon which the present policy was founded, is borne out by history, the type of tax that this Government is proposing will not affect those fields. If, on the other hand, that expectation should be wrong and, unlikely though it is, an oil field comparable to Bass Strait is discovered no realist would expect that any government would allow an oil strike of that magnitude to remain subject only to normal company taxation. Such an unrealistic expectation once applied to producers of Bowen Basin coal. They found out how wrong they were when the Queensland Government started imposing both heavy royalties and heavy, above-economic freight charges for transport to the ports. With respect to oil exploration, I refer to an editorial which appeared in last weekend's Weekend Australian which endorsed the sentiments expressed by Senator Reid. It states: . . . the existing policy of taxing newly discovered oil at a lower rate than existing fields has led to an unprecedented increase in local oil exploration. There is a minor error of fact in that, but given the magnitude of the factual errors which appear in editorials in that newspaper by the same author I will not go into that minor error; I will deal just with the major error. There has been a bipartisan policy ever since 1975 to pay the import parity price for new oil discoveries. I have before me a record of petroleum exploration and development in Australia over the last eight years which shows the number of exploration wells drilled in that period. In 1976, 19 wells were drilled and, in 1977, 21 wells. In 1978, the figure had increased slightly to 55 wells and, in 1979, 52 wells were drilled. Then the figure took off, almost doubling in 1980 to 94 wells, increasing by 60 per cent in 1981 to 158 wells and increasing by 40 per cent to 226 in the 1982 calendar year. The point I make is that it was not the bipartisan import parity pricing which stimulated oil exploration; it was the second Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries price hike, which I remind honourable senators happened in 1979. In 1980, the year following, exploration really took off. As a matter of historical fact, it was not the import parity pricing policy per se which led to the increase in oil exploration; it was the doubling of oil prices in a 12-month period in 1979 and early 1980. Because in real terms and even in money terms the world price of oil has been falling over the last 12 months, there is already a decline in exploration activity. I would expect that a supplementary reason for that decline would be the absense of any major strike, although a number of significant strikes have been made. The important point is that the world price of oil has declined, even in money terms, by about 17 per cent and, over the last couple of years, by a great deal more than that in real terms. I draw attention to the fact that the Bureau of Mineral Resources has forecast that just over 100 wells will be drilled in 1983 as against 226 wells in 1982. This was a forecast made, I hasten to add, in January 1983 before the Federal election was called and before the Government had changed. The PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh, you are tending to debate the matter now. I suggest that you restrict your remarks. Senator WALSH —I am sorry, Mr President. I will finish very quickly. If the BMR is thought to be a suspect source under the previous Administration, I would like to quote from a Press statement issued by the Petroleum Exploration Association Ltd on 1 February this year. It states: Plans for seismic work-the essential precursor to drilling-are at one of their lowest levels in the past decade and indicate that a dramatic slump could occur in drilling in 1984-85 if the industry is unable to raise large-scale support from Australian investors. That rundown in exploration activity was under way at the end of last year and the beginning of this year. However, if precedent is any guide, I do not expect that an inconvenient fact such as that will prevent the Liberal and National parties from misrepresenting what is already happening and attributing it to the election of a Labor government. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that the Adelaide computer system of the Department of Social Security broke down on Tuesday? If this is so, what arrangements were made to process Northern Territory social security cheques normally processed in Adelaide? Can beneficiaries expect delays in delivery? Senator GRIMES —Yes, the computer facilities in the Department of Social Security in Adelaide did break down on Tuesday. This is an unfortunate event which occurs too often in an automatic data processing system throughout Australia which is old and in many cases obsolete. Moves were made by the Department to transfer the processing of those cheques to Melbourne. At the moment we do not expect any delays in cheques that would have originally come out of the Adelaide office. Work is proceeding at the moment to get the computer mechanisms in Adelaide back on line. At the moment the Melbourne backup is satisfactory. The Government also has before it a program of re-equipping the computer system in the Department of Social Security which has been developed over the last two years. A decision will be made on that shortly. Senator ROBERTSON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the Melbourne system also broke down due to overloading? If so, why is Melbourne the only back up system when Perth was given approval in 1981? Senator GRIMES —I am not aware that the Melbourne system broke down through overloading. I will check on that for the honourable senator. I am also not aware of the honourable senator's assertion that our Perth system was meant to be developed as a backup system for Adelaide in 1981. I will check on both those facts with the Department and let the honourable senator know later. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Does the Government accept that nuclear power will have to play a major and increasing role in many countries in contributing to overall long term peacetime energy security? Further, does the Government accept the importance of encouraging stable trade in nuclear fuel? Senator WALSH —I think I have the honourable senator's comment accurately. He asks: Does the Government accept that nuclear power will have to play a major and increasing role? No, the Government does not accept that because it is not correct. The honourable senator uses the words 'will have to play'. It may or may not play an increasing role. It does not have to play an increasing role because there are alternatives to nuclear power. In most situations the alternatives are available at lower cost although probably not in all situations . So the question as to whether nuclear power will play a major and increasing role, political considerations aside, will be determined by the relative cost-I suppose this is, to some extent, a political consideration-and the relative assessments which varying countries will make not only of cost but also of environment and other considerations that will arise. As to the second part of Senator Sir John Carrick's question, the policy of the Labor Party on this question has been published for five years so it ought to be well known. As I mentioned in reply to questions asked yesterday, the matter of safeguards, among other things, is currently under review. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the answer of Senator Walsh, I ask: Is it a fact that at the International Energy Agency meeting held a week or so ago his Government and he were represented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden. I ask whether it is a fact that Mr Hayden was a signatory to the communique which stated: Ministers stress the importance of encouraging stable trade in nuclear equipment, fuel cycle services and nuclear fuel. If that is so and those are the facts-and I have read from the communique-why is it that Mr Hayden committed this country to a policy which is completely different from and totally opposed to what the Minister has said? Why is it that the IEA and the Ministers concerned have concentrated on asserting the imperative need for nuclear energy? Can the Minister please explain why this ministerial representative differs so markedly from him, or did he think it was a good idea at the time? Senator WALSH —I am not able to confirm whether that statement is a precise account of what was issued. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I have the communique. Senator WALSH —The honourable senator need not bother, and he should not get excited. I am aware- THE PRESIDENT —I suggest that Senator Walsh answer the supplementary question. Senator WALSH —I am aware that a general agreement which is, broadly and in principle, in accord with that sort of statement was issued and that Mr Hayden was a party to it. I am sure that Senator Sir John Carrick knows very well that statements issued at the end of any such conference are an indication of broad agreement and that, except in ultra-special circumstances, no conference participant is likely to issue an explicit repudiation of a general sort of remark. That did not happen in this case. I stress that that statement commits Australia to no specific action. It constitutes an agreement to go along with the broad statement of intent and assessment. I suppose that if Senator Sir John Carrick wanted to be pedantic and think that a stable trade in uranium is the paramount objective, he would be somewhat in conflict with his apparent preference for a rapidly increasing trade in uranium. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Given the concerns that I and many other of my colleagues have expressed many times in this place on matters relating to family law, will the Attorney-General comment on the article appearing in today's Sydney Morning Herald in which a Sydney barrister, Laurence Gruzman, Q.C., criticises a number of aspects of the operation of the Family Court of Australia. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the article headed 'The court that could be even more friendly' written by Laurence Gruzman which appears in today's Sydney Morning Herald. He makes a number of significant criticisms of the operation of the Court to which I think it is appropriate to respond briefly. Firstly, he says that there is a three-year delay in hearing property matters. As to that criticism I say that there are property cases that can take three years to be heard. However, on my advice, the delays in those cases are very much attributable to the parties or their advisers rather than to the Family Court itself. Presently the delay between the time a property case is ready to be heard and its hearing is 12 months in the Sydney Registry of the Court. He also says that the Family Court applies technical rules more rigidly than most courts . I simply believe that that is untrue. The Family Law Act and the regulations under it require the Court to proceed without undue formality and expressly provide that non-compliance with formalities is not to be penalised. A further criticism is that the Family Court is unable to deal with what he describes as the wife avoidance industry-for example, husbands arranging assets to circumvent Court orders. In reply to that comment I say that there is a view that litigants have not, to date, tested the full extent of the Family Court's powers to deal with this problem. Sections 85 and 114 of the Act are relevant in that respect. To that extent, I suggest, it is partly the fault of the legal profession that the wife avoidance industry is becoming, in many ways, as prevalent as tax avoidance has been in recent times. There are a further couple of criticisms relating to the jurisdiction of the Court suggesting there ought to be appeal rights to the Federal Court of Australia and that the Supreme Court should have jurisdiction to hear property cases involving sums of over $300,000. Suggestions of this kind are similar to a number of suggestions that are now under active consideration in the context of the proposal for an integrated national courts system. Certainly the Government will be taking that kind of view into account. The final point that was made-I think it is a valid one-is that the Family Court should be more open to the Press and the public. I remind the Senate that the Family Law Amendment Bill-which was introduced by the last Government and which in a slightly revised form will be introduced, I hope, next week by the present Government-proposed that proceedings in the future be heard in open court, subject to a power to exclude certain persons and to limit the way in which material arising out of the conduct of those cases may be published so as to ensure that the parties are not identified. Senator Button —I ask that further questions be placed on notice. Senator Lewis —Mr President, I raise a point of order regarding the number of questions which are being asked in this chamber. I want to do this fairly. I say seriously to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) that I recognise that new Ministers have difficulty in getting their briefs prepared. One could expect when they are new to their office, that they would take some time to gain their feet in answering questions. I recognise that it must be a difficult task and I seriously offer them my consideration. The PRESIDENT —Order! What is the honourable senator's point of order? Senator Lewis —My point of order is in connection with the Standing Orders relating to questions and answers to questions by Ministers. I draw your attention, Mr President, to the fact that today Opposition senators asked six questions. Senator Peter Baume —Check it. Senator Lewis —Honourable senators can check that out. This week I think about six Opposition senators have not managed to ask one question in a whole week. My recollection is that when we were in government I asked a question every day. Some days, if I was quick on my feet towards the end of Question Time, I managed to ask a second question. I asked at least three questions most weeks, and sometimes four questions. I also recognise that when the present Government was in opposition honourable senators opposite used to complain that they did not get a long enough Question Time. Frequently it was obvious that this was because their leader or deputy leader was chopping off back bench senators. I also recognise that more supplementary questions are now being asked, in an effort to ask more questions. Mr President, I seriously ask you to make a comparison of a fair week last year with, say, this week and look at the number and length of answers that are given every day. I ask the Leader of the Government to give serious consideration to extending Question Time until such time as his Ministers are able to give briefer answers to questions. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I was beaten to my feet by Senator Lewis, but when Senator Button asked that further questions be placed on notice I was on the point of requesting you to extend Question Time for 10 minutes. The facts are as set out by Senator Lewis. Only 14 questions have been asked today. Under this Government, 19 or 20 questions have been asked each day. Mr President, you had cause to draw attention to the length of some of the answers which were given. I make the point that the questions asked today were not of unusual length. There was, I think, only one supplementary question asked by an Opposition senator. In fact there has been very poor opportunity for the Opposition to exercise its right to question Ministers in this place. I believe, Mr President, the most effective way in which you could aid the Senate to have an effective Question Time would be to grant us some extension on this occasion. I make the point that both reasonably short questions and reasonably short answers would aid the Senate. Mr President, I do not wish to repeat the points made by Senator Lewis. If you examine the record, and I am aware of how carefully you have tried to share questions among honourable senators, you will see those who have not had an opportunity to ask a question. I certainly accept your own attempt to achieve fairness in that regard for Opposition senators, but in fact a very small number of questions has meant that very many senators have not been able to ask a question. On this occasion I ask you to extend Question Time by, say, 10 minutes to enable a number of other questions to be addressed. Senator Button —Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. The Government would not be agreeable to extending Question Time today. It is not as though the Opposition displayed a penetrating interest in any topic today. Insofar as the general comments which have been made basically by Senator Lewis are concerned, we are quite happy for those matters to be raised with you. We do not seek to block Opposition senators from asking questions. If you are to conduct a review of this matter you should do it for the period of this Government. You should, Mr President, look at the number of questions Senator Chaney has asked on various days. I think there is very good reason for that, by the look of the Opposition. In terms of numbers, I think you will find a very large number of questions asked by Senator Chaney. It is a matter for the Opposition to work out how it conducts its own business. Senator Lewis even gave us a little lecture about that today-how we conducted our business as the Opposition in the past. I concede that some of the answers have been long, but so is my memory. I recall answers when the previous Government was in office, both from Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Durack, which took an interminable time. I do not want to debate this matter on the basis of 'we are as bad as you were'. We will certainly look into the matter. Mr President, I would be grateful if you would accede to the request by Senator Chaney to look into this matter in order to facilitate Question Time. The PRESIDENT —On the point of order taken by Senator Lewis and the Leader of the Opposition and in respect of the request by the Leader of the Opposition that I be prepared to extend Question Time, I point out that the length of Question Time is not a matter for the Chair to determine; it is a matter for the Leader of the Government in the Senate to determine. Senator Peter Rae —No, it is a matter for the Senate. The PRESIDENT —It is a matter for the Senate, of course, but it is certainly not a matter for the Chair's initiative. I have listened to the answers given by Ministers and I think it is fair to say that from time to time I have drawn the attention of Ministers to the requirements of Standing Order 100. I ask Ministers that whilst they are entitled, and it has been the custom and practice , to answer questions in the manner that they determine, to bear in mind Standing Order 100 and not debate the matters raised in questions. Question Time is often the only time when back benchers can raise matters during a week, and I am sure that honourable senators on both sides would appreciate it if they could be given a better share of the time spent on Question Time. The fact is, Senatory Chaney, there were two supplementary questions from Opposition senators today, not one. In recent times there have been a great number of supplementary questions. I draw that matter to the attention of all honourable senators because supplementary questions also detract from the time available for other honourable senators to ask questions. I will have a review made of the matter, as requested by Senator Lewis, and will study the matter further. I think, from recollection-I speak subject to checking-that in the last sessional period of the last Parliament there was an everage of about 18 or 19 questions. Today 16 questions and three supplementary questions were asked. I certainly have taken on board the matters that have been raised and I will see what can be done. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have an answer to a question raised by Senator Harradine in this place on 5 May which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- On 5 May 1983, Senator Harradine asked a question concerning the extent of press and speech freedom among Unesco member countries, Unesco involvement in the New World Information and Communication Order, and Australian involvement in the Unesco International Program for Development of Communication. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer: Among the 158 member nations of Unesco there are some whose governments have very different ideas about freedom, including Press freedom, from those espoused by the Australian Government and people. The Government accepts that, in any international organisation where membership is open to all states, such differences are inevitable. The honourable senator will be aware that debate on a possible New World Information and Communication Order has been continuing in the international community since the early 1970s. UNESCO has, by virtue of its mandate, been closely involved in these discussions. In particular, its contribution has been the creation in 1980 of an International Program for the Development of Communication, which seeks to move the debate away from rhetoric in a more practical direction. The IPDC was designed as a clearing house, matching communication needs with available resources and assessing global priorities, IPDC activity is funded both from UNESCO's regular program budget and from a special account set up for this purpose, Australia of course contributes to the regular program budget. It has not contributed to the special account. As a nation which enjoys the benefit of an unfettered and active media, Australia has a long-standing interest in international discussion of communications issues. We shall continue to ensure that our voice is heard on these matters in international bodies and we shall speak in favour of the freest possible flow of news and ideas between nations. So far as the IPDC is concerned , we shall continue to encourage it to concentrate on practical measures which will assist developing countries to improve the standard of their communications facilities and the quality of their media. Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a first time. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(1.10) —I wish to raise a matter during this debate regarding a decision taken over the last year by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in South Australia and in respect of the position of the radio drama producer in South Australia. It is a decision which, as I go through the recent history of it and the rationale behind it, I will attempt to indicate is shortsighted, inconsistent and convoluted in its process. On 2 April 1982 the ABC's then radio drama producer in South Australia, Mr Herbert Davies, retired. For a period before that time and for the period since, the relevant associations, be they the ABC Staff Association or the Actors Equity Association of Australia in that State, have consistently attempted to have a person appointed to fill the vacancy. Their attempts have been met with a stonewalling action from the ABC, a response which does not hold water. There is, I submit, a rather strong case for the filling of the vacancy. At the moment in South Australia we have a production capacity, both in terms of studio space and facilities as well as in the area of work opportunities, which has not been met. In recent years ABC radio drama in South Australia has provided valuable work opportunities for South Australian actors. As well as that it has also produced opportunities for South Australian writers. In fact in 1981 when one radio drama was being produced in South Australia every three weeks by the ABC at its Collinswood studios, 15 per cent of members of Actors Equity in South Australia were employed by the Commission in relation to that radio drama. Quite a number of people have been employed directly and indirectly as a consequence of production related to and centred on the position of ABC radio drama producer in that State. It is also incongruous to note in passing that a State that is recognised Australia-wide and, to a certain extent world-wide, as having a deep and rather developed interest in the arts, is at the moment neglecting one very important aspect of art. I mentioned earlier that the decision-making process in this matter is one that indicates a certain amount of inconsistency and a lack of, shall we say, sincerity by the management involved. I also mentioned that the problems have arisen because of the retirement of Mr Herbert Davies over 13 months ago. Since then we have had a series of machinations and manoeuvres that have led virtually nowhere. I suggest that in the course of that period the ABC has shown a certain degree of unacceptable inconsistency in the way in which it has approached its industrial relations and its decision-making process. I mentioned that before Mr Davies' retirement the imminent problem was raised by the ABC Staff Association as well as Actors Equity. In fact it had been raised a number of times, and the first response of any substance came from the ABC's Chief Manager in South Australia, Mr John Geyer, on 8 July 1982 when, in response to a complaint from the ABC Staff Association, he replied: Before commenting on the position in question, I would prefer to know the recommendations of the Media Management Working Group which is due to complete its report tomorrow week. In essence, he was promising an answer within a couple of weeks. The management group did report but the appearance of the report was delayed. However, on 22 September 1982, approximately two months after Mr Geyer's reply, the group made a number of recommendations, one of which was that the position be advertised internally and externally as a permanent vacancy-a vacancy that should be filled from either within or outside the Australian Broadcasting Commission. No substantive action was taken, however, and the associations kept on pursuing the matter, only to be informed by the Acting Assistant General Manager (Radio), on 22 October, approximately a month later, that it was no longer a matter of implementing the working group's report. The relevant feature was referred to by the person acting in the position, Betty Parsons, who said: I have been seeking information about the likely drama production load in South Australia and hope this will be provided shortly to Mr Mackriell. It seems, then, that the decision was to be based on a new aspect, one that had been brought in three months after the complaint had been made by the relevant association. However, it did not end there, because approximately two weeks later a proposition was put to the Staff Association that a particular person be transferred from the Tasmanian radio drama section of the ABC to Adelaide. That, in itself, could well have been an acceptable proposition but for the fact that the person to be appointed was nearing the end of a term of service and was also due to retire within a short time. The associations involved at that stage felt that that would be unacceptable in light of the fact that what was needed was someone who could generate and plan into both the short and the long term future a role for ABC radio drama in that State. In the meantime, the associations were obviously having problems with their membership, and industrial action was mooted. It was not taken, but the suggestion of industrial action, which was a rather muted one, was seized upon later by the Acting General Manager (Radio) in South Australia as an excuse for not taking any immediate action to satisfy the problem that was obviously developing. On 23 December 1982 the Acting General Manager (Radio) wrote back to the associations involved and said that this time one of the problems that had developed was that the insistence by the ABC Staff Association that the position be officially advertised had led to an administrative delay and as a consequence no action had been taken to fill the position. Two points need to be made. Firstly, administrative procedures should not take the time that they had taken to that date and, secondly, the propostion of which the Acting General Manager complained was one which had been put forward by the body set up by the ABC in South Australia to investigate the problem in the first instance. The Acting General Manager went on to say: I will be contacting in the near future the Controllers of the Networks and the Director of Radio Drama. When we have had an opportunity to canvass further all the issues involved I shall, as promised, be in touch with you again. Procrastination then seemed to be the order of the day. The situation has not been improved since that day. There have been continual requests and demands from the ABC Staff Association, together with Actors and Announcers Equity, both on a State level and on a Federal level. Despite all this there has been no definite and clear response by the ABC to these organisations. I raise this matter as one of extreme importance, not in terms of an assessment of how the ABC's decision-making process works or does not work but because of the fact that a number of South Australians who are professionals in this area, who have worked in this area in the past and who would be looking for work opportunities in this area are being denied these opportunities because of the procrastination in decision-making and because of a lack of decisiveness in this area. As I mentioned earlier, a substantial proportion of Actors Equity membership in South Australia had worked in ABC radio drama production. Now those people, because of the general recession that Australia finds itself in, also because of the peculiar problems of the industry and the stagnation in production by ABC radio in the State, are finding that this source of employmennt opportunity is now not available to them. I hope that by raising this matter in the Senate I will be able to precipitate some definite response from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in terms of satisfying the request. It seems to me that the decision taken so far-which, essentially, is not to take a decision-is one that generates unemployment rather than one which generates economic activity. To that extent it would run counter to the economic direction of this newly elected Labor Government. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(1.21) —I rise to address the question of drought relief. I think all honourable senators would be aware of the previous Government's initiatives designed and brought to bear to alleviate the drought experienced in the eastern States. The importance of primary industry to Australia's economy should not be underestimated. The most recent figures available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that in the financial year 1980-81 exports of rural origin accounted for 42.6 per cent of Australian exports. In current dollar terms that amounts to $8,071m earned and generated outside capital cities, on our farms. Ten years ago, prior to most of the major mining projects coming on stream, rural production accounted for 48.9 per cent of Australia's export earnings, or in 1970-71 terms something like $2, 075m. In other words, rural industries have retained their position as our most single important export dollar earners despite major investments in mining and manufacturing in the last decade. They have not in any way significantly reduced their share of our export earnings. To me that is a clear argument for a sensitive approach by government to the problems of primary producers, especially in a drought situation. As I have said, the actions of the past Government were sensitive, understanding and commendable in view of the problems being faced by farmers particularly in drought areas. What concerns me, as a senator from Western Australia, is that governments do not seem to be as effective as they might be in recognising all the problems caused by drought particularly when we have recurring bad seasons and not just a single bad season. No doubt the difficulties of Western Australia have been masked by the fact that in the 1982-83 season wheat production in Western Australia was 5.22 million tonnes, which represented 66.7 per cent of Australia' s total production. One could be forgiven for concluding that farmers in Western Australia had a bumper year, but it may surprise honourable senators to learn that many of them did not. Most of those in the north-eastern wheat belt, particularly in shires such as Mullewa, Morawa, Perenjori, Dalwallinu, Koorda and Mount Marshall, have experienced drought for six of the last seven years. In the south-east of the State, around Ravensthorpe and Gnowangerup, drought declarations have been in effect for three of the last six years. The area north of Esperance has likewise been drought declared for three of the last six years. In 1976-77 there were 2,670 drought declared farms in Western Australia, and about the same number the following year. The number was 1,304 in 1979-80 and 3, 924 in 1980-81. Even in the last season, in which Western Australia accounted for two-thirds of the national output of wheat, 1,653 farms were still under drought. It seems to me that until a widespread drought of the type that the eastern States has experienced takes hold, the problems of farmers in relatively small and, to some degree, isolated areas of Australia are largely ignored or not understood. I make that point quite deliberately. Until last year the main drought relief mechanism was the so-called carry-on finance arrangement which was jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the States on a three-for-one basis. One glaring weakness in that arrangement was that farmers were able to qualify for the loan at the concessional rate of 4 per cent only when they could show that finance was not available from normal conventional sources such as banks and stock firms. In other words, to qualify for assistance, a farmer had already to be in dire straits to the point at which conventional financial institutions were no longer willing to assist. That is really a case of the door being closed after the horse has bolted. To some extent the interest rate subsidy overcomes some of the financial problems faced by farmers by assisting in loan repayments to the extent of subsidising interest payments above 12 per cent. The subsidy will apply in cases of existing debt prior to 31 August 1982 and carry-on finance debt incurred as a result of drought after that date. However, this scheme does not strike at the vital question, in my view, of the structure of rural debt. The question is of particular importance in my own State, as is shown by the estimates which I will now enumerate. They have been provided by the Primary Industry Association of Western Australia. They demonstrate that the estimated average farm debt as at 30 June 1982 was, in New South Wales, $39,700; in Victoria, $35,800; in Queeensland, $69,300; in South Australia, $57,000; in Tasmania, $63,600; and in Western Australia, $75,000. The average farm debt in Western Australia is, therefore, by far the highest in Australia. Of course, that average underestimates the position of those in drought affected areas, particularly those suffering from recurrent drought situations. The interest subsidy announced by the previous Government will benefit mainly farmers who have recently moved into the industry; that is, those farmers who would be expecting to pay the contemporary high interest rates which have prevailed in recent years. They, of course, will be the ones who have the highest debt load. The subsidy will also apply to farmers who have recently purchased new equipment. Once again, farmers in the north-east wheat belt area are a good example. With the recurrent droughts in that area, many farmers have moved progressively out of sheep and wheat farming into exclusively, or at least predominantly, grain production, necessitating higher hire purchase commitments brought about by increasing mechanisation. In other words, a decision brought about by climatic factors has contributed to a higher debt amongst those farmers who by reason of successive poorseasons are least able to service their debts. It is not a matter of competence or incompetence but simply one of a rational economic decision being affected by the intangible factor of climate. Short term debts with a high amortisation factor can also be incurred by farmers whose properties are perhaps too small and who have sought to overcome their problems by further land acquisition. That has been particularly true in the south-east of Western Australia, where once again prolonged droughts have adversely affected a farmer's ability to meet his new and ever-demanding financial commitments. Once again it is a case of an intangible factor being imposed on what was at the time a perfectly rational economic decision. I suggest that the dilemma lies in the present structure of rural debt. The present drought assistance loans work over a maximum period of seven years at an interest rate of 4 per cent with a holiday on repayments for the first two years . Repayments in years three to seven are made at the rate of 24.3c for each $1 of the loan, which in fact is roughly the same as a seven year loan with no holiday on repayments at an interest rate of 16 per cent. The latter situation provides that annual repayments be made at the rate of 24.7 per cent for each $1 of loan. Of course, there is no repayment-free period in the latter case. But these two repayment-free years in the first case are of little benefit to farmers such as those in the north-eastern wheat belt who have been in a drought situation for six of the last seven years. If rural debt were to be restructured over a longer period-say, over 15 years- at 16 per cent, repayments would be made at an annual rate of approximately 17. 9c per each $1 of debt, representing a saving on annual repayments of $6,357 on a loan of $100,000 which, of course, far exceeds the average farm debt in Western Australia. But the effect would be quite dramatic. The annual saving on repayments would enable a farmer to borrow an additional $35,400 which, at an average cost of $50 a hectare, would allow an additional 708 hectares to be cropped. The break-even yield on these additional 708 hectares-that is, the yield at which that additional debt could be completely serviced-is a mere 0.45 tonnes a hectare. That is less than half the average yield in Western Australia, at 1.08 tonnes per hectare on an average over the last 10 years. At that average yield, and assuming a perfectly elastic demand for wheat, the additional land under crop would generate of the order of $86,000 in additional revenue, which could in part be put towards the overall farm debt. To put all this into perspective, as I indicated earlier, 1977-78 was a bad year for drought in Western Australia, with 2,510 farms affected over 31 shires. Yields in those north-eastern wheat belt shires amounted to about 45 per cent of the 1975-76 non-drought total, implying that even in the drought years the yields would have been sufficient to service the additional debt brought about by bringing new areas into production. In better years, even in marginally better years which could still be described as drought years, farmers could expect additional revenue under this scheme. The other side of the coin for farmers who do not have additional land to bring into production is that the savings on repayments can be put towards recurrent production costs. For example , the Shire of Morawa is one of those shires which have been affected by drought in six of the last seven years. The average size of a farm in that shire is approximately 2,000 hectares. Because of the drought in that area, farmers are frequently in a position of having to borrow all, or most, of the following year 's production costs. However, under the restructured rural debt scheme that I have outlined, farmers in that shire would have their liquidity position for the current program improved to the extent of about one-third of production costs. There is no doubt that as a result of recurrent debts and droughts in some parts of Australia which have been largely ignored in recent years because relatively small areas have been involved, a restructuring of rural debt is essential. It is one thing to recognise hardship while a drought declaration is current and quite another to understand that the hardships do not end with the first rains, which is the impression that seems to be given by many people, particularly those in the Parliament who have no understanding of rural matters. In my view a restructuring of rural debt will address both problems. What is necessary to bring that about is a recognition of what constitutes a drought-not a major drought such as one which strikes the eastern States and which attracts headlines because everybody recognises it, but perhaps the more geographically confined droughts such as those in the north-eastern wheat belt and the lower Great Southern regions of Western Australia that have been suffering badly. If the recent comments of the Western Australian Premier, Mr Burke, are any indication, it will be a problem for some time-at least as long as the Labor Government is in office in Western Australia. Honourable senators may recall that only some weeks ago, Mr Burke, the Australian Labor Party Premier of Western Australia, on his departure to the magnificent National Economic Summit, said that Western Australia could pull Australia out of its recession because, amongst other reasons, it had not suffered from drought. I only hope that that is not the level of perception of rural matters in every part of the ALP in Western Australia and Canberra. If so, our rural industries will be in a very sorry state. I conclude by saying that changes are needed not only in the Parliament and the rural community, but in the community as a whole to ensure that the intrinsic, vital and significant contribution that is made to our economy, the decentralisation of our community and strengthening of the fabric of society, as we understand it, is recognised. Until we are prepared to come to grips with and recognise the vital role and the heavy burden under which the rural community is labouring with respect to increasing costs, and the ever increasing costs cast upon it by more and more protection, the rural sector will continue to suffer. Alleviating the problems caused by drought, including the attendant question of rural debt, will be a crucial starting point and should demand our immediate attention. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(1.37) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take this opportunity to congratulate the President and the Deputy President on the high office that they now hold. I look forward to working with them in a co-operative and constructive manner. I would also like to congratulate all the new senators who have made their maiden speeches, especially my South Australian colleague Senator Crowley. I am sure they will contribute a great deal to the Senate and enhance the quality of debate in this chamber. I would also like to pass on my good wishes to all senators who retired at the last election, particularly Geoff McLaren and Sir Harold Young from South Australia, and my good friend Tony Mulvihill from New South Wales. I wish them all a long and happy retirement. I use this first reading debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 1982-83 to discuss the National Economic Summit Conference which was held in the national Parliament last month and the attempts by the Opposition to tear apart its achievements. The Summit, which was the brainchild of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), was, of course, foreshadowed during the election campaign in February and as such represented the fulfilment of a promise made to the people of Australia. It involved the coming together of governments, unions, business leaders and various professional and employer organisations in a spirit of consensus and co-operation in a way never seen before in this country. It was supported by most major newspapers and by all sections of the Australian community except, of course, the Federal Opposition led by Mr Peacock and Mr Howard, who insisted that they should have been invited. An extract from the Adelaide Advertiser of 6 April refers to the behaviour of the Opposition. It states: The Federal Opposition and the Australian Democrats have been loud in their criticism of the Government's failure to invite them to take part in the Summit. Many of those whose interests they represent, however, will have voices at the Conference and the politicians themselves have Parliament as an adequate forum for their views. On the subject of Opposition representation at the Summit, the Weekend Australian of 9-10 April stated: . . . if Mr Peacock and Mr Anthony were to be taking part, the Conference would probably be little more than a replica of the Federal Parliament, augmented by a host of private citizens sitting not in the gallery, but on the floor of the House. The Fraser government could not complain that Mr Hawke failed to tell them of his intention to hold a summit. It was the centre-piece of his election campaign . It was during the campaign that the Liberal and National Parties should have raised these objections in principle which seem to have occurred to them only after the votes were counted. So much for the Opposition's criticism of the Summit! The Government did not pretend that it was a cure all and end all. It was meant to achieve some common ground and general agreement on a whole range of important economic issues and to set down the framework for Australia's economic recovery. One of the important achievements of the Conference was the agreement to return to centralised wage fixation. This will end the uncertainty and chaos which has characterised our wages system since wage indexation was abolished in 1981. It is no coincidence that the large increase in wages in 1981 and 1982, which the Liberal-National Party coalition has blamed for all our economic woes, was brought about as a direct result of the Fraser Government's decision to abolish wage indexation. Therefore, if anyone is to be blamed for this so-called wages explosion, it is the previous Government, not the workers or the unions. The return to a centralised wage fixing system will see a return to a more orderly and fairer system, with all sectors of the working community able to share the burden of restraint more equitably. The Conference sought and obtained restraint from all parties. For their part, the unions agreed to forgo any wage catch-ups during this period of economic crisis, and employers similarly agreed to restraint in areas of pricing and the issue of dividends. The Conference also recognised that non-wage income must not be allowed to increase at a rate faster than ordinary wages. For their part, the governments, both Federal and State, agreed to keep all increases in charges to a minimum. In the area of industrial relations, the moves foreshadowed by the Government in paragraph 34 to abolish the Industrial Relations Bureau and to facilitate the amalgamation of unions in line with the National Labour Consultative Council's recommendations as contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1983 will go a long way towards achieving a more peaceful and harmonious industrial relations climate. The proposed review of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and regulations will also result in a vast improvement in legislation in the industrial relations area. I was also pleased to see that the Summit recognised the need to give greater priority to occupational health and safety in the work place and the need for a concerted effort by all parties to improve the general quality of the working environment in Australia. The Summit also agreed on the need to establish the Economic Planning Advisory Council-known as EPAC-so that the spirit of consensus and the process of consultation can be carried on in the months and years ahead. This Council is to consist of Government Ministers, representatives of the States, business, unions, farmers and a representative from community support groups. The Summit has been hailed as an outstanding success by all of those who participated except, of course, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, Mr Gray and the Federal Opposition. At the conclusion of the Conference, Mr D. J. Hughes, President of the Confederation of Australian Industry, said: The National Economic Summit has been an historic milestone in Australia's history. Never before have we witnessed such a bringing together of the representatives of diverse groups which make up our total community. The fact that the Commonwealth Government, through the Prime Minister and his senior Ministers, has met in an open forum with State Premiers and Ministers, with the full Executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, with representatives of a broad cross-section of Australian industry and commerce and the wide spectrum of community groups, indicates beyond question, the deep understanding which the Government has of this nation's present problems and its preparedness frankly and fully to discuss those problems with a view to producing acceptable, realistic and workable solutions. In its appraisal of the Summit, the Melbourne Age had this to say: The Economic Summit Conference has achieved more than optimistic realists dared to hope and pessimistic cynics were prepared to predict . . . The Summit was not simply a cleverly staged spectacle designed to display the conciliatory skills of Mr Hawke or to demonstrate a degree of consensus that does not really exist. It was the auspicious beginning of a long and difficult process to lift Australia from the depth of recession, and of a new style of government involving a measure of consultation and participation not hitherto attempted in this country. Of course, the Summit in itself will not solve our problems, but it is a start, and it represents the end of seven years of divisiveness and despair for the Australian people. Given the general agreement on the success of the Summit, one would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have recognised its achievement. Instead, he continued to alienate himself and his party from the Australian people by knocking the Summit and the Prime Minister. He is attempting to undermine the efforts being made by this Government to revive the economy, just as he attempted to undermine the Constitutional Convention earlier this month. I think the Opposition would have done itself a favour by joining with the rest of the community in helping to make this thing work. Instead, it has deliberately tried to disrupt this Government's attempts to seek consensus and has jumped on to every single issue and declared it a national scandal. It has now been joined by the newspapers-principally the Murdoch Press-in a dishonest and desperate attempt to create an air of crisis. One has only to look at the headlines in the Australian for the last two weeks to get an idea of the dirty smear campaign being waged by the Murdoch Press against the Hawke Government. It has even resorted to the dishonourable tactic of placing editorials on the front page. I believe that the actions of the Opposition and sections of the print media amount to an act of sabotage. Perhaps we should get the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to look into the relationship between the Opposition and the Murdoch Press, because what they are doing is clearly against the national interests. For the last three weeks, in fact since the Senate started sitting on 21 April, the Opposition has asked only two questions relating to unemployment, and even then it was the tired old line about the link between wages and unemployment. That is clear evidence of the Opposition's lack of concern for the welfare of the Australian people. It is too busy digging up scandals and muckraking to care about the ordinary men and women in the community and the well-being of the Australian economy. That is why it will stay on the Opposition benches for the rest of this decade. It is totally devoid of policies, and has the audacity to criticise our wages accord, despite the fact that it does not have any wages policy of its own. It is about time the Opposition stopped knocking and became more constructive in its contributions to this Parliament. Perhaps it could learn from the Australian Democrats in this regard. If the Opposition keeps up this sort of tactic, I am sure that it will not be long before we see Mr Peacock sitting on the back benches again. To sum up, I would like to quote the Prime Minister's words at the conclusion of the Conference. He said: We do not have to believe that a conference like this can achieve a total resolution of conflict. The nature of our system, the very condition of freedom, the most priceless asset that we have as a society, mitigates against that . . . But what we have achieved at this Conference-I believe most deeply-is a basic consensus on some fundamental issues of key importance to the social and economic future of Australia. I do not think anybody could disagree that this sort of consensus is very desirable, and forms a very sound basis indeed on which to rebuild our depressed economy. Senator HILL(South Australia)(1.51) —A recent American President said: ' Yesterday is not ours to recover, but tomorrow is ours to win or lose'. This is a vital time in Australia's development. We have deluded ourselves into unrealistic expectations and now crisis is upon us. We have overpaid and overserviced ourselves to a stage where our inflation rate is now double that of our trading partners. In such circumstances we simply cannot remain competitive. We have unemployment levels that are intolerable. Not only are we failing to utilise the most valuable of our resources-that of our potential work force-but also we will face increasing social stress from the mere existence of such a large section of Australians being frustrated and disappointed by the failure of our economic system to accommodate their reasonable expectations. The key to overcoming the current crisis is to provide the environment and incentives for economic growth. It was one of the great disappointments of the National Economic Summit Conference that under the guidelines of traditional Australian Labor Party philosophy, and despite lip service to the contrary, the concentration was upon the equitable redistribution of resources-although a worthwhile objective in itself-rather than on economic growth, which can result in redistribution of greater resources and therefore improve the material well-being of all Australians. Those of us who are looking for a blueprint for growth were sorely disappointed. In that spirit I have in this chamber in the past looked at the subject of taxation incentives and have called for measures to help in updating plant and equipment, such as increased depreciation rates and the reduction of disincentives such as double taxation on dividends. I have been pleased to see some concrete change for the better, which I have applauded as it has come about . I have looked at comparisons of government encouragement of industrial development in our competitors, and in particular analysed and made recommendations in relation to our system of export encouragement. Before the election I had intended to move on to the subject of the role of government in industrial research and development, which I still intend to do as soon as possible. Within the scenario of economic growth I wish today to look at the sector of the community which received the most marked neglect by the Economic Conference. The sector I wish to examine, and which in all likelihood holds the key to the most rapid absorption of our army of unemployed and to making the most significant contribution to economic growth in the short term, is small business . Small business was directly represented by just one of the 100 official organisations and indirectly by a few of the delegates to the Summit, and received but one cursory comment in the 55-paragraph communique. Yet the new Labor Government would do well to appreciate its significance in the Australian economy and community. Mr Don Gibbons, Chairman of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, who was the only direct delegate from small business to the Conference, estimated that there are 400,000 small businesses throughout Australia, which excludes primary producers. COSBOA has further estimated that small enterprises account for between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of total employment in the private sector and that its contribution to gross national product is about the same as that of big business, which of course had many delegates to the Conference, as did big unions. This Government should beware of the apparently distorted view it is taking of business. When one is considering policy alternatives, such as increased protection to the steel industry which may result in higher steel prices, one must also consider the effects of such policy initiatives upon the many thousands of downstream small businesses utilising the products of that particular big business which might be detrimentally affected thereby. A recent paper on small business in Australia, put out by the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library, attempted to summarise the economic and social importance of the small business sector. In relation to economic importance it adopted part of the United Kingdom Bolton Committee's assessment of importance of the activities of small firms as specialist suppliers of parts, components, et cetera; as a source of innovation in product technique and services; in providing competition checking monopoly profits and the inefficiency of monopoly; and as a productive outlet for the energies of enterprising and independent people. The report also referred to the importance of that sector in industries and trade in which the optimum size of the enterprise is small; the importance in providing products and services in a limited or specialised market which large firms would not find worth while or economic; as a breeding ground for new industries and as a means of entry into business for new entrepreneurial talents. The social importance of small business includes its contribution to employment and its potential to reduce unemployment-each new job usually requiring less capital in the form of fixed assets; of particular importance, the usually closer relationship between employer and employee; and the opportunity it offers for equitable ownership of the nation's resources and potential, thus contributing to the decentralisation of economic power. The contribution in respect of a geographical decentralisation of the Australian economy is also significant. Given the economic and social importance of this sector, one could reasonably have thought that the opportunity for expansion, increased strength and growth of this sector would have been one of the major considerations of the Economic Summit. One must now also have some fear that the high profile action program for small business, promoted by the Australian Labor Party during the election campaign, is slipping in priority. Certainly, the health of the overall economy is of great benefit to small business. It will not simply come about by effluxion of time; rather it will come about by the application of specific beneficial policies. That is why the Conference communique was so disappointing. Considering the array of talent present one could reasonably have expected more than a series of motherhood statements. The approach of COSBOA has been that anomalies have developed within our regulatory environment that specifically prejudice small business at the expense of big business. It is argued that to rectify these prejudices would in itself encourage expansion and growth of small business. Regrettably, none of its recommendations received mention in the communique. One distortion to which it refers is Division 7-undistributed profits tax. From the point of view of comparison between public and private companies or, speaking generally, big and small business, it means that the latter is prejudiced in its ability to obtain internally generated funds. The capacity to finance growth from its own funds is , of course, vitally important. The previous Government liberalised Division 7 by reducing to 20 per cent the after-tax trading profits that must be distributed to avoid undistributed profits tax. That trend deserves acknowledgement. The second distortion relates to internal superannuation funds. Many small businesses are operated by sole traders or through partnerships, and they are prejudiced in relation to superannuation as compared with employee funds. For example, there are tax concessions for employer contributions to employee funds but to a fixed limit for self-employed persons. Income from employee funds is tax exempt, subject to the 30-20 rule, but all income over 5 per cent is taxable at 50 per cent for self-employed funds. The maximum benefit under employee funds tapers away above an annual average salary of $22,000. But self-employed funds are cut off at that figure and different retirement ages are provided. There is also prejudice against smaller company funds, as opposed to big company funds, in particular, by restricting the amount of contributions that can be claimed against taxable income. The third area often raised by COSBOA relates to provisional tax. Provisional tax, for a given period, must be paid well in advance of company tax for the same period. Thus there is discrimination against the sole trader or partnership in favour of usually larger business operated through companies. Furthermore, the sole trader or partnership is obliged to pay the full sum of provisional tax at one time, whereas company tax is collected by quarterly instalments. It is not surprising, therefore, that small business organisations, such as COSBOA, have, for a very long time, been advocating that the forward spread payments of provisional tax be permitted on a quarterly basis. Unfortunately, again there is no mention of this in the communique. Apart from these prejudices against small business which call for reform one would have thought that the Summit Conference would have turned its attention to areas of the structural management of the economy that inhibit free and fair competition and thus retard the growth and development of small business. The Trade Practices Act comes immediately to mind, a principal purpose of which is the protection of the weak from the predatory. Yet reports such as the report of the Trade Practices Consultative Committee entitled 'Small Business and the Trade Practices Act' have indicated a number of areas in which the Act is failing to achieve its purpose. Price discrimination, where its effect is substantially to lessen competition, is prohibited by section 49 of the Trade Practices Act. But a small business may be forced out of business by price discrimination without any damage to competition within the market and, therefore, will not invoke the section. In any event, as is pointed out by COSBOA, small business does not have the facilities, the time or the resources to rally against big business in an effort to prove discrimination. Solutions have been suggested by the Trade Practices Consultative Committee which has offered potential solutions which would have been a worthwhile challenge for the Summit. In the same way clearly restrictive practices in the labour market, for example, in relation to penalty rates, inhibit the growth expansion of small business and call for reform. Another cry of small business has been for greater access to finance with fair rates of interest. The Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System agreed that small business did not have equal access to the financial market when compared with large business. It acknowledged: In particular loans are more expensive and more security is required, equity funds are more difficult and costly to obtain and small business proprietors have less financial expertise in presenting finance applications. The Library Legislative Research Service identified the type of firm typically unable to meet trading bank guidelines as recently estabished firms, fast growing firms and product innovative firms. They tend to be faced with obtaining finance from other sources at increased cost which may affect the viability of planned projects. They are the firms that particularly need fostering in today's climate. A report of the Committee of the Small Business Advisory Council entitled ' Finance for Small Business' published in June 1980 recommended the establishment of a new financial institution-the Small Business Finance Corporation-to provide small business with long term debt finance, equity capital and innovation capital to take prototypes into the production and marketing stages. Even Campbell, somewhat in conflict with the basic philosophy of the report, acknowledged that encouragement could be given to the establishment of private small business investment companies whose primary role would be to invest in the equity of small businesses, new ventures and innovations. COSBOA has called for an amendment to the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia to allow it to borrow on the open market for on-lending to small business on an equity or debt basis. If the Economic Conference had been fairly represented by small business, with appropriate background papers, it could have given real guidance to government which would have been helpful. Finally, if the Government is to look, as it should, to small business as part of an answer to Australia's economic crisis, it must note research such as that carried out in the James Cook University of Queensland which concluded: . . . of the 2,440 small business bankruptcies in 1978-79 a major cause in more than 25 per cent of cases was lack of business ability, training or experience. The need for more effective, easily accessible management training becomes of critical importance. The Government would be well advised to examine the report entitled 'Small Business Education and Training in Australia', prepared on behalf of the National Training Council and put down in 1980. That report concluded: Small business education and training needs are not being adequately met by traditional institutions. There can be no doubt that the various small business bureaus within the States are making a worthwhile contribution and the materials and courses provided by the Department of Industry and Commerce similarly have been worth while. The education and training gap seems to have remained. COSBOA has called for greater utilisation of programs developed and presented by trade and industry associations. To me that seems to be more in accord with the type of need the research has identified. At the recent election the Government made extensive and specific promises regarding small business. The first indication of the importance of the promises in the Government's program was the National Economic Summit Conference and the second was the Governor-General's Speech. No doubt many in small business who anticipated reiteration of the pre-election promises were stunned with the neglect of the communique and the Governor-General's Speech. They hoped for and deserved better than a vague offer of some tax relief when economic conditions improve. One can only suspect that small business has been grossly misled. My colleagues and I will, however, continually remind the Government of its commitments. We of course have a philosophical affinity with those in small business who show enterprise, entrepreneurial spirit, independence and determination to improve their lot. Whilst on the one hand we will on behalf of small business demand that the Government keep its promises, we will equally be working under our shadow Minister for small business, Roger Shipton, in the development of new and innovative policies which will assist this vital sector of the Australian community and which we will implement when we are returned to government after the next election. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(2.7) -I take the opportunity afforded by the first reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 5) to reflect on some of the confusion and inaction of the present Government in the fields of foreign affairs and defence and the way they reflect on the security of this country. I would like to deal, first of all, with the field of foreign affairs and, of the many points that have come up, with three which seem quite important to me. One of the moves of the Government I applaud and two of them I deplore. Firstly, to the Government's credit, there seems to be a reversal of the traditional antagonism of Indonesia. It is a refreshing change to see a Labor Government starting to move into the real world and accepting some of the realities of our neighbourhood. There is no future at all in traditional and doctrinaire hatred of Indonesia that the Australian Labor Party has manifested since the mid-1950s. My only request is that the dissenting voices in the Labor Party keep their debate within the privacy of Caucus, if that is possible, and argue the case there and not go out on the platform attacking Indonesia, particularly in relation to the East Timor. The second matter to which I refer is the statement by the Minister for Trade, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), over the weekend about the deployment of Australian troops in Kampuchea. Could one ever believe, having lived through the agonies of Vietnam, that we would ever hear a Labor Party member, let alone a Minister of a Labor government suggesting that a peacekeeping force be sent to South East Asia? It is breathtaking, but it is regrettably true. The insensitivity and the total ignorance of this man moving into a portfolio which is not his responsibility in any way at all trying to commit this country to an alliance with Japan in a peacekeeping force just boggle the imagination. He would not know the reaction of our Association of South East Asian Nations colleagues to the deployment of Japanese troops in this area. He would not understand the reaction of the Philippines and the Philippine Government to a proposition that Japanese troops go back into an area where the memories of the 1940s still live. I suppose he thought it was just a good idea, but it is more than just a slip of the tongue or a minor blunder, because when analysts overseas look at Lionel Bowen, they do not see Lionel Bowen as a person; they see him as a Minister in a government. What is more, they see him as the Deputy Prime Minister, the second most important man in this country, and they see him coming up with an absolutely revolutionary scheme like this. It is no wonder he got an icy response from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on this matter. The damage to Australia and the damage to Australia's diplomatic relationships by such an ill-conceived move cannot be expressed in a few simple words. The third matter that concerns me is the nuclear free zone. Again we come to marked inconsistency on the part of the Labor Party. Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister, was asked by Dr Everingham in the House of Representatives this week for his views on a nuclear free zone. The Prime Minister made a very ambiguous statement. He stated: . . . Australia, are strongly opposed to the testing and storing of nuclear weapons in the region and to the dumping of nuclear waste in the South Pacific . . . At the same time as we have that view, Australia is concerned that we do not endanger our alliance relationship . . . In particular we do not wish to impede the passage of United States nuclear powered and armed vessels through the Pacific or port calls by United States vessels in the region nor, of course, do we wish to impede the right of United States aircraft in transiting international air space. Neglecting the nonsense of the last statement of transiting international air space, even with the egomania the Prime Minister has, he has no control over the international air space around Australia or any other part of the world. To oppose nuclear weapons in the region and then to allow transit of ships and aircraft with those armaments through the area is inconsistent and it means that the Prime Minister is flirting with the lunatic Left of his party. He is trying to have his cake and eat it. Again, there are important ramifications for our allies in following such an inconsistent line. Either he believes in a nuclear free zone or he does not. He cannot have a little bit of both. I will conclude shortly because I would like the Senate to have the benefit of Senator Townley's speech. However, before I sit down I would like to move on to a defence matter. The Governor-General's Speech stated very clearly the importance of defence and foreign affairs to this Labor Government. In that long and platitudinous speech that the Prime Minister wrote for the Governor-General, of 24 topics, can one imagine where defence and foreign affairs appeared? They were covered by the statement: The defence and security of Australia and the integrity of her territory is the fundamental obligation of the Government of Australia. Those are fine words. I support them absolutely. But where did that statement appear? Of the 24 articles mentioned in the Governor-General's Speech it was twenty-fourth. I wish to refer to the acute crisis in the Royal Australian Navy at present over the way the Government has bungled the matter of an aircraft carrier and the disbandment of the Fleet Air Arm. My views on the carrier are well known. I led the fight in this Parliament against the proposition to replace Melbourne with a carrier of less capability. I believe in organic air power at sea but it has to be properly provided. The type of carrier proposed for the Navy which does not have an air borne early warning capability or an adequate strike and defence fighter aircraft on it is no good in my judgment. But that is by the way. The point is that there was a way for the Government to act, and that is with sensitivity and tact without totally destroying the morale of the Royal Australian Navy as has happened. There are not only internal problems, but also very serious international problems because the navy of our strongest ally, the United States of America, is very concerned about the collapse of morale in the Navy in this region. We have a responsibility in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean to help our allies in the face of the biggest Soviet fleet deployed in any ocean of the world. The Soviet Pacific fleet is their biggest commitment. We have a real responsibility which we have to measure up to as a nation with respect to both the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. One of the prime responsibilities falls on the Royal Australian Navy. It cannot be dealt with by a Navy that has had its morale shattered or a Navy that has had its capability destroyed because no planning has been done as to how air capability at sea will be provided. We must have that capability, presumably in a rotary wing form both for over the horizon targeting and for anti-submarine work. The action of this Government in crudely and cruelly destroying an asset without any thought as to how it will be replaced-and there is no sign of the Government being prepared to think about how it will be replaced-has profound ramifications for us. I hope that with the passage of time we will see some responsibility from this Government in the fields of foreign affairs and defence, but at the moment we look in vain. General Business taking precedence of Government Business at 2.15p.m.- Report Debate resumed from 18 May, on motion by Senator Coates: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(2.16) —As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and now its Chairman, I think it appropriate that I comment briefly on the paper, 'Guidelines for the Form and Standard of Financial Statements of Commonwealth Undertakings' from the Department of Finance which was tabled yesterday. I want to indicate that I personally and certainly the Committee as a whole welcome this tabling and the content of the document. When the Finance and Government Operations Committee was re- established in 1977 its major and continuing reference was the scrutiny of statutory authorities. One of the first problems the Committee encountered in examining authority financial dealings was the lack of a uniform accounting standard that could be applied to authorities. The Committee, through its case study approach, identified many problem areas and held discussions regarding these accounting problems with the Department of Finance, the Auditor-General's Office and particular authorities. The lack of guidelines in the past resulted in differences of approach to the most basic accounting principles between particular authorities. Some authorities used traditional government cash accounting procedures whilst others employed commercial or accrual accounting techniques. In the Committee's third report on 'Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth' it recommended that a single accounting standard apply and that that standard be full accrual accounting. This recommendation became one of the central parts of the Committee's proposal for an annual reports Act which was set out in the Committee's fifth report. The fifth report of the Committee commented in detail on the then draft guidelines and wholeheartedly recommended their adoption. The Committee's goal in recommending an annual reports Act, in particular, the guidelines which have now been adopted by the Government, was to improve accountability of authorities to the Parliament and to the public. The adoption of the guidelines will help achieve that aim. Once again, I congratulate the Government on tabling this report. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(2.18) —I too wish to commend the Government on its prompt and positive response to a number of initiatives in this area, one of which was the setting up of a joint committee comprising people drawn from the Auditor-General's Office, the Department of Finance and the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I refer also to last year's Joint Committee of Public Accounts discussion paper entitled 'Guidelines for the Form and Standard of Financial Statements of Commonwealth Undertakings'. The new Department of Finance guidelines contain significant reforms and I believe they will help to standardise public sector accounting to a significant degree. As chairman of the Committee whose members drew up the sectional report I am pleased to say that many of the Committee's recommendations have been adopted. Our investigations demonstrated the inadequacy and irrelevance of many annual reports and financial statements from government authorities. We pointed out the distinctive nature of public sector accounting and the need to establish distinctive guidelines. People in public life frequently lose sight of the basic objective of accounting and financial reporting in the federal system. This is to provide useful information for assessing management's performance and stewardship. Assessing this basically involves determining what an entity has achieved and what it can achieve in the future. This second aspect, regrettably, is still ignored. In assessing performance, information must provide indicators on three things: Firstly, financial viability; secondly, program activity; and, thirdly, fiscal compliance. The information, which indicates how efficient and effective management operates, helps users to assess stewardship and performance. Another difficulty is that if disclosed accounting profit or surplus is a major determinant of pricing policies, under a user pays concept of public sector service, determination of such profit or surplus must be fair. This applies particularly in monopoly-type situations. To our Public Accounts Committee this meant that accounting must be factual in current economic terms rather than hypothetical or the product of traditional and sometimes irrelevant accounting techniques. I believe that we probably need to go further than do these new guidelines issued by the Department of Finance. I still believe there are deficiencies in these guidelines. I believe that in some cases there can still be a failure to determine full cost by ignoring, for example, the existence of inflation. There could be a failure still to provide a framework for communicating management's expectations and estimates. I think this is fairly significant. There can still be failures to specify the nature and effect of large scale contracts and commitments on the future operations. Our Public Accounts Committee believed that a genuine research effort still must be mounted, employing the resources from both within the accounting profession and outside it. I must say that initiatives in both these directions have commenced. In other words, we must systematically construct a relevant theoretical framework for financial reporting by public sector authorities. There are significant differences in objectives and outlook between private sector and public sector accounting. I believe such an approach must again embrace at least three factors: Firstly, a determination of user needs; secondly, an examination of the concept of certainty in relation to the needs for budgetary disclosure and commitment accounting in the public sector; and, thirdly, discussion between private and public sector accountants on the strengths and weaknesses of conventional financial reporting to identify the likely economic consequences and effects on consumers of the adoption of various financial accountability measurement systems. However, I believe that these current guidelines represent progress in a chain in which we have still a lot further to go. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(2.23) —I would like to indicate that I too welcome the introduction of the 'Guidelines for the Form and Standard of Financial Statements of Commonwealth Undertakings'. I think it is another step forward- although not by any means a final step-in the development of a system which will ensure that we have an adequate, up to date and appropriate system operating in relation to statutory authorities. One aspect about which I did not hear Senator Coates, as the new Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, comment-perhaps he would like to by way of interjection- is whether the Finance and Government Operations Committee has considered the attachments which set out the list of authorities or, as they are called, undertakings required to keep accounts in accordance with the commercial practice and whether that list meets with the approval of the Finance and Government Operations Committee. Senator Coates —The Committee has not met since the report was tabled. I am sure we will look at it. Senator PETER RAE —I thank the honourable senator very much. I am happy with both aspects of the interjection which answers one of the questions I wanted to raise. I believe that Australia is still in advance of most other comparable countries in endeavouring to overcome some of the shortcomings that were so graphically portrayed to the world when the city of New York went bankrupt. I think there is an awful lot to be done in public accounting and in ensuring that proper accounts which fully disclose the state of affairs in, particularly, the statutory authorities and government generally, are identified. I welcome the contribution of Senator Watson as a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I trust that there was an occasion when both the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance and Government Operations Committee worked together in endeavouring each to look at their particular areas of interest to develop recommendations for advances in the Australian practice. I hope that the PAC will look at what might be called the more accounting aspects whilst the Finance and Government Operations Committee will look at the other aspects in which it has taken a primary interest. I draw attention to one problem, and that is the definition of accruing liabilities. Probably the problem is best demonstrated if I refer to-but not with any suggestion that it is an exclusive case-the very well known situation of Trans Australia Airlines and the $236m in respect of employers' superannuation contributions which it was obliged to make to the Commonwealth. The Finance and Government Operations Committee received evidence from a significant number of statutory authorities that there were problems in relation to how one accounts and makes adequate provision for that accruing liability. I think it is something to which further attention needs to be paid. Finally, because there is only a very short time for me to refer to these matters, I ask also that some attention be paid to the question of insurance. Many statutory authorities are in a dilemma in relation to insurance. They are told that the Government practice of carrying their own insurance ought to apply but the Government will give no guarantee, as I understand it, to any statutory authority that in the event of a loss being suffered the Government will provide that statutory authority with sufficient funds to cover that loss. I do not think that one can reasonably expect statutory authorities to self-insure. One can reasonably expect the Government to self-insure but if it requires its authorities to self-insure it must provide some understood method of compensating those authorities in the event of a disaster, otherwise the proper practice will be that authorities insure in the normal way. I take as an example the Australian Maritime College which has two ships worth some millions of dollars, each of which could readily be subject to some major disaster. This is not likely because I am quite sure that the Maritime College will ensure that that does not happen. However, it could. Does the Maritime College have to carry the insurance itself? I ask that that matter be taken into account as one of the further aspects that needs dealing with. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report and Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 18 May, on motion by Senator Crowley: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(2.29) —I wish to take this opportunity to make a brief comment in relation to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Laboratories report, not so much in terms of the reference requiring the committee of inquiry to look into any possible connection or cause of the death of Dr Bergamasco from his work site but rather to address the Senate's attention to the occupational health and safety aspects of this report. I think they highlight some very important features, and lack of proper arrangements, about occupational health and safety, a point that I referred to in my maiden speech. I take the opportunity of debating this very comprehensive report to talk again on this matter. Matters are raised in this report that are quite frightening, I think, in terms of the description of the lack of safety facilities at this work site. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is hardly a place that is unaware of health hazards and safety hazards, seeing that the very business of much of its work, particularly in this laboratory, deals with toxic chemicals, the testing of various chemicals of a highly dangerous sort and various chemical operations. It is a place which one would have thought would attend to safety at all times. The report seems to suggest that the CSIRO has been remiss in doing so. The first problem at the Fishermens Bend laboratory is the design of the building. It is an older building and over a number of years there has been $1m spent on upgrading the facilities. But this has not adequately coped with the lack of facilities. I do not wish to list all of them. People can look at the report for the detailed description of them. I note that the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, in referring to this paper in the House recently, listed, amongst other things, that the laboratories are severely crowded; the exhaust from the house vacuum system is directly under and close to the air intake of the ventilation system; the ventilation of the organic chemical store is inadequate-which is a very kind way of saying it, as according to the report it is grossly inadequate!-the increase in number and efficiency of fume cupboards has led to a potential deficiency in the make-up air capacity in the building; the fume cupboards do not achieve adequate air flow velocity unless cupboard doors are opened only a minimal amount; and the exhaust from the fume extractors has not been raised above roof level, so the fumes are and can be happily recycled through the building. Asbestos is still used as bench sheets and in oven packing in the building. I have just listed some of the problems of the design of the building. I can understand that with an old building it is difficult to arrange safer designs without considerable expense. This laboratory is being moved very soon to Clayton and presumably all these points will be taken note of in the design of the new building. However, the points that matter more are the occupational, health and safety provisions which accompany these inadequately designed buildings. The staff has available to it something that is said in this report to be unique, and that is a full time nursing sister and a visiting Commonwealth medical officer, provisions that are not available to most other CSIRO staff. However, the Committee believes that the doctors concerned do not have any specific training in occupational health. While a considerable provision seems to be there it is not, in fact, the case. I notice that my time is drawing to an end so I will move on to make the most important point of this paper, and that is the separation between occupational health facilities and occupational safety considerations. While these two matters remain separate and attended to by different personnel and different staff, with inadequate training, inadequate data collection and inadequate record keeping the problems are likely to continue. The Australian Labor Party, in its policy, has addressed itself specifically to the establishment of an occupational health and safety commission to address itself to just these points . One of the most important points that is clearly missing from this report is any notion of prevention. That has to be seen as an integral part of occupational health and safety provisions. It is also part of the Labor policy. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report Debate resumed from 18 May, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —As I think this is a matter that deserves further debate without disappearing from the Notice Paper, I move: That the debate be adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Review of Activities to 30 June 1982 Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(2.37) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This statement was made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) to the House of Representatives yesterday. It outlines what the Minister calls the Government's decision concerning Australia's immigration policy and the size and composition of the 1983-84 immigration program. Whilst there is much detail in the statement that the Opposition would not take issue with, on the whole the presentation of the statement is a gesture, some of which will be at the expense of Australia. The statement by the Minister, particularly in relation to retraining Australians, is largely window dressing. Family reunion migrants will remain the significant group in Australia's immigration in 1983-84 , as it has for some time. I draw the Senate's attention to the statements by the Minister on the subject of migrants in the category of 'labour shortage and business migration'. The fact is that the immigration of skilled workers has been at a maximum level of no more than 12,000 per year in any average year. There is a furphy abroad in the community-it is a convenient one to run when there are debates on other issues such as unemployment-that we would have fewer problems in this country if there were fewer migrants. In recent years our migrant intake has been very limited indeed in comparison to the intakes of previous years, and the skilled workers who have come to Australia have not taken the jobs of Australians. As I said, they have formed a relatively small group in the total number who have come to Australia, and this group is certainly much smaller than the family reunion group. We can expect in a time of economic recession that demand for people skilled in certain occupations is likely to drop. With our present economic conditions we could have expected that there would be far fewer migrants in that category anyway. If the Government claims in due course that it has significantly reduced unemployment amongst Australians because fewer migrants in this category have come in, it is likely not to be an accurate claim . The Minister lays emphasis on the subject of retraining Australians. Of course, it is desirable to retrain Australians, particularly those who are unemployed. That was our Government's policy. It is much cheaper and much more desirable. There were a lot of incentives for the previous Government to follow this policy , and it did. In fact too few people were available or willing to undertake the sort of training available to fill the categories of employment that have been filled in previous years under the skilled labour intake. If we could have retrained more of our own citizens in skills in demand we would have done so. Suitable people simply were not available in the sorts of numbers in which they were needed. As I said, in a time of economic recession demand will drop anyway. But even in a time of growth retraining has not been able to provide enough workers with the skills which are in demand. If the Minister really wants to bring his portfolio into active participation in this area he will have to urge his Government to bite the bullet on the subject of the trade unions' traditional attitudes and the difficulties that they have put in the way of adult apprenticeships. That has been a major obstacle in the retraining of Australians. I wish to say a few words on the subject of temporary visas for workers. The Minister has taken away, has had taken away, or has agreed to have taken away, all ministerial discretion in relation to special cases. Some emphasis was given to the fact that people who come here on a temporary visa, under which they can undertake work, will have to go home. This can only be harmful to Australia. A number of creative and talented people, particularly in the arts and sporting areas, have been allowed to stay in Australia under this provision. But in any event the number of people approved in any year has been small indeed. The so- called loophole of ministerial discretion has been very valuable in enabling us to keep these people here. That sort of person to whom I have referred would be unlikely to meet immigration criteria if he or she went home. In any event, there are others who would have been approved if they had applied from overseas and who would have been permitted to stay. What would be the point of sending them home and making them apply to come back when it is known that they will be accepted as migrants? Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —by leave-My comments on this matter will be brief. Let me congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ( Mr West) on his first major statement in this area, which is most important to the whole of Australia but of particular interest to me and the Northern Territory. It seems to me that the Minister has adopted a very humanitarian and sound approach in a very difficult economic situation. I do not have to elaborate on that matter; it is covered clearly in the Minister's statement. I should like to commend particularly the emphasis on family reunion. This issue has been mentioned in the previous Government's statements, and the previous Government looked towards reuniting families. It is good to see that the present Minister has continued that policy and has asked that it be extended in a certain way. There still remains the problem that has been with us all the time; that is, the extended family. Certainly, it is nothing new to any honourable senators present in the chamber at this moment; I have raised it before. We know that a number of Asian families see the extension beyond what we call the nuclear family into other elements of the family group. This is expressed not only in their concern for them but also in the fact that they continue to send money to their home countries for grandmother, brother or sister or any member of the family needing assistance. I have made the point many times in this place and to the Minister that it seems poor economic practice to send out of Australia, money which could be spent in Australia. If money is being sent to Malaysia, why do we not allow the recipient of that money to come to Australia and spend the money in Australia? Quite clearly, as far as we are concerned, the money would do more good here than it would overseas. I commend to the Minister the proposition that we do look at this extended family and not limit ourselves to the nuclear family. Perhaps we could use as some sort of criterion the point that the family member here is sending quite a deal of money out of the country to a person he is supporting elsewhere. The preamble to the statement, in part, reads: 1. The Australian Government alone decides who can enter Australia. This is a commendable proposition, but it does not work quite like that. Unfortunately we have the situation where other countries decide who will come to Australia. I am thinking particularly of Indonesia, which has prevented people from East Timor coming to Australia. We do know that there were 2,500 people in the original list. That was cut back to 660 people and then that was cut back further. The proposition I put to the Minister is that if we are to decide who is to come to Australia then we must flex our muscles in another area and perhaps encourage the Indonesians to allow people from East Timor to come. Surely the amount of assistance which we give to Indonesia by aid in various ways would allow us to put a reasonable proposition to the Indonesians. I suggest that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs have discussions with his colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) who has had recent contact with Indonesia. One hopes that the Indonesians could be encouraged to allow a few more people to come. Senator Lajovic —Would you say the same about the Soviet Union, that we should ask the Soviet Union to let some of its people in? Senator ROBERTSON —If there is a family reunion problem then, by all means; I would not discriminate at all. We should use whatever good offices we have to help anyone here who has a family outside. I merely mention Indonesia because of the assistance we give it. I do not think we give the same assistance to the Soviet Union, but that would not stop us requesting that this be done in the same way. I accept the proposition. Let me move on quickly to refugees. It is encouraging to see the change in approach, particularly as it relates to Central and South America. The flexible approach which the Minister has indicated in his statement is a good one. Page 4 of the statement reads: The Government made an election commitment to place greater emphasis on seeking political solutions to refugee situations. This aim will be vigorously pursued. So I commend both aspects, the integrated policy as indicated in the statement and the flexible approach. Unfortunately, again there is no mention of automatic entry to Australia of the spouses of Australian nationals. I have raised this matter before and I make no apologies for raising it again. It seems to me intolerable that an Australian national marrying overseas is not permitted to bring his or her spouse back to Australia automatically but has to go through some procedure whereby someone decides whether he or she ought to have married that person. We do know that the success rate of marriages contracted in the Philippines, Malaysia and other places is high, but we cannot use that sort of argument to say that these people should not be allowed in. I know the policy causes many heartaches to people in Australia, particularly people in the north of our country who go to the Philippines and other places and marry but are not permitted to bring their wives to Australia. I speak particularly of the male situation in this instance. I will continue to press this matter and when it is raised again I will mention some further issues. Senator Martin —Mr Deputy President, I seek your guidance. When I moved that the Senate take note of the statement I was given five minutes in which to speak. I sought leave to continue my remarks when my time ended. Senator Robertson then sought leave to speak and no time limit was put on him. He did speak in excess of five minutes. Senator Chipp —He could have gone on forever. Senator Martin —That is right, he could have gone on for as long as he liked. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is a procedural motion that could have stopped him, Senator Martin. Senator Martin —I did not want to stop Senator Robertson, for reasons that will shortly become obvious. I represent in this place the Opposition's shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and I was making a statement on behalf of the Opposition. I was stopped a couple of minutes before I had completed my remarks. I would like to finish what I had to say. So I seek leave of the Senate so to do. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Under sessional order, Senator Martin, your right to speak again is preserved. You will have the right to speak again on this statement when debate on it comes on again. Senator Martin —Can I ask when that will be? I want to finish my speech now, Mr Deputy President, and I seek leave to do that. Leave granted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I am reluctant to have a series of matters discussed by leave because although the Senate is perfectly entitled to grant leave, procedural problems are created if people speaking by leave speak for as long as they wish. The whole purpose of this organisation is that people speak for five minutes. You have asked for leave, Senator Martin, and it has been granted. Senator Robertson —If Senator Martin had not sought leave to continue we would all have been able to speak for only five minutes and the last person would have closed the debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —What I will do in future if someone seeks leave is to draw the matter to the attention of the Senate and ask whether there are any further speakers. I will ask those who seek leave not to seek leave but to have the debate adjourned, if they wish, when everyone has spoken. In the present circumstances, Senator Martin has sought leave and that has been granted. Senator Martin has the call. Senator Martin —The new procedures are all very confusing. I think I am even more confused than I was before. Had I known, I would have sought leave to speak for a few more minutes. I thought this matter was going straight off the Notice Paper at that point. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Leave has been granted. You may proceed. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —by leave- People who are in Australia on temporary visas and who were allowed to stay under ministerial discretion were allowed to remain only in very special circumstances. I said previously that this involved a small number of people. Most of them would have satisfied our immigration procedures had they gone back to their country of origin and applied to immigrate. Because there is no longer ministerial discretion to vary this situation, we shall pointlessly now require people to travel back to wherever they come from, regardless that they fully satisfy our immigration criteria and will be approved to migrate to Australia after being sent home. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is in an inflexible situation where that hardship is imposed. The final point I want to make relates to the subject of refugees. The Minister laid some stress on the fact that there will be some shift of emphasis from Indo -Chinese refugees, most of our refugee intake, to South and Central American refugees. I have nothing against our extending our policy in that area. I just want to sound a note of caution. We must be careful that we do not fall into the pitfalls that the United States of America did in regard to Cuban refugees. Cubans became refugees because they were literally pushed out of their country by the Cuban Government. In the process not only did the Cuban Government eject people whose political beliefs were not compatiable with that of the ruling regime but also it ejected all the other people who were otherwise socially undesirable. It virtually emptied its prisions and filled the United States prisons in several States. Whilst there is debate between regimes of differing views about what constitutes a social undesirable-some regimes might think it is because a person has right wing or left wing political views-I think we have a common view on the subject of common criminals. I hope that all care is taken to make sure that in expanding the number of refugees from South and Central America this does not happen to us. The previous Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs sent the Deputy Secretary of his Department to Southern and Central America. The Government also made offers to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for Australia to take more Southern American refugees. I do not want anyone to suggest that the previous Government was not attuned to the desperate plight of refugees in those areas. The simple fact was that there was very little response to either the direct visits of a senior official of the Department or the offers made to the UNHCR. Senator Chipp —The previous Government was more than generous in regard to refugees. Senator MARTIN —Thank you, Senator Chipp. As Senator Chipp points out, the previous Government was very generous to refugees. Australian governments have a very good record on the humanitarian matter of taking in refugees. When attemps were made to increase the number of South American refugees coming to Australia, very few of them wanted to come to Australia; they wanted to go either to North America or to Europe. So expansive as the Government is in its views, it may well find that not so many refugees want to come here from South America. But that is no reason for not trying. My point was made simply to emphasise that the present situation has not been caused by the previous Government not being attuned to the needs of South American refugees. We hope that our policies in relation to refugees from our region and particularly from Indo-China are not artificially scaled down. The Minister mentioned the fact that there are fewer boat people, but there is a continuing major problem of Indo-Chinese refugees, particularly those from Kampuchea moving into Thailand. It may well be that the Government will have to be flexible enough in the near future to shift its policy again to attend to the growing pressures on a friendly country of our own region. Senator TATE(New South Wales) —by leave-The Senate is commenting very briefly on the overview by the present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West ) of a suitable migration program for Australia in 1983-84. In historical terms, for Australia at least, with an envisaged intake of some 80,000 to 90,000 persons, we have in view a quite modest program, some features of which have nevertheless attracted adverse comment by the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Michael Hodgman, which I must admit has not been brought into this chamber by Senator Kathy Martin. Nevertheless I believe that the shadow Minister has, by his statements, put into some jeopardy the usual bipartisan approach of Australian political parties to our migration policy. I think it is important that some of the remarks he made be queried. I refer to the very matter to which Senator Martin just adverted, namely, our recognition of the fact that countries, regimes or governments which make refugees of their people can exist in any geographic part of the world. It is our policy to recognise the fact that in Central and South America there are people who wish to flee from persecution for their political beliefs. We say that the response of the previous Government to this situation was totally inadequate. Of some 17,000 refugees who entered Australia last year only 100 came from Central and South America. I am sure that if former Senator Mulvihill were in this chamber he would be saying that that was a totally inadequate response to the plight of those refugees. Mr Hodgman, speaking of the Government's decision in relation to Central and South America, said that we ought to have an intake of some 2,500 people from that area. He said that there was cause for serious concern in the Government's plan to shift the focus on refugee migration from South East Asia to Central and South America. He went on to say that the Opposition was extremely concerned that there are some 300,000 refugees in that region. In other words, the shadow Minister tried to convey a picture of the Australian Government seeking to bring to Australia a large proportion of those 300,000-by his admission-unfortunate refugees in Central and South America who are persecuted by their regimes and in fear of their lives and certainly of their liberty. I believe that all we are proposing, in an intake of some 2,000 refugees, is a very modest recognition of the plight of those people. Senator Lajovic expressed concern that people from Eastern Europe ought to be recognised in our migration programs. The Government also says in its statement that we will still maintain an intake of some 10,000 refugees from Indo-China. Our program is recognised around the world as being very fair, just, compassionate and generous; certainly per capita Australia is doing more than any other country to relieve the distress of refugees from South East Asia. Senator Chipp —That has been bipartisan. Senator TATE —That has been bipartisan. We intend to continue that program in relation to the Indo-Chinese but we say that about 2,500 refugees from eastern Europe should be admitted to Australia and that particular emphasis should be placed on reducing the number of Polish refugees who are presently seeking resettlement outside Europe. I think Senator Lajovic, by nodding his head, acknowledges the compassion and justice behind the spread of countries and regions from which Australia will continue to receive refugees as one of the great humanitarian aspects of our migration program. The other thing which I found disturbing in the shadow Minister's response was his statement that the Opposition supported the introduction of a special category covering people facing human rights difficulties but strongly opposed the proposed 70 per cent cutback in the 'occupations in demand' category. The fact is that we are facing extremely high unemployment in Australia. It seems to me incredible that the shadow Minister should not be sufficiently aware of the Australian situation to realise that it is essential that we cut back the number of those coming into Australia and competing for jobs with our own people, particularly young people. The Government has said, and said very firmly, that our emphasis will be on family reunions and refugees and that we will not use the immigration program to create competition for jobs with those already in Australia. In particular we are concerned that the immigration program ought not to be used as a means of bringing trained and skilled people into Australia. We believe that the Government ought to have programs of education in order to fill those labour shortage gaps that might occur and that less reliance should be placed on the immigration program as a source of skilled workers. It seems to me incredible that the shadow Minister did not recognise that simple fact. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia) —by leave-Like Senator Tate, I too welcome the changes announced by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) in his first statement to the Parliament in respect of migration policy. The changes have been developed within the Australian Labor Party on all levels and the decision-making process has involved people both within the bureaucracy in Canberra and within migrant and ethnic communities. I think the fact that participation in the decision-making process has extended that far is extremely welcome. I wish to comment very briefly on a number of features of the statement. The first, which has already been touched upon, relates to the labour market. The statement, in foreshadowing a balance in the competing interests in this area, has announced a reduction of migration to approximately 80,000 to 90,000 people with the major cutback occurring in this area of skilled workers. It is interesting to note that when Labor took government, despite the skyrocketting unemployment, 75 acceptable occupation criteria were available upon which people could apply for migration to Australia. That number has been drastically reduced . To the extent that this reduction leaves the way open for a commensurate increase in the number of training and retraining programs it is desirable. It is scandalous that towards the end of last year a secretary-typist in London could apply to come to Australia on the basis of labour market needs when so many young Australians were looking for employment in that very area. To the extent that the problems in this area are addressed also I submit that the changes are extremely welcome. One area that has been touched on to a great extent is that of refugee policy. It has already been noted that there has been a drift, as outlined in the statement, towards a greater acceptance of refugees from Central and South America. I note that in the last year of operation of our refugee policy 300,000 refugees could have been eligible to come to Australia, but only 100 out of 17, 000 applicants were approved. This statement extends the scope for persons in Central and South America to apply for refugee status and to enter Australia on that basis. However, one aspect of the implementation of policy which has concerned me-not only this policy but also the previous policy-is that it has been brought to my attention that in the last couple of years the Department of Foreign Affairs has taken a role in the implementation of the refugee policy in that region of the world. It would seem from the evidence available to me that that Department has gone to the extent of physically preventing or delaying the delivery of cables to posts in that region. The direct consequence of this action, of course, as Senator Martin has mentioned, is a lack of people applying to come to Australia as refugees from Central and Southern America. Of course, if the policy is not being implemented as it should be, if there is bureaucratic sabotage in respect of this area of policy-as there would appear to be-it is no wonder that the number of people-- Senator Martin —That was not what was said. Senator BOLKUS —I am sorry. Senator Martin was discussing something with Senator Chipp while I was speaking. Senator Martin —I am, when you are mentioning my name. Senator BOLKUS —I had mentioned the honourable senator's name earlier. But the point I was making was that during the last couple of years cables of directions to implement policy have not gone to posts in central and southern America. They had been physically prevented from going there by the Department of Foreign Affairs. In some instances follow up cables have been sent to posts in that region indicating that no action was to be taken consequent upon the previous cable that was sent. I raise this matter at this stage because it is vitally important in terms of the operation of the bureaucracy and also in terms of some of the comments that have been made about the lack of interest in that region from people who wish to come to Australia. The last point I wish to mention in respect of refugees is the aspect that has been mentioned by Senator Robertson relating to East Timor refugees. I also urge a definite and substantive response from the Indonesian Government in this area. We have had since 1978 the saga of the agreed list of migrants. At that stage 600 people were listed as being eligible to come to Australia as agreed refugees . Since then, even though approximately 350 people have arrived, for the last three years we have had a list of approximately 120 people who have not been allowed to come to Australia. Also, during the course of this period we have had repeated promises from the Indonesian Government that those people would be allowed to come to Australia. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I believe there may be a misunderstanding, unless I misheard the previous speaker, Senator Bolkus. As I understand it, he said that in 1982-83 only 100 out of 17,000 applicants from Central and South America were granted refugee status for permanent entry into Australia. There is a slight misunderstanding, because the statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West)-perhaps it may be possible to clarify this point- reads: It is unacceptable for instance that only 100 out of 17,000 in 1982-83 should be from Central and South America . . . The figure referred to was the total intake of 17,000 refugees. Senator Martin said that whilst the previous Government had a good many faults, about which I have spoken frequently, it had a policy on refugees which, whilst not as extensive as I would like to see, and obviously as others would like to see, nevertheless placed a great deal of emphasis on implementation. I suppose that the same remarks apply to other areas as apply to Central and South America. The difficulty with regard to Central and South America was adequately expressed by Senator Martin. I express one note of concern about this statement. Whilst the Government perceives a need to emphasise the intake from Central and South America, I believe it should not do so at the expense of the intake from Indo- China, which we have an obligation to maintain. But it appears from the statement that the intake from Indo-China will be reduced from 12,500 to 10,000. This will occur at a time when the situation in Indo-China is far from stable. Indeed, the situation may require an additional statement from the Minister. I would like to know also from the Minister whether the family reunion category will be the category under which Indo-Chinese refugees who are currently in Australia will be able to get their spouses from Indo-China, particularly from Vietnam. I am not sure whether that is the case. But I am sure that most members of the Federal Parliament know of desperately compassionate cases which involve refugees women with small children whose husbands are still in Vietnam. I have a particular case in mind in which it is not only appropriate from the human rights point of view for the husband to be with his wife and family in Australia , but also it would be the obvious thing to do from an econoic point of view for Vietnam and Australia. I raise the issue about whether that sort of case will fall within the family reunion category or within the more limited refugee category from Indo-China. If it is the latter, I express very real concern about the statement. Senator LAJOVIC(New South Wales) —by leave-If I recall correctly, one of the announcements made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) breaks another promise given prior to the election by the Prime Mininster (Mr Hawke) when he was Leader of the Opposition, and his then shadow Mininister for Immigration. I recall-I stand to be corrected on this point-that they both assured the migrant communities that there would be no reduction in the migrant intake by the incoming Labor Government. I have yet to see the reaction of the migrant Press to the cut of 15,000 migrants a year. I know that the migrant leaders and the migrant Press urged the previous Government to increase the migrant intake, which at that time was 120,000 a year. This Government has again broken a promise. I would like to continue my remarks with regard to this point after I see the reation from the migrant Press which, I am sure, will not be complimentary to the present Government which is breaking its promise and its assurance that it would not reduce the intake of migrants. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume for Senator Martin) adjourned. Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 17 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Senate take note of the statement. Upon which Senator Chaney had moved by way of amendment: 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 the actions of the Government, surrounding the expulsion from Australia of Mr Valeriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, First Secretary, Embassy of the Union of Soviet 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 Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.16) —The Senate is debating a ministerial statement on and the terms of reference of the proposed Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence Agencies. That Royal Commission contains two aspects in its terms of reference. The first aspect is to undertake a comprehensive review of the structure and functions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. That has had the advocacy of the previous Government, the present Opposition. The second aspect relates to an investigation of what is now known as the Ivanov-Combe affair and concerns the expulsion of a Russian KGB agent and the alleged involvement of an Australian citizen, a Canberra lobbyist, David Combe. That is the subject matter to which I wish to address my remarks. The Opposition has sought to add an additional paragraph to the terms of reference of the inquiry. The paragraph inquires: . . . whether or not the Prime Minister, the Special Minister of State or any other Minister or any senior Government advisor disclosed confidential information in any way relating to the decision to expel from Australia Mr Valeriy Nikolayevich Ivanov. I support that. I say at the outset that this is a very grave matter indeed. The issue involved is not the fact of some new Minister making some casual accident because he lacked knowledge and was ignorant in regard to his department or of the facts. This is not just another of the bumble-footed fumblings of a government new to office. It is not just another Royal Australian Air Force flight to Tasmania debacle. It is not another debacle of a quarrel between a Minister and the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission or some very ill chosen remarks about the habits-quite wrongly quoted-of koalas. Indeed, it is not even Mr Lionel Bowen and his wonderful theories of how to get a peace force in Kampuchea. It has nothing to do with a new government being in office, to a lack of facts or an ignorance of material. It concerns the qualities of the people concerned, the moral and ethical judgments of the leaders of the Government. It gives us an insight into the state of mind of the people concerned. Strangely, the people concerned are the very people who were involved in these other debacles. It is interesting that we have on this Cabinet sub-committee on national and international security Mr Young, who, on his own confession broke security, one of the most grave things that any Minister can do, and released information to somebody outside before it was publicly released. Senator Gareth Evans and his colleague, Mr Scholes, who were involved in the Tasmanian aircraft debacle, are also members as is, of course, Mr Hayden with his theories on Kampuchea and East Timor. Mr Bowen is also a member. What an interesting group indeed. This matter concerns, as I say, the gravest questions of national security and human liberty . It is interesting to ask what were the moral and ethical judgments of those concerned. What did they do? How did they look to preserve security and civil liberties? As this story unfolds, we see that it focuses on the utter disregard of those people for civil liberties, their incapacity to preserve national security secrets, their willingness to sacrifice a former colleague for their own self interest and to dump him without giving him access to any kind of civil liberties at all. We see their unwillingness to give him a fair go and a fair trial and the selectivity of the information they gave him when they had a discussion with him. We see their attempt to make a private deal behind the scenes under duress with their former colleague and the phony excuse they attempted to put up which they asked the public to believe, which was that what they were really doing to Mr Combe was to distance him because he was a lobbyist and a previous friend of the Government and people might think it was naughty if he came close to them. There is a phoniness about that in that they did this in the knowledge that he had in fact been subject to a security risk. The only thing they did was to distance Mr Combe from the Ministers. The rest of the world was to be in abysmal ignorance of the facts and Mr Combe was to be free to make whatever links he wanted with departments, commerce and industry and with the public. Why? Because, as it will emerge from the story, it was a political decision. It was a skin saving decision of the Government and, of course, it was a gross deception. The deception was that the Government would pretend that it would distance itself from a lobbyist, whereas the facts were otherwise. The judgment was that when it could do nothing else the Government would publicly try him and hang him without any fair go for him at all. Then there was the aggravation after a judicial inquiry had been announced by the senior law officer of this country, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), who deliberately and gratuituously set out last Sunday to condemn Mr Combe more and more and to offer more evidence. This is the man who says that one must not mention matters which are sub judice. Yet last Sunday he gratuitously said: You know the words, 'or appeared to be compromised', they weren't put in by me, Gareth Evans, they were put in at the request of Mr Combe. What a damning thing it is for somebody in the teeth of a judicial inquiry and after the Government had made the notorious mistake of condemning its mate without trial to say gratuitously: 'You should really read this as the Government believes that you have compromised yourself'. The only words added were his own gratuitous comment. The Chief Law Officer of this country was not asked what Mr Combe said. Senator Evans said that the language, 'appeared to be compromised' was actually David's own. He said: Really I ought to be entitled to have the benefit of any possible doubt there is about that. In other words, the Attorney-General says quite clearly that the original statement said that the Government said Mr Combe had been compromised. How much further can one go to knock a man when he is down? How much more un-Australian can one be than to do that, in the teeth of the fact that a judicial inquiry had been announced? The facts are that there is a Cabinet sub-committee on national and international security, and that sub-committee comprises six persons; the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who must take absolute responsibility for this and for the grave defects shown in moral and ethical judgment, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Young, Senator Gareth Evans, Mr Scholes and Mr Hayden. What happened on their say so is this. They received a report from ASIO concerning a KGB agent and his relationship with a Mr David Combe. According to Senator Gareth Evans, the Government satisfied itself that ASIO's information was correct. It is no good for Australian Labor Party people to say: 'It is wicked ASIO that planted this information'. The important thing to remember is that, on the Sunday program, Senator Evans said: 'We satisfied ourselves that ASIO is correct on this'. So the Government accepted that. Having done that, it then had to decide what to do. One wonders what the Government would have done had the person concerned not been a prominent Labor man. One wonders whether the Government would have had a public inquiry straightaway. But no, what the Government decided on was one of the most serious things that have happened in this country. Six senior Ministers, including the Prime Minister, decided on a course of gross deception. They decided that they would not reveal this matter in any way to the public at large, to the rest of the Cabinet, or to the Ministers or their departmental heads. They decided to invent a strategy. Their strategy was: 'We will distance ourselves from Mr Combe as he used to be close to us and he is now a lobbyist'. That was the deception that they hoped to get away with. Why did they do that? They did it for the very simple reason that they felt that Mr Combe's relationship with Mr Ivanov might be forced out. Of course, they wanted to say: 'We knew, but we kept it secret. We did not want to hurt him. But my goodness we distanced ourselves from him, although it was all right for everybody else in the community to associate with the man whose relationship with Ivanov had developed to the point that it gave rise to serious security concern'. If Mr Combe's character was so defective and his relationship with foreign governments was so defective, simply getting rid of Mr Ivanov would not solve the problem at all. At its heart, the solution had nothing to do with the national security of Australia or with civil liberties. It was to do with the government trying to preserve the skins of its member and trying to ensure that it would not come out that one who had been close to them was caught in a bind. So the Government conceived this deception. It is an interesting situation whereby six Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, said: 'We deliberately set out to deceive the Cabinet and the Ministry. We deliberately withheld from Cabinet and the Ministry the reasons why we were distancing ourselves'. Honourable senators should bear in mind that, as I said earlier, the real and substantial reason for getting rid of Ivanov was his relationship with David Combe. Honourable senators should remember that. We have the extraordinary situation in which a group of senior Cabinet Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, plotted to deceive and invented a story. Who would believe their nonsense story? Nobody believed their story about the lobbyists. It was, of course, a monstrous deception in itself aimed to deceive everybody and to protect their skins. It had nothing to do with the national good. One has to ask oneself this question. Senator Button —Ha, ha! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Button laughs. He has good reason to laugh. It would do him good to read the ministerial statement on the expulsion of the man Skripov. The Attorney-General of the day found no difficulty at all in making a public statement, not a parliamentary statement, giving the full details of the Skripov affair. Why was that not done in this case? The Attorney-General shakes his head. Senator Gareth Evans —No names were given. I have got the Skripov document here. You are talking rubbish. There are no names in it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I too have the Skripov document before me. The facts of the matter and the description of the events are all in that document. All the to-ing and fro-ing about the passing of messages is in that document. The Attorney-General can shout and try to divert attention from the issue, but the facts of the matter are contained in the statement. Indeed, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the statement on the Skripov affair so that everyone can understand it. Senator Gareth Evans —Leave is not granted. Let him read it into the record. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I simply say that if the Attorney-General thinks that I will spend the rest of the time available to me reading this statement he can have another think. It just emphasises the kinds of things that I was saying about the attitudes of mind and the morally corrupted thoughts of the people who made the decision; the moral and ethical judgment of these people is wrong. They are now trying to say: 'We are not going to let Hansard have an up to date copy of the Skripov affair because it will disprove what the Attorney-General has been saying'. So, I invite the people of Australia to read that document. Senator Gareth Evans —Put it in. Ask again. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Attorney-General has had second thoughts. He thought it was a good idea at the time not to permit the incorporation of the document. As he has done many times before, the Attorney-General has made another crash landing. I suggest that he had better get his bearings right, because no chief law officer in this country could be so bumble-footed every day as that. Apart from his clumsiness, he has to remember one thing: He is in this chamber to preserve human liberties and freedom and not to protect the skins of his fellow Ministers and members of his Government. As I have said, a massive deception was planned and effected. Then came a statement from the Government that it could not do this any more-that it would have to make a further statement in this chamber because information had been leaked out. The Government then started arguing as to who had leaked it and who had not. Of course, Mr Combe said that he had got it from Labor sources left, right and centre; and he has rather spoilt their fun. I turn now to the moral point. The Government was then confronted with the name of Mr Combe being leaked out. What should have been the moral and ethical judgment of a Prime Minister or an Attorney-General faced with a situation in which a man's reputation had been tarnished? Surely the first thing he should have done would have been to say: 'I cannot let this happen. He is entitled to a fair trial: When I announce this, I will announce a royal commission'. The answer to a leak and to innuendoes would have been the prompt establishment of a royal commission. Contrary to what Senator Button has said, it now emerges that there was never any intention to establish a royal commission to investigate the Combe-Ivanov affair. The intention was to produce a corrupt statement which the Prime Minister said would put the matter to rest. A royal commission was not to be established. Here again is the corruption of principle. Here again the Government should have said: 'Right, a man is going to be Moscow-tried in this situation. We will not allow it. We will have a judicial inquiry'. What did the Government do? It made a statement-what an extraordinary statement -that is supposed to tell this country about great principles of national security and human liberty. It made the statement and said: 'It is not only our statement. It is an agreed, compromise statement between the man we are accusing and ourselves'. How in the nature of human justice does anybody ever bring forward such an immoral hotch-potch as this? How could anyone say in this chamber: 'I spent the time with him going through the statement line by line'? It now emerges that, with respect to the most important part of that statement, what the Government believed and intended was quite different from what Mr Combe finally agreed to. The information and advice then available to the Government suggested that Mr Combe's relationship with Ivanov had developed to the point where it gave rise to serious security concern. The view of the Cabinet Sub-committee on National and International Security was that as events had developed Mr Combe either had been or appeared to have been compromised by Ivanov to the extent that it was no longer appropriate for Ministers to deal with him. Can honourable senators think of anything that is more corrupt in thought than that it was appropriate for everybody else to deal with him, but not Ministers? Let us not forget the part that where he appeared to be compromised was not in the statement. The Government's view was that he had been compromised. It was prepared-without trial at all, after having had him in a room without a solicitor, and giving him selective excerpts-to publish a statement. That statement convicted him on the spot. Does anyone doubt at all that the man was left without a shred of credit, that he had no shred of reputation and that he could not get a job anywhere in Australia? Can anything worse be said of any human being than that he was in fact a spy or on the way to being a spy, that he was compromised, caught up and a danger and a security threat? In other words, any one of his judgments for the future would be bad judgments because he made a bad judgment, an un-Australian judgment, in this matter. That is what this Government did. It cheerfully went along and had a Moscow trial and published the verdict without the man himself having a chance. It then said: 'Oh, he had the chance and he accepts it'. Do not forget what the Labor Government said. It said: 'Mr Combe accepts this'. In fact Mr Combe says that he does not understand and he does not accept the proposition that he compromised himself. So here again we have a conflict of statements, a massive corruption of thought in thise whole situation. The Government was not going to set up an inquiry; it was going to judge, condemn and announce the verdict and it was going to secure a statement by duress in a back room deal. Senator Durack —And execute it. Senator Sir John CARRICK —And execute it. What else could he do but agree, in what must be the most horrible breach of human liberties in this country? The Government pretends that it had intended to have an inquiry. One of the Ministers, Mr Young, confessed or was forced to confess that he breached security. In any other government at all if that man had a shred of decency he would have resigned. Let me canvass the point that I started with. I said that this statement does not raise the accidental misbehaviour of Ministers because they lack knowledge of their departments or they were clumsy. The judgments were judgments that human beings, at any point of their lives are forced to make in judgment of other human beings-the qualities of ethics and morals, the question of principle and the question of standards. What a corruption it is that in the statement by Mr Hawke he said that the two things that the Government had before it all the time were national security and human liberty. National security, when it was going to put up a deception that it was putting a barrier between this man and Ministers because he was a lobbyist? Although the Government believes he was compromised it let him go on and get compromised again with some other foreign government. Human liberty in this Moscow trial! What kind of enormity is involved? Let us look at what has happened along this journey. A committee of senior Ministers meets. Those Ministers receive information from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation which they test and say: 'We believe; we agree'. They reach a conclusion that the man has been compromised and that indeed the other man Ivanov must go, primarily because of his association with Combe. So they invent a deception. They invent this phoney directive that every member of the Labor Caucus must have known was phoney-that there must be a distance between Ministers and Combe. Did anyone ask why? I raised this question at the beginning. The matter gets to the very heart of the quality of decision-making, an insight into the attitudes of mind and the qualities of moral and ethical judgment of people. It focuses on their attitude to civil liberties. I will expand on that as an example. How could any man, the Attorney-General, the Prime Minister or any of those six men ever again mouth before these people their belief in civil liberties when in fact they took a person and deliberately, to save their own skins, sacrificed him without a trial ? Never before that I know of has that happened. These are the people I never want to hear again-this Hawke Government-talking about civil liberties because if it did that to its mate, God knows what it would do. With friends like that, who needs enemies? The Attorney-General should not smile. He is left without a shred of credit in the field of human liberties. No lawyer, no human being, nobody without the need for the discipline of law would ever do that to any human being. Senator Button —No wonder you are sitting where you are now. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The interjection is very interesting. We know where Senator Button is now. He has been rebuked, he has had his ear twisted and his nose twisted and that will go on because of the very lack of judgment of which I am now talking. I come to the next theme; that is, the Government's unwillingness to give this man a fair trial, and selectivity of information. The Prime Minister said that this man had every bit of the information before him. Forced out of the Attorney-General was the admission about selected excerpts of tapes. No solicitor was present. What kind of a situation is it where a government, faced with this monstrous position, says: 'We are going to try to make a deal behind the scenes. We are going to lock up our former mate with the ASIO head and with the Attorney-General. We are going to force him into a compromise. We are going to present the statement to people not as the statement of the Government and its beliefs, but as a bargain struck between two people'? Has any government ever done a more monstrous thing? Is it a bargain that has been struck? The Attorney-General is pledged to tell the truth, to extract the objective judgments. What does he do? He takes part in a sordid deal of duress, a sordid deal behind doors with selected information, not total information. Here he sits now as a man who went on television and added to his sins by proferring more and more information when he knew, above everything, that once a judicial inquiry is signalled, he ought to do nothing at all to interfere with the liberty of the man. No wonder Mr Combe is wondering about his mates. No wonder he said he will be fairer to Mick Young than Mick Young was to him. So it went-the deception, the pretence that this was to be simply a distancing of lobbyists, the revelation in the statement and then of course the pretence that the Government was always going to have a judicial inquiry. Let us remember that. Do not forget that when Senator Button was asked whether the Government would have an inquiry into the Combe affair he said that the Government had been considering it on this matter. That was the question and that was the answer. Have a look at it. The sting in the tail is that he said the consideration had been on this matter. Of course that was not true because the Prime Minister has said-no doubt he will rebuke the Minister-there was no intention of any judicial inquiry on Mr Combe after that ministerial statement. The statement was there to put the matter to rest. Senator Gareth Evans was on the Sunday program that there was no intention of a judicial inquiry and that the real reason there was a judicial inquiry was that Mr Combe had committed the terrible error of talking after a statement. Because he had talked and said things it embarrassed the Government and it had to have a judicial inquiry. So he blamed Mr Combe on the Sunday program. Let me simply say: In some 30 years of traversing public life in this country, in looking at the Petrov and Skripov affairs and looking at the various attacks that have been made on public figures, I have never before seen or been privy to such an ugly un-Australian set of judgments or actions by anybody. It is in fact a totally un-Australian action. It is the breach of every moral and ethical principle. The Government stands condemned. If the Australian Democrats refuse to support the amendment it will show also some penetrating thinking into the minds of the Democrats. I condemn the action of the Government and I commend the amendment to the motion. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.45) —It will not be necessary to say very much on this matter. All I want to say is that the appointment of the royal commission of inquiry makes it both unnecessary and undesirable to comment further at any length on the Ivanov-Combe affair or any of the matters involved in it. In any event, there is not a great deal that I wish to say in reply to Senator Sir John Carrick for he has contributed nothing in the last half-hour to our knowledge, understanding or appreciation of this affair other than ignorance, bombast and hypocrisy. The ignorance in his contribution is evident from the way in which he simply piled speculation upon speculation about the whole course of events about which he could know nothing and, indeed, makes clear that he knows nothing. If I were to attempt to redress his ignorance as to the detailed course of events I would, of course, be placed in the impossible situation of placing on the public record matters which ought not to be on the public record and about which we could be justly criticised if we did so act. So the situation is as I have stated it. If there is anything that anyone remains concerned about in relation to this affair or any aspect of it, the course is open for that person to seek to make an appropriate submission to the inquiry. No doubt the full truth of the matter will there emerge. The bombast that was involved in Senator Sir John Carrick's contribution was also, I suggest, self-evident-no way more so than in the nonsense that was engaged in by the honourable senator in the context of seeking to place on the record the account of the Skripov affair in 1963. I resisted the attempt by the honourable senator to place the Skripov material on the record for two reasons: Firstly, he had not gone through the normal courtesies of making a request to this side of the chamber before seeking to incorporate material; but, secondly, that material is manifestly irrelevant to anything that is in issue in this case . There is no comparison, no degree of comparability whatsoever, between the circumstances of the Skripov affair and the circumstances of this affair. But in the event that anyone should be in any doubt about that let me repeat now the offer I indeed made to Senator Sir John Carrick in the latter part of his speech -which he so bombastically refused-to allow him to incorporate the material by my seeking leave to incorporate the account of the Skripov affair in 1963. I so seek leave to incorporate that material. Leave not granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —With leave not being granted, the record will remain now utterly obscure. I simply say for the record that the Skripov description of events is a very detailed account of spies crawling around the undergrowth and putting canisters inside bell jars underneath bridges. There is a detailed account of the swapping of messages and information and contacts between a KGB officer, Mr Skripov, and an unidentified Australian agent from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation who was clearly set up as an agent provocateur to entrap very successfully Skripov into showing his particular colours. The circumstances of that affair are utterly without any basis of comparison with the circumstances of the present affair. Putting them on the record would have made that abundantly clear. Now the record will not disclose those circumstances and so be it. The final point I want to make is about the hypocrisy of Senator Sir John Carrick's contribution in this affair. The crocodile tears that have been wept over Mr Combe are in quite remarkable contrast to the way in which the then Government sought to hound Mr Combe into the political grave at the time of the Iraqi affair in 1976. We did not hear much then about Mr Combe's liberties or right not to be traduced or to have his reputation prejudiced on the basis of smear and innuendo. The very same gentleman who has been the subject of public attention on this occasion was the recipient of some really quite extraordinary flak not only by the now members of the Opposition but also, of course, by the media at that stage. People have a short memory in these matters. I remind the Senate that when one is talking about the protection of civil liberties the crocodile tears that are being wept on this occasion really do stand starkly exposed for the hypocrisy they are when one contemplates the record of the Fraser Government in civil liberty matters. Let me mention some aspects of that record. I refer to the failure to ratify the International Labour Organisation conventions on a whole variety of human rights matters, most notably on the rights of indigenous minorities; the failure to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and the refusal to sign the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the ratification of that Covenant only on the basis of a world precedent-shattering series of reservations and declarations far more than any comparable country and which have been the subject of international criticism. I refer to the area of freedom of expression; the passage of atomic energy legislation containing, as might be recalled, quite unprecedented penalties for citizens dissenting against uranium mining and processing. There was the resurgence of activity, with the active encouragement of the then Government, of the film censorship authorities. There was the attempt to stifle discussion through legal action based on Crown privilege and copyright in the defence papers case, a case which was handled very differently from the National Times case which has just concluded under the auspices of this Government. There was the Anzac Day ordinance and its successor in the Australian Capital Territory which were designed to stifle peaceful assembly. There was the failure to enact freedom of information legislation worthy of the name, as Senator Missen would acknowledge. There were endless delays in subsequent implementation of that legislation. There was the attempt to impose a tax on knowledge again in the freedom of expression area, in the form of sales tax on books, newspapers and magazines. In the area of equality and discrimination there was the emasculation of Al Grassby as Commissioner for Community Relations. There was the failure to support him in his attempts to combat racism in Queensland and Western Australia . There was the support for the attack on the Aboriginal land rights by the Northern Territory Government. There was the failure to use the Commonwealth's power to move in to protect the people of Noonkanbah against deprivation by the Liberal Government in Western Australia. There was in the area of police and security-- Senator Missen —Is this your excuse for starting badly? Senator GARETH EVANS —The record is a long one, a very unhappy one and a very sordid one. It demonstrates this hypocrisy that I am talking about which is displayed whenever the subject of civil liberties arises. There was the failure to proceed with the Criminal Investigation Bill and the undermining involved in successive versions of that Bill of the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission. There was the passage of narcotics legislation with its alarming, unprecedented and insufficiently restricted new powers vested in the police and the courts. There was the way in which ASIO surveillance activity very substantially increased under the last Government without any accompanying safeguards being built into that legislation and, in fact, with fierce resistance by the last Government to the attempts by the then Opposition Labor Party to build in very detailed accountability provisions for the operation of that organisation. One could go on and on. I will not use the occasion to bore anyone further because it is a very tedious and long list when one seeks to recite the credentials on civil liberties matters of those sitting opposite. On this occasion I obviously do not seek to go any further into a defence of the Government's position as to the details of this case. The character and the content of the Government's position will clearly emerge in due course. But I will make two other points to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Opposition 's position on this matter. There was the total failure of Senator Sir John Carrick, in anything he said, to address the role played by the Opposition in bringing to public attention for the first time the name of David Combe in relation to the Ivanov affair. There was the orchestrated question session both in this chamber and simultaneously in the House of Representatives which was deliberately and cynically designed to get on to the record in the context of the ASIO affair the name of David Combe. This was done by the people who are shedding the buckets, the rivers and the oceans of crocodile tears that we see now. Finally, as a demonstration of the sheer inbuilt, inherent hypocrisy of the Opposition's position, so noisily articulated by Senator Sir John Carrick, is the way in which we have had this constant invitation-repeated most recently just a few minutes ago-to put the detailed account on the record as to why the Government acted as it did in this matter. That is combined simultaneously with denunciations of the Government for such detailed matter as it has put on the record on the basis that in security matters, so it is said, one should never do anything other than confirm or deny. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. It cannot claim to have both a detailed account put on the record and at the same time be denouncing the other side when it attempts to do just that to set the record at least partially clear. That kind of hypocrisy, combined with that kind of bombast, combined with that kind of ignorance is not a constructive contribution to debate on this or any other subject. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(3.56) —I support the amendment because very clearly there is a case to answer with respect to the actions of the Ministers of this Government. I have every confidence in the Royal Commissioner and in the terms of reference in a general sense, that the Commissioner has been given. A crucial part is the role played by the Ministers of this Government and they are not explored within the terms which are laid down before the Royal Commissioner. I do not wish to go into a general discussion or debate about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, into Mr Combe or the incompetence of the Australian Labor Party in this matter. I will do that in great detail and depth at a later date. I want to talk specifically to the amendment that is before us which is whether or not the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), any other Minister or any other senior Government adviser disclosed confidential information in any way relating to the decision to expel from Australia Mr Valeriy Nikolayevich Ivanov, because it strikes at the very heart of responsible government. There is clear, undenied evidence that the Special Minister of State, Mr Mick Young, talked to at least one man, a Mr Cameron, over lunch and breached the secrecy of Cabinet on a matter of absolute importance to the security of this country. If he will do it on one matter, what will he do on other matters? What will other Ministers do if we do not have a system of secrecy and confidentiality with respect to Cabinet decisions? These allegations have not been denied; in fact, it has been agreed that they are true . We have Mr David Barnett, Mr Richard Farmer and a whole range of people-we do not know how many-knowing about the matter and they knew because members of this Government, Ministers of the Crown, broke an oath and told people outside Cabinet what the Cabinet's decision was. I do not know who the sources were. We know that one of them was Mr Young but it might have been any or all of the five Ministers involved. We cannot tolerate that sort of situation. Many issues are involved in the Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence Agencies and, as I said at the outset, I do not wish to canvass all of them. If we look at the actions of Mr Young the facts are beyond dispute. He was at a luncheon with several lobbyists or journalists-I do not know how many. Did he tell only one person, Mr Cameron, or did he tell a whole lot of people? He thought that he could make the situation all right by saying afterwards: 'They stayed with me; they did not go out'. That is not the point at all. It does not matter whether Mr Young held their hands and put tape across their mouths. The point is that he told them; he breached the security of Cabinet and that is what security is all about. We cannot entrust the nation's security with someone who has such a loose regard for a sense of duty as Mr Young has admitted to having. The convention of Cabinet solidarity is not some sort of effete system that the Liberals have developed over the many years they have been in government. It is a matter of absolute necessity for the conduct of the affairs of state. In this instance we are concerned with national security but we could just as well be concerned with financial matters. Indeed, the mini-Budget which will be presented tonight is a matter, I think, of great financial significance to the business community. If Ministers leak the contents of a Budget before it is brought down, it is possible that people can make all sorts of financial killings in the light of that knowledge. Take a simple thing such as a rise in the excise level. Someone could corner the market in whisky or brandy, buy it up before the Budget is released, and resell it afterwards. I guess that Labor Party members can be excused because they are commercially ignorant people. At best they are academics and at worst-well, we will no go into that. Obviously they have no knowledge of how the commercial world works. On those grounds alone there is an overwhelming case for Cabinet secrecy with respect to its deliberations. The charges, as Senator Sir John Carrick outlined, are very grave against Mr Combe. The use of the word 'compromise' in a technical sense has a very distinct and specific meaning. It is not a colloquial word in any sense at all. It carries the gravest of connotations as to what Mr Combe's actions were. I believe the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I do not dispute in any way at all the Attorney-General's judgment on this matter. I have had the opportunity of watching him for nearly five years and while he might be frequently extravagant and flamboyant with his language, thoughtless too from time to time and might fence with words when it suits him, when he gives me or the public a direct answer I believe him implicitly. His statement to Sam Lipski was absolutely black and white. I have every certainty that the Attorney-General and those Ministers who are involved had every justification for taking the action that they did with Mr Combe, and I do not seek to expose why they did it. I have confidence that the action they took was correct and I will not challenge them. Senator Missen —I wish I had your confidence. Senator MacGIBBON —That is my belief and I will not walk away from it. The point is that we are probably dealing with one or more Soviet agents. I know enough of the world to know that the Soviets never put half-trained people into the field. They are all professionals. Therefore I take very seriously the actions that they get up to. In the face of the gravest charges about Mr Combe there is a need for a responsible approach to this issue. Let us look at Mr Young's actions . When he was challenged in the House of Representatives, what do we see? I quote from the House of Representatives Hansard of 17 May. In answer to a question from Mr Fife about whether he regards the statement to Mr Cameron on the expulsion of Ivanov as consistent with the oath of office of a Minister of the Crown, Mr Young replied: I was so excited-I had just been shown the salaries of Ministers-that I forgot what really the commitment was when I was sworn in. I can understand why Malcolm cried when he lost the election. My God, a Minister of the Crown is worried about his money! He is for sale to the highest bidder; he is dazzled by a salary. What a sense of responsibility from a Minister of state! No wonder he is known as the arch wheeler-dealer in this place. How will this country be run with a Minister such as him looking after electoral reforms and the electoral boundaries? We would not know what could come from someone who takes such a cavalier approach to his sense of responsibility as Mr Young has demonstrated on this matter. This is not a trivial matter in any way at all. We do not know what Labor Party members, what friends of the Labor Party and what business people are availing themselves of leaks from a Cabinet that is apparently filled with people such as Mr Young. Finally, I move to Labor's paranoia with the intelligence community. This is a long-standing thing and it reaches extreme forms. I would certainly excuse the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister from the extreme category. Very clearly, the Labor Party is absolutely paranoid about the intelligence community. Senator Robert Ray —No, we are not. We know they are out to get us. Senator MacGIBBON —As Senator Robert Ray has demonstrated, Labor senators constantly need to have their insecurity cosseted by lashing out at imaginary ghosts in the form of people looking after the security of this country. Apart from the feelings of the ALP on this matter, I should like to look at one of its actions. I shall quote Mr Combe on this matter. In an article in the Bulletin of 19 January last year, relating to the Iraqi breakfast, he made the statement: Some months after the whole affair was over I saw an ASIO dossier on Fischer which set out his record- How many people in this Senate, apart from the Attorney-General and the former Attorney-General, have ever seen an ASIO document? Senator Robert Ray —Who leaked it? Senator MacGIBBON —That is precisely the question I was about to ask. Who gave the information to Mr Combe? Where did Mr Combe see an ASIO dossier? How many other Labor people see ASIO dossiers? Do people working in ASIO or any of the five intelligence organisations in this country want their responsible approach to their lives and their duties treated by a cavalier approach by the Labor Party with respect to confidential documents? How did Mr Combe know that a Mr Fischer had an ASIO file? How did he see it? It is characteristic of the ALP's approach to security in this country. I find this whole business astonishing when I look at the statements of the ALP in relation to the last election. I shall quote, because one of the authors is here-Senator Gareth Evans-from a document 'Labor and the Quality of Government' which came out on 9 February of this year. That document states: Labor is committed to a systematic implementation of the principles of open government. In addition we remain committed to effective administrative remedies as being essential to fairness in government to the proper public accountability of administrative bodies and the preservation of individual rights. How can we have accountability of administrative bodies if Ministers go around leaking information? Later in the policy speech of 16 February-- Senator Robert Ray —You are exposing some interesting areas. Senator MacGIBBON —I will have to correct the Hansard on that point. I was referring to a document entitled 'Labor and the Quality of Government' and to a statement to the effect that 'Labor in office would be committed to restoring the probity of government'. How can we have probity when people act like Mr Young acts? Of course we have the delightful quote that 'the flow of Cabinet business has been notoriously poorly organised with Cabinet constantly preoccupied with crisis management at the expense of expeditious decision-making '-a reference to the Fraser Government. How more relevant it has been to the last two weeks of this Government. Labor is bound both morally and ethically to support the amendment which the Opposition is putting. Now that some Australian Democrat senators are in the chamber I should like to turn to their opposition to this amendment. I listened very carefully to Senator Haines. As usual nothing in her speech justified the position she was taking. The fundamental point that I make in support of this amendment is that of ministerial accountability. There is nothing more to it than that. I wonder whether the Democrats have forgotten the claim they made so frequently in their electoral platform that they are there to keep the bastards honest. And now they come for the first time in this Parliament to the crunch point; they come to the point of moral judgment and whether they will keep the Government honest and whether they will put the finger on a Minister who has clearly breached every convention in the book. I believe that the Democrats have shown that they lack the moral fibre to take on the Labor Party on this issue. They will not challenge the Labor Party; they will not vote against it. They are terrified of a general election and losing their position. They will not support the Opposition's amendment. From the mewling and meandering I hear from the Democrats in front of me I hope that their consciences are stirring them. If their consciences are stirring them, let them take counsel of their fears, conquer them and do that which principle demands they do, and support the Opposition with this amendment. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.10) —This is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this matter since it arose in the Parliament. Indeed, it is the first opportunity we really have had to look at the new Government and the test which it would face when it encounters the problems of national security and civil liberties. One must say that in regard to this matter the Government has obviously fallen at the first barrier. Senator Robert Ray —The fence, not the barrier. Senator MISSEN —Oh no, the Government has not even got out of the barrier. It probably got lost before it even got out of the stalls. This is a subject on which the Government is tested. It is not a matter in which we in this chamber can tolerate the idea that Senator Gareth Evans puts before us that now that there is a Royal Commission on Security and Intellegence Agencies it is unnecessary for him to comment. In other words, parliamentary accountability is out of season while there is a royal commission. If that is the reason we have set up a royal commission, let him say so, but to my mind parliamentary accountability remains an important question. It is important for us to analyse what we may know about the course of conduct which the Government has engaged in in regard to Mr Combe, the appointment of the Royal Commission and the adequacy of its terms of reference, which obviously are not adequate. We must also ensure that the Royal Commission will cover the whole area of accountability which I believe to some extent it may otherwise miss. I say to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that I certainly believe it is important for us to investigate some of the facts which have appeared in the statements that have come forward in the past. In the course of his very short speech, Senator Evans-I suppose brevity is to be praised is most circumstances, but not today-mentioned the criminal investigation Bill which, of course, is one of the things with which our Government did not succeed. Senator Evans has never let us forget the fact that we have never passed a criminal investigation Bill in this Parliament. I would like the Attorney-General to look at the terms of the Bill and the rights under that Bill which are properly to be given to ordinary citizens-I suppose Mr Combe is entitled to those rights as an ordinary citizen-and see how the course of conduct by the Government in regard to Mr Combe falls so far short of the entitlement which we believe ought to be-- Senator Gareth Evans —Be fair. There are no criminal charges here. Senator MISSEN —He is not on a criminal charge; I see, so that is it. That is a very convenient excuse, is it not? Of course, criminal investigation includes investigation of all kinds of things, including matters which may not finish up as a charge. Of course, the criminal investigation Bill is designed to protect people in those situations. A matter does not have to end with a criminal charge . Of course, a person who loses his occupation and reputation will suffer very considerably if he does not have the right of civil liberties which we hope that Bill will ensure. I think the Attorney-General should look again and see whether his conduct and the conduct of the Government has measured up to those needs. Senator Gareth Evans —Which particular clause of that Bill are you suggesting that we would breach if that were the case? Senator MISSEN —Certainly, he did not have his lawyer at the beginning. He was brought here and he was taken through documents. He was read documents and so forth. Senator Durack —Selected documents. Senator MISSEN —Selected documents at that; documents which the Government chose to put before him. Then of course the Government came to the agreed statement. It surely is true that in regard to statements which will damage a person one ought to be very careful in what one has said. The Prime Minister said: . . . I trust this statement will put to rest the uncertainty of the last few days, and convince all Australians, of whatever political persuasion, of the correctness and fairness of our handling of the matter. Of course he did not have that effect at all. Indeed it was intended to be an important statement. Indeed it was intended that Mr Combe should be committed to that statement because he went through it line by line. I know that even more recently the Attorney-General said 'word by word'. I take it that the words in the statement were carefully considered. I should like to look at a few of them to see the way in which the assassination of this man's reputation has been- Senator Gareth Evans —Are you saying I am telling lies when I say you didn't accept that? Senator MISSEN —No, I am not saying lies; I am talking about loose statements- Senator Gareth Evans —What are you talking about? Senator MISSEN —If the Attorney would stop for a moment and listen, he might learn something to his advantage. He has indeed assassinated Mr Combe's character by the language used in the statement. Senator Tate —Which he agreed to. Senator MISSEN —He did not agree to it; he did not agree that the points put forward as facts were correct. He says, in the very careful words that the Attorney-General put into the statement, that he understands and accepts the statement but he has said publicly and firmly that he did not agree with it, and of course he does not agree with it today. Whatever the Attorney-General intended obviously Mr Combe did not intend to say that the facts put forward in the statement were correct. We know that, as he said, he has become an object of public censure without the opportunity to defend himself. Senator Tate —Do you think he might have changed his mind? Senator MISSEN —Of course he might have changed his mind, because he might have had a chance later to read the statement and to see the words to which he was committed. One reads in this statement what is said to be the principled position taken by the Government. I mention that matter because it is the background to the statement. Why was Mr Combe called in? Why was it that the Government felt it was necessary to take action? Honourable senators will recall from the statement that the full Ministry agreed on 2 May to a number of considerations, the first of which, states: Ministers' doors should be, and be seen to be, open without the need for leverage by a Party insider; I am interested to know why it was necessary for the Government to come to that conclusion and to establish that principle. Had there been leverage? Had people got in in this way? Had Ministers been susceptible to wrongful pressure? It certainly reads to me as though that was so. Perhaps there should be an investigation of the activities of Ministers, not just lobbyists, who apparently have been succumbing to that pressure. It was found necessary to establish this principle to stop this happening. The second consideration states: . . . it was not appropriate that a former Party official, by virtue of that status, have special advantages or access to Government denied to others. That is interesting, too. One can only assume that that happened, that in the short period that the Government has been in office not necessarily Mr Combe but officials had been getting special access to Government denied to others. If this is so, and it happened in the first month or two of the Government's reign, one wonders what we will see before it finishes. Senator Tate —What do you think lobbying is all about? Senator MISSEN —I would think lobbying is not all about getting-- Senator Tate —Access to government. Senator MISSEN —Yes, but not getting special advantages. If they get special advantages then one must wonder what those special advantages are. Let us look at some of the other points in the statement. This statement has destroyed a man 's occupation and living. There is no question about that; they have been destroyed. In the course of the statement it is said in regard to Mr Combe that a relationship had developed to a point where it 'gave rise to a serious security concern'. It does not say he was a security risk. The statement later goes on to say that he was not a spy and he has not broken the law; both those things are said on the other side of the fence. It says that he is a 'serious security concern'. What might that mean? I do not have Senator MacGibbon's trusting faith in the security service or the people who necessarily make it up. I think they are very ordinary people. I must say, having met and fallen into conversation with one or two Australian Security Intelligence Organisation agents who have come to me once or twice to ask me about someone-I have no necessity to say anything critical of them-they prove to have extremely right wing views of a very odd nature. I doubt whether many people in the security service would have serious left wing views of an odd nature, but I must say that I would not put all my faith in all security officers having a balance of views. If there is serious security concern, what does that mean? They can easily get upset; they can easily be concerned; and they can easily make a mistake in regard to documents. That is what Mr Combe is saying. The fact is that that is a very carefully used expression which does the maximum damage to a person but does not really explain what it means. As I say, we have had plenty of examples of this sort of language in the past. The statement goes on to say that the Government came to the conclusion that his relationship with Ivanov developed to a point where it gave rise to serious security concern. I do not challenge the Ivanov expulsion. It is accepted on both sides of the political fence. Those who know the details, including the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, accept that he should have gone. No doubt that was justified. But as far as Mr Combe is concerned, the Prime Minister said in his statement: The view of the National and International Security Sub-committee was that, as events developed, Mr Combe either had been, or appeared to have been, compromised by Ivanov to the extent that it was no longer appropriate for Government Ministers to deal with him. I put aside the point which Senator Sir John Carrick made-that apparently it is all right to deal with anyone else around the place but it is Government Ministers who have to be protected. What does the Prime Minister mean by ' compromise'? Senator MacGibbon says that that is a well known tool in the trade and that one should know what it means. I must confess that I immediately think of the Christine Keeler case or something like that when people talk about being compromised. I think the word has all kinds of meanings in the eyes of people. It does not tell me anything. To say something derogatory about a person and to suggest that the person had at least been misled or hoodwinked, might not suggest that the person knew the situation. Mr Combe has denied that he knew that Ivanov was a KGB agent. I think he recognised, as most people would, that it was quite probable that he was. The statement suggested that he might not only have been compromised but also appeared to have been compromised. That is even vaguer language, and no one can tell me that it is not deliberately phrased in that manner. It does the maximum damage to a person without saying what has happened. This is a disastrous statement from the point of view of anyone connected, as the Attorney-General has been for many years with civil liberties organisations. He should be ashamed to produce a document which produces so much damage. Senator Gareth Evans —What about the last two paragraphs of it, completely clearing his name of being a spy or being guilty of any criminal offence? Is that not to the point? Senator MISSEN —Yes. The Attorney puts an ambit on the statement. He says that Mr Combe is not a spy and there is no criminal offence, having said the other things as well. Not knowing what the principled position of the Government really is leaves us in a real mess. At the end of the statement the Prime Minister said: But I trust this statement will put to rest the uncertainty of the last few days, . . . I remind honourable senators of something else that was in the statement. One would think that Combe would have some rights, before a decision was made, to clear his name in some way if there were any doubt. The statement said: . . . the Government has never been in any doubt about the validity of its decision. At the same time it was concerned that he should not become the object of public censure without some opportunity to defend himself. From the time that the Opposition used his name in the House yesterday, it was essential that he be given this opportunity. Apparently it was not essential that he should have the opportunity before then. It was not essential even when others, I gather, including people in the Australian Labor Party, were bandying his name around the Parliament before it became known in the Parliament. No, it was only when it became awkward and inconvenient for the Government and a matter of public knowledge that he had the right to defend himself. I suggest that he has an excellent right to claim that he was treated extremely badly. Many people who have written about the incident have said so, including Laurie Oakes. The fact is that much damage has been done to this man. Laurie Oakes put it very well when, after dealing with Mr Combe being 'compromised', he said: That hardly seems like an adequate basis on which to take action that can be expected to destroy a man's reputation and livelihood-though, to be fair to the Government, it did attempt to keep Mr Combe's involvement in the Ivanov affair from becoming public knowledge. What a hopeless task it was to try to keep that matter from becoming public knowledge. Even Cabinet members were prepared to make breezy remarks about it at luncheons. I say that this whole incident is a disgrace as far as civil liberties are concerned. Let me turn briefly to two other areas which I think are important, particularly now that a royal commission has been appointed, headed by Mr Justice Hope, who certainly made a very full examination of the security organisations a few years ago. There are many aspects of that examination that I hope he will reconsider. When we passed the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill and put ASIO on a legal foundation nearly five years ago, we legalised many of the illegal activities which ASIO had been performing and which were disclosed in Mr Justice Hope's various reports, to the extent that those reports were available to the Parliament. Mr Justice Hope was then quite scathing in some of his remarks about the previous operation of ASIO. He said, among other things, in paragraph 42 of his third report: The Australian intelligence community is fragmented, poorly co-ordinated and organised. The agencies lack proper guidance direction and control. They do not have good or close relations with the system of government they should serve. In some cases, they have lacked funds and other resources (for example, adequate staff) to do the jobs expected of them. In other cases they have used lack of funds as an alibi for not doing jobs they should have done. I think it is important that after this period there be an examination to see whether ASIO is now acting properly and efficiently. One hopes that there will be an examination of other aspects. We realise that it is thought desirable that the secrecy provisions of the recent ASIO legislation which conflict with the proposed freedom of information legislation be reviewed. That has not yet been done. I hope it will be done. I hope the judge will give further consideration to that matter. Over and above those matters, I wish to raise the question of accountability to this Parliament which I raised in 1979 when the ASIO Bill was before the Parliament. The Parliament was not even able to see many of the reports of Mr Justice Hope. Many of them were kept secret and we had to take the Bill upon the trust of Government and Opposition leaders who perhaps had seen more details than we had. At that time I expressed the view that we had never obtained a proper system of accountability to the Parliament. I still hold that view. I hope that Mr Justice Hope, who at that time did not favour the setting up of a small parliamentary committee to supervise the operations of ASIO, will reconsider this idea. When the ASIO legislation was being considered I moved an amendment to bring in a sunset clause that would have brought the legislation up for review within the next year or two. That motion, although supported by the Opposition and one of my colleagues, was defeated. At that time, as recorded on page 1067 of the Hansard for 28 March 1979, I had the following criticism to make concerning accountability to Parliament: I think that much of the main criticism relates to the fact that ASIO really will not be accountable to the Parliament. I have long held the view that there ought to be a small parliamentary committee of distinguished and long serving members of Parliament to supervise some of the work and activity of ASIO. I believe that this has been advocated often but Mr Justice Hope did not applaud it, nor does the Bill include it. However I remain of the view that that should be done. The annual report is to be made to the Minister, not to the Parliament. There has been criticism of the fact that there is no provision in the Bill for audit control. Mr Justice Hope, in his fourth report, expressed the view-and applauded the suggestion of the Treasury-that provisions for audit ought to be set out in the Bill. I believe that there is in fact an auditing of most of the activities of ASIO but I believe that there ought to be a provision in the Bill, as His Honour recommended, to make this evident and clear. I believe this is one matter that certainly should be considered in the current review. We are now finding problems in regard to ASIO, problems in the form of decisions such as this. I believe that we need a small committee of members of parliament, sworn to secrecy, who would regularly conduct interviews and take up complaints. Such a committee exists in Great Britain. Committee members would not, of course, generally report to the Parliament but the Parliament would, I trust, be in a position to rely upon their judgment to ensure that there was an input by those in this place who are elected by the people. There is one other matter that I think ought to be raised in connection with the Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence Agencies. We do not know what is happening to the promised review of the freedom of information legislation. It was promised in the election campaign that there would be a very radical change to the Bill, which was a disappointment to many of us but which came into operation last year. At least it was a record of the previous Government, a record which honourable senators will recall the Whitlam Government could never produce. One hopes that the undertakings which have for years been given by Senator Gareth Evans and others and which were given by the Government in the election campaign-that the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs would be implemented-will be honoured. We hear deadly silence. We hear disturbing rumours. One hopes that this will not be another betrayal of the Government's promises. I was recently in the United States of America for the purpose of observing what was happening there in regard to freedom of information. I recommend to honourable senators an article which Peter Cole-Adams, the Age correspondent in Washington, wrote in the Age in May 1983. I had discussions with him while I was there and I conducted my own investigations. I come firmly to the same conclusion as he has, that the head of the present United States Government, or, as Mr Cole-Adams calls him, 'the Great Communicator'-a man who glorifies in that name and who projects himself as a crusader for freedom-is making vigorous and systematic efforts to reduce public access to government information. That is what is happening in the United States under the guise of national security. I believe that in the debate which is taking place here, in the actions which the Government is taking, in the reliance which the Government makes upon what Michelle Grattan of the Age of 9 May termed the 'national-security mystique'-an expression she took from Tom Wicker of the New York Times-we have to be careful not to accept that everything that has a label of national security is therefore justified as not needing to be investigated. The Australian Democrats seems to have lost the fine early flourish of their policy to 'keep the bastards honest'. Apparently the ones to whom the Democrats referred originally were on only one side of the fence. Senator Macklin —Do not worry; they are on both sides of the fence. Senator MISSEN —I am reassured to hear from Senator Macklin that they are on both sides of the fence. I trust that we can expect the Democrats to adopt the same even-handed approach in these dealings. That approach will be put very well to the test today in the vote on the amendment before us. That will decide whether the terms of reference of the Royal Commission should be widened to ensure that it fully investigates all aspects that need investigation. The last few weeks have been a period not of open government-that has not come yet-but what I call open-mouthed government, or perhaps loose lipped government. I do not know whether that period is drawing to an end. A certain Minister said that he would be very dull in Question Time. I think he has been, but perhaps he has just been true to form. Senator Macklin —It is not true to form. Senator MISSEN —No, it is not true to form; that is true. He is showing unusual dullness, but whether he can keep it up is another matter. The important consideration is that we in this chamber are entitled to query the disgraceful performance in the Combe affair and the way in which it has led ultimately to a royal commission. That does not stop the Senate from questioning and being concerned with matters of importance in this area. We are concerned to ensure that there is a proper investigation by the Royal Commission of all matters, including the question of accountability of Parliament, and that we are assured that there will not be a reliance on national security to stop a real improvement in the freedom of information legislation in this country. I await with desperate interest the statement which I trust will come soon from the Attorney-General on the implementation of the promises which have been made, which had some effect, I am sure, on winning votes in the last election. On all these grounds, I support the amendment. I support also the fact that there will be an investigation, but I hope that it will be full and thorough, and that the Attorney-General will learn from the folly of his ways in the last few weeks. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.36) -The statement we are discussing at the moment concerns the Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence Agencies. In particular, we are discussing the amendments moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). Senator Haines, who spoke on the last occasion that the Senate discussed the matter, raised the necessity for widening proposed sub- paragraph (c) (ii) of the Opposition's amendment. Sub-paragraph (i) is a replica of that which is already contained in the original terms of reference of the Commission; in other words, it is unexceptional not only to us, but also to the Government. So the only point at issue is sub-paragraph (c) (ii), which states: 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; The amendment then takes in paragraph (d) and subsequent items in the terms of references. I foreshadow that the Australian Democrats propose to move an amendment to the Opposition amendment in the following terms: Proposed sub-paragraph (c) (ii), after 'senior Government advisor', insert 'or the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party in the House of Representatives'. We would be amenable to some other honourable senator inserting in that amendment the fact that Senator Chipp is our Leader. I will outline to the Senate the reasons for expanding the Opposition's amendment. Senator Sir John Carrick, who led in the debate today, in a moving speech made a number of points which focused, in particular, on the need for justice for a particular individual-in this case, Mr Combe. That is a laudable aim. It is one which I hope every honourable senator in this place will support. We often find individuals who run up against the bureaucracy or the Executive Government and are trampled upon. One of the items to which the Parliament can still turn its attention is the protection of the individual citizen in these matters. That is an extremely important item, and one to which we ought to pay attention. If we are concerned about whether there might have been disclosure of confidential information, certainly as Senator MacGibbon pointed out-Senator Missen also pointed it out in passing-we would have to include all of those people who may have had access to that confidential information. Many wild claims have been made not only here and in the House of Representatives but also on various television programs about where this information may have come from. Some of the people are included in the Opposition's amendment by name; that is, the Prime Minister and the Special Minister of State at least in their formal designation. The words 'any other Minister or any senior Government advisor' would obviously include all of those Ministers currently serving on the Cabinet Sub-committee on National and International Security. Of course, it has been a convention in this country for quite a long time that the Leader of the Opposition is briefed by the Prime Minister on sensitive matters of national and international security. That is an extremely important part of the democratic process in this country, one which has been built up by convention. There is, of course, no formal necessity or requirement for governments to do so. But governments of all political persuasions have carried out this activity of keeping the Leader of the Opposition fully informed on all of these matters; hence, they are able to create, at least at that basic national security level, some general agreement that it is useful that the Prime Minister and the alternative Prime Minister have access to as much detailed confidential information on national security as can possibly be divulged. Therefore, it would be important in seeking justice, as Senator Sir John Carrick said, to make sure that we include in the Senate's opinion of any possible extension of terms of reference all of those people who might have been privy to this information. Senator Haines alluded precisely to that situation. That is why I now formally move: Proposed sub-paragraph (c) (ii), after 'senior Government advisor', insert 'or the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party in the House of Representatives'. We seek to include not only the Leader of the Opposition, but also the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party in the House of Representatives. The Opposition has sought to include 'any other Minister'; in other words, Ministers who may have heard from other Ministers. The Opposition amendment covers Ministers who are on the Cabinet Sub-committee on National and International Security, and the possibility that those Ministers may have leaked information to other Ministers and senior Government advisers. It is fairhanded, if that be the case, that we also include those people to whom the Leader of the Opposition could possibly have leaked information, such as the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party in the House of Representatives. After all, it was Mr Sinclair who first raised Mr Combe's name in Parliament. Therefore, it is only evenhanded, if we are to seek an opinion from the Senate in relation to Ministers, other Ministers and senior Government advisers that we extend it to include the Leader of the Opposition, about whom allegations have also been made publicly, and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party about whom allegations have also been made publicly. The proposition, therefore, is to extend the Opposition's amendment to include those people. We hope, in doing so, that the Opposition will agree to the amendment that we have sought to attach to its amendment, so that the Senate may express an opinion on this matter. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I wished to indicate before the debate ran out that the Opposition has no difficulty with the amendment to its amendment which has been suggested by the Australian Democrats. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, has already publicly indicated that he proposes to make himself available to the royal commission. The Opposition certainly has nothing to hide in this matter. The Opposition's sole concern has been to ensure that the terms of reference are wide enough to encompass matters about which concern has been expressed in this debate and elsewhere. Whilst the Opposition does not want to be heard to suggest that it believes itself at fault in any way, it has no objection to being subject to the same scrutiny it would like to see the Government and its advisers subjected to. I want it to be clear on the public record that our sole concern is to have adequately wide terms of reference. On that basis we have no objection at all to the amendment to the amendment we propose. THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under the Sessional Order for consideration of General Business having expired, the Senate will proceed to the further consideration of Government Business. Senator Martin —Mr Deputy President, I seek clarification of something. My name is next on the list of speakers for this debate. Senator Macklin finished 15 seconds early; so I did not get a chance to be recognised by the Chair. Is this debate to be continued? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —This debate will now be listed on the Notice Paper. Under Sessional Order 75, it will be placed at the bottom of the Notice Paper. Debate resumed. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.47) —In the context of the cognate debate on the various Bills for Acts to alter the Constitution, I wish now, in the latter stages of my remarks, to refer to the proposal to confer an advisory jurisdiction on the High Court, which proposal has the support of, as I understand it, all those who represent the electors in this chamber. In proposing that an advisory jurisdiction be vested in the High Court, I think it needs to be said right from the beginning that one is concerned not with an improper function being vested in that judicial body. To give an advisory opinion is to act in a judicial manner. Questions put to the High Court will be true questions of law. It will not be dealing with mere political advice or some advisory function which could as well be performed by law officers of the Crown. True questions of law will be posed to the High Court. Indeed, the High Court already exercises something akin to an advisory opinion jurisdiction in its granting of declaratory judgments. In order to expedite the consideration of the constitutional validity of some particular piece of legislation it will give an opinion at times before the Act concerned is proclaimed and certainly before it has been implemented or had any effect on any particular parties. That jurisdiction, whilst it shows that the High Court does not need to have an actual dispute before it, before it can engage in examining the constitutional validity of an Act of Parliament, is inadequate. Therefore, this proposal has many advantages. Not the least of the advantages is that in a declaratory judgment jurisdiction there are still rules as to standing and as to the parties who might appear before the Court which rather restrict the range of those who might be able to aid the Court in giving its advisory opinion. I believe that a major benefit of this proposal is that the High Court will be able to have before it argument from the whole range of parties that the High Court designates as proper to appear before it in relation to the major constitutional questions that may be involved. Of course, in cases of Commonwealth laws and other matters the reference itself will be by the Cabinet- by the Governor-General in Council. I think one has some protection in that against those over-zealous Attorneys who can sometimes appear on the political scene and who may be tempted to overburden the High Court with too many references. Indeed, this particular proposal that it be the Cabinet which makes the decision as to the sending of a reference will, I believe, lead to a certain caution and responsibility in the instances which will come before that Bench. As to the jurisdiction or the matters which may be referred, there are four major categories. The first relates to any question of law as to the validity of an enactment of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or as to the validity, if enacted, of a proposed enactment of the Parliament. In other words, a Bill can be referred to the High Court for its advisory opinion. This has some dangers. I for my part certainly wish that any proposed enactment that is referred to the High Court will have passed through the various stages of parliamentary debate and consideration in both chambers up to, perhaps, the third reading stage in the Senate or in the second chamber, as the case may be. In other words, it ought to be the case that it is the considered opinion of the Parliament, even if not finally enacted, as to what ought to be the law which is put before the High Court. I believe that there are instances-for example, trade practices legislation some years ago and the question of Commonwealth sovereignty over off -shore resources-which might have been more conveniently and expeditiously dealt with and that more robust and certain legislation and administrative arrangements could have been entered into by the Commonwealth had an advisory opinion jurisdiction been available to test the question of whether the Commonwealth had power in relation to certain trade practices matters or in relation to certain matters to do with off-shore seabed resources. They could have been dealt with in this way rather than waiting for the legislation to be passed and challenged in a way I recall in relation to the trade practices legislation which led to the tribunal, the very key element in that legislative framework, being rendered virtually powerless for almost a year. The second category of questions that can be put deals with those matters which are perhaps crucial to the working of our parliamentary democracy, such as section 57, the double dissolution provision, sections which deal with the alterations of the boundaries of States or the referendum section, section 128. All of these sections-I do not have time to detail them-fairly bristle with clauses, phrases and conditions precedent which can cause misgivings and which cry out for interpretation. If it were the case that the High Court could be approached to give an advisory opinion as to those particular meanings we could be saved the trauma of some activity of a momentous nature being undertaken in relation, for example, to double dissolutions or as to the proposal of a matter to be put to the people, only to find later that that action was based on quite ill conceived, unconstitutional grounds. Even if nothing can be done, of course, the bitterness and the controversy which is generated in those circumstances can be most debilitating to our democratic institutions, as indeed we have had some recent experience of. I commend that category of matters being able to be put to the High Court for an advisory opinion. There is a further category that at the request or with the consent of either House of Parliament any question of law concerning the qualification or disqualification of members may be put to the High Court. Indeed, there is a Senate committee report on the very matter of disqualification of members of parliament. Once again, there are very grave difficulties in borderline areas- for example, to do with offices of profit and dual nationality-which if they could be resolved by an advisory opinion of the High Court at the request or with the consent of the House concerned would avoid needless difficulties. Of course, it is always necessary to recognise the primacy of the House in relation to these matters and the membership of each chamber. The fourth category is quite new; that is, that any question of law arising under, or with respect to, any treaty, including any question of law relating to the implementation of any treaty, may be referred to the High Court. In the light of recent events over the past weeks and months one can see the virtue in that proposal. Indeed, the framers of the Constitution recognise that the High Court ought to have a jurisdiction in relation to these treaties. Section 75 of the Constitution states: In all matters-(i) Arising under any treaty: the High Court shall have original jurisdiction. For various reasons that section has fallen into some disuse; it has been something of a dead letter. The question is whether the jurisdiction might not be usefully revived by the conferring of this advisory jurisdiction in relation to questions of law arising under a treaty or a proposed treaty. Indeed I can see great benefit in the Commonwealth Government being able to seek the advisory opinion of the High Court as a prelude before embarking on some course of action in reliance on a treaty. Why ought it not be the case that the High Court indicates where, within the Federation, lies the legislative or Executive power to carry out the international obligation which has been assumed by the signing and ratifying of the treaty? There are instances in Canada and India where the supreme courts have most usefully discharged this function and enabled both those countries to understand the way in which an international obligation may be discharged within the federations concerned. I could refer to some other matters but I think I have discharged my obligation to the chamber by outlining my understanding of the proposal. Basically, it boils down to the fact that we live in an indissoluble Commonwealth which is governed by the Constitution. It ought to be possible and it seems to me to be most beneficial for the Commonwealth Government, after due consideration by Cabinet, to approach the High Court to ensure that we act, whether legislatively or through Executive or parliamentary activity, in accordance with the Constitution. In other words, this is a preventive jurisdiction which will prevent us from committing ourselves to some course of action, as I have said, either legislatively or through the Executive, which, after the event, is found to be unconstitutional with all the disarray, trauma and difficulty within our internal federal relations which that might cause. We ought to be able to go to the highest judicial tribunal and seek its earliest possible opinion as to the constitutional propriety of a particular course of action. That is what will be achieved when this proposal is endorsed by the people, as I am confident it will be. I think it will be to our benefit. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.58) —I wish to address my remarks to the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill 1983 and also to touch upon Senator Peter Rae's private member's Bill, the Constitution Alteration ( Appropriation Bills) Bill 1983. The private member's Bill on fixed term parliaments, which I ultimately supported last November, in its original form sought two objectives. First, it sought to strip the Senate of its power to reject Supply and, secondly, to provide for a fixed term for the House of Representatives. According to surveys the second objective now has popular appeal. In fact, some surveys indicate that over 70 per cent of the population are in support of the concept of a fixed term parliament. One suspects that the former objective to strip the Senate of its power to reject Supply does not have the same popular support. Since Federation the Australian public has been educated to believe that the checks and balances in a system where both Houses have roughly co-equal power offer a security that is not to be underestimated. Since 1975 the Australian Labor Party has been preoccupied with the subject of reducing Senate power. One suspects that the real motivation of the original Evans Bill was to limit the Senate's power under the camouflage of the popular appeal of providing a fixed term for the lower House. We said on that occasion that they are separate issues and that the Bill should be stripped of all but the provisions relating to fixed terms. I supported the amended Bill as an endorsement of the principle that, subject to limited circumstances, a government elected for three years should serve for three years. I believed that the Bill provided a reasonable formula upon which that principle could work. As this Bill is materially that which I supported before and as I have not been dissuaded from my view that a more stable system of government with less uncertainty will result from the Constitution being so amended, I will vote for it. The majority of my colleagues are of a different mind. I respect their arguments but, in my view, the arguments for change are more compelling. There may be some honourable senators on the other side of the chamber who support my colleagues but, of course, under the Labor Party system of discipline we will never know. The freedom we have in the Liberal Party to stand and put a contrary view in this place is something I hope will be never lost. I am sure that that is recognised and supported by the Australian people. The arguments for the principle of fixed term parliaments are well known. I wish to do no more than restate in summary those that I found particularly compelling. First, the fact that a Prime Minister will not be able to call early elections at will should result in fewer elections. I understand that the average term of the House of Representatives is now approximately 2.4 years. Too many elections are an unnecessary diversion of public energy and finance. Secondly, I believe-I think consistently with the first argument-that elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate should be held simultaneously. Early elections for the House of Representatives can throw the Houses out of alignment, as has now again occurred. As a result, a separate Senate election- the fifth since 1949-will have to be called, or the House of Representatives will have to be called out early, probably on the same argument that was used by the Liberal Party in 1977 to get the Houses back into sequence. Thirdly, the proposal would remove from a Prime Minister the power of shortening his term on the basis that he assesses the time is ripe for maximising his chances for re-election. I believe that governments are elected to govern both in difficult and in good times. The public has the right to judge the performance of a government over a full term. Fourthly, it would remove the uncertainty and speculation of early polls. Senator Lewis —How does it do that? A Prime Minister could manipulate an election under the fixed term proposal. Senator HILL —Only by creating a vote of no confidence in himself. Senator Lewis —But he could do it. Senator HILL —Potentially he could do it, but I think most honourable senators would concede that it is unlikely. It has to be rare that governments would want to vote themselves out of office. I repeat my fourth argument which I believe to be of particular significance. It removes the uncertainty and speculation of early polls which I believe inhibits business confidence and, I know from experience, retards the efficient functioning of the Parliament. I therefore reach the conclusion, prima facie, that the concept is commendable. Against that argument, of course, I have to evaluate my arguments first against the concept and secondly against the mechanics of the Bill. The first argument and the most emotive for reasons of public confidence and security is that it will reduce the power of the Senate. I have even heard it argued to the extent of proclaiming that all that would be left would be the equivalent of a House of Lords. The Australian Senate is an extremely powerful second chamber. It is rare among second chambers in that it can reject or, on the 1975 precedent, withhold Supply . In other words, it can stop the effective functioning of a government that retains the confidence of the lower House. The rationale for this power lies in the view held by some at Federation that the Senate was a States' assembly-in fact, it originally was to be called the States' assembly-that it was to have custody of the States' interests, that its existence was necessary to protect the interests of the smallest States and that to do so it required adequate powers. For many of the delegates at the original Conventions adequate powers were equal powers, thus including pewer to initiate and to amend money Bills, but the compomise reached was power to reject Supply. Whether that is valid today must be questioned. I ask for examples to be shown to me of the smaller States joining together to force the people's House, reckless of their interests, to move in another direction. That does not mean that there may not, in the evolution of the Senate, be contemporary and valid reasons for retention of such powers. Under this Bill, however, the need to examine such justifications is unneccessary because it does not remove the power to block Supply. It is however argued by some that the destruction of the power of the Senate lies in the fact that in practice the Senate will not exercise its power if it cannot force an election. If the House of Representatives is elected for a fixed term, it will not be able to force an early election. In the original Australian Constitutional Convention debates is a remarkable absence of discussion as to what happens if the Senate rejects Supply. The impression one gets is that the Government and lower House would be forced to a compromise that would not be in conflict with the interests of the smaller States. It is interesting that Mr Sinclair, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, at the recent Constitutional Convention in Adelaide argued that the fixed term concept for the House of Representatives would actually increase the Senate's power. Without the Prime Minister having the option to call an early election, a government would be forced to a compromise. Certainly some delegates at the early Conventions did speak of the government being responsible to both Houses- the people's House and the States House-which suggests ultimately an obligation on government to go to the people if it cannot maintain Supply by virtue of rejection by the Senate. However, very few would argue today, and I certainly would not attempt to argue, that the Senate should be able to force the House of Representatives to an election if the Senate is not to go to the people at the same time. Because of the Senate's protective fixed term that is unlikely unless a double dissolution mechanism is in place. As the existing double dissolution provisions remain under this Bill it is, therefore, difficult to see how, to any real extent, Senate powers are reduced by the Bill. The second argument that is put forward and is somewhat related is that a fixed term will introduce a grey area in that there will be no clear mechanism for resolving a stand-off where the Senate rejects Supply and the Government will not compromise. At the recent Australian Constitutional Convention in Adelaide, which I have just mentioned, the New South Wales Opposition, through its shadow Attorney-General, stated: The New South Wales Opposition is favourably disposed to the fixed term concept for parliaments. Mr Kennett, the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, stated: The Liberal delegation here also believes very much in the principle of fixed term parliaments. I might say in passing, in case I feel somewhat alone, that the concept also has the support of the Young Liberal Movement in Australia and has recently gained the support of the South Australian division of the Liberal Party of Australia by a majority in the ratio of approximately two to one. Senator Martin —You knew Mr Kennett's proposal could have forced- Senator HILL —I am about to come to that. Both the New South Wales Opposition and the Victorian Opposition were concerned with the Bill-I think that will cover the points Senator Martin wishes to make-because there is- Senator Martin —Are you aware that Mr Kennett's proposal would have taken the Senate to an election if the Government fell in the House of Representatives? Senator HILL —Yes, I am. I have already said I would regard that point as totally unsatisfactory. I have heard very few attempts to justify it. The New South Wales Opposition and the Victorian Opposition were concerned with the contents of this Bill. They support the principle of fixed term parliaments but they are concerned with the contents of this Bill for the reason that there is not such a formula for resolving a conflict. I acknowledge this grey area which to me is unsatisfactory, but in much the same way the present Constitution is unsatisfactory. To me there is now a major grey area. As I said, I do not believe the Senate by itself should force the House of Representatives to the people. I am not at all sure that the Governor-General would override the convention that he must act on the advice of the Prime Minister, particularly in view of the recent experience in relation to the last double dissolution where the Governor-General accepted the recommendation of the Prime Minister that both Houses be dissolved under the deadlock provisions of section 57 when it might be said that the only things that were dead were the Bills themselves. Secondly, I have considerable doubts that the Governor-General would dissolve the House of Representatives whilst the Prime Minister maintained the confidence of that House in a non-double dissolution situation. So a grey area exists now and will exist afterwards. It will not be resolved until the Australian people wrestle with the separate issue that either the Senate must cease to have power to reject Supply or the Constitution provides what will happen if in fact it does so reject Supply. Senator Peter Rae's Bill provides a solution. It gives the people the opportunity to say that they want the Senate to retain this power and, if it exercises that power and if it takes this major exercise of responsibility, both Houses should go to the people. I hope that Bill will be supported by the Government so that the Australian people will have an opportunity to say whether or not they support a mechanism that will, for the first time, clearly indicate what is to happen in relation to a stand-off. Returning to the arguments that are put against the concept of fixed term, thirdly, it is said by some that the Bill will remove from the Governor-General a discretion and that that is undesirable. As I think I have indicated, that causes me little concern because the basis under which the Governor-General will now act is shrouded in mystery. I support the principle of providing certainty within our Constitution wherever possible. The fourth argument I wish to touch upon is the notion of a fixed term being contrary to the principles of the Westminster system of government. The government practised at Westminster is unique. Certainly the system of government in Australia is not pure Westminster but modelled on it only in part and in part on the Federal system, with snippets of others and aspects not found elsewhere. Therefore, no question of contaminating the pure Westminster occurs by the introduction of this Bill. But further major tenets of Westminster are also not interfered with by the Bill: The Parliament remains elected for a defined period and the Executive's continuation in office depends upon the continued support of the people's House. To that extent the Bill does not provide for an absolute fixed term, as happens in the United States. The Bill in fact does not result in the loss of characteristics of the Westminster system that are important to be preserved in our system. I will mention a few of the other arguments. It is said that the Government will not be able to go to the people for a so-called mandate or because times have become difficult and difficult decisions have to be taken. Almost without exception this has meant an assessment by the Prime Minister that an early election will be of benefit to him. I believe it is time that he no longer had that option. Similarly, it is said that a Prime Minister with a small majority will not be able to go to the people to strengthen his hand. I think that again it is time the myth was put to rest that it is impossible to govern with small majorities. Therefore, when I had to balance the arguments for the concept of fixed term parliaments against the current system it was clear to me that a change was justified and, in fact, called for. When I look at this Bill I find areas which I believe are capable of improvement. Nevertheless a fair attempt to implement the principle exists and I firmly support that. I am concerned that in the event of a double dissolution the new parliament will sit for only the balance of the term. One of the objections to the current system is that we have too many elections. I cannot see why a new term should not end on the specified election day which is as near to the three-year term as possible. It means the term will be either a little over or a little under the three years, depending on when in the year an election is held. Consequential amendments would, of course, be necessary for the Senate. I am also in favour of the David Hamer position which is that double dissolutions should be limited to cases of genuine deadlocks and that, therefore , the power should lapse three months after the grounds have been given, if the power has not been exercised. I understand that that will be put in an amendment to be moved in the Committee stage and I trust that it will receive the support of the Committee. However, as I have indicated, I have supported this Bill before in its present form and I will therefore support it today. If it becomes law I am confident that it will play a part in improving the structure of government in this country. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.17) —We are debating six constitutional alteration Bills in a cognate debate. They are the Constitution Alteration ( Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill and two private members' Bills. The one introduced by Senator Peter Rae is basically the Court proposal, as it has been called at the various constitutional convention. That Bill is called the Constitution Alterations ( Appropriation Bills) Bill. The other private members' Bill was introduced by Senator Mason and is called the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill. I wish to indicate briefly the position of the Australian Democrats in relation to these Bills and to concentrate my attention basically on the Bill introduced by Senator Mason. I will deal with the first Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill. We had quite an extensive debate in the last Parliament on a similar Bill. The current Bill differs in a number of respects from the previous Bill. I think that in the Committee stage some fairly lively discussion will surround some of those changes. Some amendments will possibly be moved in the Committee stage and I think it would be appropriate to discuss those amendments in full at that time. The Australian Democrats will be supporting the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill. The types of reasons we find compelling are basically those which Senator Hill has just outlined and which were outlined at the beginning of the debate by Senator Evans. We believe that the introduction of fixed term parliaments will disturb very little of the constitutional structure. There will still be the ability to have a double dissolution. There will still be the possibility of the government collapsing in the House of Representatives and a new one not being able to form. In that case a vote on a new government would be taken by the electorate. Basically, the situation will remain unchanged except insofar as there will be introduced into the system a fairly massive disincentive to go for the quick election, that quick opportunity to get another three years of power. A disincentive is basically what is being introduced. We believe the introduction of that disincentive into the system is appropriate. We believe it is a disincentive which, in 1983, is necessary. I believe if we look back over the last decade and compare our operations in this country to those well-known butts of jokes like the Italian Parliament we could well hang our heads in shame when we find that our activities in this country have been worse than those in other countries. We would find that we have in fact used and abused the present system . I believe the people are entitled to a far better system than the one we have now. In essence, the Democrats' position in relation to the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill is that the people are entitled to vote on whether they want fixed term parliaments. That is the issue at point. The issue in this chamber is whether we will put to the people a question for their deliberation and for their sovereign vote. For honourable senators to deny, in this place, people that opportunity I believe is wrong and anti-democratic. For honourable senators to say in this place that they do not agree is perfectly democratic. For honourable senators to argue why they do not agree with the concept certainly is perfectly democratic. To say 'We will go out on the hustings during the election campaign and campaign against this proposal because we believe it is wrong' is a perfectly proper proposition. To say that people should not be allowed to have a vote on the matter is an anti-democratic attitude. That is basically the position of the Australian Democrats in relation to this legislation. The other Bills-the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill-we believe have been generally accepted at the constitutional conventions and, therefore, are also appropriate and appropriately worded propositions to go to the people. I am rather disappointed in Senator Durack's comments that they are a great waste of time. That seems to me to be a rather backhanded comment on the great deal of time, energy and effort that have gone into these Bills over the course of a large number of the conventions that we have had up to date. The fact that there will be a referenda vote on one issue which will cost a certain amount of money, I believe, gives us an impelling reason why we should look at a range of propositions going to the people at that time. Since people will be called out and the expenditure will be in the order of $21m it seems appropriate that there be a range of questions proposed which are adequate questions to propose. That is why, for example, the Australian Democrats will be supporting the proposition which Senator Peter Rae has brought forward. We believe that is an entirely appropriate proposition to put to the people. I think he has been able to demonstrate a great deal of support within the community for that proposition. It was argued by Premier Court of Western Australia at the conventions. It is a proposition which I think Senator Rae might very well be able to say has the support of his party. I do not know whether it has the unanimous support of honourable senators, but it has the support of his party. Therefore, he could very well say that he at least has the support of a considerable percentage of people in this country. Because of that, I think it is appropriate that that proposition be put to the people for their deliberative vote as to whether they wish to go down that track in relation to the problem of Supply. I will come to that matter a little later. The Australian Democrats will be supporting the proposition contained in the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill and the idea that those propositions be put to the people. We will also be supporting the campaign that people vote in favour of those changes to the Constitution. We believe that they are changes which will enhance the operation of goverments in this country and that the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments Bill) will enhance not only goverment but also the power of the Senate. Senator Hill said that some people have suggested this. Close analysis of the operation of such a Bill reveals what I imagine is unintended result on the part of the Labor Party. It will increase rather than decrease the powers of the Senate. The Senate will gain the power to bend the House of Representatives to its will easier than it can already. At the moment the Prime Minister is entitled to go to the Governor-General if the upper House rejects Supply. What the Governor-General would do in those circumstances is a matter for conjecture. Senator Missen —He would take his Minister's advice. Senator MACKLIN —We thought that he might take his Minister's advice. I do not want to canvass what the Governor-General may or may not do in such a circumstance. At the moment it seems to be somewhat in the lap of the gods as to where we might go if such a circumstance occurred. I presume that Senator Peter Rae, in bringing forward this Bill, is seeking to address himself to precisely what may happen in that type of circumstance. I believe that the notion of the fixed term Parliament will strengthen the power of the Senate, which notion the Australian Democrats support. When this Bill came forward on other occasions we stated our support and we will continue that support into the electorate. I hope that on 20 August there will be an affirmative vote on that issue. I do not wish to canvass that matter any more in depth. When we get to the Committee stage we will be able to spend some time looking at each item again very closely. Doubtless we will as this has become the custom in this place. I turn now to Senator Peter Rae's Bill. As I have said, following the spirit of Senator Mason's Bill and the spirit that the Australian Democrats have shown in relation to constitutional alterations to come before this place, providing the question is a single question, providing it is compact and not misleading, providing that it is a properly formed question-Senator Hamer made an extremely valuable contribution on this item in the last Parliament in stating what would constitute a proper reason for going to the people-and providing it meets the types of criteria here outlined we would support its going to the people. However, we are not quite sure why the Opposition has brought forward this Bill at this time. One could conclude that the Opposition has some views on the rejection of Supply, possibly in the August session of parliament, and wishes to canvass this issue at that time possibly for a rerun of The Dismissal program. This point horrifies me and leads me to reiterate that the Australian Democrats in the Budget session will vote for Appropriation Bill (No. 1). Senator Rae's proposed amendment to the Constitution would bring about a fundamental change in the balance of power between the two Houses. In fact it would be such a fundamental change as to make the Senate certainly the most powerful House in the Federation. It would be such a powerful House that it would be entirely appropriate under such circumstances, if Senator Rae's proposition is carried, that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer reside here and not in any other place. Senator Harradine —It is not more powerful than the Tasmanian Legislative Council. Senator MACKLIN —I am sorry. Nothing is more powerful than the Tasmanian Legislative Council. Senator Haines —Other than the Queensland one. Senator MACKLIN —There is no upper House in Queensland. That disappeared. Senator Martin —Which explains a lot. Senator MACKLIN —It does explain a lot. We believe that the current system is inappropriate. At present if the Prime Minister, having the confidence of the House of Representatives, wants to call an election for both Houses the Senate must have rejected at least one Bill and rejected it again on recommittal after the appropriate period. In the meantime if the Senate had the numbers to delay such a Bill-it has done so in the past-it could drag out the operation if it wished to do so. How much power the Senate might have in that regard is a matter for debate and discussion. The move that Senator Peter Rae is suggesting would not be appropriate at this time. If the fixed term Parliament is to have an opportunity to work and to work well it deserves some time to work on its own without the additional impetus of Senator Rae's Bill. We hope that the fixed term situation, together with possibly more sane politics in this country, may overcome the problems that arose in 1975. We delude ourselves if we believe that we will be able to draw up a Constitution which will take account of every vagary of human nature and every wile and act of deviousness that can be used to manipulate the Constitution to the advantage or disadvantage of a party or group . However, we can attempt, in sensible debate and in rational ways, to change the Constitution from time to time to make sure that it takes account of modern thought and new ways of getting the best government for this country. I turn to Senator Mason's Bill. I refer firstly to the comments made early today by Senator Durack on why this Bill was not receiving the support of the Opposition. Senator Durack commented that the first thing people would vote on would be proposition 13. This demonstrates the paucity of understanding of what we are about and what this Bill is about. I understand that Senator Missen will also object to this Bill and we certainly look forward to a more in-depth and intelligent contribution than the one from Senator Durack. Proposition 13 was passed in in California in 1978. Only two other States in the United States of America ever passed a similar proposition-Idaho and Massachusetts. Six States rejected it, two twice. Of couse what many people fail to note is that proposition 13 concerned a land tax and the people of California were entitled to do precisely what they liked. At least they had a chance to vote on the matter. In 1980 a proposition put to them to halve income tax lost in an overwhelming vote. What lurks under Senator Durack's proposition is a distrust of people. They cannot be trusted to run their own country or to say what they would like about tax. What Senator Durack is saying is: 'If we had this the people would put up a proposition 13 and support it'. If that is what the people want why does not Senator Durack support it now? We are supposed to be representatives of the people. That is what the people want; that is what we should support. What the Democrats are saying is: 'Let the people decide on this issue. Let them have a decision-making process in which they have a voice on individual items and let them state their will in their country'. It is extremely important that that occur. People may not trust their legislators; they may not trust Cabinets; they may not trust the Prime Minister. But they certainly trust themselves. It is this trust in their decision-making process that we must not denigrate. I remind honourable senators that we are discussing a number of Bills fundamental to this country. When we refer to the fundamental points in this country, what do we do? We go to the people and ask them. When we refer to our Constitution, the most fundamental document in this country, we ask the people what their view is. Presumably Senator Lewis is not denigrating that procedure. Accordingly, even people who feel that most political decisions should be made by experts, presumably in this circumstance, ought to think again before they say that the people should not have this opportunity. We believe that the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy, not less. The people must be able to insert themselves into the decision-making process. We need to develop our democracy and take it to further points which will enable people to assess important issues such as uranium mining, abortion and the Tasmanian wilderness-important issues that do not sit with political parties or any political group. These issues cut across political parties, always have done so and always will do so. But many of those items are in many ways not even appropriate items for political party controversy. Some of them either go over the top or they go right the way through; they are issues of conscience and of fundamental concern to the entire population. It is on all these issues, and these issues alone, that people would be asked these questions because of the nature of the Bill that Senator Mason has introduced. If it goes to the Committee stage we will have an opportunity to debate it further. I believe that if this opportunity is available, many of those hot and controversial issues-extremely difficult issues for political parties ever to face; ones which we shy from because of the controversy contained within them and because of their divisiveness-would be likely to come to the fore. They have indeed come to the fore, when one looks at the history of this operation in the various States of the United States of America. Of course, this process applies not only in California but also in the 26 other States of the United States. Many other countries have a much more elaborate initiative process than we have. The referendum is an initiative process. It is a government initiative process. We are looking to extend that to allow people to initiate that process. To enable that to occur there must be reasonable mechanisms so that we know that it is an important issue. We have always canvassed the proposition that it is best in terms of expenditure to have these propositions linked as closely as we can to general elections. In this way people would be asked not only to vote for the political party of their choice to govern the economy but also on those occasions to cast their vote on important issues of concern to the entire country. It is sometimes said about our citizens, and I am not one to agree with it, that there is apathy and alienation in regard to the political process. If there is apathy and alienation I believe that as politicians we must take some of the blame, if not all of the blame, for that occurring. Simply taking the blame is not a useful attitude to take. When one diagnoses a problem one needs to come up with some solutions. What types of solutions might there be? Senator Mason has suggested, I believe from in a comparative study of world politics, that solutions exist in other countries, and they are used constantly. People are able to assert themselves on these issues. There is the ability for a legislature to ignore the wishes of the people, or indeed to put aside entirely an issue that is too hot or controversial. At those times that government in many ways turns people off. For example, in relation to the issue of taxation raised by Senator Durack, people are turned off because time and again political parties go to elections and say: 'We will lower taxes'. When they go into government what happens? They raise taxes. It happened with the previous Government. In every election campaign it said 'We will lower taxes', and after every election in seven years it raised taxes to heights which have never been seen before in this country. This Government went to the people and won a mandate on the basis of lower taxes. We will probably find out later tonight that the Government intends to raise taxes. The cynicism of the operation turns people away from the political process. I believe that if people could become involved in issues such as the tax issues, they certainly would. They would certainly make sure that politicians and parliaments were kept honest on this issue. Senator Missen —They might abolish tax altogether. Senator MACKLIN —People are not stupid. Senator Mason —That is an unworthy suggestion. Senator MACKLIN —That is a totally and utterly unworthy suggestion. People are not stupid; they have shown their capacity to make extremely intelligent judgments. It is their country and they should be allowed to make those decisions. It is a denigration of the entire population to say the people would vote out all taxes. It shows the absurdity of the honourable senator's proposition. Senator Missen should look at what happened in California. The proposition for higher income tax was lost overwhelmingly because the people understood. Senator Mason —People understood very well why, too. Senator MACKLIN —They know why. They are not fools; they know what is going on in their own country. They know they pay taxes and that they need to pay taxes if they want social services. But they know the level at which they want to pay taxes and what they want done with them. Senator Missen says that they should not be allowed to have this right because they might lower their own taxes. That is the most extraordinary proposition I have ever heard from someone who says he represents the people. It is one that Senator Durack and Senator Missen put. The public interest in this regard is not being adhered to by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or the National Party of Australia. I challenge any honourable senator to come with me on to a public platform before the citizens of this country and argue that the people sitting in that hall should not be allowed a citizens' initiative. If that honourable senator got out with his shirt on his back, good luck to him. Senator Mason —They wouldn't dare. Senator MACKLIN —They would not say to those people: 'You should not be allowed, by petition, to put forward a proposition for a deliberative vote of the entire country'. That is what we will do if we vote against this measure. We would be saying to the people: 'You should not be allowed, by petition, to put up a proposition'. Senator Mason —Of course you are saying that. Senator MACKLIN —That is what we would be saying. Senator Mason —Let them have the choice. Senator MACKLIN —Let the people have the choice to say whether they want this power. That is what we are asking of the people in this Parliament. That is what we are asking of the Government and of the Opposition. Let the people say whether they want this choice, not whether we believe they should or should not have it. Let the people say whether or not they should have this choice. The Opposition should test its proposition where it counts-where the people cast their votes. The Opposition was talking about testing it out. Time and again Senator Walters said: 'Let us test this proposition.' If this proposition is put on 20 August every honourable senator in this place knows it will be carried overwhelmingly. They know that, and that is why they are afraid to put it. The central argument-let us not have any quibbles about this-that is being put in this place by politicians is that this question threatens the control of the political system. That is basically what they are saying. The political system that we have here would be threatened by the involvement of the people. This extension of the democratic process would threaten our cosy power. That is what those people are saying and they are scared stiff of testing that theory at a referendum. In a free society such as ours the guarantee of the initiative is the vital cornerstone of democracy. It will come in this country, as it will come in every other democratic and free country. The people who are holding it up now are holding up the tide of history but it will not be held up indefinitely. Kings have disappeared, presidents have disappeared and the operation of this type of democracy will disappear. As we have more and more informed electors they will demand more and more power, and in getting that power they will demand more and more information. Essentially what will happen is that we will not have an open government, we will not have that enormous and overwhelming demand for information from government and we will not have the demand to sweep away the secrecy of government behind closed doors until people have that power. When they have it they will seek to know more of what is going on and they will seek to insert themselves more and more into the political process. That, after all, is what we ought to be about. We ought to be about making sure that every person in this country is concerned about politics, is concerned about his country and is concerned to have a vote and to be interested and informed. That is the ultimate; that is the ideal and we must not put it aside or put blinkers on. We must seek ways to bring that about. It is not good enough to say 'Let's have a little education program' or something like that. Basically, education will not work. The power must exist. We all know of the movement that took place in women's rights from the time that women gained the power to vote. When ordinary people gained the power to vote in Britain, and of course in Australia, we all know what happened. Ordinary people came to the fore; not only the rich and moneyed classes involved themselves in politics but also ordinary people were elected to parliament. When this occurs ordinary people will concern themselves in their own work places on these vital, controversial and difficult issues. Finally, they will want to go in and say yes or no to whether Australia ought to have a uranium industry. When we get to that point I believe we will have moved a long way ahead in the development of our democracy. I hope, as a final appeal to the Senate, that it supports this Bill so that at least we can test the will of the people on this issue. Let us not take from them the opportunity to say, 'Yes, we do want this advance; we do want this power'. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.48) —I want to speak on the six Bills before the Senate at the moment. Of course, there being six Bills it is impossible to deal at any length with the arguments involved. Of course a number of arguments have already been expressed. I certainly support the views of my colleague Senator Hill on the most important of the Bills before us to amend the Constitution. I refer to the Bill relating to fixed term parliaments. I support that Bill as I support the Government's other constitutional amendments. I will get to the other Bills a little later. It is quite right that the Government should bring forward a Bill that tries to overcome a problem which has remained dormant for a number of years but which could always rear it ugly head again. I applaud the attempt to change the Constitution to allow for fixed term parliaments. Despite the rather belaboured attempt by the former Attorney-General, who kept calling it Senator Evans's Bill and Senator Evans's idea, it is really Senator David Hamer's idea that is before us. He was the one who brought forward the proposal for fixed terms, finding in that a solution to a number of problems. The solution will not be satisfactory to everybody and many people will find problems that this legislation does not entirely overcome. On the other hand, it is a genuine compromise to overcome the dangers which have been found by our constitutional process a number of times in the past, particularly in 1975, and to overcome a period in which we have had only a short time between elections, uncertainty and insecurity. We have seen that for years, and now it can be brought to an end. I will deal very briefly with some of the arguments in regard to that. However, last year I made a second reading speech on a Bill proposed by the Attorney- General (Senator Evans)-the Constitutional Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill 1981. I reiterate part of what I said in my second reading speech of 25 March 1982, at page 1239 and following of Hansard, and stand by the arguments which I then expressed. I set out the need for us as politicians to find some sort of reasonable solution to the problems which have faced the Constitution in this area. I then applauded the Bill but pointed out that it needed alterations. As we all know, the Senate made alterations to the Bill; it removed provisions in regard to Supply and the Governor-General's powers that would only have had the effect of adding fuel to the flame of opposition to the Bill. Now the Senate has before it another Bill, which is almost a replica of the Bill passed by the Senate in 1982 with the support of six Liberal senators but which, of course, did not proceed and was not debated at all in the House of Representatives during the last Parliament. What we do know now is that, following recent events and following an attempt by a Prime Minister to use the opportunity to have an early election and not to go the full term, we have increased argument in favour of the fixed term proposition. As is clear from gallup polls, something like 70 per cent of the people say that they believe in fixed terms and they want to see them. Of course it is part of the belief of many people that, when we have a referendum proposal , if we manage to confuse the people and bring up arguments from time to time they all get worried about it and thereby one side may not get the majority it seeks, or not get a majority in a majority of States. I believe that this is one of the propositions which is firmly fixed in people's minds as a desirable need. It is one which I believe will, in the course of argument in the referendum period, hold up very well. Senator Harradine —They want fewer elections rather than fixed terms. Senator MISSEN —They want fewer elections and they also want fixed terms. They see both things going together, and I am sure that both things will go together. Let me say in passing that the arguments for fixed terms were well summarised in a paper with which I think most honourable senators will be quite familar. It was prepared recently by Senator David Hamer. I mention five advantages to which he referred, which I think in summary are the main desirable features of this fixed term proposition. The first is that is solves the problem of simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives, which has never been completely overcome and which has led us to having early elections to align the two Houses and which would lead to another election of this Parliament within two years unless we were to embark upon the curious idea of having a separate Senate election-a gallup poll election. No government not out of its senses would these days do that. So it will overcome the simultaneous elections proposition in a way that I think is better than the proposal of 1977, on which 62 per cent of the Australian public voted. However, the proposal carried a majority in only three States and narrow minorities in two other States. That is one excellent solution that this Bill provides. The second is that it removes an unwarranted political advantage from the incumbent government; that is, the advantage a Prime Minister has to choose his time, to go to an election when it is to his advantage. We know that sometimes Prime Ministers misjudge the situation. The third advantage is that it should result in fewer elections. Earlier today Senator Durack expressed the view that this would not be so, that in fact we would probably get into the situation, as in West Germany, whereby there would be pre-arranged or artificial motions of no confidence and so further elections. I find that proposition extremely far fetched. I believe that if the fixed term proposition does not really give to any particular party any great benefit but leads to a government that is re-elected in an early election serving out only the time left to the end of the fixed term, then we will find both Prime Ministers and party leaders being discouraged from trying to have early elections for the House of Representatives. I also think that dissident groups that might otherwise be tempted to force an election will be very reluctant to do so, knowing that it will mean that they will have to face another election. As my colleague Senator Hill said, honourable senators will find in practice that there will be not more but indeed far fewer elections. There will be the regular election every three years, or four years, if we subsequently go to that position. The fourth argument that Senator Hamer raised was that it was less likely that a hostile Senate would withhold supply as a means of forcing an unwarranted election. This argument has been taken further and I believe that it is correct. A fixed term parliament will provide little benefit in doing that. It will probably lead to the necessity for negotiation and discussion. Unless double dissolution Bills are before the Parliament we cannot, even at the moment, force the Senate out, but I think the withholding of Supply by the Senate will be much less likely if the fixed terms come into existence. The fifth argument, and the one that I regard as perhaps the most important, for fixed term parliaments, is the elimination of a prolonged period of uncertainty during which people ask: ' Will there or will there not be an early election?' We know the damage that this has done in this community. We know the way in which this matter has been dangled before the British people recently. Their Parliament has now gone to an election a year ahead of time for the benefit or what is thought to be the benefit of the present Prime Minister. I mention also in regard to the fixed term proposition an amendment of which Senator Hamer has given notice, or of which he certainly has indicated his intention to give notice and which I likewise support. That relates to double dissolution elections. If double dissolution elections are to be held we have to ensure that they are based on genuine issues and not issues that have been put away in a back cupboard somewhere for a year or two and then brought forward with the claim that the Parliament is unworkable. I think the idea that we must use a double dissolution issue within three months or not use it at all-that we will otherwise lose the right to use it-is an excellent one. I trust that will commend itself to the Government and to the Australian Democrats. It seems to me to be an excellent improvement on the proposal which is presently before us. Otherwise, I believe that the fixed term proposition, which we debated at length last year, is an excellent one. I intend to support the Bill and to campaign vigorously for it in the course of the referendum campaign. The other three proposals which the Government puts forward, although they deserve more attention now, will receive attention during the referendum campaign. I believe that they have general support in the Parliament. One, of course, is the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill. I was sorry to see that Senator Durack damned it a little with faint praise when he said: 'The States apparently want it, so perhaps it is all right, if we are to have a referendum'. It seems to me highly desirable that we should clear away the problems which at times over the years have discouraged the States from interchanging power with the Commonwealth and discouraged the Commonwealth from interchanging power with the States. The legislation makes it clear that the States will not lose their rights permanently. I think that altogether this proposal, which was carefully worked over by the Constitutional Convention, deserves strong support. Likewise, I perhaps have some prejudice in favour of the Constitution Aleration (Advisory Jurisdiction of the High Court) Bill. That legislation was recommended not only by the Constitutional Convention but also in a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. During my chairmanship of that Committee we examined, and found to be sound, the reasons for giving that power to the High Court. I have seen no valid arguments so far to indicate why that measure should not have very widespread support. It will provide a useful facility for the High Court and it will be valuable in determining the validity of Commonwealth Bills at a much earlier stage than might be the case if we wait until some litigant chooses to bring a matter before the High Court and then perhaps does not argue it very well. I think the legislation will enable Federal and State governments to obtain the opinion of the High Court as to the validity of their various legislation. The last of the four recommendations of the Government-to tidy up the Constitution, removing unnecessary provisions-I think is very uncontroversial indeed. I believe that it is highly desirable that the Australian people should support the four changes to the Constitution which the Government has proposed. I believe that they will have very widespread support. I turn to the other proposals that are before us. The Constituton Alteration ( Appropriation Bills) Bill, which Senator Peter Rae has brought forward as a private member's Bill with the general support of the Opposition, has a quite long history. If flows from the Constitutional Convention in which, we will recall, there have been bitter battles over the years over two proposals-on the one hand the Whitlam proposal which would have taken away the Senate's right to block Supply and on the other hand the Court proposal which rigidifies the right of the Senate to deny Supply and ensures that if the Senate blocks Supply there will be an election. The good thing about the latter proposal, which the non- Labor majority was successful in passing through the Constitutional Convention, is that it overcomes the problem that at the moment the Senate can act irresponsibly by throwing out Supply Bills but, if there are not double dissolution Bills before the Parliament, cannot be forced to the people. That, of course, is an undesirable situation. A fixed parliamentary term will ensure that that does not happen. I do not think that Senator Peter Rae's proposition-the rather complex Bill which has come from the Constitutional Convention and which is really in genesis the Court proposal of some years-has any real possibility of success in a referendum. It will obviously be voted very much along party lines. That has been the case in the Constitutional Convention. It will be seen as a means of strengthening the power of the Senate to refuse Supply and perhaps making that occurrence more likely. I do not propose to vote on that Bill. I believe that it is useless to present it to the people. Indeed, it may have the effect of confusing the electors and causing the defeat of other proposals. I trust that that is not its purpose. I believe that Senator Rae, who has pressed this matter for years, has tried to find solutions, but this is a solution which is seen by a very large proportion of the Australian people as placing the Senate's powers in an even stronger position. Therefore, I think it will on the whole be divisive. I wish to say a few words about the sixth proposal which is before us-the participatory democracy proposal of the Democrats, known as the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill. It has superficial appeal. One could always go to meetings and say: 'Should you not be able to make the laws yourselves? Why do you leave it to members of parliament to make the laws? You should pass this Bill and then you can put up a proposed law and with 250,000 votes you can get it on the ballot'. Of course, it is easy because so many single issue groups in the community will be able to raise that amount of votes, and they draft the law. It is put in their terms, and if the terms turn out to be impractical and inoperable, we will be stuck with it. Honourable senators should read the terms of this Bill. In that situation, another referendum will have to be held. It is very interesting-I do not intend to speak at any length on this argument-to read a publication by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., entitled 'Referendums-A Comparative Study of Practice and Theory', edited by David Butler of the Nuffield College, Oxford, and Austin Ranney of the American Enterprise Institute. These people have great knowledge of and authority in this area. Dealing with the operation of such a proposal in Switzerland, at page 42 they state: A hundred thousand citizens can demand the revision of the constitution. The signatures, set out on a special form, must be collected within eighteen months (this rule was laid down only in 1978; previously there was no time limit). Generally speaking, initiatives are used for amendments to the constitution. The citizens put forward a full draft of the text of a new article or a new clause. The significant aspect that is different from the proposal put forward by the Australian Democrats is this: The Federal Assembly cannot change anything in this draft but can put forward an alternative of its own. The initiative needs assent by the majority of the people and of the cantons-and the same applies to the counter-proposal from the parliament. There is no provision, or tying in of a provision, that this Parliament will have anything to say. The proposal is to move from parliamentary democracy to participatory democracy. It will take away the opportunity which we have in this Parliament to debate proposals such as those before us. We are elected by the people to put forward in the Parliament proposals and amendments to laws before they go to referendum. But in the Democrats' proposal, we either take it or leave it. Whatever is prepared by this shadowy group which gets 250,000 signatures will be the language that is put before the people. That is what will become the law and parliament becomes redundant. Honourable senators who read the details of this system will see that the Parliament cannot repeal the laws unless, of course, there is an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament and it is submitted to the electors. Of course, the Bill states: When a proposed law is so submitted to the electors, the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. What on earth does that mean? Does that mean that other parts of the Constitution, other requirements for the carrying of amendments, are not applicable? It is an altogether shapeless and unsatisfactory referendum proposal , one which would sound the death knell to parliamentary democracy in this country. I take up Senator Mason's challenge. I will argue this subject with anyone because it has not been argued. Superficially, it is appealing. Anyone who believes in the development of the Westminster system-the argument, creation , discussion and compromises which can occur in a parliament in the discussion of a Bill, and the way in a which interests can therefore be accommodated and recognised-will not agree with this Bill. It will be agreeable only to the group which introduced it. Once it is passed we may be stuck with it forever. It is a well-intentioned idea, but a dangerous one. I certainly oppose the matter being the subject of a referendum and oppose it altogether. I have indicated my attitude on these Bills. I trust that the major Bills will have a successful passage. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.9) —Six Bills are before the Senate, all of which seek a constitutional alteration. I support four, and oppose two, of the Bills. I wish to speak to one that I support and one to which I am very much opposed. I follow the lead of Senator Durack and Senator Rae, who have preceded me in this debate. Whilst I agree with many of the arguments put by my colleagues Senator Hill and Senator Missen, as I will outline, I disagree with some of their ultimate conclusions. The four Bills that I support set out proposals that were supported by the recent Australian Constitutional Convention held in Adelaide. The two that I oppose were not supported by that Constitutional Convention. The proposal of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for fixed term parliaments was not supported by the Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Alteration (Elector's Initiative) Bill introduced by the Australian Democrats was so preliminary and speculative that it was not even placed on the agenda of the Constitutional Convention. It certainly has not gained any swelling of public support in the nation. One of two Bills to which I refer more particularly is Senator Peter Rae's private member's Bill-the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill- which seeks to alter the Constitution to put into effect the amendment recommended by Standing Committee D of the Constitutional Convention-originally, the Court proposal, which seeks a solution by way of making the Senate more accountable when it may block Supply. I believe it is inappropriate for the Senate having, rightly, the power to block Supply in this Parliament, then not to be a part of the election that is forced as a result. I believe a general election should not be subject to the haphazard chance of double dissolution Bills lying about that can lead to the Senate and the House of Representatives facing an election, in the event of Supply being blocked; rather, expressly following the Senate blocking Supply, the Senate is accountable and must, as a whole, face an election. That is the nub of Senator Rae's Bill. I am surprised that the Government is not supporting that Bill, because it is a matter that has been passed by a healthy majority of the Constitutional Convention. An amendment put by Senator Rae at that Convention was passed 46 votes to 32 votes. When the amended motion to accept the report of Standing Committee D on this matter was subsequently put, it was passed without a division, without protest and without dissent. That approving outcome should be compared with the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court proposal that was also considered by the Constitutional Convention and passed at one stage by 54 votes to 36 votes and, later, a revised proposal at the Adelaide meeting was passed by 51 votes to 35 votes. This has been described by Senator Evans as a substantial majority. He uses that substantial majority as one of the grounds for going ahead with the proposal for a referendum. I do not disagree with him that there was a substantial majority. I argue only that there is a like substantial majority with regard to Senator Rae's proposal. Why is it that the Government does not agree with that argument in this case also? In addition, I believe Senator Evans has put the proposal that his party would give such authority to the Constitutional Convention-that the Australian Labor Party in government would take up any constitutional proposal that is approved by the Convention and put it to the people at a referendum, and then let the people decide whether there is such a majority as there was on the floor of the Constitutional Convention. What happened to that undertaking or promise? It has been supported by the Constitutional Convention. Where is the support from the Government to put it to the people in a referendum? The other Bill to which I will now address all of my remarks is what I call the Senator Evans fixed term parliament referendum proposal, which is the one that has been most contentious in debate around the country and certainly in this chamber. Its objective is to fix a date for the next election, which would be a simultaneous election in November 1985 for half the Senate and the whole of the House of Representatives and thereafter, on the third anniversary of that date to have subsequent Federal elections. Another provision in the Bill is that if there was an extraordinary election-the two grounds for this are set out in the Bill; the lack of confidence in a government in the House of Representatives or a double dissolution deadlock between the two Houses, as is presently set out in section 57 of the Constitution-the Parliament elected would be only a lame duck parliament and serve for only the remainder of the term of the previous Parliament. I will refer to that objective of the Bill later as being the most objectionable one and the one which I believe will be more and more understood over the coming few months and lead to this referendum proposal being defeated. The Bill also seeks to guarantee simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. That in itself is a commendable proposal. I will refer to it again later. The Bill sets out the specific day in November, the third Saturday, when there would be an election every third year. Whilst I oppose this Bill, I am not opposed to the principle of fixed terms per se. After all, this Senate has fixed terms of six years. I regret that only one of the 64 senators has actually served a full term. The other 63 of us have not. In the present circumstances, even those recently elected will not serve a full term. The fixed term principle in the Senate-it does not apply in the House of Representatives-can be seen by Australians to be lacking in fulfilment. I am in favour of reform to overcome disabilities and serious inadequacies in the way in which the elections have been conducted and parliaments formed and concluded in the Commonwealth and in the States. I am responsive to the overwhelmingly popular view that in this country we are having too many elections. The most obvious example that people from all parties cite is the recent Commonwealth election in March 1983. Another example in my State of South Australia is the election called by the Corcoran Labor Government in 1979, which led to that Government being overwhelmingly defeated and to the Tonkin Government's term of office in South Australia. I believe that the people of Australia are dissatisfied with there being too many elections, not only because they are being called unnecessarily early and foreshorten parliamentary terms but also because they cause further elections once the Senate term and the House of Representatives term are put out of syncronisation. That is the case now. If there is no constitutional change, a Senate election must be held before July 1985 but the next House of Representatives election is not due until May 1986. So, there is a multiplicity of unnecessary elections. I believe that is the view of a majority of people in all parties. I am also responsive to the popular view that the parliaments of Australia need a longer term. I believe that that will make for good and stable government and allow a government to implement its program without the necessity to look too quickly to whether it is gaining sufficient public approval to win a pending election. There has been an overwhelmingly expression of the view in Australia that we should move to four-year parliaments. This view has been expressed by both sides of this chamber. It is a view that has been expressed at the Constitutionl Conventions. In fact, at the recent Constitutional Convention in Adelaide that proposal was supported. It still leaves me confused and dismayed why the Government did not take up the four-year parliament proposal as the main priority for a referendum this year, rather than Senator Evans's fixed term parliament proposal, which I believe should have a much lower priority. I very much support the proposal for a four-year parliament. I also wish to acknowledge honestly and straightforwardly that right now concern continues to be expressed in all parties about the circumstances of the March 1983 election. It is regarded as an opportunisitic election, the time of which was decided, with advice, by a Prime Minister for his own reasons and, presumably, to advantage my party, which was then in government. But it backfired on that Prime Minister. There was nothing in the Constitution to prevent him from choosing a time that he thought would be more likely to lead to victory. He did not have to wait for the end of the parliamentary term, which would have been towards the end of 1983. This ability of a Prime Minister of any persuasion to opportunistically choose a time to the advantage of himself or of his own party has this year raised even further the dissatisfaction of the people. The argument that it was necessary to have the March 1983 election in order to get a renewed mandate has also been seen by the people in all parties to be hollow. Those who in the future, whether in the Commonwealth or in the States, try to argue that they need a renewed mandate, I believe, will be treading on very shaky ground. They will perhaps suffer the same consequences as my party did in the recent election. Certainly, the people of Australia are not convinced by the hollowness of this argument that a fresh mandate is required. There was also, in the recent March 1983 election, a technical use of the double dissolution ground that had built up in the preceding year. Indeed, the Prime Minister at the time straightforwardly acknowledged that he was not necessarily going to put the double dissolution Bills to a joint sitting and that they would not necessarily be the policy of the new Government that he would lead. Rather the Constitution allowed these Bills, having been twice refused by the Senate, to act as a trigger, as a technical device to allow a double dissolution of parliament. I believe that is not appropriate. It is not in the spirit of the original Constitution. I believe that the people of all parties are seeking to have their representatives in the Parliament deny that technical trigger. I support the amendment that I understand Senator Hamer is moving to provide that the trigger should lapse if it has not been activated in three months. I am also very conscious of the fact that the recent election this year led to even more expressions of disapproval at the way in which our Constitution allows a parliamentary term to begin and end. The people of Australia, of all parties, are calling for reforms. Having said that by way of introduction, I now wish to say why I am directly opposed to the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill introduced by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. Essentially I am opposed to this Bill because it provides that, in the event of an extraordinary election, the Parliament then elected will only serve out the remainder of its three years. It will not gain a full three years in office, a full fixed term or a full number of years-whatever term may be determined. I believe that this is counter- productive to the thrust of reforms that I have outlined as being those which the people of Australia are seeking to urge upon this Parliament. I believe that it should be the case that, if there is an extraordinary election, the Parliament then elected should have a full term to enact the proposals that it has taken to that extraordinary election at which it has gained the most recent mandate of the people. The first reason I am opposed to Senator Evans's Bill is that it leads to a lame duck parliament-a parliament that I believe would be unable to achieve the stable and good government for which the people of Australia are calling and which, for example, has led to the proposal for a four -year parliament. Secondly, the Bill has the apparent objective of reducing the number of elections in Australia. But I believe that no honourable senator in this chamber would be able to demonstrate that that could be guaranteed. I believe it is likely to lead to more elections. Let me give one example: A parliament in the fixed term cycle is elected for a three-year fixed term. After two years there is an extraordinary situation, either a double dissolution trigger-that is, a deadlock between the two Houses-or a want of confidence motion in the Government is passed in the House of Representatives. There must be an election. One year later, when the three-year term has expired, there is another election. So within the space of three years there have been two elections, whereas under the proposal I am putting forward-about which Senator Hamer has written extensively and for which many others in the country give support-after that extraordinary election following a two-year parliamentary period there would be a full term of three years. So we would have two elections in five years and not two elections in three years. That is the more appropriate way to go. Senator Evans's Bill may indeed lead to more elections, not fewer elections. Another aspect is that it does not deny an opportunistic Prime Minister or government to put before the Senate a Bill which, given the composition of the Senate, they know the Senate will deny. By so doing such a Prime Minister or government could still manipulate the terms of the Constitution, as set out in Senator Evans's Bill. That would allow them to have an election of their own choosing at a time of their own choosing and in the circumstances which I have already outlined and of which I believe the Australian public disapproves. The third reason I oppose this Bill is that I believe it will fail on 20 August. It will not gain a sufficient majority of votes in the country as a whole nor will it gain a sufficient majority of States. Let me compare this with the simultaneous elections referendum of 1977 which was supported by both major parties. It was very well understood by the people of Australia. There was a great deal of common support for that proposal by political parties but it still failed. I put it to honourable senators that Senator Evans's Bill is much more contentious than that proposal. There are divisions in the Australian Labor Party about it. There is opposition from the Opposition parties, even though there are some honourable senators who may support it. I believe that Queensland and Tasmania certainly will not support that referendum. I believe Western Australia will not support it and I would regard South Australia and New South Wales at this stage as being hard to predict with perhaps 50-50 support for the proposal. Even then, speaking for my State of South Australia, the degree of support it would attract would be based upon misconceptions and an over-simplistic presentation of the apparent advantages of the Bill. I would not wish to deny that those South Australians who I think are likely, given all the propaganda of the next three months, still to support the Bill, would be doing so with full understanding of these grave disadvantages in the Bill. I am not certain about the outcome of the referendum; nobody can be. but I am putting forward the view that, in the light of earlier examples, it is likely to fail. Yet if this $21m gamble is lost by Senator Evans and the Government we are doing an enormous disservice to parliament and constitutional reform in the country. The opportunity for referenda do not come to a parliament or the people of Australia every year. If this proposal is so fraught with difficulty and division that it is not likely to be supported by the people to a successful outcome, then it will be setting back the kinds of proposals that I outlined in the earlier part of my speech, such as a four-year parliament. Why does the Government not get behind proposals that have already gained a preliminary consensus in the Parliament or in the country, such as the four-year parliamentary term? This $21m gamble is irresponsible. I still implore the Government not to go ahead with that referendum and waste the opportunity that is before it. It is said by some that 70 per cent of the Australian people have shown, in a recent public opinion poll, that they support the fixed term concept. That does not mean that 70 per cent of the people support Senator Evans's Bill. They are saying: 'The great majority of us in Australia are dissatisfied with the way in which you are calling elections too often. We want you to reform it'. They want us to come up with a solution that will not lead them to all the dissatisfaction that I tried to express at the beginning of my speech. I think it is quite wrong -it is invalid-to make the jump from that public opinion poll result to a supposed support for Senator Evans's Bill. This Bill only superficially meets the views that were the mainsprings of that 70 per cent public opinion poll. The Bill is deceptive and superficial in that it is seeking to try to pick up the public support that has been expressed in such public opinion polls. I believe that the task of the Opposition and many institutions and parliaments in Australia over the next three months is to so point up the deficiencies of Senator Evans's Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill as not meeting genuine concerns that we ensure it fails. Senator Messner —Senator, can I just get it right: The people will not be voting for a fixed term, they will be voting for an Evans Bill which will have other motives? Is that right? Senator TEAGUE —The honourable senator has put forward a view. I certainly agree with what he says. I believe it is quite easy for politicians to dress up Senator Evans's Bill to superficially appear to meet a plea by the Australian public to have fewer elections. I believe that that dressing up would be deceitful, superficial and simplistic. I hope that we may be able to enlighten the people of Australia because I believe they cannot easily be fooled. I want to speak on two alternative proposals which I believe ought to be a part of the preliminary discussion that leads to a consensus on which such an opportunity as a referendum should not then be a gamble but should be one that is based upon a more certain prediction that it be passed. In the few minutes that remain I have not the time to go into this matter other than to make a few comments on the two alternative proposals. The first is that instead of this referendum we should have a referendum on a four-year parliament and that it may even be linked to a fixed date, say, November, but if there is an extraordinary election, such as a double dissolution, the term of the next parliament should be at least three years and not more than four years so that we get back into the pattern of the November elections again. I believe that that would be a sufficient full term and would achieve the arguments I stated earlier. It will also bring back the possibility of it being more likely to achieve the simultaneous elections reform that has already been put to the Australian people but which was denied because it implied that the Senate could too easily be taken out and have its term shortened. In summary, I outline a four-year parliamentary amendment with fixed date aspect which I believe is to be preferred. An alternative-which would overcome the problem before us of the next Senate and next House of Representatives elections-would be simply to amend section 13 of the Constitution so that we have a once off amendment. This amendment should say that the next simultaneous election will be in November 1985 by extending the terms of present honourable senators to three and a quarter years instead of two and a quarter years for the short term senators and six and a quarter years rather than the present five and a quarter years of the longer term senators. These terms flowed because of the constitutional provisions linked with the date of March 1983 of the last double dissolution election. By that simple amendment-which I believe could gain the support of all parties in this chamber and could assure the public that there will not be this double election of the Senate followed by the House of Representatives, but rather one general election for half the Senate and the whole of the House of Representatives-we could achieve with much more unanimity the lessening of the number of elections. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.38) —The Senate is debating six Constitution alteration Bills, but I propose to confine myself in these remarks exclusively to the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill. Some two or three years ago I heard my colleagues Senator Hamer and Senator Missen talking about a fixed term parliament in favourable terms. I suppose that without thinking in depth about the subject I had come to think there was probably a lot of merit in the idea. I was then asked to be a speaker at the Third Annual Meeting of the Australasian Study of Parliament Group on the subject of fixed term parliaments and that required me, in order to make a speech to that function, to apply my mind in depth to the subject. The more I thought and read about it and applied my mind to the subject, the more opposed I became to the concept until by the time of the proceedings I was totally opposed to it. I have remained that way ever since. Senator Gareth Evans also addressed that conference, as did a number of other people. I seek leave to table the proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Australasian Study of Parliament Group. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —I thank the Senate. I shall come back to those papers in the course of my remarks. I put it to the Senate, and I shall in due course put it to the people of Australia, that this proposal is the first in a series of proposals which will be put by the Australian Labor Party over a period of years to disembowel this chamber. We should look at section 4 of the 1982 platform of the Labor Party which is headed 'Constitutional and Legal'. This appears on page 19 of the document. It states: The support of the Australian people will be sought for amendments to the Australian Constitution- Paragraph 3 states: To ensure that the Senate has no power to reject, defer of otherwise block money bills. Paragraph 4 states: To provide that the Senate may delay for up to six months, but not reject, any other proposed law. Those two proposals would disembowel this Senate. It would not be worth while for the chamber to sit and we might just as well do away with it. Those are the Labor Party's objectives as set out in its constitution and adopted in the middle of last year. Let us look at how it proposes to achieve that objective. We are somewhat fortunate that a paper which was prepared by Dr Blewett of the other place actually was published and we were able to get a copy of it. It was published in 'Labor Forum', Volume 1, No. 1, Autumn 1978. This paper is entitled 'Dunstan shows the way in constitution reform'. Dr Blewett analysed what had happened in regard to so-called constitutional 'reform'. He indicated how he believed the Australian Labor Party could alter the Federal Constitution, our national Constitution, and set out the steps that it should take based on the success of the changes to the South Australian Constitution. Having stated a series of proposals for reform-some of which were adopted in the 1982 platform- he then goes on and says how to go about it. He states: Labor needs to maximise the use of the 'hurrah' words in our political vocabulary in order to mobilise community support and to split its conservative opponents. That is the first thing we will get-'hurrah' words. He goes on to state: . . . the ALP should avoid spelling out the goals in minute detail, so that the party leaders can seize the opportunities of the moment to advance the basic strategy. Again, the people will not be told what we are really aiming at. The people will just get vague ideas and whenever there is an opportunity the party leaders will be able to slip in and seize the opportunity of the moment. Dr Blewett said that there should be constant repetition of the goals. He went on to state: In South Australia, Labor publicity and Labor speakers pressed relentlessly and tirelessly the constitutional themes. Has that not happened? Ever since this paper was published in 1978 we have-- Senator MacGibbon —Ever since Senator Gareth Evans came into the chamber. Senator LEWIS —Ever since Senator Evans became a member of this chamber we have had this constant talk about changing the Constitution. It has been said that we must change the Constitution. Labor senators and members of parliament, Labor leaders, Labor journalists, Labor editors and Labor writers keep talking about the Constitution. I say seriously that the Constitution of Australia has served us very well for 83 years. This constant repetition of the idea that there must be a change is clearly designed as part of this strategy. That is what it has to do with. Some people on the other side of the chamber keep saying that it has to do with 1975. I shall come to that and prove beyond a shadow of doubt that this proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with 1975. But I will come to that. The next proposal is that there must be unity. Dr Blewett said: There were . . . party differences in South Australia-- At that time- But the differences never became public. Back bench senators and members who have listened to this debate from time to time may have started to twig that there might be something wrong with this proposal of Senator Evans. They might not be quite sure because they do not really want to believe what Senator Lewis is telling them. They want to believe what their side is telling them. They think Senator Lewis might just have a point but they will not allow their differences to be exposed because the strategy is that differences must never become public. Dr Blewett also said: Fourthly, Federal Labor must seize any opportunity that will serve the long term goal . . . This is highly significant because he went on to say that in South Australia in 1977, or whenever it was, a proposal put by Mr Steele Hall led initially to the change to the South Australian Constitution. Senator Messner —1970. Senator LEWIS —When was it? Senator Messner —It was 1970. Senator LEWIS —It was in 1970. This is very significant because Dr Blewett wrote an article which appeared in the Canberra Times on 22 April 1979 and in which he referred to proposals of Senator Hamer relating to fixed term parliament and also to not having Ministers in the Senate. In particular, it referred to the proposals for having a fixed term parliament. Clearly, Dr Blewett became aware of this proposal in 1979. He said: Senator Hamer's proposals are simple and clear-cut. I add that I do not know whether Senator Hamer will want to hear these words, but Dr Blewett went on to say: While he is often irritatingly elitist, and both disrespectful and neglectful of the impact of party- I do not quite know what 'impact of party' means- . . . both his objective and his means are worthy of careful consideration. I emphasise that he said: . . . both his objective and his means are worthy of careful consideration. Honourable senators can see what happened. The Labor Party saw this as an opportunity and it has leapt at it. I agree with what Senator Missen has said: These are not Senator Evans's proposals. These are Senator Hamer's proposals taken up by the Labor Party as a chance of furthering its long term aim of disembowelling the Senate, castrating the Senate, and making the Senate worthless. I go back to Dr Blewett's paper-these are not my words. The next section states: Fifthly, it is necessary to dramatise and personalise constitutional issues . . . Honourable senators should just have a look at what Labor Party members have done. They have constantly attacked the former Governor-General and the former Prime Minister in relation to so-called constitutional reform or change. Senator Walters —Worn black arm bands. Senator LEWIS —They have worn black arm bands, dramatised, and made matters personal issues. This whole strategy is clear once one reads Dr Blewett's paper. Let us come to the next section entitled 'A Symbolic Event'. Dr Blewett then talks about Sir John Kerr and says: Kerr brings us to the sixth prescription-the need for an event as a symbolic focus for the constitutional struggle. Dr Blewett then mentions Remembrance Day 1975. It is very interesting that Senator Gareth Evans first introduced this proposal on Remembrance Day 1975. Is that not proof that this is all part of the strategy set out by Dr Blewett in this paper? I will conclude with another quotation from Dr Blewett's paper which states: Labor must corral the symbols of the Australian nationalism, because these will be critical elements in what is, in many ways, a cultural battle. What has happened? Every time we look at the Labor Party we see that its motto shows an Australian flag with ALP written above it. Yet when we look at the Labor Party's platform we see that one of the first things it will do is to try to change the flag and our national anthem. Ultimately it wants to have a republic. Senator Walters —Hypocrisy. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Walters says, that is absolute hypocrisy in the Labor Party's platform. That is what it is all about. Senator Messner —They are so ashamed they have all gone. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Messner says, honourable senators opposite are so ashamed they have all gone except for the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and one of my colleagues from Victoria who sits on the other side. However, let me put a parliamentary view. A fixed term proposal is intended to give the Executive-that is, the Government and not the Parliament-a fixed term of government of three years. That means that a government would not have to fear any perils of office. We could have a President Nixon with a Watergate situation. There would be no way we could force a government to an election. As long as a Prime Minister had a majority in the lower House we could have any sort of disaster but there would be no way to stop him. According to the proponents of this scheme, the Prime Minister of the day would be able to go on. This proposal is not to do with parliament. It is not to do with having fewer elections. This proposal is to enshrine the Executive in the House of Representatives-not the members of the House of Representatives but the parliamentary Executive-for a full term of three years, regardless of behaviour. I say to those back benchers who I hope are listening to the broadcast of proceedings: Why do you not think about this proposal? Do they really think that this proposal will in any way advance the Parliament? Do they think that this proposal will in any way give those people in the House of Representatives the opportunity to come forward and talk about parliamentary proposals? Does it not just enshrine the Executive in that House for a permanent period of three years? In my paper on the fixed term parliaments proposal which I have tabled and which honourable senators can look at if they want to read it, I said: If Parliament is to survive, let alone prosper, it must maintain its independence. . . . . I suggest that we should consider whether the fixed term proposal would go any distance towards giving the Parliament independence. To those honourable senators who support this proposal I say: . . . you are prepared to guarantee an elected government a term of 4 years, regardless of its behaviour. I do not see that as in any way advancing the freedom of the people . . . Those honourable senators should remember that liberty and freedom of the people does not come from governments. If honourable senators look at the history of the liberty of the people they will see that it has always come from the Parliament. I go back to the time when, for the first time, the Parliament stood up to the King in Westminster and demanded freedom. In those days the King was the Executive. What the Government is now saying is: 'Put the King over there and let him stay there for three years regardless of what he does'. What happens , for example, if the King allows the Parliament to sit for only one day a year? What would happen in those circumstances? Senator Grimes —Oh, fair go. Senator LEWIS —Senator Grimes smiles and says: 'Fair go'. What would happen in those circumstances? Nothing. The Executive would still go on governing. Senator Grimes —Would not the members of parliament do something about it? Senator LEWIS —What could the members of parliament do? Senator Grimes —You do not think much of the American system, do you? Senator LEWIS —No, I do not think much of the American system. The interesting thing is that neither do a lot of American academics who want to change the American system. I have tabled in the Parliament papers which prove that. I was challenged by Senator Evans on that matter and I tabled the papers for him to look at. Let me come back to the papers that I have tabled because there are some interesting quotations in them. Professor Colin Howard, who put forward a paper, is certainly no supporter of this chamber, as honourable senators will hear. Let me read to the Senate what he said: I conclude by expressing that point of view without any ambiguity at all because I am as well aware as most of us, probably all of us, that the present eager interest being displayed in certain quarters in fixed terms for the House of Representatives is based much less upon a concern for fixed terms in themselves as upon a desire to use that reform as a device for reducing the powers of the Senate. That is an interesting quotation from Professor Colin Howard. He added: I am all in favour of reducing the legislative powers of the Senate . . . He is in favour of reducing our powers. Yet he was able to point out honestly that the people who are putting forward this proposal are not interested in the fixed term concept; what they are interested in is limiting the powers of the Senate. In other words, Professor Howard was saying that this proposal was a mere device. Page 21 of Professor Howard's papers states what the Attorney- General said. The professor said that this proposal: Would be more likely to be politically acceptable in the short term as a solution to the constitutional problems shown up by 1974 and 1975 . . . Again this is another device apparently to deal with the situation that arose in 1974 and 1975. Let me now turn to that matter. Under the fixed term proposal, what would happen if some future Senate decided that it would block Supply and at the same time the House of Representatives-the Executive in the other place- said: 'We will not go to the people'? What if under our party system the Prime Minister of the day held his party together and said, 'No, we will force the Senate to pass Supply' and the Senate said: 'We will not give in'? Why will not people try to answer what would happen under the fixed term proposal? Senator Harradine —What would happen? Senator LEWIS —That is the important point. Under the fixed term proposal absolutely nothing would happen. There would be no way that we could have an election. The government of the day would run out of money and this country would be in absolute chaos. Senator Harradine —What about the inherent powers of the Governor-General? Senator LEWIS —I understand that the Governor-General must take the advice of his Prime Minister and the advice of the Prime Minister would be not to call an election. We could not get a change of Prime Minister because of the situation under the fixed term proposals. I believe there would be absolute chaos as this country ran out of money. Senator Robertson —You do not really believe that. Senator LEWIS —People keep saying: 'You do not really believe it'. Of course I believe it. Debate interrupted. Senate adjourned at 7 p.m. until 1.45 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 May 1983 The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 1 Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: Will the Attorney-General consider making a recommendation to Cabinet that the folios of every file belonging to all departments and Commonwealth instrumentalities be sequentially and indelibly numbered and identified in such a way as to prevent embarrassing folios being removed and/or lost or destroyed, in view of the expanded rights which the media as well as ordinary people will have under the Attorney's proposed amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: A statutory basis for the proper disposition of Commonwealth records will be provided by the archives legislation which the Government will introduce later in the current sittings along with amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1982, to which the honourable senator refers. Provisions in the archives legislation will make it an offence for a person to destroy or dispose of a Commonwealth record except as required by any law or in accordance with a practice or procedure approved by the Australian Archives. The archives legislation will also require Australian Archives to promote the keeping of current Commonwealth records in an efficient manner. I have drawn the honourable senator's suggestion that folios of every file be sequentially and indelibly numbered and identified in such a way as to prevent embarrassing folios being removed, lost or destroyed to the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment who has responsibility for archival matters. I thank the honourable senator for his suggestion. Question No. 4 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 22 April 1983. Will the Commonwealth Protective Security Service take over personnel and functions of the branch of the Australian Federal Police under general duties dealing with protective services; if not, what will happen to this section. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. The previous Government's decision to establish a Commonwealth Guarding Service by separating the protective service component from the Australian Federal Police is currently being reviewed by officers of my Department and the Australian Federal Police. Following consideration of the options available, the Government will make an appropriate announcement on the future of the guarding function. Question No. 66 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) Was a Queensland Police radar trap in operation at the Enoggera military establishment in Brisbane on the night of Thursday, 31 March 1983, for the purpose of apprehending motorists exceeding speed limits within the confines of that base. (2) Do State police forces have the authority to operate against traffic offenders inside Commonwealth property; if so, is it necessary for them to first obtain permission from the commanding, or duty officer; if not, will the Minister indicate whether this is a common and/or desirable practice. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) Generally speaking, State traffic laws apply within Commonwealth property in a State, and State police may enforce those laws. So far as Service establishments are concerned, it is the practice for liaison to take place between Service authorities and State police before the State police exercise their powers. Question No. 92 Senator Lewis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: Do the documents tabled by the Attorney-General in the Senate on 21 April 1983 in relation to Royal Australian Air Force photographic survey flights over South West Tasmania on 7 and 8 April 1983 reveal that classified information was communicated to an unauthorised person. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: If the honourable senator is referring to the sentence deleted from Defence document No. 1, the answer is no. Question No. 97 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Have Australian Government funds been made available to Qantas Airways Ltd in any of the last five financial years; if so, what are the details, including the parliamentary approval for the appropriation. (2) Does Qantas have an obligation to reveal to Federal parliamentary representatives how their funds are spent; if not, how can parliamentary representatives have any faith that Qantas is using taxpayers' funds wisely. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In the last five financial years, Commonwealth Government funds have been provided to Qantas on only one occasion. In December 1981, the then Government approved a payment of $25m to Qantas for subscription to 25 million one dollar shares in the company. These funds were issued from the Advance to the Minister for Finance, spending Additional Estimates. The payment was subsequently incorporated in Appropriation Act (No. 4) 1981-82. As the honourable senator would be aware, the Government decided on 2 May 1983 to provide $60m additional equity capital for Qantas. The Minister for Finance sought appropriation for the $60m capital injection as one of the items in Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 1982-83, presented to Parliament on 4 May 1983. (2) As a public company, Qantas is required to present annual accounts and Directors' and Auditors' reports to its shareholders in accordance with provisions of the Companies Act. Qantas's Annual Report and Financial Statements for each financial year are forwarded to the Minister for Aviation and copies are tabled in Parliament by the Minister. Question No. 127 Senator Coleman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Aviation aware of the concern expressed, particularly by local government spokespeople, over the use of the Perth Airport by KC135s during a recent military exercise. (2) Is the Minister also aware that this concern is related not only to noise pollution but also to the fact that the Western Australian emergency services would not have the capacity to handle an accident involving one of these tankers . (3) Are any more visits by such aircraft currently forecast and will the Minister consider some means of advising nearby residents prior to such an exercise. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am well aware of the concern expressed and felt by organisations and individuals around Perth Airport about the use of Perth Airport by KC135 aircraft, which is a tanker version of the C135 (an earlier version of the Boeing 707). (2) I am also aware that the concern is caused by aircraft noise and by the fear of the consequences of an accident. My Department provides emergency services at Perth Airport to the international Category 9 standard. This is the highest standard of emergecy service and is designed to handle adequately a Boeing 747. The total maximum fuel capacity of the KC135 is considerably less than the fuel capacity of a B747. (3) A series of flights involving KC135 and WC135 aircraft has been approved to operate at approximately six monthly intervals. The most recent flights took place on 27 and 28 November last year. The WC135 aircraft collects air samples which are later analysed to determine if elevated levels of radioactivity are present in the atmosphere. This is done to verify world wide compliance with the terms of the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. On occasions a KC135 may be required to accompany the WC135 to provide fuel for an extra long range mission. Each application to use Perth Airport, both for aircraft that are part of the approved series or are of occasional individual missions, is only approved if my Department is satisfied that no other airport can be used, that the flight is scheduled to cause the least annoyance, and that all noise abatement procedures are followed. It is intended that, whenever possible, advance notice will be issued to the media on any exercise involving KC135 aircraft.