Wednesday, 12 October 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I inform the Senate that, following the departure last night of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) to represent the Government at a memorial service in Seoul for those Ministers and officials who lost their lives in the Rangoon bombing, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is Acting Minister for Trade until Mr Bowen returns. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Defence Force Reserves: Taxation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That as Mr R. J. L. Hawke has publicly stated: (1) 'The Defence Force Reserves are the backbone of our nation's defence', (2) the Defence Force Reserves are a highly economical and viable means of training men and women to serve Australia in times of emergency, (3) the reserves are composed of volunteers dedicated to Australia. Furthermore, we the undersigned recognise that members of the reserves are required to maintain levels of efficiency at least equivalent to those of the permanent forces, and that members of reserves spend much of their own time and money towards reserve training obligations. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government recognise the role played by the reserves in serving Australia, that reserve pays and allowances are already far below the levels for equivalent work in the general work force, and that therefore the proposed introduction of taxation to the meagre pays earned by members for the Defence Force Reserves is a poor way of saying thank you. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Gareth Evans (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; deny to parents their rights to insist that the school 'community' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 188 citizens), Lajovic (from 37 citizens), Missen (from 33 citizens), Robertson (from 454 citizens), Sibraa (from 38 citizens), Tate ( from 87 citizens) and Walters (from 517 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 181 citizens), Chipp (from 160 citizens), Lajovic (from 165 citizens), Lewis (from 149 citizens), Missen (from 165 citizens), Sibraa (from 196 citizens) and Zakharov (from 167 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 of 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 this 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 work force, 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 Sir John Carrick (from 198 citizens) and Lajovic (from 108 citizens) . To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lajovic (from 69 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia. Concerned about the high and increasing rate of divorce and family breakdown, Convinced that the Family Law Act has weakened marriage by making divorce a trivial matter, the present Act paying scant regard to its own definition of marriage as a life-long union; and Believing that the legal bond of marriage should be strengthened Humbly petition for the Family Law Act and the Marriage Act to be amended in order to: 1. Reject any moves towards divorce by post 2. Restore the former prohibition of marriages between close relatives by blood or marriage 3. Protect the rights and welfare of aggrieved partners of a marriage who are threatened with being divorced against their will 4. Ensure that in divorce judgments paramount attention be given to whatever course will best serve the welfare of dependent children of the marriage 5. Encourage counselling towards reconciliation 6. Restore objective tests to irretrievable breakdown of marriage in terms of: i. intolerable behaviour; ii. desertion for two years; iii separation for three years. And we pray that you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 23 citizens). Petitions received. The PRESIDENT —I understand that some honourable senators wish to give a number of notices of motion this day. Under standing order 113 an honourable senator may not give two notices of motion consecutively if another honourable senator has a notice to give. In order to facilitate the work of the Senate, I suggest that any honourable senator proposing to give more than one notice of motion should seek leave to give all his notices at the one time. I will then place all notices on the Notice Paper according to the order in which I would normally have called the honourable senators. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate recognises the importance to South Australia of the new Adelaide Railway Station Re-development project and in so doing- (a) notes the foresight of the Tonkin Liberal Government in authorising a consortium headed by Mr Patrick Pak Poy to undertake planning for this project in 1981; (b) notes that, as a result of this foresight, this project will generate an estimated 2,600 jobs during the construction phase and more than 3,000 when completed; (c) congratulates Mr Pak Poy for his successful negotiations; and (d) acknowledges the wisdom of the South Australian Government in continuing the good work of the Tonkin Liberal Government. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Bannon Labor Government has adopted the Adelaide Railway Station Re-development project initiated by the Tonkin Liberal Government, and (b) that the Hawke Labor Government refuses to adopt the Alice Springs-Darwin rail link project initiated by the Fraser Liberal Government; and (c) condemns the Hawke Labor Government for not adopting the practices of the Bannon Labor Government in following through with projects designed to provide real and lasting jobs for Australians. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (1) congratulates the Federal Government on its recent initiatives in the housing area; (2) notes that the recent surge of activity in the home building industry is directly attributable to these initiatives; (3) recognises that the present Government has done more to assist the housing and construction industry in its first seven months of office than the Fraser Government did in seven years. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Prime Minister for- (1) making statements during his recent trip to Queensland which- (a) cannot be substantiated in relation to Queensland's spending programs; and (b) demeaned the office of the Prime Minister by making unsubstantiated statements; (2) damaging Commonwealth-Queensland relations by making allegations in regard to the community employment program; and (3) attempting to create an atmosphere of uncertainty where there is strong confidence in the Queensland economy. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That in view of the fact that the Queensland Government has Supply until mid- December 1983, the Prime Minister, the Queensland Leader of the Opposition and the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party be condemned for- (1) perpetrating false statements in relation to Queensland's economic stability; (2) attempting to fabricate a constitutional crisis on the same issue; (3) attempting to embroil the office of the Queensland Governor in political affairs; and (4) unnecessarily causing concern amongst Queensland Government employees, suppliers and contractors. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) -I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the Queensland Government for maintaining and ensuring that Queenslanders pay less tax than other Australians; (b) recognises that Queenslanders do not pay State gift taxes or death duties, do not pay road permit fees, do not pay a State tobacco tax, do not pay a State fuel tax, have the highest exemption level for payroll tax and have the lowest third party insurance premiums in Australia. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) -by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (1) deplores the Medicare advertisement being run by the Federal Labor Government which says 'a better deal for Queensland'; (2) notes that this is inaccurate as Queensland is being short changed $22m in 1983-84 and $50m in 1984-85 under Medicare funding arrangements; (3) condemns the Federal Labor Government for the imposition of a one per cent health tax on all Queenslanders who hitherto had access to free public medical and hospital services; and (4) recognises that under Medicare there is not a better deal for Queensland. Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the Queensland Government on its $44 billion worth of over $ 1m projects either under construction or in the planning stages as at 30 April; (b) recognises that this reflects the confidence in Queensland's economy; and (c) condemns Federal Labor Ministers for attacks on the buoyant Queensland economy in an attempt to overshadow poor economic management in the Labor- controlled States. Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns Government Ministers in the Senate for wantonly and inaccurately misrepresenting the true financial standing of Queensland; (b) notes that Queensland's accumulated deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund since 1859 is only $769,000; and (c) congratulates the Premier of Queensland for his excellent management of Queensland's economy which makes it the most progressive and successful State in mainland Australia. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate expresses its disgust at the dishonest and desperate claims by the National Party and the outgoing Queensland Premier that the Queensland economy is prospering; (a) when previously viable companies are retrenching thousands of workers; (b) when the coal industry is stagnant due to the failure of that Government to encourage market diversification when the value of engineering and construction projects has experienced such a severe and continuing decline; (c) when unemployment in Queensland has been above the national average for most of this year and is expected to climb higher; (d) when employment has been down every month this year on the corresponding month last year; and (e) when there has been such a dramatic slump in construction and engineering that more than 9,000 jobs are likely to be lost in the near future. Senator JONES(Queensland) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) Strongly deplores the dictatorial and undemocratic methods employed by the Queensland Premier in the conduct of the Queensland Parliament, which has been rendered virtually irrelevant in the running of the State. (b) Condemns the contempt of parliamentary processes by the National Party under Mr Bjelke-Petersen's leadership. (c) Deplores the determination of the Queensland Premier and his National Party to so abuse the institution of Parliament that it is no longer an effective forum for elected members. Senator JONES(Queensland) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate urges the Government to- (a) Prohibit future sale of rural land in the Territories to foreign interests and instead, substitutes a system of limited leasehold. (b) Negotiate with the State governments to adopt similar leasehold policies in respect of foreign ownership of rural land. Motion (by Senator Chipp) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the exportation of nuclear materials and the importation of nuclear hardware, and for purposes connected therewith. Bill presented, and read a first time. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.13) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard my second reading speech which explains the urgent need for an absolute ban on the export of uranium and an absolute ban on the importation of nuclear hardware. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This legislation is of fundamental importance to Australia and the World. It proposes an absolute prohibition on the export of uranium; an absolute prohibition on the import of hardware necessary for a nuclear power station and uranium enrichment plant, and an absolute prohibition on the import of spent nuclear fuel rods. There are considerable economic arguments against uranium and the nuclear industry, arguments of such force that they indicate nuclear power is of little benefit to overseas nations or Australia. The economic, environmental and social arguments against uranium and nuclear power will be dealt with by my colleagues in later debate. But a couple of points deserve to be raised now. Nuclear energy is often portrayed as an alternative to oil dependence and a must for the security of countries such as Japan, who depend on imported oil for the bulk of their energy needs. This is completely wrong. Nuclear power, which produces only electricity, can never be substituted for oil. Over 90% of oil is used for the transport and petrochemical industries: electricity is just not an energy source for them. Because of this, even if Japan quadrupled its nuclear power capacity by 1990 ( technically impossible and prohibitively expensive) Japan's dependence on imported oil would decline by only 10%. Nuclear power could never provide them with energy security. Nuclear power will never provide the Third World with the energy it so desperately needs. The Third World is short in capital, infrastructure, delivery systems and income. This makes the argument against nuclear power, which depends on all the above conditions, all the stronger in developing countries. Currently the International Atomic Energy estimates that nuclear energy contributes less than 5% of developing nations electricity, substantially less than energy sources such as firewood. However, Australia's primary concern must be for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This concern pales all other arguments into insignificance. National morality in Australia would never countenance the export of nerve gas or biological weapons for profit-even to allies. Yet we are prepared to sell uranium for profit. Nuclear weapons would not be possible without supplies of uranium. Both super powers have stored 50,000 nuclear warheads for use against people. There are so many warheads that they exceed the number of missiles or aircraft to deploy them against the enemy. The U.S. can deliver 12,000 warheads on the Soviets and the Soviets can unload 8,000 warheads on the U.S. with such accuracy as would land them within 100 feet of a target often after travelling thousands of miles. The total destructive power of this arsenal is equivalent to one million Hiroshima-sized bombs. One million times the human suffering; one million times the destruction and one million times the military futility that was Hiroshima. Some of these weapons have a destructive capacity equivalent to 50 megatons of T.N.T. This means they are some twenty times as powerful as all the explosives detonated in World War II. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute recognised the problems of proliferation when it stated in 1979: ''The peaceful and military aspects of nuclear energy are intrinsically linked and it is impossible to separate them.'' The spread of so-called civilian nuclear power to non-nuclear states is one of the greatest dangers of proliferation. India was able to explode a nuclear weapon in 1974-with material from a civilian and research reactor provided by the U.S. and Canada. The arms race continues totally unabated. President Reagan wants another 11,000 nuclear weapons for the U.S. Cruise and Pershing missiles are to be deployed in Europe in December. The Soviets will undoubtedly match each escalation. With every new weapon the warning time for an outbreak of war is reduced. Hot- line telephones are outmoded. The time will not be there to consult in the face of a crisis. Already we have come within 3 minutes of an accidental outbreak of nuclear war. In October 1979 a false warning of missile attack on the U.S. led to the scrambling of nuclear-armed aircraft. If the accident had not been discovered hundreds of millions of people would have died. Similar accidents were repeated twice in 1980. Recently we had clear statements from the Minister that the U.S. base at North- West Cape, would be a nuclear target in the event of a nuclear war. Pine Gap, Narrangar, Perth and Canberra must also surely rank high as targets. The effects of a one-megaton bomb-very small by today's standards-on a city are horrific and beyond comprehension. Jonathan Schell, in his brilliant book 'The Fate of the Earth' wrote of the impact of such a bomb: 'A one-megaton bomb is eighty times the size of the weapon that obliterated Hiroshima.' Schell notes that a one-megaton bomb would 'gut or flatten' every building within 61 square miles of the explosion, and would heavily damage buildings within a 200 square mile radius. People would be hurled around along with all the other debris. Hot winds travelling at 400 miles per hour would prevail for more than two miles from the point of the explosion. A fireball, one mile wide and six miles high would envelope all within the area of the blast. Anyone caught within nine miles of ground zero would receive third degree burns and would probably die within hours. Those closer to the explosion would be charred or vapourised. Schell concludes: 'In this vast theatre of physical effects, all the scenes of agony and death that took place at Hiroshima would again take place, but now involving millions of people rather than hundreds of thousands.' A nuclear war would not be simply another war with bigger bombs. It would be the end of life as we know it. Even if the war was 'limited' to the northern hemisphere latest scientific opinion believes that eventually the radioactive fallout would contaminate the southern hemisphere. While ordinary people are being alarmed at the prospect of self-induced extinction political leaders, directly or indirectly, prop up the arms race. 75 per cent of West Germans have indicated in opinion polls that they do not want any more nuclear weapons- Cruise and Pershing missiles-in their backyard. Their environment already bristles with 6000 nuclear warheads. No wonder they are marching by the millions in the street to show their concern. No wonder they want no more weapons. Yet, in their infinite wisdom, Governments avidly acquire nuclear weapons at ever increasing rates. We have to recognise that in making the world more dangerous for the Russians and other potential enemies we are also making it more dangerous for ourselves. Australia, although small, is a respected democracy. We are rich in uranium. We have the potential to make a spirited moral stand against the insanity of the arms race, the insanity of nuclear power and the insanity of uranium mining. If we make a principled stand, backed up with the willingness to forgo some short term monetary gain, we will provide a powerful message to the people of the world about the enormity of the danger that we all face. Perhaps it is too late. Even if that were the case nothing should ever prevent us from trying to avert a nuclear holocaust. We must give this one last shot. We have the opportunity, with this Bill, to marshall ordinary people to protest to work towards a safe future for us all. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 11 October 1983. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.15) — When the debate was interrupted last night I was speaking to my amendment No. (6) to leave out clause 13 which seeks to impose sales tax on a range of products which contain sun screen agents. I was pointing out to the Committee the problem currently being caused by melanomas in my own State in particular but in the whole of Australia. The death rate in all States has risen since records were first kept in 1951. In Queensland, where an intensive research program is currently under way, the death rate has doubled in the decade from 1951 to 1960, doubled again from 1961 to 1970 and doubled again from 1971 to 1980. The point is that Australia has the highest incidence of melanoma in the world, followed by New Zealand, Hawaii and South Africa. According to the latest available statistics, a large percentage of melanomas- somewhere of the order of 20 per cent-are on the head, the neck, the scalp, the face, the ears and the lips. While the Government proposes to exempt from sales tax those agents which screen out solar ultra violet rays it seeks to place sales tax on a variety of other goods which are described as cosmetic preparations. The problem here is a very acute one in that by so doing the Government will establish a disincentive for those people who prepare various cosmetics to have those cosmetics contain screening agents. As a result it will be uneconomic to include protecting agents in preparations such as face creams, face oils, face lotions, body creams, body oils, lipsticks and the like. So rather than bringing about a positive preventive health measure the Government is setting up a disincentive. The argument has been advanced that this measure will affect only cosmetics. Various Government spokesmen have alighted on night cream as an example of this. I do not mind at all if night cream is subject to sales tax. But I would like the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) to tell me what other preparations which are not used during the day will be subject to sales tax. The situation is very clear. Many women will not use under their make-up-this applies also to men who use various skin preparations-a commercial item sold as a screening agent for ultraviolet rays whereas they could very well use a conditioner or body lotion of one kind or another. On 5 October I wrote to Senator Walsh who is the Minister representing the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in this place and said that I would bring this matter up during the Committee stage of this Bill and seek from him a response in relation to a number of commercial preparations. I took this action because preparations such as conditioner make-up, pure colour blush, pure colour lipstick, lip gloss, radiant compound and foundation compound are advertised in stores as cosmetics. The brochure that is put out at the end of the year by the Commonwealth Department of Health indicates that each of those items is 99 per cent effective in screening out ultraviolet rays. I do not know whether people who live in other States are worried about this issue, but when one considers the statistics in the various States of Australia, I think they ought to be. We have to do something. We have not only to undertake research into this area but also to adopt positive, effective and preventative measures in the area of skin cancers and associated melanomas. Various State governments, with the assistance of the Commonwealth Government I might add, through the Department of Health, have spent a great deal of money over the years on developing various programs of public education to get people in Australia to be aware of the problems of excessive exposure to the sun. I believe the imposition of sales tax in this area will be a deterrent, a disincentive, to the producers to include those particular screening agents in the development of new cosmetics, or even in some of the cosmetics which are currently available. I suggested to the Government quite some time ago, when this measure was first announced in the Budget, that an alternative method of approaching this could very well be to impose sales tax on ineffective screening agents that are included in any preparation so that we would build in an incentive to the producers not to include various items in their cosmetics. In effect we would be saying to the producers: 'Put into your lipsticks and your other cosmetic preparations effective screening agents'. One of the items I suggested to the Minister was a lip gloss. I will not read the commercial name of it, but it is readily available and is generally sold in most chemist shops and pharmacies around Australia. The preparation comes in a variety of tastes. It is used particularly by high school kids. It has a relatively low colour, so those who use it do not run foul of the teachers. This is an extremely effective preparation for the kids to wear when they go out in the sun to play basketball, cricket or whatever. I think that what we ought to be doing at the school level is actually encouraging sensible use of various preparations. I could not care less whether they are sold as cosmetics or anything else. As long as they are effective agents for the screening of ultraviolet rays, I think we should give every encouragement that we can and not give discouragement, as is currently envisaged by clause 13 of the Schedule. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(10.24) —I agree with everything that Senator Macklin said with regard to skin cancer. For people such as myself who have very efficient solar collectors it is fairly important to recognise the damage that occurs to our heads, not by rays going right through, but by the skin cancer that can start very early in life. My hair started falling out when I was quite young, when I was about 19 or 20 years of age. Only now am I starting to experience the damage that was most probably caused by exposure to the sun many years ago. This is an important matter. I do not think that Senator Macklin, who spoke previously, mentioned it. The damage to the skin that shows up later in life is often done quite early. People in this country should be encouraged to use sunscreening agents not only during the summer time but virtually all year round. It does not matter whether they live in Tasmania or Queensland. Tasmania gets a lot of very sunny days when the ultraviolet rays get through and impinge on people like me, those who play sports, those who work on farms and those who are out in the sun a great deal of the time. Senator Jessop —But ultraviolet radiation is worse in Tasmania than it is in the north of Australia. Senator TOWNLEY —Senator Jessop said that the ultraviolet radiation is worse in Tasmania than it is in the north. I do not have the figures for the hours but I will get those. I believe that the Government is short-sighted on this matter. I am sure that the Commonwealth Department of Health, which has put out a very good list of the effective sunscreening agents and compounds, would be distressed by the Government's attitude. I feel that the Department of the Treasury should have liaised with the Commonwealth Health Department before this measure was introduced. The Commonwealth should give incentives to encourage makers of these products to include sunscreening agents in their goods because, eventually, it will have to pay the health costs of people who have to receive treatment for sun-related problems. In some cases this treatment is very expensive and extensive. The cost is quite considerable. A lot of damage could be avoided if people recognised that they should use effective-that is very important-sunscreening agents. I think that it should be compulsory for any day cream produced in this country to include some kind of sunscreening agent rather than the Government giving a disincentive to producers by the introduction of this measure. I do not know how much revenue it will collect from this measure; it may be considerable. But I doubt whether it will be more than the long term cost of the health treatment of victims. I believe that ineffective screening agents should be taxed as Senator Macklin said. I sincerely ask the Government to re-examine this matter. When it realises that it has made a mistake it can alter its decision. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.27) —Briefly I support those comments. This is an important matter. It again illustrates the lack of thought by this Government with respect to the introduction of measures such as a sales tax on these fluids and creams about which we are speaking. It is true that ultraviolet radiation varies depending on which part of the world one lives. Tasmania and other parts of Australia on that latitude are subjected more to ultraviolet rays than people in Darwin. People in Darwin are affected more by infra-red radiation . If the proliferation of coal-fired and oil-fired power stations in the world continues it will present a threat to the ozone layer. This is a problem with which the world will have to come to grips very shortly. After all, the ozone layer happens to be the world's environmental shield. It protects the environment of the earth against ultraviolet radiation. I support the Australian Democrats in the concern that ultraviolet radiation is a problem. I ask the Government to re-examine its decision on this matter with the hope that, at some future time, it will reduce or remove the sales tax on those items. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.30) —As I said yesterday the Government cannot accept any of these amendments. I am not levelling this charge at Senator Macklin but originally there was a good deal of misunderstanding and, I suggest, even misrepresentation partly because this was one of many measures which came out on Budget night when journalists are confronted with a heap of paper about a foot high and three or four hours later are expected to write reasonably intelligible and accurate reports on matters in that heap of paper. There are always of course difficulties in that. But originally it was, at its most charitable, misunderstood as a decision to exclude from sales tax exemption all sunscreen agents. It was of course no such thing. It was a decision to exclude from the exemption from sales tax those cosmetics which contained a sunscreen agent. The reason for that is that if the pre-existing exemptions were allowed to continue there would be massive scope for almost the whole spectrum of cosmetics to include a sunscreen agent. Senator Mason —But it is a good thing, Minister, surely, that that should happen . Senator WALSH —The honourable senator might say that it is a good thing, but one can still buy sunscreen agents free of sales tax. If the exemption were to be allowed to continue in its present form, it would be able to open up a very substantial loophole for the evasion of sales tax on what are purely cosmetic products through the relatively cheap additions to them of the sunscreen agent, and then claiming to the sales tax branch of the Australian Taxation Office that they contain a sunscreen agent and therefore are exempt from sales tax. Indeed I do not think it would be drawing a very long bow to say that once the potential to evade sales tax on cosmetics in general became fully appreciated virtually all revenue currently gained from cosmetics would be lost. I know some people argue that it is inappropriate to levy sales tax on pure cosmetics. That, however, is a different question. I have attempted very quickly to find out what the total revenue from the sales tax on cosmetics is, but I think common sense tells us that expenditure per capita on cosmetics is quite high and that the total revenue from sales tax on cosmetics must run into tens of millions of dollars anyway. I would expect something like $50m or $60m, although that cannot be taken as a definitive figure. That is the sort of revenue which was at risk if the pre-existing exemption was allowed to persist indefinitely. In closing I stress that sunscreen agents which are marketed as sunscreen agents can still be obtained free of sales tax. Subject to it being agreed to by the Committee of the Whole-I do not think there is any serious suggestion that it will not be agreed to-the Government has closed a loophole via which purely cosmetic preparations were able to evade or avoid the high rate of sales tax which is applied to general cosmetic preparations. If somebody wants to take up the question of whether cosmetics ought to be taxed at all or taxed at that rate , that is a separate question and one that has not been the subject of this debate in any case. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.34) —I would like the Minister to respond to a question I asked him in a letter in which I set out seven products which are undoubtedly cosmetics and sold as such and which are included in the Department of Health category under the heading 'lip, nose and face products'. Those seven items that I mentioned to him by way of letter on 5 October are classified as offering 99 per cent protection. The point we are trying to make is not that there is evasion here but that it is an excellent idea if we push to the producers of cosmetics that they do include in their cosmetic effective sunscreening agents. The Minister raised the matter of cost. I admit the cost. I suggested the alternative method of actually penalising those which are not effective. They include not only cosmetics but also non-effective agents that are sold as sunscreening agents. I do not mind taking those off the market or making them much more expensive because they are causing problems. Items are being sold to people which are not doing them any good. If one considers the cost at one end, one has also to consider the cost at the other end. The cost in Australia of treating melanomas and cancers is very high, and it grows every year. I quoted from the latest authoritative study, 'Changing Epidemiology of Malignant Melanomas', which contains figures showing that the death rate has doubled every 10 years; and the problem extends further than the death rate. We must address this problem and not simply put it to one side. The Opposition does not support this amendment, therefore it will fail. I hope that the Government will look at this issue to see whether a much more rational way of taxing these products can be devised so that we can actually promote to the producers of various cosmetics in Australia that they stay with the 99 per cent effectiveness they have built in already. I am quite sure that if this amendment were passed the producers of cosmetics would take that ingredient out of their cosmetics. There would be no reason to have it in there. They would take it out and we would lose one of the most effective widespread screening agents in Australia, because far more people buy cosmetics than buy sunscreen agents. There is no way in the world that a person putting on a variety of these cosmetics will put underneath them a sunscreening agent sold as such. They will put a foundation underneath which may be 99 per cent effective. In this country, with the highest melanoma rate in the world, that would be useful in preventive medicine terms. Therefore, I ask the Government to look again at this issue to see whether some more rational way might be devised by which we could still get the producers of the various cosmetics to put a sunscreening agent in them. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.37) — Senator Macklin did ask some specific questions about products which he declined to name, so I will not name them either. Otherwise I would seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter from the Commissioner on this subject. Senator Macklin inquired about seven products. The definition given by the Commissioner of Taxation in a letter of 6 October was that five of those products would no longer be exempt from the 32 1/2 per cent tax. The question with respect to the other two products is still undecided. That is, of course, a matter for the Commissioner's interpretation, as are many other matters regarding the administration of the Taxation Act. Senator Macklin's second suggestion was that cosmetic manufacturers should be induced in some way to include a sunscreen agent in their products. They have been so induced in the past, it must be acknowledged, by the exemption from sales tax of preparations which include a sunscreen agent. That is the positive side of the argument. The negative side of the argument is that an inducement to include such an agent is also an inducement to evade taxation on cosmetics generally. I will quote this much from the Commissioner's letter: . . . broadly speaking, lipstick products (all shades) which are put up and sold principally for purposes other than as a sunscreen are not accepted as being exempt under item 38A. Their purpose is use as a cosmetic and any use as a sunscreen is considered to be minimal. Those are the broad guidelines which the Commissioner intends to follow when making determinations about individual products on this matter. It is something which the Government can and, I would expect, will be willing to consider in the future. But the potential gains to revenue through the wider use of this loophole are very significant. I stress again that sunscreen agents which are sold as sunscreen agents have been and will continue to be exempt from sales tax. (Quorum formed) Amendment negatived. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.41) —Mr Chairman, I want to raise an item which I think is quite important and that is the matter of fire fighting equipment for people in fire-prone areas. I am thinking particularly of South Australia and Victoria, following the devastation by the bushfires earlier in the year. There seems to be some confusion associated with the question whether these items are exempt or should be exempt from sales tax. As I understand it, the confusion arises because of some statements that were made earlier this year . I quote an example of this. The headline of one article is 'Fires Bring Tax Aid for Some Power Equipment'. The article states: Residents of fire-prone areas who rely solely on electric pumps for their water supply, may now benefit from tax exemption in the purchase of auxiliary generators. Former Minister of Agriculture, Mr Brian Chatterton, made successful representations to the Federal Government- Senator Walsh —What clause are you addressing? Senator JESSOP —I am talking about clause 50 of the Schedule. I am pointing to what I regard as an anomaly. I want to draw the Government's attention to it simply because I have here a letter from Mr Brian Chatterton to the Minister for Finance, the Hon. John Dawkins. The letter reads: Dear John, During the February 1983 bushfires in the Adelaide Hills the mains water pressure in many areas dropped to a low level which made sprinkler fire protection systems inoperative. Many residents are now installing pump and motor units to overcome the dual failure of water pressure and electric supply. While the use of these units as mobile fire fighting units has now been defined as sales tax exempt there is some confusion over their use in fixed sprinkler protection systems as it is claimed, where the sprinklers cover parts of the garden as well as the house, that they are primarily for watering. I would point out that the watering function of these dual purpose systems is carried out on mains water pressure and the back up motor and pump is only for fire fighting when the pressure fails. I would seek a clarification of the rules concerning sales tax exemption on motor and pump units as a matter of urgency as I have had an inquiry from-- a company- who are undertaking a sales campaign in the Adelaide Hills and would like a firm basis for price quotation. This campaign is planned for the next few months-- the letter is dated 3 August- so the equipment is ready for the next fire season. It is obvious that it is of considerable benefit to the community as a whole if residents invest in further fire protection devices. The experience of the February fires was that fixed sprinkler systems were extremely effective provided water pressure was maintained. It is a very important matter and we should look at it as there is some confusion. The other day in Adelaide I heard from a person who provides this sort of equipment that apparently in Victoria there is an opinion that these items are exempt from sales tax. I point that out to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) in the spirit of sweet reason and hope that he can provide me with clarification of that, either now, if possible, or at some future time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.45) —I think I am obliged to respond to Senator Jessop. I am not able to give a definitive response at this stage but I will take it up with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and see what information can be supplied. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.46) —by leave-I move: (7) Page 8, Schedule, clause 17, paragraph (a), proposed paragraph 82 (1) (c), leave out '', fibreglass liners''. (10) Page 9, Schedule, clause 19, paragraph (b), proposed paragraph 83 (2) (f), leave out '', fibreglass liners''. (12) Page 9, Schedule, clause 19, paragraph (d), proposed paragraph 83 (3) (c), leave out '', fibreglass liners''. (14) Page 9, Schedule, clause 20, paragraph (a), proposed paragraph 84 (1) (a), after ''liners'', insert '', other than fibreglass liners,''. (17) Page 10, Schedule, clause 21, proposed paragraph 86 (1) (b), after '' liners'', insert '', other than fibreglass liners,''. (23) Page 13, Schedule, clause 50, proposed sub-item 11 (1), leave out '', fibreglass liners''. I think it should be clearly explained that the Australian Democrats, on behalf of a number of industry groups, have made representations to the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford) and we have had a very sympathetic hearing. We felt that we were making a degree of progress in several areas, having received indications that very serious consideration was being given to amending these schedules. Along the line it became quite clear that the Liberal Party Opposition would not support the Australian Democrats amendments. I find it very disappointing, as I am sure a lot of other people must, that in this chamber, the House of review, over and over again we hear from the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia representatives platitudes and cases put supporting the Australian Democrats amendments yet we are not getting their voting support. It needs to be recognised that this is still supposed to be the House of review . If we are not going to perform the function of reviewing things such as the anomalies which occur, and which have been drawn to the attention of this place and strongly supported by the Opposition, and send these items back to the House of Representatives where the Government can reconsider them, it is fairly pointless for us to express our feelings, sometimes very strongly, about the anomalies that are coming through and then refuse to vote to support those feelings. (Quorum formed) In his second reading speech, the Acting Treasurer stated: Some alterations are designed to remove competitive anomalies, that is, those which give some products a competitive advantage over other products. The amendments that I have moved are necessary because of the Government moving in the opposite direction. It is creating anomalies rather than remedying anomalies. The amendments proposed by the Government maintain the anomalies within the swimming pool industry that the swimming pool industry representatives asked the Government to overcome. They discussed the problems with the Government. They in turn received very sympathetic consideration but, as a result of this Schedule, the more expensive concrete in-ground pools have escaped the bulk of the sales tax measures whereas the other types of in-ground and above-ground pools have still been fully or at least partly taxed in these revised amendments. One of the great anomalies of which we have to be aware is that with pre- engineered vinyl-lined in-ground pools-there are eight different types of construction-one type will have a taxable floor with the remainder having exempt floors, six will have taxable walls, with two exempt, and five will have taxable coping, with three exempt. The effect of this will be considerable disparity in the swimming pool industry. One flow-on effect will be a disincentive against the enhancement of technological development of swimming pool construction. This will happen for two reasons. Raw building materials will remain exempt whereas the technology based improvements, particularly for prefabrication of swimming pool products brought about by research and development in the industry which previously developed products to improve this industry, will now become taxable. The immediate effect of the rate increases announced by the Government will also exacerbate the poor financial position of many in this industry. One of the big problems-I drew attention to this earlier and I repeat it-is that it is doubtful whether sections 70A, 70B and 70D of the Sales Tax Assessment Act ( No. 1) will allow contractors to pass on the sales tax increases, for both technical and commercial reasons. The technical reasons need to be examined more thoroughly. Yesterday I had incorporated in Hansard a response from the Acting Treasurer, quoting the Commissioner for Taxation, which still left a lot of doubt as to whether labour involvement was likely to be caught up in the provision in the sales tax legislation for the new sales tax to be passed on to the consumer. But that is a technical reason. There is a much stronger commercial reason, particularly in this industry. The pools are sold according to contract and the buyer agrees to the installation of a pool at some time in the future. If that time lapse happens to go over Budget day, the contract agreed to prior to Budget day is suddenly changed and the price is increased, quite dramatically in some cases. It is all very well for us to say: 'That is fair enough. There is provision within the law for the contractor to go back to the consumer and claim the increase'. But that is not the way it happens in the real world. In the real world what happens is that the contractor goes back to the buyer and says: 'I am sorry, but the price has increased. Please will you pay the increased price?' The buyer simply says: 'Look, I am sorry, I cannot afford to'. They either get around to negotiate a price, which means that the contractor has to pick up part of the tab, or the order is cancelled. I have had representations from people in the swimming pool industry which indicate- Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —We all have. We all have the same paper as you are reading from. Senator JACK EVANS —I am not reading from a paper, Senator. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —What you read out before; we have that here. Senator JACK EVANS —No, I am sorry. The honourable senator is right off beam. I am not reading from any paper. The honourable senator will have her opportunity in a few moments, and I would like her to quote from the paper that she says is being read. In fact, the paper to which she refers relates to a comment I made about pre-engineered vinyl pools, to which I referred about seven or eight minutes ago. Perhaps she has not been tuned in for the last seven or eight minutes. Senator Withers —It has not been worth listening to. Senator JACK EVANS —Perhaps Senator Withers is not very interested in the problems of the people who are contracting to sell pools, and I suspect that he is also not terribly concerned about the problems of pool buyers who have suddenly had their prices increased. But maybe he does have a little bit of concern for the employees who are likely to be put off as a result of the loss of orders which will flow from this increase in the middle of a contract. That is the point I am making. I would expect even Senator Withers to have a bit of sympathy for that situation but perhaps I am judging him unfairly and he does not worry about the potential for unemployment. Senator Withers —Come on. Senator JACK EVANS —Well, perhaps Senator Withers was not aware-Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle will be able to show him; I will now refer to the document to which she referred-that there was an estimated 4,500 uncompleted contracts on Budget day. Some of those were up to five months old and all of them would be subject to this anomaly as a result of this schedule coming in and not taking into account the existing contracts. We need not just to accept the Government's palliative that it has reduced this sales tax item from 20 per cent to 7 1/2 per cent because it recognised that it was creating a monstrous anomaly between concrete pools, fibreglass pools and pre-engineered pools. We also need to take into account the problem that arises when a decision is announced and implemented on the same day. One further problem arises from that. I have had indicated to me that there may well be difficulties for those who have completed contracts since Budget day and are still waiting for this legislation to be enacted. They did not know whether they had the right to go ahead on the presumption that, despite all the negotiations along the way between the Australian Democrats and the Treasurer ( Mr Keating), this sales tax measure would go ahead. Let us look at it realistically. They had already made one false assumption if on 24 August they went out and sold pools with a 20 per cent sales tax, because the sales tax was subsequently reduced to 7 1/2 per cent. They were in bother if they took that step. If, subsequently, they have taken the step and assumed that the 7 1/2 per cent increase would be passed by the Senate, and if it is not passed by the Senate-if the Liberal and National Parties have the courage of their convictions and are prepared to vote with the Democrats on this measure-they will be in even more serious difficulty, having overcharged for an item for which the sales tax has not been increased. I ask the Government to consider all those factors and reconsider its position. (Quorum formed) Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — (Victoria) (11.00)-I want to comment briefly on the remarks that have just been made by Senator Jack Evans. During the debate on the second reading of this legislation I indicated that the Opposition would not be supporting any of the amendments that had just been placed on my desk by the Australian Democrats. I indicated that the Opposition had received many representations about the items that have been raised at great length by the Australian Democrats. Sales tax on cosmetics, air-conditioning ducting, swimming pools, berry fruit juices and a range of items that have been raised throughout the debate were the subject of representations to me in person and to many members of the Opposition. When representations were made to me, contrary to the impression that was given by Senator Jack Evans in some of the remarks that he made yesterday, I indicated to those who made the representations that the way to change sales tax anomalies was to make representations to the Government, to explain the difficulties that were being experienced and to point out where some anomalies remain. I certainly have some sympathy for those who are dealing with air-conditioning ducting because it seemed to me to be a very great change in direction from the present Government's attitude in relation to building materials. Last year we introduced a 2 1/2 per cent sales tax but this Government has introduced a sales tax at an effective 20 per cent. The sorts of matters that were raised with me were understood by the Opposition to present some difficulties. Those of us who have had to deal with sales tax changes over the years in government know that whatever changes are made to the sales tax schedules-for example, changes to the rates, the removal of certain items from exemption and so on-present difficulties. It presents a change in the way in which commodities are dealt with by those who manufacture them or who trade in them. Whilst no one wishes to see sales tax schedules detrimentally affect their industry, it must be said that, when a government makes amendments to sales tax legislation, as far as the Opposition is concerned, it is the Government's proposal in the Budget; it is the legislation that has been put forward by the Government. As I indicated on at least two occasions yesterday the amendments presented by the Australian Democrats will not be supported by the Opposition. It does not matter how many times Senator Evans gets up and reads the detailed submissions that have been given to him by various groups. Those submissions will not induce the Opposition to change its attitude with regard to sales tax legislation. I would have thought that the debates which were held when the Australian Democrats first introduced amendments to the previous Government's legislation made perfectly clear our attitude to sales tax legislation introduced by a government. That attitude still remains. For that reason-not because we do not see the anomalies, the disadvantages or the difficulties faced by some industries-we will not be supporting any of the amendments moved by the Australian Democrats. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.04) —I think it would be widely conceded inside the Government as well as outside the Government that there is some anomaly in exempting from sales tax concrete swimming pools, even those which are tile lined. The problem, however, in correcting that anomally is the difficulty in applying the sales tax to the components of those pools because the components of those pools are common to housing and other building in general. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to effectively apply a sales tax to concrete tile-lined pools because the tax could almost certainly only be applied to the component materials which are common to building in general. Though that is acknowledged it is difficult to correct. A correction of that anomaly which concerns the most expensive type of pools is not the subject of these amendments. The amendments moved by the Australian Democrats seek to remove the sales tax on fibreglass pools or pools with fibreglass liners, some of which are probably as expensive as the unlined concrete pool. If the principle is being argued that , other things being equal, sales tax ought to be directed more heavily towards luxury type goods, then the Australian Democrats' amendments would remove the sales tax on fibreglass pools and liners but would not seek to exempt from sales tax vinyl or other pool liners which are a more down market version. The Government acknowledges that there is some anomaly. These terms are somewhat generalised in that the most expensive pools are exempt from sales tax; the middle range of pools will be subject to sales tax and the bottom range of pools also will be subject to sales tax. We acknowledge that that is a prima facie anomaly. It is very difficult to correct for the reasons I have already stated. The Australian Democrats' amendments would continue to exempt from sales tax the up market pool, remove the sales tax from the middle market pool but leave in place the sales tax on the down market pool. That, in the view of the Government , far from correcting an anomaly leaves a more serious anomaly than that which already exists. For that reason, amongst others, we cannot accept the amendments . Senator WITHERS(Western Australia)(11.07) —I do not wish to delay the Committee but I will not let pass the remarks of Senator Jack Evans. Like most Australian Democrats he keeps reinventing the wheel. What he said about anomalies in sales tax has been said in this Parliament for some 50 years. Whenever there is a change in sales tax there are winners and losers. If sales tax goes up there are losers; if sales tax goes down there are winners. I do not know that when sales tax comes down those who have a contract necessarily get the benefit of the reduction in sales tax. I would have thought that those who were aware that they might face problems would be able to write into the contracts which they enter into that the contract price would be subject to variations in sales tax. That is a very simple means by which people in the future could-- Senator Messner —Some people do it. Senator WITHERS —Some people do it now. It is a matter of normal commercial prudence. I do not want any lectures from Senator Jack Evans about that subject. The other matter, of course, is that Senator Jack Evans has been waxing, waning, complaining and belly-aching because the Opposition will not join with the Australian Democrats. I suppose the belly-aching comes about because the Australian Democrats in this sort of situation realise that within this chamber they have no power at all on their own. The only time they have got any leverage in this chamber is whenever they get into bed with the Government or get into bed with the Opposition. On their own, they are totally irrelevant, nothing but a barnacle on a ship of state. As long as the Government and the Opposition want to do something in this Parliament the Australian Democrats may as well not be in the place. I think that is what is hurting the Australian Democrats today. They came into this place thinking that some of these interesting amendments would be passed. They thought that the Opposition would be dragged along in their cart and that they would be able to go outside and say to all their supporters: 'Look what heroes we are. We have saved you from this sales tax and we have saved you from that'. The Australian Democrats are very brave at going out and picking up single issues. They are very good at thumping their chests and telling all their supporters how good they are. But they are not too good when the real crunch comes. If we had a real crunch like we had in 1974 or 1975, the Australian Democrats would say: 'We cannot pick that one up because we all signed statutory declarations. That is a hard one, for God's sake, and Democrats do not do anything that is hard'. They come in and nit pick around the Government's Budget but do not have the guts to throw it out. I can see the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) on the other side of the chamber. I do not know whether he is laughing at me or laughing at somebody else. I trust he is enjoying the debate. I suppose it is the sort of speech he would have made when he was on this side of the House. I have pointed out what is annoying Senator Jack Evans this morning. He has been whingeing, moaning and whining away for the last hour. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Two days. Senator WITHERS —Two days, I thank my colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. Why has he done so? No doubt, it is because he has said, 'Look, we will be able to drag the Opposition along. We will show you all the muscle the Democrats have in this Parliament. We will show you how important we are. Last year we got into bed with the Australian Labor Party and threw out the Government's sales tax amendments'. This year they have not been able to get into bed with the Opposition and throw them out. Senator Chipp —I wish to take a point of order. A few days ago, Mr Chairman, I had reason to praise your chairmanship. I now question it. I ask: What in the name of God is the relevance to this debate of what the Democrats did in 1974 to one clause in a sales tax Bill? With great respect, you have allowed this to go on far longer than you should have. As soon as the honourable senator sits down I will seek the call to tell a few home truths about the gutless Liberal Party members who sit here in Opposition and oppose everything for the sake of opposing it. Mr Chairman, you have allowed this to go far enough. Senator Withers called on the donnybrook. If he wants a donnybrook, he can have one. The CHAIRMAN —I have been listening to the debate. The subject of the debate was initiated by Senator Jack Evans who made some remarks about the Liberal Party in opposition and Senator Withers in particular. Senator Withers is responding. I think he should keep his remarks fairly brief. Senator WITHERS —I have just about concluded. I say to Senator Chipp that I would not have joined in this debate at all but his sanctimonious colleague sitting behind him has been attempting to lecture the Senate all morning on what the Opposition ought to be doing. It is not for him to come in here and tell us what we ought to do. It is no good Senator Chipp flying in here in a rage because I have got under his skin. It is too bad. He can just cop it. Senator Walsh —Did you say that he was a barnacle on the ship of state? Senator WITHERS —That is an old saying of Henry Bolte's. I do not claim to be the originator of it. It is a very old saying. Senator Chipp —I do not have to cop anything from you or anybody like you. Senator WITHERS —And I do not have to cop anything from you either. Senator Chipp —You are going to in a moment. Senator WITHERS —I will not sit in this place and be lectured by Senator Jack Evans, with all his sanctimonious humbug, about what the Opposition should be doing. The Opposition will do what it wants to do and it will not be dragged along in this place on the coat tails of the Democrats. (Quorum formed) Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.15) —I had no intention of entering this debate which is about levying sales tax on certain items. It is because Senator Withers chose to make a personal attack on my colleague Senator Jack Evans and, for some extraordinary reason, a general vitriolic and bitchy attack on the Australian Democrats that I feel obliged, as the Leader of the Australian Democrats, to say one or two things in our defence. I do not know of any cause for vitriol on Senator Withers's behalf. Let me give him a few home truths. He said the Democrats are nothing in this place unless they work with the Liberal Party of Australia or the Australian Labor Party. Senator Withers —I did not. Senator CHIPP —Did the honourable senator say that or not? Senator Withers —Yes, I did say that. Senator CHIPP —Why is he saying he did not say it? If the honourable senator says things in this place he should stand up like a man and own up to them. He should not crawl away into a little corner just because he was overheard; he should stand up for himself and for whatever he said. Let us look at the Liberal Party and the Democrats. The Democrats comprise five senators out of the 64 senators in the Senate, there being 30 Labor senators and 28 Liberal and National Party senators. That means that if the Liberal Party decides to oppose legislation, and it has opposed almost every piece of contentious legislation for the sake of opposing it, since the Labor Government won office, even matters it proposed when it was in office-I will deal with those in a moment-- Senator Robertson —Hypocritical. Senator CHIPP —I have never seen such a bunch of hypocrites in my life, yet Senator Withers cast aspersions on the Australian Democrats. I remember the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill. I remember that when the Liberals were in charge the former Minister came to me, as Leader of the Australian Democrats, and said: 'We must have the ABC Bill urgently. Will you please expedite its passage'. I saw my colleagues and they said: 'Yes, we will.' Then the election took place and as soon as the Labor Party was elected it brought in an ABC Bill, almost in identical terms to that of the Liberal Party, in order to implement the recommendations of the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. What did the Liberal Party do? It moved an amendment to the second reading saying: 'We will defer this until actions against the ABC for defamation are settled'. That would not have delayed the Bill for too long, only about six or seven years! The Liberal Party members in this place are mindless hypocrites. What sort of vigorous debate did we hear from the Liberal Party members when Mr Fraser's Government introduced retrospective taxation? What vigorous claims were made that it was justified in a sense? Now that the Labor Party is introducing it, we hear a passionate defence on behalf of the Liberal Party that it is immoral and bad. A withholding tax was proposed by the Liberal Party to stop the cash economy in the building industry. What happened as soon as the Labor Party followed up that proposal? Suggestions were made that the regulations would be disallowed and a threat still hangs over the whole matter. It is true that five Democrat senators out of 64 have little power by themselves. I have said that on public platforms time and again, but the Liberal Party virtually opposes everything contentious. Its attitude to the assets test is: 'Let's oppose that'. It opposes any little populist issue that comes along, such as the introduction of a means test on people aged over 70 and lump sum tax on superannuation. It opposes every little piddling issue on which it might get a bit of credit. Of course as soon as a matter is introduced in Parliament the Liberal Party magnifies the importance of the Australian Democrats because if the Liberals oppose everything contentious, the passage or non-passage of such legislation will depend on the say-so of the Democrats. I do not mind accepting that responsibility but it is a dreadful way to run a parliament. It is irresponsible when people elected democratically by the electors come into this place and discharge their duties simply by opposing matters that six months before they espoused with some passion. Let us not hear the kind of whinging speeches that we have just heard from Senator Withers, who feels guilty that we have exposed the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party in not opposing sales tax on sun screens in cosmetics. Let it be known that if the Liberals had voted with the Democrats on this issue tyre retreads would not have attracted sales tax. A statement on record by the former Treasurer of the Liberal Party, Mr Howard, stated totally and unequivocally that the Liberal Party would remove sales tax on retread tyres. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —They changed the Government at the last election. Senator CHIPP —I thank Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle for that interjection; it is helpful. They changed the government. As it happens, Mr Dawkins, the present Minister for Finance, put in writing that if the Australian Labor Party won government it would also remove the sales tax on tyre retreads. He has not done it. He has broken his promise. We voted today to remove the sales tax on retreaded tyres, but where did every member of the Liberal Party vote? They voted with the Government. They broke the word of Mr Howard. They allow this Government to break a promise. If Senator Withers wants to come in here on a Wednesday when the proceedings are being broadcast and make some cheap capital before his Western Australian audience by attacking one of my colleagues, let him do so, but let him know that each time he does it he is going to be answered . The CHAIRMAN —We are considering the Schedule to the Bill. I have allowed this debate to continue because of the remarks made by Senator Evans which were responded to by Senator Withers and further responded to by Senator Chipp. Unless Senator Jessop has something new to say in regard to the Schedule, I do not think it would help the Committee if I allowed further debate on this matter . Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.22) —I just want to say something about Senator Chipp's comments in regard to the attitude of the Opposition to the question of sunscreen- Senator Chipp —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. Senator Jessop is deliberately and wilfully canvassing your ruling. I do not mind. If he wants to have a full scale donnybrook on this matter, with your permission, let him carry on in this way. We will accommodate him. The CHAIRMAN —The subject before the Committee is the Schedule to the sales tax Bill and remarks on that Schedule are relevant. Senator Walsh —I wish to speak to the point of order. I thought that a good deal of the discussion in the last 10 minutes was marginally, if at all, relevant to the Bill ostensibly under discussion. I chose not to raise a point of order because the vitriolic exchange between the major and minor Opposition parties was very entertaining and amusing. However, I think it is needlessly consuming the time of the Parliament. We really ought to return the attention of the Committee to the legislation. The CHAIRMAN —On the point of order, I have already indicated the direction in which I wish this debate to go. The objection was taken before I could ascertain the line which Senator Jessop wishes to take. If he wishes to discuss the Schedule he will be in order. If he continues what I think was described as a donnybrook between the parties I think I will rule him out of order. Senator JESSOP —I will leave it to another day. Amendments negatived. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.25) —I move: (21) Page 11, Schedule, clause 34, proposed item 123A, leave out all words after ''item'', insert ''by a registered medical practitioner that certifies that the person's hearing is impaired to such an extent that the person is, or is taken to be, moderately deaf''. The amendment relates to something which is causing a problem and which is likely to be the cause of some quite serious difficulties for a relatively small number of people, whose voice needs to be heard in this House today. The problem arises because the Schedule exempts from sales tax teletext equipment used by the profoundly deaf. The difficulty lies in defining the profoundly deaf. I have received a letter from the Australian Caption Centre which indicates that the decibel loss is not always the deciding factor as to whether a person requires sub-titles for television access. The letter further indicates that it is vital that the range of teletext options all qualify fully for the exemption and not just, as has been suggested, the teletext component of an integrated set. Those are two major concerns for what is, as I said, a relatively small group of people. There is a problem in that people who do not necessarily qualify technically as profoundly deaf nevertheless require teletext equipment to enable them to enjoy television within their home. For a variety of reasons the requirements of these people might cause problems which do not exist in the homes of normal hearing persons. The difficulties associated with having to raise television volume inordinately high in the case of partially deaf people is a very real problem in some homes. I would have thought that the Government would be very sympathetic to a situation in which social disruption is caused as the result of a person's loss of hearing. This problem could easily be overcome by the introduction of teletext facilities. I suggest that instead of using the term 'profoundly deaf' we should use the words, and I quote from my amendment, 'by a registered medical practitioner that certifies that the person's hearing is impaired to such an extent that the person is, or is taken to be, moderately deaf'. 'Moderately deaf' is already defined and the Government already uses that definition in regard to invalid pensions, sickness benefits and so on. The Government also accepts doctors' certificates when determining entitlement to invalid pensions, sickness benefits and aid for the disabled. I would have thought that that practice would be a much simpler path to go than to have to get Government authority for this sales tax exemption. I hope that the Government will consider this anomaly in the Schedule. It might be of interest to honourable senators to know that the Otolaryngological Society of Australia-OLSA-supports my amendment. The Society has indicated that it sees no satisfactory clinical definition that would adequately cover people who require these aids. We need to have an arrangement with some degree of flexibility that will allow a general practitioner to say that in his or her opinion a person needs this sort of aid to enable him to enjoy television. This is not a great issue. It is not going to tear the country apart. However, it is an issue which I believe should have the compassionate support of the Government. I now feel rather sad that I have to call upon the Opposition in view of its recent outburst in which I was abused for calling for its support on previous amendments. But once more I do call on the Opposition to indicate in the Committee its compassion for this group of people and its support for an amendment which will not mean a great deal to the Government's coffers. My amendment will not break this Government. It will not increase the deficit by billions of dollars. (Quorum formed) I am sure that the Opposition will win a lot of friends by its constant calling of quorums this morning. Obviously it is a disruptive tactic to save it embarrassment over the debate on these amendments. But it will not save the Opposition or the Government from embarrassment out there in the real world where some of those people who are deaf-not necessarily profoundly deaf, but deaf enough to need this service-require the assistance of teletext equipment in looking at television, to enable them to enjoy their television programs and enable their families to enjoy those television programs. I conclude by appealing to people on both sides of this chamber to support this amendment and enable this part of the Schedule to be returned to the House of Representatives for further consideration. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.31) — Senator Evans referred to compassion. This Government has compassion. I think that even the previous Government probably had some compassion. But ultimately, compassion can be no deeper than the purse. An amendment of the type proposed by the Australian Democrats to enable a general practitioner to give certification for exemption is, in the Government's view, too permissive. The clause as it stands provides that eligible persons may receive the exemption on certification by the Director-General of Health or an officer appointed by him. To make available blanket provisions for general practitioners to certify that people are taken to be profoundly deaf would, in the Government's view, be far too permissive and would open up the possibility for avoiding the sales tax on these items to a much greater extent than the Government believes is, on balance, justified or could, under the circumstances, be afforded. Amendment negatived. Schedule agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INTER-CHANGE OF POWERS) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ADVISORY JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (REMOVAL OF OUTMODED AND EXPENDED PROVISIONS) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ELECTORS' INITIATIVE) BILL 1982 [1983] CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (APPROPRIATION BILLS) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (DOUBLE DISSOLUTION) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 21 September 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator Durack-Before I speak on this legislation, I seek an assurance from the Government as to how it intends to deal with the debate. The red sheet states that the Minister will suggest a cognate second reading debate. However, there is a mixture of Bills, on some of which debate had commenced in the May sittings of the Parliament. Additional Bills also have been introduced. I and one or two other senators have already spoken on some of them. I take it that it is acknowledged that we are entitled to speak again as a result of the additional Bills being introduced. There is also a problem, I believe, in having a cognate debate on so many Bills. Altogether there are nine Bills, that is, nine different propositions. Those honourable senators who have not spoken will have difficulty in being able to cover as many as nine different propositions in the time available. I wish to have it acknowledged that accommodation will be given to those honourable senators who have spoken and indeed those who have not spoken who may require more time to deal with such a great range of issues. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —I have been informed by the Clerk that the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill are new Bills. Therefore, there is no problem with regard to honourable senators speaking to those two Bills. Senator Townley-Mr Acting Deputy President, can you enlighten the Senate as to the length of time each person will be entitled to speak? Will it be a total of 30 minutes or will it be 30 minutes for each Bill? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Honourable senators will be entitled to speak for 30 minutes in the second reading debate on the two Bills which are before us at the moment. Senator Townley-We have nine Bills before us. Senator Durack-With respect, Mr Acting Deputy President, one of the troubles is that the Minister who is in charge of these Bills is not here. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), who is at the table, does not seem to have any instructions. The red sheet states specifically that there is to be a cognate debate on nine Bills. Senator Ryan-Mr Acting Deputy President, I was just waiting for the various comments around the chamber before I put the view that the Government is taking with regard to these Bills. The Bills have been presented cognately, after lengthy negotiations with the Opposition and indeed, I understand from the Government Whip, at the suggestion of the Opposition. The opportunity to speak on the Bills will be provided to honourable senators, because the inclusion of two new Bills means that there will be an opportunity for speakers who have spoken before to speak. Given that lengthy negotiations have resulted in the Bills being presented cognately in this fashion the Government wishes to proceed on that basis. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Minister, do you propose that the Bills which are listed on the business paper be debated cognately? Senator Ryan-Yes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Do you seek that there be a cognate debate? Senator Gareth Evans-Yes. I do so formally. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —To clarify the situation, we are dealing with order of the day No. 2 and the other constitution alteration Bills will be debated cognately. Senator Robertson-Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I understood that the Minister sought leave to have these matters dealt with together. We would not want to proceed if there is an objection from the Opposition shadow Attorney-General. Senator Durack-I simply wanted to highlight the problem that arises for honourable senators who have already spoken, such as myself, who may have difficulties- Senator Ryan-We have clarified that. Senator Durack-I just wanted to get it confirmed, that is all. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for these Bills to be debated cognately? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.39) —Just to cover the background to this debate, the Senate is debating nine proposals for referendums to alter the Constitution. Five of those proposals have already been the subject of some debate in this Parliament; namely, the proposal for an interchange of powers, the proposal to give the High Court of Australia advisory jurisdiction, the proposal to remove outmoded and expended provisions, the proposal to provide as grounds for a double dissolution the Senate's rejection of an Appropriation Bill and a proposal by Senator Macklin for electors' initiative. Debate on those five proposals has already commenced. I have indicated that the Opposition supports the interchange of powers proposal, the advisory jurisdiction proposal, the removal of outmoded and expended provisions proposal and Senator Rae's proposal dealing with the grounds for a double dissolution if the Senate rejects a Supply Bill. The Opposition opposes Senator Macklin's proposal for a Bill for electors' initiative. That is the background to the debate we are now recommencing. Since the debate commenced in May the Government has introduced two new proposals and has discharged its proposal for a fixed-term parliament. We are no longer debating that proposal. However, in lieu of that we are now debating two new proposals by the Government. The first provides for elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate to be held simultaneously and the second would extend from three to four years the maximum term of the House of Representatives . We are debating also two new proposals by private members, one by Senator Hamer to limit the power of the Governor-General to order a double dissolution within three months of the grounds for a double dissolution occurring, and the other by Senator Macklin to break the nexus in determining the size of the Parliament. That nexus requires that the House of Representatives will be, as near as practicable, twice the size of the Senate. I turn first to the new proposal of the Government which requires that a referendum be held to provide for simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate. In other words, the proposal is that, instead of the Senate's existing fixed term of six years-there is a proposal that it be extended to eight years-it should be two terms of the House of Representatives. That is the proposal included in the Constitution Alteration ( Simultaneous Elections) Bill. It is called 'simultaneous elections', but, as I said, it is described more accurately as the Senate's term being two terms of the House of Representatives. The Government's other proposal, and it is not an alternative proposal by any means, is that the provision in the Constitution for a maximum term of three years for the House of Representatives and a fixed term of six years for the Senate should be changed to a maximum term of four years for the House of Representatives and eight years for the Senate. The Bills covering these proposals are drafted in such a way that, if the electors of Australia were to agree to both proposals, the maximum term of the House of Representatives would be four years-of course, it could before shortened for one reason or another-and the term of the Senate would not necessarily be eight years but it would be two terms of the House of Representatives. It could be much shorter than eight years or it could be up to eight years. The Opposition's view is that these two proposals should be dealt with together . We support both proposals. In other words, we support the desired result that there should be a maximum life of four years for the House of Representatives instead of the present three years, but that the term of a senator should be two terms of the House of Representatives. I say that these two proposals should be dealt with together because we believe that that would be the most satisfactory solution to the problem we have under the existing Constitution in that too many elections are held in Australia and there are too many opportunities for elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate to get out of phase. But of course, as we have said repeatedly, we do not believe in a fixed term being determined for the House of Representatives because, under our system of responsible government, that would be an undue fetter on and an impediment to the proper and ordinary workings of our system whereby the Executive is dependent upon the support and goodwill of the House of Representatives. I do not need to debate that issue again. The Opposition acknowledges that a real problem has existed in Australia for the last 20 years and, in particular, since an early election was held for the House of Representatives in 1963. As a result of more frequent double dissolutions that have occurred in 1974, 1975 and, more recently, in early 1983, the two Houses have got out of phase. There has been and there now is a potential for them to be well and truly out of phase again because, after a double dissolution, half the Senate, the short term senators, may well have to face the electorate well before the expiration of the existing three-year term of the House of Representatives. Of course, circumstances other than double dissolutions exist for early elections for the House of Representatives. Instability in the House, the Government having a very small majority, losing a majority or other circumstances may well result in an early election being called for the House of Representatives. So, regardless of the problem that arises after a double dissolution, there is a further possibility of the two Houses getting out of phase. Over the last 30 years or so the average life of the House of Representatives has been something less than two and a half years. I think governments in Australia have been faced with the problem of not being able to properly implement their programs because of the frequency of elections. The argument in support of those two proposals is, basically, to ensure that there will be fewer elections, and to do so by two steps: Firstly, by extending from three to four years the life of the House of Representatives; and, secondly , by ensuring that each time there is an election for the House of Representatives one half of the Senate also goes to the electors, so that there is no scope for a separate election for half the Senate. Of course, the existing provisions of the Constitution enabling a double dissolution to occur if there is a deadlock between the two Houses is preserved by these proposals. It is completely unaffected by the proposals and certainly should not be affected by them. But the two proposals before the chamber today to improve the situation in relation to double dissolutions-the first being Senator Rae's proposal that if, in fact, the Senate rejects an Appropriation Bill or a Supply Bill there is immediate cause for a double dissolution-- Senator Jessop —Is that the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill? Senator DURACK —That is right; that is Senator Rae's Bill. That has been the policy of the Opposition for many years. I suggest that that proposal would greatly improve the existing provisions in the Constitution in regard to double dissolutions. The proposal requires three months to elapse before a further rejection of the same Supply Bill by the Senate provides grounds for a double dissolution. Of course during that period the Government could run out of Supply and a very serious situation could arise. Another improvement which the Opposition sees to the existing double dissolution provisions is that proposed by Senator Hamer in the Bill we are now debating. He deals with a problem which exists as a result of the present provisions of the Constitution which enable double dissolution Bills to be stockpiled. So although a ground for a double dissolution exists there is no immediate requirement for the Prime Minister to take advantage of that situation and advise an election. In other words the Bills can be stockpiled until such time as the Prime Minister, at some much later date, advises that a double dissolution should be granted by the Governor-General. It may well be that after that period the particular deadlock is not a major problem between the two Houses. In fact the two Houses may be working together quite amicably. It is Senator Hamer's proposal-one with which the Opposition agrees-that that should not provide a ground for a double dissolution; that in fact the power of the Senate would be weakened if a Prime Minister in those circumstances were able to take advantage of a double dissolution situation even though the deadlock between the Houses had gone stale and presumably was not regarded by the Prime Minister as of sufficient importance at the time to have it resolved by a double dissolution. I now turn to the proposal by Senator Macklin, the Constitution Alteration ( Parliament) Bill. This proposal is properly described as one to break the nexus between the numbers in the Senate and the numbers in the House of Representatives. Section 24 of the Constitution provides: The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people . . . and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators. It is important to emphasise that this nexus does not limit the total numbers of members and senators. It simply provides that there shall be a proportion or ratio between the numbers in this chamber and the numbers in the House of Representatives. In no way does it limit the Parliament in deciding how many senators and members of the House of Representatives there should be. The proposal is an old one. It was originally put forward by Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies in 1965, but it did not go to the people. That same proposal was put forward again by Prime Minister Harold Holt. It was supported by all the parties in the Parliament at the time except the Democratic Labor Party. It was passed by the Parliament and went to a referendum in 1967, but was defeated. However, deciding what would be an appropriate increase in the size of the Parliament, if that were desired, has always been a problem for the Parliament. We are not at this stage debating whether it is desirable to increase the Parliament, but I think it is fair to acknowledge that the provision in the Constitution is an impediment to a reasonable solution to the question if it is thought at any time desirable to increase the numbers in the House of Representatives without increasing the numbers in the Senate. There is also another very major problem in increasing the numbers of senators because of the system of proportional representation. There is the likelihood of exacerbating a deadlock situation in the Senate if there are even numbers of senators to be elected at any particular election, and if the size of the Senate were increased by a large number of senators at any time we could well run into other problems under the system of proportional representation. So the proposal Senator Macklin has put forward to break this nexus, as it is called-this ratio or proportion between the size of each House-is a practical one. The only problem is whether it may weaken the power and prestige of the Senate. It may well result in the long term in the Senate remaining at its present size of 64 members with, as a result of population growth, a much enlarged House of Representatives. The proposal contains a provision of a rather technical kind to put a limit on the minimum number of House of Representatives members in ratio to population. Thus we would not have an excessive number of members of the House of Representatives in breach of the limit that is provided. This would result in the ratio of one member representing, I think, 85,000 people. That is a minimum number. The Parliament could decide that there should be a higher ratio and thereby fewer members, but it could not provide for a lower ratio and thereby more members. The proposal is therefore a useful brake on the powers of the Parliament to increase unduly the number of members. I think that is another useful proposal in this Bill. The Opposition does not believe that the Senate's power and prestige would be affected if the ratio between the Senate and the House of Representatives were removed. We believe that the Senate now has, by its own efforts, by the exercise of its undoubted very wide powers and its very effective use of the committee system, achieved a status in Australia which is not likely to be affected by the breaking of this nexus. Therefore the Opposition will support this proposal. Mr Acting Deputy President, I think that what I have said covers the nine proposals that are before us. I have indicated the Opposition's attitude to all of them. In conclusion I simply return to the ones that are of perhaps the greatest significance-that is the proposal for simultaneous elections and the proposal to increase the maximum term of the House of Representatives to four years instead of the present three. Many of the other proposals are useful but they are not of any great moment. The proposals dealing with the interchange of powers, the advisory opinions of the High Court of Australia and the removal of outmoded provisions are I think of some practical use but they would certainly not on their own justify holding a referendum. We believe that Senator Peter Rae 's proposal is very important to make sure that there would be a double dissolution if the Senate exercised its powers at any stage to reject a Supply or an Appropriation Bill. As to the argument that such a proposal would break the nexus, again I simply say that we see it as a useful and practical proposal, but certainly not one which would justify a constitutional amendment on its own. Nevertheless, if there is to be a referendum held because of the importance of determining the life of the Parliament and the question of simultaneous elections, the opportunity should be taken to put to the people a number of these other proposals. The only proposal which the Opposition is strongly opposed to is the Australian Democrats' other Bill. I have already put down the reasons for our position on the Constitutional Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill. It provides for a number of electors to be able to sign a petition for a particular proposal to be put to a referendum, not necessarily a constitutional amendment, but any major proposal. We believe that that is so contrary to our system of parliamentary democracy that it should be opposed and rejected both by the Parliament and the people. Otherwise we think that there are a number of useful proposals in this package of Bills to amend the Constitution. Undoubtedly, the ones that justify the holding and expense of a referendum are those Bills designed to extend the maximum life of the House of Representatives from three to four years and to provide for the terms of senators to equal two terms of the House of Representatives. As I have said, the Opposition will support eight of the nine Bills. We believe they justify a decision of the people at a referendum. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.03) -The Australian Democrats will vote in support of all nine Constitution alteration Bills currently before the Senate. We do so on the basis of the principle that we think that the Australian electors ought to have the opportunity of expressing their views on these matters. However, that should not be taken to mean that in the actual campaign itself we will be supporting all nine items if they went to the people. In practical terms only those Constitution amendment Bills which the Government itself supports will go to the people, regardless of whether the Bills are passed in this House. I will comment generally on each of the items before us today. The Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill are placed here in substitution for the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill which the Government had originally proposed. The Australian Democrats supported very strongly the fixed term parliaments Bill. We believed it would have provided a major reform to the Australian Constitution and enabled us to look forward to a settled period in relation to the election of parliaments well into the future. The simultaneous elections Bill and the parliamentary terms Bill do not go to the heart of the matters that have been of constitutional debate in this country since 1975. They merely tinker with the surrounds to that problem, but in no way come forward with a solution. The arguments that have been proposed for the simultaneous election Bill are well known. The arguments against it are equally well known. In many ways the item has been rehearsed before. However, when one looks at the discussions on simultaneous elections referenda that we have had before, one cannot but be taken with the extraordinarily emotive arguments both for and against that were provided in the pamphlets distributed to the citizens of Australia. I believe it is a pity that such arguments are put in written material distributed to citizens when far more weighty arguments both for and against exist. In relation to the simultaneous elections Bill I think there is a problem. That problem surrounds the contentions made about whether we will have fewer or more elections. I believe there are good arguments on both sides of that issue. I do not think it can be adequately proven that we will have either more or less elections if we do away with the notion of a fixed term. Essentially, this Bill leaves untouched the ability of government. But there is one argument that might suggest, in terms of the Senate at least, that we will be taking away what one might call quasi-fixed terms for the Senate. In other words, unless the Government in the House of Representatives, by judicious choice of Bills, actually manages to get the Senate to reject a Bill twice under the constitutional provisions which are available currently for a double dissolution , the Senate will have a fixed term. Essentially, if this Bill is passed by the people it will take away that element of a fixed term that is currently provided by the Constitution. That, I believe, could be seen in many ways to be a retrograde step. I think it is for this reason that the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) last year said very clearly that the Australian Labor Party would not have a bar of simultaneous elections without a fixed term. That is my position now. I do not believe that by taking up the fixed term on its own we will do anything to enhance the constitutionality of the proceedings of Parliament. I think we would give to Prime Ministers an additional power they do not currently have. I hope that in the debate in the community we might get down to that item in a fairly solid way. I merely indicate at the moment some of the thoughts that the Democrats have and will be putting forward at that time. The four-year terms proposal has been canvassed and been the subject of referenda in the New South Wales where it was overwhelmingly carried. I do not know whether there is such support throughout the community. I think some reasonable arguments are put forward for this. Certainly, when one looks at the progression of parliamentary business in this place and in the other place, one sees that there could be a very good argument for a four-term to enable us to have a more rational movement throughout the period of a government's life. On the other hand, one could very well argue that four years of bad government is not necessarily anything better than, and indeed might be worse than, three years of bad government. So I think there are problems. I believe that the accountability aspect tells against the four-year term. I think that the proposal put forward by Senator Mason in the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill would be a better way of coping with that problem. I have never felt that elections on a three-year basis were a disadvantage to Australia. I for one hold firmly to the notion that the constant input from the people at regular intervals-I think that three years is adequate-is a good thing. But I acknowledge the problems that governments have in legislative programs. I also acknowledge that they could be solved by adopting a four-year term. They cannot be solved by the current three-year term unless it is fixed. In essence, my response to the simultaneous elections and the four-year term proposals is that they are a very poor substitute for the very rigorous and strong reform which would have come from a fixed term. I believe that they create many problems, and possibly they will create as many problems as they are likely to solve. As regards 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, I spoke on those Bills when they were before the Senate in another debate, as I did in relation to Senator Mason's Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative ) Bill. I turn to the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill, presented by Senator Peter Rae on behalf of the Opposition, and to the suggestion of an immediate simultaneous dissolution of both Houses if the Senate rejects Supply. I believe that this would tip the balance away from the House of Representatives very strongly in favour of the Senate. In seeking constitutional reform, I do not believe that one should seek to upset that balance to such an extent. Personally, I shall be opposing that Bill in the campaign. However, at this particular time, the Australian Democrats will support its passage through the Senate to allow the people to make their decision if the Government passes the Bill through the House of Representatives. The Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill, presented by Senator Hamer, is a good attempt at coming to grips with the problems we have seen in the last couple of double dissolutions of putting Bills on the shelf to be used at a time convenient to the Prime Minister. The election issue in March was a very good example of that, when the Bills taken up, the sales tax Bills, had been left over not from the previous Budget but from the Budget of the year before, and they had not even been presented by the Government itself in its following Budget. They were sitting on the shelf, and they were the subject of some interesting correspondence between the Governor-General and the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. However, I think that the upshot of that correspondence must be that the situation in Australia is now clear: The Government is indeed entitled, once it has a double dissolution Bill, to put it on the shelf and to use it at any time, at its convenience, provided that it falls within the six months bar prior to an election. We believe that the idea of having that used within three months goes some way towards putting pressure on the Government to ask whether this is really a serious Bill, a Bill on which the Government really wants to go to the people, a Bill which is so serious as to disrupt the government of this country. I believe that it is a fair thing to say that if the Government has not used it within three months it cannot be all that serious. There would be ways in which the Government could get around this provision. Nevertheless, the manipulation of this provision ought not to be a reason for opposing it. It is a step in the right direction. It is not the ultimate solution, but inasmuch as it is a reform that would benefit in some way the operation between the two Houses, it would have our support. I do not propose to speak now to the Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill which I introduced at the second reading stage, simply because there has not been a chance for other senators to comment on that. My second reading speech is in Hansard. If there is any further debate at the Committee stage, I would be quite happy to discuss any of the issues rasied there. As regards these Bills in general, we believe that it ought to be possible for the Government to put nine Bills to the people. We do not agree with the comments that have been made by the Attorney-General that by putting any more than a small number, electors will be confused. Frankly, I think that we ought to give the electors credit for the ability to sift through the individual proposals, be they four or nine, and make up their own minds about these issues. Looking back at the history of multiple referenda, one finds that there is no basis for the assertion that people are confused or that they vote en bloc for all of the proposals or against all of them. Historically, that is not so. The Australian electors have been very astute at picking their way through. For example, they have defeated items quite strongly on the same day as they have supported others very strongly. We should beware of those patronising types of arguments that suggest that we ought not to put up all these various issues to the people because they might be confused. Paternalistic statements such as that do not enhance the democratic process. I think that people are quite able to distinguish between nine issues, as they would be able to distinguish between four. Lastly, I comment on Senator Durack's contribution. As regards the nexus Bill that I introduced, we introduced that because of our approach to the recent parliamentary report which recommended an increase in the numbers in this place and in the House of Representatives. We believe that there is not a case for increasing the numbers in the Senate at this time. Therefore, we believe that breaking the nexus would give us at least the opportunity for some reasonable growth in the House of Representatives when that is demanded by a variety of other matters. I point to the current situation in Victoria. There will have to be a redistribution there before the next election, and one seat in the House of Representatives will be lost to that State. In my own State of Queensland there will also have to be a redistribution because we shall gain one seat. The Democrats believe that it is at times such as that that it would be appropriate to have a small increase in the numbers in the House of Representatives so as to avoid the situation of the loss of a seat to a State. The population is growing more each year, and there could be a moderate increase in the House of Representatives when so warranted by circumstances such as States getting out of kilter with one another and, therefore, carrying over the constitutional requirements. However, at present we do not believe that there can be an argument sustained that would require that there be an increase in the number of senators and in the numbers in the House of Representatives. We would therefore oppose such an increase at present. We believe that, if the Government is looking at that item, it could look at increasing the numbers in the House of Representatives by two or three, or by whatever is required to overcome the problems of Victoria and Queensland. On that particular item, there is an issue which weighs fairly heavily with the Australian Democrats because of our support for the proportional representation system. The proposal to increase to an even number the number of senators elected at the same time as each House of Representatives election is held would , as Senator Durack pointed out, provide a far greater chance of the Government and the Opposition in the Senate having equal numbers. The reason for that is that when six senators go to the people, half of those positions can be gained by 43 per cent of the vote. If there is an odd number, to gain a majority any party needs a majority of electors supporting it. So using an even number in a proportional representation system will in fact cork the possibility of bringing the proportional representation method into disrepute. We believe that method has served this country well since it was introduced into the Senate in 1949 and we would be loath to support propositions which were in any way damaging to the continued acceptance of proportional representation in this country or to the spread of it. The only alternative, then, in terms of an increase is to do what was done in 1949 when State representation went from six senators to 10 senators, which gave an odd number at a half Senate election. To go from the current number of 10 to the next odd half-term number, 14, would require approximately 28 additional members in the House of Representatives. I think that is a ludicrous proposition . So really we are in a very difficult situation in trying to maintain a variety of principles. It seems to us that the next move probably ought to be the breaking of the nexus to enable the Senate to maintain its numbers now and so that some time in the future, when it seems necessary to do so, the Senate itself can increase its representation to 14 from each State. I would like to mention one other item that has been raised with me and which did not become part of my Bill. I refer to Territory representation in the Senate. I believe that there ought to be a ceiling on the number of representatives allowed into this place from the Territories. I believe an adequate ceiling would be provided by saying that the maximum number any Territory could have is that number currently available for any State. The reason I suggest that as a maximum number is that at some stage in the future we could have a Territory in which the number of electors is larger than the number of electors in one of the original States and it would seem entirely inappropriate to have a constitutional bar to that particular Territory having an equal number of representatives at that stage, if it still remained a Territory and did not become a State. I also believe that at some stage in the future, when Territories become States , we will need a fairly detailed debate about Senate representation for those new States. I am personally of the belief that any new States that come into being in Australia by the provisions which are currently contained within our Constitution, ought never to be regarded as second class States. I do not believe that we ought to set up in this country a system of States that are considered to be original States and then a system of new States. Therefore, I am of the belief that when new States are created, as hopefully they will be in the future, those States should have equal representation with the original States already represented in this place, and therefore that all States ought to be represented in the States House on an equal basis. To have greater and lesser States would only get us into a problem in the long term, which would require a constitutional stage to rectify, of giving equal rights to each State regardless of its population-as was done, of course, at Federation. But that is a debate for another time, although certainly that time might not be far away. I notice that Senator Robertson, a senator for the Northern Territory, is in the House. The Northern Territory is moving towards Statehood so that issue is of concern to the Territory even now. I think as it gets closer to full Statehood it will become an issue of more and more concern. I simply reiterate that the Australian Democrats support the principle that these issues ought to go to the people for their deliberation and their deliberative vote. We will vote in support of each of these issues. However in the debate which will take place in the electorate itself we will have a variety of views on these matters and we will be urging not a straight vote down the ticket but that people look at each issue. We will be putting forward views on a number of these issues, urging the people to support some and oppose others. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(12.26) —The Senate is considering nine Bills at the moment, the purpose of which is to alter the Constitution. It is reasonable to remind people at this time that when Federation was contemplated and agreed upon, the founding fathers of this country very wisely set up a Constitution which would protect the interests of those States which were sovereign States before Federation. Of course, the whole object of the agreement of the States at that time was that the Senate be established, giving the States equal representation. So any threat to the authority and power of the Senate must be greeted with some concern by the people of Australia. On occasions in the past referenda items have been referred to the people but the majority of them have been rejected for one reason or another. In order to achieve the objective of constitutional alteration, a majority of the electors in the majority of States must agree to the proposition. I say categorically that I am opposed to the first of these measures-the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill-as I have been on previous occasions. I have consistently held the view that this would be a threat to the authority of the Senate. I have maintained that view on two previous occasions and I intend to do so again on this occasion. I will talk about that a little more in a moment. In regard to the second measure-the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill-I do agree that the parliamentary term should be extended to four years. I have some concern about extending the term of a senator for eight years , because I think that for a lot of these people on the Government side, eight years is far too long. It might be an idea, if that is approved, to suggest that a senator's term be restricted to two terms, totalling 16 years. We might get a few more refreshing views in this place. So I have no real objection to that measure. As far as the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1983 is concerned, I suppose that this proposition is reasonable, although I suggest that in the unhappy event of Australia being ruled by a socialist Federal government and socialist goverments in every State of the Commonwealth, this could pose a threat because manipulation could be pursued which would not be in the best interests of the Senate. I do not want to pursue that because it is a most unlikely situation that would be disastrous for Australia anyway. But let us just put that in our minds. I say to anybody who is interested that that situation could occur. I have some doubts about that but I am not going to be dogmatic as far as that Bill is concerned. Senator Townley —You said it would be a danger to the Senate. You meant to the country, I think. Senator JESSOP —To the country, yes, but it could be a threat to the Senate too because in collaboration a Federal socialist government and State socialist governments could manipulate things in a way that only the socialists could do. Of course, the converse is equally true: If there were a Federal Liberal government and State Liberal-National Party governments there would be no fear as far as the electorate is concerned. The next Bill on the Notice Paper is the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill. I am opposed to that and I will talk about my major objections in more detail in a few moments. The Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill is sensible and I support it. I cannot support the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill. I could go along with the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill because Senator Peter Rae has given that a lot of thought and I believe it is a sensible measure. As far as breaking the nexus is concerned, the people faced that proposition in 1967 and rejected it. I am not so sure that I could not agree with that at the moment. I have my reservations about it and I will make up my mind in due time. Senator Townley —Which one is that? Senator JESSOP —The breaking of the nexus. Some people say that it poses another threat to the Senate because the object- Senator Townley —We will get run over by the people from Sydney and Melbourne. Senator JESSOP —I was just going to say that the founding fathers, again in their wisdom, said that the Senate should be approximately half the size of the House of Representatives. I know that these days the Senate is quite capable of dealing with the House of Representatives when we need to but, nevertheless, some people in Australia in the small States might have reservations about that. I have no objection to Senator Hamer's Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill. In speaking against the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill I suppose I could do no better than to refresh honourable senators' memories on what happened in 1974. Then, of course, the voters in the smaller States- Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania-were strongly against the proposal. I remember that we were in government when the proposal was resubmitted. At that time objections against the proposal were strongly levelled by the State Liberal and National party Premiers, Sir Charles Court, Mr Hamer and Mr Bjelke-Petersen. I recall that at that time the late Sir Thomas Playford, although he had retired from active political life, emerged quietly but forcefully to suggest that the holding of simultaneous elections was an exercise in deception and could jeopardise the authority and the integrity of the Senate to the disadvantage of the smaller States. I can put it no better than did my colleague Senator Withers at that time. This is what he said in 1974 , but I believe he said it with conviction and meant every word he said: I believe that this Bill is nothing but an exercise in deception in which the Government is deliberately attempting to deceive the people of Australia. He was referring to the Whitlam Government. He continued: When this Bill was called on for debate in the House of Representatives it was said that the title of the Bill was a fraud. In fact it was said there also that the title did not reflect in any way the intent of the Bill. I recall that my former colleague Sir Phillip Lynch also said: There is no constitutional restraint to the holding of simultaneous elections for both Houses of the Australian Parliament. When the question was posed 'What is meant by saying it is the wrong way to achieve it?', he said: Its adoption would impair the proper functioning of the bicameral system of government. Tying the Senate to the House of Representatives in the manner proposed by the Bill would weaken its independence. In short the Constitution ( Simultaneous Elections) Bill is not simply unnecessary but also is cunningly deceptive in its intent. I think that those words are as true today as they were in 1974 and 1977. For those reasons I oppose the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill . I suggest also that the Constitutional Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill is not in the best interests of the people of Australia and not in the best interests of this Parliament. There have been a number of debates on this subject. I refer to the debate held at the Australian Constitutional Convention in Perth in July 1978. At page 33 of the record of those debates Mr Knox is reported to have said, among other things: There may well be many people in this country who think that the seeking of advisory opinions from the High Court would be similar to that procedure which exists in relation to the Privy Council. Of course, those of us who have had some experience know that the situation is quite different. The important question is, what is the status of these opinions. Indeed, as far as the opinions of the High Court would be concerned their status could be very powerful indeed. I would imagine that once these were approved then the work of the High Court would increase enormously, because there would be all sorts of avenues to take advantage of to seek these advisory opinions. He went on to say: While the seeking of advisory opinions may seem rather academic to lawyers, to the parliamentarians there should be a different attitude. The legislatures of this country should be allowed to try to make the changes that they think are desirable, even flying in the face of opinions they might have from various sources that they might not be successful. Indeed, it would be a very bad and sad day for the various legislatures if the opinions from the High Court were thrust between them and those who wanted to see changes made in the legislation. I believe that was a very sensible comment. But earlier this year at the Australian Constitutional Convention in Adelaide Mr Doumany from Queensland made the following points: First, advisory opinions are of necessity expressed in general terms and not related to specific situations. Our whole judicial tradition is directed towards examining the legality of specific situations. The Judiciary is now, in effect, being asked to act as legislators-a move against the separation of powers inherent in our system. Secondly, because our judicial system considers matters on a relatively narrow frame, questions of fact do influence the decisions which are made. How then is a court supposed to give authoritative pronouncements on circumstances which will be nothing more than the speculations of the persons going before the court ? Thirdly, sufficient mechanisms already exist for challenges to the constitutional validity of specific Acts to be made. These legal challenges, however, are only made after the necessary political decisions have been made. It can be argued that this proposal is nothing more than an attempt to use the law to overcome an inability to succeed in political arguments. Fourthly, from a cynical point of view, the proposal can be regarded as nothing more than an attempt to place greater powers in the hands of the Commonwealth Government by encouraging the High Court to write wide-ranging general advisory opinions. This view is not necessarily all that cynical if one has regard to the proposals in section 77A (1) (d). The suggestion that the Executive Government would have an ability to obtain a High Court ruling on the legality of any proposed treaty prior to even signing the treaty, let alone ratifying it, and let alone legislating on it, fills me with complete horror. Fifthly, the adoption of this principle would also require the High Court to develop new rules of stare decisis and precedent, or are we to adopt a new rule to see if the High Court gives a general advisory opinion in favour of a particular action, then for ever and a day no challenge can be mounted against Commonwealth activity? This, of course, would be ludicrous for any practical person but, nevertheless, this would seem to be inherent in the proposal. Senator Georges —It would save a lot of money and a lot of wasted time, would it not? Senator JESSOP —I think that we are abrogating our responsibility if we say that to the High Court. We have enough lawyers in this place with differing views. Sometimes in the course of debate we can elucidate some sense out of them. When the Parliament of Australia is prepared to hand over these matters to the High Court of Australia I think it is a sorry day. I think it is an indictment on people like Senator Georges, for whom I have a great regard. I believe his opinion would be equally as valid and equally as sensible as a decision of the High Court. Senator Georges —You are still going to get my opinion. Senator JESSOP —I always value Senator Georges's opinion although sometimes I disagree with it. Most of the time I disagree with his opinions but nevertheless I respect what he has to say. Mr Doumany continued: Sixthly, the proposal also ignores the rights of interested litigants to appear to argue a particular point of view. I am sure Senator Georges would not like that. Senator Georges —What is that? Say that again. Senator JESSOP —I will say that again. Mr Doumany stated: Sixthly, the proposal also ignores the rights of interested litigants to appear to argue a particular point of view. Who is to say who will be affected by a particular advisory opinion by the High Court? Yet from the proposal, the only persons likely to appear when advisory matters are argued will be Governments, both Commonwealth and State. One can readily anticipate the High Court will be encouraged to make pronouncements upon matters which will be of vital concern to many interested parties, but that these parties will only become aware of their rights being affected after the decision is made. Where, therefore, is there any justice in that proposal? It goes on. The seventh point he made is as follows: . . . I note already that the proposal suggests that States should have a right of approaching the High Court for advisory opinions. It would strike me that even if you accept the principle of advisory opinions, the last thing the States would do would be to seek to approach the High Court directly for an opinion for , in doing so, they would be casting grave aspersions on the legal abilities on their Supreme Court, particularly of their Full Courts. From this point of view, the proposal can be looked at as a further attempt to downgrade the judicial standing of State Supreme Courts. Finally, I make the point as to just exactly what the Commonwealth is trying to achieve with this proposal. The Commonwealth already has available to it the best legal advisers in Australia that money can buy. Apparently, these advisers are no longer considered to be able to render appropriate advice to the Commonwealth about actions which it proposes to undertake. Apparently the judges of the High Court are now also to be converted into Commonwealth legal advisers as well. He went on to say: The High Court should remain independent and impartial, carrying out its duties of interpreting Commonwealth Constitution and the laws of the land in a way that will ensure that all parties not only do, but believe they do, obtain justice when they appear before the court. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 1.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the extraordinary and unsatisfactory report submitted to the New South Wales Premier , Mr Wran, by the Police Commissioner, Mr Abbott. In that report it is stated that information on early release of prisoners was obtained by telephone taps by Commonwealth Police during surveillance of 'drug traffickers involved in international drug smuggling who by covert means had asociated themselves with the Minister of the Crown responsible for the early release of prisoners'. I refer to the various passages in the report, which indicate that information on the allegations about early release had to be restricted to avoid compromising sources of information about international illegal drug trafficking. I also refer to the inconclusive nature of the report, as it is described by Commissioner Abbott. I ask the Minister: Does not the apparent close relationship between international drug running and elements of the New South Wales State Administration make the matter of early release of prisoners one of Commonwealth concern and responsibility? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the text of the report made by Mr Abbott to the New South Wales Government. I am familiar, of course, with the general nature of the matters which Senator Chaney has raised. I have also seen the transcripts of the tapes in question which set the initial hares running. So I am not relying solely on second hand information from police commissioners or anyone else in the answer I now give. Mr Abbott's statement that the evidence in relation to the New South Wales Minister was inconclusive is a judgment that I share on the basis of my reading of the transcript of the tapes in question. On that material , the evidence is unquestionably inconclusive. Certainly it is suggestive of further lines of inquiry, but it is not in itself more than that. The second point I make in relation to the matters raised by Senator Chaney is that it is a matter for very nice and delicate judgment by law enforcement officers as to how far to pursue investigations into matters where there is a very real risk of prejudicing highly sensitive drug law enforcement operations in circumstances where sources may be put at risk. There was a series of exchanges between Commissioner Grey and Commissioner Abbott on that subject. From the material I have seen, I think that the respective commissioners well understood each other's position. I think it would not be appropriate for the Commonwealth Government or anyone else to second guess the judgment that was manifestly finally reached by Mr Abbott, clearly in consultation with Commissioner Grey, on that aspect of the proceeding. In regard to the third point raised by Senator Chaney as to whether the circumstances are such as to make the matter one of Commonwealth concern, yes, of course, it is a matter for Commonwealth concern in the general policy sense in relation to the condition of law enforcement in this country, and we make no bones about that. But equally clearly the particular matters of criminal investigation that are involved in this case do not in any way, shape or fashion raise questions of possible breaches of Commonwealth law. I have looked very carefully at this aspect to satisfy myself personally that that is so, and I am satisfied. I repeat, as a result of all that, the statement that I made when this matter first arose that there was nothing more that the Commonwealth could reasonably have done than what it did do-that is, to pass the information over to the appropriate authorities in New South Wales. Taking into account the factors I mentioned then and which I mentioned again this morning, the Commonwealth must as a result be in the position of accepting the results of that New South Wales investigation. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Attorney-General 's agreement that there are matters of concern in the general policy sense and his earlier statement that what was put before the New South Wales Government by the Commonwealth suggests further lines of inquiry, is it not a fact that further lines of inquiry have been followed, leading to the Abbott report? Is it not also a fact that public statements, including those made over a matter of days by Professor Tony Vinson, have suggested that that inquiry was not and could not be adequate? I ask the Attorney-General: In light of that public statement by a responsible citizen of high reputation, is he not concerned that an inadequate inquiry has been mounted in these important matters? Senator GARETH EVANS —When I referred to further lines of inquiry being suggested by the primary evidence arising from the telephone taps, I was referring to an inquiry by means of interviews and other communications with individuals of the kind that clearly did take place in the course of the New South Wales Police investigation. That inquiry has been conducted to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of the New South Wales Police, who, I believe, on all the evidence available to me, is a man of unquestioned probity and integrity. Under all the circumstances I believe that little further could be achieved in this matter, given the matters to which Mr Abbott referred in his report in relation to the possible prejudice of drug law enforcement operations and the putting at risk of the position of informers. I believe that nothing could be further pursued by an inquiry of the kind to which Senator Chaney now refers. To the extent that there might be further argument about some other avenues of inquiry appropriately being pursued within New South Wales in relation to related matters, if not this one, then, properly speaking, that is a matter for the New South Wales authorities, as I imagine the principles of federalism that appear to be so dear to the hearts of the Opposition would lead the Leader of the Opposition to accept. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen the latest survey of industrial trends conducted by the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Westpac Banking Corporation? If so, can the Minister say whether there are significant differences between the States in respect of their general business situations? What information, if any, does the Minister have on expected levels of output and employment in the individual States? Senator WALSH —I have seen the most recent Westpac-Confederation of Australian Industry survey. Perhaps I should explain the way in which the figures are presented. The figures on the relevant page record the percentage of respondents who expect an improvement in various economic indicators, minus those who expect a decline in the economic indicators. So the more pessimistic the outlook, the greater the final minus or, alternatively, the lower the final positive figure. In this survey of the general business situation a plus figure of only 13 per cent of the respondents in Queensland expect an improvement. This is by far the lowest expectation of any mainland State and is much less than half of the national figure of 31 per cent. In regard to the other matters to which Senator Maguire referred-employment and output both current and expected-the same pattern applies, with one minor exception. In the current quarter expectations of employment Queensland recorded a minus figure of 54 per cent, against a national figure of minus 29 per cent. Again, Queensland had by far the highest minus figure of all the mainland States . Current business expectations in regard to the level of unemployment in Queensland are far more pessimistic than in any other mainland State. The same position applies to expectations of future employment in that Queensland is by far the most pessimistic. Queensland employers, according to the Westpac- Confederation of Australia Industry survey, are by far the most pessimistic of employers in the mainland States and much more pessimistic than in Australia as a whole, which follows inevitably. It is anticipated by all respondents to the survey other than Queensland that output will increase in all other mainland States by anything from 21 per cent in New South Wales and Victoria to 50 per cent in Western Australia. In Queensland, however, the respondents to the survey , who are mostly business people, expect output to decline by 4 per cent. So, on all these current important economic indicators of general business outlook, the view on employment, both current and expected, and output, both current and expected, and the view of the prospects of the Quensland economy, held by the Queensland business community I stress, because it is the business community which is respondent to this survey, is not only very pessimistic but also far more pessimistic than any other mainland State and, ipso facto, far more pessimistic than the expectations of business regarding those crucial economic indicators in the nation as a whole. Senator DURACK —I also direct a question to the Attorney-General both in his own capacity and as the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I also refer to the report of Commissioner Abbott to the New South Wales Government. I ask the Attorney: Has the investigation into the international drug smuggling ring referred to in the report and described as an important one been completed? If so, have any charges been laid? If it has not been completed and is still continuing, when is it likely to conclude? Senator GARETH EVANS —My understanding is that the investigation is certainly not completed. It is an on-going one. I am not in a position to give a precise indication as to when it is expected it will wind up in whole or part. I will seek further information from the Special Minister of State and make it available to the shadow Attorney-General. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I asked whether any charges have been laid? Senator GARETH EVANS —I believe not in relation to the particular investigation that was immediately involved at that time. But, again, I will check that matter and let the honourable senator know. Senator GEORGES —Has the Minister for Veterans' Affairs seen a recent Press release by the Queensland Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs, Mr Val Bird, in which he claims credit on behalf of his Government-I like his cheek-for this Government's Budget decision to compensate Torres Strait Island ex-servicemen for underpayment during World War II. Senator Colston —What a cheek. Senator GEORGES —It is a cheek because I remember asking questions on this matter on two occasions early in the piece. Has the Queensland Government, Mr Bird or his Department made any representations since the Labor Government came to power in March this year in support of retrospective payments of disability pensions? Does the Minister have any comment on Mr Bird's warning to these ex- servicemen not to waste time seeking advice from the National Aboriginal Conference, or any other body, or, for that matter, anyone? Senator GIETZELT —Yes, my attention has been drawn to Mr Bird's comments and Press statement. For sheer effrontery, hypocrisy, distortion and self-adulation I think it takes the prize of the year. In point of fact, of course, the Queensland Government takes the prize as being the worst government in Australia , particularly as it is represented by Ministers who make such false statements in respect of matters of a Federal nature which the Labor Government has sought to rectify. We have been shown again that members of the Queensland Government can lie to their constituents in such a glib way and in a way which does no credit to their public office. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. It has been alleged that members of the Queensland Government lied to their constituents. That term is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Under standing order 418 I ask the Minister to withdraw that statement. Senator GIETZELT —In deference to you, Mr President, I withdraw. However, can I say- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. I ask that the withdrawal be unconditional. The PRESIDENT —The Minister has undertaken to withdraw the remark. Senator GIETZELT —I withdraw the statement. However, can I say that Mr Bird and, in fact, many of his fellow Ministers are very careless in the way in which they handle the truth. Perhaps Senator Chaney may reflect on what I have to say when I read to him what was said in the Press statement which Mr Bird has circulated in the electorate of Cook in which Torres Strait Islanders are enrolled. I would have thought that Senator Chaney would not be interested in defending the actions of a National Party Minister, having regard to the disgraceful conduct of that government in Queensland and of his own political party. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Standing Orders prohibit the debating of questions during Question Time. I would ask you to ask the Minister to confine his answer. If the Minister wishes to make a statement on this matter or any other matter, I would suggest it be made after Question Time. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator GIETZELT —Twice this year Senator Georges has raised with me the question of the underpayment to Torres Strait Islanders during World War II. In reply to Senator Georges I want to draw the attention of the Senate to what Mr Bird is reported as saying in a Press statement dated 25 August. That document stated: Aboriginal and Island Affairs Minister, Mr Val Bird, today welcomed the news that, at long last, the Queensland Government's claims on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ex-Servicemen for retrospectivity on repatriation benefits had been recognised. . . . . 'As a result of representations by my Department, Torres Strait Light Infantry Battalion Ex-Servicemen had their repatriation benefits increased to the equivalent . . . of all Australian ex-servicemen from July 1, . . . 1963' Mr Bird said. Mr President, that statement is a lie. Those comments show just how desperate he and his Party are in the current election campaign. The PRESIDENT —Order! I would ask the Minister to use a term other than the one he has used bearing in mind standing order 418. Senator GIETZELT —It is an untruth, Mr President. Of course, the Press statement has been issued by an organisation called the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, the director of which has been selected by the National Party to contest the State elections. Consequently that person, Mr Killoran, is equally culpable in the distortion and attempt to influence the voting of people in the Torres Strait area. The facts are, of course, that this matter was first raised with me as a result of an article that was written in 1980 and which was brought to my attention a few weeks after I assumed office as Minister by a Mr Hall who was a research student at the Australian National University. Senator Kilgariff —Mr President, I take a point of order. Surely an explanation like this should be and could be made after Question Time. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. The Minister is responding to a question asked by Senator Georges. However, I would ask the Minister to confine his remarks to the honourable senator's actual question. Senator GIETZELT —I was asked whether Mr Bird's statement is relevant. I am attempting to answer the question asked by Senator Georges. I took the initiative when this matter was drawn to my attention. In 1942 action was taken by the War Cabinet which denied certain benefits to those who served during World War II. I took the matter to the Cabinet. I had a responsibility, because of the questions raised with me by Senator Georges and other Labor representatives of north Queensland, to have this matter dealt with in the Budget presented to the Parliament in August of this year. The rectification of repatriation benefits was agreed to by the Government. It is interesting that when this article was first written back in 1980, the then Minister for Veterans ' Affairs, Mr Adermann, who is a member of the National Party of Australia, failed to act on this issue. I acted on the basis of remedying a long-standing issue affecting the rights of the Torres Strait Islanders. I find it distasteful and I take umbrage at the fact that a Minister of the Queensland Government should attempt to take credit for that initiative. Senator Georges asked a second question about the National Aboriginal Conference. In the Press statement issued by Mr Bird he asked the Torres Strait Islanders not to avail themselves of advice from the National Aboriginal Conference. That is quite contrary to the Press statement I issued on 24 August, in which I said I had designated that organisation for the purpose of disseminating information from the Government and collecting information for the Torres Strait Islanders. In point of fact, Minister Bird has created confusion and attempted to take credit for an action that is not within his province but in fact rests with the Australian Government. Senator Kilgariff —I raise a point of order. I ask the Minister to table the document to which he referred. Senator Gietzelt —I am quite happy to do so. I hope the Opposition will disown it. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I refer to an article appearing in this week's National Times which disclosed that the Queensland Ombudsman has found irregularities involving Queensland Government Ministers, in particular Mr Russ Hinze, in development approvals for a rainforest area in the Daintree district of north Queensland, which is considered by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to be one of the most important environmentally in the world. Is it a fact that the Queensland Government reversed the decisions of the local council and the Local Government Court, which had refused rezoning, and directed the Douglas Shire Council to allow residential development of the land? What action, if any, will the Australian Government now take to protect the conservation value of this unique area against what appears to be a clear conspiracy to destroy it for monetary gain? Senator RYAN —I am sure that the honourable senator who asked the question is aware of and has confidence in the record of the Labor Government with regard to the protection of the environment. I do not know anything about the detailed matters he raised. The brief I have from the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment does not cover that topic. I will refer the specific matter of the Daintree River area and the allegations in the National Times to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and seek a response for Senator Missen. Senator FOREMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, concerns the closing down in Queensland next year of the Acacia Ridge plant of General Motors-Holden's Ltd. I ask: How many jobs will be transferred to South Australia as a result of last Friday's announcement? What will be the future role of the General Motors-Holden's plant at Woodville in South Australia ? Senator BUTTON —The announced closure by General Motors-Holden's Ltd of the Acacia Ridge plant in Brisbane will lead to a net loss of employment there of something in the order of 900, 850 of whom are production staff. The assembly operations of General Motors will be transferred from Acacia Ridge to Dandenong in Victoria and to Elizabeth in South Australia. It is estimated by the company that the net gain in employment at Dandenong and Elizabeth will be in the order of 600, but I do not think there is a precise estimate of where that will occur. I am led to believe that it will be a roughly equal division between the two plants. I should say that the transfer of employment of which the company informed me and which it announced at the time of the statement about the closure of Acacia Ridge is, I believe, a very genuine estimate, but any figures about estimates of employment in the motor vehicle industry in Australia have to have regard to the continuing process of restructuring and technological change which is taking place within the industry. General Motors-Holden's had a very diverse range of situations in which its production activities were being carried on. It is hoped by the company that this step will lead to greater efficiencies and greater capacity for the company to remain a competitive manufacturer of motor vehicles in Australia. With regard to the future role of GMH's Woodville plant in South Australia, I can say only that in May of this year the company announced its intention to move many of the operations at Woodville to Elizabeth. The intention was to leave the toolroom and, I think, some design facilities and administrative staff at the Woodville plant, a total of about 500 on the completion of a period of wind-down of the Woodville plant, which would take two or three years. I have no further information regarding that matter, except to say that the future of the Woodville plant is being considered by General Motors in conjunction with the South Australian Government. The principal question which is being addressed is the possibility of an alternative use for the Woodville site of General Motors- Holden's. I cannot take the answer any further than that but, as I have indicated, I do know that it is a subject of close discussion between the relevant government and the company. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology. I ask: Has the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Executive wound down research into wind energy? In particular, have wind energy researchers in the divisions of Energy Technology, Water and Land Resources, and Mathematics and Statistics been instructed to finish their projects on wind energy, to take up other areas of research, and not to begin any new wind energy projects? Has this CSIRO policy arisen substantially as a result of pressure on the CSIRO by proponents of uranium mining and nuclear power? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided me with the following information, which I believe is appropriate in response to Senator Mason's question: The goal for wind energy research at CSIRO has been to assess the potential of wind energy resources in Australia. Research towards this goal has been carried out by the Organisation's Division of Water and Land Resources and the Division of Mathematics and Statistics. The Division of Water and Land Resources undertook a study to assess the nationwide potential for wind power as a source of energy. This was concerned with the availability of the resource, not with technology for harvesting. The project has been completed and therefore has been terminated in the normal course of events, not as a consequence of any specific instruction. The two divisions, in co-operation, recently conducted a survey of wind energy potential in the north-east of Tasmania. The results are being evaluated. CSIRO decided to terminate work on wind energy applications in the Division of Energy Technology. This was in accord with advice by a committee which reviewed the former Division of Mechanical Engineering in 1981 and the Advisory Council's advice that CSIRO resources devoted to wind energy research could be more effectively deployed elsewhere. The scientist in question was accordingly instructed by the chief of the Division not to proceed further with studies in this area. CSIRO policy has not resulted from pressure by proponents of uranium mining and nuclear power. The CSIRO does not conduct nuclear power research. Senator MASON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Are we to take it from the Minister's response that, in a situation where advanced technology and development of that technology for generators in the megawatt range is proceeding successfully and has been for some years in almost every other country, the Australian Government has decided to abandon this area of research? If not, what steps are being taken to follow that research? Senator RYAN —I think Senator Mason can infer from my answer that the CSIRO is not involved in the development of technology, but rather, as my previous answer pointed out, is involved with research into the potential for wind energy. As to whether there are other areas in which the Australian Government is encouraging the technology for wind power, I will have to refer that matter to my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology and seek information for Senator Mason. Senator ROBERT RAY —Does the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs recall the re- commendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts which recommended the provision of adequate arrangements for refresher courses and access to libraries and seminars for those women academics who resign at some stage of their career because of family responsibilities? Can the Minister inform the Senate as to the progress in this matter? Finally, when will the Minister be in a position to respond to the report on tenure tabled in the Senate in September 1982? Senator RYAN —I think the first part of Senator Robert Ray's question referred to the tenure report and recommendations. The Government has taken a number of steps to consult with everybody affected by the tenure report and its recommendations in preparation for an official Government response. It will, of course, be up to individual institutions to implement the recommendations relating to special measures to assist women who have been previously disadvantaged in their employment as academics. At this stage I am aware of several major tertiary institutions which have employed equal opportunity officers. I expect that part of the duties of those equal opportunity officers will be to address themselves to those recommendations of the tenure report. At this stage I have not received any specific advice regarding steps that individual institutions have taken. I expect to do so. With regard to the final part of Senator Ray's question, relating to the timetable for a Government response to the tenure report, I can report to Senator Ray and to the Senate that we have taken a number of steps to prepare that Government position. I have discussed the matter of academic tenure with the higher education round table in meetings in April and September this year. I have also raised the matter for discussion and comment with the Federation of College Academics and the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations at their annual general meetings in August and with the Australian Vice- Chancellors Committee recently. In addition, I have raised the issue of tenure with university and college staff associations during my visits to campuses around the country. The Government's education and youth affairs sub-committee will also be meeting with the relevant unions to discuss a response to the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on the tenure matter. In conclusion, the Government is aware of the great interest in this matter and is aware of the many disadvantages that some sections of the academic community have suffered because of current tenure arrangements. In particular, those disadvantages are suffered by women who, because of direct and indirect discriminatory employment practices in the past, generally speaking have not been able to secure tenured positions. Only a very small proportion of tenured positions are held by women within universities and most of those are at a junior level. So, a proportionately large number of women are currently in untenured positions. Similarly, the opportunities for new post-doctoratal graduates or post-graduates who have entered employment in universities in recent years to obtain tenured employment have been very poor because of the static situation and the arrangement of positions between tenured and non- tenured staff that has prevailed in recent years. We are very concerned about the need to find opportunities for academics to secure permanent employment on an equitable basis. The matter is a complex one and is being dealt with in the consultative way that I have described to the Senate. I point out also that because of the growth in the tertiary sector which the Government's policies will secure-there has been a considerable growth in the academic budget for this forthcoming year and extra money has been made available by the Government for increased participation-undoubtedly there will be new positions available within institutions. With these measures in hand and with the measures which are likely to be strengthened in forthcoming Budgets, I think the academic community can expect a growth in secure tenured employment for academics. I hope we will be able to make an official response within the next few months to the tenure position which will be encouraging and optimistic for people in academic employment and those seeking to enter academic employment . Senator ARCHER —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. Is the Government's current exchange rate policy designed primarily to fight inflation by controlling the money supply? Can the Minister advise how much consideration has been given to the employment consequences of the policy? What is the Government's best estimate of the increased numbers of unemployed directly resultant therefrom? The PRESIDENT —I call the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. Senator WALSH —I thank Senator Archer for the compliment of describing me as the Minister for Finance. I am, of course, as you correctly stated, Mr President, the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. The Government's exchange rate policy is determined by a number of considerations, some of which Senator Archer mentioned. It is continually under review and will probably be reviewed again by Cabinet next week. But in regard to the more specific details, I will ask the Minister for Finance, although the matter more appropriately falls within the responsibility of the Treasurer, whether he has anything to add to that answer. Senator ARCHER —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Were the considerations of employment taken into account? Senator WALSH —The considerations which Senator Archer mentioned, amongst others , were, of course, taken into account and will continue to be. Senator TATE —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy whether his attention has been drawn to the Tasmanian Auditor-General's report into the Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania which was recently published. Does it show, amongst other things, that the Hydro-Electric Commission made a loss of $4.1m in 1982-83 which was the first loss in 10 years, with the major cause of the loss being the increase in interest charges which it imposed on consumers? Did it show also that the Hydro-Electric Commission ignored normal processes in the letting of contracts for the Gordon below Franklin scheme in order to speed up work on the project? Has this assessment by the Auditor-General calling in question the commecial judgment and, indeed, the propriety of the Hydro-Electric Commission affected any negotiations between governments as to compensation, particularly regarding tenderers for construction of the Crotty Village? Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to the Tasmanian Auditor-General's report or the annual report, I am not sure which it was, of the Tasmanian Hydro- Electric Commission. Senator Chipp —Did you say it has or it has not? Senator WALSH —It has been drawn to my attention, but I have not unfortunately, yet been able to obtain a copy of it. But from the information that has been supplied to me-- Senator Archer —By Senator Tate. Senator WALSH —No, not by Senator Tate. Senator Tate —It is in the Mercury. Senator WALSH —As Senator Tate said, it has been published in the Hobart Mercury and probably in other newspapers. From my recollection of that report and the other information that I have received on the subject, yes, it is correct that the Hydro-Electric Commission recorded a loss in the last financial year and that that loss is substantially attributable to the very much higher interest rates which the Commission is now obliged to pay. The Commission, in company with some other electricity commissions is rolling over loans raised many years ago at interest rates of 5 to 7 per cent and is replacing them with loans at interest rates of 14 and 15 per cent. That means, of course, a continuing financial problem for the HEC and for some other electricity commissions. There was also an absolute decline in consumption for probably the first time ever by major bulk users. I am also informed that the report draws attention to the speeding up of construction and the letting of contracts on the Gordon below Franklin project and also reveals that the final costing of the Pieman scheme has not yet been finalised. Prima facie that conflicts with statements made by Tasmanian Government officials that contracts have been let already for power which will be available from the Pieman scheme and the long standing alleged policy of the HEC that these contracts are not let until costs have finally been determined. So there is some conflict there as well. As to whether it will affect the discussions regarding compensation with the Commonwealth, subject to further investigation as to the accuracy and significance of those findings, it seems to me that, at the very least, to the extent that information and figures supplied to the Commonwealth in the past have now been questioned by the State Auditor- General, it is a matter which must be taken into account by the Commonwealth when pursuing discussions with Tasmanian Government officials. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is it true that the Caucus legal and administrative committee last night failed to agree on the Government's national crimes authority legislation and instead referred it to a sub-committee? Given that this sub-committee will not report back until at least next week and the Parliament is not sitting the following week, when does the Attorney-General now believe he will be in a position to bring the legislation before the Senate? Has this further delay once again placed in jeopardy the Prime Minister's undertaking to have an effective national crimes commission operating by early next year? Senator GARETH EVANS —I wish that Senator Hill would devote as much attention to cleaning up the internal affairs of his own Party as he is devoting to the affairs of the Labor Government. The truth of the matter is that the first draft -and it was a first draft only-of a national crimes authority Bill was considered and discussed at considerable length by a party committee last night, and that draft is being further considered by a special sub-committee set up for that particular purpose. I am not in a position to make a final judgment as to when a Bill will appear in this Parliament. If I were, I would be the last person to tell Senator Hill. Senator COOK —My question, which is to the Minister for Resources and Energy, follows on the one I asked yesterday of the Attorney-General concerning the reported allegations of Mr Christo Moll. Is the Minister aware that the reported allegations of Mr Moll assert dealings with prominent figures in the Western Australian Liberal Party of Australia? Is the Minister also aware of any evidence linking Christo Moll with a prominent Western Australian Liberal Party figure? Senator WALSH —Mr President, there is some prima facie evidence of such a link. I have before me a copy of a cheque drawn on the-I apologise for my pronounciation -Algemene Bank of the Netherlands numbered 809917 and dated 4 April 1978. The cheque is made out for $HK200,000 and is payable to the National Bank of Australasia Ltd. Incidentally, at the present exchange rate $HK200,000 is about $A30,000. I am not so sure of what it was then. However, that cheque has ' cancelled' written across it. I also have a copy of a cheque numbered 809918- that is the next cheque-which has on it the same details as to amount and is made payable to the National Bank of Australasia. It is overstamped 'The National Bank of Australasia . . . Albermarle Street, London', indicating that the cheque was paid into an account. Both cheques are signed, and although the signature is not particularly legible it is clearly identifiable from previously published signatures as the signature of C. T. Moll, that is Christo Moll, and are drawn on a company called Mogill Ltd. Copies of the butts to both the cheques are also before me. Butt No. 809918- that is, the butt of the cheque that apparently was paid into an account-has marked on it: 'Fund ex-Crichton-Browne'. Crichton-Browne is spelt with an 'e'. Butt No. 809917 records, inter alia, 'N. Crichton-Browne'-again with an 'e'-'a/c Mogill'. I table the photocopies of the cheques and butts, Mr President. Senator PETER BAUME —My question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relates to Press reports that the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation will not be submitting a formal response to the report of the Committee of Review into the Impact of Radford College until some time in November. I ask the Minister: In view of her Department's advice to some non- government school groups that no formal extensions would be granted to them past the 30 September deadline, has some special concession been made for the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation and, if so, for what reason? Is this an example of special treatment being given to friends of the Minister? Senator RYAN —No group has been denied the opportunity to put in a late submission. The only request for a late submission that I can recall seeing has been from the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation. I have said in my discussions with people in the community that if they are unable to complete their comments on the report by the end of September they can request the opportunity to present their views later. The reason for this is that we want a genuine community discussion on this report. It has been extremely controversial . I think it is a very interesting report which makes some very sensible suggestions about future planning for the development of all school systems in the Australian Capital Territory. There is certainly no intention on the part of either me or the Government to prevent any legitimate comment on it. However, I think it would be desirable if all groups and individuals interested could resolve their views quickly so that the Government can proceed to taking their views into account and making a response before the end of the year. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister accept that, perhaps through inadvertence, certain advice was given to some of the other organisations that an extension of time was unlikely? In view of what the Minister has said, will she assure any other organisations that if they wish it they may have the same extension of time as has been granted for the Teachers Federation? Senator RYAN —As I said, I have received only that one notification from an organisation needing further time, but I am happy to consider sympathetically any other such requests. Senator COLSTON —Has the attention of the Acting Minister for Health been drawn to an advertisement, which appeared in many Queensland newspapers on Monday and yesterday, which attacked the introduction of Medicare? Were these advertisements placed by the Queensland Government at the expense of Queensland taxpayers? Were the claims in the advertisement deliberately misleading? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have seen the advertisement which appeared in the Courier- Mail on Monday this week. In fact, I have it before me. The advertisement is an interesting one in that it appeared on Monday-incidentally, it contains a photograph of the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, and the interim Minister for Health, Mr Bertoni-and underneath it are the words: 'Authorised by Mr S. Schubert, Co-ordinator General Premier's Department'. The next day Mr Schubert complained to the Courier-Mail. In fact, he was quite mortified at the thought that he had in fact authorised the advertisement. He said he had not authorised it, he had authorised only the payment for it. That clarifies the first part of Senator Colston's question. It seems that yes, the advertisement was paid for by the taxpayers of Queensland. One cannot blame Mr Schubert. We know what happens in Queensland if public servants do not do what they are told, no matter how right or wrong they think it is to do so. As to whether the advertisement is accurate, I must say that I find it quite ironic that the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Government use public funds in this way to put out advertisements which are inaccurate about the Medicare scheme, which will in fact benefit the Queensland public in general. I find it particularly ironic because in the last couple of years of the previous Federal Government it almost halved the expenditure available to Queensland for its hospital and health services, yet we saw no advertisements and heard no complaints at all from the Premier of Queensland or from any member of the Queensland Government. I remind honourable senators that the support for Queensland hospitals will increase from the $93m provided by the previous Federal Government to $173m in the first full year of Medicare. The advertisement is also very misleading in its claim that under Medicare Queensland will subsidise other States, or, according to the advertisement, southern States. This can be countered simply by referring to the figures. The Medicare levy in Queensland will raise some $146m. Queenslanders in return will receive $260m in extra funds and benefits for their health care system. Believe me, they need it. Put simply, the Queensland Premier is using Queenslanders' funds to campaign against Queenslanders receiving additional benefits under the Medicare system. The Premier would prefer, in fact, to see Queenslanders queueing up in a public hospital outpatients' department rather than having the right automatically to go to their own doctors and be covered for that under Medicare. He is using Queenslanders' money to try to discredit a program that will increase the freedom of choice for Queenslanders in relation to health care needs and which will give them access to a whole range of health care benefits that they do not have now: That is, automatic cover for visits to their own doctors; the right to extra funds for their private and public hospitals; the right to extra funds for community health centres; the right to cheaper, affordable private health care cover if they desire it; and, most importantly, the guarantee of survival of Queensland's free public hospital system which, as Senator Colston and other Queensland senators would know, has been run down in recent years. The fact that the National Party and, one may suppose, the Liberal Party in Queensland have stooped so low to produce advertisements like this at the expense of the Queensland taxpayer for election purposes is an indication of how insecure they feel during the present election campaign and how desperate they are to raise issues for which they can try to get some credit for their own Government. I do not believe that Medicare will be an election issue in Queensland. The Queensland people quite clearly will benefit from Medicare, both in their dealings with private medical practitioners and in enabling their public hospital services to be upgraded. I find it quite deplorable that public funds should be used in this way in a pre-election period. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. I refer to the overt, obvious and pathetic attempts of the Government to use Question Time against the Queensland Government. Is the Minister for Finance aware that Queensland has 16.1 per cent of Australia's population? Is he aware that Queensland had only 6.6 per cent of industrial disputes in the first five months of the Hawke Government? Is he aware that 20.3 per cent of the foreign investment proposals by value in the year to June 1982 were in Queensland? Is he aware that over 20 per cent of actual fixed capital expenditure in the 12 months to March 1983 occurred in Queensland? Is he aware that more than 20 per cent of expected capital expenditure for the 12 months to 30 June 1984 will be in Queensland? I further ask him whether he is aware-this is a matter of which I hope he would be aware-that in the three years ended August 1983 there were 42,200 new jobs created in Queensland, whilst there were losses of jobs totalling 47,800 in New South Wales, 19,200 in Victoria and 12, 300 in South Australia in the same period. I further ask the Minister whether he is aware that in the three years ended June 1983 there was a net inflow of 86, 600 people to Queensland from other States compared with net outflows of 34,589 from New South Wales, 40,900 from Victoria, and 17,420 from South Australia. In other words, I ask the Minister whether he is aware that Australians have voted with their feet, their money and their jobs and gone to Queensland because they believe there is a greater chance for them in that State than in New South Wales , Victoria or South Australia. Senator WALSH —The first question Senator Chaney asked referred to industrial disputes over the five-month period ended-I am not sure- Senator Chaney —It referred to the first five months of the Hawke Government. Senator WALSH —It referred to the first five months of the Hawke Government which, depending on whether we count March, would be the five months ended July. I do not have the figures for those five months. I do, however, happen to have the figures for July of 1983, which show that Queensland lost 492 working days per thousand employees through industrial disputes, which is the highest of any of the States and well above the national average of 289 days lost per month. Therefore, among other things, one can conclude from that that such statistics are highly variable. I am not challenging the veracity of the statistics Senator Chaney has produced. They are probably accurate as far as they go. But in the most recent month for which statistics are available, the situation is quite the reverse of that which Senator Chaney presented for the five months. Senator Button —That is because of the Liberal Party disappearing. Senator WALSH —I do not think it disappeared quite that early, but I will come back to that later, Senator Button. I am also aware of the fact that the participation rate-again using the most recent statistics available-in Queensland in the most recent month, August 1983, is lower than it is for South Australia and considerably lower than it is for the nation as a whole. The respective figures are: Queensland, 58.6 per cent; South Australia, 58.8 per cent; and Australia 59.8 per cent. In spite of that very low participation rate, for the 12 months ended August 1983, Queensland's unemployment rate had gone up to 10.1 per cent. As I said in the Senate a couple of days ago, that is an increase of 65 per cent in the unemployment rate in just 12 months and an increase very much in excess of the national average. With regard to the other matters that Senator Chaney raised, it is correct that investment was quite heavy in Queensland until quite recently. It was associated with the development of the State's nationwide resources, a development which, for mainly external factors, granted, is now slowing down very rapidly and arguably grinding to a halt. Queensland was, through the years of 1981 and 1982, the beneficiary of fortunate circumstances beyond its control. Senator Boswell —Good government. Senator WALSH —I will come back to that in a minute. Economic activity in Queensland in that period was also stimulated by real estate and construction booms, principally on the Gold Coast, but also in other areas-booms which, like all booms, have now inevitably collapsed. It also had the benefit until quite recently of a Liberal Party Treasurer, who at least exerted some restraining influence on the eccentric behaviour of the Queensland Premier and his Party and his sponsorship of people like Dr Shrian Oskar, Milan Brych and Stephen Horvath. That moderating influence of the Liberal Party has now been removed. Senator Boswell —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I seek your indulgence. I ask whether it is in order for Senator Walsh to continually attack the Premier of Queensland, to use his response as a vehicle to denigrate the Premier. I can assure him that the people of Queensland will not tolerate it for one minute. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I point out that the Minister is replying to a long and detailed question from the Leader of the Opposition. Senator WALSH —It was a long and detailed question which, among other things, sought facts and opinions regarding the present economic stagnation of Queensland and, if one goes back a couple of years, its relative prosperity for reasons which I have already enumerated. In regard to the Queensland Premier, I shall not pass judgment on him. I think judgment will be passed on him by the people of Queensland because he, through his intransigence or worse, removed from the Queensland Government the moderating and rational influence, so far as it went, of the Queensland Liberal Party and, particularly, the Queensland Treasurer. In other words, I think we can let the Queensland Premier be judged by the company he chooses and the people he has sponsored. As I have said, they include that convicted criminal Milan Brych, the international con man Shrian Oskar-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I think the Minister is now debating the matter. Senator Chaney —Mr President-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition, to ask a supplementary question. Senator Chaney —No, I rise-- Government members interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator CHANEY —All right, Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I have in front of me the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for the labour force in Australia in August 1983. I ask a question of the Minister in the light of what I see as his misrepresentation of the figures as between Adelaide and Brisbane. In answer to my question the Minister stated that the participation rate in Brisbane was lower than that-- Government senators-Queensland, he said. Senator CHANEY —In Queensland. Can the Minister confirm that the participation rate in Brisbane is a rate of 58.8 per cent and that the participation rate in Adelaide is 58.3 per cent? The PRESIDENT —Order! I do not know that that is, in fact, a supplementary question. I shall allow it, but I would ask the Minister to bear in mind that it is additional information that is sought. Senator WALSH —I shall be very brief, Mr President. The figures that I have in front of me are identical to those cited by Senator Chaney, that is, that the participation rate-I shall not explain what that term means-in Brisbane is higher than the rate in Adelaide. I should have thought, though, that the Government of Queensland, above all, claimed to be a government for the whole State and not just a government for the city of Brisbane. Looking at the whole State, the situation is reversed. The participation rate for Queensland is 58.6 per cent. The participation rate for South Australia is 58.8 per cent. Yet in spite of that, Queensland's unemployment percentage in the 12 months for which we have the most recently available statistics shows a massive increase of 65 per cent, in spite of a lower participation rate than that of South Australia, and a lower participation rate than that of the nation as a whole. Senator RYAN —On Thursday, 6 October, I answered a question in the Senate from Senator Lewis regarding tertiary student hostels in Victoria. I indicated at that time that I had not seen any representations from the Victorian Minister for Education, Mr Fordham, on this subject. I have now seen a letter from the Victorian Minister for Education advising me that the Victorian Government intends to dispose of a number of existing hostels and to convert others for the use of primary and secondary students from the country visiting Melbourne for work experience or excursion activities. In my answer I also indicated that the matter of accommodation for tertiary students is currently under review by the Tertiary Education Commission and that that review would be completed this year. I have now been advised that this review will not be completed until April 1984 and will be released as part of the report of the Tertiary Education Commission for the triennial report 1985-87, volume 1. Senator RYAN —At Question Time today I was asked a question by Senator Peter Baume concerning an extension of time allowed for public comment on the Radford report. I should like to confirm that no organisation has been refused an extension. This is despite the fact that the Canberra Times of today carried a report to the effect that the Catholic Education Office was refused an extension , and that the Canberra Church of England Girls Grammar School was given an extension of only three days. This report is wrong. For the benefit of the Senate, I repeat that no organisation has been refused an extension. I understand that the Canberra Church of England Girls Grammar School will be correcting the report in the Canberra Times. I should also point out that not only has an extension been agreed on for the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation but also an extension has been agreed for the National Council of Independent Schools. Senator GIETZELT —Senator Georges asked me a question relating to Torres Strait Islanders at Question Time today. I have been advised by my Department that there has been no contact from the Queensland Minister, Mr Bird, or his Department, or the Queensland Government, with the present Federal Government about this matter since the election in March this year. There is no indication on any current file of any contact or representations from the Queensland Government or Department about retrospective payments. I can now confirm that there has been no such approach for at least the last five years. My Department is currently searching archive files to determine whether any earlier representations were made by the Queensland Government on this matter. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —by leave-Mr President, I understand that at Question Time Senator Walsh, by implication, was suggesting that I had had some connection with a Mr Christo Moll. He implied that I had received a payment, I think, from Mr Moll. Is that the suggestion you are making, Senator Walsh? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will direct his remarks to the Chair. He is making a personal explanation. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am sorry, Mr President. I do not make a habit of listening to what Senator Walsh says, as a rule, so I did not hear all that he said. I simply say that to my knowledge I have never met Mr Christo Moll. If he jumped up from my Weeties tomorrow morning at breakfast, I would not recognise him. I have had no business dealing with him, directly or indirectly. I deny that these cheques are in any way connected with me, directly or indirectly. If Senator Walsh is so clever and has some cheques which imply that my name is written on the cheque butt, I should have thought that he would be able to trace the cheques and find out where they arrived and to whom they were paid. That appears not to be the case so far. I simply restate that I have no business dealings with Mr Moll, directly or indirectly. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-I drew attention to the fact that certain words were written, among others, on the cheque butts. I did not mention Senator Crichton-Browne. Senator Crichton-Browne —You are a grub. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will withdraw that remark. Senator Crichton-Browne —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator WALSH —I did not mention Senator Crichton-Browne. It was in response to a question from Senator Cook regarding statements previously reported, statements from Mr Moll. I simply tabled that document and drew attention to some of the matters, the names that were written on the butt. I did not mention Senator Crichton-Browne. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Jones proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The adverse effects on Commonwealth-State financial programs caused by the political instability and mismanagement of the Queensland Government in total disregard for the people of Queensland. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator JONES(Queensland)(3.09) —I raise this matter of public importance: The adverse effects on Commonwealth-State financial programs caused by the political instability and mismanagement of the Queensland Government in total disregard for the people of Queensland. I have to say that it should be quite obvious to everyone why the Australian Labor Party is bringing up this matter for debate. During Question Time today it was clearly shown that there were a number of areas in which the Bjelke-Petersen Government had certainly mismanaged the economy within the Queensland area of government. I believe that the Bjelke-Petersen Government could be attacked for underspending, for the money that it has not spent-the money given to it under grants from the Commonwealth Government. This includes money under the water supply scheme, money saved from the wages pause, money granted to it for housing , money granted for industry and for soil conservation, and grants from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. All that money paid across to the Bjelke- Petersen Government has been underspent and, because the Government has not spent the money handed across to it, further unemployment has been created within Queensland. We find a lack of action by the State Government. It has not even tried to spend all the money granted to it by the Commonwealth Government to overcome the unemployment that has occurred in the State. The Commonwealth Government made $15.9m available to the Queensland Government for job creation programs in the six months ending 30 June 1983 from money saved during the wages pause. Out of this only $1m has been spent for its intended purpose. The rest has been invested on the short term money market in a desperate effort to shore up the State's Budget deficit at the expense of the unemployed. This is evident right through the actions of the State Government. As recently as 11 October 1983, when the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, was in Queensland, a headline in a newspaper read: 'Joh will not co-operate'. The article originated in Toowoomba, and stated: Mr Hawke repeatedly emphasised his claim that about $42m allocated to the Queensland Government from the Commonwealth employment program for water supply schemes in country towns had not been spent. In other words, what the State Government has done is to allow unemployment to continue to grow. It has not spent any of the money allocated to it by the Commonwealth Government to try to overcome the problems of unemployment in that area. Because of the time constraints I shall not read all the unemployment figures in this table, but seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- QUEENSLAND STATISTICS (These are the latest available-new figures due out on Thursday, 13 October) 1983 1982 Total unemployed, Queensland (up 61.2%) (Aug.) 109,000 (10.1%) (Aug.) 67,000 (6.5%) Total unemployed in Brisbane (up 60.3%) (Aug.) 46,400 (9.3%) (Aug.) 28,100 (5.8%) Total in non-metro. areas (up 58.5%) (Aug.) 62,600 (10.8%) (Aug.) 39,500 (7.1%) Job vacancies (down 56.14%) (May) 1,700 (May) 3,900 Job vacancies per 1,000 unemployed (May) 15.1 (May) 60 New dwelling approvals (down 11.9%) (June 1/4) 6,985 (June 1/4) 7,930 New dwelling commencements (down 28.3%) (Mar. 1/4) 5,760 (Mar. 1/4) 8,030 New motor vehicle registrations (down 5.1%) (Aug.) 10,047 (Aug.) 10,591 Senator JONES —If honourable senators look at those figures they will understand the points being made in relation to the State Government not spending money on unemployment. Another area in which the Bjelke-Petersen Government has failed to spend the money allocated to it is in regard to allocations from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The Grants Commission estimates that the Bjelke- Petersen Government underspent by $11.4m in 1980-81, the latest figures available, on service to industries, indicating the level of neglect of this industrial and manufacturing sector that is so important to economic recovery in that State and Australia as a whole. I repeat that $11.4m is estimated by the Grants Commission to have been underspent by the Queensland Government. That Government, out of an appropriation of some $920m on 2 August, had spent $652m by the end of September. The Bjelke-Petersen minority Cabinet that was appointed after that time is rapidly running out of the money needed to pay the wages of 140,000 public servants-police, teachers, railway workers, clerks and other people employed in the Public Service. The Queensland Government has a wages bill of $10m per day. Many, if not most, of the State's vital expenditure programs are being shamelessly deferred in a desperate effort to shore up the State's reserves until the election on 22 October. What the Premier does not want the people of Queensland to know is that the taxpayers' money needed to keep Queensland running and to foot the enormous bill for the National Party's election advertising is coming from those expenditure programs and trust funds and special funds that have been set up for the benefit of ordinary people. Recalling a question asked about this at Question Time, it is quite obvious that Government members and public servants are authorising advertisements that are being placed in the newspapers. Some of the areas that are at risk because of the Government's transfer of funds to the election campaign are the Aboriginal Welfare Fund, the Workers Compensation Fund, the Children's Services Special Standing Fund, the Drought Relief Fund, the Gateway Bridge Trust Fund, the Hospital Rebuilding Fund, the National Fitness Fund, the Police Superannuation Fund, and the State Service Superannuation Fund. (Quorum formed) Another two areas at risk are the Queensland Road Safety Council Fund and the Motor Vehicle Insurance Nominal Defendant Fund. A total of $1.3 billion was appropriated to these and other funds on 2 August without a proper budget and with a complete redirection of spending towards election matters. The budgets of some departments are now hopelessly muddled. The departments have had to spend their money on party political campaigning for the National Party, which will severely restrict their expenditure programs next year. They will have to cut costs and cut corners to make up the shortfall, at a time when they should be trying to provide jobs, because their budgets have been manipulated to keep the Bjelke-Petersen minority Government in power. In regard to the rural sector, Queensland's agricultural industry contributed $ 2,800m to the economy in 1980-81, or about 25 per cent of the State's gross domestic product. That is a decrease in the proportions of gross domestic product of far more than 25 per cent since 1960-61. Despite the professed concern of the National Party for the interests of the rural sector, it has been shown in successive Commonwealth Grants Commission reports to have provided less than adequate financial and technical assistance to our rural based industries. The neglect of areas such as soil conservation, water resources, agriculture, livestock production, the sugar industry, and the provision of adequate transport services, is precisely shown in these Grants Commission reports. While on the subject of the rural sector, Bjelke-Petersen has been complaining that the Federal Government has not given to him, or to his Government, money for soil conservation on the Darling Downs. The Grants Commission estimates that the Queensland Government has underspent by $1m per annum in the area of soil conservation. Let the Premier explain that away. Queensland has underspent on rural water supplies and irrigation. Examples of neglect include the Burdekin Dam, which had a high priority in 1957 during the time of the State Labor Government but which has taken the National-Liberal Party Government 26 years to initiate. Of course it took the Hawke Labor Government to finance the building of the wall of the Burdekin Dam. Only now is the Burdekin Dam assured of being built, after the Hawke Labor Government contributes to the total cost of stage 1 of the project, of which $13m is to be spent in the 1983-84 financial year. Rural Queensland needs water supplies which are practical and economical, not pie in the sky Bradford schemes which the former Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Sir John Carrick, described as economic nonsense. I think Senator Boswell is one of the promoters of the Bradford scheme. The Bradford scheme, if initiated, would cost the Queensland taxpayer $1,400m in current prices and would jeopardise other rural oriented projects. We can go a little further in looking at primary industry. No relief was offered to the fishing industry in Queensland when it was reeling from the effects of the drought on fish breeding grounds. But it is hardly surprising when one reads the 1982 Commonwealth Grants Commission report which estimates that the Queensland Government underspent on the fishing industry at the rate of $1.4m per year. More than 10 per cent of Queensland's grazing properties and pastoral holdings are estimated to be under foreign control. A similar percentage is believed to apply to urban centres such as the Gold Coast. I will not look at the list I have of foreign investment because I have said it before and I believe the people of Queensland are well aware of the fact that foreign investment in Queensland is higher than in any other State except Western Australia. A distinction must be made between those foreign investments which are long term, which increase production and create jobs, and those which are purely speculative. Speculative investment drives up rural and urban land values and makes it difficult and more expensive for Queenslanders to compete in the purchase of land and property. A typical example of that is a property in Warwick-a property which was owned by an Australian family for over 100 years- which has been purchased by a Japanese company for $1.3m. In relation to minerals and the resource boom that we hear the Premier talking about, currently 57 per cent of the resource projects announced by the Queensland Government, are in limbo. According to a document produced by the State Department of Commercial and Industrial Development entitled 'Major Development Projects and Proposals 1982' projects shelved or postponed include the following-and Senator Walsh will be interested in this one-Rundle shale oil, $5.2 billion; Alcan Australia Ltd aluminium smelter, $1.1 billion; Lend Lease coke plant, $1.2 billion; Accor coal liquefaction plant, Millmerran, $2.8 billion and Occidental Minerals Corporation petroleum chemical plant, $2.3 billion. Of the 83 projects listed by the Department of Commercial and Industrial Development, it is estimated that 48 have been indefinitely postponed or cancelled. Forty-eight of those 83 projects proposed and written about in the 'Major Development Projects and Proposals 1982' have either been shelved or postponed. On 22 October that situation in Queensland will change and we will have in power Keith Wright, a Labor Premier, who will, I believe, be able to bring about the development of some of those projects cancelled or shelved by the Premier. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(3.23) —We are debating the matter of public importance proposed by Senator Gerry Jones, namely: The adverse effects on Commonwealth-State financial programs caused by the political instability and mismanagement of the Queensland Government in total disregard for the people of Queensland. Naturally I reject outright the allegations contained in that. We have just listened to Senator Jones. I could understand it a little if he were a senator from another State but for a senator supposedly from and representing the State of Queensland in this august chamber to come down here with such allegations about a State which is probably doing more than any other State to advance this country, to meet our balance of payments, to meet exports and all the rest of it , is abhorrent. He made quite a few allegations. These allegations were-- Senator Jones —I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I made the allegations because I believe the people of Queensland should be well aware of what is happening in their State and what action is not being taken by the State Government in that State. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —There is no point of order. Senator COLLARD —I am quite sure that they are well aware and they will indicate their awareness on 22 October. It is becoming a bit of a running hare on the matter of the State being likely to run out of Supply. Of course, this chamber is not unused to that sort of argument. But let me assure the public servants of Queensland, be they railway workers or teachers-all those who are named as people to whip up this fear complex-that they will be paid come next pay day. There is money in the till, the election will come along, the Government will be returned and everything will carry on. Senator Jones also mentioned problems with the rural industry. A senator from the Labor Government highlights problems in the rural industry! What happened to the rural industry in this Government's last Budget? He mentioned soil conservation. Might I mention what has happened to the tax deductibility for clearing and swamp drainage? What has happened to fuel excise? What has happened to the rebate on the cost of freight or fuel? All these innovations by the new Labor Government in its recent Budget are certainly not there to help the people in our great rural industry. What about all the help that we were going to get for the sugar industry as promised by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, and by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, when they went to north Queensland prior to the last election? What has that come to? It has come to nothing, except that one has to admit that $10m has gone into the Rural Reconstruction Board for loans. There is nothing about the underwriting of the 1983 crop, let alone the 1982 crop, as was promised. But the people of north Queensland have not been fooled. To my knowledge that same $10m has been hawked around by Mr Hawke twice at least-he has been there recently so it may have been hawked around a third time-that same $10m which is only going into the RRB and will ultimately be there just for loans anyhow. Such is the deviousness of this Administration. Senator Jones also mentioned the mining industry or the resource industries in Queensland. During the last recess I was in Weipa. It was there that I was reminded that Weipa was the first great resources program which got Queensland going again after years and years of the Dark Ages until 1957. It obviously needed men of vision, and overseas capital as well as Australian capital. Of course, since then, the history of Queensland has changed markedly because of the resources boom. Even though there is a world downturn at this time we are still opening new mines. Senator Jones never addressed himself to that program. I think Boundary Creek opened recently. Mount Isa Mines Ltd is going ahead with its mine and all the ancillaries at Abbot Point for the shipment of that coal. So even though there is a world economic downturn, the Queensland mining situation is going steadily ahead. Sure, some might be on the backburner, as would be expected. But this is in marked contrast to what has happened in other States. Queensland was still exporting coal when we saw Wran's armada-everybody knows about it-off the shores of New South Wales where, because of the industrial problems in New South Wales, the whole coal industry in that State just about folded up. There were 30 or 40 ships off Newcastle and Port Kembla-Wran's armada , as it became known. All that time the Queensland resources were going steadily ahead. We are, as usual, playing our part in the great resource industries of Australia and helping our balance of trade. Senator Jones mentioned the community employment program. It was mentioned just as though Queensland was the only State that was having difficulties with the Commonwealth on coming up with the guidelines of how the CEP should be formulated. I state here and now that we are not the only State; other States have had their particular problems with this Government. The Labor States have had their problems with the Labor Commonwealth Government. For that reason, the CEP has hardly got going in any State. Some of the original money-- Senator Reynolds —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I should like to say that there are in fact two projects going ahead-one in Tasmania and one in South Australia. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, Senator Reynolds. Senator COLLARD —Good try, Senator. You will have your turn shortly. As I was saying, the problems that confront Queensland in negotiations with this Labor Federal Government are the same as those which confront the Labor State governments. Programs are starting to go ahead in spite of all those difficulties. I might add that the original money for the CEP came from the wages pause which was initiated by the Fraser-Anthony Government. Every time the CEP is mentioned, the water resources program to provide water for urban areas- water which would not be provided without the CEP-is mentioned also. What happened to the bicentennial water resources program? We have already had debates in this chamber on that subject. It was abandoned completely by the Labor Government when it came into power. Some of that money would have helped industry and urban areas, as well as irrigation areas. Dare I mention the Awoonga Dam on the Boyne River at Gladstone? That will go ahead, of course, with Queensland Government money. Senator Walsh —What do you reckon about the hydrogen car? Senator COLLARD —Senator Walsh should get back in his place if he wants to interject. Money for that dam was to have come from the bicentennial water resources program. The people of Gladstone should be made aware that those funds were cut off by the Labor Government. That project will go ahead with Queensland money, to the benefit of that great city and the industries in it. What about the dam on the Dawson River? That included irrigation projects and would supply water to the small country town of Theodore. Let us get rid of this hypocrisy about all the water resources programs that are not going ahead because of confrontation between State and Federal governments over the CEP. Then, of course, we have the born-again Burdekin Dam. It was nice to know that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, went to north Queensland in the winter recess and found out where the Burdekin River is. He adopted the dam program as his own. That is tremendous. At least it guarantees that the scheme will go ahead. During the autumn parliamentary session I asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, a question about what was happening about funding for the Burdekin Dam. Of course, no answer was forthcoming. But fortuitously for the people of Queensland the Prime Minister has found out where the Burdekin River is. He has been to north Queensland. He has said that the scheme will go ahead. Did he give credit where credit was due? Oh no, he implied that it was his program totally. Everybody knows that it was the previous Government's program, that the arrangement in very simple terms was that the Federal Government would build the dam wall and the Queensland Government would build the roads, provide the ancillary services and the rest of it. I am indebted to Senator Sir John Carrick for asking a question at the Estimates Committee C hearing on 12 September 1983. As recorded at page 71 of the Hansard record, Senator Sir John Carrick asked: At the time of the allocation of the $6.5m what was the arrangement between the Commonwealth Government of the day and the State Government in terms of the dam? Would you spell it out? A departmental representative, Mr Manderson, replied: The previous Government agreed to meet the full cost of the dam, which was estimated at about $85m in mid-1980 prices. The State was to meet the preliminary costs associated with the construction of the dam, mainly road works , then estimated at about $14m. The State Government was also to meet the costs of developing the irrigation works, which were then estimated at about $109m. At that Estimates Committee hearing a departmental offical indicated that the plans were in place and the dam was to be built. The only problem, of course, was that it looked as though the scheme was in jeopardy when the Labor Government came to office and disbanded the bicentennial water resources program . As I said, the current Prime Minister went to Queensland, found out where north Queensland is and where the Burdekin Dam is, so it is now assured that the program will go ahead. I am thankful for that. Of course, the Prime Minister has been around Queensland like Santa Clause twice now. I think that the people should know that the money the Prime Minister has been handing out is money that has been allocated in the Budget anyhow. He is hawking the same money once again . The people should not be under any illusion whatsoever as far as that is concerned. I am not quite sure about the allocation of $10m. We seem to have an extra $10m to be spent on roads. The Prime Minister announced that, I think, in Brisbane. When he reached Townsville he announced that a portion of it would be spent there; when he arrived at Cairns he announced that another portion would be spent there. I do not know what amount it all adds up to; it might even add up to $20m. We could have been promised $10m that not even the Treasurer (Mr Keating) knows about. I am not sure from where that money is coming. Maybe it is from some of the fat in the Budget. We found out about a couple of new items at Estimates committees hearings. Maybe there is some extra money so that when an election or a by-election comes up the Prime Minister can go around, play Santa Clause and think that he will win the hearts and the minds of the people. Mention was made of the Commonwealth Grants Commission by Senator Jones. Of course, in Queensland we have tried to keep-indeed, we have succeeded in keeping -State taxes lower than they are in other States. It is interesting that the Grants Commissioner assessed that if Queensland were taxed at the same rate as the other States are taxed on average, the State would have an additional $153m per annum in revenue. Conversely, the Queensland citizens would have $153m per annum less in their pockets. I think that should be noted. Queensland-even the Grants Commission admits this-is one of the lowest taxed States. Taxes paid in Queensland are certainly far lower than those paid in the major States. If we were taxed at the average rate of the other States the people of Queensland would be out of pocket to the extent of $153m per annum. Of course, much has been said about Queensland industry. It has been mentioned, although not so far in this debate, that General Motors-Holden's Ltd is closing down its plant at Acacia Ridge. I think one fact should be recognised-it was brought home to me by one of the employees of the GMH plant at Acacia Ridge. The employee said: 'If you look out at the employees' car park you don't see too many GMH products'. Maybe those employees know something I do not know about GMH products. Maybe because they are building the motor vehicles they do not have confidence in them. The fact is that other cars come into this country-cars of different quality, in some cases better quality, and sometimes cheaper. I guess that is what the market situation is all about. I was able to get hold of some interesting figures which show, country by country, the productivity of vehicle manufacturers and the productivity for each worker per annum in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry. The country at the top of the list, of course, is Japan with 50 vehicles for each worker per annum. In Germany, it is 20; in the United States of America, 15; in the United Kingdom , 10; and in Australia, 9.75. I was not able to obtain figures for Italy or France. We obviously have a productivity problem in Australia. Some of the blame for that problem could be sheeted home-I am not an expert on this industry-to the type of machinery that is used. A lot of other nations have gone to robotics far sooner than Australia has. Within those figures there is a certain indictment on the productivity capability of the Australian work force. People employed in those plants have to look to their own laurels if we are to maintain jobs in Australia in that industry. I do not see why the productivity of Australian workers should be any better or any worse than that of workers overseas. In Australia the workers in some industries seem to adopt the attitude that the world owes them a living. Thus, the problem associated with productivity in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry arises. It is a very sick joke really that if one buys a car that has been manufactured on a Monday or a Friday one generally has a lemon because the quality is certainly not up to the standard of cars manufactured on the other days of the week. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) at Question Time pointed out some very significant facts. No matter what we might say or what the other States might say about Queensland, people are voting with their money, they are voting with their feet-they are voting with everything they can-to show what they think about Queensland. In the three years ended August 1983 42,000 jobs were created in Queensland, compared with the loss of 47,800 jobs in New South Wales, 19,200 jobs in Victoria, and 12,300 jobs in South Australia in the same period. Senator Boswell —Queensland is providing all the jobs for Australia. Senator COLLARD —As my colleague says, Queensland is providing the jobs for Australia. That is what it amounts to. Sure, its unemployment level might be up at this stage, but what can we expect when people from the rest of the nation are going to live there? In the three years ended at June 1983 there was a net inflow of 86,661 people to Queensland from the other States, compared to net outflows of 34,589 from New South Wales, 40,913 from Victoria and 17,420 from South Australia. The runs are on the board. People are voting with their money. They are voting with their feet and coming to the State where all the action is. I wish to speak now about a table that has been shown to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), who is at the table. It was taken from the last Year Book Australia. It gives 1981-82 figures for exports and imports per State indicating whether the surplus is a plus or minus figure. It then shows the surplus per head of population. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AUSTRALIA 1981-1982 ($'000) State Exports Imports Surplus Qld 4,415,598 2,179,774 2,235,824 N.S.W. 4,604,012 9,232,245 -4,628,233 Vic. 4 ,179,936 7,169,661 -2,989,725 S.A. 1,281,956 1,337,311 -55,355 W.A. 3,988,892 2 ,535,102 1,453,790 Tas. 647,070 166,032 481,038 N.T. 386,257 373,895 12,362 A. C.T. 2,710 9,262 -6,552 State not available 79,466 . . Grant Total 19,585,898 23,003,283 -3,417,385 Surplus her head State of population Queensland +$953.44 New South Wales -$883.75 Victoria -$757.27 South Australia -$41.96 Western Australia +$1,119.16 Tasmania +$1,126.55 Northern Territory +$101.32 Australian Capital Territory -$28.86 Australia -$228.95 Senator COLLARD —I thank the Senate. In the last few minutes available to me I point out that Queensland had a surplus of exports over imports of $2,235,824, 000. New South Wales had a minus figure of $4,628,233,000. Victoria had a minus figure of $2,989,725,000. Queensland contributes to Australia's balance of trade $953.44 per head of population. The New South Wales contribution per head of population is a minus figure of $883.75. The Victorian figure is minus $757.27 and the South Australian figure is minus $41.96. Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania show surpluses. Even the Northern Territory has a surplus of $101. 32 per head of population. Again, I say that the runs are on the board. I completely reject all the allegations that are constantly brought up by the Government, particularly those which were brought up by Senator Jones in this matter of public importance today . People are coming to Queensland in greater numbers. When one looks at the figures showing Queensland's contribution per head of population to Australia's exports compared with imports one must recognise that many of the people who come to Queensland, apart from those who come because of the political and business climate, do so to retire. That, of course, detracts from those figures. The runs are on the board. I completely reject all that has been said by the Government, particularly the remarks made by Senator Jones. He is obviously looking to move to New South Wales, having made those statements. He cannot want to represent Queensland for much longer. Let him go from Queensland to New South Wales and live under that great and wonderful State Government, with all the allegations, assertions and insinuations of graft which have left a smell around the halls and corridors of power. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.44) —Madam Acting Deputy President-(Quorum formed ) People who have listened to Senator Jones and Senator Collard speaking in the Senate today will probably be excused for thinking that those senators were talking about two entirely different States. The exaggeration either in denigration or adulation I think illustrates fairly clearly the problems we have when addressing any such issue in this country. If one looks at the situation in Queensland in terms of the Government statistics which are available, one finds, for example that unemployment, an issue raised by Senator Jones and addressed by Senator Collard, has followed a fairly erratic course this year in Queensland, peaking at 11.5 per cent in February and dipping to 9.9 per cent in June. For most months of this year it has been above the national average. The total number of people employed in Queensland, has been lower in every month of this year than it was in the corresponding month last year, but this is true of the Australian economy in general. The problem is that estimating the rate of unemployment in Queensland for comparative purposes with other States is compounded by the problem of the high migration rate to Queensland, which tends to push up the State's unemployment figures. However, one ought to be careful when one looks at that factor. If people suggest, for example, that it is good that people migrate to Queensland, they cannot blame others for the problems that are brought by those who come there. I am suggesting that one must take the kicks with the pats. At the moment the Premier of Queensland is saying that it is marvellous that people come to the State and then he says problems are caused by the people who come. One cannot have it both ways. I think more sensible debates might take place if all governments accepted that they have limited control over what goes on in the economy. When things are looking good governments want to take the kudos, but when things look bad they will correspondingly have to take the blame. It might be better to mute the clamour for praise. In that way one would not have to take quite as much of the blame which necessarily results from the cyclical way in which economies rise and fall. Under the current Government, or that part of it which still lingers on, in Queensland the major employment and resource base is in agriculture, mining and tourism. Agriculture in both Queensland and the rest of Australia has been badly affected both by the world recession and by the drought. Mining has been adversely affected throughout Australia by the world recession and the corresponding downturn in commodities such as coal and copper. I do not believe that we can blame the Queensland Government for the drought or for the world recession. I think that any reasonable person who is trying to make out a case ought to acknowledge that fact at least. The industrial and manufacturing base in Queensland are geared towards the processing of products especially in the agricultrual sector. Hence abattoirs, flour mills, sugar mills and manufacturers of agricultural machinery have all been affected by these two factors-the drought and world recession. The closing down of the General Motors-Holden's Ltd plant at Acacia Ridge, which has been referred to by Senator Collard, was not brought about by the Queensland Government as it was not brought about by the Australian Government; rather it reflects adjustments in the vehicle industry in Australia which flow from absurd levels of protection which have been offered in the past and which have promoted unrealistic growth and competition in that area , which we cannot afford in this country. To blame either the Queensland Government or the Australian Government is simply to compound the absurdities which exist in economic debates in Australia. The end of the building and construction boom in Queensland merely brought it into line with other States where high interest rates and the general economic downturn have resulted in falling prices and falling demand. If anyone wants to dispute that I think they will have to put up some figures. I have not heard any in this debate so far. Queensland, by and large, is being affected in the same way as other States are being affected, regardless of the political composition of their governments. I think that fact ought to be accepted. Commonwealth payments and Loan Council approvals to Queensland have not been excessive. To be sure, on a per capita basis Queensland gets more than does New South Wales and Victoria, but that is part of the federation compact. Indeed, when one looks at the figures for 1983-84 we find that in terms of population New South Wales gets the lowest amount, followed by Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. In other words, the federation compact is being kept in 1983. The distribution of funds from the Federal level tends to be in an inverse relationship to the population of the States simply because smaller populations still need the same amount of infrastructure. I think that in any economic argument that arrangement ought to be accepted. Those things said, I do not think that the Government of Queensland cannot be criticised. For example, if one looks at the policy that the Queensland Government has enunciated, particularly in its Canberra bashing, both of the previous Government and of this Government, one will find that it has talked a lot about the necessity of keeping down the deficit. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Queensland's accumulated deficit is over $1,000m, which is almost as much as the deficits of New South Wales and Victoria combined. If the accumulated deficits of State authorities outside the Queensland Budget are added, that figure rises to something like $2,000m. This amount represents the State's public borrowing requirements to be covered by Loan Council funds borrowing and other payments. I am not quoting Queensland Government figures; for the purposes of this debate I am using comparable figures that relate to Queensland and other States. Therefore, one has to take Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. I think it is important that one looks at the way in which Queensland has managed to keep down its level of taxation by running up this deficit. I am not necessarily critical of a high deficit. I believe, and I have argued previously, that Australia could stand a high deficit. I think the good things that have followed the Queensland Government's action in having a reasonable deficit have been extremely useful for my State. However, I am pointing out that it is pretty absurd to argue on the one hand that Queensland has lower taxes and then suggest it has a lower deficit. It does not happen to have that. Queensland has the same economic structure, by and large, as every other State and the way it functions, as distinct from other States, is to run up an excessively high deficit. We can engage in a reasonable economic argument if we accept those factors. We can then weigh up whether or not we should have high or low deficits or try to run the furphy that Queensland has low income tax and a low deficit. The latter does not happen to be the case. I turn now to the decline in both price and demand for coal which has been brought about by the world recession. The current revenue from coal producers accounts for about 14 per cent of Queensland Government revenue. This excludes Federal Government grants. If this revenue cannot be increased, and if one listens to the coal producers it is probably at a maximum, the Queensland Government in the following financial year, regardless of which government wins on 22 October, will have to raise taxes or reduce expenditure or let the deficit expand. They are the only economic avenues open to the incoming government. I think it would make a lot more sense if everybody in this place accepted some of the realities of economic argument so that we can conduct a reasonable debate. So far we have heard the suggestion that somehow Queensland has been able to wave a magic wand and do things that other States cannot do. However, Queensland is caught in the same grips and faces the same economic problems as all other States. Unlike other States, Queensland has depended excessively on speculative capital. When the bubble burst the effects were much more severe in Queensland than in other States. Again, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, the downturn was about 50 per cent in real terms in 1983-84. So that dependence on speculative capital, which went way beyond anything that the other States dared undertake, has led to many of the severe problems in development industries in Queensland. I believe it is more responsible government not to go heavily into speculative capital of the kind the Queensland Government went into but rather to moderate one's demands in that area. Therefore, when the bubble bursts, as it inevitably does, the people who get hurt are not anywhere near as badly hurt as people have been in Queensland. There has been a nosedive, a crash, in my State. That is all it can be described as. I think that any responsible government that takes kudos for the good years, as the Queensland Government has done, ought to take the responsibility for the severity of the crisis which is occurring now. I think that is a responsible proposition to put to any government. To try to say 'We are totally responsible for the good things and the bad things are caused by someone else' is the operation that one finds amongst children in kindergartens and ought not to form part of economic debate. In addition, the encouragement of foreign investment in the resources area was thought to be a good thing at the time of the boom but similarly is responsible for the severity of the decline that has occurred in my State. In other words, Queensland's economy has been too dependent on speculative capital and too dependent on foreign investment which gave the appearance of rapid economic growth. Queensland did have rapid economic growth in the short term. But this has led to reversals. The Queensland Government cannot escape the criticism for its past actions in that regard and, if it is a responsible government, it ought to accept that criticism and not simply try to shimmy out from under. I believe that the current breakdown in the coalition suggests something about the state of the whole Queensland operation. If one looks at Queensland parliamentary debates in economic terms one can see that the attitude of the Queensland Government has been much the same in terms of its relationship with Canberra whether under the Liberal Fraser Government or under the Hawke Labor Party Government. The Queensland Government has been ruled by regulation. The Democrats believe that reform at the parliamentary level is of absolute necessity if there is to be reasonable economic growth and reasonable relations between the Commonwealth Government, of whatever political persuasion, and the State government. I do not believe that Queenslanders are well served by any government which seeks to promote itself at the expense of the Federation. I believe that the notion that one can have a stable government without a stable society is excessively bad. I would point only to the example of Russia which has an extremely stable government but an extremely unstable society. I prefer rather an accountable government-a government which is accountable to the people . This has not been the case in Queensland in the last 30 years or, for that matter, the last 60 years. One would hope that on 22 October the people of Queensland will see that there is very little choice in a unicameral parliament other than putting a minority government back into power and having a reasonable group of people holding the balance. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.59) —I support Senator Jones in raising this matter of public importance today. It relates to political instability in Queensland and mismanagement by the Queensland Government. It relates to the myth of resource development and growth and the reality that is now the State of Queensland. Lurking behind the glossy veneer of the growth State and the resource-rich State lies the reality of a State that is politically unstable, the reality of a State that is divided and the reality of a State that has a seriously declining economy. The State of Queensland has a narrowly developed and highly vulnerable economy. All that can be sheeted home to the Bjelke- Petersen Government. The economic problems of Queensland are far more serious than just being an internal State matter. The Queensland economy, because of the policies of the State Government and the dominant National Party, is severely retarding national economic recovery. That point should be made over and again. Queensland's economy is severely retarding national economic recovery. The policies of the National Party to denigrate the public sector means that the public and private sectors of the economy in Queensland are not working together for State development. A partnership is urgently needed between the public and private sectors in Queensland. The economy there is performing worse than that of the nation as a whole. The blame lies with the Bjelke-Petersen Government, which proclaims good times for Queenslanders but hides behind the economic facts. The facts speak loudly for themselves. Queensland has suffered a far higher percentage rise in the number of unemployed in the past 12 months than the nation as a whole. It has experienced the fastest rise in unemployment in Australia. In the 12 months to August 1983 the Queensland jobless total rose by a massive 63 per cent. It went up from 67,000 persons to 110,000. Over the same period the national jobless total rose at a slower rate of 49 per cent. Unemployment is so bad in Queensland now that the jobless total there is about the same as for the entire population of Townsville. I find it a shocking state of affairs that the total number of people who are unemployed in Queensland is now about the same number as the largest provincial city in that State. In Queensland job vacancies are exceedingly short. In the 12 months to August 1983 the number of job vacancies in Queensland declined from 3,100 to 1,300. That was the worst reduction in the number of job vacancies in any State of Australia in that 12-month period. It was the worst record of any State. Queensland is not the jobs mecca or the home of the good life, as is popularly claimed by conservative politicians in that State. The tragedy of the jobs crisis in our northern State is indicated by the fact that during this year 78 unemployed people were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service for every vacancy in the Cleveland area. Similarly, there were 76 unemployed persons for every vacancy at Annerley; 67 at Redcliffe; and also 67 in Cairns. Those are shocking figures. There were 67 persons unemployed for every job vacancy available. It is absolute nonsense to talk about jobs for all. These indicators of the jobs crisis and the tragedy of the lack of job opportunities compare with an Australian figure of 56, so in a number of key centres Queensland is well above the national figure. The economic position in Queensland is not just indicated by unemployment totals. Let us look at what has been happening in the housing sector where the worst performance in Australia is being recorded. Commencements for new dwellings for Australia as a whole rose 3 per cent in the June quarter compared with the same quarter for 1982, giving hope that building would be one base for a wider economic recovery nationally. Yet in Queensland, commencements actually fell by 12 per cent in the same period. We have a situation where, nationally, dwelling commencements are increasing but in Queensland they are going backwards . There were 900 fewer dwellings commenced in Queensland in the June quarter than in the corresponding period of 1982. For Australia as a whole there was an increase of over 1,000. Popular myth would have us believe that thousands of people are flocking across the border to set up homes in Queensland. Yet the sun appears to be sinking on the Queensland building industry. If we are to believe that people are flocking across the border, as dwelling commencements are in decline, the conclusion must be that people are forced, in increasing numbers, to live in caravans or some other sub-standard form of accommodation. The housing downturn also shows a clear lack of confidence in the Queensland economy by the residents of that State. No doubt many Queenslanders are fearful of losing their jobs and being added to the swollen jobless totals in that State. Those who fear the loss of a job and a livelihood certainly are not going to purchase dwellings. The problems of the Queensland economy are very evident in a number of other key areas. Registrations of new motor vehicles are taken by many economic and business analysts as an indicator of consumer confidence and economic activity. The information on new motor vehicle registrations tells the story starkly about conditions in Queensland. In the June quarter of this year registrations of new motor vehicles fell by a massive 18 per cent compared with the same period last year. There was a fall of 18 per cent in motor vehicle registrations in a State which is supposed to be growing rapidly. Nationally, the car industry is also going through hard times, as we know. The decline in registrations nationaly was held at 12 per cent. There was a much higher decline in the number of motor vehicle registrations in Queensland in the same period. The latest comprehensive retail sales figures underline the problems of Queensland's economy and the lack of consumer confidence there. The figures indicate that retailers must be having a tough time at present in Queensland. Retail sales in Queensland, excluding motor vehicles, grew by only 4.6 per cent from the June quarter of last year to this year. That was well below the national growth in retail sales figures. Again, if we are to believe the claim that people are flocking to live in Queensland, retail sales, per head of population, must be very bad indeed. The Queensland Government simply cannot have it both ways on the population question. I believe the Queensland people are able to see behind the paradise image of their State which is confected by Mr Bjelke-Petersen. The lack of confidence by the people in their economy and the Premier at its helm is reflected in the general business situation as monitored by the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Westpac Banking Corporation in their September 1983 survey. It was clear from that survey that business believes Queensland has the worst general business situation of any State apart from Tasmania. The same survey found that Queensland was the only State in which the majority of respondents expected a decline in output. At the same time, the survey showed that for Australia as a whole the outlook was for an increase in output. The expected fall in output by Queensland business was reflected also in an expected employment fall, the worst recorded for any State, again with the exception of Tasmania. Today in Question Time there was an interchange on the matter of industrial disputes. It is quite clear that in the last 12-month period the policies of the Queensland Government relating to industrial confrontation rather than industrial consultation and conciliation are having their effect in the labour market. There were 492 working days lost for every 1,000 employees in Queensland in the 12 months to July, compared with an Australian average of only 289. I must say that the figure in Queensland is some four times that of my own State of South Australia. The Queensland Government, headed by its Premier Mr Bjelke-Petersen, has ignored its responsibilities to the electorate. Its policies have failed and the Queensland economy is floundering. The Premier and his National Party Government clearly have lost touch with the people's needs. The severe problems in Queensland of unemployment, industry decline and the economy are a direct result of the policies of the State Government. Queensland is being brought to its knees by a Premier who is blind to the extent of the economic problems confronting his State. The poor performance of the Queensland economy is reflected in the income per head of population of the State. Per capita income is the lowest in any mainland State. Only Tasmania has a lower income per person . Now we have the prospect of Mr Gray going up to Queensland to campaign for Mr Bjelke-Petersen. I presume that Mr Gray is going to Queensland to show that his State is worse in order to make Queensland look somewhat better, because in terms of per capita income Queensland trails all the mainland States. The low income per head of population in Queensland raises some very serious questions about what happened to the benefits of the so-called resources boom. It would appear that the incomes from the resources boom went elswhere other than to ordinary Queenslanders. Certainly they were not spread widely. The Bjelke-Petersen Government does not want to be accountable for its economic and finanical failures. When Parliament wanted to debate the setting up of a public accounts committee to make the Government more accountable and to allow the scrutiny of spending by government departments and authorities, the Premier said No. When a member of his doomed coalition Government showed initiative and a progressive attitude towards accountability of governments to the people, the Premier said No, and decided to blow the coalition and go it alone. His Government will not be accountable for its mistakes and economic blunders. We must ask ourselves why. What has that Government got to hide? What is it that it does not want to see the light of day? All other States have public accounts committees. Queensland is over 30 years behind the Commonwealth Government in this very important area for making government responsible and accountable. Queensland must not be allowed to hold back the nation in all areas for the sake of one man's power drive. Mr Bjelke-Petersen has held back the State for long enough. It is time he went for the benefit of the long-suffering people of Queensland. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.11) —I listened while Senator Maguire read his speech. (Quorum formed) I thank Senator Macklin for attracting an audience for me because I think the things I have to say are quite important. It is interesting that there were only four or five Government senators on the benches opposite when one would have thought with this matter of supposed importance that the benches would be crowded with Government supporters. The dismal quality of the debate speaks mountains for the quality of the Australian Labor Party in this supposed attack on the Queensland Government. It is a humbug waste of the Senate's time because there is no doubt about the figures we have here. Honourable senators from the other side can quote what they like, but if we are talking about instability, why did 85,000 people from other States flock to Queensland? Why do they go there? They go because foreign investment's going into that State, mining is going on, and the State is vibrant with activity. The Queensland Government has the fortitude to stand up to the Federal Government and get on with its own job. Honourable senators opposite make me sick. They do not know anything about water schemes. They are not concerned about water resources in Australia. Senator Jones had the gall to get up and talk about the Bradford scheme. Obviously he is ill-informed. He does not know what he is talking about. The scheme he should have referred to was the Bradfield scheme. I am surprised that he should denigrate the idea of turning back the eastern rivers, which are currently being wasted by flowing into the coastal waters of Australia instead of being utilised internally. I am surprised that he is critical of Mr Bjelke- Petersen's idea of pursuing that scheme. Mr Wran, the socialist Premier of New South Wales, instructed his Government only 18 months ago to have a look at the Bradfield scheme with the object of doing a feasibility study into that project. I think those sorts of projects are imaginative and these are the sorts of governments we need to run this country. That is that sort of government that we need to be returned in Queensland. I compliment Mr Bjelke-Petersen for being prepared to go it alone with respect to the Bradfield scheme. He has foresight. He looks ahead beyond the next election. He looks 20 years ahead, and I admire the way he has been able to do that. I admire the way he has been able to control internal disputations in industry in that State. He had the courage to introduce an essential services Act in 1979 and that has been quite successful. Senator Cook —Do you admire the gerrymander? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! Senator Cook will please refrain from interjecting. Senator Bolkus —I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. Senator Cook is making a quite relevant point about the gerrymander in Queensland. Even though it might be out of order, I think the speaker ought to respond to it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator JESSOP —I ignore inane interjections from the Government benches. I return now to the record of the Queensland Government with respect to industrial disputes. During the first five months of the Hawke Government, 54,900 working days were lost in Queensland because of industrial disputations, 512,700 working days were lost in New South Wales, and 74,800 working days were lost in South Australia. In that time the percentage of workings days lost in Queensland due to industrial disputation represented 6.6 per cent of the total working days, whereas in New South Wales the figure was 61.4 per cent, in Victoria 11.1 per cent, in South Australia 9 per cent, in Western Australia 9.1 per cent, and in Tasmania 2.5 per cent. That is a success story in relation to industrial disputations. Internal migration figures show that in 1980 17,000 people migrated to Queensland from other States, 35,000 migrated in 1981 and 34,607 migrated in 1982. The reverse was the case in New South Wales. In 1980, 2,000 people disappered from New South Wales, 14,963 disappeared in 1981, and 17,626 disappeared in 1982. The figures on capital improvements in Queensland are equally interesting. Senator Crowley —Indeed. Senator JESSOP —Indeed. I like that parliamentary term. Everyone seeks to say ' indeed'. I will use that again; indeed. For every person living in Queensland the actual fixed capital expenditure for the 12 months to March 1983 was $1,354. 70. The figure for New South Wales was $999.60 per person. The figure for Victoria was $898.30. Compare that Queensland figure of $1,354 with the other figures. The Australian average is $1,063.40 per person. That again illustrates the success that has occurred in Queensland and should give some confidence to the people of Queensland on 22 October when they re-elect the Government. Many other aspects of life in Queensland appeal to South Australian's for example. I do not intend moving there, but many friends of mine have chosen to go there. One fellow went to Cairns; he is a real estate broker and a very intelligent person. At the time he was languishing under the Dunstan Labor Government, and he found it attractive to go to Cairns. There is growth there if ever I have seen it. I visited Cairns and there seems to be confidence in that area of Queensland. Another friend of mine is an architect and he moved to somewhere near the Gold Coast. He is employed in establishing a very large housing expansion in that region. All those things speak of a success story. It interests me when the Labor Party accuses a State government, a so-called conservative government-I think it is a progressive government-of using foreign investment. It is very important that Australia employ foreign investment to develop its resources. I read a report the other day which indicated that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, recognises the value of this. In that report he suggested that it is time we looked at joint ventures between Australia and Asian countries. I think he is quite right. I think it is time that the Australian Government took some positive steps towards the establishment of an economic community in the Asia-Pacific region. If we look at the tremendous population in that area, about 1.8 billion people-and if we look at the capacity of Australia to initiate research and at the capacity of joint ventures with respect to the production that is capable of being achieved in our region of the world, we will see that that is the direction in which this Government ought to be going. I think that is the direction in which the Prime Minister would like to see Australia going. I give him my support because I think he is dead right, but I doubt very much whether he had very much support from the left wing of his Caucus. I am not sure whether the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, would agree that the economic future of Australia lies in the Asia-Pacific region, but certainly Mr Bjelke-Petersen does. Mr Bjelke-Petersen is attracting attention to Australia. He has attracted the attention of foreign investment to Queensland. Both he and the Labor Government here in Canberra have agreed that foreign capital can be used for 40 per cent of an investment in a coal mining venture in Queensland-I think that is the area, I forget the particular geographical site. Nevertheless, that indicates that there is confidence. If an industry or business venture is asked to go into South Australia it will say: 'You have a socialist Government there. We cannot mine uranium as we do not think that the Labor Party Government in Canberra will approve, although Mr Hawke said ''Yes, go ahead, we will allow you to mine the Olympic Dam project but we will not let you benefit from the exploitation of the Beverley and Honeymoon deposits''.' There is a very real reluctance by private enterprise to go into a State that is governed by a socialist Government because it knows the inherent dangers that lie there. It knows the philosophy of the socialists to take over government control of this, that and the other thing. Private enterprise has had bitter experience in the past. I recall a large organisation telling me on one occasion that it is sick of operating under a socialist administration and it is contemplating moving off-shore to get away from the influence that that sort of government exerts. Looking at the question of foreign investment proposals by value in the period July 1981 to June 1982, 20.3 per cent occurred in Queensland, which has 16.1 per cent of Australia's population; and of the actual fixed capital expenditure in the 12 months to March 1983, 20.5 per cent occurred in Queensland. In the three years ended in August 1983, 42,200 jobs were created in Queensland compared with losses of 42, 000 jobs in New South Wales, 19,200 in Victoria and 12,300 in South Australia during the same period. In the three years ended June 1983-we have said this before but it is worth repeating-there was a net inflow of 86,661 people to Queensland from other States compared with net outflows of 34,589 from New South Wales, 40,913 from Victoria and 17,420 from South Australia during the same period. Those figures are simple and factual and they demonstrate a contrary view to that which is being put forward by Government senators today-that is, there is not a lack of confidence in Queensland, far from it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(4.26) —I am a little confused in starting off my contribution to the debate on the matter of public importance today because I understood Senator Jessop was a Liberal senator. However, this afternoon I am not sure whether he has been speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia of the National Party of Australia. Of course, Queensland is something of a grey area, and I think it is rather surprising that he has not been speaking up on behalf of Terry White. However, the main purpose of today's debate, which seems to have been ignored by the Opposition speakers, is to highlight the instability of government in Queensland, which has led to a failure of that Government to co-operate with the Federal Government to benefit the people of Queensland. That seems to be a point which has been totally ignored by the contributions of Senator Collard and Senator Jessop. The present crisis in Queensland reflects a generation of instability and mismanagement. There is no doubt that the accumulative effect of the political climate which has created the confusion that is displayed daily-one has only to read the local papers to see what a total state of confusion and chaos the coalition is in-has resulted in total disruption to government. In fact, at several points this afternoon I considered taking a point of order when people mentioned the Queensland Government. There is no Queensland Government at the moment. The State is relying on a shuffling caretaker and a minority Government. While this is so, the business of government in Queensland is languishing. The situation is that the Queensland Premier is pushing the State Government to its financial limits with his election date of 22 October. Treasury advice was that finances for the Government could be guaranteed only until 19 November. But on Mr Bjelke-Petersen's electoral program the election writs are to be returned on 18 November. A government has to be formed and Parliament has to sit in order to pass Appropriation Bill (No. 2) to release more funds to government departments. My colleagues on this side of the House have already referred to the fear and concern of public servants that in fact there will be a great deal of confusion if the coalition survives, such as it is-and that seems to be highly unlikely. The Premier seems to think he will be able to form a government after the 22nd. But his optimism is not shared by many in the Public Service. They fear that the election will result in a coalition having to be formed with weeks of wrangling- Queensland is used to that-before Parliament can sit, and never before have the writs from a State election been returned in under 30 days. The business of government in Queensland is in fact coming a very poor second to the machinations of running an election. I quote from an article in the Canberra Times: The new National Party Minister for Transport, Mr Neal Turner, told his department chiefs on his first day . . . that they would not be seeing too much of him. He said he would be spending much of the next eight weeks in his marginal western Queensland electorate of Warrego because 'otherwise I won't have the chance to be a minister after the election'. That is the situation of a supposedly responsible Minister. He would rather be out there campaigning instead of dealing wth the affairs of his Department. Furthermore, the Queensland Minister for Health, the article reported, would be spending much of his time in his marginal electorate of Mount Isa. The article continued: One of his senior officers described the situation as 'impossible', with major decisions, such as the introduction of Medicare, not receiving the attention they required. The new Minister for Labor and Industry, Mr Vince Lester, now embarrassed about his featuring in a book about Australian eccentrics told his department he wanted to set up a manpower-planning section, only to be told that the department had had such a section for years. Perhaps it is these incidents that lead to public servants in Queensland taking a very close look at the Australian Labor Party's policies because frankly that is the party they expect to be dealing with after 22 October. A great many allegations have been made and statistics cited here this afternoon. I would like to talk about people for a moment because I understand that the Queensland Premier and my colleague on the other side of the House, Senator Boswell, are very interested in people. In a book intitled Queensland Achievement, which conveniently came out about six weeks before the election date, the Queensland Premier is reported as saying: ''People'' policies have been encouraged and generated as basic to good government. The Queensland Premier seems to be concerned with people. Senator Boswell also has said that Queenslanders today have the most desirable lifestyle of people of any State in the nation. However, I will cite some figures dealing with quality of life issues in Queensland. I think that honourable senators will agree that the lifestyle in Queensland is not nearly as good as the statements by the Premier and Senator Boswell would suggest. I will consider first the health area, general medical services. In this area Queensland has the lowest expenditure of all States-$204.99 per capita. That compares with an average of $231.59 for all the States, with expenditure ranging up to $311 in Western Australia. A crisis exists with regard to hospitals in Queensland. A shortage of nurses is putting lives at risk. Funding for the Queensland free hospital scheme is inadequate. The Queensland Government is in no hurry to finalise the arrangements with the Federal Government. Meanwhile, it has a severe shortage of nurses in its free hospital system. If we look at school medical services, again we see that Queensland has the lowest expenditure in Australia-37c per capita compared with an average of $1.29 for all the States . Queensland also has the lowest expenditure on public health, at a figure of $2 .38 per capita, compared with an all-State average of $5.40. I turn now to the welfare, which I thought was a people issue. On child welfare again Queensland has the lowest expenditure, with $11.33 per capita compared with an average of $14.38 for all the States. It is really distressing to compare the Queensland Government's expenditure on care for the aged with the expenditure of other States. It is hard to believe that a person who is aged himself would have so little concern for the aged in Queensland. Expenditure on providing relief for the aged and infirm in Queensland is $3.77 per capita, compared with an average of $9.22 for all the States. Furthermore, last year in a parliamentary report entitled 'In a Home or at Home' dealing with care of the aged, it was revealed that the Queensland Premier's Department did not bother even to put in a submission, although that was considered the norm in all other States. If we turn now to education, again we see that Queensland has the lowest expenditure on a per capita basis. Technical and further education is an area I would particularly like to highlight as we have spent a great deal of time talking about unemployment. There is obviously a tremendous need for training in this area. On technical and further education Queensland is spending $24 per capita, compared with an average of $36 across the States. Secondary school funding is down compared with the other States, at $90 per capita compared with an average of $120 across the States. Again, if we look at culture and recreation we see the lowest level of spending is in Queensland. If we care to leave those people issues that Senator Boswell and the Queensland Premier appeared to be so concerned about and look at railways, we see that after 26 years of National-Liberal government the railway deficit in Queensland has grown from $11m to more than $200m. Despite this enormous public investment in the State railways, the bulk of goods handling has been passed over to private contractors who are then given privileged freight rates up to 80 per cent below those of other railway customers. Railway jobs are threatened and since July 1982 400 railway jobs have disappeared. A recent analysis of future employment in the railways indicates that if the Queensland Government were to accept the report up to 7,000 jobs could be abolished over the next five years. I return for a moment to the welfare area to make a few other points. In 1982 the Commonwealth Grants Commission indicated that $23.7m is underspent on welfare in Queensland. Expenditure on children's services which, as I mentioned, is $11.33 per head is 20 per cent less than it is in other States. Child care centres, as we know, are funded totally by the Federal Government. But let us contrast what is happening in Queensland with what is happening in other States which do, in fact, contribute to the funding of child care centres. For example, in New South Wales the State Government provides a 90 per cent salary subsidy to child care centres funded by it, plus a $5,000 grant for operating costs. So child care centres in New South Wales have the advantage of being funded by both the Federal and the State governments. Some 37 after-school care programs are running in the State of Queensland. It absolutely infuriates me to see State members turn up to hand over the cheques because, in fact, those programs are totally funded by the Federal Government. The Queensland Government makes no contribution whatsoever. While the Queensland Government contributes on a dollar for dollar basis to youth refuges, there is no extra funding as is the case in New South Wales and Victoria because those States recognise the tremendous importance of youth refuges. I could go on with any number of examples that demonstrate that Queensland, when it comes to being a State that is concerned about people, certainly does not put its money where its mouth is. The caretaker Premier is, in fact, living in a fantasy world where he believes it is necessary to lock the doors against the demons from the outside world. He has failed to work with Canberra over a number of years. For almost 10 years now he has rejected money from the Federal Government. He is paranoid about working with another level of government. Of course, coming from local government, I know only too well that the Queensland Premier and the Government there are extremely reluctant to work in with local government. What we should be debating here this afternoon is how we can ensure that Queensland in future is able to work as one of the levels of government, co -operating with the Federal Government and working with local government to benefit all Queenslanders. There is only one party that is able to do that and, of course, that is the Australian Labor Party. Finally, I am not quite sure whether the National Party is misnamed because, from some of the things that have been said over recent weeks it is quite obvious that the National Party is not in fact a national party at all. It is extremely divisive. It is parochial and its leader in Queensland is disloyal to Australia and thoroughly un- Australian. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(4.39) —I welcome this debate. As a matter of fact, last night I saw the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and asked him whether he could bring on a debate such as this. Senator Robert Ray —We got there first. Senator BOSWELL —The Government got there first, but this discussion gives me the opportunity to put on record just how well the people of Queensland are going by comparison with the other States. The matter of public importance is: The adverse effects on Commonwealth-State financial programs caused by the political instability and mismanagement of the Queensland Government in total disregard for the people of Queensland. Let me tell the Senate that if anyone has been disadvantaged it has been the people of Queensland. If there has been any financial mismanagement, it has been by this Federal Labor Government. I will prove in my speech that this is the case. Before I get on to those points, I want to take up a couple of matters raised by Senator Jones. He had the temerity to speak about the fishing industry and what we had not done for that industry. I will tell Senator Jones what the fishing industry thinks of his Government. Here it is in a Press release: ' Budget-castration, not consensus'. That is what the industry thinks about the present Government. The Press release states: The commercial fishing industry in Queensland has demanded a complete re- structuring of the first Hawke Government Budget saying it will join the Prime Minister in consensus, not castration'. It goes on. That is what the industry thinks of the Australian Labor Party. The ALP has just about brought it to its knees with this fuel price increase. It is tax by the petrol bowser. The ALP has nearly brought the industry down. The matter of public importance that Senator Jones has brought forward is just a political stunt. The ALP campaign in Queensland has run into a brick wall. It has run out of steam. The people will have to choose between 27 years of good, stable, sound, progressive government, as against a leader who promotes the growing of marihuana in back yards. If Labor senators think that the people of Queensland will fall for that they have another think coming. No one in Queensland wants his family to grow marihuana in the back yard. That is the choice that people will have to make-the choice between Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who has led the State, or someone who says: 'Let our kids grow marihuana in the back yard'. No one in Queensland will fall for that. We will go on to the greatest resounding victory that has ever been seen. In a number of speeches attempts have been made to bring in red herrings, preying on the emotions of the small people, employees and employers, and contractors, perpetrating malicious lies and just proving that Labor's policies are inadequate. They are hopeless. They have failed in New South Wales, in Victoria and in South Australia. This year the Victorian Government has collected $203m in extra taxes. In Queensland we have balanced our budget. In Victoria the shortfall was $487m; in New South Wales the shortfall was $35m; and in South Australia it was $68m. Queensland, since 1859, had had a deficiency of only $750,000. Senator Zakharov —Maybe they should spend some on people. Senator BOSWELL —We spend a lot on people, and the people vote for us and return us. They have done so for 27 years. Senator Robert Ray —All 28 per cent. Senator BOSWELL —Twenty-eight per cent. I refer now to the malicious rumours and lies spread about Supply running out in Queensland. I will tell the Senate and the people of Australia what the correct program is and what the state of the Government in Queensland is. I shall read it: . . . supply available to the Government for July and August this year, under a previous appropriation, totalled $1.560 million. 'On August 3, 1983, in line with normal practice, State Parliament placed a further Appropriation Bill totalling $2.345 million to provide supply for a further 3 months', the Treasurer said. 'Thus in the first five months of this financial year, supply totalled $3.905 million.' Additionally, quite sizeable sums of State expenditure such as public debt payments are permanently appropriated and did not require supply. 'The Treasury Department has been monitoring the situation very closely and expenditure to November 30 is running well within Government estimates.' Senator Robert Ray —Who is the Treasurer now? Senator BOSWELL —The Treasurer is the Premier. Does the honourable senator think that he would lie about that? Of course he would not lie. They are the figures that come from the Treasury Department. Let us get on to the wage pause program. That program is a bureaucratic nightmare. Queensland was waiting to allocate the first funds from its $42m entitlement under the scheme, but the Commonwealth has still not given formal approval to the State's Consultative Committee which is required to evaluate the project. Forty projects were being assessed and the first batch of these was expected to be approved at the next meeting of the Consultative Committee. This is the basis on which the Federal Government formally ratifies the composition-- Senator Reynolds —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. How can the Consultative Committee have met when the Queensland Premier is reported by Senator Button in this place-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Reynolds, you have been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order. Senator BOSWELL —This is the basis on which the Federal Government formally ratifies the composition of the Committee, which includes representations of State, Federal and local government as well as representatives of women, Aboriginals, youth, welfare groups and the Trades and Labour Council. Let us take, for example, the community employment program. This scheme is a bureaucratic nightmare, as I have said. The red tape is enough to turn a saint to hard drink. Let us look at some of the provisions: Sponsors have to contribute 30 per cent of the project cost and women are to have 50 per cent of the jobs. We cannot even wait until the legislation comes through. The Consultative Committee has not been finally accepted. Queensland is waiting on advice from the Federal Labor Minister in regard to the Aboriginal representative. We put up an Aboriginal, but he probably was not one of Labor's boys. Queensland nominated Lew Stewart from Cherbourg, but he is unacceptable. Why is that? It is because he was not nominated by the National Aboriginal Council. It does not know or cannot decide who should represent its interests. Senator Colston —Say that again. Senator Lewis —Do not give him another serve, Ron; just ignore him. Senator BOSWELL —All right, I will ignore Senator Colston. We have done everything in our power to get this program off the ground. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Lewis, you must not interject when you are out of your seat. Senator BOSWELL —I want to get on to the wage pause program, because the Senate should know exactly what has happened with that program. I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to table a schedule. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Boswell, do you wish to table it or to have it incorporated in Hansard? Senator BOSWELL —I want to table it and have it incorporated in Hansard. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You wish to incorporate it in Hansard. Senator Gietzelt —What is the Government being asked to do, Mr Deputy President? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Boswell is apparently seeking leave to incorporate a document in Hansard. Is leave granted? Senator Gietzelt —We want to know what it is. It would be courteous of Senator Boswell to consult the Government. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I think it would be courteous, Senator Boswell, to pass it to the Government side. It can be incorporated at the end of your speech. Senator BOSWELL —What it says about the wage pause is that the Queensland Government's action on the Commonwealth wage pause program has provided more unemployed people with jobs than any other State. The Commonwealth's own statistical data shows that despite all the propaganda dished out by the Federal and State ALP's spruikers, Queensland created work for 2,743 unemployed persons under the wage pause program up to 31 August, and by the same date Queensland had spent $7.4m out of a total of $15.9m-more than any other State. In Victoria, the electoral back yard of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the State had created a miserable 874 jobs by the same date. Victoria has spent only $700,000 out of $ 26.3m received, and New South Wales spent $7.3m out of $35m received. A total of 2,251 unemployed people have been placed in jobs in New South Wales and only 874 in Victoria. In other words, Queensland has spent more than any other State, placed the highest number of unemployed workers, and spent by far the highest percentage of any money received. That commits Labor criticism, this Government' s unsubstantiated statements and the Prime Minister's utterances on the wage pause right into the garbage can, where they belong. Let us examine a few other areas in which this Federal Government has helped Queensland. Let us look at the public hospitals. Queensland is seeking compensation for public hospital patients equal to the per capita average being paid to States-$50 per head; not merely $29 per head. You have short-changed Queensland by $31 a head. Senator Lewis —Who has done that? Senator BOSWELL —The Labor Party has done it. Then Labor senators say that we will not co-operate. Of course we will not co-operate when you are taking the money from us and robbing us. We will stand up and fight for what is ours. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Direct your remarks to the Chair, Senator Boswell. I am not short-changing you. Senator BOSWELL —Let us have a look at welfare housing. As the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, has said on a number of occasions, the Government in Queensland should be disposed to provide more housing construction . He should move to rectify the allocations of welfare housing funds going to Queensland from the Commonwealth. Queensland's share of such funds this year was $20m less than it should have been per capita. With that extra money the State should have been able to provide an additional 600 dwellings for welfare housing throughout the State. Again we were short-changed, again honourable senators opposite ask why we do not co-operate and again we say that we would love to co- operate but the Federal Government keeps robbing us. Senator Grimes —You want to speak again. This is good stuff. Senator BOSWELL —The honourable senator should listen to what I say. The Medicare scheme will be a beautiful benefit for Queensland! Queenslanders will be paying one per cent of their total wages for something they now get for nothing. I am sure they will appreciate that! That is good business! Senator Gietzelt —Are you sure you have got your figures right? Senator BOSWELL —I have got my figures right. It is plain to see that the Federal Government does not care for Queensland one little bit. The Queensland people are not socialists. They will return a conservative government. The Federal Government has ignored them, it has written them off and the people will respond on 22 October by returning the conservative Government led by Premier Joh. Queensland has created 45,000 new jobs over the last three years. In Queensland, the home of private enterprise, Budgets are constantly balanced. The State's accumulated deficit in the consolidated revenue fund since 1859 is only $769,000. This is at a time when the Budget deficits of other States are running at around $4,000m to $5,000m. Because of the application of sound private enterprise philosophies, the Queensland economy has grown at a rate significantly faster than the Australian economy over the last 10 years. In this regard, Queensland's gross State product has increased over the past 10 years at the rate of 4.7 per cent per annum in real terms compared with 3.1 per cent per annum for Australia as a whole. Not only has Queensland's overall economy grown at a faster rate than the economy of the rest of Australia, but every single sector of the Queensland economy has grown at a faster rate over the last 10 years than the corresponding sector in the Australian economy. This is an outstanding achievement of the Bjelke-Petersen coalition Government in Queensland. The Australian Labor Party would do well to take up this successful private enterprise philosophy. Mr Deputy President, with the Queensland election looming this House has degenerated into a coward's castle for people who are politically opposed to the Queensland Government. These people are making statements which are without credit or which are inaccurate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I call Senator Colston. Senator Lewis —A point of order, Mr Deputy President. I think that Senator Boswell's speech is one of the best I have heard on the state of the economy in Queensland and I ask the Senate to extend Senator Boswell's time by three minutes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Do you seek leave to move that motion? Senator Lewis —I ask the Senate to extend the time. It does not require a motion . Senator Grimes —You said by three minutes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. Motion (by Senator Chaney) proposed: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Boswell from speaking for a further three minutes. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.54) —The Government opposes Senator Chaney's motion. Senator Chaney gave no reasons at all as to why Standing Orders should be suspended, so I do not feel that I have to give reasons why we object to it, except to say that it is a political stunt. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.55) —Mr Deputy President, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, says that there are no reasons for supporting this motion, but let me just say that ever since the announcement of an election in Queensland we have heard the greatest lot of nonsense in the Senate from Government senators about the state of the economy in Queensland. Today we have had one of the best expositions I have heard of how marvellous is the economy in Queensland, of how well the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, has been handling the economy and of how the figures show that 85,000 people from other States in Australia are moving to live in Queensland. It seems to me that these are matters of great importance to the people of Queensland and they ought to be said in this Senate at length, so for that reason I support the motion that Senator Boswell be granted another three minutes. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. MacGibbon, D. J. Button, J. N. Martin, K. J. Coleman, R. N. Rae, Peter Elstob, R. C. Scott, D. B. Evans, GarethWatson, J. O. W. McIntosh, G. D. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator Collard —During the speech of my colleague Senator Boswell, he sought to have two tables incorporated in Hansard. I have since taken them to Senator Gietzelt and he has agreed to their incorporation. I seek leave to have the tables incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows-- WAGE PAUSE PROGRAM STATISTICAL DATA: 31 AUGUST 1983 Table 1 FINANCIAL INFORMATION ($ millions) Funds Commonwealth committed advances to Expenditures Total funds by State/ State/ by State/ Per- State allocated Territory Territory Territory centage New South Wales 69.924 57.200 35.0 7.3 20.8 Victoria 52.662 27.696 25.3 0.7 2. 6 Queensland 31.900 31.900 15.9 7.4 46.5 Western Australia 17.580 11.580 8.8 0 .3 3.4 South Australia 17.546 12.551 8.8 3.2 36.3 Tasmania 5.668 5.152 2.8 1.5 53.5 Northern Territory 1.680 1.680 1.1 0.9 81.8 Australian Capital Territory 3.040 3.030 . . 0.8 Australia 200.000 151.089 98.7 22.1 Source: Meeting of State representatives held with the Commonwealth in Canberra , September 29, 1983. Produced by the Commonwealth. Table 3 EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION-EMPLOYMENT CREATED Average Cost for CES Years duration of each year placements Jobs employment employment of employment to date State approved created (weeks) created ($) 31 Aug. 1983 New South Wales 5,846 3,035 27 18,800 2,251 Victoria 2,355 1,495 33 18,500 874 Queensland 3,909 1,955 26 16,300 2,748 Western Australia 697 402 30 29,600 142 South Australia 2,000 615 16 20,400 266 Tasmania 842 329 20 15,700 372 Northern Territory 183 92 26 18,300 208 Australian Capital Territory 232 196 44 15,500 173 Australia 16,064 8,032 26 18,800 7,034 Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(5.02) — The spectacle we have just gone through was a deliberate attempt to stop a member of the Government speaking for a full 15 minutes. I point out to those listening to the debate that two hours- Senator Collard —I take a point of order. I do not believe that on the speakers list that was circulated Senator Colston was ever mentioned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, Senator Collard. The speakers list is informal. Senator Colston has the call. Senator COLSTON —I point out to those listening that two hours are allowed for the debate. The debate is due to finish at 9 minutes past 5. If we had not had that division, I would have had a full 15 minutes. I now have about five minutes . That was the ploy of the Opposition, an Opposition which does not want to hear the truth about the Queensland Government and the absolute mess that the Queensland Government is in. When the Australian Labor Party lost government in Queensland in 1957 the incoming Premier was Mr Frank Nicklin, a member of the then Australian Country Party. He was often referred to as 'Honest Frank'. Sir Francis Nicklin's Party has since then changed its name. Nevertheless it has experienced an unbroken term of government since 1957. After 26 years the term 'honest', the term that was used to describe Frank Nicklin, is the least likely adjective to be applied to the Queensland Government. In fact, the public of Queensland regards the Queensland Government as anything but honest. How could that word be applied to a government whose Minister in charge of racing owns a major racing stable? How can the term 'honest' be applied to a government which uses taxpayers' funds during an election campaign to place misleading newspaper advertisements against the Federal Government? (Quorum formed) What credibility can be given to a government which has allowed Parliament to sit for a mere 14 days and 10 minutes in 1983? What credibility can be given to a government which plunged into crisis because it refused to establish a public accounts committee and which clings steadfastly to a grossly malapportioned electoral system? The Queensland Government's outrageous behaviour on a number of fronts makes legendary banana republics appear saintly. There is nothing to suggest that this state of affairs will alter if Mr Bjelke- Petersen remains Premier after 22 October. In contrast, the Labor Party Leader in Queensland, Keith Wright, has promised that he and his parliamentary colleagues will take Queenslanders in a new direction. A Labor government resulting from the Queensland election in a little over a week from now will offer stability. It will offer accountability, responsibility and credibility to the Queensland public. A change of direction of this nature will be a refreshing change. Since 18 August this year Queensland has been governed by a minority Government . There is nothing wrong with minority governments if they have the confidence of the parliaments to which they are responsible. But the minority Government in Queensland does not have that confidence. The Queensland Parliament last sat on 9 August, and when it did so it sat for 10 minutes only. Thus, in all the time that the minority Government has existed, Parliament has not been in session. There has been no opportunity for members of that Parliament to express their confidence or lack of confidence in the Government which is administering that State. Parliament has been rejected by the minority National Party Government as merely of nuisance value, an institution which has to be consulted from time to time only to obtain Supply. How did this state of affairs develop in Queensland? Ever since the non-Labor force came to power in Queensland in 1957 the National Party and the Liberal Party of Australia have governed in coalition. The Nationals have always been numerically stronger than the Liberals; thus the Premier has always come from the National Party and the majority of the Cabinet positions have also gone to that Party. (Quorum formed) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time allotted for this debate under sessional order has been expended. We now turn to the presentation of papers. Senator Colston —Mr Deputy President, in view of the interruptions that have occurred, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard my excellent speech. Leave not granted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Operation of National Research Granting Schemes-Report by the Australian Science and Technology Council-pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 2. Australia's Population Forecasts for 1983-86 with projections for selected years to 2021-Report by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. 3. Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union-Interim Report No. 5 Volume 1-together with the text of a statement relating to the report by the Attorney-General. 4. Special Prosecutor-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 20 (1) of the Special Prosecutors Act 1982-together with the text of a statement relating to the report by the Attorney-General. Senator GARETH EVANS —In relation to papers Nos. 3 and 4, I seek leave to have two statements incorporated in Hansard. The first statement relates to the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the second statement relates to the annual report of the Special Prosecutor. Leave granted. The statements read as follows- Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union-Interim Report No. 5, Volume 1 The volume that I am tabling is part of the fifth interim report of the royal Commission on the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union which was established on 10 September 1980 by Letters Patent. The Commission has previously delivered four interim reports. The first and second interim reports dealt with unfolding investigations. On the advice of the Royal Commissioner, Mr F. X. Costigan, Q.C., they were not tabled. The third interim report, which dealt largely with fraudulent taxation schemes was tabled on 25 February 1982-its recommendations have been implemented. The fourth interim report dealt with bottom of the harbour schemes: volume 1 of this report (with two paragraphs excluded) was tabled on 24 August 1982 and an edited version of chapter 10 of volume 2 was tabled on 7 September 1982. Again on the advice of the Royal Commissioner, the remainder of this report was not tabled to avoid prejudice to individuals and to investigations. The fifth interim report, with which this statement is concerned, is in three volumes. Volume 1 outlines the general structure of the report. Two chapters make some general comments on Commissions of Inquiry and on a National Crimes Commission. These have already been released publicly for the recent National Crimes Commission seminar in Canberra on 28-29 July. Volume 1 then concludes by listing the recommendations that appear separately in Volumes 2 and 3. Volumes 2 and 3 deal with a major criminal scheme in relation to the income tax legislation. Volume 2 is a ''sanitised'' summary of volume 3. Volume 3 gives in great detail the names, dates, companies and financial transactions of the participants in this scheme. Mr Costigan states that his investigations have now reached a point where he perceives a need for some legislative and administrative action. Mr Costigan says that he sees no reason why volumes 1 and 2 should remain confidential but concedes that there is a possible view that publication of volume 3 could impede fair trials. Volume 2 was prepared as a summary of volume 3 with a view to the publication of volume 2. The Government has given very close consideration to the question of which parts of the fifth interim report should be tabled at this stage. In its consideration of this question the Government has been mindful of the public interest in making available as widely as possible findings and observations that support recommendations by a Royal Commission. The Government has also consulted with the Victorian Government and with the Special Prosecutor, M. R. Redlich. It has taken careful note of the views expressed by Mr Costigan on this point. However, the Government has concluded that the public interest would be best served at this stage by tabling only volume 1 or the fifth interim report. It feels that the publication of volumes 2 and 3 would present a risk of prejudice to the fair trial of certain persons who have already been charged with certain offences in relation to matters discussed in the report and of certain other persons who may be charged. In addition, there is also a risk that publication at this stage might impede further investigations that are being carried out into matters that have been raised by the Royal Commission. Once all trials have been held the Government will consider whether it would then be in the public interest to table any more parts of the fifth interim report. The Government is examining the recommendations that are summarised in volume 1 . Relevant Commonwealth Departments, in consultation with the States and the Northern Territory where necessary, will complete their studies of the report and make recommendations as to action on it within three months. If the Government decides that legislative action will be necessary, it will provide information as to the reasons drawing on relevant information that has been provided by the Royal Commission. Annual Report of Special Prosecutor Redlich Mr R. F. Redlich was first appointed as a Special Prosecutor under section 6 of the Special Prosecutors Act 1982 on 21 October 1982 for a period of 6 months. That period was subsequently extended by a further period of 6 months ending 21 October 1983. I propose to recommend a further extension of 6 months or the date when the first Director of Public Prosecutions is appointed, whichever is the earlier. Mr Redlich's first mandate was to deal with alleged illegal activities identified by the Costigan Royal Commission, other than those activities being dealt with by Special Prosecutor Gyles, namely 'bottom of the harbour' tax evasion matters. Subsequently, I authorised Mr Redlich to deal with the activities referred to in Interim Report No. 7 delivered by the Stewart Royal Commission in November 1982. Mr Redlich has now delivered an Annual Report covering his first year of operations in which many matters are canvassed. The first nine chapters deal primarily with the activities of Mr Redlich and his staff, some of the more important matters emerging from this discussion including the following: The material coming to his notice was not of such a special nature as to require a prosecution independent of the control of the Attorney-General. Mr Redlich has accordingly not felt inhibited in calling on the support of the Attorney-General's Department and the services of the Crown Solicitor. The vast majority of the 'alleged illegal activities' reported upon to the Government by the Costigan Royal Commission before Mr Redlich's appointment remain in the area of 'intelligence' which may, on the discovery of further evidence, become viable prosecutions at some time in the future. Accordingly prosecutions will flow from a very small number of the matters originally identified by Mr Costigan; as to the matters subsequently identified by Mr Costigan, a higher proportion will give rise to prosecutions. As to matters arising from reports of the Stewart Royal Commission, Mr Redlich reports that his office, in conjunction with the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions, recently completed the committal proceedings of an associate of Terrence John Clark identified in Interim Report No. 7. A variety of civil remedies are under consideration by his office. Mr Redlich has been able to reach apparently satisfactory arrangements with the Victorian Government for co-ordination of efforts but arrangements with New South Wales and Queensland have been less satisfactory. In paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 Mr Redlich mentions that I invited him to serve as a Commonwealth representative on an inter-governmental committee to coordinate prosecution action flowing from the recommendations of the Stewart Royal Commission, set up by the Commonwealth, NSW and Victorian Governments. At its first meeting (which Mr Redlich attended) arrangements were agreed upon for coordination of prosecution action: these arrangements have been put into effect and appear now to be working quite satisfactorily. However, the matter is being kept under close scrutiny by the Commonwealth Government and, if any difficulties arise, prompt action will be taken to deal with them. In chapter 10, Mr Redlich recommends establishment of a Director of Public Prosecutions. He also recommends that the DPP should be empowered to take civil remedies in relation to criminals whom he is prosecuting. At this point, I would mention that the Government has decided to establish a Director of Public Prosecutions to deal with Commonwealth offences and I can say that Mr Redlich's suggestions as to appropriate powers for such a person will be carefully taken into account in formulating the Government's proposal. In Chapter 11, Mr Redlich makes detailed recommendations for establishment of a National Crime Authority. The views he advances are most constructive and have been taken into account by the Government when drawing up its own proposals. In Chapter 12, Mr Redlich discusses how he has exercised the functions given to him to coordinate and supervise the taking of civil remedies for enforcement of tax liabilities in the areas assigned to him. I have brought Mr Redlich's remarks to the attention of my colleague, the Treasurer. Difficulties and deficiencies in the enforcement of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations are discussed in Chapter 13. I have brought this discussion and Mr Redlich's recommendations for changes in the law and administrative practices to the attention of my colleague, the Treasurer. In Chapter 14, Mr Redlich discusses the role that the Telecommunications Commission should in his view exercise in combating illegal bookmaking activities. In paragraph 14.11 the correctness of an opinion given by my Department that the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 would prevent the attachment of a device on the telephone of a suspected member of a bookmaking ring is queried. My Department has reviewed that advice and I am about to examine the results of that review. I have brought Mr Redlich's observations as to the role of the Telecommunications Commission to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Communications. Paragraphs 14.18 to 14.33 discuss difficulties that have arisen as to proof in Court of intercepts of telephone conversations. Satisfactory arrangements now appear to have been made and I do not need to comment on past misunderstandings. In Chapter 15, Mr Redlich sets out a number of views of the Australian Federal Police and its proper role. I have brought these views to the attention of my colleague, the Special Minister of State. Mr Redlich in Chapter 16 recommends changes in the law in quite a number of different areas, ranging from a uniform Evidence Act to amendments of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Customs Act 1901. So far as these laws come within my Ministerial responsibility I have directed my Department to make a careful examination of Mr Redlich's proposals and report to me on each of them. As regards laws discussed by Mr Redlich within the responsibility of other Ministers, I have referred Mr Redlich's proposals to the relevant Ministers. The Report reveals a busy and fruitful year of office dealing with what in many cases amount to serious breaches of the law. Quite an amount has been achieved but much remains to be done. The experience gained in the year's operation will be very useful indeed in establishing and defining the continuing tasks of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Report Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is a very important paper. It deals with Australian population forecasts for 1983-86 with projections for selected years to the year 2021. The importance of this paper can be underlined by the fact that it is prepared with the assistance of a population consultative group. Page 1 of the paper which outlines the background notes states: In response to a recommendation in the Report on the Commonwealth Government and the urban Environment by the house of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, the Population Consultative Group co-ordinates the preparation of population forecasts. The following Commonwealth departments and authorities participate in the Group: Australian Bureau of Statistics Bureau of Labour Market Research Department of Housing and Construction Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Department of Social Security Department of Territories and Local Government Industries Assistance Commission Social Welfare Policy Secretariat Of course, it then goes on to say: On the basis of these discussions the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, which has responsibility for population policy matters within the Commonwealth Government, selected the assumptions to be used in this set of forecasts/projections. The Australian Bureau of Statistics then prepared the figures using their projections program. Against that background it is very interesting to note the projected figure for births, for example, fertility rates and the net reproduction rate. If we look at the net reproduction rate we are down to below zero at the moment. The projection for the year 2021 is that the net reproduction rate will be well below zero. That has significant effects for the aging nature of our population and also has significance in relation to defence and other areas of importance. Before I deal with that, I should like to look at the very interesting projection rates for life expectancy. The actual life expectancy rate at birth as at 1981 was 71.4 years for males and 78.4 years for females. The projected life expectancy rate for the projected year 2021 is 73.4 years for males while it is projected that the ladies will live until they are 82.6 years of age. Senator Jessop —What was the male rate? Senator HARRADINE —It was 73.4 years. Of course, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and her colleagues-perhaps I should say cohorts- with their affirmative action and the like are going to put a dent in that projection and ensure that there will be some equality in that particular regard . If it were not so serious, it would be funny. In fact I assume that that will be the inevitable result of the economic pressures placed on mothers to go out against their will into the paid work force by the use of affirmative action programs and, of course, the sort of scatter-brained ideas that that involves which, of course, are not appropriate for any person genuinely interested in sex discrimination legislation. I come to the point that is made in the population figures which deal with populations at young ages. It is most interesting and informative to understand the median age of population now and the median age in the projected year of 2021. The median age now of population in Australia is 30.13 years. The median age for the year 2001 will be 34.9 years and the median age for the year 2021 will be 38.58 years. It is quite significant for people to have a look at these population forecasts. Time does not permit me to examine all of them now. I commend this paper to honourable senators for study. No doubt many honourable senators have studied it in particular, I commend to the general public a study of the figures, the underlying assumptions and the implications of the figures of populations for the future of Australia. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.17) —I am attracted to this report entitled 'Australia's Population Forecasts for 1983-86 with projections for selected years to 2021'. I am minded to remember the projections that were produced a few years ago by the Borrie Report on National Population Inquiry and by committees which have met since then. For those of us who are interested in social policy and in trying to look into the future in order to develop policies in particular areas, these figures are an important tool. One of the things that has happened is that it is clear that the figures which were produced, for example by the Borrie Committee, in the light of experience have turned out to have certain inaccuracies in them. One of the consequences of using and depending upon these figures is that one is likely to make errors. For that reason, it is important in this particular document to go to the beginning and to have a look at the assumptions which have gone into the production of the figures and the assumptions which have been set out which are really caveats on the figures people are asked to attend to. I would like to mention them because they illustrate just how difficult it is for anyone using these figures to place too great a degree of confidence in them. I do that against the background that I am grateful for the figures. I do it against the background that I am grateful to the department that has produced them. At page 1 of the report under the heading 'Interpretation' a number of statements are made. I will outline several of them. In relation to international migration, it is stated: . . . the assumption for the next three years represents the likely outcome of present policy. However, it must be recognised that this is subject to change . . . It goes on to explain the ways in which that is subject to change. Senator Georges —Yes. Senator PETER BAUME —That is fair enough, Senator, but if we are to sit down and use these figures with any degree of confidence we have to do it against the background that in most of the past few years that assumption was incorrect and I think in years to come it is likely to be incorrect. There are likely to be changes in policy and likely to be changes in migration. It makes it very difficult. The report then says that the other assumptions underlying the forecast deal with long term arrivals to Australia, permanent and long term departures, fertility and mortality. I suggest that all these are variables about which we cannot have great certainty. The report states: For these variables a best estimate has been made on the basis of currently available information. However, beyond the next 3 to 5 years these figures are also really projections rather than forecasts. The difficulty is that people wanting to take these figures and derive assertions from them, which they would present with great force, should do so with the utmost caution. We have experienced in the last decade our demographers , using the assumptions available to them, working on the best policy guesses that they can and making the best assumptions about likely events getting it wrong again and again. The reports of those demographers have warned us, as this document does, that the assumptions underlying their mathematics are subject to change. I am one of the many people who want figures like this for the policy work we do or for trying to understand changes in Australia. But I draw the attention of those who may be reading this document to the large number of assumptions underlying the figures and the very great uncertainties which must go into the figures and which should underline any interpretations people make from them. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(5.21) —I rise to speak because of the extraordinary comments which Senator Peter Baume has just made. I would have thought that the report on Australia's population forecasts was a very valuable document which could not be ignored. Some very important decisions can and should be made as a result of that report, including the one that the Government made. If Senator Harradine's understanding is correct and our population growth is below zero, it is fairly obvious that we will have to make some very hard decisions about immigration. Senator Peter Baume —Just a degree of caution is all we are asking for. Senator GEORGES —We will have to make those decisions. I am trying to say that the document is a very valuable one. I have the impression that the honourable senator denigrated and weakened that document by inferring that the assumptions weakened it. They do not. In fact, I think the assumptions in the first part of the document strengthen it. The document tells us that because of these projections it will be necessary for us to make some very firm decisions. Previous reports brought down by the demographers were ignored by governments. We were late in starting to reverse training programs in the education area and as a result we had a shortage of teachers when we needed an increase. This arose through misinterpretation of the demographers' reports in the past. My view is that the documents are sound but politicians' decisions, based on previous documents, have been unsound. We have to be careful with this document. We have to make certain that our decisions, based on those projections, are sound decisions. What Senator Harradine is saying is correct. If our population growth falls below zero we will have the awkward situation in which the numbers of our retired people dependent on social security will be on the increase and the number of those who have to maintain them will have been reduced considerably. Senator Withers —It is good to be old, Senator. Senator GEORGES —I suppose we could have the good old fascist approach. We could get rid of the elderly and the infirm and so solve the problem. Since we are not fascists and we do not take inhumane decisions, we have to make decisions through legislation, which will cope with the problems that the document reveals . I am suggesting that on this occasion Senator Harradine may be more right than is Senator Peter Baume. I say to Senator Harradine that I find it very hard to come to that conclusion. I find it a little uncomfortable to do so, because Senator Baume, in all these areas, has shown both restraint and humanity. Maybe I am pushing the subject a little hard at the moment, but the Opposition brought me to this point by making statements which weakened the impact of a very important document. Question resolved in the affirmative. Interim Report Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.26) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. As one would expect, this is a very important report, coming from Mr Costigan. It is a very small report but it is part of a major report. In fact it is part of three volumes, two of which the Government has decided not to table because they deal with details of a criminal syndicate and mention many names. Clearly, prosecution activity will occur as a result. However, this report has two very important chapters which discuss the nature of commissions of inquiry and what is required of them. It also contains a very valuable chapter on Mr Costigan's views about a crimes commission. In addition it has a number of recommendations on which the Government has not yet formed a view. I take it that when it does, the Government will make a full statement to the Parliament and that will be able to be debated properly and not in the five-minute exercise we have today. One important thing about the report of Mr Costigan is clearly his very strong support for a national crimes commission with full powers similar to those that he has exercised as a royal commissioner. I believe that it is most important that this report be read very carefully with a very responsible attitude, particularly by the members of the Labor Caucus. We already know that the Government has been watering down proposals which are contained in the National Crimes Commission Act. It is now promoting in Caucus, as I understand it, a watered down version. It is perfectly clear that the Caucus of the Labor Party will water down even the mild proposition that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has put to it. I think it would be very salutary reading for every member of the Caucus to look at what Mr Costigan has had to say about the nature of organised crime and the imperative way in which it must be tackled. The only way in which it can be tackled on a national basis is by a body with the proper powers to do so. He points out very clearly the difference between sporadic unorganised criminal behaviour and organised crime. He makes it clear that organised crime cannot be attacked in the ordinary way. The report states: Before it is confronted, challenged and brought under control, a great deal of information is required as to the identity of its personnel, the nature of its activities and the methods of its operations. It is only with that knowledge that a successful plan of attack can be prepared and put into effect. The gathering of information and its analysis calls for authority, power and ability . Mr Costigan and his Commission have proved that that is required. The great amount of information which has become available from the Costigan Royal Commission is a result of the powers it had, the ability of the people working under Mr Costigan and the resources that were made available to him. Incidentally, all that was done by the previous Government. It is pleasing to note that Mr Costigan acknowledged that fact in the report he made last year, the most famous of the Costigan reports and perhaps the most famous report that has ever been tabled in Parliament on any subject. Mr Costigan acknowledges the very strong and satisfactory response of the previous Government in tackling and acting upon his recommendations. He points out-certainly this has been the problem with all royal commissions in the past-that there has not been the proper machinery for acting on the recommendations in a timely way. With the establishment of the special prosecutors, with the much greater co-operation which has occurred as a result of his report last year, he believes that we are now on the right track. Clearly what is required in the future is a proper institutional arrangement such as a national crimes commission which can have the power to investigate and whose investigations are followed speedily and effectively by prosecution action when that is required and can be established. Therefore, as I said, this report is a most important one. Mr Costigan's recommendations are most important. I hope that the Government will be giving them early consideration and telling this Parliament what it intends to do about them. But most important of all, he emphasises the tremendous problem in this country of organised crime and the fact that it has to be tackled in a national way by a body of prestige, power and authority. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(5.31) —I do not know what inspires me today that has not inspired me on other days. However, I feel the need to speak on this report because it seems to me that Commissioner Costigan has timed the report in order to influence the debate in this place. I do not doubt that that is his right. However, it would have been much more considerate on his part if this report had been part of a substantial report to the Parliament instead of its being a small interim report of this nature. Senator Gareth Evans —It is part of a substantial report. The honourable senator should read the tabling statement. There are two other volumes that we have not been able to table because they are confidential. Senator GEORGES —That is a pity, is it not? If we cannot have the other two reports the value of this report is rather diminished. If the Minister is saying to me that there are two other reports which are substantial but which are not before us and therefore we have to accept- Senator Missen —You are lucky to have got that report. We have not even seen that. Senator GEORGES —It so happened that I asked for the report. I have five minutes in which to speak to the report and I would like to do so with the usual interruptions to help me along. But let me sound a note of caution. There seems to be the impression that there is very little opposition to the establishment of a national crimes commission. There seems to be some influence which endeavours to overemphasise that impression. There is considerable opposition to what Commissioner Costigan has recommended in his interim report. Perhaps the report may bring some further information to the debate which is now taking place within the party rooms and which will eventually take place here. But I think we ought not to forget that substantial opposition has been expressed. It was not minimal opposition, as some people would like to infer-imply, I should say-and others infer. Senator Withers —That is good. You sound like a lawyer. Senator GEORGES —Yes, that is what lawyers do to allow their thinking to catch up with their words. Senator Withers put me on to that track, but let me get back to the point I wish to make. At the same time as we read this report we ought to bear in mind the substantial criticism of the desire to establish a national crimes commission. I would like to attract honourable senators' attention to the fact that there has also been considerable criticism of commissions in general. I think it was Senator Withers who once said, when opposing the establishment of a particular royal commission, that he advised the Prime Minister of the time to be careful of appointing royal commissions because they take on a life of their own. That is quite correct. They take on a life and a term of their own. I am beginning to fear that the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union may be in that category; I am certain that the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies is in that category. We are now plagued by a whole series of commissions, both Federal and State. Senator Durack —You need one overriding commission. That is why you need a national crimes commission. Senator GEORGES —As I say, there has been a suggestion that another royal commission should be established. My view is that we have too many royal commissions. I could not, of course, express this concern in words such as those that were used by Justice Murphy of the High Court. I refer honourable senators to his opinion on the variety of royal commissions and how, instead of protecting the rights of individuals, they actually challenge, and in some way limit, the rights of individuals. If one needed an example of this one could perhaps refer to the position in which David Combe, a private citizen, finds himself now-that is, being under very close and rather tortuous scrutiny by a royal commission in a way that I did not think anyone in this country would permit. So I suggest that we should bring balance into our considerations of these matters and merely accept this report as a further opinion to which to refer during our debates on this subject. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.36) —I think I should state briefly for the record that there is no substance whatever in any suggestion that the timing of the tabling of this report was somehow deliberately contrived , either by Mr Costigan or the Government, to coincide with any particular debate that is now occurring. The truth of the matter is that the two chapters of this report that are likely to generate most attention, those relating to the arguments for a crimes commission, were publicly released back in July at the time of the two-day conference in this chamber. It is a purely formal exercise to table them, with the other recommendations, on this occasion. Let me just briefly add one other point in response to the formulations of Senator Durack on this subject. I found rather fascinating his passion for the particular model of crimes commission advocated by Mr Costigan in this report, given that the Fraser Government's own model for a national crimes commission when introduced last year was very significantly different in its structure and more particularly its powers and the limitations on those powers than the model actively proposed by Mr Costigan. It is not the case that either to the last Government or to the present Government-particularly in the context of Senator Durack's contribution I emphasise the words 'the last Government'-there should be a body with powers as stringent, as far reaching and as indifferent to civil liberties considerations as that that Mr Costigan tends to prefer. Let me finally say this: I believe that it is necessary and appropriate that there be some better form of co-ordination and organisation of the attack on organised crime in this country than we have managed to achieve by the ad hoc series of royal commissions and other exercises of this kind in the past. But what is obviously extraordinarily important is that very careful attention be devoted to the detail of any such proposal and that there should be a very careful balance between the powers and the limitations on the power of any such organisation, for the kinds of reasons that Senator Georges among others has clearly indicated. It is exactly that detailed examination that is proceeding within the Labor Government at the moment and the Government, in this respect, is behaving no less responsibly than any government would behave in that endeavour at this stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.39) —This report is of such significance that I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Mr Redlich is one of the two special prosecutors who were appointed about this time last year as a result of the previous Government's response to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and under the Special Prosecutors Act which was passed through the Parliament at that time, again on the initiative of the previous Government. The role of Special Prosecutor is a new one for Australia. The special type of problem that was presented as a result of the Costigan report clearly called for that type of response. As I said, Mr Redlich was appointed to deal generally with breaches of the criminal law which were revealed by the report of Mr Costigan. The other Special Prosecutor, Mr Gyles, was appointed to deal specifically with the major but discrete problem of the bottom of the harbour schemes. The exercise that Mr Gyles has embarked upon is one of very considerable magnitude. He has been given, very properly, considerable staff. We look with interest as to what will result from his inquiry. However, Mr Redlich found that there was not really sufficient basis for his appointment as a special prosecutor because he was dealing with a very generalised area of criminal offence. Indeed, he reported that he did not find there was sufficiently developed material in the beginning for prosecution purposes. Nevertheless, the experience that he has had over this 12-month period-I am pleased to see that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has extended his term to some extent -has been very valuable because it has given him an opportunity to look at the problems presented by the criminal activities which were revealed in the Costigan report. He has been given several other special assignments. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allocated for this debate under Sessional Orders has expired. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee D and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the ninth report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1983, the Meat Inspection Bill 1983 and the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —On behalf of the Committee I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 11, dated 12 October 1983. Debate resumed from 13 September 1983, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I table a statement made by the Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) entitled ' Australian Electoral Office, Education and Enrolment Campaign'. I understand that it is the intention that the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and this statement be considered together by means of a cognate debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate to have a cognate debate covering this statement and the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.43) — Today we are considering a report which was brought down some weeks ago by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The first thing I wish to say is that the report, whilst I think it is an adequate one, on all occasions does not necessarily give an explanation for every recommendation that the Committee eventually came to. I point out the problem we had in terms of time. We were given a task that would have taken a normal standing or select committee two years to complete. We had to complete the task in four months. Nevertheless, I think the report is quite adequate. In part I think that is due to the hard work of the staff of the Committee. I wish to give them credit today for the work they did in preparing this report. I also acknowledge the work that all Committee members from all political parties did. The attendance record at the Committee hearings and at meetings held to write the report was remarkable. There was virtually no absenteeism. The experience which the Committee members brought was of great assistance. We had a former Minister responsible for matters now handled by the Department of Administrative Services in Mr Hunt. We had a former Leader of the Government in this chamber who had served also as a State secretary of a major political party . A State secretary of a party on the other side of politics, the Labor Party in New South Wales, served on the Committee. We had a former Premier who had been responsible for electoral reform. All of these people brought expertise. I must say that at times that expertise was embarrassing to witnesses rather than anyone else. At times it occurred to me that the Committee knew more about electoral reform than those who were giving evidence. I am not in any way disappointed that there are several dissenting reports at the back of this report. The Select Committee was not sent away, I think, to get a unanimous view. It was sent away to inquire into a matter and to come back with a number of views. I am in no way disappointed that we did not come back with a unanimous view because politics is about different points of view. On a subject with such breadth as the one which we considered it in no way surprised me that different political parties and individuals took different positions. I believe there was a need for this inquiry. At the time it was set up I think there was some thought that each member of the Committee would go in with a set piece position. To an extent, I guess that was true throughout the whole inquiry . On a surprising number of occasions people conceded some ground from their normally held views and did seek, in a sense of compromise, to come up with solutions which were acceptable to all groups. There is a need for electoral reform in this country. At the turn of the century, in the early 1900s, Australia led the world in electoral reform. I do not think one could claim that this is the case at this point of time. There have been virtually no major advances in the area of electoral reform in the last few decades. There was a major attempt in the period from 1972 to 1975 to reform the electoral legislation but, given the combative atmosphere that existed in the Parliament at that time, it is not surprising that most of the legislation was seen as partisan, as an effort to entrench power in the existing Government and, therefore, was not passed. Since 1975 we have had many promises of electoral reform. Those promises never came to fruition. The electoral legislation is complex. At this stage I pay tribute to members of the Australian Labor Party who have pressed ahead in this chamber-I mention Senator Gietzelt and Senator Sibraa-their interest in electoral reform. I think they will be very pleased at most of the results in the report. The Committee will continue to look into certain areas that we were not able to consider in depth. Firstly, later this year and early next year we will be looking at political advertisements, whether there should be free time, what restictions should apply, whether spot advertisements should be banned, the length of advertisements and so on. The Committee will be looking also at the vexed question of tax deductibility of political donations in all their forms. Members of the Committee started to discuss this but never came to a resolution of it. It is a very important and complex area and one on which we hope to come down with a recommendation next year. The third area which the Committee will look at is the industrial election function of the Australian Electoral Office. The Electoral Office conducts many union elections. The Committee did not touch on that matter at any stage during its inquiry. The Committee's report is a complex one. I do not intend in a period of 10 minutes to try to describe or justify what is in the report. I can only make this comment: We spend hours in this chamber on parochial claptrap. When we receive a report to which many members of the Senate are interested in speaking we are given merely 10 minutes in which to speak. I do not know who is to blame for that. I have been a member of the Standing Orders Committee for some time. I think that in this case the system beats us all. There is nothing we can do about it. I wish to comment on a few key features of the report. If one has read the papers one will be aware that the key feature of this report is the concept of an expanded parliament. In actual fact, this matter did not figure largely in the thinking of the Committee. It was an incidental recommendation. It is not the key recommendation. If one asks any Committee member one will find that probably he would not have listed it in his top five or 10 reforms. It was a recommendation that a majority of members of the Committee made because they felt, from the evidence available to them and in the interests of Australia as a whole, that we would be best served by an expanded parliament. Everyone who thought that knew what the reaction the public would be. They knew what the reaction of the Press would be. They knew of the sort of anti-parliamentarian Philistinism that exists in Australia. The majority of members of the Committee thought that it was necessary for at least someone to say what he thought about it rather than duck the issue. It is now up to the Executive of the Government to come up with a decision. Then the matter will go to party rooms and so on to consider whether it will be introduced eventually. I was very interested in the reaction of the Press. Some of the more responsible Press-I suppose they are responsible by my definition because they agree with me-gave the concept a fair hearing, but others jumped on the band- wagon and said that more pigs would be added to the trough, that the parliament would get an extra 36 politicians, et cetera. I want to put only one thing on the record. Since 1949 there has been no increase, apart from in the Territories , in the number of members elected to this place. The same number of members are here as were here in 1949 in spite of all the expanded tasks that we have been given and the increase in population. The Press Gallery-I do not include my friend up there-has increased fourfold in that time. There are four times as many Press people accredited to this Parliament now than there were in 1949. Yet , in actual fact, the numbers in this place have not expanded. I can draw two conclusions from that. Either we have increased our ability fourfold in terms of productivity and what we do, or-I hate to draw this conclusion-the Press is only a quarter as adequate as it was 34 years ago in 1949. But I stress that the whole debate around electoral reform does not hinge just on the concept of whether we should have more politicians. One of the first recommendations we made-I have only limited time to mention it -related to the establishment of an independent electoral commission. It is here that I think we basically have unanimity. We believe that we should have an independent electoral commission. As members of the Committee we are genuine about its being independent. I do not use the word independent meaning that then we stack it full of a particular government's supporters. That, in the long term , whoever is in government, would do them damage because it is as inevitable as death and taxes that governments change. We recommend that three people be on the Australian Electoral Commission. We recommend, not surprisingly, that the membership of the Commission include the Chief Australian Electoral Officer as a full-time executive officer, a Federal Court of Australia judge who should be chosen by the Chief Judge and who has hopefully served at least three years on the judiciary, and a First Division public servant. Honourable senators may ask why a First Division public servant should be on this Commission. It is essential to put someone on the independent Electoral Commission who has no further to go in his career. If we start putting people on the Commission who are at the bottom of the Public Service and whose future promotion depends on the favours of the Government we will never get a degree of independence. Senator Peter Baume —That is an agreed recommendation. Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes, it is an agreed recommendation. Unless there is that sort of mix and unless there is trust of the Electoral Commission, then democracy will not in any way be enhanced in this country. We expect the independent Electoral Commission to oversee all aspects of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, to supervise public funding, to supervise disclosures of donations, to supervise the disclosure of expenditure, to register political parties and to be in charge of redistributions and the whole gamut. I end on that point. I have probably just put my toe in the water in terms of what the report has said. No doubt when we get on to the second reading of the electoral Bill, hopefully this year, we will be able to put that point of view at greater length. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.54) —Eight speakers are listed to address the first report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Of those eight senators, four are members of the Committee. I am the first person who is not a member of the Committee who has had the opportunity to speak. I would like to put on record that this first report is a major report and has been a major exercise. The report is an important one and it reflects great credit upon the Committee and upon the Parliament for what has been possible. It is comprehensive, thorough, well-argued and the amount of consensus that was possible and which was obtained on matters which are difficult and which one would think would attract polarisation and disagreement have been a notable achievement for the Committee and for its Chairman. The areas where there were disagreement have been presented in a way which will aid public discussion and debate. I pay tribute to the Committee for the areas where there has been agreement. I hope that there can be the maximum bipartisan or multipartisan approach on these matters. Also, on those matters where there has been disagreement, I ask people to give the closest attention to the different views that have been expressed. On behalf of the parliamentarians who were not members of the Committee I would like to express thanks to the group. I would like to express my thanks to Dr Klugman, the Chairman of the Committee, for what was a remarkably frank, as well as skilful performance. I hope honourable senators will forgive me, but I have in front of me page 1299 of the record of proceedings. I am attracted to this example of just how frank and honest Dr Klugman could be. A question was asked about what the possible consequences of contributions to political parties might be. I will read a little bit of the transcript. Senator Sir John Carrick asked: I am seeking to ask whether there is any such evidence. That is, evidence of undue influence. The Chairman answered: Let me say, because I think you would probably agree with it, and it is one of the black points in Labor Party history in recent years, that at least three members of the Labor Party-Whitlam, Combe and Hartley-at one stage solicited half a million dollars for the Labor Party during the 1975 campaign. Senator Walters —How much? Senator PETER BAUME —No, I want to make a point about the honesty of the Chairman. He continued: I do not think anybody in Australia being aware of it would, after that, have considered that the Labor Party's vote at the United Nations or wherever would not have been biased on that particular issue. You cannot get better evidence than the evidence that has been revealed. That displays a remarkable and, I think, very praiseworthy tendency to bring out the facts in this Committee even where it may have been difficult. Honourable senators and honourable members who were on the Committee did a remarkable job. Mr Ian Harris, the secretary of the Committee, and the secretariat also have done a good job. They had the pleasure of spending most of the winter here in Canberra. We all like Canberra; we like the winter. But most of us have the view that the Canberra winter is something to be sampled a little bit at a time. These hardy souls spent most of the winter here. This document is a testament to their work and effort. I select from the report a few interesting points. The first is the ready acknowledgment in the historical work in the first chapter of the partisan considerations which have been part and parcel of the history of Australian electoral legislation. The report sets out many of those examples. It sets out some of the examples from both sides of politics. It sets out some of the examples from my side of politics which we do not find attractive. It reminds us of the time when one took an alphabetical position on the ballot paper. It talks about the four Australian Labor Party senators, Amour, Armstrong, Arthur and Ashley. Those were four people whose names began with 'A'. They served in this place. That was part of a history over many years. That historical document, in itself, is something I have never seen produced before and it will be a useful source document. The report also expresses its confidence in the capacity and the efficiency of the Australian Electoral Office. It does that in a measured way which I welcomed and I am sure the Electoral Office will be pleased to have that statement of support and confidence. It seems to me that the goal of an electoral process has to be to produce an electoral system that is fair, equitable, efficient, workable and free of corruption. If this report helps us to get towards a system which more closely meets those goals, I will be happy. I would like to have a system which sees that any party that gets more than 50 per cent of the vote will assume government in whatever election it is competing. If I had a criticism of this report it would be that, if one looks at what it has to say about the basics, about the type of electoral outcomes it wants to achieve and about the electoral goals it is pursuing, this is the area where it is perhaps most silent. If there is a weakness in the report it is, to my mind, a lack of any statement of any national electoral purpose or goal or a clear statement and declaration of the kinds of goals that should be achieved. I say that against a great degree of praise and support for the report. It will certainly help us in working towards an electoral system. But, nowhere could I discover that statement of goal or purpose which might have provided the conceptual context within which people will work. It has been an admirable historical account and a careful analysis issue by issue. But the conceptual context has been hard to discover. The debate that will ensue when the particular enabling Bills are introduced or if the Parliament wishes to consider the issues which are raised, will need to be extensive, and it will be vigorous. The report does not pretend that there is agreement on every issue and neither do I. I recommend that those Australians who want to read this paper should read just as carefully the agreed recommendations. I think Senator Harradine and I are in agreement here. They should read the recommendations which are agreed, just to make sure that the process has been honest and that the agreed recommendations are themselves worthy of support. Senator Harradine —I said it was a fix-up between the parties. Senator PETER BAUME —I did not agree with that. As to the areas of disagreement, I do hope that there will be the closest examination of each of the issues. I confess to a personal concern about the question of polling hours-a very small matter for most but for someone of a minority religious faith it is not a small matter. It has direct consequences for the observant members of several religions. We should not actually have elections on Saturdays, but if we are to have them on Saturdays I hope the Parliament will examine very carefully any measure that would make it less possible for those who wish to cast a vote personally so to do. Senator Lewis —What day would you say? Senator PETER BAUME —In some other countries elections are held mid-week and the process works perfectly well. I can see no real reason why the Sabbath day of any religion should be chosen as the day on which we have our polling. That is one of the points that are covered in the report and to which I hope people might give a little attention. Again I say that this report, this very substantial document, is a tribute to the work of the Committee. I assert that the dissenting reports display the same high standards of argument and intellectual content that mark the rest of the document. I look forward to the debates that will follow on each issue. Honourable senators will know that my Party is not disposed to agree to some propositions, but in general there is a considerable amount of support for what has emerged. I believe the report has been a real service to the community and to the Parliament. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(6.02) —I should like to address some remarks to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I begin by supporting Senator Robert Ray, one of my colleagues on that Committee, in thanking all of those other members of the Committee, those other hardy souls who spent several months here during the winter. This Committee met day after day, week after week, during the recess. They were long days, but I do not think any of us ever stopped enjoying them. I found it, in all, a fascinating and rewarding experience. For a start, it was the first parliamentary committee upon which I had spent a lot of time and therefore it was a learning experience for me. I was fortunate to have around me at that table a number of senators and members who could teach me a great deal. I refer for a moment to our Chairman, Dr Klugman, known for bringing a certain individualistic flair to Caucus debates at times, much to the chagrin of some of the people on our front bench, especially someone close to me now. Nevertheless Dr Klugman displayed that flair in abundance for several weeks. Those honourable senators interested enough to look through the voting records of the decision-making processes of the Committee will find very often, even on the most contentious of subjects, where there were votes of six to three and five to four, strange names indeed make up the three, six, four and five. Party lines were not adhered to, even on some of the most contentious of the Committee 's decisions, even those decisions that will bring the most debate here. Senator Sir John Carrick's years of experience as a party offical, let alone as a senator and Minister in this place, were of great benefit to all of us. I particularly thank him for that. He and I, as party secretaries, formed something of an apparatchiks club and I think we were successful in helping along our respective party machines and making their lives a little easier in the future. Of that we are proud. I might say we failed in some of our endeavours. We were not always successful. Some of the less enlightened members of the Committee tended to vote us down on occasions. Nevertheless, we did our best. Mr Steele Hall, who showed a lot of courage when he voted himself out of office in South Australia in getting a proper, fair and honest system of redistribution going in that State, again was a very valuable member of the Committee. Senator Robert Ray, who spoke earlier, I think has an encyclopaedic knowledge of this subject. I have not met anyone yet who has a greater knowledge of almost everything that is in that report. John Scott and Alan Griffiths also showed a great deal of interest. Ralph Hunt too showed courage, enterprise and, again, an individualistic flair. I came away from that long and arduous winter enlightened and I hope heartened at the future of the Parliament, given the display of the individuals on the Committee. Having said all of that, unfortunately I have to agree with Senator Ray in saying that 10 minutes is inadequate even to begin to cover what is in this very long report. Senator Peter Baume mentioned the polling hours and the difficulty that some people have. That was the subject of a very long debate in the Committee. I think honourable senators will find that, whatever arguments are put up in this place or in the House, they were well and truly canvassed on the Committee which finally came down with decisions. They might not all be right, but nevertheless I think most of them are. The only issue I want to address today in detail is that of public funding, which was one of the more controversial issues covered by the Committee. Submissions on public funding were received from a host of individuals and organisations. In favour of public funding were the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Democrats, the 'A Call to Australia' Coalition-the Family Action Movement as it is sometimes known-the Communist Party of Australia and a host of others. Against us on the matter of public funding we had submissions from the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. Both of those parties, however, in putting up submissions which were opposed to the principle of public funding, also outlined the sort of system they would like to see brought in if the Committee and eventually the Parliament were to accept that public funding was the right way to go. There were many arguments for public funding, but I think I can summarise them in a few moments, especially those of the Labor Party. The first and, I think, most important argument is that no party should be able to buy an election. That is covered to some extent in this report, and it is something that has concerned me as a party official for many years. When I looked at television campaigns during elections, when I looked at newspapers or listened to the radio, it was always apparent to me that my Party had very many fewer advertisements in any of those sections of the media than its opposition. I cannot believe that over time that is the right way to go. It is true to say, of course, that sometimes political parties, be it those on the other side of the House or my own, can rig up some pretty dreadful election campaigns, and the more time they spend on television the worse they will go. Given that we cannot do very much about that at the moment, I think it is still fair to say that over time no party should have a monopoly on big spending in election campaigns. That would mean that some elections would be bought simply by weight of the supporters' money. That is not the right way to go in a democracy, and I hope it is not the way the Parliament sees it in the coming months. If the Government is the main source of funds for election campaigns, then any suspicions about who gives money and for what purpose will tend to go by the board, and that is something I hope we will see. There were a number of objections to public funding. The first was that public opinion has always been strongly against it. In reply to that, I remind honourable senators that in New South Wales that subject has already been an election issue. In the lead up to the election in New South Wales in 1981 it was a big issue. A campaign was run in our media and there were full page advertisements in the Sydney Morning Herald. The Liberal leader for the first part of that year, John Mason, made it his big thing for the first few months. He did not survive very long as leader, not many of them have in New South Wales in the last seven or eight years. His replacement was Bruce - Senator Robert Ray —MacDonald. Senator RICHARDSON —I thank Senator Ray. I was finding it hard to remember that one. Bruce MacDonald did not last very long either. He also made the matter of public funding an issue. The point is that we won 69 out of 99 seats. It never got off the ground as an issue in New South Wales. It will not get off the ground as an issue in a national election either. The other argument that there are higher priorities for scarce funds can be advanced to try to stop any new initiative of government, be it public funding or any other new area at all. The other tack taken was that parties will have less voluntarism if they are relying on the arms of government. In New South Wales there has certainly been no lack of activity on the part of the rank and file of the parties since public funding was introduced only a couple of years ago. To that was added the argument that the administrative costs of a system of public funding would be so great that they would tend to make governments think twice about their worth. That argument does not really stand up either. As the evidence showed from Joan Adams, who came along from the New South Wales public funding authority from which she has just retired, the costs in 1982-83 were only $90,000. This involved the employment of only four people, two of whom were employed for only a short period. The system that the Committee in its report eventually went for with respect to public funding is in fact nowhere near as complex, as demanding or as ardous for participants as the New South Wales system. Therefore, again, I think that we can effectively dismiss that argument. The Iraqi money affair referred to by Senator Peter Baume is a matter I also wish to mention. When one is asked the question 'Why should there be public funding?', I think the answer is: 'To be sure there is not undue influence from a foreign power, from multinationals, from trade unions or from anyone else because, if the parties are reliant on government funds there will be fewer and fewer questions asked. The last matter that I wanted to go over was simply the level of the threshold. The Democrats argued that there should be no threshold. We finally decided on a magic figure of 4 per cent, which was used in a number of our other decisions. The basis for that decision was that we could not allow those parties that might be seen to represent a ratbag fringe to bring the whole system of public funding into disrepute. We thought that there had to be some reasonable threshold and the figure of 4 per cent, I think, will allow small parties their fair share of the public funding cake. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.12) —As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform I also add my thanks to the secretariat for the enormous amount of work it did in such a short space of time and to the other members of the Committee. For my part, I found it a trying experience but one which I ultimately found very rewarding. Like Senator Richardson, I learnt a great deal in that Committee about the operation of political parties and about how things are done at different times and in different places. I also share with him the view that the debate which we will have here has been rehearsed very thoroughly already by the Committee. Various contentious issues will arise and I am sure there will be quite a furious debate on this matter. Indeed, I expect it will make the debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill and the Sex Discrimination Bill look like pious exercises, because seemingly nothing excites parliamentarians quite as much as electoral reform or standing orders. If we could debate those matters together I am sure it would be a very interesting time. In the time available to me I do not intend canvassing any of the issues that are contained with the report. Rather, I will look at the other statement which has been handed down because I believe that, interestingly enough, the issue that we were grappling with in the Committee was addressed in the ministerial statement put down by the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) probably in a more direct way than in the report of the Committee. The Committee in its report looked at a variety of changes of a machinery kind. The statement handed down by the Special Minister of State, which we are also discussing at this time, essentially looked at the problem of getting people involved in the electoral process. If people do not see the machinery as being responsive, as being useful or as meeting their needs, no matter how geewhiz or whizbang that machinery is or how close to making a perfect result it might be, we will not have achieved anything in a democratic sense. The disappointing thing about the Minister's statement is that it does not actually go to the very heart of what the Australian Electoral Office found out when its officers went around and interviewed many people who were not on the rolls. Time and again the people who were not on the rolls said that they considered the electoral process irrelevant and ineffective. They saw their relationship with the Parliament as very tenuous indeed. The unfortunate thing about it is that the suggestion then flowing from that inquiry, in terms of interpretation, was that these young people were apathetic. I do not happen to believe that that is a correct diagnosis or interpretation to be drawn from the evidence. What one ought to draw from the evidence is that by and large young people saw themselves as powerless in our community. If one accepts that interpretation there is a completely different remedy: If one sees people as apathetic, what one does is simply administer more of the same because it is their fault. If one sees people as powerless then what one must do is suggest that it might be the fault of the people who run the system or of the system itself. I think that is probably a far better way of looking at what those young people were telling us in their responses. They were telling us that their relationship to what actually goes on in this place is very tenuous indeed. An advertising campaign will do absolutely nothing, for example, to make political parties fulfil the promises they make in election campaigns. Surely when people vote they say: ' That is what a political party is promising. I will go out there and I will vote for that party'. Then when the party gets into power and they find it does not implement its election promises their response is: 'Well, what's the use?'. I believe that in any reasonable, dispassionate argument with these people they would have the better of the debate. There is a very tenuous connection. I am certainly not advocating that people stay out of the political process. I have always advocated that they be involved in that process. But let us not push them aside with the rather patronising comment that they are apathetic. They are not saying that at all. They are saying that they are powerless. They are appealing to us, the people in political parties, the people in power, to look at our role and what we are doing and whether or not we ought to smarten up. I think that is a far better interpretation of the response of the young people than the rather patronising statements that were made in the ministerial statement, namely, that we are to have another advertising campaign to jolly them along and suggest to them that voting is a good idea. Senator Lewis —Do you approve of the expenditure of $3m? Senator MACKLIN —No, I do not. I will come to that matter shortly. Senator Harradine —Wouldn't that argument apply to the older people as well? Senator MACKLIN —Yes, it does. Senator Harradine —Why can't we just have voluntary voting and be done with it? Senator MACKLIN —There was a voluntary voting discussion in the Committee. As I remember it, Senator Sir John Carrick and I were the only members who actually supported the notion of voluntary voting, so we did not get very far with that one. I think, in this circumstance, that we have to look very clearly at what young people have already told us. The reason I am talking about young people, I point out to Senator Harradine, is that by and large we found that the people not enrolled fell very heavily into the younger category under those findings of the-- Senator Lewis —It is easier not to enrol. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, that is true. But I think that when one looks at the Committee report one can see that the Committee has attempted to address itself to the first step along the way to electoral reform. The next step is to look at parliamentary reform in an effective way. That is a much more difficult thing. It is probably not something that can be legislated for. It is something to which political parties have to address themselves. In the fullness of time there will probably be fairly dramatic changes compared with the position we are now in. One only has to look back 60 to 70 years to see that this House was totally different then from what it is now. Possibly in 60 or 70 years it will be a totally different House again. I do not believe that we should think that what we have now is the end product, and that it will always remain. But the types of evolutions and changes that would ensure that we end up with a better House in 60 years time will take place only if the people who are currently here address themselves to the issue and try to look at ways to make the system better and more responsive to the electorate. One of the problems that must necessarily be met is that of political parties. It was not something to which the Committee was able to address itself as it fell outside its parameters. But I assure Senator Harradine that in the discussions-and I am sure that other members of the Committee would be able to back this up-time and again the problem of the independent was brought up, and people from all political parties there sought to make sure that the decisions being made were not being made in total disregard of the fact that in Australia many people stand as independents and many people are elected as independents and have been elected as independents since Federation. Every political party which was represented on that Committee and members of every political party looked at that issue as the various matters came up. It is an easy jibe to make, but it is an unsubstantiated jibe towards the members of the Committee, to suggest that they did not look at the very real issues and serious difficulties in a party dominated system for those people who stand outside of party systems. The Committee's report will, in the next month or so, ensue into legislation, and it is at that time that we shall have a serious and thoroughgoing debate on the many issues raised. But I am confident that much of the Committee's report and many of its recommendations, if not the totality of the recommendations, will find their way into legislation. Having been a member of that Committee, I am confident that it will be to the benefit of democracy in this country. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(6.21) —I congratulate the members of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform on the report. It is a real milestone in Australia's electoral history. I congratulate them on the comprehensive range of recommendations made in the report. Electoral reform is long overdue in Australia at the national level. This country was once a world leader in electoral reform. In the nineteenth century the major reforms were the product of the pressures brought by the working class movement. In 1856 we had the introduction of secret ballots in Victoria and South Australia; in 1894 we had votes for women; and at the turn of century we had equal electoral boundaries for the House of Representatives, which, unfortunately, have deteriorated over time into unequal boundaries and a diminution of the principle of one vote one value. Essentially our electoral laws in Australia at present are nineteenth century laws written for small electorates where individual votes could be more easily influenced by a single candidate. In recent decades conservative government inaction and community complacency have let us fall behind world reforms. There has been no major overhaul of the Commonwealth Electoral Act since Federation. In the 1974-75 period the Labor Government, on a number of occasions, tried to reform the electoral laws but was frustrated. We need reforms urgently in this country because our voting system is among the most complex in the world. As a result of this report we can again become a world leader at national level in electoral reform. One of the major recommendations of the report is the proposal for the independent electoral boundaries commission. I think that can go a long way towards providing a more accurate correspondence between votes cast for parties and the seats obtained by them. At present the system is very rough and ready. In the 1980 elections we had a situation in which the coalition got 50.2 per cent of the two-party vote but got a 23-seat majority. That was a large majority in relation to a very small margin. We have large disparities in our Federal electorates at present, particularly in the State of Queensland where they vary from 105,000 in Fadden to 65,000 in Kennedy, and clearly there has been a departure from the principle of one vote one value in the Federal electoral boundaries. This system, to a degree, is modelled on the system which has been operating in my State for some time, where electoral boundaries have been drawn by an independent commission since the mid-1970s. There is now public confidence in the system. I am pleased to say that both major parties have won elections on the boundaries drawn by those commissions. The other major reform that appears in the report is the proposal for reforming the Senate voting system. I am a strong supporter of the list system of voting for such elections. I also endorse the proposal in the report for the electorate having a choice between the list system and exercising an option to cast votes under the present system of voting. I think that in South Australia, where we had the list system in operation for two upper House elections State-wide, in 1975 and 1979, the list system of voting showed its great worth in reducing informal votes. In 1979, for example, the informal vote for the Legislative Council in South Australia across the whole State was lower than the informal vote for the House of Assembly. The upper House informal vote was only 4.4 per cent, which is a remarkable achievement in Australian electoral history. I am a strong supporter of any system which will reduce the informal votes in elections for this House. It is clear that many electors are frustrated by the present voting system for the Senate. As I have pointed out before in this chamber, at the 1983 elections the number of informal votes in New South Wales by itself was adequate to elect one senator. In Victoria this year also the number of informal votes would have been adequate to elect one senator. Nationally informal votes for the Senate in 1983 were the third largest block of votes in the elections. In the Port Adelaide electorate this year, in two polling booths we had the amazing situation, under this voting system which compels people to put down scores of preferences, of some 27 per cent of the electorate casting informal votes for the Senate. That is an outrageous result. Those people are having their votes frustrated. Looking at the area we found that a number of the people who were being forced to cast informal votes because of the complexity of the system were either aged people or migrants from certain countries who had language difficulties. Any improvement in the system would advantage those people enormously. I also support very strongly the proposal for party affiliations to appear on ballot papers against candidates' names. At present there is some lack of information on party affiliations of candidates in Australian elections. This reform would bring us into line with the United States, New Zealand, Canada, France and Norway, which all provide for party affiliations to appear alongside candidates' names on ballot papers. It is also very important to note that the report contains a proposal for doing away with alphabetical listing of candidates on House of Representatives ballot papers, a very small but important reform. For example, at the elections in 1980 the coalition's 23-seat majority came from winning 12 marginal seats. In nine of those the conservative candidate was ahead of the Australian Labor Party on the ballot paper-a statistically unlikely result. I also endorse very strongly the proposal to have the Australian Electoral Office move its activities more into the area of voter education. At present the Australian Electoral Office gives priority, as it must under the Act, to the actual process of registration and enrolment for voting. I think that not enough attention is paid to voter education instruction activities in Australia. There is no doubt that a great deal can be done to reduce informal votes if people are given some assistance in how to vote correctly. In my State in 1980 the Labor Party operated a pilot project involving door knocking and assisting people with voting, for the upper House particularly, and we were very pleased to note that in the western suburbs of Adelaide in particular there were very large reductions in the informal vote and throughout the whole State an 11,000 reduction in informal votes, whereas for most other States there was quite a significant increase in informal voting. I support the proposal to increase the size of the Parliament. There has been no increase in the size of this Parliament since 1949. Since that time the size of the Ministry has increased by 70 per cent. A larger back bench resulting from an increase in the size of the Parliament would strengthen Parliament's independence in relation to the Ministry. Also, there would be a larger pool of talent from which to choose the Ministry. Since 1949 the range of responsibilities carried out by the Commonwealth Parliament has become more diverse, and this had put greater responsibilities and work loads on back benchers. That is a very important fact to bear in mind when advocating an increase in the size of the Parliament. (Quorum formed) Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(8.01) —Mr Deputy President, the Senate is debating the first report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I was privileged to be a member of that Committee. The report itself is of some 322 pages, without, of course, all the supporting evidence of many hundreds of pages. It is a report which makes 130 substantive recommendations and at least as many minor ones, so quite clearly one cannot comment upon them all within the compass of some 10 minutes. The Committee was asked to look at the whole of the Commonwealth Electoral Act to see what reforms ought to be made to that very complex Act, to look at the report of the Harders Committee of Inquiry into the Disclosure of Electoral Expenses, to look at the public funding of political parties and the disclosure of donations, and many wider matters. Clearly, those matters are of enormous scope. The Committee has been made a standing committee and will move to wider things than those I have mentioned. The journey was an interesting one, as other senators have commented, and I acknowledge the comments of the preceding speakers, particularly Senator Ray and Senator Richardson. The Committee worked very hard and to great lengths under skilled chairmanship and I commend the input of my colleagues on the Committee. The Committee looked at a wide range of matters. A lot of them were matters that over the years have needed to be brought up to date. I should acknowledge and commend the work of the Commonwealth Electoral Office and its senior officers who gave us very valuable advice and the benefit of their experience. I commend those who gave evidence, and I commend to those who are interested in the whole electoral process the evidence and the documentation which will go far beyond this report and will provide a library of information for those studying the procedures of democracy. So I do acknowledge all those who contributed by way of written and verbal evidence, those who came as skilled advisers, and the secretariat. The Committee has made a wide range of recommendations, many of them of very great interest to the electorate. I refer to the new proposals to put the registered names of political parties on ballot papers and to ballot for positions so that candidates are not in alphabetical order. There is a whole host of such recommendations. There are some very contentious matters in the report. For example, some matters get to the heart of quite complex issues. I do not want to be in any way contentious because with every one of these issues there is a respectable view on both sides. It is very important to understand that. There are some great issues. Public funding and the disclosure of donations led to an important series of principles having to be thought out. They are not unconnected, for example, with the recent disclosure here of ministerial pecuniary interests, and one can see the difficulties when one directs oneself to that. The size of the Parliament is a huge and complex matter because one cannot direct oneself to that without looking at the relationship between the size of the Senate and the size of the House of Representatives and whether we wish to maintain that nexus, whether it could be broken by referendum , whether in fact increasing the size of the Senate would be a good thing in itself and, depending upon the numbers, whether it would be manageable or would simply create a deadlock situation. I say these things to sketch the magnitude an the nature of the debate that will take place when the legislation comes before the Senate. I personally indicated that I felt that at least for the time being the Houses of Parliament should not be increased in size. I will expand upon that view in the future. I want in due course to express a view in the negative on some of the key issues. That is not to say that there are not some 80 or 90 issues with which I concur; that is to be understood in view of the magnitude of this situation. For example, I would want to argue very strongly that we should not reduce the polling hours to 6 p.m., not only for religious reasons but for other very valid reasons. Eight per cent of all electors have chosen over the years to vote between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. and we should be in business to aid the electors not hinder them. In due course I will express very strong views against the proposal for a list system in the Senate. In my judgment, the recommendation in regard to that system will simply complicate the procedures; it will bring in much more difficult problems than have arisen in the past and will do nothing at all to help. Those things are just problems and I repeat that they should not obscure the fact that so many of the recommendations coming before the Senate will find unamimity of opinion from the whole of the Parliament. As to other matters, I will be strongly arguing against public funding and against disclosure, not because I want to hide something but, to the contrary, because I think we will be looking at great principles, such as whether one can legislate for honesty or whether one must look towards honesty in terms of a code of integrity for parliamentarians. In any case, the worst of all worlds would be to pretend that we are achieving honesty when in fact we may be putting up a veil. I simply say those things to give an impression of the width of debate we will have when the legislation comes before us. This report covers such matters as the redistribution of electoral boundaries, how they are to be changed and how that will be done in an objective way. It ought to be said, and said publicly, that over the post-war journey, the last 40 years, there has been ample evidence to suggest that Federal electoral redistributions have been honest and have served both sides of the Parliament well. In other words they have expressed a fair system for the people of Australia. It is not a question of looking to tidy up something that has been bad. What we are doing is looking to entrench an honest system for the people. I make a final comment in this very short speech. So much of what was done in this report was in fact delimited by one thing, that is, that the majority view of the Committee, a view that I do not share, was that compulsory voting is a key factor. Once it is decided that there should be compulsory voting-once it is decided that people will be compelled to go to the polling booth and actually vote-then an enormous number of adjustments have to be made to the Electoral Act itself. One then has to ponder the imponderable. When we know there is a donkey vote of a very significant percentage and that the margins of election results are no bigger than the donkey vote why is it that we want to compel people who do not want to vote-they may in fact cast a vote that may be quite irrelevant as far as they are concerned-to cast a vote? Why should we introduce a whole system of compulsion instead of trying to develop a responsible democracy. Australia is one of the few countries that has compulsory voting. I believe that a much better and fairer system would operate if voluntary voting were established. I commend the report. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time allocated under the sessional order for consideration of committee reports has expired. [COGNATE BILLS: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INTER-CHANGE OF POWERS) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ADVISORY JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (REMOVAL OF OUTMODED AND EXPENDED PROVISIONS) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ELECTORS' INITIATIVE) BILL 1982 [1983] CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (APPROPRIATION BILLS) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL 1983 CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (DOUBLE DISSOLUTION) BILL 1983] Debate resumed. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(8.12) —Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was talking about the nine Constitution Alteration Bills that are before the Senate. I indicated my opposition to the Constitution Alteration ( Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983, consistent with the views I have expressed over the years. That is now history. I still believe that the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill does present some danger to the authority of the Senate. Therefore, I will be opposing that Bill and will vote against it in the Senate at the appropriate time. I said earlier that the founding fathers of Australia-they had been presented with the wishes of the States which said that they would agree with Federation provided the Senate was established, thereby giving the States equal representation-carefully drafted the Constitution to protect the interests of the States for that very reason. On the last occasion the people were faced with a decision in this matter of a referendum, Senator Peter Rae wrote an article on the significance of this measure. I would like to quote a few paragraphs from it . He said: Politics has a tendency to be subjected to over simplification and sloganeering . Complex issues are treated as if their complexities did not exist. The two controversial referendum questions, which are those relating to the Senate, have certainly been subjected to that treatment by the proponents of the 'yes' case. I shall endeavour to tread the path between undue complication and over simplification. He went on to say: Let me refer briefly to the history of our Federal System. When the separate colonies joined together to form one nation they did so with a considerable degree of mutual suspicion. They also recognised that the far-flung nature of the small population on our huge continent made desirable that State Governments be retained and further that the two biggest population areas (Sydney and Melbourne) would dominate the national government. The agreement to federate was therefore subject to carefully drafted provisions to limit the powers of the central government and to provide two powerful checks upon it to prevent it from taking power from the States. These two checks were, (1) a written constitution which limited the powers of the central government and ensured that any further powers would be given only if a majority of the people in a majority of the States agreed, by referendum, to make the change; (2) a powerful Senate having an independence from the executive government of the day and made up of an equal number of Senators from each State. Careful provision was made to give to the States powers in relation to the timing of elections for the Senate and the replacement of vacancies in the Senate caused by death or retirement. It was made possible to have elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives on the same day, but the constitution was careful to provide that the Senate could not be dissolved whenever it pleased the Prime Minister of the day to do so. The Senate was to be dissolved when its term expired or when it had reached a stage of confrontation leading to a deadlock between the two Houses. In the case of deadlock there is provision for a double dissolution when all members of both Houses have to go back to the people for election. This is the sanction imposed on the Senate to ensure that it does not behave in an unreasonable way. There are many other fine points of the balance which the Constitution provides to ensure that democracy is preserved along with the Federal system. But it seems that, of late, central governments in Canberra have become greedy for more power. First the Labor Party in 1973, 1974 and 1975 tried to push through bills for a referendum proposal identical with the proposal called, by what is deliberate misdescription, the Simultaneous Elections question. He went on to say: It was the first Prime Minister of Australia, Sir Edmund Barton, who said, 'We cannot fail to remember that the Constitution designed the Senate to be a House of greater power than any ordinary second chamber. Not only by its express powers, but by the equality of its representation of the States, the Senate was intended to protect the States from aggression'. An attack on the powers and independence of the Senate is, without doubt, an attack upon the rights and powers of the States. There are other paragraphs in that article that I believe are of interest but, in the interest of time, I- Senator Grimes —Is New Zealand a democracy? Senator JESSOP —I would imagine that people could consider that. I know the sort of democracy that the Australian Labor Party wants to see in Australia, it wants to abolish the Senate. That is clearly enshrined in the objectives of the Labor Party. I believe that this was evident when the Whitlam Government came into power. It tried to weaken the authority of local government. It tried to regionalise local government into 48 regions throughout Australia. It tried to destroy local government with the object of eventually destroying the States. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) should ask me whether New Zealand is a democracy. He is dedicated to centralised power in Canberra. There is no way he can convince me otherwise. I will be opposing simultaneous elections for that reason alone. Another measure about which I am suspicious is the interchange of powers. I will not oppose that emphatically. I have a question-mark about it in my mind. I do not like the thought of the Federal Government, under socialist administration, perhaps having a chance at some future time-remote though that might be-of going to bed with socialist governments of the States. Senator Grimes —Oh! Senator JESSOP —Yes. What an unholy marriage. What a danger to the future of Australia if that ever happens. Therefore, I have troubles in my mind, but I might not object too much in regard to that matter. The Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill proposes parliamentary terms of four years. I believe that that is fair enough. I think that people are a little tired of elections. I believe that Bob Hawke, for example, ought to have a little longer than three years to convince his left wing that to develop the uranium resources of Australia is the right way to go. It will take him that long. You might give him some help, Senator Grimes, because I believe that you are one of those within the Labor Caucus who happens to be interested in the welfare of the Australian workers and in the job opportunities and in economic advantages that the uranium industry in Australia can provide. I sympathise with your problem. I believe that you might need another year to get the left wing radical element within your Party to agree to such development, thus helping the economic progress of Australia. Unless you want me to go a little further, I will continue with the next Bill. I can talk for a long time on that issue because I think you are behaving in a very peculiar fashion if you are interested in the economic recovery of Australia. Senator Colston —I take a point of order. If Senator Jessop is addressing the Chair he has just made some very derogatory remarks about the Chair. If he is not addressing the Chair, I suggest that he do so. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Bearing in mind that it is just after dinner I have allowed a certain leeway to Senator Jessop. I ask him to address his remarks to the Chair. Senator JESSOP —I have enjoyed my mineral water very much, thank you. I intend to continue to go through my objections to these Bills. I have demonstrated my opposition to the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. I do not like the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill. I think it is an abrogation of the responsibility of Parliament to refer matters to the High Court, even though they may be advisory. Plenty of advice which we can utilise is available to us from lawyers and senior counsel from all over the place. I am saying no to that Bill. I will say yes to the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill. Senator Townley —That is not necessary. Do not worry about that. Senator JESSOP —I think it is all right. I do not mind that. I do not think there is any constitutional threat to the Senate in that Bill. I will say no to the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill. Certainly, I am prepared to agree with Senator Rae's proposition about the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(8.23) —I join in this debate on the nine Constitution alteration Bills. I say first that that number of Bills is in itself somewhat intimidating. I hope that the nine constitution alterations will not all be placed before the public when it comes to vote on them, because it will be difficult for the public. I think it is even difficult for honourable senators in this chamber to realise what each Bill is about at various times. Senator Townley —Speak for yourself. Senator MISSEN —I speak for myself. I am only a simple lawyer and, therefore, I am not absolutely sure I can always recall what every Bill is about. I suggest that there should be some winnowing of the list before we go to the people with a list of constitutional alterations of that dimension. We originally had a proposal for fixed terms of Parliament. I spoke a couple of weeks ago in a state of some dismay when I found that the Australian Labor Party has so foolishly moved from the proposal of fixed terms. It was apparently misled by some of the pragmatists in that Party and would not continue with the fixed term proposal of which, according to the polls something like 75 per cent of the public were in favour. The carriage of that proposal would have been a major achievement which would have removed the prime ministerial right to cause the number of elections which we have had in this country. We have had so many elections that although we in the Senate, who are supposed to have six year terms, have only one senator in this chamber today has ever served a six-year term. Such is the ludicrous situation to which we have degenerated through quick elections and short terms of parliament. Instead of the fixed term proposal, the Government has brought back the two proposals in regard to simultaneous elections and parliamentary terms of four years. While good, they are to my mind a second best solution. I think that later we will have to get back to the concept of fixed terms to ensure that terms of parliament are not truncated by actions of Prime Ministers who see a quick gain and advantage in having early elections, therefore disrupting the economy of this country. I support the two referendum proposals for simultaneous elections and terms of four years for the House of Representatives and eight years for the Senate. I will certainly campaign for them, as I did in 1977 when the previous Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, and I travelled this country to seek votes for those proposals. We know that although those proposals failed narrowly to be accepted in two of the States and badly in Tasmania, they were overwhelmingly successful in the other three States and enjoyed the benefit of the vote of 62 per cent of the population. Unfortunately the proposals did not become the law. I trust that on this occasion they will become the law and we will be able to eliminate the ludicrous situation in this country whereby, since Federation, parliaments have sat for an average duration of two years and five months, not even the three years for which the Constitution provides. I trust we will realise that the value of these proposals is to be seen in other countries. For example, among the democratic world at present 24 parliaments have a five-year term, 25 parliaments have a four-year term, and only four, including Australia's have a three-year term. One need not advance very much into the arguments, which are so significant, to show that it is necessary for parliaments to sit for a certain time in order for governments to be able to develop their policies and have their economic programs operating so that they are not always facing the immediate post-election or pre-election Budget. They can therefore do more to stabilise the economy of the country. Most of the States in this country have either accepted four-year terms or are in the process of changing their terms to four years, so the proposal is on their books . It is not necessary for people to vote for both of these alternative proposals . They can vote for both one or neither, as the Bills provide. I hope that people will vote for both proposals because I believe they are in the best interests of this country. With regard to the other constitution alteration bills, I do not propose to speak on some of them at any length because I have already spoken on them when they first came before the Senate in May of this year. I draw attention to the speech which I made. It is to be found on page 676 of Hansard of 19 May 1983. I set out my views on the six Bills which were then before the Senate in respect of constitutional alteration. Five of these Bills are in the list we are debating tonight. I will deal briefly with four of them. I think that the proposal in respect of the interchange of powers between the States and the Commonwealth is an excellent proposal. It is one which was accepted by the Australian Constitutional Convention. It provides that in a number of areas where there is a need for a variation of powers, where it is necessary to overcome grey areas in the Constitution and to ensure somebody is taking action, the States can refer certain powers to the Commonwealth without losing them forever. Likewise, the Commonwealth can do the same thing. Those proposals, which have been worked out by representatives of the States and the Commonwealth deserve support and should be supported in the constitutional referendum. The fourth proposal before us is one which provides the power for the High Court to give advisory opinions. In other words, it enables the High Court of Australia to give advisory opinions. It means that in the future the High Court will not have to wait for a case to develop fortuitously, which might take years and years to come, to judge the constitutional validity or otherwise of one of the Acts of this Parliament. We all remember that it was not until about a year ago that the 1975 racial discrimination legislation was determined as being constitutionally valid by the High Court of Australia. I think it is desirable that the same power should be held by the High Court as is held by the Supreme Court in Canada and as is held by the Privy Council. There is nothing unusual in that provision. Indeed, some attempt has been made in the past to give the High Court some power in this regard but the right to have full power to give an advisory opinion that is not based on a particular case has been rejected. Some of my colleagues and other people in the community, some of the johnny- come-latelies in this field, have discovered some objection. Some of the High Court judges have expressed, as they have in the past, some thought that they might not want this power, that they might be overworked, or that they might have too much business. This has not happened in Canada, it has not happened elsewhere, and I believe there is no reason why it should happen here. I note that an amendment to this Bill has been proposed by Senator Durack which would enable individuals who have an interest in a particular Act of the Parliament to be able to join in and seek an advisory opinion. I hope the Government will think carefully-- Senator Gareth Evans —Not seek an opinion; to intervene and put argument. Senator MISSEN —I understand it goes further than that. Senator Gareth Evans —No, it does not. If it did I would not accept it, but I am going to. Senator MISSEN —I see. That being so, it does seem to me to be a desirable thing that individuals should be able to intervene in that way. I am glad to hear that the Government will accept that amendment. The advisory opinions proposal of course, is based on recommendations of both the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs under my chairmanship, made in October 1977, and Committee D of the Australian Constitutional Convention. As our proposed terms were slightly at variance, we got together and there was agreement about them. This change has been a long time coming and I believe that as this proposal has the support of the Constitutional Convention there is a question that it should also have the support of the Australian people as a desirable power to be given to the High Court. I think little needs to be said about the third of these five proposals, the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill 1983. It is desirable that we should clear up some of the debris of the Constitution that is no longer needed. The Constitution is not exactly an exciting document for people to read. It is better that they should not have to read things that no longer have any bearing in the governing of this country. We come then to two other of the private member's Bills that are part of the package of nine Bills before us. One is the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1982 [1983] which was proposed by Senator Mason of the Australian Democrats. This Bill provides that Acts, constitutional change, and so forth can be initiated by individual members of the public. I think 250,000 people would be required to sign a request for a Bill, which must then be put to the people. I believe in parliamentary democracy. I do not believe in the participatory form of democracy that this would involve. If we look at that proposal, we would be stuck with Bills the terms of which had been drafted by individuals outside the Parliament. There would be no room for debate and change inside the Parliament. If the legislation were then carried in a referendum, we would be stuck with a piece of law which we would have to get rid of by the same complicated process. I have spoken on this proposal before and indicated my entire opposition to it. I hope that the Government will not have a bar of it. I hope it will not be put forward because it would be confusing and dangerous. It appears to give to the people rights, but what it would do would be to hog-tie the Parliament of this country and really to remove from parliamentary democracy the essence of debate, compromise and determination of Bills, which are essential and which are part of our traditional Westminster system of democracy. The next of the private member's Bills is one on which I have also spoken before. I refer to the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill 1983 which was introduced by Senator Peter Rae. What he is proposing is what is known generally in the trade as the 'Court' proposal. Disputes have gone on in the Constitutional Convention over the years. One of these was the 'Whitlam' proposal, which would have taken away the right to deny Supply so far as the Senate is concerned. That proposal would never have been accepted because there were always enough people to oppose it. Such a proposal could never have succeeded at a referendum. The alternative 'Court' proposal now promoted by Senator Peter Rae says this: If there is a dispute, if Supply is refused, if there is objection of this sort on the grounds that the Government does not have the finance to govern, there must be a double dissolution. This proposal would force the situation so that there must be a double dissolution of both Houses. The advantage of such a proposal, of course, is that, as the Constitution stands at the moment, it is possible if there are no double dissolution Bills around for the Senate to force the other House to an election and not have to go to an election itself. That, I think, is notoriously bad and should be changed. On the other hand, this proposal would also allow the Senate to send the House of Representatives to an election because the Government in the House of Representatives is unpopular or is doing necessary but unpopular things. This proposal would give to the Senate too much power. Frankly, I would not like to see this chamber given the power to force the House of Representatives at any time to an election. Frankly, I could not support that proposal, as I indicated when it first came before this chamber. Two of the Bills we are considering tonight are new and are before the chamber for the first time. The Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill 1983 has been proposed by my Victorian colleague, Senator Hamer. We have a situation at present where the Government in the House of Representatives can hold onto Bills rejected by the Senate for months or years and subsequently apply for a double dissolution. The Government can hold the Bills over the head of the Senate. The Government can then go before the Governor-General and say: 'Because of this objection to our Bills, because of this obstruction of the Government in the House of Representatives, we want a double dissolution'. We had a typical example of this, of course, at the beginning of this year when a double dissolution was obtained by Mr Fraser on the basis of sales tax and other Bills which he made clear during the election campaign he did not intend to proceed with. The same thing happened in 1975 when the notorious constitutional crisis took place. On that occasion a double dissolution was granted to Mr Fraser on the basis of Bills of the Whitlam Government which Mr Fraser had no intention whatsoever of proceeding with. They were the very Bills that he and his supporters in the Senate, including myself, had defeated. In my opinion it is absurd that the Government can have the power, that it can hold over the Senate Bills which have accumulated over a period and which it has no intention to proceed with, and then subsequently seek a double dissolution on that basis. I think it is an excellent initiative by my colleague Senator Hamer to suggest that Bills can be retained for only three months, that if they are not used in that period and they are not genuine causes of conflict between the two chambers then they cease to have effect. I hope that this proposal will be accepted by the Parliament and by the people as a very necessary way of avoiding what have been hypocrisies in the past in the misuse of these powers, and that double dissolution procedures will be used hereafter only in genuine cases. Senator Chipp —And place the Governor-General in an unnecessarily invidious position. Senator MISSEN —As Senator Chipp says, the Governor-General is quite unnecessarily placed in an invidious position. He may have to accept statements that he may doubt very much are truthful. In fact, doubts were cast in regard to the 1975 incident, and I cast them myself, as to whether that was a valid use of the double dissolution power since the new Government had no intention whatsoever of implementing the Bills that were the cause of the double dissolution. I therefore strongly support that amendment. I hope that the Government will do likewise. I believe that it ought to be adopted by the Australian people as part of the Constitution. The last of these Bills-the Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill 1983-was introduced by Senator Macklin and is designed to break the nexus contained in the provision that the number of members in the House of Representatives must be as near as possible to twice the number of senators. Quite frankly, I know that my colleagues believe this is a good idea. It was put forward by a non-Labor government years ago and was disastrously rejected by the Australian people. I have the gravest doubts as to whether this proposal would pass the people. Quite apart from the genuine arguments about the Bill, I have no doubt that there would be a great deal of red herrings cast in the road of it. There would be suggestions that if we are able to increase the membership of the House of Representatives without tying it to the numbers in the Senate we would probably increase it very considerably and that in the party rooms of the Parliament the senators would be less significant. I can imagine several State Premiers, who will remain nameless, coming to the conclusion that this proposition would weaken the power of the State. Apart from that I think there are genuine considerations. There is no doubt that if we remove the nexus we can increase the number of members of the House of Representatives by five or 10. This can be done each time there is a redistribution. At the moment most people think that we can increase the number of senators only by 12 or 24. It would be possible, of course, to increase the membership by half that number. There is nothing in the Constitution that says there must be an even number in the Senate. It seems to be regarded as the common practice that we would increase the number of senators by 12 and, therefore, we would need 24 of so members of the House of Representatives, or that we would increase the number in the Senate by up to 24 senators in which case we would need double that number in the House of Representatives. When we return to the argument about electoral reform I intend to put proposals in regard to the way in which the increase in the Senate does not necessarily have to be six persons standing for election each time. The number could be seven and five. But that is a different subject. So far as this subject is concerned I want to say this: I think there are some grave doubts about the desirability of breaking the nexus. In my opinion there is a great need in this Parliament for more senators. We are not able to cope with the work load of this Parliament and in particular with the committee work with which we are involved. The other House does not pursue committee work to anything like the same degree as the Senate does. I do not see much need at all for the breaking of the nexus, and nor do I think it will pass the public. On those practical grounds I very much doubt whether this proposal is worth persisting with and, therefore, causing perhaps some confusion in the eyes of the public and raising the hackles of various war horses from various States who will proceed to see in it an attack upon the Senate and its powers. Let me say in summary that I support most of the proposals. I think it is highly desirable that we have a continuance of the constitutional process. Like the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), I have been concerned with the process of constitutional change and the desire to see that we will get across the boundaries to agreement on constitutional change. There is a great deal of agreement across the boundaries in these proposals. In 1977 we achieved three amendments to the Constitution. As I have said, the fourth proposal failed- although it had a 62 per cent positive vote-because of the necessity of having a majority of four States. I believe we have in these proposals, generally, the opportunity of securing fewer elections, longer and more stable terms for the Parliament and less trickery in the operation of our constitutional process. I believe that, taken generally, they are useful reforms, with the exception of a couple which I think should not proceed. I believe that the updating of our Constitution is the duty of members of this Parliament. It is very easy to say: 'It is not the important issue; there are terribly important issues in connection with the economy'. Of course there are. But we are living with a horse and buggy Constitution. We are living with a constitution which, unfortunately, every now and then breaks down and leads to some sort of constitutional crisis. It is therefore the duty of members of this Parliament to look carefully at these proposals and to bring forward the most important ones for decision by the people. The people have the ultimate say in this matter. I hope that they will not be misled in campaigns by red herrings and fears which people will raise, but that they will look at the proposals carefully and recognise that the great support which is shown for them in the Australian Constitutional Convention and in this Parliament means that they deserve a great deal of consideration and the Constitution of this country may be improved by their inclusion. I support the proposals. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(8.45) —I rise to speak in this cognate debate on nine Bills which seek constitutional change. If one looks at the mood of Australia over the last seven to eight years, or perhaps the decade, one sees that constitutional reform is no longer the prerogative of members of parliament . It has become much more a movement of the people. It has become much more a matter to be discussed in the lounge rooms and in the everyday lives of ordinary Australians. No matter where one stood during the 1975 crisis, no matter on which side of the House one was seated or which side of the House one supported, there is no doubt that the events of 1975 reached each and every Australian. Those events have given the movement for constitutional reform some appropriate impetus. We are now at the stage where several groups in our community are working towards constitutional reform on an almost constant basis. It is to the credit of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that he has taken a leading role not only in parliamentary discussion of constitutional reform but also in the community at large. Today we are looking at five Bills which he introduced to seek some change. First of all, I wish to discuss the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. There are three good and valid reasons why the Australian people ought to carry a referendum to seek simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives. The first is the disruption and the inconvenience that a spate of elections can cause. I wish to take a few moments to look at the plight of electors in New South Wales. It is by no means a plight that belongs to them and them alone. I think that other States have suffered in a similar fashion. But in New South Wales in particular the electors, the ordinary citizens, are simply tired of elections. There have been far too many. There is one almost every year. Let me run through them. In 1961 there was a Federal election; in 1962, a State election; in 1963, another Federal election; in 1964, a half Senate election; in 1965, a State election; in 1966 a Federal election; in 1967, a half Senate election; in 1968, a State election; in 1969, a Federal election; in 1970, a half Senate election; in 1971, a State election; in 1972, a Federal election and in 1973, a State election. In 1974 and 1975 we had double dissolutions. In 1976 there was another State election; in 1977, an early Federal election; in 1978, a State election. The year 1979 was the big year-the year the people of New South Wales had to wait almost 20 years for; there was no election. In 1980 there was another Federal election and in 1981, a State election. The year 1982 was another vintage year for New South Wales electors; there was no election. There we were again, in March of this year, back with another double dissolution election. When one looks at that long litany of elections in New South Wales, the first and immediate conclusion which one can draw is that were this Bill to be passed and were the referendum to be carried, automatically at least three of those elections would not have taken place. I certainly would be one who would suggest that those half Senate elections of 1964, 1967 and 1970 were hardly the hallmarks of Australian democracy. Had those elections not occurred I do not believe Australian democracy would be in tatters. It would not be shattered by these elections not having occurred. Unfortunately though, the requirements of the day brought the elections along. Then, in the 1970's when we would have again suffered a spate of these unnecessary half Senate elections, instead we had three double dissolutions in less than a decade, something that had, again, hardly been the hallmark of Australian democracy in the previous 80 years. Therefore, we can see that in New South Wales and around Australia ordinary citizens at least would not have been forced to the polls and often forced to consider the same issues again and again for no good and apparent reason. What is more, it must be acknowledged that all of those elections cost money. I suppose that these days everything costs a lot of money. But I am told, on reliable estimates from the Australian Electoral Office, that it costs $16m to run an election in Australia today. That is money that could be well spent on something else. I am never one to advance the argument that there are other priorities in government as being the only reason why one should oppose new legislation. It is always presupposed when one is looking at that argument that the reasons one is advancing for the original cost of the proposals are valid. Given that I can see no reason for those half Senate elections, I can see no reason for the waste of money. Whenever there is no provision for simultaneous elections there is a temptation for governments to run to an early election to try to bring back the Senate and the House of Representatives into some sort of electoral kilter. When one looks at the role of politicians in this respect-it does not really matter what party they come from-one sees that they have not shown themselves to be much different from Adam and Eve when it comes to resisting temptation. Unfortunately, as a consequence, time and time again governments have chosen to use that option to go to an early election. In fact, over time, House of Representatives terms have averaged two years and four months. That is hardly much when one considers that it is supposed to have three-year terms. The tendency of recent times suggests that the average will be brought down even lower. It has been no secret, of course, that people in the Hawke Government at least looked at a proposal to have an early election in the term of this Parliament to bring about simultaneous elections for the two Houses in order to save costs and to get the two Houses back into kilter. Again, that is hardly something that will be of great benefit to the people, but it is something that every government has to look at in practical terms. There are a number of things to look at. If honourable senators look at, for instance, the Senate reflecting public opinion appropriately and reflecting it on a day-to-day basis, they will see that if there are half Senate elections there will always be a temptation on the part of electors to kick governments and to say: 'Look, we'll have a check. We'll put a brake on them. We won't vote for them this time in the half Senate election, even though we voted for them in the House of Representatives election'. If that is to be something that we can all be proud of, unfortunately we have to look at the effect it has had on governments in that period, because it has not meant that Prime Ministers, Ministers and governments at large have reacted in a wonderful way to it. All that has happened in the end is that those governments have worried about any form of long term planning. They have looked at short term gains and short term benefits. As a consequence, Australia has suffered. There is no real evidence that any government in the post-war period has undertaken any form whatsoever of long term planning. They were either interrupted by unplanned double dissolutions or concerned about the possibility of half Senate elections, or they were simply not doing too well and decided: 'We'd better go early. One year more of us and they mightn't cop us again'. I do not believe that those sorts of reasons are what the Australian people are looking for in elections. If we have simultaneous elections there will be fewer opportunities for the Senate to avoid the consequences of its action. There is no doubt that in recent times, as the new-found militancy of the Senate has come to the fore, Senate power and Senate muscle has been exercised more and more. If it has not been exercised more and more, certainly the threat of that exercise has occurred more and more. Very often, whatever the Senate may have done to exercise that power or whatever legislation it may have considered rejecting, these will not be the issues at a half Senate election. What ought to happen is that both Houses should come out together and every senator and member of the House of Representatives should have to face the people at one time. They have to look at the issues that affect the whole of the nation. We ought not to think that issues that affect the House of Representatives are different from or should be different from issues that affect Senate elections. In listening to the contributions of some honourable senators opposite one gets the impression that, while the argument is often advanced that they are trying to protect Senate powers, too often they are trying to affect the powers and privileges of senators. Obviously those two things are very different. Like all of the five proposals put up by the Attorney-General, this is an attempt to give some extra stability to government. I submit that after the controversy, heated at times, of the last decade in respect of government in this country, with the double dissolutions and all the rest of it, stability is something everyone is crying out for. I turn now to the Bill which seeks to have a referendum on four-year terms for the House of Representatives, the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill. I would have thought that bringing Australia into line with the rest of the world in the form of its democracy would have been a worthwhile course of action for anyone in the Parliament. Indeed, when one looks around the world one is hard pressed to find too many democracies that still operate on three-year terms. All we have to look at today is New Zealand, which probably has a three- year term because we have it; Thailand, and one would not want to speculate on why it has it, and Sweden which alone among the Scandinavian countries, is stuck with a three-year parliamentary term. If we hark back to 1977 we get a real chance to look at a government grasping for electoral advantage and going early to the electorate, again, adding to the instability that I mentioned. In 1977 when the Fraser Government was faced with problems over interest rates, inflation and unemployment about which it had made promises it could not possibly keep-I suggest the record shows that it did not keep them-the excuse was used about the synchronisation of the Senate and the House of Representatives and off it went to an early poll. Again, democracy in this country was not enhanced by that decision. Not only did we fail to improve the stability of Australian government; I think the record shows that we failed to improve the quality as well. Four-year terms will allow for greater continuity and a better chance for governments to engage in economic planning which, as I mentioned a few moments ago, is something that has been sadly lacking in Australia for far too long. I might also mention that were we to adopt four-year terms for the House of Representatives, when looking at that very long list of elections in New South Wales which the elector of New South Wales had to face in over 22 years-again after eliminating three elections for half Senate elections-one could eliminate another three or four as a result of the four-year term proposal. I think that would have been to everyone's advantage because at least it would have meant that governments could have stuck to their plans. That is something that not too many governments have had the courage to do. Generally speaking, when a government is elected it has the first year to settle in, when the Ministers find out where their department is, who is in it and what sort of information is provided by it. In the second year the Government takes stock. It can also-I think the record shows that it often does-take some hard decisions. But then, in the third year, when it has to face the people again, it introduces a give-away Budget. It has not really mattered who has been in power; the record shows that that happened again and again. In that third year the give-aways are on, the race to the polls is on and the campaign is on. Good, stable, and effective government with planning for the future goes out the window. Unfortunately, that has happened time and time again. The system does not allow for real values and principles. It finishes up allowing only for expediency. The argument has often been advanced by members of the Liberal and National parties about monetarist economies and their virtues. The argument is espoused by honourable senators on this side of the House about expansionist Budgets and all the rest of it. Unfortunately, the Fraser Government, in its number of terms , never had the time to implement its monetarist policies. It had a lot of rhetoric about them, but the exigencies of the day prevented it from ever bringing that rhetoric into practice. I say 'unfortunately' only in the sense that had it introduced them there would really not have been any argument in Australia today. The people of Australia would have seen how bankrupt those policies were and how they would have bankrupted Australia. If the proposal for four-year parliaments had been adopted, if governments had had longer terms and time to settle down, and if that had given them some of the courage of their professed convictions, perhaps we might have had a chance to evaluate the success of the Fraser Government in that endeavour. We might also have a better chance to look at what the Hawke Government will do in the future. If two years and four months is the average time then even if we make it three years and four months I think we will be doing the people of Australia a great service. If we can make long term planning the order of the day rather than the exception to the rule I think we will have done Australia a great favour. I will now refer to some of the comparable democracies that have four-year parliaments. The ones that readily spring to mind that are more like ours are in West Germany, Japan, Switzerland and Austria. Those countries have had four-year parliaments for many years. I do not think anyone has suggested that those governments get too far away from their people. Most of those countries have enjoyed stable government, often over very many years-sometimes for decades. Britain and Canada have five-year parliaments. So what is suggested in this Bill is hardly a radical proposal. It is a proposal to bring about what I think is something that Australia has needed for far too long. We must also look at what has happened in the States. Only a couple of years ago a referendum was held in New South Wales for four-year terms and it got more than 80 per cent of the vote . Four-year terms already exist in Tasmania and in the Northern Territory and I believe Australian Labor Party governments in Victoria and Western Australia are currently seriously looking at referendum proposals on this issue as well. So this move will bring the Commonwealth into line with the general movement of States and it will meet with the agreement of the people as shown by that massive yes vote in New South Wales only a couple of years ago. I do not want to say too much about the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill except that for the first time it would give the Commonwealth power to refer its powers to the States. It would make it somewhat easier for the States to refer powers to the Commonwealth but it must be acknowledged that the States already have that power. It would also allow the States to vest in Federal courts jurisdictions in matters arising under State law, with the exception, of course, of the High Court of Australia. It would do something to promote co-operation among the Commonwealth and State governments. It would get them talking in a more co-operative manner than we have seen so often in the last couple of decades, at Loan Council meetings or Premiers Conferences where they have simply fought, haggled and bickered rather than looked at the great problems of the day. For those who worry about the erosion of Commonwealth power , it will be provided that the Commonwealth can revoke an interchange at any time. I now turn to the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill, which Senator Missen touched on a short time ago. This Bill is confined to jurisdiction in relation to enactments already passed or actually before a Commonwealth or State parliament. It can also relate to constitutional and treaty questions, although in respect of the treaty questions only the Commonwealth can seek the advisory opinion. I think that this will aid those in government, particularly from the point of view of State governments, a great deal. So often now State governments when looking at revenue raising matters, have to be concerned about the possible effect of actions in the High Court on the constitutional power to levy whatever sum they are seeking. If they are able to go to an appropriate court, such as the High Court, and find out its views, then not only are they going to be saved a lot of time and effort but also surely the people of Australia will be saved having to wait months and months for those sorts of decisions. When legislation enacted by parliaments is taken to places such as the High Court, decisions can be held up for years and years. If one summarises this Bill one could say that the only losers will be the lawyers. If that is the case I for one will shed no tears. I think the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill is of no great controversy for the Senate. We have still got transitional provisions in the Constitution. The sorts of things that will be removed if this referendum proposal is carried really should have been removed 50 or 60 years ago, let alone now. I hope that all those on the other side regard this proposal as uncontentious and worthy of support. I now turn to Senator Mason's Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill, which seeks constitutional change. I read a speech about it made by the present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) when he was the shadow Attorney-General. This was after the Bill was introduced by Senator Macklin. I will not seek to use the extravagant language of that speech. Senator Gareth Evans —Not extravagant; colourful. Senator RICHARDSON —Colourful. All right, I will agree with colourful. I would not call this Bill or referendum legislation a piece of two bob populism but I would say it is misguided populism. I have no doubt that there is a superficial attraction to people who look at it superficially. It is suggested that a large number of electors-admittedly it is a large number, 250,000-who sign some sort of petition may propose some law. This may be a good thing but I think there are some very serious and deeply rooted problems with it. First, as I have said about all of the proposals for a change in the Constitution that I have so far spoken on, the real purpose of the lot is to make government in this country more stable and more certain. But if this sort of proposition is carried the programs of governments could easily be thrown into disarray. Governments could be elected on important policies, the big policies of the day, and then find that they have to consign those important policies to some sort of legislative limbo while referendum proposals are carried out. That would hold up good government. There is no good reason for it. It would undermine stability. Uncertainty would abound. Governments would have no real opportunity to establish priorities in their legislative programs. Also, appeals to ignorance, to fear and to prejudice in referendums of the kind proposed would finish up bringing the system into disrepute very quickly. An obvious example is the oft talked of proposition 13 in California by which billions of dollars were taken away from the State treasury. It is hard to see too many people in Australia voting against a proposition that says we will not pay so much tax. This proposal will cause the same sort of problems here as it did there. Those problems were immense. In fact California still has not recovered and overcome the budgetary problems caused by that proposition. What is more, the idea spread like wildfire and terrified legislators all over the United States. I would not want to terrify anybody. I hope we do not have to abide by this proposition. If honourable senators consider that 250,000 people is indeed a lot of people, I ask them to consider a couple of fairly simple examples. There is a great deal of controversy among very many migrant communities about the policies of government in respect of family reunion. I am not suggesting that there is a particular controversy over the politics of this Government. There were controversies over the policies of the last Government and no doubt there will be over those of the next Government. It would not be difficult-indeed, it would be easy-to get the number of signatures that this Bill calls for. I hope that we do not go down that track. It could only undermine the stability of government in Australia and I, for one, am very strongly opposed to it. I now turn to Senator Macklin's Bill on the nexus, the Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill. I for one have no dispute whatsoever with the principles embodied in the Bill. The first thing that should be said is that the principles embodied in this proposal for a referendum have been espoused by a great many distinguished Australians in the other place and here over very many years. It is not new. It was put before the people in the 1960s and was narrowly defeated. I believe it will be passed by the Australian people in, I hope, the not too distant future. But I caution those in the Australian Democrats who are genuine about constitutional reform. If one puts up too many controversial proposals at once one runs a grave risk that either one or all will be affected by that course of action. When one looks at the number of referendums that have passed in Australia over the course of Federation one sees that in round figures only eight out of 40 have passed. I suggest that that is not an impressive record for constitutional change. Because I believe that the proposals for simultaneous elections and four-year terms are so vital, I hope that the Constitutional Alteration (Parliament) Bill can lie on the table for some time. After discussion with the Australian Democrats and the Government it could then be reintroduced at an appropriate time when it will not be confused with a host of other issues. We might then get to the point of being able to put it to the people and have it passed. One should never underestimate the innate conservatism of the Australian electorate. Even with the support of Robert Menzies and Arthur Calwell and both sides of the House in the 1960s the proposal did not get up. I believe that it would be difficult to have it passed at the moment. I caution the Senate that it might be more propitious at another time. I turn now to Senator Hamer's Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill, commonly called the stockpiling of Bills in double dissolutions. I know that this Bill will cause quite a degree of debate. I am one who worries about the exercise of Senate power such as we have seen over the past decade. I do not doubt its constitutional validity, but that does not stop me from being most concerned about it. I think that any honourable senator here who is prepared to vote to bring down Government legislation must be prepared to face the consequences of that action. A government can stockpile Bills and bring about a double dissolution if it considers that there are so many of them, that they are objectionable. It can go to the people and make that Senate rejection of Bills the issue in an election campaign. It should have the right to do so. Unfortunately, earlier in 1983 when the stockpiling provision was used, that did not happen. The Bills that were rejected by the Senate were not of the type that the Fraser Government wanted to raise in the election campaign, let alone to make them the central issue. I would feel a lot happier about Senator Hamer's Bill if more people on the other side had raised those objections in February of 1983 when the election was called. However, from my reading of the Press at the time and the knowledge I gained from talking to people from both parties I believe there was not a great deal of criticism from the other side. The criticism was muted; it was non-existent. The last chance, the last gasp, of the Liberal Government in going for that double dissolution it would seem was opposed by very few before the event. After the event, when the Liberal Party was slaughtered at the polls, of course, everyone disowned it and said that it was a silly idea in the first place. I turn very briefly to Senator Peter Rae's Bill, the Constitution Alteration ( Appropriation Bills) Bill. I oppose it very strongly. It raises the dark spectre of Sir John Kerr's actions of 1975 once again. That sorry piece of our history should never be repeated. If Senator Rae's Bill was to be put to the people and passed, the stability in government that I think constitutional reform should be all about would forever be in doubt. That action in 1975 caused divisions in our community that to this day have not been healed. I hope that by passing this package of Bills introduced by Senator Evans and by putting them to the people and the people passing them we can set about healing some of those divisions and restore some stability, sanity and, I hope, quality to government in Australia. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.14) —I once again find myself opposing moves by the Government of the day to undermine the powers of the Senate. I will speak primarily on the so-called Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill , because it is the Bill to which I am most violently opposed. The people have already spoken twice on this Bill. It has been put to the people of Australia on two occasions and the people of Australia knocked it back on both those occasions. Senator Gareth Evans —There was a 62 per cent affirmative majority. Senator WALTERS —It does not matter what Senator Evans tries to say in this place. I am quite well aware that by his use of the external affairs powers of the Constitution against our State he has shown that he has little regard for the Constitution. I am well aware of that situation, but it does not really matter what he says in this place tonight. The people of Australia knocked back the proposal for simultaneous elections on two occasions. I make it quite clear from the start that I am not against simultaneous elections. The Prime Minister has the power to call simultaneous elections, that is, an election of the House of Representatives and the Senate at the same time, whenever he so chooses. All he has to do is run the House of Representatives for the required time and call it out when the half Senate is due for re-election. There is nothing magical about that. He can do it whenever he likes. I object very strongly to the name of the Bill. It is deceiving. It is not all about simultaneous elections. It is about the simultaneous dissolution of the House of Representatives and half the Senate. I turn to the policies of the two main parties of the Senate. The Liberal Party platform on page 7 states: Maintenance of the Senate as an institution for the effective representation of all States and Territories and as a House of Review. I have not bothered to look up the Labor Party's policy on this because it has changed quite markedly over time. But in 1977 when I was last on my feet debating this Bill, Senator McLaren, a former senator, made it very clear what this Bill was all about. Indeed, he acknowledged that it was the first step in abolishing the power of the Senate, and he added the words 'the sooner the better'. The now Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, also assured us at that time that his Labor Party would take every opportunity to delimit the power of the Senate. The aim in 1977 was quite clear because it was at that time a part of the policy of the Labor Party to abolish the Senate. When Senator Evans, the ultimate politician, came into this place he decided that the policy should not be in writing. The aim should be there, but after all , he believed it was not electorally palatable. It would not go down too well in the electorate. So we find that at his council meeting he said, 'Let us get rid of it; let us take the words out of our policy platform. There is no need to destroy the aim, but let us take the words out'. That is what happened because we can no longer find the actual words declaring that the Labor Party wants to abolish the Senate. But the aim is still very clearly there. That is what this Bill is really about. Let us look at the history of the Senate. In 1890 when our founding fathers were debating the structure of the Senate they came up with three main points if the federation of the States was to take place. The first was that there should be an equal voice in the Senate for all the States. The second was that senators should have a six-year term and that half the Senate should go to the people every three years. The third was that there should be a double dissolution; there should be a method of dealing with a clash of opinions between the two Houses. I believe that Senator Peter Rae's Bill overcomes the previous problems that we had in that area. Let us look at the reasons why those wise men decided that the Senate should have an equal voice for the States, why it should be called the States House, and why the Senate should have the powers that it has. We have 10 senators for each State sitting in this place. As I have said, that gives the smallest State, my State of Tasmania, with not quite half a million people, the same power as the people of New South Wales. Looking at the Tasmanian position in the House of Representatives, it will be clearly understood why the Senate is so important to Tasmania and to the other small States. New South Wales has 43 members in the House of Representatives, Victoria has 33 members. Of the small States, South Australia has 11 members, Queensland has 19, Western Australia has 11, and Tasmania has five, with the Territories having only three representatives. Adding the two large States together, we find that New South Wales and Victoria between them have 76 voices in the House of Representatives. The small States- South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Territories- together have the voices of only 49 people. It is 49 versus 76. Senator Gareth Evans —Which is more than your population entitles you to. Senator WALTERS —Senator Evans says that that is more than we are entitled to, he coming from one of the large States. Senator Gareth Evans —More than your population entitles you to. Senator WALTERS —It seems to me that that is exactly what the large States say: They should have the power; they have the population; it really does not matter what small States have. The fact that Tasmania has only five voices in the House of Representatives versus the 43 from New South Wales is quite immaterial to Senator Evans. In this place the situation is totally different. Tasmania has an equal voice. Senator Gareth Evans —Don't we know it. Senator WALTERS —I am very glad that Senator Evans acknowledges that in this chamber Tasmania has a voice equal to that of the State of New South Wales. That is the importance of the power of the Senate. Why should the founding fathers have come up with their next decision that senators should have a six-year term and that half the Senate should go to the people every three years on a fixed term, unless there are just reasons for a double dissolution? The reason for that is the stability of government in this place. We know that in the House of Representatives there are large swings from Labor to Liberal and back to Labor, and that has gone on over many generations. That wild swing is not always a good thing and I shall come to that matter shortly. But the wild swings do not occur in the Senate. That gives the stability to the Government, because the Senate has checks and balances that overcome those wild swings in the lower House. The present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) can call an election whenever he likes in the House of Representatives. On the merest pretext he can call an election. He does not have to have been in office for any length of time at all. Whenever the political situation is favourable to him, he can call an election for the House of Representatives. Under the present Constitution he cannot take the Senate with him unless the Senate has been obstructive and has not backed some of his important Bills. He must have the required number of Bills put aside to prove to the Governor-General that the Senate has been obstructive. The House of Representatives can go to an election on any pretext at all, and I give an example. At present we have the situation with the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies and we have Mr Young, who has rather substantial support in Government ranks. A bit of a barney is going on between members of the Labor Party who are supporting Mr Young and those who are supporting the Prime Minister on this issue. If that barney continues and the Prime Minister finds himself in a very difficult situation-it does not have to be a political situation concerning Bills; it does not even have to concern legislation but just a difficult political situation within his own Party-he can refer this to the Governor-General and call an immediate election in the House of Representatives. That has nothing to do with the Senate, and the Senate cannot rightfully be called to an election under the present Constitution. If people doubt that the House of Representatives can be called to an election on the merest pretext, they have to go back only to the time when the House of Representatives had a majority of just one. We find that just because there was a majority of one and the Prime Minister of the day thought that that was difficult to handle, he was able to call an election. Under the present Constitution we have big swings in the House of Representatives, and the Prime Minister has full control and can call that House to an election whenever he desires, whenever the political climate suits him. Under the new legislation, the situation could arise that, if the Prime Minister at his whim were able to call the Senate to an election with the House of Representatives, if he had won an election with a large majority but did not have the numbers in the Senate, within a very short time he could call another election. Within a very few months he could call another election for the Senate, and during the honeymoon period, during the period of euphoria that often accompanies these large majorities, the people could well vote in a Senate according to the political persuasion of the Prime Minister of the time. I believe that the people of Australia need some time to have a look at the Government they have put in. We have only to look at the Whitlam Government. That was first put in with a very large majority, but the euphoria was very short lived. That Government was out in a very short time. The people realised that it was not the Government they had hoped they were electing. That Government handed out all the goodies and the people thought it was all right for the first few months. If this proposed legislation had been in force, Prime Minister Whitlam could have at that stage called another election and the Senate would have been to his choosing. Any rogue government could do the same thing. I refer to the present Government. The Prime Minister has got in with quite a substantial majority. Again, I believe that the honeymoon period, the euphoria of the people of Australia after the election, will be very short lived. We have only to look down the list of problems that the Government has made for itself since it has been in power. We started off with the spy flights that Senator Evans thought were rather good at the time. We then got on to the attack on Dame Leonie Kramer by Senator Button. We then went to the Wran royal commission, the David Combe-Australian Security Intelligence Organisation royal commission, the Budget attack on the disadvantaged, the broken promises that have resulted from that Government in the Budget and the turnaround on foreign policy when, I think , Mr Lionel Bowen suggested that Japan, along with Australia, might send troops into Kampuchea. Now we have reached the Dawkins situation and the people of Australia are beginning to wonder what they have elected to this Parliament. If the Senate were to become just a rubber stamp, if it were able to be called to the people at the political whim of the Prime Minister of the day, then it would no longer be a States House; it would no longer be a House of review because, should it review the legislation in any sort of unfavourable way, the Prime Minister would immediately call an election. We have been told by some people that we have had too many elections, that there are too many elections if the House of Representatives and the Senate go to the people at different times. In Australia we are a true democracy and, if we complain about having elections, then my goodness, we must be laughed at by the rest of the world because many countries would give their eye teeth to have the free elections that we have. I turn to what I suppose we could call the Bible of the Senate, the fifth edition of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice. In referring to the defeat of the referendum in 1974 Mr Odgers said: It was considered that the proposals would have undermined the Federal structure and destroyed the independence of the Senate. How true. He also said: Of most importance was the assertion of the supremacy of Parliament over the Executive Government, demonstrated by the exercise of the power of the Senate to withhold Supply and the dismissal of a Prime Minister who refused to advise an election or resign when denied Supply by Parliament. That is what the power of the Senate is all about. He went on to say: The Senate has always had to fight hard for recognition of its constitutional rights and independence, but the Upper House has never lost a financial battle with the Executive Government or the House of Representatives. It is not going to lose this one either. Finally, in referring to the powers of the Senate, he says: Those powers are checks and balances against any concentration of unbridled power in the Executive Government, or against any misuse of power or mismanagement by a Government. I believe that is what we are all about in this place. Senator Macklin tonight complained when he was talking on the Constitutional Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill that the Government was able to stockpile some Bills that the Senate has passed, putting them on the shelf to be used at its convenience to call on an election; yet he is supporting simultaneous elections. How can he possibly complain about the Bills that the Senate knocks back being used by the government of the day for convenience? With simultaneous elections the whole of the Senate would be used at the convenience of the Government. It is something that I and my State certainly would not go along with. We have already lost at the hands of this Government much of my State's powers with the use of the external affairs powers. There is no way that we will go along with the loss of more powers in the Senate for my State or for the other small States. Senator Gareth Evans —It has nothing to do with Senate powers, and you know it. Senator WALTERS —It has everything in the world to do with Senate powers. If Senator Evans, who has not been a member of this Senate for terribly long, is not aware that this has everything to do with Senate powers I would be most surprised. As he has said, and as I indicated earlier, the Australian Labor Party really is about abolishing the Senate. He does not like the words in the Labor Party policy so he has taken them out of it. Other Bills are before the Senate tonight, but, as I said earlier, I will just touch on some of them briefly, my main concern being the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. The Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill is to enable the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments to obtain advisory opinions from the High Court of Australia on specified types of questions. We have already had experience of what the High Court can do and how it can alter the Constitution of this country , and there is no way I or my State would go along with that Bill. I am also opposed to the maximum term of members of the House of Representatives being increased to four years and that of senators to eight years. I would like to go along with the four-year term for the House of Representatives, but I believe that eight years is a very long term for members of the Senate. Unfortunately, we cannot have one without the other. Consequently I will be forced to vote against that Bill. I am totally opposed to the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. I am firmly committed to the independence of the Senate and the unhampered voice of the small States. I believe that this is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation we have had before us. The Australian people have to think very carefully when they consider changing our Constitution. It has served us very well over the years. Very wise reasons were given for the Senate being an independent House and for having the powers that it has and for each State having a voice equal to that of every other State. It is with these sentiments that I oppose the Bill. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.38) —It is claimed that the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983 should be supported because it will lead to fewer elections. The reality is that the number of elections is due not to the inherent weakness of the Constitution or lack of perception by the founding fathers; rather, they have been caused by various governments which have chosen for quite political reasons to call early elections. It is not without some sense of irony to me that this proposal for simultaneous elections has also been designed for political reasons. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) does not want simultaneous elections to reduce the number of elections but to eliminate the need for his Government to face a half Senate election by June 1985 without a corresponding House of Representatives election. We can all be assured that the Prime Minister will have a general election at the end of next year if it suits his purposes, irrespective of the outcome of this referendum proposal. The only practical answer to having fewer elections is to have four-year term parliaments. As has been pointed out on previous occasions, the very name of this Bill is misleading. It is not a constitutional amendment to provide for simultaneous elections but rather a constitutional amendment providing for a half Senate election to be held on the same day as the Prime Minister chooses to hold an election for the House of Representatives. In other words, an election for the Senate would take place upon a date chosen by the Prime Minister, and that may be any time, irrespective of the terms served by members of the Senate. Theoretically, we could find ourselves having a Senate election every 12 months. Simultaneous elections will not cause fewer elections; all that proposal will provide is a capacity for the Prime Minister of the day to have half Senate elections on the same and every day that he chooses to have House of Representatives elections. I see no reason why that is likely to lessen the number of elections a Prime Minister will call. In fact, knowing that he will not have to have a half Senate election on a different date can only give greater encouragement to a Prime Minister to be more capricious and less restricted in the timing of elections. If that discipline were not removed, of course he would not have that constraint. No one should misunderstand that the proposal for simultaneous elections now before us can have but one result as it relates to the Senate. It will irreversibly reduce and weaken the powers of the Senate and it will irreversibly reduce the capacity of the Senate. It is a fall-back position from the Government's earlier proposal of fixed term parliaments which was designed, amongst other things, to remove from the Senate the power to reject or defer Supply. The Australian Labor Party ultimately removed that proposal once it got into office because, whilst diminishing the power of the Senate, it would have reduced at least superficially the capacity of the Prime Minister to call early elections. Without retracing all the well established facts in regard to the intended role and functions of the Senate, I remind honourable senators of section 53 of the Constitution which, in part, reads: Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws. It refers to not more, not less, but equal power. If the Senate is to be subject to elections because of events in the House of Representatives it automatically loses that status; it becomes an appendage, a poor relation which meekly follows and must be subject to the whim and wishes of the House of Representatives. Its very survival will be in the hands of the Prime Minister and the House of Representatives. By the very provisions of the proposal it is intended that the Senate will be inextricably tied to the House of Representatives and will no longer have independence of mind or action, so its functions as a States House will be thoroughly dissolved. It will simply be an addition to the House of Representatives; it will rely for its future upon the political fortunes of the government of the day. Affairs and matters of the House of Representatives which have no bearing on the Senate would dictate its duration and its composition. In the event of a political convulsion in the House of Representatives which caused the Prime Minister to call an election for that House, the Senate would be compelled for no good or sensible reason to be subject to a premature election. If, for example, a number of members of the government of the day crossed the floor and that government lost its majority in the House of Representatives, or alternatively if the government of the day had a very slim majority which was eliminated by a number of by-elections, the election to resolve those problems would drag the Senate into the crisis. I ask, for example , why should a crisis in the House of Representatives in which neither the Australian Democrats nor independents have representation and over which they can have no influence cause their terms in the Senate to be terminated and force them to the polls? Of course, it ought to be remembered that we need not have a political crisis in the House of Representatives for the Senate to be affected. If for purely pragmatic political reasons the Prime Minister of the day decides that his fortunes or those of his Party are best served by an early election, half the membership of the Senate will be required to be re-elected. Its stability, independence, continuity and smooth functioning will be totally destroyed. Its reason for being will, in my view, be very much diluted. Should the Senate dare to exhibit its inherent characteristics, such as those of rejecting, amending or deferring legislation that it considers obnoxious for any one of many reasons, the government of the day need not have a double dissolution but may simply stand over the Senate with the threat of a general election. The effect of that step is to bypass section 57 of the Constitution, which was the subject, as we all know, of a great deal of debate in the various Constitutional Conventions. The reason that section was subject to such vigorous and detailed debate is that the participants from the various States in the Constitutional Conventions determined that the Senate was to have fixed terms which could not be short- ened by events which took place in the House of Representatives. The Senate was to be a States House with equal numbers from all the States elected for six years and was to have powers equal to those of the House of Representatives except in respect of initiating and amending certain money Bills. Given that the Senate was provided with such distinct characteristics and powers, the problems which faced the delegates was how to overcome the deadlocks betwen the two Houses. The answer was found in section 57 of the Constitution, which section it is now intended to bypass. Mr Deputy President, for the Senate to lose its independence is for the smaller States to lose their only effective voice in the Federal Parliament. Need one wonder why the constitutional amendment now before us has already been rejected twice by the less populous States of Australia on two previous occasions? On the latter occasion both the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party strenuously supported it because they recognised that the voice of these States would be lost in Canberra to the numerically more powerful influence of the eastern States. For the very same reasons the States of New South Wales and Victoria have either been ambivalent or favoured the proposals. They have nothing to fear. New South Wales and Victoria alone return something like 76 members to the House of Representatives while the other four States return a combined total of something like 46 members. As I have observed on a previous occasion, more members are returned from outer metropolitan Melbourne and Sydney than from all the other States and Territories. Metropolitan Sydney and Melbourne return 51 members, and the whole of the smaller States and Territories return only 49 members. It is no accident of history and no oversight by the draftsmen of the Constitution or of our founding fathers that section 7 of the Constitution reads : The senators shall be chosen for a term of six years . . . Section 28 reads: Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor -General. The distinction is quite clear. The founding fathers deliberately set a fixed term for senators of six years and, except within the limits of section 57, no less a period. The same founding fathers set a maximun of three years for the House of Representatives but made clear provision for any lesser period. If it had been intended simply that the term of a senator should be twice the length of the term of a member of the House of Representatives, the term of a senator would neither be fixed nor six years but rather twice the term of a member of the House of Representatives. Senator Tate —That is right. Things have changed. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Nothing has changed. All that has changed is the intention and the ambitions of the ALP to destroy the Senate. Senator Tate —Mr Fraser supports it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Mr Fraser's judgment, with the greatest of respect, notwithstanding the fact that he was my leader, was shown to be not impeccable some months ago. There were very good reasons for the term of a senator to be both fixed and for a period of six years when the Constitution was drafted. Those and other reasons remain both contemporary and, in my view, quite excellent. I add that, of course , had not sections 7 and 28 of the Constitution stood within the Constitution at that time there would have been no Federation. In fact, from my reading of constitutional debates, with the exception of one speaker in the Adelaide convention debates, I think of 1897, who called for a four-year term of a fixed nature, there was almost total agreement at that time on the timing, fixing and rotating of senators' terms. To accept that the Senate is to be able to fulfil the function for which it was and is intended is to accept the need for those provisions. To argue for its demise is to argue against those provisions. The framers of the Constitution intended the Senate to be a States House, a House of review and a House of second deliberation, not in any way dependent upon any other chamber of the Parliament for its rights, responsibilities or existence. It was intended to be unfettered by and insulated from the machinations and political fortunes of the political parties in the House of Representatives. It was intended to have a continuity and stability which is not and cannot be available to the House of Representatives and the House responsible to the Government. In the event that there was or is to be an irreconcilable conflict between the two chambers, ample and adequate relief is provided already, as I said, under section 57 of the Constitution. The term of six years by rotation provides both continuity and a reflection of contemporary community attitudes. The Senate stands in the Constitution removed from the actions of the Prime Minister. Only action by the Senate, not the Government, not the Prime Minister and not the House of Representatives, can cause the Senate to be held accountable to the people. I might add that if the Senate uses its powers capriciously or irresponsibly it will suffer the wrath of the electorate. In the event that the House of Representatives puts legislation to the Senate and the Senate rejects it, or fails to pass it, and the House of Representatives presents it again to the Senate-for a second time-only then can a Prime Minister approach the Governor-General to have both Houses dissolved and a simultaneous election held. If the Senate is to function effectively as a House of review and if it is to have independence from the House of Representatives, individual senators must have a capacity to reflect that independence. No doubt our founding fathers did not expect there to arise a political party which would make expulsion axiomatic upon a senator of that party crossing the floor. However, they did perceive both party groupings and a place for independence within the chamber. A six year term does or should, in those other than members of the Australian Labor Party, instil a sense of responsible independence of mind which does not always necessarily reflect the views of their party or, particularly in the case of independents, the views of the majority of the House of Representatives. I do not stand here today to condemn the general proposition that having a House of Representatives election on the same day as a Senate election has some merit, although there is much to be said for allowing people to monitor and review the performance of governments between general elections by way of a Senate election while, at the same time, bringing into sharper focus the purpose of the election; that is, to elect senators from the various States and to pass judgment upon the performance of those senators within the chamber. However, this Bill now before us is not about having a House of Representatives election on the same occasion as a Senate election. It is designed to have a Senate election on the same day as a House of Representatives election whenever and for whatever reason the Prime Minister of the day chooses to have an election. The veneer of credibility which has been glossed over this proposed constitutional amendment is that it will cause fewer elections, but beneath that veneer is a mechanism which is cunningly designed to reduce the independence, the potency and the power of the Australian Senate and those small States which it best represents. Senator Gareth Evans —Would that it did. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Would Senator Evans wish that? It has been put by Senator Evans and other misguided senators on the other side, with the odd aberration on this side, that the fact that there was a general vote at the last referendum of 62 per cent in favour of simultaneous election is a very good argument in favour of putting the proposition again. It is put that that reinforces the argument of those in favour of simultaneous elections, suggesting that they have the imprimatur of the majority of voters in Australia. Those who follow that argument completely dismiss or ignore the fact that we have a federation of six States and that it was those six States that provided us with a federal parliament, a constitution and the system of government we have in Canberra. To suggest for a moment that there is no relevance in the fact that four of the six States voted against simultaneous elections is to ignore the fundamental concept of federalism. I shall without hesitation vote against this legislation. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(9.57) —I support these very important Bills brought into the Senate by the Attorney-General (Senate Gareth Evans) for voting on by the people of Australia in February 1984. The referendum process is, of course, the highest expression of our democracy. Certain unusual majorities are required-a majority of electors throughout Australia and a majority of States-thereby safeguarding the federal principle within our national arrangements. Given that there is some difficulty in obtaining these majorities, it is not surprising that the Bills have been brought into this chamber by the Attorney-General in the form they have been to achieve the purposes which are there set out, because the principal Bills undoubtedly are those designed to bring about simultaneous elections of the House of Representatives and the Senate and to bring about a four-year parliamentary term. These were not the original proposals of the Australian Labor Party, but it is well known that at the Constitutional Convention held in Adelaide earlier this year a consensus developed supporting these two proposals. Indeed, if nothing else, the fact that we are debating these matters tonight in order to put them to the Australian people proves that something worthwhile can come of the Constitutional Convention process. Senator Crichton-Browne —What is the definition of consensus? Senator TATE —A definition of consensus in this case is a negative situation in which it became apparent that the fixed term principle would not achieve widespread support amongst substantial political groupings in Australia; yet the proposal for an extended four-year term for the House of Representatives and for simultaneous elections was shown to be a preferable course of action in order to achieve that stability of government which is so desirable and which ought to be the aim of constitutional amendments. Despite the fact that the Constitutional Convention was undermined and manipulated by the most conservative and reactionary Premiers in Australia, Premier Bjelke-Petersen of the National Party in Queensland and his National Party colleague in Tasmania masquarading as a Liberal, Mr Gray, a consensus did emerge supporting the ideas of a four-year term for the House of Representatives and simultaneous elections. Therefore it is quite proper, on the basis of that full discussion, that these proposals should come to the chamber tonight for endorsement and presentation to the Australian people. The fact is that Australia has been plagued with too frequent elections, in recent years in particular. The average term of post-war parliaments has been two years and five months. In the 14 year period from 1963 to 1979 there were no fewer than 10 separate national elections. This has caused intensive community dissatisfaction. I believe it was one of the reasons why the electorate reacted so viciously against the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, when he called the early election earlier this year. People in Australia are sick and tired of that manipulation of the process in order to achieve an early election. Senator Crichton-Browne —I am glad he is not here to hear your policy, Senator Tate. Senator TATE —I know that the honourable senator is not a supporter of Mr Fraser in relation to these Bills. He attacked him very robustly in the course of this debate. The honourable senator pictured the former conservative leader, Malcolm Fraser, as a socialist in sheep's clothing who had somehow become a rabid centralist and was overriding the States in regard to these proposals. I am delighted to see that Mr Fraser is amongst those who on 7 February said that if re-elected his Government would bring both of these proposals to a referendum as soon as possible. We are helping Mr Fraser to cast a vote for these proposals in February of 1984. I am sure he will be campaigning as a private citizen of Australia to help us get these referendums through. The four-year proposal will preserve the existing discretion of the Prime Minister to call an election when he thinks it is politically opportune. I am being quite frank about this. To be frank, I think that the fixed term concept has more attraction when a party is in opposition than it does when a party is in government. I believe that should the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), of whom I am a very strong supporter, judge that it is necessary to review his mandate with the Australian people at some time within this four-year extended term, if the level of frustration, impeding and hindering of the Government's program has reached a level which is distracting him from the true, deliberate and considered government of this country, which he tries to undertake day by day, he ought to be able to go to the people and renew his mandate. In general, I believe it would be very worth while extending the terms of the House of Representatives so that we have four years within which to achieve the program of the Government. Earlier in the debate this afternoon, Senator Macklin said that he thought that to extend the term from three to four years would somehow diminish the accountablility of government. On the contrary I believe that it increases the accountability of the Government. I agree that governments ought to be as accountable as possible, but I am led to a different conclusion. Because a three -year term is so short and notoriously, as I have said, it generally lasts for two years and five months, governments do not fulfil the mandate that they are elected on. The first year is spent getting into stride. The second year is spent in carrying out some difficult and quite often unpopular measures and the third year is a pre-election year. Governments ought to be accountable to the electorate for the fulfilment of their mandate. I believe that a term of four years provides a better opportunity for that to occur. Indeed, four years is not an unusual term. As honourable senators would know, in some of our States the term of office is four years. Senator Robert Ray —Tasmania has a four-year term. Senator TATE —This includes my State of Tasmania. I believe that such a proposal is before the Victorian Parliament at the moment. Senator Robert Ray —Yes, it is. Senator TATE —Is that the case in New South Wales? Senator Robert Ray —It will be after the next election. Senator TATE —So clearly a move is on at the State level of our Federation to endorse the four-year term. As has already been pointed out by Senator Missen in the course of this evening's debate, some two dozen countries-I am talking about democracies-have five-year terms. Another two dozen have four-year terms and only three or four have three-year terms. Quite clearly this is not an outrageously radical proposal; it merely provides an environment within which those decisions which are difficult can be taken, an environment within which electoral mandates can be fulfilled and then properly judged by the people. It also provides, of course, quite apart from the beneficial effects on government, an environment within which business, private enterprise and those who wish to conduct their affairs can do so in the knowledge that the Government, unless utterly hindered and frustrated by the Opposition, will be in power for four years. I find the notion of simultaneous terms such an utterly sensible concept that I find it difficult to understand the opposition to it. When I was elected in December 1977 I had to wait seven months until 1 July 1978 before entering this chamber. For that seven months I was in limbo, while those who had been voted out of this chamber by the Australian people were passing legislation and making laws. Those who had announced they wished to retire were in that position also, whereas those who had been elected and supported by the Australian people in December 1977 were, as I say, in limbo without any legislative powers being available to them. That seemed to be absolutely ludicrous. This proposal will bring senators into this chamber at the same time that the members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament take their seats. This will mean that between the two chambers we will have overall a much more representative grouping of persons who will be able more properly and truly to express the current wishes of the Australian electorate. I think those two matters ought to command the support of the chamber and the Parliament, as I am sure they will and, indeed, of the Australian people, as I am sure they will, despite the difficult majorities that must be achieved. I briefly mention some of the other proposals that have been put before the chamber. I do so but briefly because I know that many honourable senators wish to speak. Senator Mason has introduced a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to vest in the electors power to propose laws and to approve or disapprove such proposed laws; that is, to allow the referendum process to be initiated by a sufficient number of electors indicating that they want the proposal to be put to the people. The answer to this really lies in the fact that it draws on the political experience of countries which are not similar to Australia and which do not operate in the same way as we do. The Swiss example is often quoted. In that country there is a widespread use of the electors' initiative in order to pass referendums, recall legislation an so on. Of course, the federal parliament in that country can pass laws outside its actual powers. It can pass laws and try to get away with it on the basis that that law can be recalled and disallowed by a subsequent referendum of the people. That is a completely different process to the one within which we are operating. Further, of course, the Swiss example is particularly bad because it was a notoriously undemocratic country in the sense that until two or three years ago women were disenfranchised. It may well be that a system of initiative such as prevails in Switzerland is needed, where the actual system of electing the Government is notoriously undemocratic in disenfranchising a considerable number of the people. But I believe that with our extremely democratic system of electing the Australian Parliament, which I believe is one of the most honestly elected national parliaments in the world, this proposal for an elector's initiative to initiate the referendum process is misconceived and comes from a completely different political culture. Senator Macklin introduced a Bill to alter the Constitution so that the number of members of the House of Representatives may be increased without ncessarily increasing the number of senators; that is, to break the nexus between the two chambers which is presently required by the Constitution, so that one must have roughly a two to one ratio between the number of members of the House of Representatives and the number of senators. This proposal was put to the people and defeated. I think that leads to the conclusion that, given the fact that we have so many proposals which will, I believe, have the general endorsement of the substantial political groupings right across the board in Australia for the February referendums, it would be mischievous or putting in peril those very good proposals to introduce into the list of matters to be voted on something which, I believe, will generate a lot of hostility around the electorate. We will have the sort of argument that Senator Crichton-Browne puts up that somehow this proposal would undermine the powers of the Senate and the States. We will also get misunderstandings about the numbers of politicians who can best serve Australia. I believe that whilst we should perhaps endorse this Bill in principle, I signify that by passing it, I do not believe that we should put it before the people in February. It ought to be kept for a later referendum. As I say, it is not that I accede to the sort of argument that to break the nexus-- Senator Durack —You will have the same arguments at a subsequent referendum. Senator TATE —It is very clear from the Adelaide Constitutional Convention that we will have widespread support for simultaneous elections and for the four-year term proposal. I do not believe that that sort of widespread support has been indicated for the breaking of the nexus. On that basis I think that that matter ought to be left for another occasion. Senator Hamer has introduced a Bill to amend section 57 of the Constitution to provide that a dissolution of both Houses of the Parliament shall not take place by reason that the Senate has twice rejected a Bill if more than three months has elapsed after the Senate has so treated the proposed law. In other words, the aim of the proposal is to stop the stockpiling of Bills and to require the double dissolution process to take place, if at all, within three months of the second rejection of a House of Representatives measure by the Senate. I think that this proposal is not so clear. There are good arguments for the proposal put by Senator Hamer. But I believe that there could be occasions when perhaps a major measure could be rebutted by the Senate too early in the term of a government to really justify that government going to the people for a re- affirmation of its mandate. Nevertheless, if there were such a major measure and if the situation were then compounded some six, nine, 12 or 15 months later by a series of harassments and the impeding of Government legislation, and if there were other issues perhaps just as major or an accumulation of minor frustrations , then it could be proper for the Government to go to the people. The basis could include that original rejection of the major measure some months earlier in the term of the Government. Senator Hamer —You don't have to have more than one matter to go to the people. Senator TATE —No, but it then follows that the Government is entitled to have a meeting of the House of Representatives and the Senate together in a joint sitting. The Parliament would then become a unicameral legislature and the Government could try to obtain the passage of the Bill. I think that is the fundamental answer to what Senator Hamer is saying. I see that the honourable senator is half nodding his head in agreement. The final Bill has been introduced by Senator Peter Rae. It seeks to alter the Constitution to provide for automatic and simultaneous dissolution of both Houses of Parliament in the event of disagreement between the Houses in relation to the passing of proposed laws, appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual service of the Government and for related purposes. In other words, to put it in a fairly bold way, the proposal seeks an automatic double dissolution in a case where the Senate refuses to pass Supply. What this proposal would do, of course, would be to accord quite excessive importance to the role of the Senate in our parliamentary national system of government. We in the Australian Labor Party can never accept that one should have an automatic dissolution of the whole parliament flowing from a Senate rejection of Supply which amounts to a vote of no confidence in the government. Of course what we have always maintained, and maintained very strongly in the light of the events of 1975, is that under the Australian system a government is elected because it enjoys the confidence of the House of Representatives. Consequences should follow only if the Government loses the confidence of the House of Representatives. A government's creation and its sustaining through the term of a parliament depends on, as I have said, the House of Representatives giving that support. Let me explain the other reason why I find it impossible to support the proposal from Senator Peter Rae. The real reason why this proposal was brought in by Sir Charles Court-he may have been Mr Charles Court at that stage-at one of the early constitutional conventions that I attended was to preserve the status of the Governor-General untainted by the need to exercise discretion to dissolve the Parliament. It was designed so that this automatic consequence would follow on the rejection of Supply by the Senate. Somehow that would keep the Governor-General above political controversy. The answer to that, of course, is that the Governor-General should act only on the advice of the government which enjoys the confidence of the House of Representatives. That is the convention which ought to be honoured in relation to the action of the Governor- General. If he is to exercise a discretion to grant a double dissolution, whilst it may be couched in terms of a discretion, that power ought to be exercised only on the advice of the person who commands the support and confidence of the House of Representatives. Therefore, the automatic following of a double dissolution on the refusal of Supply by the Senate certainly cannot be supported be me. Whilst supporting one of the proposals introduced for passage by senators on the other side of the chamber-they are not for putting to the people-and whilst rejecting all the others, I conclude by re-affirming my support for the referendums to do with a double dissolution and the extension of the term of the House of Representatives to four years. In relation to Senator Crichton-Browne's contribution, it is simply untrue to say that the proposal of the Australian Labor Party, of the Government, and supported by many honourable senators on the other side of the chamber, diminishes the powers of the Senate. It is stripped of no power whatsoever by these referendum proposals. I ask the questions: As a result of the passage of these matters by the Australian people, what legislation may the Senate not reject? What subjects may it not discuss and deliberate upon, send to its committees, bring back reports and vote upon? What inroads will be made by the passage of any of these matters by the people in February 1984? What inroads are made on the asserted power of the Senate to reject supply? Whan all of those questions are answered truthfully, the conclusion will be reached that there is no diminishing whatsoever of the powers of the Senate by these proposals. They are simply an extension of the term of the Senate to coincide with the extended term of the House of Representatives and the bringing into a simultaneous situation the elections of both chambers in order to ensure that the current will of the people is more properly and immediately represented in the deliberations of both chambers of this Parliament. The few Opposition voices raised against these proposals have not proved convincing. I have indicated my support for the Bills introduced by the Attorney -General. I believe that I have discharged my obligation to this chamber and indeed to the Australian people in relation to these referendum Bills to show why they deserve support. I believe that they will enjoy that support. I look forward to the campaign leading to their passage in February 1984. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(10.19) —In many ways this is an unsatisfactory debate. We are debating nine important Bills. Each honourable senator has half an hour in which to speak and this allows us three minutes twenty seconds on each of the major Bills on constitutional changes. Therefore, one's treatment of them is necessarily somewhat superficial. I would like to make a few points about each of the Bills. The first couple-they are put to us for debate together-are the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983 and the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1983. The latter Bill will increase the term of members of the House of Representatives to four years and the term for Senators to eight. This tackles two problems. One, of course, is the length of the life of each Parliament. The second is the possibility of having separate elections for the Senate, which most people-I think nearly all-would agree is very unsatisfactory. If we can organise it so that elections are held conjointly for the two Houses I am sure that would be widely accepted by the Australian community. I do not like the solution. I think the proposal put up previously by the Government for fixed terms was a much more satisfactory way of tackling this problem. Nevertheless, I do accept that that particular fixed term proposal had no realistic chance of passing in a referendum. There were too many opponents of it. Therefore, this proposal has been put forward as an alternative. The Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill cuts the term of the Senate. Instead of having a fixed six-year term, or eight years in the revised version, if the parliamentary terms are changed, senators' terms would be two terms of the House of Representatives. This proposition was put to the people before in 1974 and 1977 and was rejected on both occasions. I doubt whether it will pass this time. There is a point about the increase in the length of the term which I should put very clearly. People are talking about a four-year term for the House of Representatives and an eight-year term for the Senate. In fact, it is a term of up to four years for the House of Representatives and two terms of the House of Representatives for senators. It certainly will not be for periods of four years and eight years. At the moment, with three-year terms the average length of our parliaments has been 2.3 years. I suggest, by extrapolation, that if we go to a four-year term nominal we will have a three- year term for the House of Representatives and effectively a six-year term for senators. I do not believe it will be easy to argue to the public that an eight-year term for senators is appropriate. I think it is too long. There is certainly argument for a four-year term for members of the House of Representatives, but the problem with the continuing nature of the Senate-half the senators going out every election-means that we are locked in if we want to go for four years for the House of Representatives and eight years for the Senate nominal. We will not achieve that in practice. Therefore, I think this proposal is unsatisfactory. I would much prefer the fixed term proposal, which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) proposed before. Another point I should make is that one of the limitations on a government calling a double dissolution, if it gets the grounds-it can easily manufacture the grounds if it wants to do so-is the fact that by the Constitution it is not allowed to have a double dissolution within six months of the ordinary due date of an election. This has been a limitation with three-year terms because not many governments like having their terms cut back to 2 1/2 years. With the extension to four years many governments would accept a cut to 3 1/2. There would be a much stronger impulse towards manufacturing a dispute with the Senate and having a double dissolution after 3 1/2 years. I think we will reach the situation fairly soon where there will be a double dissolution at every election and the Senate will have been destroyed as a continuing body. Senator Missen —What's news? It has almost got to that now. Senator HAMER —I will come to that in a moment. I do not think we should enshrine it in the Constitution. As Senator Missen knows, I have a proposal to reduce the likelihood of that. I will deal with that matter in a moment. For those reasons I think these two proposals by the Government are very much second best. I think that at least one of them will not pass. The proposals will not achieve the objectives claimed by the Government. I now turn to the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill. The powers of the State and Federal governments are laid down in the Constitution. There is no doubt that the arrangements in the Constitution for the transfer of powers either from the Federal government to a State government or from a State government to the Federal government are unsatisfactory. The Federal government cannot transfer powers to the States, even if it wants to. For instance, we cannot give State governments power over sales tax, which in most federations, is the largest single source of provincial revenue. Even if we want to we cannot give those powers to the States for them to raise revenue at their own discretion for their own purposes. There is a problem in the transfer of powers from a State government to a Federal government. It is far from clear whether, the States having yielded powers and given them to the Federal government, they can then take them back when there is a change of government. This makes for a very unsatisfactory basis for distribution of power. What the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill would do is clarify that situation and permit horse trading-if that is what we want-between State and Federal governments over powers. The Federal Government could say: 'I will give you, say, sales tax if in return the States will transfer to the Federal Government some powers that the Federal Government wants'. That is a peculiar way to amend the division of powers in the Constitution. It may be a fairly practical way, but I do not think it is the right way to tackle this very serious problem. The division of powers provision in the Constitution has been undermined for many years. Section 96 of the Constitution states: . . . the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit. This provision has widely undermined State powers. For instance, all the education grants are given under section 96. Education is not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, it is a State power. Nevertheless, the Federal Government has been able to move into various areas through its use of this financial power under section 96. In addition to making grants and directing how they are to be spent, the Federal Government can demand matching grants from the States on a one-for-one, two-for-one or even a three-for-one basis. The States do not like this. A former State Premier faced with this referred publicly to the Federal Parliament as 'a bunch of bloody pirates'. He used to be much ruder than that in private. Nevertheless, section 96 is being used in this way. It is changing very much the balance of power between Federal and State governments. We should certainly look at it. Of course we have the very recent events-though they have origins going back more than 40 years-whereby the use of the external affairs power to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate in areas it otherwise would not have, again is changing the division of powers between the Federal and State governments. Rather than this sort of horse-trading, ad hoc way of changing the division of powers, I think that this whole area of division of powers between Federal and State governments-how we decide what those powers should be and how we decide how they should be changed-needs to be looked at overall. Although I know it has support from the Australian Constitutional Convention this seems to me to be merely tinkering with a far more significant problem. I very much doubt that it will achieve what it is intended to achieve. I will leave the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill 1983 to the lawyers. The Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill 1983 is trivial but I think worth passing, as it tidies up the unnecessary parts of the Constitution. The Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1982 [1983], introduced by the Australian Democrats is typical nonsense. Senator Gareth Evans —Say no more! Senator HAMER —I will say a couple more words. This Bill, if passed, would introduce into our Constitution, I think, a largely American concept. I know it is used by other people. The version the Democrats have chosen is very much the American concept which the Americans, I point out, have been wise enough not to touch in their Federal Congress. The States use it. It is very unsatisfactory because it encourages irresponsibility and single issue politics. What politics or political administration is all about is balancing competing needs and forces . If a single interest group is able through this technique to impose its views in a particular area one has, I submit, very unsatisfactory government. Therefore, I have not the slightest doubt that this Bill will be rejected by 59 votes to five. I turn now to the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill 1983. This Bill, proposed by Senator Peter Rae, would overcome a problem in our Constitution which is that if the Senate blocks a Budget or an Appropriation Bill-of course, done with a view to forcing an unwanted election on the House of Representatives-there is no way in which the Senate can be forced to an election with the House of Representatives unless it has already given other grounds for a double dissolution. I think it is well known that I do not approve of this use of the Senate's power. I do not think it is an appropriate use of our power to force an unwanted election by refusing Supply to a government. Nevertheless, the power is there. I do not think it will be used for many years, if it is ever used again. I think what the Bill provides is that, if the power is used- certainly if it is used in time for the ordinary double dissolution procedure of rejecting legislation twice after intervals of three months-and an election is forced, it should be a double dissolution. As I said, I do not like this power. Nevertheless, while the power is there, there should be provision in the Constitution so that, if it is used-I hope it will not be used-the consequences will affect the Senate at least as much as they do the House of Representatives. The Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill is designed to break the so- called nexus between the two Houses. The provision is that the number of members of the House of Representatives should be, as near as practicable, twice the number of senators. This proposal was put to the people in 1967 and resoundingly defeated, despite the fact that it was supported by all the major parties. In fact, the only party resisting it was the Australian Democratic Labor Party. Aided by two Liberal Party senators. I think there was a campaign of extraordinary misrepresentation. Nevertheless, one got the impression that the purpose was to permit more politicians. One could always drum up votes opposing the proposition that there should be more politicians. I think we should be prepared to look at this matter seriously because the only reason which was ever given for this nexus, this two to one ratio, was that, after a double dissolution, if the Bill or Bills that caused the double dissolution were still in dispute they could be settled by a joint sitting of the two Houses. There was a joint sitting in 1974, of course. I do not think that reason is adequate ground for retaining this nexus, because the numbers in the Senate, while it retains proportional representation, will always be narrowly balanced. If the Government has won any sort of victory in the House of Representatives, the margin in the House of Representatives will always be able to overwhelm the very narrow balance in the Senate. Therefore, I do not think the problems of a double dissolution are justifiable grounds for retaining the nexus. The disadvantage of the nexus is that the requirements of the two Houses are quite different. The reason for the increase in the number of members in the House of Representatives is to do with servicing electors and electorates, the problems of electors such as transport and so on. The problems in increasing the size of the Senate are quite different. They would normally include the pressures of committee work, the problems of getting through the ordinary business of the Senate and all its committees. They are quite distinct. There is no reason why the numbers should progress in a two to one ratio from here to eternity. Fundamentally, the proposition is nonsense. It is important to remember, though, that there is no constitutional limit on the number of members of parliament. Parliament can provide any number it likes. The only limit is this two to one ratio between members of the House of Representatives and members of the Senate. There is a curious feature in clause 3 of this Bill which provides for the first time, if it is passed, for a limit on the number of members of parliament. I imagine that was put in to soothe the feelings of the people who thought that the removal of the nexus would allow open slather or an increase in the number of members of parliament. Clause 3 states that the number of members for the House of Representatives should be not more than one member for every 85,000 people. If that proposal had been passed in 1967 and used the House of Representatives would now be entitled to have 181 members. I do not think many people would argue that that is an appropriate figure. It is not the first time there have been attempts to put this sort of limit on the number of representatives, or some direction on to the ratio between population and members of the House of Representatives. In the 1891 Constitution, which, of course, was never adopted, it was provided that there should be one member of the House of Representatives to every 30,000 people. If that proposal had been adopted, the House of Representatives would now have 513 members. The point is that as populations grow, the appropriate ratio between members and the public must be adjustable. Too rigid a provision such as is provided in this Bill would seem to me unwise. Certainly 85,000 people per member of the House of Representatives is far too low. Let us look at a different federal system. In the United States, the House of Representatives has 435 members and each represents an average of 540,000 people . If we used the United States criteria and its ratio, the House of Representatives would have 29 members. Most people would think that was too small. On the other hand, if the United States used the criteria provided in Senator Macklin's Bill for breaking the nexus, it would have a House of Representatives with 2,750 members. I am only pointing out the difficulty one has in trying to pin down in this way the maximum number-Parliament can provide for a lower number, of course-of members of the House of Representatives. The problems are that as a country grows the ratio changes; we have problems of space-Australia's area is almost the same as the United States-and we have the possibility of staff members carrying out some political functions, as they do in the United States, which we expect members of parliament to do. If this Bill proceeds, we should certainly amend it so that the maximum number of members in the House of Representatives is not more than one member for every 100,000 population. This would mean at the moment a maximum size in the House of Representatives of 154, but it would grow proportionately as the population grew . I think the idea of providing a maximum of one member for every 85,000 people creating a possibility of a House of Representatives with 181 members which would also grow as our population grew, would have no chance of success. It would be ridiculed by the public and the Bill would fail on that ground alone, quite apart from any merits which it had. The final Bill I wish to refer to is my own Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill. Its purpose is to bring the deadlock power back to what was originally intended. When members were discussing at the constitutional conventions of the 1890s the problem of deadlock between the two Houses, the first suggestion was that if there were a deadlock it should be solved by putting it to the people in the form of a referendum. Referendums were very popular in the 1890s, which seem also to be the spiritual home of the Australian Democrats. In the 1890s, referendums were thought to be the panacea solution to all problems, but that attitude changed eventually and the present procedure was adopted. If a deadlock was established in certain laid down ways the Government, if it wished, could have a double dissolution. If after the double dissolution and after the election the deadlock persisted and the Government wished to pursue a Bill, it could be determined by a joint sitting of both Houses. The original system for overcoming deadlocks was used in 1914 and 1951, only twice in our first 70 years. It has been used three times in the last 10 years, and we almost automatically have reached the absurd situation that although senators are supposed to be elected for fixed six-year terms, only one of the present 64 senators in this chamber has ever served a full six-year term. Senator Gareth Evans —Who is that? Senator HAMER —The President. Only one present honourable senator has ever served his full six-year term, and this is reaching the height of absurdity. As I said earlier, if we move towards a four-year term it will remove an inhibition the Government has had about forcing double dissolutions, because it cannot have a double dissolution within six months of the expiry of the House of Representatives term. It is reluctant to cut its term back to 2 1/2 years. If we went to a four-year term it would find it easier to cut it at 3 1/2 years. Unless we do something about it we will have a double dissolution at every election. This will destroy the continuing Senate-the basis on which we were founded and which I think is very important to the operation of our Parliament. So I propose that we keep the deadlock power but provide that, if the Government gets the ground for a double dissolution through a particular piece of legislation of critical importance and does not exercise its power to solve the deadlock through the means of a double dissolution within three months of gaining that power, that power should lapse. That would bring the measure back to its original purpose. It would still be open to the Government to serve up a potential double dissolution Bill close to an election, but not within six months. Then it would be within the power of the Senate to decide whether it wished to fight an election on those grounds. If if did not, if could pass the Bill. Senator Gareth Evans —What would you do about the death of a thousand cuts inflicted upon a government by an opposition with a series of small irritations and harassments which in themselves are not sufficient to justify perhaps a full scale double dissolution? Senator HAMER —I do not think, as our politics work in this country, that the grounds for a double dissolution are ever significant during an election campaign. The grounds for the double dissolution which led to the election in March were a series of Bills passed about a year before, Bills which the Government, I must say, admitted during the election that it had no intention of reintroducing even if it won the election. So, given the way our elections are fought I do not think the actual grounds would normally be a very significant part of the election campaign. Suppose the Government is, as Senator Evans puts it, suffering the death of a thousand cuts. When it gets fed up with it it can bring a Bill as a double dissolution Bill and then have its double dissolution and fight the election if it wants to. Alternatively, if the Government is having trouble with a lot of Bills, it could serve the Bills up in succession and the Senate at any stage would have to make a decision either to put up or to shut up. It has to say: 'We will pass this Bill because we are not prepared to fight an election' or: 'We will defy the Government and take the consequences'. That is the purpose for which the original provision was designed. Senator Gareth Evans —But if you are re- turned with a mandate should you not be able to wipe the slate clean in one go with a joint sitting going back over all those earlier measures? Senator HAMER —I do not think that is necessary. Senator Tate raised this point earlier. If the Government wins the election, particularly when the Senate has, in the Government's view, been obstructive, the Government will have, as I think the Senate has shown, a mandate to introduce its program. We have not been obstructive with measures on which the Government fought the election. Senator Gareth Evans —What about bottom of the harbour recoupment? Senator HAMER —Bottom of the harbour recoupment was not in your election program . Senator Gareth Evans —It was indeed. Don't tell fibs. Senator Missen —You promised no penal legislation. Senator Gareth Evans —It is not penal legislation; it is recovery legislation. Senator HAMER —I think the question of whether it is penal or not penal is not relevant to this point. Senator Evans has diverted me from the fundamental thrust to which he does not like being brought back of the purpose of the Constitution and the way in which it should work. As I think I made evident, I support some of these Bills. I am not very impressed by or prepared to go along with some others, and I strongly oppose the one providing for referendums to solve our political problems on the initiative of small pressure groups. Whilst I think it is important that all of these measures that can command support in both Houses should be put to the people, we must ensure that our Constitution is a living document. The Government may fail the first time. But I think it underestimates the intelligence of the people if it is not prepared to put admittedly controversial proposals because it thinks that it might damage the prospects of the passage of other Bills to which it is attracted. There is no evidence whatever for that proposition. People have shown in their voting that they have distinguished very sharply between different propositions put to them by way of amendments to the Constitution by referendum. I am sure that that is what we can achieve when the referendum is held early next year. We must make our Constitution a living document-a document capable of change and capable of adjusting to the needs of the coming decades. These are the requirements that we have as a Parliament. I suggest that it is the duty of the Government to put sensible proposals for amendments to the Constitution to the people. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.47) —This is a somewhat difficult debate in that it concerns nine different Bills which, if passed, will take different proposals to the people by means of referendum pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution. Really, only one of those nine Bills requires no attention at all; that is the Bill to remove certain transitional and outdated provisions. I believe that all the others require some attention and, although the time to speak is very restricted, it is my intention to deal with them. I deal firstly with the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. I make the point right from the start that I oppose this Bill. I do not oppose the principle of simultaneous elections, in fact I am in favour of simultaneous elections, but I oppose this Bill. I believe that my position is consistent with the position I took on the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill , which I supported. I opposed the right of a Prime Minister to call an election at will at a time that he assesses as politically propitious. Governments should be elected for a term and they should serve that term. Electors should have the right to assess a government on its performance over the whole of that term. At the moment, of course, we have a fixed term for the Senate and, therefore, subject to double dissolutions, the people have that opportunity. But we have an unfixed but maximum term for the House of Representatives. The Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill, which until very recently we had before the Senate, would have left the Senate position intact and would have provided also a fixed term for the House of Representatives. But I regret to say that the Government has failed all those who have supported such a change and it has now withdrawn that Bill. But it has not found a compromise. It has, rather, totally reversed direction. It now proposes not only that the term of the House of Representatives should be unfixed but also that the Senate fixed term should be abandoned. We will now be left with a situation in which not only will the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) be able to call the House of Representatives to the people at will but, in so doing, he will also call out the Senate. For those of us who see a failing or a weakness in his being able to do so, we must see in this Bill a double failure. For those of us who believed that the Government was genuine in supporting the concept of fixed term parliaments, it is a double disappointment. That does not mean, as I indicated, that I do not support the holding of simultaneous elections. I do. It was one of the great advantages of that Bill, but unfortunately it has now been withdrawn. There is no reason why, under the existing system, simultaneous elections cannot take place. It is only premature House of Representatives elections, for whatever reason, that the Government may advance, that throws the Houses out of sequence and inflicts extra elections upon the community, with all the additional costs and distractions that such unnecessary elections encompass. As I indicated, I intend to oppose the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. I wish to speak briefly on Senator Macklin's Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill which is to break the nexus between the numbers in the Senate and the numbers in the House of Representatives which is, of course, created by section 24 of the Constitution. As all honourable senators will know, the number of members in the House of Representatives is to be as nearly as practicable twice the number of senators. To assess the desirability of that provision it is obviously necessary to look at its purpose. A number of arguments have been advanced from time to time in its favour. An argument one hears relatively often is that it enables the Senate to retain its powers. That, of course, is nonsense . The Senate is a most powerful Upper House by virtue of its wide power to amend and total power to reject. Whatever one thinks of the merits of such powers they certainly have nothing to do with the nexus tying the number in the House of Representatives to no more than twice the number of senators. A further argument one hears from time to time is that it is necessary to retain the nexus to retain the Senate's influence. Again, I have great difficulty in following that argument. The influence of the Senate in my opinion will depend on its performance and the quality of the contribution of its members, not on the number of Senators vis-a-vis the number of members in the House of Representatives. I know it is always dangerous to make comparisons with systems elsewhere, but I reflect upon the United States Senate which I think Senator Hamer mentioned in his speech immediately preceding mine. The United States Senate has maintained its status and influence although its membership numbers much less than half that of the House of Representatives. The third argument that I sometimes hear for maintaining the nexus is that it is seen as necessary to protect the position of the smaller States. Such protection, as far as it exists, does not lie in the nexus between the size of the chambers. The Senate, as I have said, has the powers and the protection lies in the equal representation from each State, whether large or small. But I am afraid that in any event that protection, or the belief in that protection, may well be overrated. Certainly, senators here promote and argue for the interests of their States but I reflect upon the question of whether senators from smaller States join across party lines to match the larger States. In my experience the answer is never. Strict party allegiance has very much diluted this role which was seen as important by some of the founding fathers, although it is interesting to note that others were sceptical as to its importance and function right from the start. The strongest argument that seems to be put to retain the nexus is that in relation to joint sittings. But in a Parliament with already a 2:1 ratio it is very unlikely that a breakdown of party allegiance in the Senate, although half of the senators have been elected on each of two separate occasions, will have any effect upon the outcome of a joint sitting. Therefore, I cannot find arguments for retaining the nexus that are particularly persuasive. Rather, I believe that the correct approach is to look at the role being played by the respective chambers and assess the number of members and senators necessary to carry out such functions. The Australian Democrats have promoted in this Bill and in the second reading speech the need to break the nexus on a desire to increase the size of the House of Representatives and not the Senate. A debate on the numbers is not really relevant tonight. It is a debate that we will face in the not too distant future . But I will use this opportunity to register a concern. It is said that members cannot carry out their representative role adequately with electorates of their present size. But again, looking at the United States where the average electorate is, I understand, in the vicinity of half a million we see that with adequate staffing and servicing, members appear to be doing the job quite satisfactorily. I want to contrast the role of the Senate. One can look at the review role of the Senate in relation to the quality of legislation which is passing through this chamber. One can look at the Senate's safeguard role in relation to the protection of human rights and liberties. One can look to the Senate's function in examining wider constitutional, social, trade, resources and other issues. These are all matters of critical importance and matters on which, I believe, the performance of the Senate can be improved. I noted Senator Missen's contribution earlier tonight in which he particularly made that point in relation to the committees. Some would therefore see and argue a need for increasing the number of senators. On the other hand some might argue that the difficulty is inadequate servicing. But, as I indicated, that is not an argument for tonight. Let us assess the need for the number of members and senators on the basis of the need to carry out functions responsibly, not according to a now largely irrelevant formula. The third Bill I wish to look at very briefly is Senator Hamer's Bill. That Bill provides that when there is a double dissolution trigger, action must be taken within three months or the potential for that double dissolution will lapse. As Senator Hamer preceded me and eloquently put arguments in support of his Bill, I do not want to spend a great deal of time on it. But I do commend it to the Senate as a proposition which has considerable merit. This game of a Prime Minister holding double dissolution Bills over his party, the Senate and the Parliament as a whole cannot facilitate the efficient functioning of this institution. Senator Hamer's proposal will mean that the provisions of the Constitution will operate in the way that I see they were designed to operate. I believe that this is a real test for this Labor Party Government. I suspect that it is a proposal that would have received the support of the Labor Party had it been in opposition. It will be interesting to see whether the exigencies of office have again tempted the idealism honourable senators opposite used to claim. The fourth Bill which I wish to look at briefly concerns the extension of terms . If we are not to have fixed terms for the House of Representatives I support extension of the maximum term to four years. It would allow a genuine government better opportunity to implement its program. I support also the extension of the term of the Senate, although I must confess that I am not entirely happy with the prospect of eight years. That seems to me to be too long a term. Standing by my desirability for fixed terms, I have had to balance the undesirability of a longer term for senators with the desirability of retaining the potential for keeping the Houses in sequence and the consequence, hopefully, of fewer elections. Without a lot of conviction I have therefore found for the latter. The fifth Bill I wish to touch upon is Senator Rae's. That Bill provides for automatic and simultaneous dissolution of both Houses in the event of disagreement between the Houses in relation to the passing of proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for ordinary annual services of government. In the speech I gave on the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill in May of this year I made clear my attitude on this Bill. The Constitution is silent as to what is to happen in the event of the Senate refusing Supply. The unique set of circumstances that occurred in 1975 might indicate that when the Senate defers Supply and a double dissolution mechanism is in place, if a Prime Minister refuses to go to the people and an Opposition Leader promises to do so, a Governor-General may dismiss the government. But even then I am not certain that in the same circumstances, if they were ever to be repeated, the Governor- General would act in the same way. Debate interrupted. Australian Capital Territory: Brothels The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 11 p.m., in accordance with the sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.00) —I want to raise a matter through you, Mr President, with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in relation to a newspaper article that appeared in the Canberra Times recently headed: 'Prosecutions under brothel laws dropped'. There seems to be some confusion in the community as to exactly what the Attorney-General has in mind by not proceeding with prosecutions. It seems there is no suggestion that the police did not have adequate evidence to take the matters to court. Whether or not they would have succeeded I have no idea. But the Police Offences Ordinance 1930 says, in section 18: A person who- (a) manages or conducts a brothel; or (b) is knowingly concerned in the management or conduct of a brothel, is guilty of an offence and is punishable, upon summary conviction, by imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months. I think that many people would assume from that that if a person runs a brothel and gets caught at it, he is likely to be prosecuted. Another significant section, section 19B, states: A prosecution for an offence against section 18-- and two other sections- of this Ordinance shall not be instituted except with the consent of the Attorney-General or a person authorized by the Attorney-General to give consent for the purposes of this section. Perhaps it is a lack of understanding of that section that has caused some people in the community to wonder what the Attorney-General's reasons are in this matter. The newspaper article to which I have referred said: Senator Evans said in reply to questions put yesterday, 'a number of considerations were taken into account including, in particular, the almost complete lack of complaint from members of the public'. Most people would know that if they drove down Canberra Avenue at 120 kilometres per hour and the speed limit is either 60 or 80 kilometres per hour, they would be prosecuted if caught; whereas in this situation it seems that even though it is an offence, people will be prosecuted only if others complain about it. It may well be that in relation to brothels there have not been many complaints . People know that it is an offence to run a brothel and assume that the normal procedures will take place if they do run a brothel. The Senate may think that the analogy with a motor vehicle speeding is absurd, but I think that many people would feel that that is reasonable, and that it is not a question of complaining. In fact, I understand that a couple of people have complained to the Attorney-General, so the question then is: How many have to complain for this to be a relevant fact in the Attorney-General's consideration of prosecution? Senator Evans is alleged to have said further: The question whether, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, the public interest required the institution of proceedings- and to have also said: Each case must be considered on its merits. I think that the Attorney-General should spell out for this community what his reasons are. He has said 'a number of considerations' in addition to 'complaint from members of the public'. What are the other considerations that he takes into account when determining whether or not to prosecute in this situation? Perhaps he is considering repealing the legislation and legalising brothels. I certainly do not know what he has in mind, but I think that we are entitled to know the matters that he takes into account in deciding not to prosecute. People are entitled to know how many people must complain before he would consider a prosecution. I should be glad if he would give his views on this matter so that they can be made public. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.04) —Section 19B of the Australian Capital Territory Police Offences Ordinance is very unusual, among the provisions of that Ordinance-perhaps it is unique; I have not checked-in that it requires that the Attorney-General's affirmative consent, or his delegate's affirmative consent, be given prior to the institution of proceedings . That is in contradistinction to the normal provision where there is a residual discretion in the prosecution authorities, ultimately the Attorney-General himself, to withdraw from proceedings, come in over the top, if he feels or the prosecution authorities feel that for one or other reason a prosecution should not lie. That I suggest is an important point to appreciate at the threshold because it indicates to me that there is a quite proper emphasis that should be placed on larger public interest considerations in each particular case that comes up for possible prosecution. It is appropriate that some attention be paid to those public interest considerations in a way that perhaps might be not so appropriate for ordinary offences where there is not that preliminary threshold requirement of consent. Senator Georges —What are you talking about? Senator GARETH EVANS —Brothels in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Georges should curb his racing hormones and he will hear all sorts of interesting things. Senator Georges —How do you happen to be discussing the subject of brothels? Senator GARETH EVANS —Because Senator Reid has a passion for the subject and she has raised it quite properly on behalf of her constituents. So much for the preliminary point I want to make. I go on to say that it is the case that I have recently declined to give my consent pursuant to that section for the institution of proceedings in respect of seven cases of alleged offences against section 18 (b) of that Police Offences Ordinance. The decision not to consent to the institution of proceedings was carefully taken in accordance with the established guidelines for the making of such decisions. The guidelines to which I refer are set out and available for public consumption in that splendid document entitled 'Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth' which was tabled in the Parliament late last year by the then Acting Attorney-General in the absence of Senator Durack. I assume that Senator Durack would have been only too happy to table the document had he been around. It is a very useful compilation of the appropriate criteria to apply for all considerations of prosecutions, including the application of prior consents as are required here. The available evidence was considered by me in each case, together with the question of whether the public interest required the institution of proceedings. The primary public interest consideration to which I had regard was, as I have already stated publicly, the extent of the public complaints that had been received in relation to the various premises the subject of the prosecutions. In only one of the seven cases had there been any public complaints. There had been several complaints made in respect of the particular premises in question but that was only one of the seven and in that one case the evidence was in fact substantially less strong that was the case for the other six in respect of which no public complaints had been made. I do readily acknowledge that the evidence on the face of it was substantial in relation to those other six premises and I make no criticism at all of the dedication of the police force in the compilation of the material to support the prosecutions in question. My Department's advice to me on this subject was accompanied by the annotation 'one in, all in'. But I thought that a more appropriate response, which I in turn annotated on the advice, was rather 'withdrawn in all'. My decisions in the cases referred to should not be taken as an indication that I would never consent to the institution of proceedings for such offences. I have made it clear that I regard it as appropriate to treat these matters on a case by case basis. I would, however, point out finally that prostitution laws in the Australian Capital Territory are archaic and badly in need of review. Preliminary work has already been undertaken on this review and I hope that the results of this work will be available in the near future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following papers were presented: Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified purposes. Public Service Act-Appointment-Department of Health-R. S. McClory. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 311 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minster representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Which manned lighthouses provide a weather reporting service to the Bureau of Meteorology. (2) Would the loss of reliable weather reports provide a hindrance to coastal shipping if these lights were automated. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Queensland: Low Isles, Fitzroy Island, Cape Cleveland, Pine Islet, Cape Capricorn, Bustard Head, Lady Elliott Island, Sandy Cape, Double Island Point, Cape Moreton. New South Wales: Cape Byron, Smokey Cape, Norah Head, Point Perpendicular, Montague Island, Green Cape. Victoria: Gabo Island, Point Hicks, Wilson's Promontory, Cape Schank, Cape Otway, Cape Nelson. Tasmania: Deal Island, Low Head, Swan Island, Eddystone Point, Cape Bruny, Maatsuyker Island. South Australia: Cape Willoughby, Cape Borda, Neptune Island. Western Australia: Cape Leeuwin, Cape Naturaliste, Rottnest Island, Cape Leveque. Northern Territory: Cape Don. In addition, Booby Island off the Cape York Peninsula sends in rainfall reports only. (2) Yes. The loss of reliable weather reports from lighthouses could provide a hindrance to coastal shipping for the following reasons. (i) weather reports from lighthouses form a very important part of the Bureau's surface network, which is used as a basis for its analysis and forecasts; (ii) loss of these reports would significantly decrease the accuracy of detailed coastal weather forecasts; (iii) coastal reports broadcast as part of weather bulletins assist marine users in monitoring and interpreting Bureau coastal waters forecasts; (iv) automatic weather stations, whose installation is dependent upon capital and provision of adequate maintenance, could provide a partial replacement for reports from manned lighthouses, but loss of observations of sea and swell would have a significant impact on the quality of marine weather services. Question No. 325 Senator Missen asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: (1) What steps has the Australian Government taken to ensure that its aid to Sri Lanka is reaching the Tamil refugees and not the Jayewardene Government's military and police forces which participated in the recent acts of genocide against the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka. (2) Is the Australian Government, through its High Commission in Sri Lanka and other independent sources, receiving accurate numbers of the Tamil people that have been killed, the houses, shops, factories and businesses burnt and the total number of refugees displaced, or is it relying on press releases issued by the Sri Lankan Government for world consumption. (3) What measures are the Jayawardene Government taking to ensure the safety, security, health, education and work programmes for these displaced refugees. (4) Are there no telephone, train or shipping services to Jaffna, now under military occupation. (5) What measures are the Jayawardene Governement taking to rehabilitate the 65 ,000 persons acknowledged by that Government to be still in the Colombo refugee camps and without homes and work places. (6) Will the Australian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister initiate a series of inquiries at the United Nations and co-ordinate these with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting conference to be held in November in New Delhi. (7) Will the Australian Government as a sign of Australian concern, consider freezing its aid to the Jayawardene Government, including military and police training, until these matters are resolved. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Australian Government's contribution of $100,000 as humanitarian assistance to the Government of Sri Lanka was made available on the basis of reimbursement, on receipt of certification by the Secretary, Ministry of Plan Implementation, that all expenditures were directed towards relief activities for displaced persons. During the peak of relief activities the Australian High Commission attended daily meetings held by the Secretary, Ministry of Plan Implementation, in his capacity of Deputy Commissioner-General of Essential Services responsible for co-ordination of relief assistance. These meetings were also attended by aid officers from other donor countries and representatives of non-government organisations. There were thus adequate opportunities to assess how relief activities were being managed and whether expenditures reflected needs. All officers were offered free access to the camps. Emergency relief has been jointly co-ordinated between Sri Lankan Government officials and non-government organisations. Officials from the Sri Lankan Social Security and Health ministries provided up-to-date reports on conditions in displaced person camps, shortages and arrangements for the transport of displaced persons. The non-government organisations accepted functional responsibility for providing data on the numbers of people in camps, arranging the transfer to Jaffna by sea of displaced persons and providing advice on such matters as hygiene. These organisations were well placed to monitor relief requirements and distribution. Overall arrangements were adequately observed by the Australian High Commission in Colombo. Certified statements seeking reimbursement from the Australian donation have been submitted for items which include flour, sugar, rice, jams, bread, textiles for clothing, cooking and eating utensils. Our High Commission's involvement at coordinating meetings confirmed that these items were in heavy demand. A balance of approximately $50,000 of the Australian contribution remains unexpended. The Sri Lankan authorities have sought our approval to utilise this amount for relief to displaced persons in the predominantly Tamil populated centres of Jaffna, Batticaloa and Trincomalee. Our High Commission's contacts with other donors and non-government organisations suggest that emergency aid was not misdirected, and that the relief to displaced persons was satisfactorily handled. The major problems were hygiene and food storage facilities and water supplies as most camps were located at schools. These problems were quickly identified and did not reach crisis point as the numbers in the camps were reduced within a reasonable period . With regard to the safety and security of the camps, a joint statement has been issued by the representatives of United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, Campaign Against Racial Exploitation, Redd Barna, IHAP and Save the Children Fund. It stated: 'At the request of the Government, our organisations assisted in the running of the relief camps and transport of supplies with professional personnel. We would like to take this opportunity to place on record our collective appreciation for the speed and efficiency with which the Government mobilized the necessary resources to meet the immediate emergency, as well as the good co-ordination of the efforts of so many governmental agencies. We also wish to record our satisfaction with the sufficient and correct security measures provided for the camps. Likewise, we have been impressed with the order and efficiency of the evacuation by sea and train of those refugees wishing to leave Colombo for other parts of the island, and especially the consideration shown to the refugees in providing provision, medicines, security, etc., during their stay in the camps and in transit to the points of departure.' (2) The Australian Government, through its High Commission in Colombo, has been kept informed of developments in Sri Lanka, including the extent of damage and estimated numbers of persons killed and displaced during the recent violence. Data has been gathered from the official statements of the Government of Sri Lanka and from information provided by other, non-government sources, such as the situation reports of the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation and the League of Red Cross Societies. The Government of Sri Lanka's estimate of damage to property equivalent to A$ 100m is reckoned by observers to be generally accurate. With regard to the number of deaths, there are widely varying estimates and accurate information is difficult to obtain due to the relocation of a large number of Tamils including those who took refuge in such places as India, Singapore, and the United Kingdom, some of whom may have been reported as missing. Australia has accepted the Sri Lankan Government figure of 381 deaths. (3) and (5) As at 12 September, there were 15,272 displaced persons in camps in Colombo and 6,000 in camps in other centres. Approximately fifty per cent of breadwinners have resumed employment and return to the camps in the evenings. Sri Lankan voluntary agencies are 'adopting' families to assist with their rehabilitation in their original areas of residence. These amount to approximately 6,000 people who fled to the north from the plantation areas. The World Vision organisation, Society for Economic Development and the Red Cross are assisting with this program. Their immediate needs are being met by the distribution of food parcels provided by Government agencies. A social security scheme under which food rations will be provided to displaced workers (approximately 24,000) for the next three months, was approved by the Sri Lankan Cabinet last week. Private firms have been requested by the Government to take in approximately 4,000 displaced persons. Approximately 5,000 people have been re-employed by companies affiliated with those destroyed and are being paid half salary. The shortfall in salary is being made up by food assistance. A further 9,000 displaced self-employed persons are also receiving assistance under this scheme. Approximately 2,000 persons who held middle management positions are not included in this scheme but the Government is examining the possibility of making cash payments to supplement food aid to give them a total income equivalent to their July salaries. Civil servants were provided with leave on full pay for the period of disruption. The Government has established the Rehabilitation of properties and Industries Authority (REPIA) to assist both owners of business and private residences with rehabilitation. A freeze was placed on all privately owned properties and they were placed in REPIA's control as a safeguard against unscrupulous transactions. Landlords of properties formerly leased by Tamils are prohibited from entering into new lease agreements without approval of the Authority. Government Departments are endeavouring to relocate Tamil officers to the location of their choice. School Superintendents have been directed to facilitate the enrolment of displaced schoolchildren. (4) Telephone services to Jaffna were not disrupted and train, shipping and road transport services have resumed. (6) The recent communal disturbances in Sri Lanka have been the subject of discussion at the current 36th session of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, an independent expert body operating under the umbrella of the UN Commission on Human Rights. A draft resolution has been adopted requesting the Secretary-General of the United Nations to invite the Government of Sri Lanka to submit any information on the recent communal violence, including its efforts to investigate the incidents and to promote communal harmony, and to submit any information received from the Sri Lankan Government to the Commission on Human Rights at its 40th session in February/March 1984. The resolution also recommended to the Commission that it should examine the situation in Sri Lanka in the light of all available information. The Australian Government would not consider it appropriate to raise the communal situation in Sri Lanka at other multilateral meetings. (7) It would not be appropriate for the Australian Government to reconsider its commitment to development assistance in Sri Lanka. Any move in this direction would fall most heavily upon those whom it is most intended to assist, namely the poor of both communities. Nor is this Government aware of any moves of this nature by any other international aid donors. Military training offered to Sri Lanka by Australia has in the past two years been restricted to attendance by one officer of the Sri Lankan armed services to the Joint Services Staff College, Canberra, and a divers' course offered by the Royal Australian Navy. There is no intention to reconsider this assistance.