Thursday, 13 October 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Sex Discrimination Legislation 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 Peter Baume (from 44 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 30 citizens), Childs (from 87 citizens), Chipp (from 475 citizens), Jack Evans (from 435 citizens), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 609 citizens), Lewis (from 487 citizens ) Missen (from 462 citizens), Primmer (from 457 citizens), Richardson (from 135 citizens) and Robertson (from 619 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Since 1979 over 3,000 young people have participated in youth forum projects. Youth forum has the structure and network necessary to provide young people in New South Wales with the skills, information and opportunity to define, and solve some of their own problems. Apart from an International Year of the Child Grant of $15,000 in 1979, youth forum has received no government funding, rather it has utilized a total of $320,000, raised from the private sector. Youth forum is in danger of closing in early October if government funding is not secured, and valuable youth skills and resources will be lost to the community. Youth forum is an existing project which is a perfect vehicle through which the federal government can pursue the objectives of international youth year peace participation and development in 1985. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should financially support youth forum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 1,645 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women in equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 144 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 Peter Baume (from 60 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 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 all 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 Peter Baume (from 31 citizens), Chaney (from 16 citizens), Coates ( from 208 citizens) and Tate (from 202 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 the Tertiary Education Allowance Scheme (TEAS Allowance) has been progressively reducing in real terms throughout the 1980s, and is no longer at an adequate subsistance level. 2. That the situation where the independent TEAS allowance is substantially below the single, no dependant, unemployment benefit is inequitable and not supportable by cost relativities. 3. That the low level of TEAS allowance is detrimental to maintaining the proportion of students currently partaking in tertiary education. 4. That effective immediately the TEAS allowance should be increased to the same level as the single unemployment benefit and thereafter be maintained in line with changes in said benefits. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 156 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1) We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in article II of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the post-school education sector has been neglected in recent years . Therefore we call on the members of the Senate to endorse: (1) increases in TEAS to at least the level of the poverty line. All people should be guaranteed a living wage. (2) Increased funding for campus based child care. (3) The abolition of the overseas student visa charge which is grossly discriminatory. (4) Increased funding for student housing. (5) Increased funding for libraries to ensure facilities are adequate. (6) The establishment or supplementation of campus based student loan funds which are interest free and short-term. (7) Increasing the level and number of postgraduate awards. (8) Extending services to part-time, mature age and external students to open access to education. (9) Increasing student representation at all levels. (10) Innovation in curriculum to ensure curriculum is relevant and critical. (11) Increasing education funding to improve existing facilities. (12) Funding quality student health services which help contribute to the successful completion of courses. (13) Expanding enrolments to open access to education. (14) Compensating institutions for the costs of amalgamation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Senate will support the above claims. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 37 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That standing order 242 be suspended to enable the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983, Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1983, Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill 1983, Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill 1983, to be passed without calls of the Senate. Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —On behalf of Senator Georges, I table additional information received by Estimates Committee F and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 is an omnibus Bill, implementing most of the social security and welfare initiatives of the 1983-84 Budget falling within the portfolio of the Minister for Social Security. Part II of the Bill contains amendments to the Social Security Act 1947. Part III amends the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954, Part IV amends the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974, Part V amends the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974, and Part VI amends the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969. The Bill also deals, in Part II, with amendments to the Social Security Act 1947 of a law revision kind which are intended to update existing provisions of the Act. Since the greater part of these amendments are of a machinery nature and do not involve expenditure, I do not propose to deal with them in detail. The Bill does not deal with the Government's decision announced in the Treasurer's Budget Speech, to re-introduce a means test that takes account of both income and assets for assessing entitlement to pension. That measure will be the subject of separate legislation to be introduced later in the present Parliamentary Sittings. In 1983-84, total direct outlays by the Department of Social Security are estimated to be some $14,500m. This constitutes an estimated 25.6 per cent of total Budget outlays, the estimated increase over 1982-83 being $2,330m or 19.2 per cent. These amounts are considerable and reflect the high priority that this Government gives to providing assistance, in a responsible way, to the disadvantaged in our community. Indeed, the Government would have wished to have done more in the social security area this year. But it has been constrained in what it can achieve in its first Budget by current economic conditions. I will give further details of the financial impact of the Bill as I deal with each of its major initiatives. Social Security Act 1947 Several Budget initiatives require amendments to the Social Security Act 1947 and are dealt with in Part II of this Bill. These measures are directed at providing additional assistance to the most disadvantaged in our community, in particular the unemployed and pensioners and beneficiaries with children. I will turn first to the measures for assisting the unemployed. One of the Government's major election commitments was to restore progressively the rate of unemployment benefit for single adults to parity with the standard rate of pension. The level of assistance provided to these people had been set at the same level as the pension prior to its exclusion from the indexation arrangements in 1978. In May this year, we acted to increase the rate by $4.25 a week and, in keeping with our election commitment, this Bill provides further assistance. From November 1983, the rate of unemployment benefit for people aged 18 years and over who have no dependants will be increased by $4.95, bringing that rate to $73.60 a week. This rate will be equal to half the indexed married rate of unemployment benefit plus an additional $2. The Bill also provides that this rate will be indexed in line with the CPI in the same manner as other payments are indexed. The first increase in line with movements in the CPI will occur in May 1984. A further $2 a week increase, in addition to that first CPI increase, will be made from 1 May 1984. These initiatives will affect an estimated average of some 452,000 beneficiaries at an estimated cost of $97.5m in the current financial year and $ 232.5m in a full year. In line with our election commitment, the Bill also provides for the rate of benefit for single unemployment and sickness beneficiaries aged 16 and 17 years to be increased by $5, to $45 a week, from November 1983. This increase will be of benefit to a group which has been substantially disadvantaged over recent years. In addition, the Government is continuing to examine the whole area of income support and services for youth, particularly for those who are homeless. An estimated average of some 66,000 beneficiaries will benefit from this increase. The estimated cost will be $11.5m in the current financial year and $ 17.2m in a full year. The Bill also provides for the income test for unemployment and sickness benefits to be eased to encourage unemployed people to undertake casual or part- time work without losing entitlement to benefit. The new income test limits will apply from 1 March 1984 and will mean that people will be permitted to have income of up to $20 a week-twice the amount previously allowed-before losing any benefit. Benefit will be reduced by 50c for every $1 earned over $20, up to $70 a week, compared to the present $60 limit. Income over $70 a week will reduce benefit by $1 for every $1 earned. This initiative will benefit an estimated 62,000 beneficiaries at an estimated cost of $7.8m in the current financial year and $23.3m in a full year. The Government has also given priority to assisting low income families in this year's Budget. This Bill provides for the maximum rate of additional pension or benefit provided to pensioners and beneficiaries with dependent children to be increased by 20 per cent to $12 a week per child from November 1983. This rate of assistance was not increased since 1980. This measure will benefit about 424, 000 pensioner and beneficiary families and will cost an estimated $57.9m in the current financial year and $84.8m in a full year. In line with this, the maximum rate of family income supplement for non-pensioner and non-beneficiary low income families will also be increased to $12 a week for each child from November 1983. In combination with the measures contained in this Bill to liberalise the benefits income test, this measure will result in a relaxation of the income limits for family income supplement. These measures will benefit an estimated 30,000 families at an estimated cost of $6.8m in the current financial year and $11.3m in a full year. The Bill also provides for changes to the eligibility conditions and rate of payment of mother's/guardian's allowance. This allowance is currently payable to single pensioners, including supporting parent beneficiaries, with a dependent child or children, in addition to the extra pension paid in respect of each child. Where a single pensioner has a dependent child under the age of 6 years or an invalid child, the amount of allowance payable is $8 a week; otherwise it is $6 a week. This Bill provides for the allowance to be paid at a uniform rate of $8 a week from 1 May 1984. Single unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries with children will also be paid mother's/ guardian's allowance from May 1984. Members of this group were previously excluded from eligibility, even though their need for this assistance was no different from that of sole parent pensioners. An estimated 139,000 pensioners and beneficiaries will benefit from these measures at an estimated cost of $3.3m in the current financial year and $17.6m in a full year. In recognition of the additional costs incurred by pensioners and beneficiaries who live in remote areas, and their exclusion, in many cases, from the benefit of the income tax zone rebates, this Bill provides for the introduction of a special payment. From May 1984, residents of income tax Zone A, who are in receipt of a pension, benefit, sheltered employment or rehabilitation allowance will be paid a new remote area allowance. The Bill proposes the insertion of a new Part IIA of the Social Security Act which will deal with remote area allowance. I refer honourable senators to the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill for the precise details of how the new Part IIA will operate. I propose to deal now with the principal features of this measure. Remote area allowance will be payable to a person who is physically present in, and whose usual place of residence is in, income tax Zone A. The allowance will also be payable in respect of the dependants of a person in the remote area as long as the dependants also satisfy the residential requirements. Temporary absences from the remote area of up to 8 weeks will not affect payment, unless the person leaves Australia. Pensioners aged 70 or over whose pensions will be subject to the special income test applicable from 1 November 1983 will not generally be eligible for remote area allowance. However, they may receive the amount of pension payable under the normal income test and the relevant amount of remote area allowance, if those combined amounts are greater than the amount of pension they would receive under the special income test. The allowance will be tax-free, but will be deducted from any income tax zone rebates for residence in Zone A. It will be paid at the following rates- Single person: $7 a week Couple: $12 a week (combined) Per child: $3.50 a week It is estimated that 30,000 pensioners and beneficiaries will benefit from the introduction of remote area allowance. The estimated cost of this measure will be $2.7m in the current financial year and $15.7m in a full year. A further new payment provided for by this Bill is the introduction of a spouse carer's pension from December 1983. This pension will assist men providing constant care and attention for their age or invalid pensioner wives at home. At present, many men in these circumstances may qualify only for special benefit which has carried a harsher income test and no pensioner fringe benefit entitlement. This measure will enable such men to provide better care for their wives. The rate of spouse carer's pension will be the same as the basic rate of wife's pension which from 1 November 1983 will be $71.60 a week. The pension will be paid under the conditions normally applying to wife's pensions. It is not possible to estimate accurately the likely number of recipients of the new pension or its costs. A best guess is that some 2,000 men may be eligible for the spouse carer's pension at an estimated cost of some $2.3.m in the current financial year and $5.0m in a full year. The Government has also decided to make a number of changes to eligibility for supporting parent's benefit. They will be of substantial assistance to the relatively small number who will benefit from them and will remove anomalies in the Social Security Act. From December 1983, eligibility for supporting parent's benefit will be extended to a married person who is left to care for a child or children because his or her spouse is absent indefinitely from the matrimonial home due to illness or infirmity. At present, if such a person is not of age pension age, he or she is generally unable to qualify for any assistance other than special benefit. Eligibility for supporting parent's benefit is also to be extended to people who acquire the legal custody of a child by means of an order of a court. This will include single persons who adopt children and persons who obtain custody of children from the Family Court or a State or Territory Supreme Court. The number of people who will benefit from these extensions of eligibility for supporting parent's benefit is small. The cost of both these initiatives is estimated to be in the order of $0.3m in the current financial year and $0.5m in a full year. The Bill also incorporates provisions to index the basic income limits for fringe benefit entitlement bi-annually in line with movements in the CPI, commencing in November 1983. This will overcome a major difficulty for pensioners, particularly those on modest indexed superannuation pensions who under current provisions may lose entitlement to their pensioner health benefit cards when they receive superannuation increases. From November 1983 the basic income limits will be $57 a week for a single person, and $94 a week for a couple. The existing additional $20 a week for each child will continue to apply . There are currently 1.7 million pensioners and beneficiaries who are eligible for fringe benefits. The estimated cost to the Department of Social Security of this proposal is $0.1m in the current financial year and $0.2m in a full year. Additional costs of some $1 million in the current financial year and $3 million in a full year will be met by the Departments of Health and Transport. I turn now to the pension income test. With effect from 1 November 1983, payments received by way of benefit from friendly societies and payments received from trade unions in respect of illness, infirmity and old-age will no longer be exempt for the purposes of the pension income test. This change will apply to payments received on or after 1 November 1983. Savings in Social Security outlays resulting from this measure are difficult to estimate but are expected to be $7.0m in the current financial year and $10.0m in a full year. Other minor amendments are to be made to the definition of income for pension purposes. The amendments will exempt income in the form of relief by way of lump sum insurance compensation for loss or damage to a house, personal effects or a business. Exempted also will be various forms of emergency relief and charitable assistance, and payments under Commonwealth housing assistance legislation. Similar amendments are proposed to the definition of income for benefit purposes . This Bill also provides for the modification of the existing rule that disqualifies a trade unionist who is not himself on strike from receiving unemployment benefit if his unemployment is due to other members of his trade union being on strike. The existing rule was introduced in October 1979 and has the effect of discriminating against trade unionists. Under the proposed amendment, a trade unionist will not be disqualified for the purposes of unemployment benefit if the industrial action did not occur at the place where he was employed. With the introduction of this amendment, the rules governing qualification for unemployment benefit in strike situations will be as follows- (1) direct participants in a strike will not be qualified for benefit (2) members of a striking union at the establishment at which a strike takes place will not be qualified for benefit (3) members of other unions at the establishment at which a strike takes place who are not themselves on strike will be qualified for benefit (4) persons stood down at other establishments as a result of a strike will be qualified for benefit, irrespective of their union membership. The opportunity has also been taken by means of this Bill to make a number of machinery amendments which will enhance the readability of the Social Security Act and will lead to improved administration. The principal matters relate to claims provisions, manner of payment provisions, notification and review requirements for pensioners and beneficiaries, information gathering provisions and provisions dealing with cancellation, suspension or variation of payments. One such measure I will single out deals with general increases in penalties for breaches of the Social Security Act. In particular, the penalty for breach of the confidentiality provision by an officer will be increased from $500 to $5 ,000 or 2 years imprisonment and the penalty for fraud or like serious offences will be increased from $500 or 6 months imprisonment to $2,000 or 12 months imprisonment. These machinery amendments do not involve any costs. Aged and Disabled Persons Welfare Programs The Government has a continuing commitment to help those members of the community who are aged or disabled. Several initiatives are proposed in this Bill to provide assistance for those people. The Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 will be amended to make new arrangements for the payment of subsidy to eligible organisations providing hostel and personal care services. The object of these changes is to encourage the provision of hostel services predominantly for care of the frail aged. From 1 January 1984, organisations will no longer be entitled automatically to personal care subsidy for persons aged 80 years or over. A new hostel care subsidy will be paid to eligible organisations in respect of current and future residents who are assessed as needing approved hostel care services. The subsidy is to be paid at a rate of $10 a week for each eligible person. A further personal care subsidy of $40 a week is to be paid for each person receiving hostel care who requires and is receiving personal care services. These proposals will take effect from 1 January 1984. The estimated cost of the measures is $5.1m for the current financial year and $11.6m in a full year. The Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 will be amended to permit a remuneration subsidy of up to 80 per cent of the salary of certain specialist staff to be paid to an organisation conducting an approved prescribed service under that Act. This amendment will operate from 1 January 1984 and will supplement existing provisions for remuneration subsidy of up to 50 per cent for approved staff. The categories of equipment which may be subsidised under that Act will be extended to include equipment under hire purchase and leasing arrangements. The existing restriction on the subsidy of replacement equipment used for income-producing purposes in connection with sheltered employment will be lifted. The amendments in relation to equipment subsidies will operate from 1 October 1983. A new measure to be introduced under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act is an open employment incentive bonus. Recipients of sheltered employment allowance of 6 months' standing or more who move to full-time paid open employment, including self-employment, and remain there for a continuous period of at least 12 months will be eligible to receive the bonus from 1 October 1983. The amount of the bonus will be $500, which will be tax-free and excluded as income for social security income test purposes. It will be paid on a once only basis. The estimated cost of these measures is $2m in the current financial year and $ 5m in a full year. Amendments will be made to the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974 with regard to salary subsidies, and meal and accommodation subsidies. A subsidy of up to 100 per cent of salary or wages will be provided for one approved social welfare worker position in an approved homeless persons assistance centre from 1 January 1984. The existing subsidy of up to 50 per cent of the salary or wages of additional approved social welfare worker positions is to be retained. From 1 January 1984, separate meal and accommodation subsidies will be provided . They will be payable to homeless persons assistance centres on the following basis. For each meal provided to residents and non-residents at an approved centre, a subsidy of 50 cents will be paid. For each night's accommodation provided, a subsidy of $1.50 will be paid. The effect of these changes is to increase the subsidy payable for accommodation and 3 meals from $1.35 to $3. Accommodation vouchers, equivalent in value to the accommodation subsidy, will be introduced from 1 January 1984. They will be issued by approved centres to homeless persons who will be able to exchange them for accommodation in approved places. The estimated cost of these measures will be $1.6m in the current financial year and $2.5m in a full year. A minor amendment is also proposed in relation to each of the two Acts with which I have just dealt, as well as the State Grants (Home Care) Act 1969. The amendment ensures that a grant of financial assistance in respect of salaries will include lump sums paid to employees on retirement or termination of employment. Mr President, the initiatives which I have announced form an integral part of this Government's commitment to assisting the disadvantaged members of the community. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.07) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1983 The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 in order to suspend the requirement in certain circumstances for a report by the Industries Assistance Commission before temporary assistance granted to an industry may be extended. Under present arrangements, the Minister may grant temporary assistance to an industry for a period of up to one year after he has received a report from the Temporary Assistance Authority. This assistance can be extended by the Minister for a period of 12 months after he has received a further report from the Temporary Assistance Authority. Temporary assistance cannot, however, be extended by him beyond a period of two years without a report by the Industries Assistance Commission. The practical effect of the amendments proposed by this Bill will be that temporary assistance will be able to be extended to industries receiving temporary assistance during the 12-month period commencing on 1 July 1983, for a total of three years without the need for a report from the Industries Assistance Commission. However, a report from the Temporary Assistance Authority will still be required annually by the Minister and extension of assistance beyond three years will also require a prior report from the Industries Assistance Commission. This Bill is proposed as a consequence of the Government's recognition that industry is facing severe problems in the present difficult economic conditions. The Bill complements other administrative actions taken by the Government to speed up and simplify, as far as possible, the procedures for consideration of industry requests for temporary assistance. The extension of the temporary assistance provision as proposed by the Bill will not involve any additional advisory machinery. Accordingly, the legislation has no direct financial implications. The opportunity has been taken to incorporate in the Bill some administrative amendments to the Industries Assistance Commission Act including those relating to suspension and removal from office, acting appointments and disclosure of interests. The changes bring the legislation into line with standard practice and with the recommendations of the report of the committee of inquiry into public duty and private interest. I commend the Bill to the Senate. BOUNTY (AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS) AMENDMENT BILL 1983 This Bill proposes a doubling of the existing bounty assistance to the industry producing agricultural wheeled tractors and their derivatives, having a power of not less than 15 kilowatts at the power take-off. The additional bounty is intended as short term assistance for a period of 12 months. The Temporary Assistance Authority-TAA-in its report of 31 March 1983 on agricultural wheeled tractors found that the market for agricultural tractors started to decline in 1981-82 and deteriorated sharply in the six months to December 1982 because of the drought and depressed economic conditions. At the same time Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd, the only remaining major local manufacturer, suffered a significant decline in profitability and production levels. The TAA considered that a significant cause of this injury was the increased imports in 1981-82 surplus to market demand. The authority concluded that there was a case for temporary assistance pending the outcome of an immediate review by the Industries Assistance Commission-(IAC). That review is now in progress and the Government will decide its long term policy for this industry when the report is received. The TAA formally recommended no temporary assistance, but suggested that a loan of about $6m on concessional terms be made to Chamberlain John Deere. The Government announced on 10 June 1983 that temporary assistance would be granted in the form of a doubled bounty. A loan as suggested by the TAA was considered inappropriate, as it would do little to improve the industry's competitive position against imports, and could simply lead to further manufacture adding to existing excessive stocks. The Government considers that the bounty as proposed by this Bill will not only assist the industry to sell its output but will restore effective assistance to the industry to about the level intended by the Industries Assistance Commission when the present bounty was introduced. When the Government's decision was taken, it was estimated at that time that the additional bounty assistance could cost up to $3.4m in a full year depending on levels of sales. However, the actual cost is now likely to be significantly less in view of the current depressed market conditions. Clause 5 of the Bill amends the provisions in the Act relating to the powers to require persons to answer questions and produce documents, to specifically exclude persons including members of the public, who purchase tractors for their own use, from being required to attend and answer questions. This is being done as a consequence of the comments by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its second report, relating to similar provisions contained in the bounty legislation which came before the Parliament in the previous sittings. I commend the Bill to the Senate. BOUNTY (TRACTOR CABS) BILL 1983 This Bill implements part of the Government's package of short term assistance for the tractor industry. It provides for a bounty of 15 per cent of factory cost on cabs produced and sold in Australia for fitting to imported agricultural tractors. A recent swing to increased importation of tractors in completely built up form has adversely affected local producers of tractor cabs and wheels. The Temporary Assistance Authority in its report on agricultural wheeled tractors considered that this trend was of a long term nature and that the consequent problems faced by the local industry were of a structural nature not amenable to solution by short term assistance measures. Accordingly, the TAA recommended no temporary assistance for cab and wheel manufacturers. The Government considers that it is not clear whether the trend to completely built up imports is long term, or whether it is as a result of current short term world conditions. It has therefore decided that a production bounty should be paid on cabs, pending completion of the Industies Assistance Commission inquiry currently in progress. The proposed level of bounty, which is 15 per cent of factory cost, roughly equates the proposed doubled bounty payable to local tractor manufacturers insofar as the latter also produce cabs for their own tractors. No bounty will be payable however, unless the cabs in question have an Australian content of 85 per cent or more. It is estimated that the additional bounty assistance as proposed in this Bill could cost up to $0.75m in a full year depending on levels of sales. In the last autumn sittings of the Parliament, certain provisions contained in the bounty Acts then before the Parliament were highlighted by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills as being contrary to the terms of reference of the committee in that they might be regarded as trespassing unduly on personal rights and liberties. Clause 15 in this Bill has been drafted so that it might not be regarded as trespassing unduly on personal rights and liberties. I commend the Bill to the Senate. BOUNTY (INJECTION-MOULDING EQUIPMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 1983 This Bill proposes the provision of temporary assistance, in the form of an additional bounty, for the Australian industry producing injection-moulding equipment, pending completion of an inquiry by the Industries Assistance Commission-IAC. The goods eligible for temporary assistance are injection- moulding machines for the production of moulded plastic goods, and parts for such machines. Since 23 May 1979, local production of these goods has been assisted by a 15 per cent duty and a bounty which has been phasing down progressively and is currently 5 per cent of value added. The Temporary Assistance Authority-TAA-report No. 58 of 3 March 1983 recommended that no additional assistance be provided to the industry. The TAA considered that injury to the industry was confined to only one of the two local manufacturers, Johns Consolidated, and was largely attributable to matters internal to that company. Johns went into receivership in November 1982 and has now closed. The TAA report, however, indicates that both increased import competition and reduced demand have occurred in recent times. Competitive imports in 1981-82 were valued at $16.3m, an increase of 123 per cent over the level of $7.3m in the previous year. About one-quarter of the increased imports were by local manufacturers. In the half year ended December 1982, imports remained at a high level, $8.3m, and accounted for 74 per cent of the total market compared with only 33 per cent in 1979-80. At the same time the estimated market in the December 1982 half year declined to $11.1m compared with $27.5m in 1981-82. In relation to Battenfeld (Australia) Pty Ltd, the only remaining local producer, the TAA reported that the company experienced stable market share and employment between 1979-80 and 1981-82, but profitability during the period was at a comparatively low level. In the six months ended December 1982, Battenfeld' s sales dropped significantly and its stocks increased. This was accompanied by a worsening of profitability. The company stated that unless temporary assistance was granted its continued presence as a local manufacturer would be in doubt. Because of the performance of the local industry in recent years, the Government has decided that a review of the long term assistance arrangements is necessary. The relevant IAC reference, sent on 30 June 1983, seeks a report on or before 29 February 1984 as to whether assistance should be accorded this industry, and if so the nature and level of that assistance. In its submission to the TAA the Department of Defence said that it would view with concern a situation where all injection-moulding machine manufacturing capacity in Australia were to disappear. The Commission has therefore been asked to provide additional advice on the form of assistance required if the Government wishes to maintain the industry on defence strategic grounds. As I indicated earlier, the Government decided that short term assistance is required pending an IAC inquiry. The assistance as proposed by this Bill will be an additional bounty of 20 per cent of value added to be paid on injection- moulding equipment manufactured after 23 May 1983 and sold for use in Australia. The temporary assistance will be paid until the Government takes a decision on the IAC report and will be payable to manufacturers who continue to be engaged in the manufacture of injection-moulding machines between 10 June 1983 and the date of the IAC report, and who maintain at least the level of employment existing at 10 June 1983 of persons directly involved in the manufacture of the equipment. Depending on the actual levels of production and sales it is estimated that for a full year the additional bounty will cost about $100,000. Clause 4 of the Bill amends the provisions in the Act relating to the powers to require persons to answer questions and produce documents, to specifically exclude persons, including members of the public, who purchase equipment for their own use, from being required to attend and answer questions. This is being done as a consequence of the comments by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in its second report, on similar provisions contained in the bounty legislation which came before the Parliament in the previous sittings. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.09) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- STATES (WORKS AND HOUSING) ASSISTANCE BILL 1983 The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise payments in 1983-84 arising out of two decisions, taken at the recent Loan Council meeting, which fall outside the provisions of the Financial Agreement Act 1928. These decisions were to continue: The arrangements whereby part of the annual borrowing program approved by Loan Council for State Government purposes is provided by way of grants; and The arrangements introduced in 1982-83 which allow the States and the Northern Territory, once they have met certain conditions, to nominate part of their approved borrowing programs as being for public housing purposes which they can then receive on concessional loan terms and conditions. As a result, this Bill seeks to authorise the payment of: General purpose capital grants to the States, and Such loans on concessional terms and conditions as the States and the Northern Territory nominate from their approved 1983-84 borrowing programs as being for the purposes of public housing. The Bill also provides scope for the payment of capital grants and concessional housing loans in the first six months of 1984-85. The amounts to be advanced under these provisions are limited to an amount equal to one-half of the grants to be paid in 1983-84 in the case of the grants and an amount equal to one-half of the approved borrowings in 1983-84 in the case of the concessional housing loans. Grants amounting to $489.7 million, equal to one-third of the approved Loan Council programs for the States in 1983-84, were agreed to at the June-July 1983 Loan Council meeting. These grants are to be made in accordance with revenue assistance arrangements originally adopted at the June 1970 Premiers' Conference. Under these arrangements it was agreed that the Commonwealth Government would provide a portion of the States' Loan Council programs as interest-free non-repayable grants instead of what would otherwise be interest-bearing borrowings by the States. The effect of the grants is to relieve the States of debt charges (that is, interest payments and sinking fund contributions) which they would otherwise have to pay, and the grants accordingly have a substantial beneficial effect on the States' financial positions. The grants were introduced to help States finance works, such as schools and other capital works, from which debt charges are not normally recovered. The States are, however, entirely free to apply these grants as they choose. The Bill also provides for the continuation of arrangements introduced last year whereby the States and the Northern Territory are able to nominate part of their approved borrowing programs for public housing. As a condition to the payment of these funds, the Bill contains a provision that a State or the Northern Territory must be able to meet its matching requirements for the purposes of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. After a State can demonstrate its ability to meet this condition, the funds so nominated will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory at the loan terms and conditions set out in the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, and hence will bear interest at the highly favourable rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum and will be repayable over 53 years. The object of providing concessional loans for public housing is to provide an incentive to the States to increase the amounts that they would otherwise direct to public housing. This is in addition to the direct funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement which is being increased to $500 million in 1983-84, an increase of 50 per cent on the amount provided in 1982-83 by the previous government. Moreover, the whole of this increase is being provided in the form of grants. Together, these measures should result in a significant increase in public sector housing activity in 1983-84. The assistance being provided under this Bill forms part of the State governments' new money programs for 1983-84 as approved by loan council and the analogous general purpose capital payments to the Northern Territory. In 1983-84 , these general purpose capital funds amount to $1598 million, an increase of 7 per cent over the amounts for 1982-83. When these funds are combined with the very strong growth in Commonwealth specific purpose payments, it is estimated that total net Commonwealth capital payments will increase by around 16.1 per cent in 1983-84. In addition, the States will benefit from an increase of 15.4 per cent in their larger semi-government non-electricity borrowing program, while electricity authority borrowings in 1983-84 are expected to be slightly above their very high 1982-83 level. Overall the Commonwealth is providing a significant increase in funding to the States and the Northern Territory this year to assist them with expenditure on capital projects. This should provide the basis for continued growth in real terms in State and local government authorities' capital expenditures following the strong growth in 1982-83. This Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's overall financial assistance to the States and Northern Territory. I commend the Bill to the Senate. NORTHERN TERRITORY GRANT (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1983 This Bill provides for the appropriation from consolidated revenue of $16.9 million to be paid to the Northern Territory in 1983-84 as a special assistance grant. Financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory are based on the memorandum of understanding agreed between the two governments in 1978. In accordance with arrangements set out in that memorandum, the Territory applied for a special assistance grant in respect of 1981-82 and the Commonwealth Grants Commission has now recommended that a grant of $16.9 million be paid in respect of that year. As you know, the Grants Commission report on the matter has been tabled by my colleague the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley). To assist the Territory in its early years of self-government, the memorandum of understanding specifies an additional assistance grant for the years 1979-80 to 1984-85 inclusive, and requires that the Territory be paid, in each of those years, either a special grant or the additional assistance grant, whichever is the greater. To date, the Territory has received the additional assistance grant each year. In 1981-82 the additional assistance grant was $20 million and, in 1982-83, $15 million. In making its assessment of the Northern Territory's application for a special grant, the Grants Commission has, as required by the memorandum, disregarded the additional assistance grant paid in 1981-82. Thus, in effect, the Commission has assessed that the Territory only required an extra $16.9 million to enable it to provide standards of government services not appreciably below the standards of the States, rather than the $20 million it was actually paid by way of the additional assistance grant. The memorandum of understanding makes it clear, however, that, in deciding which grant is to be paid in any year, the comparison is to be made between the additional assistance grant specified for that year and the total amount of special grant recommended in that year, regardless of the year to which the latter relates. For 1983-84, the special assistance grant specified in the memorandum is $10 million and the $16.9 million special grant recommended in respect of 1981-82, therefore becomes payable. The arrangements I have just outlined were entered into by the previous government and are, without doubt, very generous to the Territory. It should be said, however, that as time passes the case for the present treatment is altering and there will be a need for the financial arrangements with the Territory to be put on a comparable basis to those with the States. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(10.11) —by leave-I move: That Senators Elstob, Peter Rae, Scott and Watson be granted leave of absence for one month on account of absence overseas. For the information of honourable senators, I advise that Senators Elstob, Scott and Watson have been absent during the past three-week sitting period attending the meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in the Republic of Korea. Senator Peter Rae, as a member of the parliamentary delegation to European parliamentary institutions, has also been absent during the current three-week period. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That unless otherwise ordered: 1. Government Business take precedence of General Business after Question Time this day; 2. General Business, Orders of the Day, relating to consideration of Government papers pursuant to Sessional Orders be Orders of the Day for Thursday, 20 October 1983. Debate resumed from 7 October 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(10.13) —The Opposition will not oppose these Bills. We will move amendments to the Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 in the Committee of the Whole. In line with the co-operation that generally has been extended by the Opposition to help the Government's legislative program, I will not hold up the Senate for any great length of time. The Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1983 has a two-fold purpose. First, it seeks to correct an anomalous situation whereby the levy is not payable on the dairy product content of certain mixtures. So this legislation basically provides a definition, particularly for butter milk and whole milk powders. Secondly, it provides that under certain circumstances levy may be refunded in respect of dairy products contained in other products that are exported, thus removing doubts about whether the levy could be refunded in those circumstances. I understand also that that basically would formalise a practice which is now in operation. The Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1983 seeks to impose a levy, with certain exceptions, on the production and sale of whole milk and butter fat. The proceeds of the levy are to be used for dairy research and to finance the Australian Dairy Corporation. The proposed increase in the levy has been recommended by the ADC and the Australian dairy farmers. The Corporation recommended that the operative rate be increased to 19 cents per 100 litres for whole milk and $4.75 per 100 kilos of butter fat produced. As well, the purpose of the Bill is to bring the Act into line with our metrification system in that it replaces the term 'gallons', which is now outmoded, with the term 'litres'. The Bill, taking into consideration the recommendations of the ADC, increases the amount payable from 12c to 24c per 100 litres for whole milk and from $3 to $6 per 100 kilos for butter fat. We will be moving amendments to the Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 in the Committee of the Whole. This Bill amends the Dairy Produce Act 1924 and the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act 1977. It brings up to date the Corporation's powers over the carriage of dairy produce by sea to places beyond Australia. The Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill provides an increase from $10 to $100 of the penalty for the non-payment of levy and an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal from a decision to refuse to remit an amount of the penalty. As I indicated, the Opposition does not oppose these Bills and wishes them a speedy passage. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.17) —I wish to run briefly through the important parts, as I see them, of the dairy Bills. The Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill basically provides, by way of levy, for increases in funds for dairy research and to finance the Australian Dairy Corporation. The amounts have been quoted as 19c per 100 litres of whole milk and $4.75 per 100 kilograms of butter fat produced. This has been arranged and agreed to by the Australian Dairy Corporation and the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation. The Bill increases the levy on whole milk from 12c to 24c and on butter fat from $3 to $6. The Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill produces new definitions and makes arrangements about products which are produced by the removal of water from a mixture of buttermilk or whole milk, and one or two other substances, which contain at least 25 per cent of buttermilk powder or whole milk powder. They will be subject to levy calculated according to how much buttermilk powder and whole milk powder the product actually contains. This will rectify certain anomalous situations that have arisen. The Bill goes on to allow refunds of levy under certain circumstances. The Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill relates to two main areas; one to do with the shipping of the product and one to do with the various penalties that are involved. It also inserts a new section 24A concerning the treatment of any debits, deficits and surpluses. It is in this regard that the Opposition will be moving an amendment. We believe it is important that certain restrictions be placed on just how these things should be treated. The Opposition does not oppose these changes because basically they are industry proposals. I think we need to take the opportunity to look at the state of the industry. I wish to read a few small pieces from a letter from the Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) dated 18 March 1983. The first important item that strikes me is that in spite of seasonal conditions last year he stated that production actually increased from 5,181 billion litres in 1980-81 to 5,199 billion litres in 1981-82. The letter also states: Nineteen per cent of Australia's milkfat production was exported during the year and we expect this percentage to increase in the year ahead. I believe these two points are very important. I will come back to those shortly . We also need to take into account that the letter goes on to say: . . . the very high stocks in the United States of America and the European Economic community . . . added together, . . . aggregate 1,115,000 tonnes of skim milk powder and 559,000 tonnes of butter. Additionally, the USA is also carrying 358,000 tonnes of cheese. The position within the USA is further compounded in that milk production is increasing at an annual rate of 2 per cent. Further, it is estimated that, taken together, some 12,000 tonnes of butter, skim milk powder and cheese are being added to stock each week in the USA, and the market value of their surplus has been estimated at some US$2.7 billion. We have to bear that in mind as we look at the state of the industry in Australia. The letter also states that prices for butter and the export market can be expected to weaken. It states also that the quantity of cheese sold increased 15 per cent, but the value only rose between 8 and 10 per cent. So the more we sell the more we are involved in lower market prices. The various powders do not look terribly encouraging either. The document states that the sales of skim milk powder were extremely slow and that we sold 13,000 tonnes of skim milk powder to Japan for stock feed. It always makes me wonder that, if we can sell powder to Japan for stock feed would it not be better to feed the stock in Australia. I know Senator Primmer has similar views. I have heard him discussing the matter on previous occasions. The document states that whole milk powders are marginal and so it goes on. I think the report from the Chairman, Mr Vawser, highlights the state of the market. We have to remember all the time that, while the operation of the Corporation has been of tremendous assistance, we have to be careful in case it provides too much assistance so that we are increasing production to do the same as happened in the European Economic Community and the United States and slowly build up a surplus and a problem with which somebody else will have to deal. The dairy underwriting scheme which has now been in force nearly 10 years has been a great support for the industry. The 95 per cent payment for the product that has been bought over the previous three years has become a very satisfactory way of providing an underpinning of the market. Another document which I obtained recently states that the production between 1970-71 and 1983-84 had fallen by 22 per cent but it is now rising again and far from bottoming out it seems to be on the increase even though there are now only about a quarter of the number of dairy farmers that there were in the late 1950s. The marketing of dairy produce is an area that has always caused a lot of concern. Far too often it has been handled by people usually representative of the co-operative interests that are unskilled in the fields of marketing. They do not have enough product to be able to make a large impact on the world markets. They seem ill-inclined to get together to try to market in a universal way. The Corporation has done a certain amount towards bringing this together but it has not stopped people who do not have this ability from going out into the market-place and trying to sell product where they can and in competition with one another, when in collaboration they could probably do considerably better. The question of the number of pools has been discussed recently. I too would urge the industry to give this a lot of consideration. At the time the various pools were set up it was a good idea, but now I believe they are insulating various participants against the true market forces. Limiting the pools, probably in line with the suggestion that came from Unigate Australia Pty Ltd, is worthy of consideration. Its proposal was that there should be only two pools , one for fat and another for solids not fat. If we were able to look at the product along those lines we may well find it is the best determinant in the market. It may well encourage some of the manufacturers to produce product that is more suitable to the market requirements and to make changes as they become necessary. If we were able to do that we would be able to encourage both the processors and the primary producers to be more concerned about what happens to the product and how it will produce the best price. We have to encourage people to do what is best and to produce the right products. We do not want to support people who are producing the commodity which is most marginal, and that is still happening in some cases. The recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission have not been universally accepted throughout the industry. I think it is unfortunate that all sections of the industry have been unable to come together on many of these matters. A paper I received recently contained the following comment: All interested parties, including Federal and State Governments and Oppositions , dairy farmers and processors, should look beyond the economic jargon, such as efficiency of resource use etc, contained in the report because there are sound reasons why the Commission's recommendations should be given very serious consideration. That is all very well and I fully understand it, but it does not take into account that the dairy industry, besides being a national industry as far as export surplus is concerned, is also very much a domestic industry. Whilst I have sympathy for the States who are not in the export market and whose efficiency is less than the two best States, shall we say, they do have considerable rights in looking after their own communities and State economies. However, I believe that over a period we have to see that the efficiency drifts to where it is best used. We want to make sure that we are not encouraging the least efficient producers to obtain too much of the resource by subsidising them to do what other people could do much better. I regret that the dairy industry as a whole was unable to make a united response to the IAC inquiry. I think it is most unfortunate, and all I can really say is that I believe the industry would do far better to produce the best report that it can in unison than to wait and see what the Government is going to impose upon it. I am firmly of the opinion that the best place for government is out of the business, and I believe the dairy industry would be of a similar mind. I know all the differences, and I have spoken to most of the people involved in various areas who disagree, but I still believe they would have been better to have made some decisions themselves than to leave it to the Government to do on their behalf. I have read the IAC report fairly carefully and I believe it faces the position quite openly. It does not adequately take into account the local issues, but I think it is a basis for discussion. It is realistically presented and I hope that the industry will be able to continue to use it as a document for consideration and a document from which it can make recommendations not only to governments but also to itself. There simply has to be more emphasis on market orientation. It is imperative that we look to new products and keep watching the EEC and the United States very carefully. I think the administration of the industry has been under pressure and under question. The industry itself has to become more united and conscious of its responsibility. It is largely dependent on the co-operation that it receives from the State and Federal governments. I believe it needs to maximise this situation by ensuring that its own house is in order to its best possible advantage. A considerable move has been made recently towards training. I can only urge that this proceeds. Some of the farmer training programs are working very well. Training now extends into the realm of people working in the processing factories and advice is even being provided to the directors of co-operatives and the management of both proprietaries and co-operatives. I urge that this continue and spread as far as possible. But all this training is of little avail if the processors are struggling, inefficient, making the wrong product or if the industry is run by less than capable people. Every section of the industry should be looking inwardly at itself, to see whether it is doing the best it can by the suppliers, the country, its own State and the industry as a whole. I support the industry; I alway have. But I urge it to streamline its administration. I also urge it to uncover to the market forces more progressively than it has done. In particular, I urge it to beware of creeping over-production and the problems that would arise from that. I urge it to continue to extend its research into its product range, manufacturing and production in general. I support the passage of the Bills and the amendment circulated by Senator Collard. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.33) —in reply-The Government will not accept any amendments which have been proposed. I will go into that in a little more detail later. I do not suppose that I was particularly interested, but I noted once again Senator Archer's typical Liberal Party rhetoric, which is in conflict with the facts and empirical evidence. It was the typical Liberal Party pseudo ideological commitment to getting government out of the business of the dairy industry, as he put it. At the same time the National Party, always dragging along with it or pushing ahead of it the Liberal Party dog, has of course long involved government in dairy industry affairs in such a way that it extracted higher prices from the domestic market than would prevail in a free market situation, to which the Liberal Party ostensibly is committed, in order either to subsidise losses on exports or, alternatively, to capitalise the monopoly profits which accrue to restricted entry in the market value of quotas. I point out that yet again the Liberal Party rhetoric and pseudo ideology pouring out of the mouth of Senator Archer is absolutely in conflict with the empirical evidence and the facts. That is one of the reasons why this hypocritical, rudderless, leaderless party is now in opposition in this Parliament and in almost every other mainland parliament in Australia. Very shortly, following the next election, I expect it will still be in opposition throughout mainland Australia. It demonstrates, albeit in a minor way, the Liberal Party's need to rethink its mythology or, rather to rethink its actual beliefs and throw out the window the mythology, nonsense, humbug and hypocrisy of the type we have heard pouring from Senator Archer's mouth, and develop a set of policies which actually have some reference and relevance to the real world. The Bill itself, of course, simply seeks to increase the levies which may be applied on milk and other dairy products for promotional purposes. One would hope that the promotional purposes to which they are applied in the future are more productive for the industry than the way in which some of them have been applied in the past. They appear to have been applied to advantage particular former employees of the Australian Dairy Corporation, rather than to advantage the dairy industry and the dairy producers. But that is probably a separate matter too. We will not accept the amendments, Mr-I am sorry, Madam Acting Deputy President -to be moved by Senator Collard because they make no sense in that the original clause which they seek to amend deals with trading activities, whereas one of the amendments to be put up by Senator Collard deals with investments. It really makes no sense. I add that the Country Party-or the National Party, whatever it calls itself these days-is displaying the chutzpah for which it is traditionally noted in having the audacity to propose such an amendment clearly aimed at the impending losses accruing to PT Australia Indonesia Milk Industries Inc. when the National Party's own Minister a couple of years ago gratuitously gave a direction to the Dairy Corporation that it not proceed with a proposed sale or an offer of purchase from Kebun Bunga for $US10m. The Indonesian Government may or may not have rejected that application for sale. The point, however, is that the then Country Party Minister, Mr Nixon, gratuitously relieved the Indonesian Government of the obligation or duty to make any such decision by intervening himself and preventing the Corporation allowing that sale to proceed. As a result of that piece of meddling by that National Party Minister, the Dairy Corporation, and ultimately the dairy farmers, now stand to lose a very considerable amount of money, possibly more than $10m. I note again the National Party tail pushing ahead of it, as usual, the Liberal Party dog. Its audacity, its cheek, in proposing an amendment like this to try- Senator Archer —You can find better adjectives than that. Senator WALSH —Chutzpah is the one I normally use. We probably could not find a better adjective than that to describe the Country Party or, for that matter, the Tasmanian Premier. Senator Withers —Cheer him up. Tell him a funny story. Smile, Peter. Senator WALSH —Senator Withers might care to give us his opinions of the Australian Democrats, as he was doing yesterday, and vice versa. That amendment displays typical Country Party cheek in purporting to do something to minimise the losses which are likely to accrue to the Australian Dairy Corporation and ultimately to dairy farmers through the problems associated with the sale of PT Indomilk, problems which have been created substantially by the actions of a former National Party Minister. The second amendment from the Australian Democrats, relating to shipping contracts, in the Government's view would, if applied, be cumbersome and would unnecessarily add to administrative problems, yet it states in proposed sub-section 3 that: Any failure to comply with the requirements of this sub-section in relation to a decision- that is, a decision on shipping- does not affect the validity of the Corporation's decision. In other words, it provides a sort of loophole that enables the Corporation to bypass appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which is apparently the ostensible primary purpose of the amendment. The Government will not accept either of those amendments. However, I understand that the Bill will not be opposed by the Opposition or by the Australian Democrats. I do not intend to delay its passage any longer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.42) —I move: Page 2, clause 4, after proposed section 19, insert the following section: Review of decisions '19AA. (1) An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of conditions approved by the Corporation under sub-section 19 (1). (2) Where the Corporation notifies each licensee, under sub-section 19 (2), of the conditions approved under section 19 (1), that notice shall include a statement to the effect that, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of decisions of the Corporation relating to such conditions by or on behalf of any person whose interests are affected by the decisions. (3) Any failure to comply with the requirements of sub-section (2) in relation to a decision does not affect the validity of the Corporation's decision.'. This amendment is one which the Australian Democrats have moved on a number of occasions. It arises out of the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, the ninth report dated 12 October 1983, in relation to contracts for shipping of dairy products. The item under proposed section 19 to which the amendment refers is a proposed new section giving the Australian Dairy Corporation extensive powers to approve conditions relating to contracts for the cartage of dairy products by sea. The Corporation is required simply to inform the licensee of the conditions that it requires. There is no other limitation put on the Corporation's power, nor is there any provision for review of these contracts. The situation when the Corporation is operating reasonably is that there would be no difficulty. However, unduly onerous conditions could be imposed by the Corporation. On the other hand, extremely lenient conditions could be imposed. The people involved would want to appeal the onerous ones, and the Government might well want to appeal the lenient conditions. The Australian Democrats believe that it would seem to be appropriate that there be an ability to review that type of decision on the part of the Corporation so that people who may feel themselves aggrieved would have the ability to argue their case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is a reasonable amendment. It is the standard provision which appears in a number of Acts. It would simply allow the appeal, after notice has been given by the Corporation, to the AAT. The Government has supported this type of provision in the past when in opposition. I suggest that it might well support this amendment in a spirit of continuing its long held view in opposition that the ability of people to seek a review of adverse decisions of corporations or other statutory bodies upon them is a principle that is worth upholding. Perhaps the Minister will respond and say why it is that the Government will not allow an appeal. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.45) —I tried to respond when speaking on the second reading. Firstly, we see it as being an unjustifiable impediment or a cumbersome addition to the procedures that are in place and, secondly, there is provision for it to become meaningless anyway-at least on our reading of it-by reason of sub clause (3) in Senator Macklin's amendment which says, that failure to comply does not affect the validity of the Corporation's decision. In other words, we believe it is something which is probably not necessary and even if it is necessary, it would be ineffective anyway. Amendment negatived. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(10.48) — by leave-I move: (1) Page 4, clause 6, proposed sub-section 24A (4), line 4, before ''The Minister'', insert ''Subject to sub-section (8),''. (2) Page 4, clause 6, after proposed sub-section 24A (7), add the following sub -section: '' '(8) The Minister, with respect to the Australian dairy industry's investment in overseas companies- (a) shall not give a direction to the Corporation under sub-section (4); and (b) shall, in consultation with the Corporation, the Australian Dairy Industry Conference and the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, examine all options available for the meeting of losses incurred by means of investments of this kind, with recourse to use of moneys held in export pools being considered only as a last resort.'.''. I must say that, on a morning when we are trying to get legislation through and everybody is in good heart and mind, it was an unusual tirade from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). I suppose that if we had a standing order that allowed him to go back to bed, get out again on the right side and start all over again we might get on a little better. Even if he drank some more dairy products the mood of the chamber might be a little better. We have always been concerned about his lack of vision but it is unforgivable that he earlier confused the gender of the occupant of the President's chair. We would forgive anything else but I would like the Minister to assure Senator Haines, on behalf of the National Party at least, that she is most decidedly and delightfully feminine. Be that as it may, notwithstanding the tirade, I am still pressing the amendments. The amendments have come about after discussions with the industry. They are to do with the losses sustained by PT Australia Indonesia Milk Industries Inc. or, as it has become known, PT Indomilk. The amendments are derived from concern that losses sustained by this company should not be treated as just trading losses and be made up out of the export pools but rather that they be treated as investment losses-this is the thinking of the dairy industry itself-and if necessary be handled out of the diary industry stabilisation fund. In other words, the losses would be borne by the industry as a whole. The amendments basically ask the Minister not just to handle these losses out of the export pool but rather to handle them only after consultation with the Australian Dairy Industry Conference and the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation . It is their wish that this should happen. Ironically, I understand that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), when speaking in the other place, indicated that this is what he would probably be doing. He did not accept the amendments there even though he accepted the thrust of them. I do not see why the Committee, recognising that the amendments express the wish of the industry and recognising the fact that the Minister has indicated that he would probably be acting along these lines, cannot accept the amendments. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.50) -The Australian Democrats agree with the Government's opinion on these particular amendments that were moved in the other place and have been moved here again by Senator Collard. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in the other place on 5 October said: Directions given under proposed new section 24A (4) relate only to surpluses and deficits on export sales of dairy products whereas the amendment proposed by the Opposition concerns the dairy industry's investment in overseas companies. The Australian Democrats admit that the specific problem which concerns the Opposition, indeed it concerns many if not all honourable senators in this place , could be interpreted as a trade matter on one reading of the amendment moved by Senator Collard. However, I am uncertain as to whether or not it is covered, given the rather vague wording, particularly of proposed new sub-section 8 (b). The Government, in relation to a previous matter has already given us a clear commitment that this Parliament will have an opportunity to discuss emergency funding if it becomes necesssary in relation to unwise overseas investments by the Australian Dairy Corporation. The Australian Democrats sought such an assurance and the Government gave it. We are willing to rely upon that assurance at present. With respect to the Australian dairy industry's investment in overseas companies, I believe that had the Opposition moved an amendment along the line that the Minister shall not give a direction to the Corporation under sub-section (4) without previously consulting with the Corporation, the situation might be different. In other words rather than simply saying under paragraph (a), shall not give a direction to the Corporation, and then go on to suggest that if they have to, they can-having ruled this out under paragraph (a) -I believe it would be extremely difficult in legislative terms to do anything under paragraph (b). If it had been said that a direction cannot be given without previously consulting with the Corporation and with the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation that proposition certainly would have been acceptable to the Australian Democrats. I think it would have had some meaning. At the moment the Australian Democrats cannot support Senator Collard's amendments because we think they would be unworkable. There is also a matter of principle involved in the Opposition's amendments with which we have some difficulty. This issue was raised by Senator Archer. Indeed, I think these amendments run against some of the tenor of the points that Senator Archer was making. If the average person in the street goes out, buys into a small business and six months later a supermarket is opened down the road, then there is no government pool of funds which will cover the losses of the person involved in that small business. What is being suggested is that the Australian Dairy Corporation, while it should be able to keep its profits, should not have a situation whereby the Minister cannot direct it to bear the costs of its ill advised ventures. The Australian Democrats believe that such corporations would function much better if indeed they did bear the burden of their own financial decisions. I think they would be much wiser managers of both government and producer money if they could not simply shuffle off the effects of unwise decisions. Indeed, I believe that the producers would be much more interested in playing an active role in the Corporation, in geting the Corporation to work strongly and in putting increased pressure on the Corporation to make it accountable if, in fact, the producers' funds were involved in the commercial operations of the Corporation and those funds were at risk in the same way as are funds in other commercial ventures. I indicate that the Democrats cannot accept the amendments on those two grounds. One is that we think it would be unworkable. The second ground is that we do not agree with the principle of propping up to the extent of allowing corporations to make unwise financial decisions. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.55) —I do not intend to speak again. I have already given the reasons why the Government will not accept the amendments. Amendments negatived. Bills-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (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 12 October 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.57) —When I was speaking on this legislation before the adjournment debate last night I was dealing with Senator Peter Rae's Bill. I had pointed out the constitutional uncertainty that follows the Senate's rejection of Supply when a double dissolution trigger is in place. I was about to say that I have even more considerable doubt as to whether a Governor-General would dissolve the House of Representatives whilst the Prime Minister maintained the confidence of that House in circumstances where the Senate rejects Supply but a double dissolution trigger is not in place. That to me is a position of great uncertainty. In any event, I do not believe that the Senate should be able to send the House of Representatives to the people without going itself. Therefore, the position needs to be clarified. Either the Senate should cease to have power to reject Supply or the Constitution should provide what is to happen if it does so reject Supply. Senator Rae's Bill gives the people the opportunity to confirm that they desire the Senate to retain its power and that, upon this major exercise of reponsibility, both Houses should go to the polls. The attempt is also to define, if only in the negative, an appropriation of revenue or money for the ordinary annual services of government. As an attempt at clarification of a vexed problem, I believe it also is to be applauded. Next I wish to deal briefly with Senator Mason's Bill which is to vest in the electors power to propose laws and to approve or disapprove such proposed laws. I do not reject this as arrant nonsense as suggested by some other senators because any move to involve the community more directly in the legislative process will receive from me a sympathetic hearing. But, after considerable thought, I have determined not to give it my support. I believe that the energy utilised in obtaining a quarter of a million signatures could be better used by making the existing system work more effectively. I ask honourable senators to imagine those involved using that energy in motivating and becoming more active within the political parties, in stimulating debate, and in educating and lobbying politicians as to the merits of their particular points and arguments. Again, I am concerned about the cost at the referendum stage. I believe that the money could be better spent in upgrading and further improving the current system. For example, such funds could allow more widespread public hearings by Senate committees in relation to government legislation before the Senate. I am not convinced as to the merits of changing the formula by which constitutional change might be brought about as contained in Senator Mason's Bill. I think recent experiences have suggested that the Constitution is sufficiently flexible to adapt to a changing world and a changing Australia. I would prefer to see the energy and funds that would be saved by not adopting this Bill utilised in making parliamentary democracy, as we know it, work better. I next wish to deal with the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill 1983. This particularly important Bill deals with advisory opinions. I remind the Senate that in July of this year at the Australian Legal Convention in Brisbane the Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs, spoke against the proposal to seek advisory opinions of the High Court. When speaking of the Canadian position, he said: . . . in my opinion it is neither necessary-or desirable to adopt a similar procedure in Australia. He continued: I think I am right in saying that that view is shared by the other members of my Court. It is obviously not for the Court to say what work it shall be given. However, disquiet by one as senior as the Chief Justice should not be dismissed without explanation. That is particularly so when he is not alone. I draw the attention of the Senate to an opinion by the Constitutional Law Committee of the Law Council of Australia in August 1977, which concluded: For these reasons, the Committee is of the view that the Constitution should not be amended to enable the High Court to give advisory opinions on any matter. We reach this conclusion, not from any instinctive desire to avoid constitutional change, but because in the fair exercise of our judgment based on our experience in constitutional cases we considered the suggested amendment to be wholly undesirable (in relation to pre-legislation) and unnecessary (in relation to post-enactment). The Chief Justice, in part, also argues that it is unnecessary in relation to post-enactment, and I quote from his speech to the Australian Legal Convention: My Court has always taken a very liberal view in deciding whether it should give a declaratory judgment to resolve a constitutional question, and it is difficult to suppose that any question which is ripe for decision could not promptly be submitted to the High Court under the existing procedure. I believe an examination of the history of the practice of the High Court in relation to declaratory judgments tends to confirm what the Chief Justice said. We know that for a declaratory judgment there should be rival parties presenting controversy to the Court for adjudication. We know of the requirements of standing and justiciability that must be satisfied. The suit must raise a matter as required by the Constitution. In practice, the extraordinarily liberal interpretation of these prerequisites has led one commentator to say: The prematurity and breadth of the challenge, and the abstract manner in which the legal issues were presented, make the suit (for a declaration) resemble proceedings for an advisory opinion. So one might say that, if we already have the declaratory judgments being interpreted in such broad terms, we do not need advisory opinions, which is the argument the Chief Justice puts. Alternatively, one might argue that if we have declaratory judgments which require the High Court to stretch standing and justiciability, it is better to formalise the system through an advisory opinion procedure. It is not surprising that most of the objections in relation to post-enactment cases are the same objections that are put in relation to advisory opinions and declaratory judgments. Particularly because of the criticism of one as senior as the Chief Justice, I believe it is necessary to address the objections to advisory opinions that are commonly put in relation to the post-enactment situation. The first that one commonly hears is that advisory opinions are an infringement of the docrine of separation of powers. I would dismiss that immediately. This appears to me to be clearly still a judicial function of the Court. Secondly, some say that they would lead to possible politicisation of the Court. I think in relation to post-enactment that also is clearly invalid. The Court, by delivering an advisory opinion, would not become part of the Executive or the legislature. The third argument that one sometimes hears is the need for judicial decisions to determine concrete issues. That was certainly a concern of the Chief Justice when he said: . . . the Court would be required to consider questions in the abstract, and possibly before the practical implications of the legislation had come to be fully understood. This is what some say is a desirability for a judgment from experience as against a judgment from speculation. The position is that some constitutional cases will have to be decided on the facts, such as section 92 cases, but others not necessarily so. In many cases in respect of declaratory judgment, the High Court has not necessarily required a concrete fact situation and has had no trouble in reaching a decision. To take the matter one step further, I remind the Senate that it is not uncommon for the High Court to go further and make obiter dicta on questions of constitutionality , which dicta are not really necessary, given the factual situation at hand. One case that comes to mind is the Rocla Pipes case, which was concerned with the possible width of corporation power. I see that his objection is not so much an absolute direction but rather an indication of a need for care by the party seeking the opinion. Not all Acts will be suitable to be submitted to the Court without facts, and even if hypothetical facts are submitted there may be difficulties. No doubt the Court will respond by declining to answer questions ' if it concludes that they do not exhibit sufficient precision to permit cogent answers', as was the case in a recent Canadian case referred to by the Chief Justice in the speech I have just mentioned. The fourth argument that one sometimes hears is the possible binding effect of advisory opinions. I think it must be clearly understood that the opinion will be only as good as the material submitted. The Court is free to come to a different decision in a concrete factual situation, and that is a position that must be recognised and taken into account when an Attorney-General or some other party seeks an advisory opinion. The fifth argument is that advisory opinions would mean the imposition of a greater burden on the Court. That, of course, is the case in relation to any additional or expanded jurisdiction. It solely requires a political judgment; it is not an objection in itself. There is one last objection I wish to mention. It is argued by some that, by their nature, advisory opinions do not involve the benefit of legal representation and argument by contesting private parties. I know that some purists might place great emphasis on the traditional adversary system in ensuring that all argument is put before the Court. I believe this concern underrates the capability of the Court and I do not share that concern. Therefore, I believe the objections can be answered. There will be advantages, in appropriate cases, if this procedure in relation to post-enactment matters is brought into effect. I believe that one advantage was eloquently put by Mr Cranshaw in a good article on the subject which appears in the Australian Law Journal, when he said: We have a right to live under constitutional laws. In the appropriate case earliest possible adjudication of constitutionality may be desirable. That opportunity could occur before the Act is in fact proclaimed. Therefore, largely as legitimising the flexible practices that the Court has permitted in relation to declaratory judgments, taking into account the success of the option in those jurisdictions, particularly in India and Canada and its provinces, where it has been evident that the method has been an effective device in minimising the danger of unconstitutional legislation, and bearing in mind the advice given by the 1928 royal commission on the Constitution, the 1977 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and the report of the same year of the Judiciary Committee of the Australian Constitutional Convention all of which saw merit in this proposal, I am prepared to support it. But I am most concerned as to the pre-enactment power, that is, the power to refer Bills, not laws, to the Court for opinion. It appears to me that that is an abdication of the Government's responsibility and that of its law officers. It is potentially drawing the Court into a legislative role, allowing abuses of the Government forwarding draft after draft to the Court to get it right, and removes from parliament a responsibility which it has. Mr Cranshaw, in his article, referred to 'the desirability of constitutionality being determined with reference to the finished statutory product which has passed through the beneficial ordeal of public discussion, legislative debate and deliberate enactment'. I adopt those words in this case. Therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that before the enactment of legislation has taken place a Bill which involves abstract questions should not be forwarded to the Court for advisory opinion. I note that the power to refer Bills was not included in the report of the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which I mentioned. It was not included in the 1928 royal commission. I regard the referral of pre-enactment legislation as highly undesirable. Although I would like to support the Bill in relation to post-enactment I could not support it in its present form, while pre -enactment remains included. The final Bill I wish to touch upon in the minute or so which I have remaining relates to the interchange of powers. I am pleased to support the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill. I believe that in a dynamic Constitution this Bill gives the State and Federal parliaments a little more flexibility and responsiveness, to adopt the language of the then Premier Hamer of Victoria in speaking on this matter, flexibility and responsiveness that can be utilised for the general public benefit. Therefore, I am pleased to support the Bill. I am not concerned by some of the worries that have been expressed that it is a radical departure. It appears to me that it is not a radical departure at all. Senator WITHERS(Western Australia)(11.13) —I suppose it is a pity, after we have been debating these Constitution alteration Bills for so long, that one should come back to some sort of political reality. In my opinion, we have all been in somewhat of a cloud-cuckoo-land for some days regarding these Bills. As I understand it, on 25 February next there will be a vote on these referendum proposals. On that day, at a cost of some $10m, $15m or $20m, 10 million electors or thereabouts will go to the polls of whom, of course, one million or so will be unemployed. I trust that as those one million unemployed people walk into the polling booth they will say to themselves: 'What is in this for me? After all, we have had a Hawke Government for 12 months and at the end of its time all it can do is put up this mass of trivia at a cost of $10m, $15m or $20m and here are a million of us still unemployed'. I trust that the Government members and senators in this Parliament will be going around their unions, their labour leagues and their Australian Labor Party branches attempting to whip up enthusiasm, and will be able to convince their workers to get out and really work for these proposals. After all, it is far better to indulge in trivia than to fix up the problems of the nation! In the last 12 months or thereabouts we have had a number of interestingly led recoveries. Mr Deputy President, I notice that you are looking anxiously, but I will connect my remarks to the referendum. As honourable senators will know, first of all we had a consensus-led recovery. Then we had a Summit-led recovery. We are now in the middle of a royal commissions-led recovery. We are really indulging in a record deficit-led recovery. Early prisoner release-led recovery is evidently trying to help New South Wales out of its problems! Mr Dawkins is discovering that we have a disclosure of pecuniary interests-led recovery going on. One could keep going on. Of course, a lot of the time since the Parliament began sitting we have been having, in this place, a sex discrimination-led recovery; a luxury swimming pool-led recovery; a withholding tax-led recovery and a Tasmanian dam-led recovery. At last, God help us, we are going to have a referendum-led recovery. What are the Bills all about? What a mass of trivia, except for two. Of all the proposals only two are of some interest to the electors. The first is what one might call, in shorthand terms, the Rae proposal. At least it is an attempt to give the electors of this country a fair go against the politicians. The other proposal is what might again, in shorthand terms, be called the Hamer proposal. That again is an attempt to keep politicians honest. That is always a very good thing that politicians particularly ought to be trying to do. But as one looks across the rest of the trivia which is before us one sees that it is all about making things easier for politicians. Senator Messner —And the Government. Senator WITHERS —No, all of us. Senator Button —We thought that would particularly appeal to you. Senator WITHERS —No. See, I am the last of the workers. Unlike Senator Button I come from a genuine Labor working class family. I managed to escape that and pick up the Liberal Christian work ethic. I therefore understand why work is somewhat anathema to people on the opposite side. I understand that Senator Button wishes to make a ministerial statement about some other led recovery which we are about to have. Therefore I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information for honourable senators I table the report of the Review of Customs Administration and Procedures, New South Wales, dated April 1983, Volume 1, together with Volume 2 containing submissions made to the inquiry. Ordered that the report be printed. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That the Senate, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of volumes 1 and 2 of the report of the Review of Customs Administration and Procedures, dated April 1983, presented by the Leader of the Government this day. Government Response and Ministerial Statement Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —I table the Government response in connection with these volumes. I seek leave to make a statement relating to the report and to incorporate both the Government response and the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- GOVERNMENT DECISIONS ON AND RESPONSES TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REVIEW OF CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES Government response/action on Mahony Recommendations The recommendations contained in the ''Mahony Report'', together with the Government's responses and, as appropriate, the action proposed, are detailed hereunder Recommendation Government response/action Elements of Inward Passenger Clearance 1. (a) airline companies be directed to notify Customs accurately of the number of terminating passengers on board each arriving aircraft immediately after take -off from the aircraft's last overseas airport; (b) Customs examine the question whether more effective arrangements might be made for processing passengers and their baggage by considering at an earlier hour the information showing time of arrival and the number of passengers transmitted by aircraft on leaving their last airport; 1. (a)-(f) The Departments of Industry and Commerce and Aviation will jointly arrange, in consultation with airlines and so far as practicable, the implementation of recommendations (a) to (d) Recommendations (e) to (f) will only require consideration if recommendations ( a) to (d) prove ineffective (c) Customs ensure that the scheduling group of the Sydney Airport Facilitation Committee keep in constant review the scheduling of aircraft; (d) the Interdepartmental Committee expedite its analysis of off-schedule arrivals and discuss the results of its analysis with relevant authorities so that Customs may more effectively discharge its duties; (e) if problems continue to arise from the arrival of off-schedule aircraft or existing problems are aggrevated thereby, Customs, in conjunction with the appropriate Government Departments and the airlines consider delaying the arrival of passengers either by holding the aircraft in air space or on the tarmac or by detaining passengers in a holding room in the Terminal; and (f) a survey be made of the Terminal at Sydney Airport with a view to locating an area where passengers arriving on off-schedule flights could be held until passengers on schedules flights had been cleared; Incident Involving Mr MacKellar 2. (a) a senior officer should not intervene to stop a baggage examination except for good reason; (b) the intervening officer should inform the searching officer of his reason for intervention; 2. (a)-(d) The Department of Industry and Commerce has issued instructions to implement this recommendation (c) the intervening officer should record the intervention in his notebook; and (d) the Aircraft Inspector or an officer superior to him should be the only officer empowered to authorise intervention in a baggage search; 3. a procedure should be established within Customs which would require a designated officer to obtain written reports from officers directly concerned with incidents where the designated officer considers the subject to be of sufficient significance; 3. The Department of Industry and Commerce has issued instructions to implement this recommendation Passenger Statement 4. (a) the form of the Passenger Statement be designed so that a passenger is able to identify those goods which he should declare to Customs. Where he is in doubt about any item, the Passenger Statement should invite him to enquire from Customs; (b) the Passenger Statement be reviewed to eliminate phrases such as ''for example'' and phrases or words capable of suggesting that the list of items following is all inclusive; 4. (a)-(e) A review of the Passenger Statement was completed earlier this year. However, the revised statement does not meet all the recommendations As a result of the Mahony Report, a further review will be made taking into consideration the recommendation (c) review of the Passenger Statement include a warning that importation of certain goods may breach laws with respect to endangered species; (d) the particulars of Ship/Aircraft Flight No., Date, Family Name and Number of persons to which the Passenger Statement relates be shown on the front only and that a box also be provided on the front for the primary officer to record the number of persons to which the Passenger Statement relates, irrespective of the number stated by the passenger; and (e) review of the Passenger Statement be undertaken in close consultation with State Collectorates and that the suggestions and views of operational staff be sought; Queue Time at Primary Line 5. (a) a standard queuing time for passengers awaiting processing at the primary line should be introduced at Sydney Airport; (b) this standard should be 30 minutes; (c) Customs should monitor its performance against the standard to ensure that the standard is reached and maintained; and (d) if Customs cannot provide additional staff from present resources, it should consider the employment of Customs Officers on a casual basis for specified duties; 5. (a) A standard queuing time will be established (b) A standard of 30 minutes cannot be consistently achieved within existing resources (c) A monitoring system will be introduced (d) The recommendation is rejected for two reasons: (ii) it is not practicable if passenger loadings are known earlier than at present to call in casual staff to meet peak loadings which occur between 6.00 a .m. and 9.00 a.m.; and (ii) the training and security requirements for Customs airport staff would make difficult the use of casual employees for this task Primary Line Queuing Arrangements 6. a ''red line'' system of queuing at the primary line be introduced for a trial period to gauge its effectiveness; 6. The recommended trial will be undertaken Search of Suspected Persons 7. the departmental instructions be amended to: (a) make it clear that section 196 entrusts the discretion to search to the officer and that there is no justification under the Act for requiring an officer to obtain the permission of a senior officer before conducting a search and, further, that it is for the searching officer to decide the category of search. 7. (a) The recommendation has been rejected. It is considered that it is in the best interests both of the person to be searched and the searching officer that the decision to search be tested with a senior officer before a search is conducted. This will be done by administrative direction. This does not mean that an officer who is considering whether he should undertake a search under this section should not consult another officer if he should wish to do so. (b) provide that the card 'Your Rights' should have printed on it only section 196 of the Act; (c) provide that the suspect has the right to choose for himself whether he will be taken before a Justice or the Collector. (b) The recommendation has been rejected as it has been decided that the plain language explanation should remain in the interests of the person to be searched . However, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Attorney-General's Department will review the wording of the existing explanation to ensure that it is both fully and clearly understandable and reflects the law. (c) The recommendation is rejected as it is contrary to longstanding advice of the Attorney-General's Department. (d) delete the reference to a senior officer being available to assist a Justice or the Collector. (d) The reference will be deleted. (e) provide that a suspect should be interviewed by a Justice or the Collector and be asked to put his reasons why no search should be permitted. (e)-(g) The proposals contained in the recommendation will be incorporated in departmental instructions. (f) ensure that officers who conduct searches under section 196 should have explained to them at regular intervals the basis on which an officer may form a reasonable cause to suspect; and (g) ensure that every officer who conducts searches under section 196 of the Act adequately and promptly records in his official notebook the grounds on which he formed his reasonable cause to suspect in each case; 8. (a) the register of searches under section 196 be a bound volume with pre- printed headlings for the columns; 8. (a)-(c) Action has been commenced to implement these recommendations. (b) particulars of a search be entered by the officer who formed the reasonable cause to suspect immediately after the completion of the search; and (c) the grounds on which an officer based 'reasonable cause to suspect' should be entered in the register; 9. the Department investigate whether the unproclaimed amendment to section 196 can be reviewed to provide a more effective procedure; 9. As a matter of urgency, an Interdepartmental Committee will review this particular matter. The comments of the Law Reform Commission on privacy matters will be taken into consideration. Customs Hall-Surveillance 10. the Aircraft Inspector, in consultation with senior shift supervisors, select officers for duty with the Sierra Team on the basis of their skills and experience in the duties to be performed, and that such selections be made weekly in respect of each shift. 10. Action will be taken to implement this recommendation to the extent practicable within the existing regulations and staff training requirements. Tarmac Patrol 11. Customs maintain a regular and effective patrol of the tarmac and baggage handling areas in the basement of the Terminal; 11. The recommendation is accepted. As additional resources will be necessary to , and further consideration will be given to the recommendation by the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Public Service Board. Luggage Trolleys 12. If an insufficiency of trolleys persists, Customs should pursue the matter with Aviation to ensure that an adequate supply of trolleys is always available for passengers; 12. The Department of Aviation has taken action to increase the supply of trolleys. NSW Department of Tourism 13. (a) Customs accept the invitation from Tourism to discuss the public relations role of Customs Officers at Sydney Airport; 13. (a) The Department of Industry and Commerce will accept the invitation. (b) at regular intervals, Customs officers be reminded of the importance of their public relations role; (b) The public relations role of Customs Officers will continue to be an ongoing aspect of training. Restructuring of the ACS 14. the objectives and priorities of the ACS, when settled, be communicated to Customs in N.S.W. and that they be explained to management and staff at all levels; 14. The Department of Industry and Commerce will implement this recommendation. COA and the Media 15. suitably experienced staff be available to perform an information and public relations function in the N.S.W. Collectorate; 15. A specialist Public Relations position has been approved for both N.S.W. and Victoria Collectorates. Action has commenced to recruit staff to these positions Consultative Process and Information Flow 16. the line of demarcation in the present consultative arrangements between associations representing Third Division officers and those representing Fourth Division officers be removed; 16. The Department of Industry and Commerce will submit the recommendations to Staff Associations. Successful implementation is dependent on their agreement. Staff Recruitment and Selection 17. Department policies and practice enable the recruitment to management levels within the ACS of a wider range of competent managers with experience in other areas of public administration or industry; 17. The policy of the Departmental of Industry and Commerce is to advertise vacancies in the Commonwealth Gazette but response from outside the Department has been poor. The Department will examine the feasibility of advertising more vacancies outside the Public Service and increasing opportunities for officer development exchanges with other organisations. 18. Management Services Branch ensure proper control of staff movements and vacancies, that substantively vacant positions are advertised without delay, and that staff records accurately reflect the range of experience of all officers of Customs; 18. The Department of Industry and Commerce will implement the recommendation 19. national staff selection procedures be reviewed in consultation with staff associations; 19. Existing staff selection procedures were established in consultation with Staff Associations. They will be reviewed in the light of the new Australian Customs Service structure Staff Appraisal 20. (a) the staff appraisal system be redesigned in consultation with staff associations; (b) the implementation of a revised staff appraisal system be accompanied by adequate training of staff in its use; and 20. (a)-(c) The Department of Industry and Commerce is in the process of implementing the recommendation (c) a system of evaluating the quality of appraisals be introduced; Staff Counselling 21. action be taken to ensure that all levels of management understand and apply the guidelines relating to staff counselling laid down by the PSB and that supervisors receive training in staff counselling; 21. Counselling is already a feature of in-house management training conducted by the Department of Industry and Commerce. However the Department will re- inforce this aspect in the planned increase and upgrading of its administrative training Staff Training 22. (a) supervision and management training be made the responsbility of the Collector N.S.W., carried out in accordance with a national programme designed with input for Customs Central Office and State levels; 22. (a) & (b) Following discussion with the Public Service Board, the Department of Industry and Commerce engaged a consultant to advise on its training programs . Implementation of the recommendations will depend in part on the consultant's report (b) additional training resources be made available in Customs in N.S.W. to increase the level of supervision training and to provide training in management ; and (c) if Departmental resources are insufficient the Department arrange for Customs Officers to attend supervision and management courses available either within or outside the APS; (c) The question of additional training resources will be discussed with the Public Service Board and the Department of Finance in the light of the consultant's report Tenure of Office for Senior Officers 23. Departmental policy in respect of the tenure of office of senior executives be changed so that: (a) future occupants of the position of Collector are appointed for a period of between three and five years; and (b) the practice in respect of filling positions of Senior Assistant Collector be flexible so that positions may be filled either permanently or on tenure enabling a degree of senior management stability to be maintained; 23. (a) The present three year term was determined as a result of discussion between the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Public Service Board. An extension beyond three years, as a matter of course, is not considered warranted (b) The Department of Industry and Commerce will give consideration to this recommendation. Staff Rotation 24. the system of rotation should be retained but that the system should be monitored so as to ensure that a proper balance is maintained between the efficient functioning of Customs and the aims of rotation; 24. These objectives are part of the current system of rotation Industrial Relations Staff 25. a person, skilled and experienced in industrial relations work, be recruited to the position to: (a) develop, in collaboration with other members of management, the industrial relations consultative procedures in the Collectorates; 25. (a)-(d) The Department of Industry and Commerce will discuss these recommendations with the Public Service Board (b) advise on the development of local industrial relations policy and practices; (c) act as a reference point for line managers on industrial relations matters; and (d) develop improved relations with staff, their representatives and their associations; Processing of Goods Under the Control of Customs 26. (a) management establish a standard of performance in each area in Customs where effectiveness measurement techniques are employed; (b) refinement of effectiveness measurement systems be given a high priority in order that State management be able to make informed and responsible judgements on levels of control required; 26. (a)-(d) The recommendations have been accepted and the Department of Industry and Commerce has already commenced action to refine its effectiveness measurement systems. This includes a decision to engage a consultant to review present methodology and recommend improvements (c) staff and other resources allocated to measurement effectiveness reflect the importance of the task. As an example, under the Screener Assessment System in Import Control, the Compliance Unit should be staffed by officers with high levels of experience in entry requirements and documentary examinations; and (d) where management systems indicate levels of effectiveness inconsistent with established standards, management take prompt action to adjust controls accordingly. Line managers must be responsible for positive recommendations to senior management for these adjustments to be made; Processing of Passengers 27. (a) if the passenger is met at plane side, he or she is to be escorted to a designated primary line officer who is available to process the Passenger Statement without delay. At Sydney Airport, Customs might consider designating the primary officer who processes air crew; 27. (a)-(d) The recommended procedures will be applied to all returning Australian VIP's (b) the passenger, pending the arrival of baggage, may retire to the V.I.P. room if he or she has arranged to do so; (c) the passenger should then identify his or her baggage which should be treated in accordance with the coding marked by the primary line officer; and (d) the passenger should leave the Customs area only with the permission of the Marshall or the Aircraft Inspector or an experienced officer designated by him; 28. analysis be made at an early date of data obtained by effectiveness measurement surveys at Sydney Airport with a view to evaluating whether the controls at Sydney Airport in relation to arriving passengers are efficient, and , if not, in what respects they should be amended; 28. The Department of Industry and Commerce will continue to undertake surveys of passenger processing at Sydney Airport Customs Accommodation in Sydney 29. early attention be given to providing accommodation for Customs in Sydney which is suitable for Customs purposes, capable of housing all staff currently situated at 117 Clarence Street and the Customs House, Sydney and providing a central location for the importing community and the public to transact their business with Customs; 29. The Department of Industry and Commerce has consistently sought co-location of Customs staff in all States and Canberra and will continue to have discussions with the Department of Administrative Services on this recommendation Customs Accommodation at Sydney Airport 30. early attention be given to providing accommodation for Customs on the Airport at Mascot which is suitable for Customs purposes, capable of housing all Customs Airport staff and providing a central location for the importing community and the public to transact their business with Customs; 30. Provision of a new building to house Customs and AFP at Sydney (Kingsford- Smith) Airport is a high priority in the current works program. Completion of the accommodation is expected within two years Intelligence Branch 31. Customs recruit staff with appropriate skill and aptitude for employment in the Intelligence Branch and that some, at least, of this staff be actively sought from areas outside Customs; 31. See Recommendation 17. The Department of Industry and Commerce will give consideration to applications from persons outside the Public Service and to pursue staff exchange with other agencies Special Intelligence Directed Examination (SIDE) Group 32. (a) the SIDE Group be reconstituted so that it combines the skills of both Preventive and Clerical staff; 32. (a)-(d) The restructured Australian Customs Service will facilitate introduction of these recommendations (b) members of the reconstituted group be selected on the basis of experience, interest in and aptitude for the specialised duties involved; (c) officers remain in the SIDE Group in the normal course of events for not less than 12 months; (d) specialised training in searching techniques, the unpacking and repacking of containers, and other relevant matters be made available; and (e) (i) Customs arrange for the lease or occupancy of a building in a suitable location to which FCLs may be brought for covert examination; or (e) (i) & (ii) The Department of Industry and Commerce will further examine the recommendations (ii) arrangements be made with owners and users of wharves and cargo sheds for covert searches to be carried out under cover and without observation from others; Boarding 33. ships arriving in Port Jackson be cleared for Customs and Quarantine purposes after tying up at a wharf in the same way as cargo ships are now cleared at Port Botany. If a ship is not proceeding to a wharf, then the boarding procedures should be carried out after the ship has moored. 33. Implementation of the recommendation is unlikely to improve efficiency or effectiveness. Prosecution Procedures 34. for a trial period an officer from the Prosecutions Sub-section be located at Sydney Airport for the purpose of ensuring that prosecution proceedings in respect of summary offences be instituted with minimum delay; 34. The trial will be undertaken. Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 35. the conflict between regulation 4A and the Customs direction be resolved without delay; 35. Amendments will be made to Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations to ensure that the law accords with the Government's policy in relation to imports of pornographic material 36. (a) the requirements specified by the Collector under section 40AA (3) should be tailored specifically to cope with the special problems associated with the movement of those goods and that the Chief Film Censor should be consulted before these requirements are determined by the Collector; and 36. (a) & (b) The recommendation will be implemented by the Department of Industry and Commerce (b) the Chief Film Censor should inform the Collector in writing when any breach or suspected breach of the section 40 requirements is detected. This would ensure that the Collector would be in a position to administer effectively section 40AA in relation to goods subject to regulation 4A; Unaccompanied Baggage 37. (a) that current procedures for examination and clearance of unaccompanied baggage continue and that present levels of examination be maintained; 37. (a) Consistent with the recommendation, current practices will be maintained (b) that Customs monitor the effectiveness of these procedures by periodic checks of all unaccompanied baggage to identify any abuses of the system; and (b) periodic checks will be introduced by the Department of Industry and Commerce to monitor effectiveness and identify abuses (c) that adequate provision be made for Customs operational manuals and hand tools for examinations to be available for officers working in cargo freight areas; (c) manuals are at present being prepared and the Department of Industry and Commerce is reviewing the need for and type of hand tools necessary for cargo examination Customs Launches 38. launches used by Customs in N.S.W. be surveyed regularly and that current certificates of seaworthiness be available; 38. This is a current practice which will be maintained Motor Vehicles for Customs 39. subject to Government policy, Customs makes every effort to ensure that adequate transport facilities are available to enable Customs officers to perform their duties efficiently; 39. The Department of Industry and Commerce will review its current motor vehicle requirements and as necessary seek additional vehicles from the Department of Administrative Services Duty Free Shop Operations 40. surveys be conducted by Customs at regular intervals within the importing community to establish whether a change in procedures is required for clearance of cargo or alteration to the times within which Customs is open for business; 40. The Department of Industry and Commerce will continue its current practice of conducting such surveys International Courier System 41. (a) Customs and the courier operators consult at an early date to determine the most appropriate systems for providing accelerated clearance of importations by couriers, both for documentation and small commercial consignments; 41. (a), (b), (c) & (e) The Department of Industry and Commerce will further examine these proposals (b) the Airline Operators Committee and Aviation be consulted by Customs with a view to resolving problems which might inhibit the introduction of revised systems; (c) systems devised for clearance of small commercial consignments will exclude any transactions requiring formal Customs entry; (d) where introduction of these new procedures either in the Terminal or elsewhere on-airport involves new construction work approvals will be sought and the work undertaken by the appropriate authorities without delay; and (d) This recommendation will be brought to the attention of the Department of Aviation if the need arises (e) new procedures introduced will preserve Customs control and examination requirements; Computer Systems Used by ACS 42. the following recommendations of Professor Bennett be implemented: (a) more attention should be paid to the recording of all input activity on journal tapes, and to the use of these tapes as a basis of security audit arrangements, both for internal audit and for external audit; 42. (a)-(d) These recommendations are accepted as an extension to current Department of Industry and Commerce practice (b) more emphasis should be paid to the use of the system on-line by as wide a group of users as possible, both for transaction processing and for answering queries; (c) the advantages of giving greater priority to the introduction and use of machine readable documents where possible (e.g. for passports, visas, and standard items of cargo shipped frequently from particular overseas sources) should be more closely investigated, particularly from the point of view of manpower savings; (d) more attention be paid to the automatic collection of statistics on which the efficacy of various management decisions can be based; and (e) wider implications of accesses to the Customs data base by agencies external to the Department of Industry and Commerce should be examined to ensure that they are in line with general Commonwealth Government policy on privacy matters, that new requests for access are examined for possible privacy implications, and that the reasons for these accesses are reviewed from time to time; (e) Although present access is limited, the degree of access will be reviewed by the Department of Industry and Commerce 43. all recommendations set out in Professor Bennett's report be taken into account in the ADP Redevelopment Project. 43. The Department of Industry and Commerce will take account of the recommendations during the current ADP redevelopment project MINISTERIAL STATEMENT The previous Government announced the establishment of the Review of Customs Administration and Procedures on 27 April 1982 following the resignation of the then Ministers for Health and Business and Consumer Affairs over the importation of a colour television set through Sydney Airport in October 1981. Mr F. J. Mahony, C.B., O.B.E., President of the Repatriation Review Tribunal was appointed to undertake the Review. The terms of reference for the Review required it to examine the administration and procedures for the control and clearance of imported goods under the Customs Act in New South Wales. The Review was asked to have particular regard to three areas. First, the clearance of incoming passengers and their unaccompanied baggage and also the clearance of incoming cargo at Sydney Airport; second, the relations between management, staff and Staff Associations; and third, the need to ensure the efficient and impartial application of Customs procedures. Mr Mahony was also asked to report on any changes that may be necessary or desirable for more efficient and effective administration, including industrial relations, and to ensure observance of the instruction by the then Prime Minister in 1976 that all Australians should receive equal treatment in respect of the enforcement of Customs legislation. Written submissions were invited by public notice in the newspapers and 30 submissions were received from private citizens, industry organisations, individual companies, Federal and State Government departments, community groups and staff organisations. The Review held a series of public hearings. Mr Mahony submitted his Report to me on 13 April this year. I asked him to provide me with additional advice on two matters which I will refer to later. I received that further advice on 19 July. The Report is critical of aspects of Customs management in a number of areas such as industrial relations, management training and communication with staff. Whilst no major operational deficiencies were revealed, some procedural shortcomings were identified. It points to ways in which the Customs administration might be improved and recommends ways in which some procedures might be made more effective. The Government has considered Mr Mahony's report and has accepted the very large majority of his recommendations. Whilst the Review dealt only with the Customs administration in New South Wales, many of the recommendations will be implemented nationwide. I turn now to certain of the key recommendations. V.I.P. Procedures As I have said, Mr Mahony was asked to report on the impartial application of Customs procedures and on any changes which may be necessary or desirable to ensure that all Australians returning from overseas should receive equal treatment under Customs legislation. Mr Mahony has concluded that the impartial application of Customs procedures did not occur in the incident in which Mr MacKellar was involved; nor was he satisfied that the procedures have always been applied impartially to passengers who have been facilitated, or in other words, received V.I.P. treatment. The Report, whilst acknowledging that Customs facilitation arrangements for V.I .P.s are generally suitable, recommends certain specific procedures which should be applied. These would require the passenger to present himself or herself to a primary line officer; to retire then to a V.I.P. room if this has been arranged; to identify his or her baggage for Customs processing; and to leave the Customs area only with the permission of a designated Customs officer. The Government has decided that any facilitation of returning Australians will be in accordance with the procedures recommended by Mr Mahony. In doing so it re -affirms the position of the previous Government that all Australians returning from overseas receive equal treatment in respect of the enforcement of Customs and Quarantine requirements. Imports of Pornographic Material Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations prohibits the import of pornography without the approval of the Attorney-General's Department. Since 1973, the policy of successive Governments has been based on the principle that it is the basic right of adults to make their own decisions as to what they read, hear and see. Child pornography is the principal exception to this principle. Customs operational guidelines reflect this policy although the Regulation has not been amended to give effect to the policy. Mr Mahony has recommended that the conflict between Regulation 4A and the Customs direction (which reflects the policies of successive Governments) be resolved without delay. The Government accepts this recommendation and the Attorney-General will arrange for the necessary amendment to the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Search of Suspect Persons Section 196 of the Customs Act authorises Customs officers to search people who they have reasonable cause to suspect are unlawfully carrying smuggled or prohibited goods secreted about them. A prime target in such searches is concealed illicit drugs. The Government has considered carefully the recommendation on this matter which is in seven parts. It has rejected the first three parts. The first is that a Customs officer who has reasonable cause to conduct a personal search not be required to obtain the permission of a senior officer before conducting the search. The Government considers that it is in the best interests both of the person to be searched and the searching officer that the decision to search be tested with a senior officer before a search is conducted. The second is that the plain language explanation on the card 'Your Rights', which is shown to a person prior to that person being searched, be deleted, leaving only the legal language of section 196 on the card. The Government considers on balance that the plain language explanation should remain in the interests of the person to be searched. We have directed, however, that the explanation be reviewed to ensure that it is both fully and clearly understandable and reflects the law. The Customs Act provides a person with the right to have a search decision reviewed by a Justice or the Collector. Mr Mahony recommends that the person should also have the right to choose between a Justice or the Collector. This is contrary to long standing and recently confirmed advice of the Attorney-General' s Department and therefore the Government has not accepted the third part of the recommendation. The Government has decided that Departmental instructions on searches be amended to reflect the four remaining elements of the recommendation: deletion from existing instructions of the need for a senior officer to be available to assist a Justice or the Collector, thereby ensuring that there is no inference that the decision of the Justice or Collector has been the subject of influence; provide that the suspect be invited by the Justice or the Collector to put reasons why no search should be conducted; ensure that officers who conduct searches have explained to them at regular intervals the basis on which they may form a reasonable cause to suspect; and ensure that every officer who conducts a search adequately and promply records in his notebook the grounds on which he has undertaken the search. Mr Mahony has also recommended that an unproclaimed amendment to section 196, introduced to clarify the authority to conduct internal searches, be reviewed. The Government has directed that this review be undertaken as a matter of priority and that it take into account the views of the Law Reform Commission on privacy matters. Industrial Relations The report deals in detail with the question of industrial relations. Mr Mahony noted that management and staff associations expressed conflicting views on issues and that a lack of willingness of the parties to compromise had led to considerable industrial unrest in the NSW Collectorate. In arriving at this observation, Mr Mahony also mentioned that evidence indicated some improvement in the last two years. Mr Mahony concluded: 'I do not suggest that there is any single remedy which will immediately resolve the Customs difficulties with staff associations, but it is clear that staff associations and Customs management will need to make a greater effort to settle differences if industrial peace is to be achieved'. Since Mr Mahony reported, the Department has been involved in a range of further consultations with the unions on the restructuring of the Australian Customs Service. With the agreement of the Public Service Board, certain modifications to the scheme have been put forward recently, aimed at making the new Service more attractive to the staff. These changes also reflect some criticism of the previous arrangements by Mr Mahony. The Secretary of my Department and the Collector of Customs, New South Wales, have assured me that they will continue to make every effort to improve the quality of industrial relations. Other Recommendations One matter I wish to comment on is Mr Mahony's observation that he could not be satisfied that the relevant procedures for processing of documents were being applied efficiently and uniformly to all imported goods under the control of Customs. I wish to make three points on this matter. First, in making the data available to the Review, the Department pointed out that statistical measurement of the efficiency of processing documents for imported goods required further refinement. Secondly, Mr Mahony acknowledged that many of the documentation errors, if detected, would not affect the amount of duty payable. Thirdly, the Department is not satisfied with the current method of collecting statistics on errors, nor is it satisfied with the apparent level of undetected errors. Revised procedures are being developed and tested and a consultant is to be engaged to introduce more reliable effectiveness measurement methodology. Additional Advice Sought from Mr Mahony Following receipt of Mr Mahony's report I sought further advice from him on two matters. The first matter concerned evidence given by Mr G. M. Hough at a public session of the Review on 20 December 1982 that he had made a written report to Mr Michael Drury about the incident concerning Mr MacKellar at Sydney Airport on 5 October 1981 and later evidence by Mr Hough in a statement in the form of a minute to the Assistant Collector, Air, dated 19 January 1983 that to the best of his knowledge he did not submit a written report to Mr Michael Drury on 6 October 1981. On this matter Mr Mahony has advised me that although it is not free from doubt , on the evidence the better opinion is that Mr Hough did not submit a written report; and that he is unable to resolve to any greater degree the conflict arising from Mr Hough's evidence on 20 December 1982 and his minute dated 19 January 1983. The second matter concerned whether the apparent conflict between an account given by Mr Mayhew of what transpired at interviews with senior Customs officers and the reports made by those officers which were tabled in the House of Representatives justified further enquiry. Mr Mahony advised me that from enquiries he had made, it seemed that Mr Mayhew had lodged a claim for compensation and that for this reason he should not enquire further into that matter. Mr Mayhew's claim for compensation was subsequently granted by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, who determined that Mr Mayhew contracted post traumatic stress disorder arising out of his employment with the Department. The compensation is subject to periodic review. I do not propose to canvass any of the details surrounding the granting of the claim. Clearly it arises from the impact on Mr Mayhew of the colour TV affair of which the interviews were one consequence. The senior officers concerned have made statutory declarations attesting that the reports by them referred to by Mr Mahony and tabled in the Parliament last year are true records. In all the circumstances, I have concluded that no worthwhile purpose would be served by the Government pursuing this particular matter any further. Future action I do not propose to deal with each of Mr Mahony's 43 recommendations. However, for the information of Honourable Senators I propose to table the Government's response to each of the recommendations. I said earlier that the Government accepted the very large majority of the recommendations. The only exceptions, in addition to the matters relating to the search of suspected persons, which I have dealt with, are Recommendations 1, 5, 23 and 33. The reasons for non-acceptance or qualified acceptance of these recommendations are set out in the response. None of these matters, in the Government's view, are major issues. I have instructed the Department to report to me progressively on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Report. In Opposition we were extremely critical of the actions of the former ministers for Health and for Business and Consumer Affairs, and rightly so, over the matter of the colour TV affair. We have before us now a Report produced by an independent person which looks to the future. Mr Mahony has conducted a thorough and wide ranging review within his terms of reference of Customs administration and procedures in New South Wales. He has made a number of recommendations covering many aspects of the Customs administration, most of which the Government has accepted. A number of those recommendations will impact nationally, not just in New South Wales. Mr Mahony is to be commended for the way he has tackled the task given him and I wish to express the Government's thanks for his efforts. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers and the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. [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 WITHERS(Western Australia)(11.20) —We now have another one. We now have a Customs administration-led recovery to get Australia back to work. Senator Button —You started that one. Senator WITHERS —Yes, but the Government finished it. We were recovering. As one looks through the rest of this legislation one realises all the Bills are for the convenience of those of us who sit here. The Constitution Alteration ( Simultaneous Elections) Bill is the Bill that interests me. I was against it, then I was for it, and now I do not really give a tinker's so and so about it. But I said when Senator Evans withdrew his fixed-term Bill that really, to this moment, I cannot understand how one could be ardently in favour of fixed terms one moment and ardently in favour of simultaneous elections the next moment. Nor , by the same process of reasoning, can I understand how one could be bitterly opposed to both because I think in many ways they are totally opposed to each other. But some are for both and some are opposed to both. This Parliament is a fascinating place. Whilst one can understand the argument, in principle, that these terrible Prime Ministers ought not to be able to go out and rape the electorate whenever they feel like it by having elections when they feel like it , what do simultaneous elections do but, in fact, give a Prime Minister the capacity to have an election once a week if he likes, taking out the House of Representatives and taking out half the Senate as well? That does not worry me particularly because I have enormous faith in the common sense of the Australian electorate. Any Prime Minister who tries to do that too often will end up where he deserves. I am not really fussed about this Bill, but it really is a means of making things easier for the government of the day. It will not do much good for any of the one million unemployed outside that the Australian Labor Party is supposed to ache about. The Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1983 is great for us. It has been propounded, of course, as something that will be of great benefit to the electorate. Not much is said of course, about its great benefit to us. We are all going to do a little bit better. Good Lord, if we get four-year terms in the other place and eight-year terms here it will be almost as good as being either a tenured academic or a tenured public servant-not quite. Senator Robert Ray —Or a shonky lawyer. Senator WITHERS —Shonky lawyers do not last very long. Shonky lawyers tend to end up where they do end up, do not worry about that. It is the lazy, loafing, tenured academics who are never caught up with who are the real problem. So let us not have over-much talk about shonky lawyers. I suppose it takes one to recognise one. Then one comes to the next piece of legislation, the Constitution Alteration ( Inter-change of Powers) Bill. There is a lot in that, of course! I imagine John Citizen is out there saying: 'Well really, why are all these politicians getting together to swap the powers under the Constitution without consulting me through a referendum? What is in it for me?' Senator Hill —It could be a saving of $15m. I think this is how he will think on 25 February. Senator WITHERS —We will be making life cozy for ourselves. I suppose it suits the present Hawke Labor Government to allow Mr Wran and now Mr Cain to impose a sales tax on people's consumer goods to fund their deficits so that they can give more money to striking school teachers, so I suppose the inter-change of powers must be a good thing. I must say that none of my electors will stay awake at night worrying about whether the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill passes or not. The High Court of Australia may, but that does not fuss me over much either. Lawyers, of course, get enormously excited, but then lawyers do have a capacity for getting excited about trivia. If we did not, we would not have all these Bills before us. The Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill really is exciting! The Constitution Alteration ( Electors' Initiative) Bill is really not worth talking about. Electors' initiative-why not put it down as the Australian Democrats initiative to expose it for the odd-ball proposition that it really is? We have this rag-bag, mish- mash of trivia which will be enormously expensive-$10m, $15m or $20m. Yesterday, Senator Gietzelt was in this place talking about working something in an enormous attempt to save $1m a year from doctors who treat veterans. He said the Government would save $1.8m a year, I think-some vast sum of money-because doctors were getting an extra 60c a time for treating veterans, but next day spending $10m, $15m or $20m on a referendum is all right. Senator Jessop —Yet they are spending $3m on a royal commission into agent orange. Senator WITHERS —Oh, that does not matter! The Government says: 'Anything that involves trivia, let's spend money on'. I suppose what we are having is really a trivia-led recovery in this country. Really, that is all we have had in legislation this year. It is no use the Prime Minsiter (Mr Hawke) going out, putting on his nasal ocker accent and yelling 'My fellow Australians' in shades of former Senator Wright. I suppose that he is a bit like Nero-or was it Caligula?-and working on the principle of giving everybody bread and circuses. The problem is that people get bored with the circus in the end and they start wanting some bread. What I am really saying is that this is really all about the circus. Where is the bread? The Labor Government has been in office since 5 March. A million unemployed will be voting on 25 February, voting for the circus to continue, but there will be no bread for them. It is very easy for us. I hope those fellows opposite have the greatest time of their lives over the next couple of months, going around all their unions, all their Labor leagues, all their branches, and saying: 'Fellows, you've gotta get out and work and work and work because we have to get this trivia carried. Don't worry, fellows, about being unemployed-that's too hard. Let's just get on with this sort of stuff because, after all, government really is too hard'. Those are my views on what is alleged to be a package of constitutional amendments over which all honourable senators have agonised here day after day. I have a feeling that those 10 million electors out there are a damn sight smarter than all of us sitting in this place, that they will recognise this legislation for what it is and in the polling booths on that day they will vote according to how they feel about the issues. I wish Government senators joy in their attempt to whip up enthusiasm for the referendum. I intend neither to campaign for it nor to campaign against it. I will give the electors the right to make up their own minds. I suspect they will recognise the referendum for what it really is. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.28) —Unfortunately, I have to follow Senator Withers in this debate. He is always a hard act to follow. I have said before in this place that constitutional reformers ought to have a look at some of the things that Woodrow Wilson had to say. I have quoted one particular remark from Woodrow Wilson which I intend to quote again: Liberty has never come from the Government . . . the history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. I presume that now that the Australian Labor Party is in government the back benchers of the ALP are beginning to understand the significance of that-that liberty never comes from the government. The history of liberty in our democratic institutions has always been the limitation of the power of governments as Woodrow Wilson said, not the increase of power. Of course, the major proposals being put forward in this constitutional package are endeavours to increase the powers of the Government. I know that ALP back benchers do not see their Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, as being devious. I know they do not think he might misuse any of the powers that he has. I know they feel quite sure that if he is given the power of calling a simultaneous election-in other words, forcing the Senate to go out whenever he feels like having an election for the House of Representatives-he will not misuse that power in any way, but they may have some doubts about some future Liberal Prime Minister misusing the power. Whatever their views on the subject let me say quite bluntly, Mr Deputy President, that I am suspicious that he might misuse the power at some stage in the future, and accordingly I shall not be supporting the proposal that he get that power. Unlike Senator Withers, I shall be doing my best to make sure that the people of Australia do not give him that power. There is, Mr Deputy President, thanks to you, one proposal which in fact would limit the governmental power. That is your proposal to provide that a dissolution of both Houses of the Parliament shall not take place by reason that the Senate has twice rejected, failed to pass or unacceptably amended a proposed law if more than three months has elapsed after the Senate so treated that proposed law. In all of this package that is the only proposal which I see in any way assisting the Parliament against the increasing power of the Executive. Let me draw the attention of honourable senators to another constitutional authority to which they should give great attention, and that is a speech by Professor G. S. Reid, delivered in 1979, which won the George Watson essay prize , entitled: 'The Changing Political Framework'. Professor Reid's findings ultimately were: . . . that the elected Parliament is a weak and weakening institution; He went on to say: and that the Executive Government is the principal beneficiary of the Parliament 's decline-- (Quorum formed) I was drawing the attention of the Senate to a quotation by Professor Reid when Senator Colston called a quorum in order to bring his colleagues into the chamber. I hope they stay here and listen to the various points that I intend to make in relation to this constitutional package. As I was saying, Madam Acting Deputy President, Professor Reid explained these findings in his speech. He said: . . . that the elected Parliament is a weak and weakening institution; and that the Executive Government is the principal beneficiary of the Parliament's decline; That, of course, is so very true. For decades the Executive Government of this country has been gaining strength and the Parliament has been getting weaker and weaker. That is clearly evident now in the House of Representatives where if one member of that chamber crosses the floor it becomes national headlines-a member of the House of Representatives actually had the temerity to vote against his colleagues-even if only on a point of order or some sort of insignificant vote. The party system has destroyed the House of Representatives as a House of Parliament. It is now simply a House of the Executive and the alternative Executive government of the day. So I intend to support very strongly Senator Hamer's proposal which will at least give this chamber some power to stand up to the Executive Government and to reject Bills. If the Executive Government then wants to take the Senate to the people, that is as it may very well be, but at least it will have to do so within a very short period-three months-instead of being able to put the Bill into a stockpile and take the Senate to the people some twelve months or so later over its action in regard to some piece of legislation. Unfortunately, I have heard that the ALP is not prepared to allow that matter to go before the people of Australia. I say strongly to the backbench members of the ALP that that is a very clear indication of the desire of their Executive once again to manipulate the Parliament to the benefit of the Executive Government. Whilst they may not think that their Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Executive Government will in any way misuse that power, they may think it will be used at some stage in the future to the detriment of their party. Let me go on to the other matter which is of great importance and that is the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill. When I first heard about this idea of having the High Court of Australia giving advisory opinions I thought: 'Yes, that sounds like a good idea', but as soon as one starts to reflect as to what it is all about, we see that there are a number of things wrong with it. The first is that once again we would take power away from the Parliament; we now start to ask the High Court to adopt some sort of role which is midway between a judicial body and a legislative body because it will be able to express views as to what the law would be if certain things were to happen. That is not the traditional role of the courts in Australia or those operating under the British system. But further, Madam Acting Deputy President, the point is that governments will be able to use this power to shorten or forestall debate in the Parliament. A government will be able to come into the Parliament and say: 'The High Court has already considered this and has said this, this and this. Therefore what you are saying in the Parliament is irrelevant'. The truth of the matter is that in Canada, where this power exists, experience has shown that legislation has been brought in as a result of advisory opinions, has been acted on by the people of the country for many years and then subsequently has been challenged and found to be invalid by the court of that land. The other thing that has happened in countries such as Canada is that the judges have involved themselves in exercises in semantics. In other words, when they are asked for an advisory opinion, instead of saying bluntly what a judgment might very well be, as they have to when they are confronted with a case such as the Tasmanian dam case-which is well known to most of us-they have had to come out with a judgment and say what the law is. They are inclined to roam on about what it might mean and what words could mean and generally end up not providing anything of any value to the Parliament or indeed to the Government. Because of this I understand that in Canada the power has not been used now for some decades. Of course, the Government will be the one that will be using this power and so it will be able to frame questions which might be of some advantage to it if it gets to that stage. Finally, the truth of the matter is that the High Court judges have indicated that they do not want the power because they recognise the difficulty of trying to say what the law might very well be when the circumstances are vague and they do not have an actual set of facts before them. I shall not support the proposal in that Bill when it comes before the Parliament or before the people. There are other matters to which I should refer fairly briefly. I see some problems with the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill. A party or a coalition of parties which gets into office in any of the States or the Commonwealth could perhaps change the Constitution to its own benefit without ever having to go before the people of Australia. On my reading of the Bill, when a change of government occurs in a State or in the Federal sphere the change introduced as a result of that interchange of powers could be revoked anyway so that is probably not such a bad proposal. The next Bill is the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill. To give senators a term of eight years causes me great concern. I would be totally opposed to it, but I do not see any way out if we are to give members of the House of Representatives a term of four years. Unfortunately, it looks as if we will have to give senators eight years on that basis. I must say that I am opposed to senators having an eight-year term, but there is no doubt that governments in this country have had difficulty in bringing in difficult legislation during a term of only three years. Again, this Bill is designed to assist the Parliament or the Parliamentarians; it is designed to assist the executive government. It is not designed to assist executive governments to make difficult decisions and to enforce them without having to worry about facing the people at the time when it brings them in. I now refer to the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill. It always fascinates me that people who claim to be conservationists and want to keep old buildings do not want to keep the old sections of the Constitution; they want to tidy them up and throw them out. They say: 'Let's get rid of the old sections of the Constitution. We do not want the people to know what was put in there at the turn of the century. We must tidy it up'. I cannot really oppose that legislation, but fancy the Government bringing in such a proposal and putting it before the people of Australia, making them go to all that trouble in order to tidy up the Constitution, whatever that might mean. However, I cannot really oppose it, I suppose. I thoroughly support what Senator Withers had to say about the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill introduced by Senator Mason. The Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill, introduced by Senator Macklin, deals with breaking the nexus. It fascinates me that people keep saying that the nexus is not important. But if we break the nexus two consequences will result. It is inevitable that the House of Representatives will grow. Every time some sort of count is held its members will say: 'Oh, we need an extra three or four seats in the House of Representatives', or 'We need another half dozen members in the House of Representatives'. In due course we will end up with 180 members in the House of Representatives-that is for sure-while 64 senators keep struggling to try to do the work of this chamber. That, I believe, is an inevitable consequence of breaking the nexus. Another thing about the nexus is that people tend to forget that it may very well be absolutely vital if a conjoint vote of both Houses is necessary following a double dissolution. I recognise that if the Senate blocks Supply and there is a double dissolution on some vital matter and if the Government or, perhaps, the Opposition is returned with an enormous majority, the vote will not count. But what happens if one of the parties is returned with a majority of one or two members in the House of Representatives and the Opposition is returned in the Senate with a majority of one or two senators? An absolutely vital vote will be taken conjointly, but people keep saying that the nexus is not important. If the people of this country are so finely split that they vote along the lines that I have indicated, of course the nexus is important. It is the nexus which is proposed to be broken in this Bill. On reflection, I have decided to oppose it. I shall support the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill, put forward by Senator Peter Rae. I think that I have now covered all of the proposals which are before the chamber in this constitutional package. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.45) —I will speak briefly on these Constitution alteration Bills, because I believe the position has been covered quite adequately by most of the speakers. I wish to declare my position and to make one or two observations. Earlier this year I had the opportunity to spend time doing some reading. I found that it was very interesting to read the considerations of the founding fathers of the country. I would certainly recommend such reading to anybody else, particularly to the Government members who believe that what they are doing is in accordance with the wishes of the unbiased people who were looking at the Constitution then. The Constitution of this country was put together by-it is a word that I shudder a little to use-consensus. It was a genuine-probably the most genuine- consensus document. It was not put together by people who were party politically motivated in the process. They were trying to get a document which would embrace all the people of Australia, all the States and all the considerations. I have a quote from one of the books which I read. I think it is well worth while. It was put together at some time during the 1890s. It states: . . . in the fullness of time we could expect that representatives of the more populous States could be expected to produce proposals which they would claim would be beneficial to all, but which clearly must be to the detriment of the less populous States. How little things have changed! I have borne that statement in mind as I have looked over the various proposals which we are asked to consider. Our founding fathers tried to put together a Constitution which would be fair to all individuals and the States and one which would respect every individual's position. At this stage I ask: Do the proposals we have before us cover those areas now? Do they maintain the Constitution in that way? Clearly the answer is no. These proposals fail in a whole range of different issues. I regard the whole package as absolute nonsense and I think it is a surprising show of the Government's priorities. I will spare the Senate the repetition of going through most of the reasons because I think they have been quite adequately covered, but I will declare my stand on the Constitution Alteration ( Simultaneous Elections) Bill. I will oppose that, because we only have to look back to find that in the vast majority of cases elections have been simultaneous . The provision already exists for simultaneous elections. We do not need to trump up another reason which will make elections more beneficial for the Government and less advantageous for the electors. The project clearly is bogus. I could go along with the proposal in the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill. I believe that a four-year term for members of the House of Representatives is reasonable. But there is no way that I can go along with the suggestion that an eight-year term for senators is reasonable. I think that any member of this chamber who tries to sell himself in the community and get support for an eight-year term will have a job in front of him. Accordingly, I have no choice but to vote against that Bill. I think the Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill proposed by Senator Macklin, has been covered very adequately by some of my colleagues. I agree with everything they have said and I support their move to throw it out. I believe there would probably be no better way to try to destroy the Parliament than by the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill, which I will oppose. If the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill is a matter of such importance that we need to take it to the people of Australia, I am absolutely appalled at how little we have in front of us. I believe that history should be a compulsory subject for everybody to avoid consideration of sheer absolute trivia. I believe that those great designers of the brand new future would be well advised to look back over their shoulders because I think that in most cupboards there are people far more clever and far more considerate than we are. The Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill produces a whole range of potential risks to a federal system. We have only to consider what would happen if all the States and Canberra lined up. Whether by collusion or standover, the result could be much the same. I see that there could be all sorts of potential problems with that proposal. I cannot see that the benefits would outweigh those problems, therefore I will oppose that Bill. The Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill I leave largely to the lawyers but, as we heard in this chamber yesterday and today, there is absolutely no weight of evidence that could support the proposition that the Bill is desirable. It may work, it may not. But there is certainly not enough evidence to indicate that it is worthwhile and I oppose this Bill also. It is a matter of where we stand on these matters. I find that I have to look at myself and the rest of us here reasonably objectively. Are we the people to make this sort of judgment? Clearly we are not, because there are not 64 more biased people in this regard than us. We are totally prejudiced by our own ends. We are so of necessity. We live with ourselves fairly closely and we all see our own points of view fairly readily. But I do not accept that the Government should produce these sorts of propositions just for the comfort and convenience of members of parliament. The electorate is far more conservative and it deserves far more respect. These proposals cannot be justified in view of the time and cost involved. I wish to make it adequately clear that I will be voting to support the electors. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(11.53) —At the outset of my remarks on the Constitution alteration Bills I say that I am one who has never objected to the population of Australia being asked what it thinks about certain matters. But as an engineer I am also one who realises that one engineering principle is that you do not fix something until it is broken. I believe that the system that we have within Australia at the moment is working fairly well, so I ask: Why change it? If it is not broken do not fix it. But with these Bills we see the Government trying to fix many things that are not broken. I believe that when the votes are taken we will see before the people of Australia virtually a record number of referendums presented. Many of the suggestions that the Government wishes to put before the people are those that will either damage the Senate, particularly as regards some of the smaller States, or do what Senator Withers said a few moments ago, that is, do nothing to help the economic situation but just make life easier for politicians. That, in itself, I believe, is almost sufficient reason to oppose the holding of a referendum on the proposed changes to the Constitution. The people of Australia do not want life made easier for their politicians in any way. A letter I received stated: We valued the Senate from 1972 to 1975 . . . Where is the wisdom in destroying its effectiveness? In December 1975 the electorate overwhelmingly endorsed the Senate in the exercise of its ultimate power. That election resulted in the greatest-ever majority in the Commonwealth Parliament. Is all that to be forgotten, . . .? Are we so careless that we abandon ourselves and our future to the mercy of our enemies? I think that some of the proposals for referendums that we are discussing as time went on would, in fact, do that. I ask also why we are rushing these Bills. I have said before that rushed legislation is often bad legislation. I believe that the Government will regret the introduction of these Bills. Already, the Government has had to alter one Bill and one has been withdrawn. If we look back in history we remember that Mr Whitlam tried this idea of having referendums to keep himself in power and change the political situation of this country. I believe the defeat of his referendum Bills helped start his downhill slide. Mr Hawke has now been persuaded to do the same thing. I believe that he will regret it and that he is likely to end up the same way as Mr Whitlam. The Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill has been before us previously. I was against it on those occasions because it damages the Senate protection of the smaller States. Last time it was being discussed I heard one Labor Party senator say to another, 'This is the first step in the abolition of the Senate'. Another said, 'About time too'. I think we know the Labor Party attitude to these Bills. We have to remember that the simultaneous elections Bill will not necessarily reduce the number of elections. It could well increase them. It may be that that is a good thing. I am one of those strange people who feel that people, the people of Tasmania at any rate, like elections. I believe they like to be involved in the political process and to have the opportunity to pass judgment on the members of this place. The late Senator Greenwood in March 1974 in relation to this matter said: . . . there is a tediousness, a tiresomeness and a sense of futility occasionally expressed when people must vote. I know the arguments which are raised. One year there is a House of Representatives election, another year there is a Senate election, and in between there is an election for possibly both Houses of a State Parliament. But if one examines that, why should there not be those elections? If one reflects upon why those elections are held, why ought not the justification to be readily expressed and readily accepted and why ought we not to say that this is the means by which we govern ourselves? I would say that an end should be put to the idea that there are too many elections. The question is whether we really need a referendum for the purpose of arranging simultaneous elections between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The answer is clearly no. The Prime Minister could easily decide, if he wanted to, to arrange a Senate election at the same time as a House of Representatives election instead of spending the mega-bucks that honourable senators know it will cost to have this referendum, particularly when it is remembered-this is something which perhaps not many people recognise-that the founding fathers referred to the desirability of holding separate elections. If honourable senators refer to the constitutional debates of the late 1800s they will find that that is true. On 13 March 1974 Senator Greenwood, referring to Mr Whitlam, said: The Prime Minister, as I have indicated, has used the argument that there are too many elections as the sole justification for his proposal. He believes that we should bring into line the elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate. He postulates as a sound principle that every 3 years there should be a House of Representatives election and that at the same time-at the same election -there should be an election for that half of the Senate for which an election is required at that time. I simply say that if that be the principle and if that be the objective-certainly it has been the general position over the greater part of our history-it is very easy for the Prime Minister to achieve that objective without having to resort to a referendum. In the Sydney Morning Herald at about the same time, in 1977, there was a long article relating to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. I should like to quote a little from what was said then because it still applies today. The article said: All who place some store in maintaining individual freedom within the framework of organised society cannot doubt the value of a second Chamber. Frustrating and exasperating thought it often is, its value lies primarily in its being an effective brake to the legislative ambitions of the popularly elected Chamber, in New South Wales the Legislative Assembly. Its other equally important role is to review, to consider and often to suggest improvements to legislation sometimes sent to the Council hastily by the Assembly in answer to some spectacular election pledge . . . or sent to it as a result of the advocacy of some dominant member of the ministry whose pet theme it is. I wonder whose pet theme these referendums are. That kind of thing could and does happen in this Federal Parliament. I hope that honourable senators will remember it when they are campaigning against these referendums. Anything that reduces the effectiveness of the Senate is something of which I cannot be a part . The No case in 1974 said: This referendum will make the Senate the rubber-stamp of a socialist, centralist Labor Government. The Government is being deceitful-the question you will vote on does not explain the real proposed law. I do not think that anything has changed since then. It also said: Canberra asks you to approve a law to alter the constitution 'so as to ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections'. But the Senate is not an arm of the House of Representatives. Both are established under the Constitution as equal, independent House of Parliament with differing roles. The Senate is the only institution in Australia able to be a barrier to the arbitrary misuse of power by a Prime Minister or his cabinet. That applies no matter which party is in office. Towards the end of the pamphlet , it said: The present system is that Senators are elected for a six-year term. It is a ' staggered' election system with half of the Senate coming up for election every three years. The statutory six-year term is one of the strengths from which a Senator derives his independence. Without Senator independence the casualty would be democracy. That gives my attitude toward simultaneous elections. I believe that all those things still apply. I would refer those interested in this matter to speeches made earlier that have dealt with other areas of simultaneous elections and the dangers of them. For a small State they are of no advantage. They are of no advantage to the people of this country. They do nothing except expose the people to the trivia that this Government is bringing before us. All that the second Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill does is to make life easier for Government members and for senators. I have to advise Senator Withers that I had made my copious notes about that before I heard him speak this morning. The Bill certainly does not do anything to help any member of the public. I repeat: The public does not want things made easier for politicians. I admit that the four-year term is used in many places, but I have not yet heard of any eight-year terms. There may be some; I have not heard of any. In the United States of America the President is elected for four years and the senators are elected for four years. I was talking to an American yesterday, who said 'You certainly would not get away with the idea of giving members of parliament in the USA an eight-year term'. I am not sure about the House of Representatives term in the United States. I think that it is two years ; there are elections every couple of years, I think. I would have to be against an eight-year term. It would make life easy for some of us, although not many of us in this place have had even one six-year term. I think that the President of the Senate is the only person who has had a six-year term, due to the double dissolution elections we have had over the last few years. I am against the length of term. If some provision could be made for the House of Representatives to have a four-year term, and somehow for senators too, maybe I would go along with it; but even then I am not sure that it would do anything but make life easier for the Executive Government. If the Government gets enshrined in power in this ivory towered Canberra area for four years, I would hate to think what would happen. I shall not deal with the Bills in order. I talk now about the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill. My opinions are very similar to those stated by Mr Knox, from Queensland, in his speeches at the Australian Constitutional Convention in Perth in 1978, and to those of Mr Porter , reported at page 35 of the report. They made some statements, Mr Deputy President, and I seek leave to incorporate those in Hansard. Leave granted. The extracts read as follows- Mr KNOX (Queensland): 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. Is this the way we want to see this country run, by having a High Court give its referee decisions before having the opportunity to debate them in the forums provided by this country in the various States of the Commonwealth? Is this the way which we believe the Parliaments ought to operate, to have the High Court stand between the Parliaments and the people? That is the way in which this will tend to go should it be approved. 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. Mr PORTER (Queensland): I find myself reluctant at the best of times to accept determinations from an advisory jurisdiction. It is difficult enough for an ordinary person like myself to accept some political judgments in any case, but to have determinations of tremendous import based on an assumption of facts, applying not only to State enactments but also to proposed State enactments, makes me feel this is a proposition which in short order would label Australia as a very odd sort of country indeed. I do not think there is much place in our Federal system, in terms of our political and judicial traditions, for this kind of proposition. Senator TOWNLEY —I thank the Senate. Also, Mr Deputy President, I should like to incorporate in Hansard what Mr Doumany of Queensland said, as reported at pages 13 and 14 of the report of the Australian Constitutional Convention, on Wednesday, 27 April this year. Leave granted. The extract read as follows- Mr DOUMANY (Queensland): The proposal which is before the Convention, despite its complexity of drafting, in essence involves a simple proposition, that is, should the High Court of Australia be vested with power to render advisory opinions? Notwithstanding the views which are expressed in the Fourth Report of Standing Committee D and notwithstanding any views which the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs might have expressed, I am opposed to the proposition. Should this proposition succeed and should the necessary constitutional amendments be made, then this Convention will be making a fundamental attack upon the image and the necessity for non-partisanship and independence in the High Court of Australia. As everyone at this Convention would be aware, we are moving towards the position where the High Court of Australia will become the final court of appeal of all matters arising in the Australian judicial system. If the High Court is to be respected, then it must be seen to be an impartial and non-partisan body. Unfortunately, if this proposal advances, there is a real danger that this will not be the case. Considerable disquiet has already been expressed over some decisions of the High Court where, through judicial interpretation, the balance of legislative, executive and indeed judicial powers struck by the founding fathers at federation, has been disturbed generally in favour of greater powers for the Commonwealth and lesser powers for the States. More and more the personal and political philosophies of potential appointees to the High Court are a matter of public debate and discussion. As a supporter of the principle that the Judiciary should be politically neutral, I find this tendency abhorrent and I would dread to think that we would ever get ourselves in this country in the situation as exists in the United States of America in relation to the appointments to the Supreme Court where the personal lives of potential Supreme Court appointees are examined minutely in the public gaze prior to an appointment being made. If for no other reason alone, I am opposed to the politicising of the High Court which will spring from giving advisory opinions. However, there are many other substantial reasons why this proposal should be opposed. Let me outline just a few of these. 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. 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? Seventhly, 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 of 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. The High Court should remain independent and impartial, carrying out its duties of interpreting the 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. This whole proposal, if adopted, will ensure that the High Court of Australia will descend into the area of political contest. It will ensure that the members of the High Court will become participants in the political process. If you desire to ensure that this does not occur, then I would urge this Convention to reject this whole proposal completely. If, however, this motion is to be accepted than let us honestly reform the whole basis on which the High Court currently operates, particularly the way in which vacancies are filled, for at the moment there are more than a few grounds for believing that current selection methods do favour the Commonwealth over the States. Senator TOWNLEY —I thank the Senate. Briefly dealing with the other Bills, I come to the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill. The American to whom I was talking yesterday used, I think, these words: 'If that were passed and it enabled a sales tax to be established in the States'-which I believe it would-- Senator Gareth Evans —Hardly. Senator TOWNLEY —Would that not be one of the possibilities? Senator Gareth Evans —Not flowing automatically. Senator TOWNLEY —Would it be a possibility? Senator Gareth Evans —It would then be possible for the States to do it. It would be possible to do all sorts of things. Senator TOWNLEY —Thank you. That is all I asked. Did I not say 'one of the possibilities would be'? Senator Gareth Evans —No, you said that that would flow from it, but that would require separate legislation. Senator TOWNLEY —No, I did not. If Senator Evans checks Hansard tomorrow, he will find that I said that it could be a possibility. The American to whom I was talking said that, if that were the case, it would be a horrible idea. He said that the sales tax area is one in which States in the United States find it easiest to raise revenue; to increase their sales taxes on general sales and to raise revenue. I would have to be against that purely on that ground. When Senator Withers was talking about the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill, he said that he could not get very excited about it; I cannot get very excited about it either. Senator Durack —Who can? Senator TOWNLEY —Who can, indeed; no one, I think. It is not a necessary thing. What I am trying to show is that hardly any of these referendums are required. We come next to the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill. I would have to be against that. I would be for the idea of the Bill proposed by Senator Peter Rae, the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill, but unfortunately I have heard that it will not get through. We come next to the Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill. Mention has been made of small States and of breaking the nexus. I feel that any senator from a small State who ties himself to the idea of breaking the nexus is avoiding his duty. Let me read to the Senate what Senator Sir John Carrick said in June 1975. It relates to another referendum but it certainly applies to this breaking of the nexus particularly so far as senators from small States are concerned. He said: Any senator coming from one of the small States who ties himself basically to this device is, indeed, in dereliction of his duty to the States . . . the simple situation is that the Australian Constitution was formed on the basis that the less populous States-Tasmania, Western Australia, South Australia in particular, and Queensland-would only come into a Commonwealth if there were a Senate and if the Constitution of that Senate were as provided in the Australian Constitution. Any senator who gets up and seeks to destroy the quality of the Senate in this way ought to be defeated in his own State. He did not say that in relation to the breaking of the nexus but certainly any senator from a small State who supported that breaking of the nexus would be lowering the effectiveness of that State's influence in the Commonwealth. As Senator Lewis said, if there were a breaking of the nexus we would certainly see a huge increase over a few years in the number of members in the House of Representatives, which is something I am sure, again, that members of the public would love to see! They would love to see more members of parliament! The Senate would still be stuck with 64 members. I am not saying that the Senate should be increased either. I do not believe at the moment that the size of either House of Parliament should be increased but certainly a breaking of the nexus would allow the people from Melbourne and Sydney to have an overwhelming influence, and one that I am certain the people of Tasmania would not want them to have. I agree with the philosophy behind the Constitution. Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill. Holding a double dissolution within a reasonable time is a very sensible provision, and I agree with it. Finally, I do agree with Senator Withers's attitude to these referendums. I am certain that the people of Australia, and the people of Tasmania particularly, will reject the ideas that are likely to be passed by the Senate and the other House. Let it be clear that if I am against these referendums then I will be campaigning against them. Most of those that are likely to suceed would disadvantage Tasmania and I will be voting and working against them. I am suspicious of them particularly when I see the politicians from all sides getting together. Usually the only time they do that is when they are voting for an increase in parliamentary salaries. We all know the way the public accepts those, and I think the public will treat these proposals in the same way. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.13) —I rise at this late stage of the debate not so much to discuss the Bills in detail, as they have been dealt with very competently by the Australian Democrats' spokesman, Senator Macklin, but to reply and to make some points in regard to my private member's Bill; that is, the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill, which is now being debated cognately at this second reading stage. That Bill provides that where 250,000 or more people sign a petition to either House of this Parliament, that matter will be put to a referendum at a set time each year. Of course, this is a well established procedure. It has been for many years in other parts of the world, in more advanced and modern democracies than ours. An important instance of the use of electors' initiative which I instance at this stage is the system of civil defence in Switzerland. I have made the point in the Senate many times over the years that we have a notorious situation whereby two governments have done nothing to protect Australian people against nuclear attack, and there are still no signs of anything being done, even though we concede and agree that the risks are becoming greater. As far as the Parliament is concerned, it will have its refuge, I have no doubt. It is a matter of record that such a refuge will be built. But as far as the people of Australia are concerned, they can stay outside and die. Switzerland has the best system of civil defence in the world, a system on which one-quarter of its defence budget is spent. It has provided the best protection in the world against nuclear attack for its people, and that is generally conceded. That protection, Mr Deputy President, was introduced not by the Swiss Parliament but by a citizens' initiative in 1962. It is a classic case of a modern, advanced society acting in its own interests, independently and above and beyond the parliament which had neglected those interests, as this Parliament neglects the basic interests of this country so shamefully. It is for that reason that I sponsor this Bill and go on with it, because I give notice now that if this Bill is defeated then as soon as possible it will be back on the Notice Paper and it will stay on the Notice Paper for as long as there is an Australian Democrat in this Parliament. Meanwhile, I commend honourable senators to take this matter a little more seriously than has been the case in debate so far. Honourable senators so far have shown a degree of ill -information about the issues in this Bill, which appals me, especially in regard to the discussion on Proposition 13 in California-I will deal with that more later-which indicates to me that they have not even done their reading or studied the background before making their remarks on that issue. I have read through previous debates on my Bill in Hansard and, following yesterday's debate, I feel I should answer some criticisms before I proceed further. Senator Durack, on behalf of the Opposition, said that the Opposition would oppose my Bill because it would lead to fundamental change and is contrary to our system of parliament. I absolutely agree with Senator Durack. I am happy he sees the Bill in that light, as that is its basic strength. As I have said before in this place, the present system which restricts the right to initiate law to the Parliament is an anachronism and Senator Durack's views of course rank him and his Party as anachronisms. While I am at it, I might as well include Senator Withers in that because of the irresponsible and careless remarks he has made in this place on this important issue. The relevance of parliamentary dominance to any modern society may have been valid in the nineteenth century but it is no longer enough for a free people in the twentieth century to have the right to elect only one party or another to government; indeed, to have no real control over the legislative process beyond that. We need fundamental changes to our Constitution and to our system of parliament and we are not providing the people with that by proposing this arrogant, effete, inconsequential series of referenda which will be put to the people in February. I agree with Senator Townley that there is nothing at all in them of any significance or importance to the Australian people and, mark my words, they will see these matters in that light. Only one thing might be put to them which will fundamentally affect their future and the future of this country as a great democracy, and that is the issue of electors' initiative. That is the only fundamental thing in this series of Bills that might have some response, which might evoke some enthusiasm from the unfortunate people of this country who have been dominated for too long by two sets of political cliques that are doing their very best to make sure that they keep that dominance. We see here a fundamental arrogance. In this Bill we are not asking that the system of electors' initiative be proposed; we are merely asking that the Australian people be given the chance to choose for themselves whether or not they want that power. I want to put it on the record clear and straight that the decision of the Senate today when it votes on this matter will be that decision. It will not be a judgment on citizens' initiative; it will not be an expression of the views of honourable senators; it will be a censorship by the members of this Parliament of the right of the Australian people to decide an important new power for themselves. We need to be very clear in our minds about that. I suppose I have spoken at hundreds of public meetings to thousands of people, on this issue over the last five years and not one of them-and some were very informed groups-did not want this power introduced and the chance to vote on it. The only opposition to it is in this Parliament and I think that is a serious matter about which honourable senators may well examine their consciences. They are usurping the right of the people to decide on something which may be of value to them and if honourable senators vote against this Bill then they will be removing that option which I believe ought to be that of the people. Senator Missen criticised my Bill basically on the grounds that it constitutes a move from parliamentary democracy to participatory democracy, and that once a proposal is drafted it cannot be changed by the Parliament. I cannot sympathise with this prevailing fear of participatory democracy which is so apparent in this Parliament, which is old-fashioned and so out of step with what is happening in many other parts of the world. Participatory democracy would add enormously to our existing system while removing nothing. It would allow the community to decide those controversial issues which politicians now notoriously duck out on. We all know that we duck out on them. I am referring to the big issues in the community, like the legalisation of marihuana, abortion reform and all those things from which we shrink from deciding on as a parliament. We do not even like debating these issues. Let us be honest about this. It should be a matter for the community at large. There is no suggestion that the responsibilities of Parliament should be usurped. In other countries where this provision exists, the majority of law is carried out and decided upon by members of parliament, just as it is here. But this gives a valuable safeguard to the community, especially when big issues of controversy to the community are at stake. Cost cannot be considered a problem in putting this question to a referendum. It is quite probable that in February next year at least eight questions will be put to a referendum of the Australian people. The cost of adding one more question to that list would be comparatively minuscule. My Bill does not provide for the alteration of the wording of any proposal after signatures have been gathered but, in practice, I believe this would not be a problem. This is a point, I think, that Senator Missen took up. In order to avoid the necessity of amendment or repeal of an unworkable law through another referendum, as provided for in my Bill, those groups proposing legislation through referendum would be, I think, responsible enough before they began to gather signatures in such enormous numbers to see that the form and wording of their proposal was workable. Indeed, it is reasonable that the Bill could be amended-I have mentioned this before and I will mention it again-to provide a drafting facility for those groups. That is, of course, done in other parts of the world where the initiative operates. To my knowledge, that kind of problem has not existed in those areas. Certainly it has not existed in Switzerland, which has been the main anvil on which this method of democracy has been hammered out. It works extremely well in Switzerland. It is no accident, of course, that Switzerland is one of the world's most efficient societies, with the highest gross national product and the lowest unemployment in the world. The other main spectre which raised its sepulchral head in criticism of my Bill is the dreaded and much lamented proposition 13 passed in California in 1978. That vote has been paraded before this chamber in an ill-informed way time and time again as proof positive of the avaricious nature of the human race in general and the disregard of voters for sensible government in particular. Honourable senators, when noting proposition 13, always neglect to mention that similar propositions have been proposed 11 times by various American States and have been rejected on eight of those occasions. Perhaps the honourable senators who raised this matter were not aware of that fact. That is quite possible. Proposition 13 was concerned with a cut in land taxes in California at a time when the Californian Government had allowed a huge surplus of land tax to build up because it had not adjusted the rates in view of the growth of property values through inflation. Proposition 13 was a very justifiable initiative and it was carried for that reason. I was in California last year and I discussed with people its effects on California. I was informed that the effects were advantageous rather than otherwise. It is also worth noting that in 1980 another proposition which would have halved income tax-I agree that that would have been damaging-was refused by the Californian people. It was overwhelmingly defeated. Of course the Californian people were responsible enough to do that. The carrying of proposition 13 was amply justified. Later actions in other States and in California show that the people in America who use this initiative have a very responsible attitude towards it. That is a canard that has to be laid to rest. Opposition to this Bill basically comes down to the elitist argument that the people of Australia do not know enough to decide matters for themselves. This is , of course, the hoary old argument which was presented against women's suffrage and universal suffrage. Any argument, of course, against participatory democracy must be an argument in favour of oligarchy. This is nakedly revealed as that. As I have said, to my knowledge, no honourable senator has brought forward any other argument which can hold water or be at all convincing. The Bill has many merits, I believe. It allows matters of considerable public interest to be decided by the electorate. In so doing, of course, it creates more interest in these matters. It meets the point which Senator Townley made earlier, that people need to be involved more in politics. If honourable senators want people to be interested in more than the next long weekend, the next pay day or whether there will be tax cuts in the next Budget, if honourable senators want them to be a little more interested in politics, participatory democracy would give them a greater sense of responsibility and involvement. It would encourage more far-sighted attitudes. It would create a better educated, more politically aware society than has existed in the past. I point again to the people of Washington State, the people of California State and the people of Switzerland. All of these belong to advanced societies where the annual referenda are keenly awaited. They are keenly discussed and, on the whole, a responsible body of legislation has resulted over the years. Lastly, I remind honourable senators once again that participatory democracy such as is provided for in this Bill does apply elsewhere in the world. There is nothing new in it. There is nothing of which to be frightened. There is nothing that is not being done successfully anywhere else in the world. It applies in Switzerland. It was granted to the Swiss people in 1892 and has operated successfully ever since. It has been adopted by 24 States of the United States of America since 1890. I trust the Australian people. I do not believe in the philosophy of the great unwashed which members of the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have expressed so freely in this debate. I believe that the Australian people now are more educated and more politically aware than people were a generation ago. Tremendous interest in current affairs programs, politics and news, shows this to be the case. The people of Australia are ready for a greater participation in the government of the country. They want it and they want it to be effective. They feel a sense of frustration with politics because they do not have that participation. I think honourable senators will find that a lot of the criticism of politicians and a lot of the criticism of the political system goes back to this very point: We have a more aware society than we have had previously; it wants more of the action; and this Parliament, I presume from statements so far, is not prepared to allow it even to decide for itself whether it is to have that part of the action. I suggest that that is a very serious step for honourable senators to be taking . It involves a degree of censorship of what the Australian people might do, which transcends anything else I can think of that the Senate has done in the time I have been here. If honourable senators trust the electorate as I do they will not treat the people of the electorate as irresponsible children who do not know what is good for them; they will allow them to vote on participatory democracy in a referendum. That is possible if this Bill is passed through the Senate and House of Representatives with the approval of the Government and I would hope with the approval of the Liberal Party and the National Party. It could then take its place in the referendum to be held in February next year. Honourable senators could then campaign against it. That would be an honourable way of doing it. Let honourable senators come out in public instead of hiding behind the vote of this chamber, which obscures their view. Let the honourable senators go out then and say that they do not want it so that the people can hear arguments against it. Then let the people decide. If there is a vote against the second reading of this Bill the people of this country will know perfectly well the view of honourable senators in this place. That view is that they do not want the people of this country to have any enhancement of their democracy. They do not want the proposal considered and they are not prepared to put it to the vote. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.28) —Because of the time constraints today I will be very brief in making my position clear, as far as that is possible, on the measures before us. I will deal with them in order. The first measure is the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983. Such a proposal was rejected in 1974 and 1977. For all the reasons that were contained in the No case at that time, which I participated in drafting, I oppose this Bill. That saves repeating myself. It was rejected in 1974 and 1977. I believe it will be rejected again. As far as the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill is concerned, we do have a three-year parliamentary term at present. What we ought to be creating is a climate in which parliaments run for the whole of their three-year term. In the last 10 years none has run for a whole three-year term. Someone said during this debate that many people elected to this Parliament have never completed their terms. I have been elected for six years on three occasions and have served eight years. Another basis for the proposal is that it would enable a government satisfactorily to follow its plan, which it presumably put to the people prior to an election. There are a couple of things wrong with that argument. One is that such plans are rarely honoured and would rarely be honoured irrespective of the term of parliament. The second problem is that many of the plans of a government when it comes to power are of a social character as well as an economic character. Some legislation which comes before this Parliament touches upon very deep matters affecting the very fabric of society. If a government chooses to opt for a program which endangers the basic fabric of our society it is important that the people are given the chance regularly to audit what the government is doing by voting it in or out of office. I believe that at a time when, generally speaking, governments attempt to engage in social engineering practices it is not appropriate to extend the point of time at which the electors, the public, the people most likely to be affected, should have their say. For that reason and for a number of other reasons I will be opposing this proposition during debate on this matter in the public arena. The third piece of legislation before the Senate is the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1983. I will be voting for this Bill at the second reading stage. However, I need to have some clarification on some aspects of this proposal. I do not think it is appropriate at this stage to ask questions of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). However, as I said, I will be voting for the Bill at least at the second reading stage. Perhaps I could give the Attorney a little bit of notice and indicate that my questions relate to the effect on other States if one State chooses to transfer a power to the Commonwealth. The Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill 1983 has been adequately canvassed in the debate. I am very strongly opposed to this proposal. This matter was considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in 1977. It has been the subject of comment by a number of people, including the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia whose comments, I believe, have been noted by other speakers in this debate. I would like to remind the Senate that in his address entitled 'the State of the Australian Judicature' on 8 July 1983 he said in respect of this proposal: . . . in my opinion it is neither necessary nor desirable to adopt a similar procedure in Australia. He was referring to the Canadian situation. He went on to say: I think I am right in saying that view is shared by the other members of my Court. He made the following significant point: Under the proposal made by the Constitutional Convention, the Court would be required to consider questions in the abstract, and possibly before the practical implications of the legislation had come to be fully understood. I am concerned about the situation in which we could find ourselves having regard to decisions of the High Court relating to international treaties. An executive government could utilise the High Court's time to extend the boundaries of the Constitution by seeking advisory opinions from that body in regard to proposed legislation which sought to implement certain international treaties. Obviously that, to my mind, would be an impingement on the rights of the Parliament and would make fuzzy the division of powers between the Executive , the Parliament and the judiciary. I will be voting against that Bill. I will be supporting the fifth Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill 1983, at the second reading stage. However, I will be seeking some clarification of some of its clauses at the Committee stage. I am opposed to the sixth Bill, the Constitution Alteration ( Electors' Initiative) Bill 1982 (1983). I believe that acceptance of this proposal would be an abdication of our responsibilities as parliamentarians to protect the rights of minorities in Australia. This legislation would also open the door to the dictatorship and perhaps even the intimidation of Australians by large well organised one-issue groups. Anti-tax groups, the so-called anti-state aid groups and so on would be the first organisations to take advantage of this proposal. Such groups would attempt to utilise such legislation and by well- organised methods they would intimidate and confuse the rest of society. I suggest that we would be abdicating our responsibilities as parliamentarians to protect the rights of minorities if we allowed this to occur. I will oppose that proposition. The seventh proposal before the Senate is the Constitution Alteration ( Appropriation Bills) Bill 1983. This piece of legislation has some merit. I will be supporting it at the second reading stage. However, I am not altogether convinced that it is an appropriate proposition. A number of features in it need clarification. Whilst I will support it at the second reading stage I will be seeking some clarification on individual aspects during the Committee stage. I am not happy with parts of the Bill and I hope to get that clarification. The Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill 1983 breaks the nexus. Of course, I am opposed to that. That goes without saying. I refer to the No case and the points made in the No case when this matter was overwhelmingly defeated when it was put before the people of Australia. I oppose that proposal at the second reading stage. Regarding the final measure, which I support at the second reading stage, at the Committee stage I will be asking that some matters be clarified. I am not sure that the measure ought to be supported. It depends somewhat on what type of legislation certain governments have in mind, whether their legislation is of a long term nature. Whilst the issue around which the legislation is framed may not be a very vital issue at the time the legislation comes forward, it could well be that that would be in six or eight months time and that could be the appropriate time to have the matter tested in such an atmosphere before the people. I will support the measure at the second reading stage. I have spoken very briefly. I am sure that the Attorney-General and other honourable senators are very grateful. There has been a long debate on this matter. The debate will continue up until 25 February. I will have plenty of opportunity to make my viewpoints known. Debate (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) adjourned. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Debate resumed from 6 October 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a first time. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria)(12.43) —I take the opportunity at the first reading stage of the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill to raise again a matter that I have been pursuing for some considerable time. The matter has become known as the Tehran Embassy embezzlement affair or words to that effect. The first domino in the Department of Foreign Affairs has fallen. Honourable senators may recall that last session the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, angrily called on me publicly to cease what he described as my 'unrelenting campaign' to expose financial and other corruption among a small group of senior officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs led by the Secretary, Mr Henderson, whose main claim to fame seems to be that he is the son-in-law of the late Sir Robert Menzies. In doing so, Mr Hayden had a bet both ways. While explaining that he had no personal knowledge of the Tehran Embassy embezzlement, the medical retirement frauds, the nepotism and the tax evasion-to name just four-he stated that he was convinced that my allegations were 'without foundation'. To his discredit, and doubtless at the behest of Mr Henderson, he put into Hansard some inaccurate and damaging comments on, in particular, one of the 10 or so retired and serving officers from Foreign Affairs who have contributed, to Parliament's knowledge, to the vast array of examples of corruption and misconduct, which subject was first raised by me in a question without notice on 25 February 1982. On 2 June, I responded to Mr Hayden's rather ill-tempered tirade, setting out my position on the various questions of embezzlement, massive phoney retirement frauds, nepotism, et cetera, which I had exposed over the last 16 months or so. I spoke strongly and in detail about the bogus investigations into the Tehran Embassy shenanigans of Mr Ivor Bowden by the Department of Finance and the Australian Federal Police, explaining that there was no doubt at all that the police had bullied witnesses and tried, unsuccessfully, I am please to relate, to frighten at least three of them from ever coming forward again. I made it clear that I knew without a shadow of doubt that in order to clear Mr Bowden and , therefore, themselves from the charges I had made Mr Henderson and his senior cronies had brought massive influence to bear on these investigations. Yet another police investigation was undertaken into other financial activities of Mr Bowden and the Australian Ambassador to West Germany. The police again came up with that ridiculous formula 'no evidence was found', when it was well known that the investigating officers did not approach, did not even go near, any of the several honest Foreign Affairs officers who had been courageous enough to come forward with information. In response to Mr Hayden's criticism of my behaviour, I made it clear that I knew I was right on this issue and that I would be pursuing it relentlessly-to use Mr Hayden's phrase in the Budget session-unless Mr Hayden got his act together. I made it clear that if there was nothing to hide my questions on notice should be answered fully and properly. It would be easy to throw up one's hands in despair and accept that Mr Hayden had been 'yes, ministered' by Mr Henderson and the other professional liars working with him, as was the hapless former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Street, last year. Honourable senators may recall Mr Street's disastrous ministerial statement of 26 August 1982 in which the high point was his assertion that Mr Bowden could not have been involved in the fraudulent misappropriation of $8,000-odd at the Australian Commission in Hong Kong, as he had not arrived by the time it happened, but in fact he had. To give Mr Street his due, however, under heavy pressure from Mr Henne and Mr Witheford, two ex-staffers from the Tehran Embassy, he did try to get the Commonwealth Ombudsman involved in investigating a furniture removal fraud involving Mr Bowden. However, several weeks later Mr Henderson managed to winkle the relevant file out of the Ombudsman and send it to the police, who subsequently said-honourable senators will not be surprised at this-that there was no evidence of a criminal offence. Mr Street probably tried, but he was quite simply not up to the job of containing Mr Henderson and his group of talented, articulate and dishonest cronies. It is a disgrace that every single one of these men continues to be supported, and handsomely so, by the taxpayer. As I said last session, unless Mr Hayden is prepared to use his axe, I am convinced that only a royal commission will get to the bottom of these matters. I have always given fully of my loyalty and friendship to Mr Hayden and share the view of most that he is one of the most capable and intelligent members of the Parliament. That said, I would have expected Mr Hayden to realise very quickly indeed that there was not only a cloud of smoke in the Department of Foreign Affairs but also a lot of fire. I think honourable senators will agree with me, albeit reluctantly, that it is very hard to accept that at this stage Mr Hayden genuinely believes that Mr Henderson, Mr Bowden, Sir Nicholas Parkinson and the recently promoted Mr R. J. Smith-to name the biggest fish-are innocent of the charges I have put forward in both questions on notice and in speech form. I do not really think that Mr Hayden could doubt that a number of frauds, one of them to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars, has been effected and covered up by all possible means. Furthermore, how can Mr Hayden ignore the excesses of police and security officers against Foreign Affairs staff? Mr Hayden cannot play the ostrich with his head in the sand much longer. I would like to brief honourable senators quickly on recent developments in this scandal, which are not without interest. Firstly, during the recess an effort was made to answer my scores of questions on notice but, not unexpectedly , the most difficult questions were not answered. However, one answer which is recorded at page 222 of Hansard of 24 August 1983 revealed that the former Ambassador to Germany, about whom I have made embezzlement allegations, had lost out on the appointment as Ambassador to the Netherlands, for which he was under consideration, and that he was not to be given any further ambassadorial appointments. Thus it is that the first domino in the Department of Foreign Affairs has fallen owing to a question which I put 10 months ago. The man in question was told that the decision had been Mr Hayden's. When this man-I derive no joy from the destruction of his career-was told by Mr Henderson to retire or face demotion by two levels, because obviously he does not have the right old school tie, the ex-Ambassador warned Mr Henderson that his punishment would inevitably egg on Senator Primmer to pursuing his allegations against Mr Henderson, Mr Bowden and the others with redoubled vigour. How right he was. A second development has been that Mr Bowden, who obviously bears a charmed life as well as an old school tie, was promoted two levels when he returned from Tehran. He is no longer in charge of a division or even a branch, but he continues to draw $50,000 per year emoluments. There have been rumours that an attempt has been made to give him another ambassadorial appointment. I am determined that he shall not get his hand into the cookie jar again. The third development of interest is that the teenager, Adam Smith, has been transferred out of his father's division to another job in Foreign Affairs. Mr Hayden's laughable attempt to obscure the obvious fact that Adam Smith's appointment was an example of nepotism, of the Smiths getting in for their cut of the loot, does him no credit. I ask honourable senators to consider all this and then ask themselves whether there is not indeed something rotten in the state of affairs at Foreign Affairs. During the recess a number of new sources of information on this issue have come forward. Some of their contributions are reflected in the updated set of questions I put on the Senate Notice Paper on 7 September. It is probable that I shall need to ask several more questions shortly when advice is received from informants in remote locations. I make no apology for the innuendo contained in my questions. After all, many of them have been on and off the Notice Paper and unanswered for about a year. I have also taken action to have the Ombudsman, Professor Richardson, examine the second police report. I propose to convene a meeting involving Foreign Affairs officers, interested honourable senators and the Ombudsman in the near future. I have continued my contacts with the staff associations, principally the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the Foreign Affairs Association, both of which have given valuable support, advice and protection to those honest officers upon whom Mr Henderson seeks to vent his wrath and false criticism as a means of killing my allegations. Mr Hayden's refusal to discuss these matters with me or with any informants in his Department has meant that I have no choice but to respond to him publicly in this way. I am told that he has even suggested that staff with allegations to make should see Mr Henderson. That is a recipe for instant career destruction, character assassination and a defamation writ if ever I saw one. I call on him again to suspend Mr Henderson, Mr R. J. Smith and Mr Bowden without delay so that a genuine and full investigation can be carried out by authorities in whom the Senate, the unions and the majority of Foreign Affairs staff can place their trust. Mr Hayden must act quickly and resolutely to head off further damage to his own good name and that of the Australian Labor Party. I for one will not accept that these problems have been solved by treating the former Ambassador to Germany as a scapegoat. Whilst I welcome Mr Hayden's sterling successes as Foreign Affairs Minister, I remind him that charity begins at home. The shortcomings and excesses of his Department cry out for remedial surgery. Looking to the future, I have raised with a number of people, including Mr Hayden, the crying need in Australia for legislation along the lines of the United States of America Civil Service Reform Act 1978, the so-called whistleblowers' charter. In this connection I commend to honourable senators a recent article by Mr Paul Munro, National Secretary of the ACOA, which draws on the American experience in this area. I seek leave to have that article incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The article read as follows- Blowing the whistle Fraud, waste and mismanagement About 45 per cent of the US Federal employees claimed to have observed instances of illegal or wasteful activity within the past twelve months according to a recent survey. The final report of a special study on ''whistle- blowing'' by US Merit Systems Protection Board found that according to employees surveyed, waste of Federal funds caused by badly managed Federal programs was the most serious problem in terms of cost. The report revealed that 70 per cent of employees who claimed to have personal knowledge of some type of fraud, waste or mismanagement did not report the misconduct. Employees viewed existing channels of reporting as generally unresponsive. A belief that nothing would be done to correct illegal or wasteful activity was a reason given by most for not reporting the activity. Only about one in five gave fear of reprisal as a reason for not reporting. The survey disclosed that more than half of those who were identified as the source of a report believed that nothing happened to them as a consequence of having made the report. About 10 per cent of identified reporters said they were given credit by management, but over a third believed that reporting the incident resulted in some form of ''negative experience''. A substantial percentage of employees was sceptical of the effectiveness of protections against reprisal. Employee knowledge of reporting channels was low. Those who indicated the greatest degree of familiarity with the specialised US agencies having responsibilities for dealing with these matters tended to have the greatest degree of confidence in that organisation. Same here? There is strong reason to believe that the findings of the report would be duplicated in Australian Government employment. The disclosures in 1982 of internal procedures for dealing with alleged fraud, waste and mismanagement in the meat industry, dairies, tax and health benefit administration suggest that Australian public administration has been a fertile producer of home grown varieties of what the Americans describe as fraud, waste and mismanagement. The Public Accounts Committee and the Reid Inquiry, which had some responsibility for examining and improving internal checks against mismanagement, either had no taste for the task or found it beyond them. A striking feature of the MSPB survey report is the technique of correlating degree of knowledge of a surveillance agency's activity with the degree of confidence in it. According to the report those who know best the specialised agencies dealing with illegal or wasteful activity (the Office of Inspector General and the Office of the Special Counsel of the Merits System Protection Board) have the greatest level of confidence in the effectiveness of those agencies in investigation and protection from reprisals. Another survey related to personnel management practices and grievances showed the opposite result with remarkably high levels of no confidence in the responsible agencies corresponding with direct experience of the agencies' operation. Low scoring GAB It would be very interesting to have a similar survey made covering the activities of such Australian agencies as the Public Service Board, the Grievance Appeals Bureau, the Auditor-General's Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Ombudsman. I expect that some pretty low scores on the confidence level would be recorded. Whistle blowers' charter ACOA's submission to the Reid Inquiry drew attention to the causes of the publicly decried mismanagement which came to light in a number of areas of public administration last year. ACOA suggested that objectives for programs and regulatory enforcement be set in a public manner and be matched with the resources available to satisfy those objectives. In addition ACOA's submission called for the development of the whistle blower and other protections introduced to the US Federal Administration by the Carter Civil Service Reform Act. The Reid Inquiry showed little interest in those proposals. ACOA will be pursuing the policies represented in those submissions with the ALP Government. The reasons why it is necessary to do so are strongly suggested by the graph on this page from the US study, which shows an alarming ignorance about appropriate procedures for reporting illegal or wasteful activities. If duplicated in Australia that ignorance is dangerous to individual ACOA members, and bad for both public administration and the public interest. Grievance cases The Grievance Appeal Bureau has general responsibility for a limited category of grievances raised under the Public Service Act. There have recently been a number of changes affecting the bureau, and ACOA is pressing for considerably more to be made. However, some details of the 1982 grievance casework are contained in the following extract from a report by the director of te GAB made to the June Joint Council meeting: ''In 1982, 457 grievance matters were received from staff in departments and statutory bodies with staff employed under the Public Service Act. ''Those departments and authorities from which most grievance matters were received were Defence and Defence Support (82), Social Security (52), Transport and Aviation (44), Taxation (44), Employment and Youth Affairs, Employment and Industrial Relations and Industrial Relations (21), Housing and Construction and Transport and Construction (19), Health (16), Industry an Commerce and Business and Consumer Affairs (14), Administrative Services (11), Veterans' Affairs (10), and Foreign Affairs (10 including 5 ADAB). ''The figures for Defence and Defence Support, Social Security and Taxation represent a substantial increase on last year while the figures for Foreign Affairs and Administrative Services represent a substantial decrease. ''The source of appeals were: Per- centage Region Cases of total Australian Capital Territory 126 28 Victoria 111 24 New South Wales 78 17 South Australia 54 12 Queensland 35 8 Western Australia 19 4 Tasmania 13 3 Overseas 11 2 Northern Territory 10 2 Total 457 ''The 457 grievance cases fell into the following categories: 108 on the promotion process including aspects of selection and counselling; 50 appeals on leave matters; 48 applications in relation to classification and organisation; 45 appeals on salary and allowance matters; 40 against failure to gain appointment to the service or against annulment of appointment; 30 against action by departments to redeploy other officers into positions; 29 claims of discrimination or victimisation; 23 appeals on aspects of retirement, resignation or dismissal; 19 grievances on aspects of the promotion appeal process; 14 appeals on general conditions of service matters; 3 appeals against refusal of studies assistance; 12 grievances on qualifications matters; 12 appeals against departmental instructions; 9 appeals against matters relating to removals and housing; 3 grievances in relation to problems with personal records; 2 appeals against deferment of increment. Low success rate At 4 May 1982, 434 cases or 95% had been determined. Of those cases which have been determined, 94 (22%) were allowed or partially allowed, 296 (68%) were disallowed, 10 (2%) were withdrawn by the appellant and in 34 cases (8%) no decision was taken. These percentages are quite consistent with the experience of the previous year.'' Paul Munro National Secretary Senator PRIMMER —Recent events in the Department of Foreign Affairs-not to mention the meat industry-convince me that legislation along these lines must be pushed forward without delay. I shall be doing all I can to see that effective whistleblowers legislation-Henderson-proof whistleblowers legislation, if you like-is introduced as a matter of priority. To that end I have written to the responsible Minister, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), asking that he consider the inclusion of whistleblower provisions in any new legislation concerning the Public Service. I seek leave to have a copy of my letter to Mr Dawkins incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA-THE SENATE National Mutual Building 104 Liebig Street, Warrnambool, Vic. 3280 Telephone: 62 5039 September 30, 1983 Hon. J. Dawkins, Minister for Finance, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, I note with some interest, media reports relative to a reform of the Public Service and the intent that you will be taking over the chairmanship of a task force to this end. I therefore wish to bring to your attention, the 'Civil Service Reform Act 1978 ', implemented by President Carter in the U.S.. Specifically within that Act I cite the provisions for the protection of Public Servants who, to use the phrase 'blow the whistle' on the Department or persons within it. In my view the classical case in Australia in recent years where a public servant was demeaned and ultimately destroyed, was the case of Mr Tony Meyhew, the Customs Officer who told the truth as it related to the television set brought into Australia by a former Minister. Because Mr Mayhew was honest and struck to his guns, his superiors destroyed him. There have of course been other cases and I believe that the insertion of a similar legislation in the Australian Public Service would do nothing but good and would encourage persons within that service to be forthcoming if and when they find malpractices therein. I recommend the thought to you. Yours faithfully, C. G. Primmer. Senator for Victoria. Per: Kay Ayres. Senator PRIMMER —Honourable senators may have seen that the Department of Foreign Affairs was rebuked earlier this month by Mr Justice Davies, President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, for hiding files relating to the Tehran Embassy embezzlement and cover-up. It is clear from the Tribunal's hearing that additional documents about Tehran are still missing, probably destroyed. I intend to ensure that this new development in the Tehran affair is fully, honestly and earnestly investigated. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(12.56) —I have listened with interest to Senator Primmer's contribution. I was somewhat alarmed at some of the things Senator Primmer said because these things were quite serious. I realise that he has raised this question before with respect to certain matters that occurred in Tehran involving a Mr Bowden. I think the terms that he used in the Senate were unfortunate. He referred to 'Mr Henderson and the other professional liars working with him'. Words like that are not called for. He referred later to ' articulate and dishonest cronies in the Department'. I do not mind the aspersions he cast on Mr Hayden. I know that on one hand he praised him and on the other hand condemned him. I do not have any quarrel with that. It seems to me that his idea of bringing together Professor Richardson, the Ombudsman, officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and interested members of this Senate and the Parliament is a good one. That means that he can escape from coward's castle and get some of these questions answered and give the people who have been accused an opportunity to defend themselves. I think that would be a good idea. I suggest that Senator Primmer arrange that meeting next week. I am one of those who will be pleased to go along and attend. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.58) —I seek leave to speak to the first reading of the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill for 15 minutes. Senator Walsh —I did not hear the request, Mr Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —This is a first reading debate. Senator Kilgariff has already spoken to this matter. He seeks leave to speak a second time on the first reading. Maybe Senator Kilgariff should give an explanation. Senator KILGARIFF —As honourable senators know, each Thursday a money Bill is made available to the Senate so that honourable senators can speak on any matter . This is an arrangement between the Whips which takes place every week. In this case the Bill before the Senate was before the Senate last week. The arrangement between the Whips is that-this is an understanding with the Government Whip- there are honourable senators who wish to speak again this week. Senator Walsh —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I understand an agreement was reached. I am sorry, I was not previously aware of that, so leave is granted. Senator KILGARIFF —I thank the Minister. I took it that the Minister did not know and I was merely endeavouring to advise him on the matter. I feel that I must speak very briefly today to correct a situation that has arisen from Question Time on 11 October when a question was asked of Senator Grimes regarding the Calaid hearing aid. I expect that it was a misunderstanding when Senator Grimes, in referring to the Northern Territory Minister for Health, the Hon. Nick Dondas, said in rather strong terms: It . . . demonstrates that Mr Dondas is willing to use the disabled in the Northern Territory for his own political ends and to create unnecessary anxiety amongst the families of the disabled. He further said: . . . it is despicable behaviour. I hope that this matter is a misunderstanding for the question was asked: It is a fact that the new Calaid frequency modulation hearing aid will not be available to patients in the Northern Territory as claimed by the Northern Terriotry Minister for Health . . . Senator Grimes said yes, the Hon. Nick Dondas did know that the hearing aids would be available. So once again I believe it is a misunderstanding and I seek to advise on the situation because I think it is important to correct the errors in Senator Grimes's reply to Senator Robertson's question regarding the Calaid hearing aid. It is advised that Mr Dondas, the Minister for Health and Minister for Housing, became aware of the new hearing aids through Press statements released by the Hon. Neal Blewett, the Federal Minister for Health on 29 July 1983, which stated: . . . a small number of children in all States would be fitted with the new aid before the end of the year. There was no direct reference in that statement to the Northern Territory. The Hon. Nick Dondas asked the Northern Territory Department of Health how many aids would be supplied to Northern Territory children, and the National Acoustic Laboratories advised that only 50 aids were allocated altogether and there was no allocation for Territory children, although two of the aids may be brought to the Territory for demonstration purposes only. Then on 8 September, Mr Dondas wrote to Dr Blewett advising that many Aboriginal children would benefit from the hearing aid. He requested advice on the matter from the Minister but received no reply. Because of the concern that the children of the Territory and especially those of the Outback should have this facility there was a follow-up of a telex which was sent on 14 September, but there was no reply to this. The Dondas Press statement that no aids were allocated to the Territory remains correct, even as of today, and it was based on the fact that no information had been given to the Northern Territory Minister for Health. Therefore, there is no basis whatsoever for Senator Grimes' s statement that Mr Dondas knew that hearing aids would be distributed to the Northern Territory on a per capita basis. In fact the Territory rejects the distribution of the aids on a per capita basis because it fails to take into account the special hearing problems of the Northern Territory Aboriginal population. Of course this is understandable when one sees the multitude of problems that exist amongst the Aboriginal children, whether it is nose, ears, chest or what have you. Fortunately in most of these fields now there are many inroads being made into the health problems. But in this case, of course, it is inconceivable to compare the Territory with the States because there is quite obviously the necessity for many more hearing aids than on a per capita basis. Mr Dondas's Press release stated that there was 'no specific allocation' made to the Territory. This was based on information supplied by the Darwin National Acoustics Laboratory staff to the Northern Territory Health Department. Obviously Nick Dondas acted in good faith. Far from using the disabled for his own political ends he was quite obviously seeking the best possible deal for them. It is unfortunate that this has happened because the Hon. Nick Dondas is known in the Territory for his humane approach to the people of the Territory and particularly to the responsibilities of his portfolios, which include these Aboriginal children. Under the circumstances he does not have the opportunity to defend himself. I think that the facts that have been given by the Federal Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, are incorrect and I believe his statement is quite outrageous. To support the explanation that I have given I have here a statement regarding the Calaid hearing aids from the Secretary for Health of the Northern Territory Health Department. I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- RE: CALAID HEARING AID I believe it important to correct some of the errors in Senator Grimes' reply to Senator Robertson's question concerning CALAID hearing aids in the Northern Territory. I am advised that Mr. Dondas, the Minister for Health and Housing first became aware of the new hearing aid from a press statement issued by the Honourable Neal Blewett dated 29 July 1983, which specifically states: ''that a small number of children in all States would be fitted with the new aid before the end of the year''. The press release does not refer to the Northern Territory. The Minister's Ministerial Officer requested the N.T. Department of Health to advise whether there were any children in the Northern Territory to whom this announcement would apply. The National Accoustic Laboratory in the N.T. advised that only 50 of the new aids would be allocated and that no Territory children would receive any and that if two came to the Territory they would be used for demonstration purposes only. On further questioning, subsequent advice was that there were no aids in the Territory so far, that there was no specific allocation for the Territory and that because of the limited production, Territory children could be expected to benefit much later. On 8th September, Mr. Dondas wrote to Dr. Blewett advising him that there would be many Aboriginal children with hearing defects who could benefit from the new type of hearing aid and requesting advice. A follow-up telex was sent on 14th September, but no response has been received to either request. Mr. Dondas' press release stating that there has been no specific allocation for the Territory remains correct even as of today. The only other information available is a report in ''The N.T. News'' dated Wednesday 14th September, quoting the National Accoustic Laboratory, Darwin office, as stating that ''the Northern Territory would get three (aids)-but it is not certain when''. So in summary, Dr. Blewett's announcement in July failed to mention the Northern Territory, there has been no response to two specific requests for information for information concerning allocation to the Territory, and there is no basis whatsoever for Senator Grimes' statement that Mr. Dondas has always known that the aids will be distributed to the Northern Territory on a per capita basis. If this is to be the case, the Territory totally rejects such a distribution as it fails completely to take into account the special hearing problems suffered by the Northern Territory's Aboriginal population. Keith Fleming Secretary for Health 12 October 1983 Senator KILGARIFF —This is a most interesting statement and it clearly indicates that there has quite obviously been a breakdown in communication. I hope that after this the matter will be resolved, that not only will the Territory receive the Calaid hearing aids for the children but the difficulties involved and the fact that a large number of children require these aids in the Territory will be taken into consideration. I commend the Federal Government for having introduced these Calaid hearing aids. I note that in Dr Blewett's statement-which I have before me now-he has said: Selected children in Sydney have already been fitted with the new system. First reports are of children's delight at being able to hear their parents and teachers. The new aids appear to be particularly valuable in assisting children to hear in a noisy environment. And so it goes on. I think that this is a tremendous step forward for the children of the States. I hope too that after this misunderstanding the Territory is recognised in its own right, that these Calaid hearing aids will be made available to the Northern Territory and I also hope that it is recognised that what the Hon. Nick Dondas, as the Minister for Health in the Northern Territory, said publicly is quite true. He did it to bring about a situation in which the requirement for Calaid hearing aids in the Northern Territory is realised. Once again I hope that this has been only a misunderstanding and that the harsh words that were said by Senator Grimes regarding this particular Minister in the Northern Territory Government are not proved. I hope he will withdraw them. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(1.08) —Mr Deputy President, as I have already spoken in the debate, I seek leave to speak for a period not exceeding 15 minutes. Leave granted. Senator COLSTON —I thank the Senate. Newspaper readers in Queensland this week were astounded when they saw a Queensland Government advertisement which attacked the Federal Government's Medicare program. The readers' astonishment was not solely due to the Queensland Government's attack on the Federal Government as that type of behaviour is not unusual for the Queensland Government. In an attempt to cover up its shortcomings it often attacks the Federal Government. With the previous Federal Government, some of the Queensland Government's criticism was well founded. However, since March of this year that criticism has been without foundation. The readers' astonishment was caused more by the sheer effrontery of the State Government using taxpayers' funds to attack a Federal Government program with less than two weeks before a State election. The advertisement which was run was clearly political. It carried no State Government information; all it did was carry misinformation about the Labor Government's Medicare program and photographs of the Premier of Queensland and the Queensland temporary Minister for Health. It indicated that Queenslanders would be paying for the southern States and that Queensland will not receive its fair share of funds from the Medicare levy. I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to incorporate in Hansard the text of the advertisement which appeared on page 7 of Brisbane's Telegraph on 10 October. Leave granted. The advertisement read as follows- WHO WILL BE OUT OF POCKET OVER MEDICARE? You will- You will be paying for the Southern States! Under Medicare, Queensland will get only $29 per head for its hospital system. Other States will get an average of almost $50 per head. You are not getting your fair share! Queensland will be $52 million short in a full year. Yet Queenslanders will pay the same levies as people in other States. You will be out of pocket! Remember-if husband and wife are working, both will pay the Medicare tax. MEDICARE WILL COST YOU MORE! Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Angelo Bertoni Premier of Queensland. Minister for Health, Qld. Senator COLSTON —I thank the Senate. The advertisement appeared in newspapers throughout the State. Most were of a size of about 18 centimetres wide by 34 centimetres in depth. I have no doubt that I have missed some of the newspapers in which the advertisement appeared, but I list 20 newspapers of which I am aware in which this advertisement did appear. Firstly, in the Brisbane metropolitan area, it appeared in the Courier-Mail, the Telegraph and the Daily Sun. Outside the Brisbane metropolitan area I noticed the advertisement in these newspapers: The Bundaberg News Mail, the Dalby Herald, the Gatton Star, the Gold Coast Bulletin, the Gympie Times, the Ipswich Advertiser, the Maryborough-Hervey Bay Chronicle, the Toowoomba Chronicle, the Queensland Times, which is an Ipswich newspaper, the Warwick Daily News, the Cairns Post, the Townsville Daily Bulletin, the Mackay Mercury, the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin, the North West Star, which is published in Mount Isa, the Hervey Bay Sun and the Gladstone Observer. That these advertisements were paid for by the Queensland Government and thus by the Queensland taxpayer is beyond doubt. An advertisement which appeared in the Courier-Mail on 10 October carried an authorisation by Mr S. Schubert, the State Co-ordinator-General. In the following day's Courier-Mail Mr Schubert explained that his name should not have appeared on the advertisement; he had merely authorised the funds for the placing of the advertisement. I would like to quote the article from the Courier-Mail because it indicates that it was a Queensland Government advertisement. In part, the article stated: In The Courier-Mail yesterday, an advertisment appeared bearing a Queensland Government crest and stating that Medicare would cost Queenslanders more than people in other States. It was stated at the foot of the advertisement that it had been authorised by Mr S. Schubert, Co-ordinator-General, Premier's Department. Mr Schubert claimed yesterday that the advertisement in question had not been an election advertisement. He said he had simply authorised the payment, on behalf of the Queensland Government, of the account relating to the advertisement. I intend to remark shortly about the actual message in the advertisement but would first call upon the National Party in Queensland to make good the cost of this anti-Medicare newspaper campaign. Being a minority government does not give the National Party in Queensland the right to plunder the public purse. If it wanted to campaign in this way it should have been prepared to shoulder the cost of the advertisement itself. With the resources that I have at my disposal I have not been able to determine the cost of the National Party's advertising exercise. However, I did hear from a reliable source that the minority Government had set aside $40,000 for its anti-Medicare campaign. It may not have spent that amount on the newspaper advertisements to which I have referred. However, the advertisements in the Courier-Mail and the Telegraph would have cost more than $1,000 each. The cost of the Daily Sun advertisement would have been at least $700. When one considers the number of newspapers in which the advertisement was featured one gains some impression of the enormous cost involved, a cost which should not be a charge upon the taxpayers of Queensland. It is clearly a charge which must be borne by the National Party in Queensland. Therefore, I call on the Premier of Queensland or the Party's State President to give a public undertaking that the National Party will bear the costs of this political advertising campaign. If such an undertaking is not forthcoming, the National Party's actions will be condemned by all decent-minded Queenslanders. In relation to the claims in the Queensland Government's political advertisement, I must mention that support for Queensland hospitals will increase from $93m, as provided by the previous Federal Government, to $173m in the first full year of Medicare. It is absurd to claim that under Medicare Queensland will subsidise other States. The Medicare levy in Queensland will raise some $146m in a full year. Queenslanders will receive in return $260m in extra funds and benefits for their health care system. The misleading information in the advertisement is bad enough and I do not intend to say anything further about it, but I do reiterate that it is totally unacceptable for the minority Queensland Government to use taxpayers' funds to run purely political advertisements. The National Party should immediately assure the people of Queensland that it will pay for these advertisements. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(1.14) —I rise in this first reading debate to take the opportunity of making some points which have been brought to me by a dedicated group of enthusiasts, many of them scientists in Australia, who feel an acute sense of frustration. These are the people who are proponents of energy alternatives for this country, in particular wind energy. While this subject is one that has not been taken seriously by many in Australia-there is certainly evidence that the Government has not taken it seriously-there is all the evidence that in the world it is advancing steadily as a major alternative source of electric power. It is one which initial surveys of wind direction, speeds and duration have shown to be especially suitable to many parts of Australia, particularly, of course-and this is a key point-the west coast of Tasmania where recently this Government, with the approval and assistance of the Australian Democrats, decided not to go ahead with a hydro-electricity dam and the Gordon below Franklin dam. The point about wind generators is that they have flexibility. Basicially, they are not enormous and can be installed or demounted, and sold if necessary, according to the demand for electric power in the location concerned. The other interesting aspect is that most of the machines now being used in Australia are imported. The technology is fairly low-scale and is well within our capabilities . With a little Government encouragement there is a possibility of creating major new industries in this area. The place that would appropriately suggest itself for such use would be Tasmania. Submissions have been made by this group to the Government asking it to consider this proposition seriously as a part of our general energy mix in the future. Nobody, including me in this place is going to say that this will solve all our energy problems, that we will get all our electrical power from wind, but it is possible that a large proportion of it could be so provided, especially in isolated areas where fuel costs are high and reticulation of power costs a great deal in terms of not only money but also power loss. The further one moves electricity along a transmission line the more one loses along the way; it does not get there intact, if I may put it that way. In other parts of the world major wind generators have been operating successfully for a number of years. I think particularly of one at Tvind in Jutland. It is a 3 megawatt machine which was built, interestingly enough, by a group of enthsiastic amateurs with the full concurrence of the Government and has been operating efficiently for a number of years. One of the interesting things about the Tvind windmill, Mr Deputy President, is that the relationship between its supplying of electricity and the demand made upon it is represented by a very elegant statistical curve. In other words, the evidence regarding this major machine, as with many in the world, is that when you get cold, windy weather, the windmill operates at higher capacities and also, of course, the demand for electricity tends to go up. I have seen the graphs for the Tvind project and it is quite uncanny to note that the curves almost match each other perfectly. Thus, particularly where an ancillary source of power is required for hydroelectricity, where water can be held on the head or released according to demand, wind power can be used as a supplement very successfully. It reduces overall the demand for power from hydroelectric sources only when perhaps the water resources are falling low, as we indeed found to our cost during the drought of recent years. The snowy scheme had difficulty in supplying sufficient hydroelectricity because of water fall-off. People will say that you cannot guarantee that the wind will be blowing in the one place for more than a certain time. That is, of course, true. The way in which this eccentricity of the supply, if I can put it that way, is being controlled in other countries is simply by having a large number of wind farms with small wind generators which supply electricity to the grid such that, at any one time, for any one grid, the wind is usually blowing and supplying electricity. So that, over a period, in a geographical span of sufficient size, you will get a very steady, even supplementing of the supply from wind farms. The matter is being raised by me at this stage because of the Democrats' dedication to the idea that all of us must face eventually, that sooner or later we will have before us the problem of loss or depletion of non-renewable sources of supply for the purpose of electricity generation. We depend very heavily on coal in this country for that and, in remote areas, we depend on oil fired generators. The resources for this will inevitably become more expensive in the years to come and might eventually run out altogether. So the sooner we get into this technology the better. I am putting it to the Government at this stage because I am concerned, as in my question to Senator Ryan as Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology yesterday, that the Government has run down completely its wind energy research through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I think that is a tragic circumstance. I am prepared to accept what the Minister told me yesterday, that this was the ending of a particular program which was to assess resources and the general potential. But it would be tragic if that were now not to be followed up by a more concrete and practical program within CSIRO or any other area where that might occur which would allow this industry to go ahead full steam, because private enterprise is interested. A firm in Perth is thinking of making wind generators and a number of small organisations are already in the business of importing and selling them. Of course, I believe they should be made here. So far there is a limited but significant use of wind power in Australia. The Rottnest Island 55-kilowatt machine has been in operation for some time now and is working quite successfully. An experimental machine is being built at Esperance in Western Australia to determine whether wind generators are a viable proposition in remote windy areas. If it follows the evidence of other areas, I think we will find that that is so as other costs go up. A small Tasmanian company is installing one or possibly two 55-kilowatt machines on King Island. This is a most interesting example because I understand that the actual fuel cost alone of the generating machine on King Island is 11c a kilowatt hour. This is because fuel has to be shipped to the island. This company, I gather, is negotiating with the Hydro-Electric Commission. It is looking at a total cost of power from the wind generators of 9c a kilowatt hour. So not only would the project conserve fuel, it would also cut significantly the cost of providing power, even in fuel costs alone. I gather that it is proposed that a demonstration wind farm of six to 10 machines is planned to be established in Tasmania where extensive measurements of wind strength and direction have already been taken. World assessments regard the area as one of the most satisfactory places on the globe for wind power. Government funding of the wind farm, which, I understand, is being considered by the Government, ought to go ahead in the general interests of the community. I urge the Government strongly in that direction. It is interesting that although many sizes of machines are available, ranging from four kilowatt to three megawatt capacity, it appears that the best economy is provided by machines in the 55 kilowatt range. That is why that figure has occurred in a number of examples that I have given to honourable senators. Fifty -five kilowatt machines are more competitive in Australia and, indeed, elsewhere as it would seem they cost about a third to half the cost of a machine in the megawatt range. So the economy of scale which occurs in many other industries does not apparently necessarily apply in this one. That is a most interesting point. This is important because there is greater flexibility if a small generator is used. There is also significantly less environmental hazard. Last year I went to the trouble of looking at the United States Department of Energy generator on the island of Oahu which, of course, is that part of Hawaii on which Honolulu is located. It has been operating successfully for a number of years. I was able to see and hear it in operation. I thought it was aesthetically a pleasing enough object. Unless one got very close to it, the sound pollution was very limited. There was a swish from the blades as they reached the bottom of the arc, but their speed was not so high as to create a buzz or any sound which would even remotely approach the annoying capacity of so much of what we put up with in cities now-traffic and things of that kind. It is a comparatively peaceful sound so I think that the argument that these things would be pollutant from that point of view is limited. An average household in southern Australia, which is not all electric and which has reasonable other facilities, would use approximately one kilowatt hour. So it is possible for these machines, which would average approximately 20 to 30 kilowatts over a period of a year, to serve 20 or 30 houses at a one-off cost of about $75,000. However, this cost would be greatly reduced as the number of machines increased. It would again be reduced if the machines could be made in Australia. It has been put to me that we could well reach the stage in favourable areas where complete supply of electricity to a household could be achieved for a cost of about $1,000. After that, there are no fuel costs. The cost of maintenance of the machine is very small. They also are versatile enough to have reverse electricity metres so that an area which has wind generators can use power when the wind is not blowing. When the is blowing strongly it is possible to pump power back into the grid. In parts of the United States this is already being done. Indeed, the metres run backwards so that the electricity bill of persons in those areas is reduced by the extent to which that wind generator supplies power to the grid. That seems to me to be a very intelligent attitude. I would like to look briefly at this from a strategic point of view. I think that in the world of the future in any war time situation, which can happen at any time, there is great value in any nation having some sort of decentralisation of its sources of electric power. This is something the Japanese feel quite strongly about. There is obviously a feeling of 'Good, let us have one great big nuclear power station to serve a huge area'. What happens if that one great big nuclear power station becomes a target in a war, which of course it would. It would inevitably be an early target. Quite apart from pollution aspects, there would be no electric power whatsoever for a whole city. If there were auxiliary sources in remote areas they could keep going. There are many parts of Australia, particularly along our southern coastal areas, which are quite windy enough to enable wind generators to be a viable proposition. One suggestion for overseas and here is that these need not necessarily take up valuable land. They can be situated off-shore in suitable areas on pylons so that they operate along the coast line just out to sea and get the strongest winds. That, of course, is the area where the wind blows most steadily and strongly. Wind energy is in extensive use in many countries. The European Wind Energy Association, which is a collection of official energy related bodies, has 13 member countries, all of which use wind energy for the generation of power. Their turbines range from four kilowatts to three megawatts and they have shown a most satisfactory mix. Denmark has publicly funded research and development aimed at both large and small scale wind turbines. I believe that in Australia we should follow the Danish model and have some public funding of research and development in this area to get the small industries away. In Denmark several small public companies produce and sell wind turbines and there is a 30 per cent public subsidy to the purchaser of small wind turbines. That has led to the installation of some 730 of these machines, and this figure is increasing. New orders are going in at a rate of about three of four a week. On the island of Oahu I found that quite a lot of the station properties, farms and small businesses are using wind generators in the kilowatt range. They are supplying most of the power for those industries. I therefore urge the Government to look at this sympathetically and to listen to those people who are dedicated to the cause of wind energy. Most of them are scientists who have done their homework and know what they are talking about. I urge the Government to see what assistance can be given. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1983 Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1983 Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1983 Ombudsman Amendment Bill 1983 Ombudsman (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(1.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill provides for amendment of the Repatriation Act and associated Acts to give legislative authority for the Government's Budget decisions and to make certain amendments to repatriation and defence service homes legislation. There has been some criticism recently that the Government is saving money at the expense of those who can afford it least, that is, the pensioners. The Government's view is that those who need and deserve assistance should get it. Among those who deserve it are veterans who fought for this country and who are disabled or otherwise disadvantaged. The Government is committed to maintaining the repatriation system. Overall expenditure on the Veterans' Affairs portfolio this financial year is estimated to be $2.818 billion which is an increase of $ 355m or 14.4 per cent over last year. It is governments that decide to send people to war. It is governments that must take the responsibility for those people when they return. This is something I understand and support strongly. Many people do not understand just what the full social costs of war are, let alone the financial costs. It is far more than just setting up and sending off an armed force. There are the consequent costs-costs of death, injury, grief, loss of contribution of the soldier to society and the long term effects upon the veteran and his family. Apart from these horrendous social costs, the financial cost of war is staggering. The following figures represent 1981-82 dollar values. During the six years 1939-45 Australia spent $30 billion to win the war and maintain its freedom. In the years since 1945 we have spent half as much again. It has cost the Australian people $46 billion to meet their obligation for the rehabilitation and care of Australia's fighting men and women and their dependants. People must realise that vast sums will be required for many more years to ensure that Australia's commitment is met. The Government's Budget initiatives are not all reflected in the Bill before the Senate. In addition, there are initiatives to be provided by amendment to the regulations and others that will not require legislation. This latter category includes major hospital works, the purchase of more specialised equipment for the hospitals and a start to the provision of all-round care for aged veterans. The majority of veterans who receive benefits from the Department of Veterans' Affairs served in the Second World War although some are older and at least one veteran of the South African War is still alive. Second World War veterans are aging, their average age is 64 years, and my Department has the role of ensuring that they are maintained with dignity and comfort. The Government has approved an initial funding of $1m as a first step in providing extended care services to aged veterans. Assistance will be provided by geriatric assessment units to veterans and war widows to live at home where it is considered to be in their best interests to do so. These units are being established in the Repatriation General Hospital in each State capital. The present system of care for the aged is confused and inadequate. The Government is determined that this situation will not continue. We are considering a range of proposals which seek to co-ordinate aged care, enable care to be provided in a variety of ways suitable to the aged population and lessen the aged person's dependence upon institutional care. Nearly $7m more will be spent this year than was spent last year on capital works in repatriation hospitals, an increase of some 140 per cent over the average of the previous three years. In addition, the Government has decided to refer major development works for Greenslopes and Concord Repatriation General Hospitals to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, recommending capital works programs estimated at $13.5m for Greenslopes and $11.5m for Concord. Although there remains much to be done, there has been real progress in rectifying the serious deterioration under the previous Government in the replacement of old hospital equipment. My Government has made available over $4m this year for specialised hospital equipment-a 55 per cent increase on the average expenditure over the last three years. I will now explain in detail the provisions contained in the Bill. This Bill provides that the income limits for fringe benefit eligibility are to be indexed ; eligibility for service pension is to be extended to a man providing constant care and attention to a severely handicapped female service pensioner; a remote area allowance is to be introduced for service pensioners; and guardian's allowance is to be extended to a veteran separated from his wife because of ill- health, where he has care of the children. In addition, pensions payable for amputations or loss of vision are to be increased as are attendant allowances and pensions payable to orphaned children. This Bill also includes amendments to the Defence Service Homes Act 1918. They deal with some administrative matters for the conduct of the defence service homes insurance scheme. The indexation of fringe benefit levels will provide a major benefit to service pensioners. This step will mean that many pensioners will not lose eligibility for these benefits when they receive a small increase in income. Fringe benefits provide significant additional benefits to pensioners in the form of free medical treatment, telephone rental concessions and many other concessions, provided by Commonwealth, State and local Government authorities as well as private organisations. Indexation of these levels will provide assistance for those most in need. The indexation provisions will apply from 1 November this year. Service pensions for veterans who served in a theatre of war are similar to age and invalid pensions paid by the Department of Social Security but are available five years earlier than the social security pensions. They have not been available normally to the husbands of female veterans. This Bill proposes that eligibility for service pension be extended to a husband of a severely handicapped female service pensioner where the husband provides constant care and attention for his wife in their home. This measure will assist those men who would not normally qualify for benefits because, but for caring for their wives, they would be part of the work force. This provision will come into effect on 8 December 1983. The Bill also proposes that guardian's allowance, which at the moment is payable only to single service pensioners who have the custody, care and control of a child, be extended from 8 December this year to veterans who are unable to live with their spouses because of illness or infirmity and who have the custody , care and control of a child or children. In effect, the Government has recognised that these veterans are in the same position as single supporting parents. The Goverment has also recognised that additional costs are incurred by people living in areas remote from Australia's major centres. Taxpayers in these areas receive concessions but pensioners have received no assistance in coping with the higher costs of goods and services. This Bill proposes to pay a remote area allowance, from 10 May 1984, to those service pensioners who live in those areas recognised under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 as remote areas in Zone A. The proposal is that eligible pensioners living in these areas will receive an additional $7 a week if single and $6 a week to each of a married couple with $3 .50 a week for each child. The Bill proposes that income from friendly societies and trade unions will no longer be exempt income under the income test for service pensions. This relates to periodical payments since annuities from these organisations are not exempt. Payments from other sources are, however, to be exempted along the same lines as exemptions are proposed for social security pensioners. These include the value of emergency relief, such as that provided following bushfires or floods and insurance or compensation payments following loss of, or damage to, buildings, plant or personal effects. Moneys from the investment of these payments will be exempt for a reasonable period to allow the lost or damaged goods to be replaced . Other exemptions covered are assistance by way of accommodation or meals provided to homeless persons, an open employment incentive bonus, domiciliary nursing care benefits and Commonwealth housing assistance. Provision is made in the Bill for increases in pensions paid to veterans suffering amputations and loss of vision, in attendant allowance and in pensions paid to orphans. The increases are to have effect from 10 November 1983. The increases are in line with movements in the consumer price index since the previous increases. The increases for amputation and loss of vision mean that the total amount payable for loss of vision in one eye will be $38.77 a week, ranging up to $96.60 a week for the loss of both legs, one above and one below the knee. Higher amounts for more serious amputations are automatically adjusted twice each year in line with movements in the consumer price index. The rate of attendants allowance is to be increased from $23.30 to 25.90 a week in the case of a veteran who is blind or suffering a cerebro-spinal injury. In the case of a veteran who has had both arms amputated or who is blind and has lost hearing or speech, the allowance is to be increased from $48.60 to $51.80 a week. A single orphan's pension will be increased from $16.60 to $18.45 a week while the increase for a double orphan will be from $33.20 to $36.90 a week. The Bill also proposes that the Deputy Chairman of the Repatriation Commission be appointed by the Governor-General. At present the person is appointed by the Governor-General as a Commissioner and then elected by the Commission to the position of Deputy Chairman. The proposal will overcome some administrative difficulties in the operation of the Commission and it will also enable the office of Deputy Chairman to be a public office for the purpose of the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1973. The Defence Service Homes Corporation has been offering insurance cover in accordance with the Statement of Conditions tabled in Parliament in November 1980. The amendments to the Defence Service Homes Act are designed to remove any doubt that the cover specified in the Statement may extend to domestic improvements of a structural nature and to the property owners' liability. Because it would not be feasible for the Corporation to refuse to meet claims legitimately made under its Statement of Conditions or to attempt to recover moneys paid out in settlement of past claims, the Bill proposes the validation of any such payments. Other Budget decisions affecting veterans will be provided for by amendment to the Regulations. These include increases in the recreation transport allowance and the clothing allowance and the indexation of pensions payable to Papua New Guinea veterans. The provisions of this Bill will cost the Government $0.920m in 1983-84; $2. 225m in 1984-85; and $3.340m in 1985-86. Additional costs will be incurred by the increased benefits to be effected by amendments to the Regulations. Some savings will be generated by the removal of the exemption from income of payments by trade unions and friendly societies, but they cannot be estimated as it is not known how many service pensioners receive such payments. Removal of the exemption is justifiable on the ground of equity. The biggest single cost is the indexation of fringe benefits levels: $0.565m in 1983-84; $1.488m in 1984-85 ; and $2.578m in 1985-86. This provision, as I have already stated, is designed to help those most in need of assistance. The fact that the Government has been able to make increases at all in what is a large Veterans' Affairs budget, at a time when it is attempting to keep costs down, is evidence of its commitment to those veterans who are seriously incapacitated and to those totally or substantially dependent on government assistance. These Budget initiatives are partial realisation of the Government's commitment as detailed in the Australian Labor Party platform to improve the benefits to veterans and their dependants to ensure that their sacrifices for their country are not forgotten. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Messner) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 1.43 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. The Attorney- General will recall yesterday discussing at Question Time the inadequate and inconclusive report from Commissioner Abbott to the New South Wales Government which touched on allegations of corruption in that State's prison system and investigations into international drug trafficking. I ask the Attorney-General: In light of the grave concern expressed by the Costigan and Redlich reports tabled here yesterday by him, will he assure the Senate that the national crimes authority proposal currently before the Labor Caucus will provide a mechanism for the fullest inquiry into all aspects of the matters which are the subject of such serious public disquiet in New South Wales and that it is an adequate mechanism to ensure that action will be taken? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not my intention, nor would it be proper, to indicate an answer to this question. The details of the proposal are now being debated within the Government. All I can say is that the proposal does involve the creation of an effective crime monitoring and crime investigating national organisation which will involve the utilisation of the Commonwealth's powers, to the extent that they are constitutionally available, and will also provide a mechanism for co-operation by the States in the areas of the investigation and monitoring of crime where the Commonwealth's constitutional powers do not reach. I believe that an organisation of this kind, constructed in this way, will be an appropriate mechanism to deal at least with matters generally of this kind. Beyond that, I do not think it is possible for me to comment. In the particular circumstances of this case, as I have already indicated, the Commonwealth has investigated this matter to the full extent of its constitutional competence. It has handed over the matter to the States to investigate within the limits of their constitutional and other competence. It would appear that there the matter has been obliged now to rest. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I note the use by the Attorney-General of words like 'monitoring', 'investigating' and 'co- operation'. I take it from that that the proposal he has before the Caucus is not a proposal which will take action, that it is something which would produce more information about crime and in fact do nothing about it. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, that is less a supplementary question than a tendentious assertion. I reject the imputations behind it. Senator Chaney —Is it true or false? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is absolutely false. In short, yes. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister read a recent article in the National Farmer which is headlined 'How farmers will lead our economic recovery' ? In view of the negative and ill-informed attacks by the Queensland National Party on the Government's policies on promoting the rural economy, can the Minister describe the role that the Commonwealth Government sees for the rural sector in the economic recovery that will take place under Labor's policies? Furthermore, will the Minister also ensure that Queensland National Party senators receive copies of this enlightened article in the National Farmer? Senator WALSH —Yes, I have had drawn to my attention that article in the National Farmer. It broadly confirms, of course, what the Government has been saying for some time, that is, that the growth in the farm sector alone is expected to add 2 per cent to total gross domestic product growth in this financial year. The non-farm real GDP growth anticipated is 5 per cent. The farm GDP growth is 2 per cent, making a total of 7 per cent in all. We cannot expect similar increases of that magnitude in the GDP arising from the farm sector to continue in future years. A total increase of 2 per cent in real GDP from the farm sector is, of course, an enormous contribution from the farm sector, given that its total contribution to GDP is usually somewhere between 8 and 10 per cent. Net farm incomes, of course, will rise more than proportionately to the increase in farm products. The macroeconomic policies of the Government in general, which are directed at limiting income and wages growth, prices, getting down interest rates and, consequently, getting down inflation are, however, of ongoing importance to the agricultural sector. Although we no longer live in the pre-1971 period of fixed exchange rates, currency rates are not immediately adjusted or adjusted on a one to one ratio to reflect different inflation rates in different countries. In all that macroeconomic area the policies being pursued by this Government will be to the advantage of the agricultural sector. In the last part of Senator Reynold's question she asked me whether I would ensure that National Party senators from Queensland get a copy of this article. I will think about that. If one does a quick cost benefit analysis of that proposition, I think it would probably come out negatively in that I suspect that they are ineducable and, therefore, there would be no point in circulating to them a copy of that article. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I ask: Has the Attorney noted the recommendation of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Robert Redlich, in his report tabled yesterday that 'a robust independent national authority' should be established to meet what he assessed as the 'national crisis' of organised crime? Has the Attorney-General brought this recommendation to the attention of the Government and, more particularly, to the members of the Labor Caucus? Will he assure the Senate that this assessment of Mr Redlich's combined with Commissioner Costigan's well-known views on the subject, will prevent a further watering down of the powers of this much delayed authority? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have, of course, noted Mr Redlich's conclusion and recommendation to that effect. I am sure that that has been noted by other members of the Government and the Caucus. I endorse the sentiments of Mr Redlich in this respect as I have made clear on numerous previous occasions. The particular model of a crime authority that I have in mind in fact bears a much closer resemblance to that given Mr Redlich's approval than the rather more draconian model for which Mr Costigan has expressed public enthusiasm. I have no doubt that in the debate that still continues within and outside the Government, all the matters adverted to both by Mr Redlich and Mr Costigan in their respective reports will be given full and appropriate consideration by the Government and appropriate action will follow. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister for Social Security. Until December 1982, handicapped students in northern Tasmania had been able to attend St Andrew's College at Launceston. I understand this building, which was funded by the Federal Government, is now standing empty. What will be the future use of this building? Is that use subject to the Minister's approval? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Hearn said, St Andrew's residential college was used for handicapped children in the north of Tasmania until December last year when the organisation which controlled it closed it down. It was built with Federal assistance. At the moment discussions between officers of my Department in Tasmania and the relevant organisation are proceeding. It seems a pity-I am sure Senator Hearn agrees-that such a facility should be there and not be used when there is the potential for use. I hope that arrangements can be made not only with the organisation itself but also with other organisations which are seeking accommodation in Launceston so that a satisfactory use can be made of the property. As the property was partly purchased with and supported by Commonwealth funds, the Commonwealth is involved. It is for that reason that I and my departmental officers are involved. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence a question about an installation not in Queensland but at Watsonia in Victoria. Is it a fact that a 60 foot diameter dish located at the Watsonia Barracks in Melbourne is the ground terminal for the United States Defense Satellite Communications System? Is it true that this facility, part of Project Sparrow, is involved in the transmission of signals intelligence to the United States of America, which enables it to pinpoint Soviet nuclear submarines in the Indian and Pacific Oceans? Is it the Government's assessment that this facility gives the United States the technological capacity to launch a first strike against Soviet submarines and thus contribute to American nuclear war fighting capability? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that there is a satellite communications facility at Watsonia in Victoria which enables Australia to communicate with the United States of America on intelligence matters. I am told the facility accesses the United States Defense Satellite Communications System. This Government, as with previous governments, will neither confirm or deny details relating to intelligence matters. The problems for governments in dealing with claims about intelligence matters is that if they are accurate, and the government concerned confirms their accuracy, potential enemies will be provided with valuable military information. Conversely, if the claims are inaccurate in part or in whole, denial of claims that are inaccurate will, over time, also allow potentially unfriendly governments to build up a picture of what intelligence capabilities are or are not possessed. I am sure that Senator Chipp will appreciate that situation. In relation to the last part of his question which concerns the general question of the United States' first strike capabilities, I believe I can do no more than refer the honourable senator to the 1984 United States Defense Report recently presented to Congress by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger which includes the following unequivocal statement: First, our strategy is defensive. It excludes the possibility that the United States would initiate a war or launch a pre-emptive strike against the forces or territories of other nations. Senator CHIPP —I ask a supplementary question-I believe it is a true supplementary question. I asked the Attorney whether this facility was located at Watsonia and whether it sends intelligence signals to pinpoint Soviet nuclear submarines in the Indian and Pacific oceans? I also asked whether it is the Government's assessment that this facility gives the United States the technological capacity to launch a first rate pre-emptive strike against Soviet submarines. The Attorney did not answer that question for the proper reasons that he gave. He simply said: 'They are there for intelligence matters'. Am I to understand from this-I just want to get it clear as a citizen of Melbourne-that this suburb eight or nine miles out of downtown Melbourne has a facility which could be a prime nuclear target? Are the people of Melbourne to be kept in ignorance of the possible fact that Watsonia, eight miles out of Melbourne, could or would be a prime nuclear target of the Soviets in the case of a pre- emptive strike? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not believe it is the case that any writer on Australia's defence installations, including even Desmond Ball, has specifically identified the Watsonia facility as a nuclear target in the terms in which Senator Chipp describes it. I am not sure that it is possible for me to add anything further to my response. However, I will seek a further reply from the Minister for Defence, or the Minister for Foreign Affairs for that matter, if either of them feels able to add further and better particulars along the lines of the answers I have already given to a number of other questions on the nuclear targeting aspects of Australia's defence policy. Senator JONES —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation whether it is the case that Air Queensland has suffered losses in providing air services to locations in western Queensland and whether these losses, if they continue, may jeopardise the future of those services. Will the Government take action to help maintain the viability of those services for western Queenslanders? Senator GIETZELT —I have been advised that the services of Air Queensland from Brisbane to the western Queensland towns of Alpha, Barcaldine and Longreach do indeed run at a loss and this is a matter about which the Government has expressed some concern. It may be that there will be a very sharp deterioration in services if these losses continue. In fact, the services could be put in jeopardy. The Federal Government recognises its obligation to help in the provision of better communications to citizens and has made available $50,000 on the basis of a dollar for dollar contribution by the Queensland Government to subsidise the services at least until 31 December 1983. At that stage the Government is prepared to consider further subsidisation. It will be prepared to review the temporary arrangements which are intended to identify appropriate longer term measures to meet the air transport needs of isolated Queensland communities. As you well know, Mr President, Queensland suffers greatly from the fact that many towns are a long way from the capital city of Brisbane. Therefore , there is an obligation upon the Commonwealth to assist if at all possible. Senator WALTERS —Will the Attorney-General explain why he is now so much less definite about when the Government's national crimes authority will be revealed in all its modified splendour? Does he recall last week chiding Senator Durack for his impatience and assuring the Senate that all would be well? I think his words were: 'I hope in another week or two'. But yesterday he admitted to Senator Hill that he was now not in a position to make a final judgment on its timing. Does this retreat simply reflect yet another Caucus defeat for the Attorney-General or does it reveal the Hawke Government's fear that the early establishment of an effective national crime fighting organisation would seriously embarass the Wran Government in New South Wales which once again is unable to throw off the air of corruption pervading its administration of justice. Senator GARETH EVANS —As much as I would like to be able to satisfy the blood lust of Senator Walters, I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to give her the further details she requires. It may be necessary, accordingly, for me to go on chiding Senator Durack and others, as I have been doing now for some time, for their impatience and, indeed, their general behaviour in matters of public policy. Senator CROWLEY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I have received a number of submissions regarding the proposed new categorisation of nurses by the public Service in the trades and related staff at the operational level, following the abolition of the divisional structure of the Publc Service. There is considerable concern at such classification and I understand other groups have raised objections about their categorisations. Can the Minister say what stage Public Service Board categorisations have reached? Further, can the Minister say whether there have been many protests and what steps will be taken to deal with those protests? Senator BUTTON —Probably it comes as no surprise to the Senate that I am not exactly au fait with the relationship between the Public Service Board and the nursing organisations in Canberra. Senator Crowley was courteous enough to give me some notice of this question. The amendment to the Public Service Act in 1982 provided for the abolition of the four-tier divisional structure of the Public Service. I think this has been generally regarded as a desirable reform. As a consequence, the Public Service Board set about making plans to organise the Service into occupational groupings. Notice of this intention was given on 7 June 1983 by means of a draft memorandum attempting to classify occupational groups into categories. One of those groups was nurses, who were professionally placed into a trades and related operational sub-category. In answer to the specific point of the question, yes, the Public Service Board has received numerous complaints and representations about this classification of nurses. As a result of the wide range of complaints, the proposal has been completely reviewed. In a memo issued on 23 September the Public Service Board announced that it was dropping its initial proposal entirely. I should add that further attempts will be made by the Public Service Board to organise the Service in the way desired, but on this occasion the very vehement wishes of nurses will be taken into greater account. Senator LAJOVIC —Has the Attorney-General taken steps to identify and discipline the lawyer from the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office in charge of a joint prosecuting task force who, in the Special Prosecutor's presence, argued against releasing any information to another task force? Will the Attorney-General make it quite clear to officers of his Department that co-operation between law enforcement bodies is essential in combating organised crime? Senator GARETH EVANS —The incident to which Senator Lajovic referred is one of some other examples of this kind adverted to by Mr Redlich in his report. The report is critical of what Mr Redlich perceives to be a lack of co-operation and co-ordination between a number of Commonwealth authorities, departments and agencies in the area of offences against Commonwealth law. I do not think it is appropriate that that particular matter should be the case for any witchhunt- type investigation of the kind that Senator Lajovic would egg me on to. Rather it is a demonstration of what I think has been a structural and organisational problem within the Attorney-General's Department, and more partciularly within the whole Commonwealth, so far as its capacity to deal with and effectively prosecute a crime is concerned. That of course is very much the subject matter of, among other things, the departmental review which I announced yesterday. It will be more specifically addressed in the context of the legislation and subsequent administrative action to establish a directorate of public prosecutions, which legislation will be introduced into the Parliament, I hope, very shortly. Beyond that it is a matter of developing better arrangements for co-ordination and the removal of some of the traditional feudal mentality that has undoubtedly existed between the respective statutory authority fiefdoms in the Commonwealth administration, both in this and in a number of other respects. I am not sure that can be accomplished overnight. We are certainly aware of the problem. We are taking very active steps to solve it, both right now and in the context of the activities of the special prosecutors, which range over both civil and associated criminal matters. More partciularly, we will be addressing the problem, as I said, in the context of the extablishment of a directorate of public prosecutions. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to a report which appeared in the Australian newspaper of 6 October in which it was claimed: The Federal Government may introduce a levy on uranium exports to fund research into the disposal of nuclear waste. The report continued: The Northern Territory Chamber of Mines responded favourably to the levy proposal. Is such a levy under consideration by the Government? Has such a proposal been discussed with the uranium mining industry? If so, what has been the industry's response? Senator WALSH —I have seen a report in the Australian-I think it was of the same date-regarding this question. I have also received a telex from the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, which I do not seem to have with me. However, the facts are that the honourable member for the Northern Territory, Mr Reeves, raised with me, when I was in Darwin a couple of weeks ago, the suggestion that an export levy be applied to uranium for the specific purpose of funding research into waste disposal. Of course, such a practice is not without precedent. A levy is applied for the purpose of defraying the cost of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. Mr Reeves proposed another levy for an additional purpose on the ground that increased funds for research into waste disposal were more likely to increase the chances of overcoming the problem and the problem having been overcome, a great deal of the soundly based concerns about the nuclear power industry would, therefore, be removed. I raised that matter with the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines. Its response was, in my judgment, non- committal. However, the matter was reported in the Press in somewhat different and stronger terms than a suggestion coming from Mr Reeves which I said I believed was worthy of consideration. I still do. In one report-I think it was the report in the Australian to which Senator Giles referred-a figure of 5 per cent was mentioned as being the levy that the Government was contemplating. There is no substance to such a figure. It is not correct, as has been reported-I think in the Australian-that a spokesman from my office indicated that the Government was committed to such a policy. There is no such commitment. My position is the same now as it has been all along, that is, that Mr Reeves's suggestion in my view, is worthy of serious consideration. I take this opportunity to assure the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines that neither I nor my office was responsible for what one might call the beat up versions of what I said which have appeared in some newspapers. Senator JESSOP —I refer the Attorney-General to an interview on the AM program in which he suggested a degree of dissatisfaction with the way in which Commissioner Costigan conducts his investigations. Has the Government taken, or does it plan to take, any steps to change the direction of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union? Does the Attorney-General's apparent dissatisfaction with what he described today as Mr Costigan's 'adventurous investigation technique' have a purely professional motivation or is it an attempt by the Government to subtly muzzle the Commissioner. Senator GARETH EVANS —I said nothing on AM this morning that I have not said on innumerable other public occasions over the last few months while this issue as to the proper role and scope of a crimes commission or a crimes authority has been debated. I certainly do not in any way express dissatisfaction with what I described as the adventurous investigative techniques embarked upon by Mr Costigan. Indeed, I was laudatory of what those techniques had produced by way of very significant information about the nature and extent of organised crime in this country. I would certainly wish that kind of investigation to continue, whether by Mr Costigan or some other differently structured organisation. I expressed the view, as I have on other public occasions, that I believe it is appropriate that investigations be particularly focused on the need to elicit admissible evidence which can substantiate subsequent prosecutions. To the extent that there has been less of a focus on that and more of a focus on pursuing investigative trails without stopping to gather hard admissible evidence, then I have been suggesting that a change of focus and approach may, to that extent, be desirable. I have certainly communicated that view to Mr Costigan. He is well aware of it. I am sure he has been taking that into account in the course of his investigations, certainly over the last few months. I might also say-I did not get an opportunity to say this on the radio program this morning-that it is not only by actual prosecutions that the success of an enterprise such as Mr Costigan's should be measured. Much can be done along the way. I know Mr Costigan and Mr Meagher emphasised this in explaining what they were about to alert other instrumentalities and agencies to problems in their own procedures, organisational legislation, which allows money to be lost by means of fraudulent schemes of one kind or another. It is true that the alerting of other law enforcement agencies to the possible commission of offences and to the possible identity of offenders can be a very great utility indeed to those law enforcement agencies as they go about their tasks. Yet that may never emerge as part of the final reporting of the Commission itself in relation to its own mainstream investigations. It is very important that that spin-off or consequential benefit of the kind of enterprise that Mr Costigan's Commission has been conducting should be fully appreciated. I do not wish to be understood in any way as being critical of the overall performance and achievements of that Royal Commission. The only point I make-I have repeated it endlessly in public forums and in this Parliament-is that if we are to establish any form of ongoing organisation to monitor and investigate organised and sophisticated crime in this country, it does need to be rather better defined both as to the powers to be exercised and the safeguards on those powers than is now the case as a matter of law so far as royal commissions are concerned. I believe that is a view that would be shared by all honourable senators in this place on both sides of the Parliament. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Following the recent decision by General Motors-Holden's Ltd to close down the Acacia Ridge plant and following the question asked yesterday by Senator Foreman I am concerned about the possible misuse of the export credit facilitation scheme for car manufacturers that was introduced by the Fraser Government. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the intended purposes of this scheme? What have been the effects on the work force employed in the vehicle building industry as a result of it? Is there any evidence that Australia's car manufacturers have abused the scheme by importing large quantities of manufactured components produced with a high labour content while, at the same time, curtailing their Australian operations? Further, is the Government considering reviewing the export credit facilitation scheme or considering tightening its provisions to prevent possible misuse? Senator BUTTON —A number of questions are contained in that one smorgasbord which has been thrown at me. I will try to deal with them one by one as they came up. First of all, I was asked about the purpose of the export facilitation scheme and the possible misuse of that scheme. The essential purpose of the export facilitation scheme, as I understand it, is to expose the manufacturers of component parts of cars to more import competition over a number of years. The purpose of that was to try to ensure greater efficiencies and rationalisation within the component part manufacturing industry. It is very difficult to say, at this stage, whether the purposes of that scheme have, in any way, been achieved. It is also very difficult to say what the effects of the implementation of the scheme on employment are. I must say that that depends very much on a wide variety of factors about which, if I might offer the opinion , quite outrageous assumptions are made in certain circles varying from massive effects on employment to no effects on employment. All I am prepared to say is that the situation is somewhere in the middle between those two wild estimates. I was asked also whether there is evidence of misuse of the export facilitation scheme in that car manufacturers import into Australia component parts which are either inferior or made at very low cost because of low-cost labour in the countries of origin and so on. I think it may be correct to say that there are certainly a large number of allegations to the effect that there have been some examples of transfer pricing operating in respect of particular component parts of particular vehicles by some manufacturers. That matter is currently the subject of investigation by officers of my Department. I would like to add that the general issues raised in Senator Richardson's question are now the subject of discussion by the Car Industry Council which was formed last week and which had its first meeting on Wednesday of this week. That Council has established a number of working parties some of which are directed towards the specific topic about which Senator Richardson is concerned. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In addition to the enormous risk of the Iran-Iraq conflict spreading to involve the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, is the Minister aware of the dangers to Western oil supplies that could result from the French Government's decision to supply Iraq with Super-Etandard war planes capable of firing the French made Exocet missiles ? Since Western Europe and the United States have urged the French Government not to proceed with this sale, has the Australian Government expressed an opinion to the French Government as to the wisdom or morality of its supplying Iraq with those planes? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Government is well aware of the dangers of escalation of the conflict between Iran and Iraq. Obviously, we do not wish to see it extend to other countries in the region. Any disruption of the movement of oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz would be an additional reason for concern. It would be incorrect to portray the arrangements apparently under way for France to supply Super-Etandard aircraft to Iraq as a significant alteration to the military balance in the region. For instance, it is the Government's understanding that Iraq has had Exocet missiles for quite some time, deliverable by other aircraft. The acquisition of Super-Etandard aircraft does, however, clearly add a new psychological factor in what has become, to a large extent, a stalemate. It would be a matter of real concern if an escalation of the conflict were to result. I am advised that Australia has expressed to French officials our general concern about the dangers of expansion of the conflict and the risks this would pose to oil supplies. I have no advice or information as to the response that was received to that. If I can obtain further particulars I will advise the honourable senator. Senator SIBRAA —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In view of the Australian Labor Party's stated policy to repeal the sections of the Trade Practices Act which imposed penalties on trade unions and union oficials for legitimate forms of industrial action and taking into account the increasing urgency for repealing section 45D of the Trade Practices Act because of the likelihood of further national industrial action in the oil industry, on the waterfront and in other areas as indicated by the Transport Workers Union for one, I ask: Will the Minister inform the Senate when the relevant amending legislation will be introduced into the Parliament? Senator BUTTON —I cannot give the honourable senator the answer to that question because I am not sure. The matter is subject to current review by the Government and an announcement will be made at the appropriate time. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Is the Leader of the Government aware that, according to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force figures released today, Queensland has gone against the national trend of increased unemployment, with the rate dropping by 0.4 per cent, while in New South Wales it has increased by 0.3 per cent, in Victoria by 0.8 per cent, in South Australia by 0. 1 per cent, and in Western Australia by 0.5 per cent? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that Commonwealth statistical information illustrates that Queensland has outperformed every other State in the implementation of its wages pause programs? Senator BUTTON —I really am delighted in the words of Senator Bjelke-Petersen to have confirmation that Queensland has gone against the national trend. What is new about that I do not know. Queensland has been going against the national trend for a number of years now under the leadership of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. I simply make the point that if Senator Bjelke-Petersen is concerned about statistics and indices of welfare and economic stability and recovery in Queensland, they are not too good and they are against the national trend. I have not studied the figures. If Queensland's unemployment has dropped by 0.4 per cent on the latest monthly figures that is very welcome, because it will be the first month in which it has happened for some time. We welcome that as a Government, and we would welcome any other improvement in the situation of the people of Queensland. We believe that that will be brought about on 22 October when there is a change of government. Senator GEORGES —Has the Attorney-General received expressions of concern about the charging under the Crimes Act of ten members of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia not only with contempt but also with conspiracy arising out of their refusal to testify before the Costigan Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union? Can the Attorney-General indicate who is conducting the prosecutions and whether it is intended that they should proceed? Senator GARETH EVANS —The matters to which Senator Georges has referred arose from a ruling given by the Royal Commissioner, Mr Costigan, on 27 July, which he drew to my attention in subsequent correspondence, in relation to the failure of certain witnesses from the Painters and Dockers Union to answer questions. The ruling involved his conclusion that an offence appeared to have been committed under section 6 of the Royal Commissions Act by the witnesses in question. Arising out of that, and before I had had a chance to do anything by way of evaluating the possibility of the commission of an offence, arrest warrants were issued and executed against 10 painters and dockers on 18 August. Ten of them were charged with conspiracy to effect an unlawful purpose against the laws of the Commonwealth, namely, to refuse to answer questions before the Costigan Royal Commission. Eight of them were charged with the actual offence which can be described in shorthand as contempt, that is, under section 6 of the Act, which involves the refusal of a witness to answer questions put to him by a royal commission and relevant to its inquiry. Mr Redlich, who as special prosecutor was carrying on these prosecutions in effect arising out of the Costigan Commission's recommendations, has now advised me in a letter I received yesterday that the conspiracy charges should be withdrawn and that the prosecution should proceed only in relation to the substantive charges under section 6 of the Royal Commissions Act. The reasons advanced by Mr Redlich for this conclusion, and I believe they are important, are, firstly, the delay in referring to the Crown for prosecution the first refusal by a defendant to give evidence. That was as long ago as 9 February 1982 . Secondly, doubt whether evidence of the refusal by a defendant before the Commission to answer questions would be admissible against him in a conspiracy charge having regard to the restrictions imposed on the use of evidence given before a Royal Commission by section 6DD of the Royal Commissions Act. Thirdly, the strong disapproval recorded by the High Court in Queen v. Hoar (1981) 34 ALR 357 as to instituting conspiracy charges when substantive charges are available on the same facts. Mr Redlich points out in effect that, if the charges are confined to substantive offences, all of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences will be placed before the court so that, if the defendants are found guilty, the court will be able to punish the defendants with full knowledge of the circumstances leading to the refusal by each defendant to answer questions put to him by the Royal Commission. I agree completely with Mr Redlich's conclusion. In my view, the conspiracy charges are and always were manifestly inappropriate in the circumstances of this case. Mr Redlich's advice has of course been accepted by the police informant. The conspiracy charges will accordingly be withdrawn but the charges under section 6 of the Royal Commissions Act against the eight defendants who refused to answer the Royal Commission's questions will be continued. Senator REID —My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I ask the Minister whether she is aware of the decision of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly in relation to Radford College: That this Assembly reiterates its support for, and calls upon the Government to confirm its commitment to the unequivocal statement of the Prime Minister Mr Hawke, as reported on 3.3.83 that 'we will ensure that the school is built'; and , 2. That the extraneous matters referred to in the Anderson Committee of Review into the impact of Radford College that do not specifically relate to the building of Radford College as planned, be rejected by the Government. Can this community be confident that the Government will accept the advice of the House of Assembly and honour the commitment of the Prime Minister? Senator RYAN —I am rather surprised that Senator Reid has chosen to use this forum to bring to my attention the views that are expressed in another democratically elected forum. Senator Withers —Why? Can't you answer it? Senator RYAN —It is usually the practice of the House of Assembly to send to me any resolutions it moves in areas for which I am responsible. I am sure that it will do the same in the case of the motions to which Senator Reid's question referred. When it does, I will respond to it. Senator BOLKUS —Can the Minister for Resources and Energy say whether any progress has been made in finalising a tender for the construction of the Burdekin Dam? If a decision has been made, can the Minister provide information on the name of the successful tenderer, the number of tenders received, the value of the tender or the estimated cost of construction? However, if the tender has not been finalised, can the Minister give any further information to the Senate about the present position of the tender for construction works? Senator WALSH —Eleven firms have been invited to tender for the construction of the dam and tenders closed on 20 September. The Queensland Government, apparently following the proper procedures for once, examined the tenders and announced on the tenth of this month that it favours the lowest tender, which has not always been the practice in Queensland either, I understand. The lowest bid was for tender of $45.6m received from Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd which, like most of the other low tenderers, is a reputable and experienced contractor. The tenders must be submitted to the Commonwealth Government, and specifically to me, for final approval and are therefore subject to Commonwealth veto if the Commonwealth chooses to exercise such a veto. Since in this case the Queensland Government appears to have applied the proper procedures, unusual though that may be, I see no reason to veto the tender which I expect to be recommended by Queensland. The fact that the Commonwealth does have that power of veto may account for proper procedures having been followed by the Queensland Government on this occasion, as distinct from a number of other occasions. The Govenrment is conscious of the tight timetable for constructing the dam wall and will do nothing to impede progress. We will, however, closely examine the tenders to make sure that the taxpayers of Australia are getting value for their money. Also, I will make an announcement of the final decision as soon as possible. I should add that this Government has accepted, in a legally binding form, the responsibility for funding the construction of the Burdekin Dam. It has exceeded the commitments given in the Labor Party's north Queensland policy which was released in, I think, November last year and provided for funding for the construction of the dam on a two-for-one basis. This Government has exceeded the undertaking it gave in its north Queensland policy. It has agreed to fund the construction of the dam in total and to put that into a legally binding form , in a way that the Fraser Government had not done. The final proof of the fact that the Fraser Government, although it spent some money last year, had not put that agreement in legally binding form came from the former Treasurer who, in an interview published in the Age about six weeks ago, is reported to have said that, of course, if the Fraser Government had been returned, the Burdekin project would have been one of those considered for the axe. Senator Button —Is that the discredited former Treasurer? Senator WALSH —Yes, the discredited former Treasurer, but in that case I believe he was being absolutely frank and honest in admitting that had the Fraser Government been returned the Burdekin project would have been one considered for the axe-he did not say that it would have got the axe. That establishes more clearly than anything else possibly can that there was not a firm commitment in principle, let alone a legally binding commitment, by the previous Government to continue funding the Burdekin Dam. If Senator Sir John Carrick wants to dispute that I suggest he take it up with his deputy leader, who said and was reported in the Press about six weeks ago as saying that if the Fraser Government had been returned the Burdekin project would have been of of those considered for the axe. Senator KILGARIFF —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, refers to a report on AM of Tuesday, 11 October in which it was stated that: 'While the good offices of Mr Hayden endeavour to hold the ALP Caucus at bay, they could well decide to remove the remaining RAAF squadron from Malaysia and as well demand that aid be renewed to Vietnam'. I ask : Is that report accurate and, in view of the present coolness in relations between the Australian Government and the Association of South East Asian Nations, is there any move for the remaining squadron to be returned from Malaysia to the Australian mainland? Also, in regard to that part of the statement concerning the demand that aid be renewed to Vietnam, will the Minister advise the Senate on the matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no present cause for alarm, on Senator Kilgariff's behalf or anyone else's behalf, concerning either of the matters to which he has referred. Both are under review, as one would expect, with a Government responsibly trying to work out its relationships with its regional neighbours. When the time comes for an announcement on either or both of the matters to which Senator Kilgariff has referred, it will be made by the relevant Ministers. If there is any further specific information that I am able to give him after consultation with the relevant Ministers-being unable to scurry through my brief , given the unaccustomed brevity of Senator Kilgariff's question-I will do so in due course. Senator FOREMAN —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, whether he has seen the report in the Weekend Australian of 8 October entitled 'Macphee throws down the gauntlet on wages', in which it is revealed that there is a battle within the Federal Opposition over wages policy. Does the Minister agree with the comments made by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, at the weekend, that the decentralised wage fixing system, as advocated by Mr Howard, would mean open slather for the strong unions? What would be the consequences for the economy generally of the Howard free-for-all approach to wage fixation? Senator BUTTON —I did not see the report in the Weekend Australian under the title 'Macphee throws down the gauntlet on wages'. However, I have had the opportunity of reading a transcript of Mr Macphee's speech to the industrial relations seminar on which the report in the Weekend Australian was based. I must say that it was a most articulate and well argued speech in presenting Mr Macphee's case in relation to centralised wage fixation and other matters. Yes, surprisingly enough, I do agree with the Prime Minister on this issue: A decentralised wage fixation system would mean open slather for the stronger unions. That is precisely the sort of point that Mr Macphee makes in the paper he gave to the seminar last week. I am asked also what would be the consequences for the economy generally of the Howard free-for-all approach to wage fixation, as I think Senator Foreman put it . Let me say that while I could not speak with any great authority on that matter, there are two or three very obvious consequences of the approach adopted by Mr Howard to wage fixation. The most obvious result of all would be that there would be a very considerable misallocation of resources, both labour and social, and many problems associated with that misallocation. It is important to remember that the sorts of considerations to which Mr Macphee addresed his mind, in relation to wage fixation, are those that are essentially conservative in the true sense; namely, that he sees the importance of the traditional development of wage policy in Australia and the importance of the centralised wage fixation system as it has obtained for a very long period, and on the basis of those factors analyses the economic dislocation which would arise, as Senator Foreman' s question suggests. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, refers to the answer given by Senator Walsh to Senator Cook in the Senate yesterday, in the course of which Senator Walsh produced what purported to be copies of two cheques and two cheque butts and referred to the name 'N. Crichton-Browne' as appearing on one of the cheque butts. I draw the attention of Senator Walsh to Senator Crichton-Browne's firm statement that he had no business dealings with Mr Christo Moll, directly or indirectly, and now ask the Minister whether, in accordance with normal ministerial and Senate practice, he can authenticate the documents that he produced and from which he read. Senator WALSH —The photocopies in question were supplied to me from a source which I am not prepared to disclose. All politicians get information from sources which they are not prepared to disclose. Senator Walters —Do you even know? The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is answering a very serious question. Senator WALSH —I know what the ultimate source is but I received it on a confidential basis and therefore will not disclose it. As for Senator Crichton- Browne's denial, he has denied before things of which he was not accused. I reported the facts concerning what was written on those cheque butts. I might add that Senator Crichton-Browne's definition in the past of what is a direct or indirect interest has been shown to be different from that which most people would adopt as defining a direct or indirect interest. For example, he held the position of mining registrar at Marble Bar at the same time as he held, I think, 5,000 shares in Burrill Investments, which was a company set up-- Senator Crichton-Browne —More lies. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The honourable senator will withdraw that remark. Senator Crichton-Browne —I apologise, Mr President. One cannot help but be tempted to object as long as that man states untruths. But I withdraw in accordance with your request. The PRESIDENT —The honourable senator has withdrawn. I call the Minister. Senator WALSH —I was drawing attention to the fact that Senator Crichton-Browne' s conception of what is a direct or indirect interest has been shown in the past to be substantially at variance with what most people would conceive to be a direct or indirect interest. He held, I think, 5,000 shares in Burrill Investments, a company which was set up for trading in shares and which, as the Senate committee chaired by Senator Peter Rae showed, was very heavily involved in trading in Poseidon shares at the time the market was being rigged, and that principals of that company were indeed actively involved. I think that a fair description of the findings of Senator Rae's committee is that principals of the company were actively involved in the rigging of that market. The importance of that is that at that time-- Senator Jessop —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I find it very difficult to relate this answer to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a simple question asking whether the Minister could or could not vouch for the authenticity of the document presented yesterday. I cannot see that delving into other matters has any relevance to this particular question. I ask you to draw the Minister's attention to that. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister not to debate the matter, but to relate his remarks to the question that has been asked. Senator WALSH —The question asked included a reference to the statement made by Senator Crichton-Browne following Question Time yesterday. It is with that aspect of the question that I am dealing, since the words 'direct or indirect interest' were used by Senator Crichton-Browne. At the time he was a shareholder in Burrill Investments, under circumstances which I have described, he was also the mining registrar in Marble Bar. Section 8 of the Mining Act of Western Australia, from memory, states that no person who holds the position of registrar or warden is permitted to hold a direct or indirect interest in any company associated with mining. Senator Crichton-Browne was ultimately charged under this Act and acquitted. I do not have time to go into a critique of the way in which the Crown presented its case, but I would be happy to do so at some other time. Senator Crichton- Browne obviously saw no problem in being the mining registrar at Marble Bar and being a substantial shareholder in a company which was dealing in Poseidon shares in a rigged market which that company had helped to rig. He saw no conflict between simultaneously being a major shareholder in that company and holding the position of mining registrar at Marble Bar in spite of the strictures of section 8 of the Western Australian Mining Act. Senator Townley —Mr President, I raise a point of order. How long are you going to put up with this diatribe from the honourable gentleman, who is not relating his remarks at all to the question that was asked? Are you going to go down as the President who lets Ministers get away with things like this? The PRESIDENT —Order! The Chair will not be subjected to threats like that. Senator Sir John Carrick —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 418 and specifically to the words: . . . and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. I put to you, Mr President, that you have been listening to imputations against a member of this Senate and that they ought to be ruled out of order. The Minister ought to be called to order because he is in defiance of standing order 418. The PRESIDENT —I suggest to the Minister that he relate his remarks very much to the question that has been asked by Senator Chaney. I really feel that the Minister is tending to debate the issue now, and he should very much relate any future remarks to the question. Senator WALSH —I was about to finish my remarks, Mr President. I have one thing to add and that is that what is direct or indirect interest is obviously for some people a matter for subjective judgment. I am not sure what Senator Crichton-Browne had in mind when he stated yesterday that he had no direct or indirect interest. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Since the Minister is not prepared to answer the question, I ask him again whether he has seen the originals of the documents that he produced the photocopies of. Can he vouch for the copies being true copies of the originals? Can he tell the Senate when the documents were written and by whom they were written? Is he in any position to say whether what was written is correct or incorrect? Senator WALSH —I can answer most of the questions that Senator Chaney has asked but I do not believe it would be possible to do so without disclosing a source which I regard as confidential. I noticed that one of the colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Repesentatives yesterday quoted what was said in an anonymous telephone call made to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I have taken considerable steps to follow through the authenticity of the cheques. I have no reason to believe that the photocopies tabled yesterday are not photocopies of original cheques. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(3.06) —I present the report of the Senate Select Committee on Statutory Authority Financing, volume 2, together with the transcript of evidence presented to the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report is volume 2 of the report of the Select Committee on Statutory Authority Financing. The report itself is very brief, but included is an econometric study prepared by a consultant to the Committee, Dr C. R. Weston, entitled 'Estimating the Impact of Statutory Authorities on the Australian Economy'. Also attached is the transcript of evidence of hearings held by the former Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations about the operation of the Australian Loan Council, and the recommendations of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and their impact in relation to capital markets and statutory authority borrowings. The copy of the report that will be circulated today does not have the transcript of evidence attached, as a bound copy of the report is in course of preparation by the Government Printer. Until the bound copy is available copies of the transcript are available on request from the Secretary to the Committee. This is the Select Committee's final report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. [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 GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.19) —in reply-I thank all honourable senators for their contributions to this cognate debate on five Government and four private members' measures for the alteration of the Constitution. I believe that the second reading debate we have just now completed has been an important and interesting one, not only for those of us who are interested in this sort of thing, but also for the Australian community generally. The five Government measures, which I am pleased to say have secured very general, if not unanimous, support in this chamber, deal respectively with simultaneous elections, four-year terms, the inter-change of powers, advisory opinions from the High Court and the removal of obsolete and expended provisions . It is proper that they should have been generally supported because they are all measures which have received either unanimous or very strong cross-party support at successive sessions of the Australian Constitutional Convention. Equally, it is proper that they should have been supported, because all of them do a great deal to improve the machinery of government, the quality of democratic government in this country. It is not sufficient, of course, for Senator Withers to appreciate the merits of the Bills in these terms. He has described the measures before us as, if put to the people, generating a trivia-led recovery. I simply say that the only recovery that Senator Withers could ever lead would be a cynicism-led recovery, because he showed that quality in ample abundance today, and regrettably, that was the only positive quality that he was able to bring to this debate. The measures that have been advanced by the Government, despite the occasional fire and brimstone that has been directed at them from various parts opposite, have survived this debate with flying colours. As to the first two matters, simulated elections and four-year terms, each of these Bills deals with some of the reasons for the ludicrously frequent elections in Australia. Simultaneous elections will deal with the problem of dislocation of election dates. Whilst it may be theoretically possible to keep election dates in phase without the passage of this measure, the vagaries of political life in this country are such that to do so over a lengthy period is simply not practical, and that has been amply demonstrated in the election pattern of the last 20 years. The four-year terms proposal deals with the assocated problem that the present three-year terms of Parliament, which have themselves been in practice much less than that-an average of two years and five months over the whole period since the last war-are simply too short to provide the proper conditions for good government and for long term planning. The reality is, as I think Senator Durack rather nicely and succinctly put it, that we have had too many elections in this country and too many opportunities for the Houses to get out of phase; and I might add-I am sure that he would accept this-that we have had too many short term governments trying to cope with the complexities of government over the recent decades. It is true that two other reasons for early elections, the Prime Minister's right to call an early election and the Senate's powers to force an early election, are not addressed by these Bills in the way in which they were by the fixed term measure now withdrawn for want of bipartisan support. But it does not follow that either of these Bills creates problems, as I think Senator Macklin, for one, was wont to say. What they do is partially, but very significantly, solve the problem of too frequent elections and all the problems of governing well that flow from that. There is no doubt that there have been too many elections in this country for rational government. I do not think that any better demonstration of that was given during the course of this debate than the passage in Senator Richardson's speech when he described the experience of a New South Wales elector over the last two decades. Taking into account both Federal and State elections, there has been an election in that State almost every year since 1961. I repeat Senator Richardson's litany for the record because it graphically makes the point: In 1961, 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; in 1973, a State election; in 1974 and 1975, double dissolutions at the Federal level; in 1976, another State election; in 1977, an early Federal election; in 1978, a State election; in 1979 , no elections; in 1980, another Federal election; in 1981, a State election; in 1982, another vintage year, as Senator Richardson describes it; but then back to the polls again in March 1983. Even the most dedicated democrat would, I think, regard that as a surfeit of the democratic process and manifestly absurd in a country of any size or of any governing structure. Senator Crichton-Browne was inclined to make the debating point that the simultaneous elections Bill will not guarantee fewer elections. He says-and this is a point made by other speakers in the debate-that the simultaneous elections proposal will not prevent a Prime Minister from calling an election whenever he feels so inclined. That point can be made as a debating point. But it needs to be well and truly appreciated that there are political sanctions now very evident against a Prime Minister calling too many early elections. No one is better aware of the force of those political sanctions than the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. He made his discovery-as Mr Corcoran in South Australia had done before him a couple of years earlier-on 5 March this year. This Bill will reduce the number of elections by removing the necessity to have either separate half Senate and House of Representatives elections or early House of Representatives elections. The other major form of opposition that was expressed, such as it was, to the simultaneous elections Bill came from a number of sources. I think that Senator Hill was the most articulate expresser of them. He talked in terms of prejudicing the position of the Senate, pressing the point of view that the simultaneous elections proposal would somehow reflect on the status and more particularly the powers of the Senate. But as with the breaking the nexus proposal-which I note, incidentally, that Senator Hill supports-simultaneous elections would not reduce in any way the powers of the Senate. The influence of senators depends on their quality, not upon their numbers; nor does it depend on the time at which they are elected. It is nonsense to say that this chamber goes about its political business quite independently, isolated in some kind of bubble from the events in the other place across Kings Hall. The very interdependence of the respective chambers in our system was again amply demonstrated by the March election this year when the Senate, minding its own business at the time, was dragged untimely to the polls by virtue of the double dissolution called by Mr Fraser as a result of a much earlier deadlock. That is a matter to which we shall come later. I note that Senator Hamer beams whenever that particular subject arises. Simultaneous elections would, of course-and this is the last word on this subject for the moment; there will be many more in the months ahead-produce a more representative chamber in that the composition of the Senate would reflect the will of the people at least as it stood at the time that the House of Representatives was elected. The absurd situation to which Senator Tate referred , of newly elected senators being in limbo for seven months and retiring possibly defeated senators continuing to serve for seven months after their defeat, would also clearly be avoided. That is another incidental benefit of this measure. The interchange of powers proposal has not attracted as much excitement as the first two Government Bills, on simultaneous elections and four-year terms, but nonetheless there was a degree of dissent, or perhaps neurosis is a better expression, expressed by one or two senators about it. Senator Durack and, I think, Senator Hamer were a bit inclined to say that this is an inconsequential matter, a mere tinkering with the Constitution. Whilst I agree that it may not quite have the crowd pleasing appeal of some of the other matters that we will be debating, it is, nonetheless, a very important machinery measure and it has very great potential for improving the quality and the rationality of government arrangements in this country. Certainly it is not the view of the States that this is in any way an inconsequential or minor or trivial matter. They have consistently provided very strong support for the proposal at successive Constitutional Conventions, going right back to the first in 1973. At the Adelaide Convention in April this year, Mr Cain, for example, said: Interchange of powers would enable these problems of the Constitution to be dealt with efficiently in a way that could be tailored to meet the immediate need. It would not be necessary for powers to be referred all the time. If a deficiency of a power were a short term problem, as might be the case in some economic matters, it could be referred for a limited time. If a power, once referred, did not operate as intended, perhaps because of changed circumstances or an unexpected judicial interpretation, the reference could be amended. It could then be open to the referring parliament to monitor the use of the power. The key point is that as the needs of the components of the Federation change, so must the capacity to meet these needs. The great utility of this particular proposal is that the locking in of the distribution of powers that was bequeathed to us by those founding fathers-who people like Senator Walters would, on selective occasions, elevate to the status of saints when it comes to enshrining their words and intepretations for all time-has led to some of that power distribution being manifestly inappropriate in the circumstances in which we find ourselves in the latter part of the twentieth century. By means of the interchange of powers proposal it is possible , with a co-operative approach to these matters between the governments in our federation, to resolve the problems that arise in a far less dramatic or far reaching way than is involved in having to go to the people for approval at a referendum. It is a thoroughly useful means-not an end in itself because it is only a preliminary to further negotiations of power distribution-of establishing machinery for a rational solution of these problems. The other kind of objection, apart from the inconsequentiality point, was made during the debate, I think in particular by Senator Jessop, who expressed his profound suspicion at the interchange of powers proposal because he said a Labor federal government could centralise power by getting Labor State governments to refer their powers in a wholesale manner. Would that he only knew the difficulties that are involved in any exercise of this kind, even with the rather easier machinery that is now proposed. Of course there is already provision, in section 51 (xxxvii) of the Constitution, for State references to be made, albeit hedged about with uncertainties which have made it difficult for that clause to be relied upon by anyone. Senator Durack —How are you getting on with the reference of power in family law ? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a very pertinent observation and I have to acknowledge the force of it. The reality is that State governments of any political colour are always reluctant to refer powers, however rational a case may be made for so doing. So far as State references are concerned, the proposal will simply clear up some of the uncertainties and worries which have been expressed by States in the past as to whether references can be revoked and so on. For the first time we have a reciprocal flavour coming into this matter of references of power being able to go the other way, from the Commonwealth to the States. That makes a much greater set of attractions for those sitting down to the bargaining table. Advisory opinions came in for some flack, notably from Senator Lewis. His views were wrong-headed, for the most part, as we have come to expect from the honourable senator. Of course the advisory opinions proposal, expressed in a nutshell, is designed to create a jurisdiction in the High Court which will allow the Commonwealth and the States respectively to test the constitutional validity of their own major initiatives and also some heads of existing legislation which have remained for practical purposes untestable under the present situation of requiring a plaintiff with the standing and the willingness to run the case appearing in the latter category. I mention in particular those notoriously ambiguous provisions concerning the qualifications of members of parliament to serve in this place, contained in sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution. It has long been thought highly desirable that there be a series of clarifying decisions made by the High Court as to what exactly these provisions do and do not require and whether for example, it is strictly necessary for people who are in Public Service employment to stand down from that employment for long, weary months, in the case of Senate candidates in particular, as is the case under the present arrangements, because they have technically been elected but are not yet able to take their places. The situation is that in this kind of matter no potential plaintiff has ever been willing to take the risk of an adverse finding and as a result genuine injustices have been caused to many individuals over many decades because of the absence of a simply advisory jurisdiction vested in the High Court to enable it to resolve, without risk to litigants of this kind, particular matters. But none of these considerations was good enough for opponents of the measure, such as they were, like Senator Lewis. He peppered his contribution to the debate with a series of quite inaccurate readings or understandings of the present situation. In particular, he said that the advisory opinions jurisdiction had fallen into disuse in Canada; it had not been used at all in the last few decades. That is simply not true. It was used in 1976 in relation to important economic legislation, the Anti-Inflation Act of 1976 and in 1981 in relation to the issue of the patriation of the Canadian Constitution. Of the 282 leading constitutional cases in Canadian law, which had reached either the Privy Council, prior to 1947, or the Supreme Court up to 1981, 77 were referenes under the advisory jurisdiction power. It has been used-though not with the kind of floodgates frequency that has been predicted by opponents with another point of view about this legislation-as an appropriate way of getting particular matters or particular occasions before the highest authority and to get decisions out of that authority in appropriate circumstances. It was said also in relation to the advisory opinions Bill that it would take away from the power of the Parliament and put the Court midway between a judicial body and an executive body. Of course the Parliament's views as to the validity of its laws should be given weight by the Court. No doubt they are given weight but they can never be conclusive, and the absence of an expression of that view in the context of a proposed enactment or Bill will not seriously inhibit either the Court's capacity to adjudicate or Parliament's capacity to influence the course of that adjudication. The exercise of advisory jurisdiction is a function that is entirely appropriate to a judical body. The Privy Council has always had an advisory jurisdiction and expressed surprise as long ago as 1912 that the appropriateness of its exercising that jurisdiction should ever be questioned. Other particular objections were made to the advisory opinions matter and, if they are raised again in the Committee stage, perhaps it will be more appropriate for me to deal with them in detail there. Finally, as to the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill, given grudging support I noticed in some instances and rather more wholehearted support in others, I simply make this point: Nobody suggests that this particular measure is in any way necessary. Clearly these provisions that are about to be removed-we hope-are not doing any particular damage by remaining there, cluttering up the Constitution, but their removal would be desirable if we want to get to a situation where the Constitution is perceived not as a dusty, musky, unreadable collection of lawyers' language from yesteryear but rather a living, breathing document that does have some relevance and some utility to the people of this country. It is only by gaining an appreciation of what the document is all about and what it provides for that we will ever develop any real momentum towards changing what needs to be changed in our present constitutional arrangements. It is an exercise, if you like, in conscienceness raising. Senator Hamer —Why don't you get the Parliamentary Counsel to be more concise if you want a short, clear Constitution? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a labour of Hercules but precision is the name of the game when it comes to the drafting of these particular matters and, faced with a choice between prolixity and precision, unfortunately precision tends to win every time at the expense of often excessive prolixity. Maybe it is not excessive. It is an age old problem, no less in constitutional matters than elsewhere. In fact, it is a greater problem in constitutional matters because we only get one bite at the cherry. It is not easy to come along and spend $15m to $20m of taxpayers' money to resolve a drafting problem. So much for the Government's Bills. I believe they will be supported and I am indebted, as I said, to the majority of the honourable senators for the support they have given them. More quickly, may I indicate the Government's attitude to the private members' Bills that have been introduced, perhaps beginning with Senator Rae's Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill. I think the only remotely respectable aspect of this proposal so far as the Government is concerned is that it would require the Senate to go to the polls to face an election in the event that it exercised its Supply-blocking power. However, as to its basic substance, its picking up of the so-called Sir Charles Court resolution at the earlier Australian Constitutional Convention makes it completely unacceptable to the Labor Government. That will not be news to any honourable senator. What it does is simply institutionalise the outrage of 1975. So far from discouraging the Senate from exercising the manifestly excessive powers it has to determine not just the content of legislation but the life or death of properly elected governments, those manifestly excessive powers will not only not be curbed in any way by this particular measure but also their exercise will positively be encouraged. There is no question under any circumstances of this measure achieving any support whatsoever from this side of the House. I have no doubt at all that Senator Rae appreciates the fate in store for him, if not here today, then certainly in the other place. Senator Hamer's double dissolution anti-stockpiling measure is a rather different kettle of fish. I acknowledge that it is a much more difficult matter with which to come to grips in terms of doing the right thing. Senator Hamer's measure proposes that the right to set in train a double dissolution lapses if it is not exercised within three months, the objective being to confine the double dissolution procedure to situations related to the particular measure which is the subject of the double dissolution, and to ensure that the original purpose of section 57 of the Constitution has a better chance of being observed, that is, the double dissolution existing not as a convenient device for an early election but rather as a way of dissolving a genuine deadlock. Of course, there is no guarantee that Senator Hamer's measure would ensure that the double dissolution procedure is used only in relation to genuine as distinct from artificial or contrived deadlocks. I do not take Senator Hamer to be suggesting otherwise. All he claims is that there will be a better chance of the genuine ones being sifted out. Another aspect of Senator Hamer's measure which he does not trumpet but which does make it attractive to honourable senators on this side of the chamber is, of course, that it would tend to make rather more difficult a recurrence of the circumstances of 1974 and 1975, when a money Bill was rejected in this place in circumstances where the allowing of a full three months to elapse would not have been a realistic option but where the existence of stockpiled double-rejected Bills from earlier controversies made it possible for the double dissolution option to be a genuine one to be waved over the head of the government of the day. Senator Hamer's proposal would make it very much more difficult for that kind of situation to arise and, as such, it has its attractions. The difficulties about it from the Government's point of view which lead us ultimately to vote against it are these: First of all, and less significantly, there are some practical but significant drafting difficulties with the measure as it comes forward. There is a real uncertainty still, even after the Petroleum and Minerals Authority case in the High Court of Australia, as to the meaning of the expression 'fails to pass' and as to the question, accordingly, as to when time begins to run from a deadlock, when a deadlock exists and when it concludes for the purposes of the operation of this legislation. The Bill simply does not resolve any uncertainty of this kind. We are left with genuine doubts as to how it would apply in many different practical circumstances. Rather more significantly than that technical defect, which might be able to be fixed up by appropriate drafting at the Committee stage, is the point that it is simply not practical, from the point of view of a democratically elected government of the day trying to get on with the business of implementing the job it was mandated to do by the electors, to be without any really effective remedy so far as a recalcitrant Senate is concerned. It ought to be possible for the government of the day to be able to store up its grievances, as it were, in situations where what I described earlier in the debate as the death of a thousand cuts is inflicted upon it by a hostile upper House. One of the difficulties that were experienced, for example, by the Whitlam Government in 1972 was that almost from its first day the hostile majority confronting it in the Senate did not use its power in respect of money Bills but emasculated or refused to pass or otherwise tore apart other pieces of legislation that the Whitlam Government put up. That happened over and over again. It was simply not practical politics, nor would it be for any government in like circumstances, immediately to take one such measure to a double dissolution election. In the event, that occurred in 1974 in slightly different circumstances. Under those circumstances a government ought to be able to store up the measures that are dealt with in this way. If its patience is finally tested to the point that it has to take one such measure, or all of them, as a basis for a double dissolution and if the electorate endorses that course of action and returns it with a resounding majority and a renewed mandate, then the existing procedures will, of course, allow a joint sitting to be held. Not just one particular measure but all of the measures that have been the subject of such hostile treatment from the Senate could then be disposed of simultaneously. That ultimately, I think, becomes the reason why this Government, although weighing very seriously the merits of Senator Hamer's proposal, because they are evident, comes down on the side of resistance to the blandishments in question. The third measure concerns the nexus and was introduced by Senator Macklin. The Government's attitude to this, I think, can be described in the language of St Augustine: 'God give me chastity, but not yet.' In other words, we approve of this particular measure. We will support its passage through this chamber. We believe it ultimately ought to be put to the Australian people but we do not believe that the right time to do so is next February, with the other referendum proposals. Accordingly, we will hold it in store, as it were, in the House of Representatives and give very serious consideration to moving it and putting it before the people at some more appropriate later time. The reasons why we take this attitude, approving as we do of the basic principles of the measure, are these: We believe it would impossibly complicate the other referendums if this particular proposal, with all the passion- irrational as it may be, but passion nonetheless-that it arouses were to be put to the people. The highest number of proposals ever carried at a single referendum was the carriage of three out of the four proposals that were put in 1977. The only other occasion on which six proposals were put was in 1913, when all of them failed. One reason which has been constantly put forward by commentators for the poor success rate of referendums has been this practice of putting a large number of proposals at the same time. We think we can do that, at least to the extent of five measures, on this occasion because of the interrelated machinery of government and largely uncontroversial character of them. But to add a sixth proposal and to add one which will be controversial will not help in getting any of them up. We believe accordingly, given the possibilities of irrational States rights passions, plus some other practical technical considerations involved in getting the legislation to do with the redistribution in place early next year, that it is simply not practical politics, as much as it is attractive in principle, to contemplate the nexus referendum going forward. Finally, of course, there is the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1982 introduced by the Australian Democrats. A number of rude things have been said about this measure by a number of honourable senators in this place. I simply add that it would clearly constitute, were it enacted, a paradise for single-issue loonies in this country. We do believe in representative and responsible government as the appropriate way of going about the nation's business. We are worried about the way in which crude appeals to prejudice and self-interest would be encouraged by this. We are worried about the ease with which even this target of 250,000 votes could be satisfied and the ease, accordingly, with which the Treasury would be subjected to regular bills of $15m to $20m for putting to referendum proposals which manifestly ought to be better dealt with by the people's representatives in this Parliament. I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. I urge them to vote in the way I have suggested. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.40) —I move: That the Bills be now read a third time. I suggest that it might be appropriate, given the constitutional procedures we now have to go through, for the Bills to be split and voted upon separately. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —In view of the constitutional requirements relating to the passing of Bills for the alteration of the Constitution, I shall put the questions for the third reading of these two Bills separately. The question is: That the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983 be now read a third time. Senator Missen —I take a point of order. I apologise if I am wrong, but have we carried a motion in connection with a call of the Senate? Senator Gareth Evans —No. I am about to do that, Senator Missen. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That Standing Order 242 be suspended to enable the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983, the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1983 and also the Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill 1983 and the Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill 1983 to be passed without Calls of the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is: That the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983 be now read a third time. Constitution Alteration Legislation Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F.Bolkus, N. Lajovic, M. E.Carrick, Sir John McClelland, DouglasChaney, F. M. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maquire, G. R.Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J.Coates, J. Messner, A. J.Coleman, R. N. Missen, A. J.Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G.Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E.Evans, Gareth Reynolds, M.Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F.Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M.Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W.Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C.Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Withers, R. G.Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O.Jones, G. N. Archer, B. R. Harradine, B.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Hill, R.Boswell, R. L. D. Jessop, D. S.Collard, S. J. (Teller) Lewis, A. W. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. The PRESIDENT-I declare that the motion for the third reading of the Bill has been carried by an absolute majority of the Senate. Bill read a third time. The PRESIDENT —The question is: That the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1983 be read a third time. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Baume, Peter Hill, R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Jessop, D. S.Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N.Boswell, R. L. D. Kilgariff, B. F.Carrick, Sir John Lajovic, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Lewis, A. W. R.Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J.Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J.Colston, M. A. Missen, A. J.Critchton-Browne, N. A. Primmer, C. G.Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E.Evans, Gareth Reynolds, M.Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F.Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M.Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W.Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C.Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A.Haines, J. Withers, R. G.Hamer, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Hearn, J. M. Archer, B. R. Townley, M. (Teller)Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. The PRESIDENT-I declare that the motion for the third reading of the Bill has been carried by an absolute majority of the Senate. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 12 May 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.53) —I raise with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) the point to which I referred at the second reading stage of the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill. I can understand the argument that is advanced in favour of a clarification of the powers of the Commonwealth to interchange certain powers with the States. Nevertheless, I raise the converse situation-that is, the interchange of powers from the States to the Commonwealth. Say one State cedes power to the Commonwealth on a matter for which the States have powers. How does the Attorney-General see that affecting the other States, given the fact that, should this occur, the Commonwealth Government, through legislation, could provide for more favourable treatment to that State in respect of the areas of that power? Is it the intention of this legislation that the power be ceded by all of the States or by none of the States? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.55) —The short answer, as I understand the situation, is that existing section 51 (xxxvii.) of the Constitution, which is not being altered in this respect, makes it absolutely clear that the power of the Commonwealth extends only to that State from which the reference has originally come. Under those circumstances the Commonwealth achieves no power in relation to States other than the State from which the reference has originally arisen. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.56) —I understand that. The point I made concerned the intention of the Government. For example, the State of Victoria could cede certain powers in respect of registration fees for motor vehicles. The Commonwealth Parliament could make a law in respect of that matter which could be seen by the people of Australia as being most favourable for the motorists of one particular State and thus, by such financial inducement, could encourage other States to cede powers in respect of the same matter. Of course, to preclude that we would have to amend the Constitution. Presumably, if powers are to be ceded they ought to be ceded by all the States rather than one. Am I right in stating that to achieve that would require a different amendment to the Constitution? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.58) —Yes, Senator Harradine is right in stating that. The consequence does, I suppose, follow that the Commonwealth could legislate in a manner favourable or perceived to be favourable for a particular State if it is only that State that has given the Commonwealth the wherewithal to do so and that that may attract a twinge of jealousy from other States- Senator Harradine —That is available to them now. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is available to them now under 51 (xxxvii.) of the Constitution. We would have to amend existing section 51 (xxxvii.) to counter that rather than anything to that effect being achieved by the new sections 108A and 108B proposed in this Bill. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.59) —I ask the Attorney-General: If, for instance, all States except one were to agree to certain powers going to the Commonwealth, would the provisions of this Bill impose any pressures which could in any way force or coerce that one State into joining the other States? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.59) —There is no such provision, but how could that State be so coerced? For the last 83 years we have been living with this provision which has made it possible for just that state of affairs to occur. It is a practical political matter which simply has not arisen, nor could one see how in practice it might arise. I confess that I am unable to appreciate the point the honourable senator is making. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —The question is: 'That the Bill be now read a third time.' Those in favour say aye; to the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. As no division has been called for, I draw attention to the constitutional requirement that this Bill must be passed by an absolute majority . Before the counting of the Senate proceeds I direct the bells to be rung. The bells having been rung- The PRESIDENT —Order! A division has not been called for but it is desirable that the names of those honourable senators present and agreeing to the third reading of the Bill be recorded. I think it would meet the convenience of the Senate if I ruled that honourable senators remain in their places in order to be counted. I appoint Senators Robertson and Kilgariff as tellers to record the names of those honourable senators present and agreeing to the third reading of the Bill. I ask any honourable senator not agreeing to the Bill to so indicate so that he or she will not be counted with the honourable senators agreeing to the Bill. Senator Townley-I so indicate. Senator Crichton-Browne-I so indicate. Senator Archer-I so indicate. The PRESIDENT —The names of those who agree to the Bill will now be taken. During the recording of names- Senator Townley-Mr President, while the counting is being finalised could I ask you a question? Somebody said to me that if there is no division there cannot be a No case prepared. When I came in here I understood that I would be the only one to ask for my name to be recorded against the third reading and therefore I could not call a division as I requested at the table. Now that three honourable senators have voted against the Bill does this mean that a No case will not be able to be prepared? The PRESIDENT —A division was not called but three honourable senators have indicated that they have voted no. Their vote has been recorded accordingly. The following names were then recorded- (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) AYES Baume Peter Hill, R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Jessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Boswell, R. L. D. Kilgariff, B. F. Button, J. N. Lajovic, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Lewis, A. W. R. Chaney, F. M. McClelland, Douglas Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, Robert Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Waters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Harradine, B. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. The PRESIDENT —Order! As 53 honourable senators have agreed to the third reading , I declare that the third reading of the Bill has been agreed to by an absolute majority as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 12 May 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.10) —Subject to an arranged agreement between the Government and the Opposition, because of an undertaking that has been made, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement I have in respect of this matter. Senator Gareth Evans —Leave is granted provided it is understood that its standing there in splendid isolation in the Hansard does not mean that everthing in it is not rejected out of hand by the Government. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Mr President, I notice that inasmuch as the debate so far on the nine Constitutional Alteration Bills has been a cognate debate, little comment has been made upon the Constitutional Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill. The Bill proposes as we are told in the explanatory memorandum to enable the Commonwealth and State Governments and a Territory Government to obtain advisory opinions from the High Court on specific types of questions. The Bill is so framed as to confine the jurisdiction to cases of enactments actually passed or already before a Commonwealth or State Parliament, or a Territory Legislature, and to certain other constitutional or treaty questions that have actually arisen or are reasonably likely to arise, the Commonwealth, State or Territory Government concerned may only seek an advisory opinion on the validity of an enactment or proposed enactment passed by or before its own parliament or legislature. The Bill intends by its wording that the Federal Government or more correctly the executive will be able not only to refer enactments or legislation which has been passed by both Houses of the parliament but also proposed enactments or laws. In other words the Government of the day will be able to simply introduce legislation into the House of Representatives and then send it off to the High Court for a compulsory advisory opinion by not less than five Justices and then presumably that decision will result in precedent and stature with any other High Court decision. Mr President, while I have grave concern for the full implications and ramifications of the Bill I see particular dangers in including proposed legislation. The effect of that is that the High Court will become legal advisors to parliamentary draftsmen to the Government of the day. Further, not only may the determination have the effect of pressurising either or both Houses of the Parliament, but it will presume to bypass the Parliamentary system. It seems to me not only improper but quite impertinent for an executive government to bypass the two Houses of Parliament and go straight to the High Court for a legal judgment on a piece of legislation which has not had a political judgment cast upon it. The High Court should be dealing with matters of law, not proposals or suggestions of legislation that the government of the day is toying around with. It is for the Parliament to determine in which form the legislation will be when it arrives at the High Court for a legal opinion. It is for the Parliament to make decisions about the validity of its laws and to take the responsibility which has been vested in it as an elected body by the voters of Australia. A vital part of the function of the Federal Parliament I would have thought was to make good and proper laws for the good Government of Australia. As was said by Felix Frankfurter, Professor and later Justice of the Supreme Court of the USA, when commenting upon such matters ''another commonplace, indispensable to the effective working of our constitutional system, is rigorous regard in practice for the avowed theory that legislation is for the legislature , that the court does not sit in judgment upon the wisdom or fairness or utility of legislation.'' If a proposed law is referred to the High Court for a legal opinion and either House subsequently amends it, do I take it that the Bill being referred by the Senate back to the House of Representatives for further consideration will then be again sent off to the High Court for a further determination as the whether or not those amendments are constitutional and if not constitutional is the High Court then asked to spell out which amendments are acceptable and which are not. It would be an intolerable way to try to legislate. The debate would not be about the merit and virtue of the content of the proposed law but rather whether it was constitutional in part or in full. In essence the daily role and function of the two chambers would be gutted. The Parliament would come by nature to rely more and more upon the High Court for an interpretation of its proposed laws and amendments. Debate would in many cases become stifled and academic. Debates of the virile and robust nature such as we saw in the south west Tasmanian dams case would no longer be a part of our daily lives. There would be little point arguing the social, political or economic virtues of such issues if the fate of the proposed legislation is to be predetermined by the High Court after an undebated first reading in either house of the parliament. The great and real issues of the nature of the Tasmanian dams legislation are not whether it is constitutional but rather whether or not the function ought properly, as distinct from legally, to rest with the Commonwealth or the states and I might add had those debates not taken place both within and without the parliament many of the political, social and economic issues would never have been ventilated and public awareness would not have been stimulated. Advisory opinion may well cause parliaments and people to fall into the habit of assuming that whatever they can do constitutionally they may do. As if the merits, honesty and fair dealing of legislation were not relevant to their inquiries. It is my view that State Commonwealth relations should be worked out and accommodated more by the play of political forces rather than the forced and imposed sterility of a High Court advisory opinion. Clearly one of the purposes of including the proposed law provisions is to ensure that the bill intended by the government is in no way defective. Surely that assumes that the High Court is the only competent body of legal opinion in Australia capable of making such a judgment. I would have thought that the Attorney-General's Department which is presumably there for that purpose would have men who can justify their enormous salaries by giving good legal advice to the government. If the government is not satisfied with those whom it expressly employs for the purpose there is nothing to stop it doing what it has in the past and seeking legal opinions from the best legal brains in private practice. Of course there is unlimited talent that the government can call upon but that opinion is not final, absolute or authoritative. What the government is seeking through this constitutional amendment is to get an irrefutable and in many respects irreversible decision. The High Court will be reluctant to go back on its earlier decision. It is not looking for a legal opinion, it is seeking to bind others, whether they be individuals, corporations or sovereign states with a legal judgment even before the bill becomes law. If as I said earlier there are some aspects of the proposed legislation which are defective the government is capable of continuing to resubmit new and differently drafted legislation until it gets it right. It wants not only a legal judgment of what it intends, but advice on how to achieve it-hardly the role of the High Court. This may apply to both a proposed law or an enactment but we may well find a complex piece of legislation which contains two or three hundred separate provisions. The legislation is referred to the High Court in an abstract way as distinct from fact-and I will come to that later. The Court, to determine the validity of the bill or act, will not only have to go through it clause by clause but if it is to be of any benefit to the government offer advice as to what will remedy the defects. If the High Court is to give bland or very guarded advisory opinions on most occasions they will be of very little help. Mr President if legislation presented to the High Court for an advisory opinion has not been enacted then it is quite irrelevant, and if in the event it is enacted then of course the advisory opinion becomes unnecessary because appropriate action can be taken by any interested party on the basis of real facts and a proper tangible case. Notwithstanding the fact that the Attorney-General claims in his second reading speech that provision is made for facts to be specified in some detail for the purpose of a reference and where necessary, for references to be amended, one of the fundamental problems of advisory opinions is that they are not based on concrete facts but abstract considerations lacking under this legislation an effected litigant. To quote Lord Sarkey of the Canadian Privy Council: 'We sympathise with the view as to the difficulty which the court must experience in endeavouring to answer questions put in this way. It is true that the advisability of propounding for the consideration of the court abstract questions involving considerations of debatable fact is to say the least, doubtful'. Dixon, C. J. said in Commonwealth Freighters v. Sneddon. 'Highly inconvenient as it may be, it is true of some legislative powers by definition . . . that the validity of the exercise of the power must sometimes depend on facts, facts which somehow must be ascertained by the court responsible for deciding the validity of the law.' There are numerous Canadian examples of abstract advisory opinions being given which have had a serious effect upon the development of both the Canadian constitution and individuals. In the 1916 Insurance Act reference the Canadian Supreme Court was asked for an opinion as to the validity of certain sections of the Federal Insurance Act. Here was a reference involving the bare question ''are sections 40 and 70 of the Insurance Act 1916 or any and what part or parts of the said sections ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada?'' Following decisions litigated on fact demonstrated that the result of the 1916 Insurance Reference, being an abstract decision which had far reaching and unfortunate consequences would have been quite different if it too had been litigated on concrete fact. There have been a number of other cases in Canada which have had the same effect. The 1916 Insurance Reference was influential in a number of later cases where Parliament was denied the power to cope with nation-wide commercial problems because this was characterised as regulation of a particular trade within each province. To quote one prominent Professor of Law B. L. Strayer from the University of Toronto. Referring to this case ''reference decisions have tended to be abstract . It also demonstrates the great and largely unfortunate effect which such decisions have had on Canadian constitutional development. Indeed one can argue that reference decisions are more likely to have a widespread effect because of the circumstances in which the reference technique is frequently used. Governments are most likely to refer to the courts legislation which is not only constitutionally questionable but also controversial because of its economic, political or social importance. Thus references are particularly dangerous because the opinion subsequently rendered by the court will naturally have far reaching implications. As Felix Frankfurter, a leading American Jurist, further observed ''the whole milieu of advisory opinions on proposed Bills is inevitably different from that of litigation contesting legislation. However much provision may be made on paper for adequate arguments advisory opinions are bound to move in a unreal atmosphere. The impact of actuality and the intensities of immediacy are wanting . In the attitude of court and council, in the vigour of adequate representation of the facts behind legislation there is thus a wide gulf of difference, partly rooted in psychological factors, between opinions in advance of legislation and decisions in litigation after such proposals are embodied into law. Advisory opinions are rendered upon sterilized and mutilated issues.'' Frankfurter goes on to recite a number of cases in which advisory opinions were handed down by the Massachusetts Court only to be eventually overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States when they were litigated upon fact. In the meantime there had been a misstatement of the law and a great deal of damage done. To quote Frankfurter again because I believe he puts the position so precisely and lucidly: ''Not the least of constitutional controversies resolve themselves into the pressure of new facts against the resistance of inadequate or exploded facts persisting as legal assumptions. The reports furnish too abundant illustrations of what Huxley called the tragedy of a fact killing a theory.'' ''The advisory opinion deprives constitutional interpretation of the judgment of the legislature upon facts, of the effectual defence of legislation as an application of settled legal principles to new situations and of the means of securing new facts through the process of legislation within the allowable limits of trial and error.'' What has been clearly demonstrated over very many years is that to fully understand and appreciate the effect and ramifications of legislation it must be enacted and implemented. The reality of the real world is that very often legislation has effects which were never intended or contemplated by the lawmakers of the day. It is quite impossible to test most laws until they are implemented and take effect. As the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia who has publicly condemned this proposed constitutional amendment said: ''Under the proposal made by the constituional convention'' which of course is now the form of this legislation, ''the court would be required to consider questions in the abstract, and possibly before the practical implications of the legislation have come to be fully understood. Experience suggests that when a statute is sought to be applied in a situation which was not within the comtemplation of the draftsman, questions of interpretation and validity arise which would have passed unobserved if the effect of the statute had been considered in the abstract.'' Centralisation of power The proposal can do nothing other than provide and ultimately guarantee greater power in the hands of the Central Federal Government and dilute and erode even further the power of the States. No doubt the questions which will most often be put by the Federal Government to the High Court for an advisory opinion will be those related to treaties and the constitutional power of the Federal Government vis a vis the States. This Government will seek to explore further and further the limits of its jurisdiction under the constitution with a view to gathering unto the Central Government more and more power at the expense of the individual States. We have already seen what can only be described as obscene abuse of the external affairs powers and no doubt areas such as the implied national power, the corporations power and . . . will be tested to their very limits. Already we have seen the external affairs powers used in the Tasmanian dams case and the Sexual Discrimination Bill and clearly the intention of including clause 2 (1)D which reads inter alia ''any question of law arising under or with respect to any treaty, including any question of law relating to the implementation of any treaty, being a question that, by reason of circumstances existing at the time of the reference, the Governor-General in Council is of opinion has arisen or is reasonably likely to arise'' is to test the ultimate extent to which the external affairs powers can be used to impose federal laws upon the States and to take from the States that power and jurisdiction which they have exercised since Federation. The brief history of this Government has demonstrated an unbridled ambition to intrude by whatever means available into the traditional responsibilities of the States and this constitutional amendment can only greatly speed up and expedite that process. It ought to be noted that in the case of treaties it need not even be a matter that is before the Parliament. This is really a question of the Cabinet going straight to the High Court without any contemplation or consideration by either House of Parliament. Rights of individuals The proposed Constitutional Alteration Bill before us specifically excludes individual citizens from seeking an advisory opinion from the High Court on any of the matters referred to in the Bill and yet a great many of the matters it is proposed to submit to the High Court for such an opinion do and will touch upon the lives of every individual Australian. It is of course argued that theoretically the opinions are merely advisory though of course opinions rendered are bound to embarrass the administration of justice when the subject of an earlier opinion is brought before the courts on a later occasion by genuine litigants. It ought also to be remembered that on a reference under this Bill the court shall be constituted by not less than 5 Justices and under those circumstances they would not be human if they were not tempted to maintain their earlier position. To do otherwise continuously can only bring the court into disrepute. In 1898, the Canadian Privy Council, in an important constitutional reference, made its position known. Delivering the opinion of the Board, Lord Herschell declared: ''Their Lordships must decline to answer the last question submitted as to the rights of riperian proprietors. These proprietors are not parties to this legislation or represented before their Lordships, and accordingly their Lordships do not think it proper when determining the respective rights and jurisdiction of the dominion and provincial legislatures to express an opinion upon the extent of the rights possesed by riperian proprietors.'' In the references, Idington J. considered the question from its second aspect: Embarrassment of the administration of justice. ''What would be the thought of a judge, he asked, who had expressed to a private litigant an opinion more or less deliberate upon questions the answers to which determine the litigants rights, and who afterwards sat in that litigants case and judged it. Was there not involved in the very essence of what was attempted the taking away of men's rights and liberties without due process of law?'' What more graphic example of the private rights question can be found than in the Canadian marriage laws reference? In that case the Supreme Court refused to answer one of the questions on the grounds that it was a question which affected private rights and private interests which were not represented before the court . The question was whether the law of Quebec rendered null and void unless contracted before a Roman Catholic Priest, marriages between persons of certain religious faiths. In the view of council for Quebec a question could hardly be submitted which involved a declaration which would not only cause disturbance, but would put the ban of absolute nullity upon scores of marriages of persons who were not represented before the court. While one may argue that the opinion rendered would only be advisory, yet if the opinion favoured nullity, it would affect the name and fame and standing of every person married under the conditions set forth in the question as well as the children. The court upheld the argument and Idington J. said in part ''I admit this case involves . . . what I had conceived to be the vicious principle of interrogating judge, it imperils private rights in a way that seems to deprive those concerned of trial by the process of law.'' In the recent case of Attorney-General of Canada V. CPR and CNR Rand J. delivering the judgment had this to say: ''. . . we would be expressing an opinion that might seriously affect private rights in the absence of those claiming them, a step which would be contrary to the fundamental conception of due process, the application of which to opinions of this nature, has long been recognised.'' Mr President, I make these comments because under this bill now before us the High Court is not at liberty to decline to give an opinion, in fact it is compelled to do so and at the same time the bill expressly prohibits individuals appearing before the court. Separation of powers Mr President, in my view this proposed constitutional amendment rather than be described as granting an advisory power to the High Court ought rather to be described as a delegating power. There has been a growing trend particularly in recent years for governments to politicise the judiciary and the success of this constitutional amendment can only accelerate that process. It has the effect of course of reducing the power of the parliament while at the same time increasing the control over parliament of the executive. To reflect for a moment on past events I quote first from Chief Justice W. H. Irvine who in 1923 in writing to the Victorian Government on behalf of the Supreme Court of Victoria had this to say: The duty of His Majesty's Judges is to hear and determine issues of Fact and of Law arising between the King and a subject, or between a subject and a subject presented in a form enabling judgment to be passed upon them, and when passed to be enforced by a process of law, there begins and ends the function of the judiciary. It is mainly due to the fact that in modern times at least, the judges in all British communities have, except in rare cases confined themselves to this function, that they have attained, and still retain, the confidence of the people. Parliament supported by wise public opinion has jealously guarded the bench from the danger of being drawn into the region of political controversy.'' Regretably governments have more and more in recent years used members of the judiciary to their own perceived advantage, particularly when seeking to deal with complex and controversial social and political issues. Now while of course to be able to tap the very fine talents and minds of members of the judiciary has in some respects been of very considerable benefit to the community, in my view on balance I think it is wrong and potentially harmful. Not only to the judiciary but to good government and to the Australian parliamentary institution. The politicizing of the judiciary has not been limited to using judges for public inquiries but has been extended to appointing judges to fill executive positions such as: Academic Salaries Tribunal Remuneration Tribunal Committee of Reference on Defence Force Pay Prices Justification Tribunal Commonwealth Grants Commission Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Insurance Tribunal The Ranger Uranium Inquiry Ambassador at Large for the Australian Government Just to list a few, in fact in 1979 Professor Gordon Reid was able to cite something like 20 or more. Now we are appointing judges of the High Court of Australia to tell not the Parliament but the executive wing of government how to draft its legislation, what the effect of that drafting will be and what will be the status of the legislation if and I repeat if it passes both Houses of Parliament in the form that the High Court determines-as section 2 (2) B says: ''the manner and form required for the passing of a proposed enactment of that Parliament.'' Given that the executive of the day appoints the High Court judges, almost invariably mindful and conscious of their attitude and approach to the interpretation of the Constitution given that as I say they will under this bill be called upon to consider legislation proposed by the Executive, as to its validity and/or faults and finally to provide the Executive with redrafted legislation which will reflect the political intentions of the government of the day one can't help but be drawn to the conclusion that the historic separation of functions and powers of government and the judiciary have been bridged. We have certainly come a long way since 1793 when the Supreme Court of the United States of America declined a request through Secretary of State Jefferson by President Washington for an advisory opinion relating to certain treaties, laws of nature and nations and the laws of the land which appeared to be impinged upon by the war in Europe. The Supreme Court declined, emphasising the principle of separation of powers which gives rise to considerations which afford strong arguments against the propriety of extra-judicially deciding the questions alluded to by the courts. Naturally the government of the day then turned to the Attorney-General of the United States for the advice. The United States of America Supreme Court still does not give advisory opinions. There are a limited number of State Courts of America that do provide advisory opinions but none by its constitution since 1890 and the last successful attempt by statute was in 1923. Those courts that do so will not answer questions requiring the determination of a question of fact, nor will they answer questions bearing upon wisdom and expediency as distinguished from power and authority. They have refused to give opinions on matters that are likely to come before the court for decision. They have consistently refused to answer questions which involved private rights and they have held that it is for the court to determine whether the question comes within the constitutional or statutory language, such as ''solemn occasion'' or ''important question of law''. Eight of the states that once practised advisory opinions no longer employ it. In the ten states of the USA where the judges have refused to give advisory opinions the underlying reason was, and is, their belief that since the giving of such opinions is not the exercise of a judicial function, the practice is, in the absence of specific constitutional authorisation, a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Now while the success of this referendum would in Australia provide the constitutional authorisation, it is worth noting the additional comments added by the judges of those ten states. ''generally failure has met attempts by legislation or litigation to employ the courts for legal advice rather than for decision of justifiable controversies between adverse parties. the impropriety of an unauthorised expression of opinion by a judge or court, especially one of last resort, upon a matter which may subsequently come before the court for adjudication, will immediately suggest itself, the Attorney- General is the officer to advise the civil officers and when questions come before the Supreme Court, that court is then untrammeled. it would be an attempt to settle questions of law involving the rights of persons without parties before it, or a case to be decided in due course of law, thus violating that provision of the bill of rights which declares that every person shall have a remedy for an injury done him by due course of law''. Mr President, it was once said unkindly a referendum is the intelligent appealing to the unintelligent, an advisory opinion might well lead the same cynic to observe that such a course is the unintelligent appealing to the intelligent. Without breaking party room confidentiality, during a party room debate on increases in salaries and pension conditions for members of the high court while at the same time the Prime Minister was calling for Parliamentarians to take a salary cut and the argument being put forward in support of the judges case was that we needed to attract excellent people, I was moved to observe that clearly the logic of the argument was that we needed clever men to interpret the intention of fools. That in my view ought not be the case, the place for making laws and the responsibility for them should rest with an elected Parliament, not an appointed High Court. I can find no merit, need or justification for advisory opinions and I think it almost inconceivable that the Labor Government could be serious about including proposed enactments. However if it is felt by some that the present circumstances and rules upon which the Australian High Court provides declaratory judgments are to restrictive and for that reason there ought to be a capacity for advisory opinions, I refer those people to the fact that in American jurisprudence, courts have exerted a certain amount of judgment or discretion in determining whether or not a plaintiff or defendant has a legally defined interest in contesting the validity of a statute, such an interest has been more readily perceived when larger public interests are at stake. On the ground of large public interest in the decision the courts have on occasions regarded as an actual controversy what might have appeared as an insufficiently hostile or concrete controversy, normally two essential elements necessary before the courts will entertain a declaratory judgment, and have actually decided on what would normally appear to have been a moot case or request for an advisory opinion. It may or may not involve a legitimate controversy and both parties may have possibly wanted the same judgment. If the court wishes to render judgment it will close its eyes to the realities and perceive only the ostensible conflict of interest. I understand the Australian High Court has been liberal in its interpretation of the rules normally applying to an application for a declaratory judgment and should that be not adequate to accommodate a more liberal approach along the lines of the American States jurisprudence then it seems there would be little difficulty in amending the rules of the High Court or whatever other appropriate modest measures are necessary to provide an even more generous approach by the High Court to declaratory judgments. I conclude with a quote from James Bradley Thayer in his ''Life of Marshall''. ''Courts, as has often been said, are not to think of the legislators, but of the legislature-the great continuous body itself, abstracted from all the transitory individuals who may happen to hold its power. It is this majestic representative of the people whose action is in question, a co-ordinate department of the Government, charged with the greatest functions, and invested in contemplation of law, with whatever wisdom, virtue and knowledge the exercise of such functions requires.'' ''To set aside the act of such a body, representing in its own field, which is the very highest of all, the ultimate sovereign, should be a solemn, unusual and painful act. Something is wrong when it can ever be other than that, and if it be true that the holders of the legislative power are careless or evil, yet the constitutional duty of the court remains untouched: It cannot rightly attempt to protect the people, by undertaking a function not its own. On the other hand, by adhering rigidly to its own duty, the court can help, as nothing can, to fix the spot where responsibility lies, and to bring down on that precise locality the thunderbolt of popular condemnation. The judiciary, today, in dealing with the Acts of their co-ordinate legislators, owe to the country no greater or clearer duty than that of keeping their hands off these Acts wherever it is possible to do it, for that course-the true course of judicial duty always-will powerfully help to bring the people and the representatives to a sense of their own responsibility.'' Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.12) —I seek leave to move together amendments Nos (1) to (9) which have been circulated in my name. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: (1) Page 1, clause 2, line 11, after ''validity of'', insert ''a provision or provisions of''. (2) Page 1, clause 2, line 12, after ''validity if enacted, of'', insert ''a provision or provisions of''. (3) Page 2, clause 2, line 13, after ''Administrator of a'', insert ''self- governing''. (4) Page 2, clause 2, line 16, after ''validity of'', insert ''a provision or provisions of''. (5) Page 2, clause 2, line 17, after ''validity, if enacted, of'', insert ''a provision or provisions of''. (6) Page 2, clause 2, line 29, after ''Administrator of a'' insert ''self- governing''. (7) Page 2, clause 2, line 43, after ''in relation to a'', insert ''self- governing''. (8) Page 3, clause 2, line 3, leave out ''in relation to a Territory, means the authority'', substitute ''in relation to a self-governing Territory, means the body''. (9) Page 3, clause 2, line 8, leave out the definition of ''Territory'', substitute the following definition: ''self-governing Territory' means a territory referred to in section 122 of the Constitution, where, apart from the powers of the Parliament under that section, the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the territory is exclusively vested in a body the members of which are directly chosen by the people of the territory;''. I will briefly explain what these amendments are about. Amendments Nos (1), (2), (4) and (5) on the list propose the insertion of the words 'a provision or provisions of' before the words 'enactment' and 'proposed enactment' so as to make clearer the intention that references may be made on particular provisions of Acts or Bills and not only on entire Acts or Bills. This is designed to meet, among other things, the kind of objection which I anticipate might be made by some honourable senators to the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill as it now stands. Amendments Nos (3), (6) and (7) would limit the powers of the Administrator of a Territory to make reference to those territories which are self-governing, and at the moment that includes only the Northern Territory. It would not be possible under this amendment, for example, for Norfolk Island to seek an advisory opinion from the High Court of Australia. Amendment No. (8) is a technical one substituting the word 'body' for ' authority' in relation to legislative powers so as to make the reference more accurate. Amendment No. (9) is connected with the earlier ones to define the expression 'self-governing Territory' in the way that I have indicated. I commend to honourable senators the amendments which are essentially technical but which do have substantive significance particularly so far as the provision or provisions clause is concerned. Amendments agreed to. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.15) —I have circulated an amendment in my name to proposed new clause 77A(4) which deals with standing or the right to appear before the High Court when the argument is heard in relation to a request for an advisory opinion. At the present time the clause specifically states only that the Court will hear argument on the question from various Attorneys-General -Commonwealth, State or Territory as the case may be or indeed all of them if the case justifies it. I propose to add to that the words in the amendment circulated in my name. I move: Page 2, clause 2, after proposed sub-paragraph 77A(4) (a) (ii), insert the following sub-paragraph: '(iiA) any person who, in the opinion of the Court, has sufficient interest in the determination of the question;'. I am moving that just to make it perfectly clear. Certainly the Court would have the power to enable any person to appear if it was at the discretion of the Court. A lot of concern has been expressed to me in regard to this matter. I think it would be much more satisfactory if this Bill, and ultimately the Constitution if it is amended, should make that perfectly clear. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.16) —I can appreciate the desirability of clarification of the kind that Senator Durack is proposing, and indicate that the amendment is acceptable to the Government. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.17) —I move: Page 3, clause 2, proposed sub-section 77A(7), definition of '' 'proposed enactment' '', lines 6 and 7, leave out the definition, insert the following definition: '' 'proposed enactment' means- (a) in relation to the Parliament of the Commonwealth or of a State-a proposed enactment in the form in which it has been passed by both Houses of the Parliament concerned, or the House of the Parliament concerned, as the case may be, but which has not received the Queen's assent at the time of the reference; (b) in relation to a self-governing Territory-a proposed enactment which has been passed by the body the members of which are directly chosen by the people of the Territory, but which has not received the assent of the Administrator or the Governor-General, as the case may be, at the time of the reference''. I am sorry that I have not had an opportunity to discuss my amendment with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) but it is simple and I hope that he might be persuaded to accept it in the course of this Committee of the Whole debate. The amendment deals with the very real concern that I have, which I expressed in the second reading debate, and that is in relation to that part of the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill that will allow Bills per se to be referred to the High Court for opinion. As the Bill stands at the moment it would potentially be possible for a government-I am not necessarily suggesting this Government-simply to bring down all its Bills at the commencement of a session and move them off to the High Court for opinion. Not surprisingly, when honourable members and honourable senators are returned to the Parliament with advice as to their constitutionality it is obviously going to be extremely difficult for them to be able to look to amendment and receive the answer: 'But your amendment is now going to question the validity of what we have already received judgment upon'. I think that this is a most unsatisfactory development in the process of an operation of the Parliament. I remind the Senate that the 1928 Royal Commission on this subject in fact did not go as far as including this power to refer Bills as opposed to enactments to the Court. I also remind the Senate that the 1977 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs also did not go as far as to include this power. I remind the Senate also of the disquiet generally expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court on the subject of opinions generally and the fact that he said he felt his brother judges were of the same opinion. But the concerns expressed by the Chief Justice of course are particularly accentuated with regard to this particular aspect of the Bill. That is obviously because his principal argument which he put to the law conference in Brisbane earlier this year was that the Court had sufficient power with regard to declaratory judgments. Now obviously that does not apply with regard to this proposal, this extension, which goes far beyond any power to give declaratory judgments that the High Court has ever had or ever attempted to exercise. Mr Chairman, I move this amendment because I fear that the Bill as it now stands is attempting to usurp the role of the Parliament. It is forcing the Court to become intimately involved in the legislative process. The Court's attitude is quite clear, as I have expressed it, and that is that it is undesirable. Not surprisingly the Court itself does not want to take the place of parliamentary council, which is the type of emphasis that will come about if the Bill is passed in its present form. The Court obviously and reasonably does not want to have to answer abstract questions which can similarly arise if the Bill is passed in this form. It is not the place of the Court to be giving legal advice before enactment. I therefore share the view that has been expressed by a number of commentators on the subject of advisory opinions that to extend the process this far to Bills that have not actually passed the Parliament is an undesirable precedent. I trust that the Government will agree and that the referendum that is eventually put to the community will not have this undesirable complication included therein. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.19) —I would like to say a little on this matter because there is some background information which I think should be known by the Committee. I must admit that I am a little troubled too, having heard the argument Senator Hill advanced this morning. Having got out my notes of the discussions that took place on this matter earlier I now think it is important that the Committee should know something of the background. It will be realised that I am a strong supporter of the advisory opinions proposal, and I will certainly vote for it. This matter arose from two different sources. It arose partially from the recommendations of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs of October 1977 on advisory opinions by the High Court. There also came down, almost at the same time, a report based upon Committee D's recommendations at the Constitutional Convention . There were differences between the two reports. Both recommended an advisory jurisdiction for the High Court but they differed as to the people who could approach the Court and as to the type of matter that would be dealt with by the Court in giving such an opinion. The Constitutional Convention adopted its report. Following that, a sub-committee was set up consisting of members of Committee D and of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, represented by myself, by Senator Gareth Evans and by Senator Tate. We discussed the differences and reached agreement, amalgamating as it were the recommendations of the two committees. It should be mentioned, and I think it has been by Senator Hill, that the Senate Committee's recommendation was that matters dealt with in advisory opinions should be on questions of law affecting the contitutionality of any law of the Commonwealth or of a State or any Bill passed by the parliaments of the Commonwealth or of State but which had not received royal assent at the time the request is made. It went on to deal with other matters. In the course of the discussions and negotiations, the Senate Committee gave way on that, and the provision is that which is now in the Bill relating to proposed enactments, which would make it possible for advisory opinions to be sought at various stages. They could be sought immediately after a Bill had been introduced in the Parliament, or at various other stages. I do not believe that in practical terms, de facto, this would happen and I would be surprised if any government would go backwards and forwards to the High Court seeking opinions, as it were endeavouring to improve its drafting of Bills and trying things out on the Court from time to time. That would be pretty reprehensible and would not be done; nor do I think it has been done elsewhere. From that point of view I do not think that this is a terribly serious problem. Having read the notes and from my memory of the discussions I do not think that the sub-committee had really given a great deal of attention to this problem. When I read the minutes of our sub-committee meeting of 26 May 1980 I find that in discussing the differences between the two reports we said only this: The following decisions were made: (a) Scope of jurisdiction. The sub-committee could see no difficulty in accepting the proposed terms of jurisdiction as expressed by the Judicature Committee. We then went on to deal with sections 57 and 128. I believe this matter was not adverted to at great length in the discussions, but memory may well fail me at this stage. There may have been more discussion than I thought, but I do not believe this problem was adverted to greatly. Therefore, I feel sympathy for the proposal that has been made. It is the original recommendation of the Senate Committee and, of course, a Bill which has gone through the two Houses and is awaiting royal assent would be in a very determined and finalised form, whereas a Bill could be in a much more have-it-to-go form, be sent off to the High Court , and then be altered-- Senator Haines —Flying it on the flagpole. Senator MISSEN —That is a way of putting it. I might say in regard to the proposed amendment that it contains a degree of obscurity that, before it could be passed, would have to be remedied. It says: in relation to the Parliament of the Commonwealth or of a State-a proposed enactment in the form in which it has been passed by both Houses of the Parliament concerned, or the House of the Parliament concerned, as the case may be, but which has not received the Queen's assent at the time of the reference; So it picks up the type of period for consideration of a proposed enactment which the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee had before it, but there is some obscurity as to what is meant by 'passed by both Houses of the Parliament concerned, or the House of the parliament concerned'. That presumably is designed to cover the situation, as in Queensland, where there is only one House , but it could be said that if it passes one of the Houses of the Federal Parliament it reaches that situation. So I think there is an in-built obscurity in the clause that no doubt could be fixed up. Because of the agreement reached and because the Constitutional Convention subsequently adopted the compromise proposals which were made by the sub- committee, I would feel bound to support that proposal, hoping that the problems raised would not occur in actual operation. The most important thing is that the advisory opinion jurisdiction be given to the High Court, but I feel some qualm about this amendment and hope that the Government will consider it further. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.25) —I can well understand the genuineness of Senator Hill's concern about this and I hope that in what I say I can put his mind at rest. The Government, for reasons that I hope will be seen to be compelling, does not accept the amendment. The first point I make concerns the history of the matter, which Senator Missen has touched upon. It is the case that the Senate Committee, in its original report on this, did not include a recommendation that proposed enactments be able to be the subject of advisory opinions, but rather that these be confined to completed pieces of legislation. However, the Constitutional Convention itself, and the Judicature Committee reporting to it, took a different view. At the time the two competing streams of thought on this were meshed the matter was-I have tested my recollection since Senator Missen raised this with me an hour or so ago-squarely discussed and debated on the merits, and the approach of the Constitutional Convention was accepted. So this is not coming as some product of the draftsman or the Government's last minute thoughts on the subject. It is the product, really, of a quite long and extended process of debate about its policy implications. The second point is that I am not sure that it is completely clear from what Senator Hill said, though it certainly is from the terms of the Bill before us, that when we are talking about a proposed enactment we are not talking about something which is merely a draftsman's doodling, prepared over the parliamentary recess in order to get a fix on what might appropriately be put subsequently in legislative form. The definition of 'proposed enactment' in the Bill now before us is: 'proposed enactment' means a proposed enactment in the form in which it is before the Parliament concerned at the time of the reference; So it would need to have been actually introduced as a Bill in the Parliament before it could-- Senator Hill —It need not have been debated. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is perfectly true but, equally, it is not just an advance draft. It has to be something that has at least been shaped up and introduced as a Bill. The Government has to be prepared to be politically committed to it and to have visibly done so by the process of bringing it into the chamber. I think that ought to be appreciated in a way that I am not sure it was fully-- Senator Haines —The sex discrimination legislation came in, was here for ages and then had 52 or 53 amendments made to it. What are you going to do to that? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that the next point I want to make is the practical justification for the proposal being put in these terms. The Sex Discrimination Bill does not squarely raise questions of constitutional validity . Senator Haines —It is an example of what could happen. Senator GARETH EVANS —But many equally complicated measures which have been presented to the Parliament do raise threshold questions as to constitutional validity. One classic example was the Marriage Act, which changed in very significant ways questions of status. It was a controversial measure and was the subject of a declaratory proceeding before the High Court, after it had been passed by both Houses but before it had received royal assent. Threshold questions were involved there. Clearly, constitutional questions were involved in the Family Law Act, particularly in the form in which it was originally passed and, arguably, in the form in which we have just passed it here. Constitutional questions of a threshold kind would be clearly involved were the Commonwealth, as we foreshadowed we might in due course, to introduce unilateral national companies and securities legislation purportedly based on the corporations power and other available heads of constitutional power. The point I make is that all these sorts of measures are very complicated. They have many different policy dimensions to them other than the particular constitutional one . The constitutional one is really a threshold one which needs to be debated along with many other policy implications of the Bill. The utility of an advisory opinions procedure which enables one or more specific identified provisions of a Bill to be taken to the High Court is that the vexed threshold question can be resolved without necessarily having to go through the extraordinarily protracted process of debate that may well be involved in the other policy aspects of measures of this kind. Just imagine having to go through the 1975 Family Law Bill type debate and at the end of that extraordinarily protracted process, full of controversy and excitement and all the rest of it, have the High Court dispose of it completely as being outside Commonwealth power rather than, as it did, only one small part of it. Imagine having to go through the business of debating in this chamber and in the other a new piece of Commonwealth companies legislation, only one small part of the argument about which would be the constitutional argument. The rest of the argument, which would no doubt occupy most of the time, would involve other policy implications of the content of the legislation. But I think really what is being proposed here-- Senator Hill —That has been the practice, has it not? Senator GARETH EVANS —That has been the practice and an enormous amount of parliamentary time has been devoted to things which, luckily, have not as yet in our history resulted in a complete decimation of the measure. But it is only in relatively recent years that governments have been adventurous with constitutional powers on major policy matters of this kind. For most of this century governments have not sought to exercise legislative power. Of course, it would be the view of many people in this place that they ought not do so and anything which dissuades them from doing so ought to be applauded. I expect the neanderthal vote to oppose this, as it has opposed everything else that we have debated today. But those amongst us-I include Senator Hill in this category-who are progressive in their approach to public policy issues and who do want legislation to sensibly reflect and respond to prevailing social and economic problems would wish public resources to be efficiently devoted to the resolution of the sorts of problems that arise. I make one further point as to the practicalities of these things. It could be said that one simple way of dealing with large complex legislation such as family law, company law and matters of this kind would be to introduce a very small Bill which raised the constitutional issues and pass that through both Houses fairly readily, provided one has the numbers, and then test that. That might be the sort of answer that Senator Hill would put to the points I have been making. The difficulty about that is that even though one would presumably be giving a reference to the High Court only in relation to a couple of specific provisions which clearly raise constitutional issues, those provisions could hardly be adjudicated on by the High Court in the abstract. They would have to derive their shape and substance from the context in which they appear. One could not do otherwise than introduce the test provisions in the same context as the rest of the Bill. Senator Hill —That is an argument against it, is it not? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, it is not. I am saying that what one does is- Senator Haines —You are getting too arcane for your own good. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am trying to meet what might possibly be a more sophisticated argument, which has not yet emerged from the other side. My argument about complexity and practicality can be quickly dismissed by drafting a Bill which is much narrower in compass and only dealing with the constitutional issue and referring that to the High Court. What I am saying is that that is not really the way the world works. One could only present the High Court with a problem in which the constitutional issue is raised in a total context. What one would do, of course, is refer to the High Court for actual adjudication only one or two clauses of the Bill. One would not ask it to pass upon every last one of the potential constitutional minefields that might lurk in the rest of the Bill. To do so would place unreasonable demands upon the High Court. I can only put it that way. Part of the justification for having advisory opinions is to enable one to test in a formal way legislation of this kind. The final point I make quickly is the practical one again, that I think Senator Missen has made. The Canadian Supreme Court, as I understand it, has had a capacity to adjudicate on proposed enactments as well as Bills that have formally got through the parliamentary process for a very long time now. Although it has not fallen into disuse, as I made clear earlier, although it is a procedure that has been used from time to time every few years, it is not a procedure which has been abused, nor is it reasonable to expect it to be abused in the Australian context. The amendment which we have just passed, which makes it clear that it is only a portion of the Bill that should properly be referred to the High Court, gives added practical incentive to what, I think, would in any case be the practical political dynamics of the situation. I think Senator Missen has made that point very effectively and I cannot add on that score anything to what he has said. I do not think either that there is occasion to worry that the basic principles of the place and the legislative process are being somehow put at risk by this measure. I do not think there is any real reason to express any alarm that in practice this particular capacity would be abused. I urge the chamber accordingly to vote for the Bill in the form in which it was originally proposed and as it originally emerged from a very long and protracted negotiation process. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.35) —I have been trying desperately to get some references because I understand that the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, in the course of his summing up, alleged that some of the statements that I had made about the disuse of this power were not correct. I have had some difficulty in getting the references because I thought Senator Evans would talk long enough for me to get them, but unfortunately he managed to sit down. I refer the chamber to a report in the Washington Law Review and State Bar Journal. Admittedly, this is not a Canadian, but a United States report. I refer the Committee to an article in the Spring 1959 issue by one George Neff Stevens, the Dean of the School of Law at the University of Washington. The article is entitled 'Advisory Opinions-Present Status and an Evaluation'. I know that Senator Robert Ray and Senator Gareth Evans are not interested in what the constitutional lawyers of the United States have to say on these matters, but I intend to tell those honourable senators who are interested what these people have to say on the subject. This fellow only happens to be the Dean of the School of Law at the University of Washington. I know that does not stand up to Senator Evans's academic qualifications, but the opinion is worth reading. Dean Stevens said in his conclusions: The advisory opinion practice does place in the judges a degree of control over legislative and executive conduct, duties, and obligations above and beyond the judicial function . . . When I suggested that, apparently it was frowned upon. The dean went on-I am just trying to extract the minimum of what he said-to say: Its disadvantages far outweigh its actual and potential advantages. Senator Gareth Evans —That is opinion, not fact. Senator LEWIS —Yes. The article continues: Procedural reform, looking to a speedier determination of litigated cases, and a wider use of the prerogative writs and the declaratory judgment procedure will accomplish far more, in a sound manner, than could be obtained under any extension of the advisory opinion practice. That is just one fellow's opinion. Senator Robert Ray —That is 1959. Senator LEWIS —What does it matter whether it was written in 1959 or 1859? Of course, in questions of law the opinion of these people is all important. I will tell honourable senators what happened in Germany: The Federal Constitutional Court of West Germany was given advisory jurisdiction when it was established in 1951. But after unfortunate experience with it in the European Defense Community controversy when both major political parties in the Bundestag endeavoured to embroil the Court in an ugly political conflict, the jurisdiction was abolished in 1956 at the Court's request. That is the sort of opinion that is available for anyone who wants to look. There are plenty of references criticising the granting and the use of this power. I support what Senator Hill has proposed because it would at least limit it in order to retain some powers in this Parliament. What bothers me is that the Government will produce a piece of legislation, will not give the Parliament an opportunity to debate it, will send it straight across to the High Court and come back with the opinion of the High Court and present it as a fait accompli to this Parliament. The Government will say: 'What is the good of you arguing about it? The High Court has approved it'. The Parliament will once again be seen to have lost some of its power. I am totally in favour of what Senator Hill is putting forward. Ultimately, however, I will oppose the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.40) —Perhaps I may suggest that Senator Lewis is debating the general issue rather than anything specifically identified and relevant in Senator Hill's amendment, but to the extent that he has challenged the validity of what I was saying in my second reading speech, perhaps I may say that the direct challenge that I, in turn, was then putting to Senator Lewis was as to the accuracy in particular of his Canadian references. In making those he said two things-which are both manifestly false-namely, that the advisory opinions jurisdiction has fallen into disuse in Canada and has not been used at all in the last few decades; and, secondly-this was also false-that Canadian experience is that advisory opinions have been subsequently ignored and overturned by the Supreme Court when concrete issues subsequently arose. That is just as false as his statement of fact, for reasons that I can spell out, perhaps, by reference to another learned judicial authority, Strayer on judicial review of legislation. I will give Senator Lewis the page reference afterwards, if he is keen on it. Everything else is really just a matter of opinion and takes us into the realm of the second reading-type debate which we have had and concluded as to the general merits of this meassure. As to the specific merits of Senator Hill's proposal, I do not believe that anything that Senator Lewis has said adds to or detracts from the argument that we have already had on that subject. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.41) —I thank Senator Gareth Evans very much for his contribution. He has made the matter so adequately clear to me now that my choice is quite clear. I shall now certainly oppose it. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.42) —I support the amendment moved by Senator Hill. I support the notion of advisory justification for the High Court of Australia. As to the suggestions that have been put forward-and I listened carefully to the reply of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on them-it seems to me that, in reliance upon the political activities, Senator Evans did not address himself to an interjection, and that was the discussion about the Sex Discrimination Bill. That is not a Bill which would fall into this category- although it might-but it is a Bill to which the Government, with a very high profile, committed itself politically. It brought a Bill into this place and we now have a new Bill coming in. It is a severely amended Bill. But the suggestion was that having committed oneself to a Bill, that is it. I do not see any problem that has arisen for the Government in relation to that Bill. Politically it was able to amend its own Bill. That is a regular occurrence in this place, as it is in the other place. So the mere introduction of a Bill does not commit the Government in any way politically. Yet that was one of the basic arguments being used as to why we might use it at that stage for advisory opinion rather than having gone through the debate in this place and in the other place. We may then, before it receives the royal assent, send it to the High Court for an opinion. I believe that that parliamentary debate would be the political element. The suggestion was that it was not worthwhile to proceed with the entire parliamentary debate if at the end of that we discovered that the entire episode was unconstitutional. Let us turn that argument on its head and suggest that having found that something is constitutional, if it is not politically acceptable why waste the time of the High Court looking at it? One can take one or the other. It seems to me that the political judgment on a particular Bill ought to be made first, and we should then seek-I certainly think that it should be done before the royal assent-an advisory opinion on the legality of the Bill. Senator Hill's proposal, which has been brought forward before, as Senator Missen has outlined, is probably a more appropriate way of operating with the advisory opinion. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.44) —I shall be very brief because I have already had the indulgence of the Senate to incorporate a statement in Hansard. As I was leaving my office I noticed that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) referred to Strayer in supporting his argument in respect of advisory opinions. I refer Senator Evans to the 1916 insurance case. In the 1916 insurance reference the Supreme Court was asked a number of questions and specifically to wit: Are sections 40 and 70 of the Insurance Act 1916 or any and what part or parts of the said section ultra vires the Parliament of Canada? I should have thought that that was a pretty definitive request for an opinion. But Strayer goes on to make the observation, after analysing the opinion that was given, that the results might easily have been different in a concrete case when the facts before the Court may have been seen by contrasting the decision with that of the Quebec Court of Queen's Bench Appeals cited in the Reader's Digest case. He goes on to say that the 1916 insurance reference was considered at the time to be inapplicable, but he says: Nevertheless, one might well suspect that the Courts in the 1916 insurance reference, if they had had before them the kind of facts of the insurance business corresponding to those of the publishing business considered in the Reader's Digest case, the result of the 1916 decision might well have been quite the opposite. The 1916 insurance reference was an abstract decision. It was one of the many such reference decisions which have had far-reaching and unfortunate consequences upon the laws and the Constitution of Canada. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.46) —I am not entirely sure what Senator Crichton-Browne has just contributed to the debate with that sally. There are, of course, differences of opinion as to the merits of particular decided opinions, whether on the basis of an advisory jurisdiction or an ordinary jurisdiction. Senator Crichton-Browne —You were quoting Strayer. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, but as to the facts as to what has happened in Canada as to the number of cases which have been run there and what the implications of them have been in terms of their subsequent overturning. That was all. I am not saying that Strayer was terrific in everything else that he wrote or in his analysis of his judgment. So the honourable senator is welcome to that debating point, but it does not meet the one that I was raising. Equally, Senator Macklin is welcome to his debating point about the Sex Discrimination Bill. Of course it is the case that a Bill might be substantially amended after it has been introduced. I was not seeking to suggest that there was anything about the mere fact of introduction which represented that that would then be the be-all and end-all of the Government's views about how the legislation ought to be introduced. I was simply saying that an element of formality and public commitment to at least the basic principles of a measure is necessarily involved before it can be sent off to the High Court, and as such it is not just a draftsman's sketch which would be wasting the time, possibly, of the High Court of Australia. It must have at least that degree of political momentum behind it. As to the more substantial point as to whether or not there is any justification for seeking an advisory opinion at the stage at which it has just been introduced and before it has been fully debated, I do not think that it has been fully appreciated that the High Court already has a declaratory jurisdiction in relation to Bills which have passed both Houses and which have not yet received the royal assent. It exercised that in the Marriage Act case, for example, in 1961, and there have been other instances of that. To the extent that one already has that jurisdiction, one does not need any additional jurisdiction vested in the High Court by virtue of this amendment. One of the numerous advantages of this proposal that has been accepted by the Constitutional Convention, for this among other reasons, is that it enables, at an earlier stage, threshold constitutional questions to be resolved, particularly in the context of vastly complex legislation which might otherwise involve a very substantial allocation of parliamentary time and resources which would then be wasted because of the way in which the constitutional foundations are struck from beneath it by the High Court. That is one of the very objectives of advisory opinions legislation-to enable this, in an appropriate case-and there would be all sorts of political checks and balances at work to ensure that the thing was not abused. We cannot make the High Court give a decision. There is no question of a mandamus lying against the High Court to make it produce a reasoned opinion on something on which it simply does not want to or to which it does not feel it can respond. But there is a case for creating the capacity in the High Court to give such an opinion if it is requested in an appropriate case . Perhaps I may suggest that the very careful attention that has been given to this matter by the Judicature Committee of the Constitutional Convention and the way in which this proposal has evolved over a long period, with this among other objectives in mind, ought to be given appropriate credence. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.49) —The amendment moved by Senator Hill comes as a matter of surprise to the Opposition. We have not therefore had the usual chance to consider all the ramifications of what he is putting forward. On the face of it, it has some attraction, and the Opposition and, indeed, some individual senators have indicated a very strong interest in supporting it. At the same time, there are- Senator Missen —It has got some difficulties in it. Senator CHANEY —I am getting help from all sides here. There are also potentially some problems in it. That being so, the Opposition would really prefer not to have to take a decision on this amendment on the run. I raise the matter now because I understand that there are time problems, and the Opposition has been endeavouring to fit in with the Government's time requirements. In turn , it has had from the Government concessions on time-last week, for example. So I am raising the matter really in a spirit of inquiry at this stage. The preference that I have on behalf of the Opposition is to stand this Bill over until Tuesday and to deal with it on that day. Thus we would have a chance to consider over the weekend the amendment proposed by Senator Hill and to discuss the matter in our Party room. If it is possible, that is the course we would prefer to follow and I would appreciate it if the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) could give consideration to it. I am sure the whole Senate would agree to dealing with the Bill first thing on Tuesday and then disposing of it. There is no wish to interfere with the timetable that the Government has set but there is a wish to have the chance to give mature and sober consideration to what is for most of us a new amendment which may contain some bugs even although it is, on the surface, an attractive proposition. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.51) —Under the circumstances, I think it would be appropriate to accede to the request just made. The difficulty we have as to timing is simply this: These Bills must be introduced into the House of Representatives next week. If we can introduce them by Wednesday or Thursday, then this proposed course is possible. It cannot go any longer than that and I must understand that what the Leader of the Opposition ( Senator Chaney) has said amounts to an undertaking that there will be no further delay of this matter on Tuesday. I think it is appropriate in the case of a constitutional proposal of this kind that we not be fighting about things in public which we are capable of resolving amongst ourselves before they get into the public domain. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 6 October 1983, on motion by Senator Macklin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.54) —I move: Page 2, clause 3, proposed sub-section 24 (3), leave out 'eighty-five thousand' , insert 'one hundred thousand'. The issue concerning this amendment was raised by you, Mr Chairman, during the second reading debate on these Bills and I think that the point you raised was well taken. People should be careful when they read the Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill. It only sets a ceiling. We are not talking about absolute numbers; we are talking about a ceiling. For the first time there will be a ceiling on the number of parliamentarians that can be elected to this parliament . So in that sense the Bill proposes to limit for the first time the absolute number of members. Senator Hamer, in his contribution to the second reading debate, pointed out that if the figure of 85,000 were left, as in the original Bill, the numbers really would be quite high. If the figure of 100,000 were introduced, the ceiling as of this year would be 154 members in the House of Representatives. Of course there is no constraint on the Parliament going up to that number, and the number could be even lower, as it is now. For the information of honourable senators, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics projections available, which go as far as the year 2021, the absolute number under the amended proposal would be 219 when the total population of Australia would be 21,000,000 people. So I have taken the arguments that Senator Hamer raised and have moved accordingly. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.56) —The Opposition is prepared to support this amendment. As Senator Macklin has pointed out, the figure is in the Bill merely to establish a ceiling on the number of House of Representatives seats which can be created. That restriction has not been present in the past. The idea that there should be some lower ceiling than is proposed by the Government is one which I think is fairly attractive to the Opposition parties and the limit of 154 members would seem to cater for any real requirement that the Australian people might have. The Opposition has the view that the Australian people in general are not very keen on having any more politicians anyway and I think the lowering of the ceiling would be generally acceptable to the community that this Constitution is supposed to service. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.57) —I indicate that the Government is prepared to accept the amendment, though not necessarily for entirely the same reasons as those just advised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). Even when passed by the Senate, as no doubt it will be today, it has to be said that there will still remain a fair amount of time for further consideration of this measure before it is put to the people, so I do not think we need sweat too much about the detail of it. I see the point behind Senator Macklin's proposal and accede to his suggestion. After all, it is his Bill. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.59) —Although I will support the third reading I do not regard this as a particularly practical proposition. I certainly support its going before the people but whether or not it ought to be supported in the ultimate, at the referendum, is another matter. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Baume, Peter Jones, G. N. (Teller)Bolkus, N. Kilgariff, B. F. Carrick, Sir John Lajovic, M. E. Chaney, F. M. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Colston, M. A. Primer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Hill, R. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M. (Teller)Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. The PRESIDENT-I declare that the motion for the third reading of the Bill has been carried by an absolute majority of the Senate. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 12 May 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —(5.08)-by leave-I move: (1) Page 1, clause 2, lines 6 to 9, leave out the clause. (2) Page 1, after clause 2, insert the following new clause: Summoning Parliament ''2A. Section 5 of the Constituion is altered by omitting the last paragraph.''. (3) Page 2, after clause 8, insert the following new clause: Ministers of State ''8A. Section 64 of the Constitution is altered by omitting from the last paragraph 'After the first general election, no' and substituting 'No'.''. I will explain for the record the substance of these amendments. The first amendment, strictly speaking, is simply a negativing of clause 2 of the Bill as it now stands. That is because it is no longer necessary, now that this referendum is to be held next year. Its original purpose was to delay the repeal of section 59 of the Constitution so as to preserve the trustee status of remaining stock issued under the United Kingdom Colonial Stock Act of 1900. The last of that stock matures on 1 December 1983, which the Senate will be delighted to hear. It is no longer necessary to delay the implementation of this accordingly. Our independence is almost complete in this respect. The second and third amendments are to delete respectively the provision in section 5 of the Constitution which relates to the summoning of the first Parliament in the Federation. The third amendment, the second substantive amendment, is to omit the words 'After the first general election' in section 64 of the Constitution. The provision requires a Minister to take a seat in the Parliament no longer than three months after his appointment. The words 'After the first general election' are removed to again clarify that the first election of the Federation has now rather long since passed. These particular minor amendments were in fact contained in the Bill dealing with the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Parliaments) Bill as part of the tidying up of clauses 5 and 64 that was there attempted. With the demise of that Bill it, accordingly, becomes necessary to put this particular bit of archival enterprise into the Bill we are now debating. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a third time. The PRESIDENT —The question is: That the Bill be now read a third time. Those of that opinion say aye, against so no. I think the ayes have it. As no division has been called for, I draw attention to the constitutional requirement that this Bill must be passed by an absolute majority. Before the counting of the Senate proceeds I direct the bells to be rung. The bells having been rung- The PRESIDENT —A division has not been called for, but it is desirable that the names of those honourable senators present and agreeing to the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill 1983 be recorded. I think it would meet the convenience of the Senate if I ruled that honourable senators remain in their places in order to be counted. I appoint Senator Robertson and Senator Kilgariff as tellers to record the names of those honourable senators present and agreeing to the third reading of the Bill. I ask any honourable senator not agreeing to the Bill to so indicate, so that he or she will not be counted with the honourable senators agreeing to the Bill. Senator Townley —Even if it means that I am slightly outmoded and outnumbered, I am against the third reading of this Bill. Senator Archer —I so indicate. The following names were then recorded- (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) AYES Baume, Peter Jessop, D. S. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Carrick, Sir John Lajovic, M. E. Chaney, F. M. Lewis, A. W. R. Childs, B. K. McClelland, Douglas Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Colston, M. A. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, Robert Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller) Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hearn, J. M. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Zakharov, A. O. The PRESIDENT —Order! As 50 honourable senators have agreed to the third reading , I declare that the third reading of the Bill has been agreed to by an absolute majority, as required by the Constitution. Bill read a third time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.17) —Since the remaining three private members' Bills are in the General Business rather than the Government Business list it is necessary for me to now move as a matter of procedure: That intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of General Business, Orders of the Day No. 7, Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative ) Bill 1982 (1983), No. 35, Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill 1983, and No. 92, Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill 1983. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 18 September 1980, on motion by Senator Mason: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.18) —In accordance with the previous arrangement between the Whips, rather than spend any more time on this matter I seek leave to have my speech on the second reading of this Bill incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- We are debating the Constitution Alteration (Electors Initiative) Bill. Senator Mason's Bill besides being in my view highly impractical strikes not only at the heart of responsible government but at the foundation of the constitution and the paramount role of a federal system for which it was designed and which is enshrined in it. The two fundamental purposes of the legislation are to firstly bypass the system of elected governments and have government by referendum, and secondly to destroy the influence which the smaller States have in the Federal Parliament by their equal representation in the Senate and their representation in the House of Representatives. The Bill as it presently stands proposes to confer upon qualified electors, power to make laws on any matter with respect to which the Parliament has power to legislate, and further to confer upon qualified electors in a way presently prohibited by the Constitution, the power to amend the Constitution. The intended new section 130 proposes in party that on a petition to Parliament by 250,000 qualified electors any legislation which as I say, is within the Commonwealth's jurisdiction shall be put to the people of Australia by way of a referendum. I repeat only 250,000 people are required to petition the Parliament to cause the holding of a national referendum. A percentage of 2.67 per cent of the Australian voters can cause and force the holding of a referendum. Given the recent polarisation of the community and the vocal minorities who with the willing help of the Australian media are more and more seeking to influence both community and government attitudes with one issue policies, we can I suspect really expect that there will be a continuous stream of referendums not only dislocating the legitimate government of the country but causing enormous expenditure to the taxpayers. The cost of the referenda to which the Federal Labor Government is about to subject the Australian people in February is expected alone to cost somewhere in the range of $21 million. With this proposal which requires such a small number of petitions there will be countless referendums held every year. In the event that a single issue minority group fail in their first attempt, they are at liberty to try and try again. The very system of government will be severly disrupted. New proposed section 132 intends that should there be an inconsistency between legislation made by the Parliament and legislation resulting from elector initiative, the new section 132 is designed to ensure that the latter shall prevail. With the ease with which referendums can be instigated but with the time required to put them to the people, governments will tend simply to defer legislation which is likely to be the subject of a referendum. In the meantime of course there will be a hiatus. Mr President, of far greater significance are the qualifications which the Australian Democrats propose to give effect to their referendums. The new section 130 tells us that for laws other than those seeking to amend the constitution or seeking to effect the representation of a State in the Parliament or the boundaries of a State a simple majority would be sufficient. An amendment of the Constitution could be effected by a majority of electors overall and a majority in a majority of States, or by a two-thirds majority overall. In respect of a law effecting State representation or State boundaries, a majority of electors in the affected State together with an overall majority will be required unless there is a two-thirds majority overall. I take the first proposition as it stands, which is to have the effect of creating federal laws by a vote of a simple majority of the qualified voters of Australia. In other words, it matters not whether all the voters of Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory oppose the referendum proposed. It will become law if 81.35 per cent of the voters of New South Wales and Victoria support it. I would just remind the Senate that New South Wales and Victoria between them have 61.5 per cent of all voters in Australia, that of course means that every time a referendum is put which has particular appeal to the people of those states, the views and wishes of all other States and Territories are quite irrelevant and will be ignored. One can immediately understand that this first proposal seeks not only to make the Senate totally irrelevant and the equal representation of each State which the Senate expressly provides, of absolutely no effect but it also destroys each State's representation in the House of Representatives. For the very purpose of providing a bulwark against the domination of the Federal Parliament by the two most populous States our founding fathers and the architects of the Constitution very deliberately provided for equal representation from all States in the Senate. So as to ensure that there could be no subsequent tampering with this cornerstone of our Federation and without which there would have been no Federation, the Constitution was so drafted that this provision could not be amended without the express approval of the majority of votes in the states so affected. Clearly no State would vote for a dilution of its representation so the provision of equal Senate representation for all States will remain a permanent fixture of our Constitution so long and only so long as the present provision for amending the Constitution remains. This Bill now seeks to destroy that fundamental tenet of our Constitution. Equal representation is held as an intrinsic and vital part of the Constitution by the smaller States because of the very considerable powers vested in the Senate and yet now here we have the Democrats seeking to totally destroy the fundamental premise of the Senate's existence. The States House of equal representation and equal powers will under this Bill become an irrelevance. Representation in the House of Representatives by the smaller States will also become immaterial. In fact in many respects, by the powers contained in this legislation the Parliament as a whole become irrelevant because not only does the Bill allow for laws without Parliament but laws created by it override the laws of the Parliament. To move to the Bill's second proposition under proposed section 130 relating to constitutional amendments it is proposed that constitutional amendments will be declared carried by a two-thirds majority overall. It will no doubt be recalled that the Territories are now proposed to be included in the aggregate overall total. This provision is to replace that part of section 128 of Chapter VIII of the Constitution which presently requires not only a total majority vote within the Commonwealth but a majority of votes in the majority of States. The Bill again takes absolutely no cognizance of the collective views of the States or the fact that Australia is governed under a federal system. The Democrats in seeking constitutional amendments without the consent of the majority of the States appear to be advancing into practice their proposition that the States ought to be abolished. One is compelled towards the conclusion that their proposals are based on the premise that Australia does have a unity system of government that the Constitution has no relevance to or effect upon the six States which make up our Federation and that the Australian Constitution is not one in which both national and State elements co-exist. The variation of the Constitution without the approval of both the people and the States is not only thoroughly unjust but is an attack upon the whole system of our government. The Democrats seem to have lost touch with reality. Being a new party seems no excuse to being new to the history of the Constitution. The Australian Constitution is an instrument of the careful and considered deliberations by the delegates of what are the six sovereign States of Australia. It is a creature of the States conceived and created by men who were invariably members of State legislatures. One sometimes wonders whether it is not the view of some that the Federal Parliament created the States. That the States are to be considered as inconsequential, irrelevant irritating mendicants. I just remind those of that view that the very first section of the constitution says that 'the legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives'. 'The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate'. Section 24 referring to the House of Representatives says, 'the number of members chosen in the several States shall be in proportion to the respective numbers of their people etc. That section concludes with the sentence, 'but notwithstanding anything in this section, five members at least shall be chosen in each original State'. The very essence of the composition of the Federal Parliament designed for the purpose of creating Federal laws is the protection of and participation by all States. All serious contributors to the drawing up of the Federal Constitution were of one mind on one issue. The Federal Parliament was to be a parliament of all States, reflecting the views, wishes, aspirations and characters of all the States of Australia. In a simple stroke this legislation seeks to destroy that premise and dismantle the principle of Federation in Australia. By ignorance or design I have no idea. Pursuing the logical conclusion to which this legislation inexhorably draws us it must follow that the Democrats are calling for the abolition of the Senate and the creation of a unicameral system of government or at best a totally unstructured system of election to the Senate. In as much as each State has ten senators in the Senate and given the significant difference in the various States naturally the quotas for senators in each State are different. Under the principles outlined in this legislation the quota for all senators should be the same. If that were to be the case New South Wales would be entitled to 21 senators, Victoria 16, Queensland 10, South Australia 6, Western Australia 5 and Tasmania 2. To refer for a moment to that part of the new section 132 of the Constitution contained in the Bill before us, it is as I have outlined, proposed that alterations diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State is the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law if a two-thirds majority of all eligible voters so decide. In other words now, theoretically New South Wales and 48 per cent of the voters in Australia or New South Wales and Victoria plus 13.5 per cent of every other State could at such a referendum under such a proposal abolish the Senate completely, amalgamate the smaller States into one and abolish representation of those States so amalgamated. Is that really what this constitutional amendment is intended to achieve. Under Senator Mason's proposal it would only require 4.26 per cent of New South Wales and Victorian voters to cause that proposal to be put by way of referendum. As far as Tasmania is affected such a referendum could of course very easily amend that provision of section 24 of the Constitution which provides that five members at least shall be chosen in each original State. It is not a question of what will be done but rather what can be done. If Tasmanian House of Representative boundaries were drawn under the standard provisions of section 24 which applies to every other State, their representation in that chamber would be reduced to 3. The Constitution provides that the number of members chosen in the several States shall be in proportion to the respective numbers of their people, and shall until the Parliament otherwise provides be determined in the following manner: (i) A quota shall be ascertained by dividing the number of the people of the Commonwealth as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth by twice the number of the Senators. (ii) The number of members to be chosen in each State shall be determined by dividing the number of the people of the State, as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, by the quota, and if on such division there is a remainder greater than one-half of the quota, one more member shall be chosen in the State. As I say on that basis Tasmania would be entitled to three members, but for the fact that section 24 is qualified to the extent that no original State shall have less than five members. That qualification to the determining calculation for representation from each State in the House of Representatives is to ensure that the less populous States such as Tasmania are not swamped by the more populous States and to ensure that they have some voice in the House of Representatives. It is an extension of the underlying philosophy which has been woven through the Constitution. Concern to ensure that all States are adequately numerically represented in the Federal Parliament both in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Democrats are now seeking to break the golden thread and submerge such considerations. To argue in favour of their proposals is to argue against a voice in the affairs of our nation by the smaller States and is to argue against a voice for all Australians. This Bill now before us is potentially the most divisive legislation to come before the Senate in a great many years. It could and would, if ultimately caused by a referendum, lead to enormous difficulties for the system of Federation. It would lead inevitably to discrimination between the stronger and weaker States on a whole range of issues which the Constitution in its present form prohibits, and I refer to taxation, trade and commerce just to name a few. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J. Haines, J. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Jones, G. N. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Kilgariff, B. F. Bolkus, N. Lajovic, M. E. Button, J. N. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John McClelland, DouglasChaney, F. M. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Messner, A. J. Coates, J. Missen, A. J. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Durack, P. D. Robertson, E. A. Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C. Giles, P. J. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hearn, J. M. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed from 17 May 1983, on motion by Senator Peter Rae: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 1 —— Archer, B. R. Hill, R.Baume, Peter Jessop, D. S.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Lajovic, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Lewis, A. W. R.Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J.Collard, S. J. Mason, C. V. J.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Messner, A. J.Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E.Evans, Jack Teague, B. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M.Haines, J. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. Maguire, G. R.Childs, B. K. Missen, A. J.Coates, J. Primmer, C. G.Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M.Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F.Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M.Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O.Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 6 October 1983, on motion by Senator Hamer: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.34) —in reply-Very briefly I exercise my right of reply in a last ditch attempt to try to induce the Government to see reason on this issue. Only one objection has been raised by the Government to my Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill which provides that the Government's power to have a double dissolution lapses after three months if it has not exercised that power. It is intended to bring the workings of the Constitution back to its proper and intended purpose. The objection raised by Senator Tate and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) can be expressed, I think, in this way: What about the death of a thousand cuts? What if the Senate, instead of rejecting a major piece of legislation which could properly be the grounds for a double dissolution under the Bill, rejected a succession of minor pieces of legislation cumulatively frustrating the Government in the process? As far as being grounds for a double dissolution is concerned, this does not matter because a single ground, no matter how trivial, is adequate and the straw that breaks the camel's back can properly be the grounds for a double dissolution. However, it is true that the other rejected Bills may be out of time, the rejection having occurred more than three months before, and the Government would not have the right to have them considered at a post-election joint sitting if it so desired. The answer to this is very simple. If the Government were becoming increasingly frustrated by Senate obstruction and decides to go for a double dissolution, it could, if it desired, re-present all the Bills which had previously been rejected. This would focus the Senate's mind wonderfully if the Government's intention to go for a double dissolution were obvious. If the Senate were not prepared to face a double dissolution on the grounds of obstruction, it would have to pass the Bills. That is one solution. On the other hand, if it were prepared to face a double dissolution it would reject them again and they would be available to the Government for consideration at a post-election joint sitting, provided, of course, the Government won the election. This seems an adequate and appropriate way of dealing with the problem that Senator Tate and the Attorney-General raised and is, politically, entirely proper and workable. Since the only objection raised by the Government to the Bill has now been disposed of, I look forward to the Government's support. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 0 —— Archer, B. R. Hill, R. Baume, Peter Jessop, D. S. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Lajovic, M. E. Chaney, F. M. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Jack Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Haines, J. Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, Douglas Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Primmer, C. G. Coleman, R. N. Ray, Robert Colston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Evans, GarethRobertson, E. A. (Teller) Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. The PRESIDENT-The votes being 26 all, the question is resolved in the negative. In error, Senator Lewis, although present and voting aye, was omitted from the record of the division. Senator Townley —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I have been informed that certain people counted 27 on the ayes side during that last division. I am not for a moment disputing what you have said, Mr President, but it seems to me that there is some doubt about the count. I do not know what provision we have for recommitting a vote of that kind, but perhaps it should be done. Senator Chipp —I speak to the point of order, Mr President. I was going to raise that point of order myself. We are talking about an extremely significant vote. If you look at the naked figures there are 28 Liberal Party and National Party of Australia senators in this place plus five Australian Democrats. I assume all members of those parties present voted for the ayes, which means that the ayes must have won unless there was a Liberal Party or a National Party member absent . Surely the matter can be cleared up if either the Liberal Party Whip or the National Party Whip declares that one of their members missed the division or abstained. It would be as simple as that. I think it is such a serious matter that it should not be allowed to go by default. Senator Chaney —I was just waiting while my Whip checked with the Government Whip. There may be some possibility that there has been some confusion with the pairing arrangements. My informal counting of that division led me to believe that we had successfully carried it. I suggest that it is an appropriate case for recommittal. The PRESIDENT —Order! The division lists have been recovered and I would suggest that they be perused by the Clerks and the Whips. In the meantime we will proceed with the business of the day. If in the event it is found that a mistake has occurred we can determine whether the Bill should be recommitted. Senator Bolkus —Mr President, I refer you to page 236 of Odgers Australian Senate Practice which covers the subject of an incorrect counting or irregularity in the vote. If anything is to be done, perhaps the Standing Orders and Australian Senate Practice need to be gone through first. Senator Townley —Surely the Senate can decide if it wants to recommit a vote. Senator Withers —On that point of order, it has been a rule in this chamber ever since I have been here, and no doubt since you have been here, Mr President, that neither side tries to win in this place by misadventure. Senator Gareth Evans —What about in 1975? Senator Withers —No, that is true. Many a time a vote has been taken when somebody has been locked in a lavatory or something. The vote has been put again . Occasionally we on our side have lost and occasionally the other side has lost following a recommittal. But there has been a general arrangement around the chamber that neither side wins by misadventure. One does not want to worry about the Standing Orders or Odgers' publication. It is a matter of decency in the chamber. Senator Button —I do not in any way wish to delay this most edifying debate but I am quite happy that in a quarter of an hour or so we should come back to this issue. Everybody is speaking in total ignorance, with respect. If there could be some discussion between the Whips and the Clerks, in a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes, by agreement, we could come back and consider this matter again. I would be quite happy. I do not see any point in continuing the present discussion. The PRESIDENT —That is the course of action I suggested in the first instance. It has been the normal practice in the case of misadventure in regard to counts. Debate resumed from 4 October 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.49) —The Opposition will not oppose the second reading of the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill or giving the Bill a second reading, but the Opposition will move an amendment identical to that moved by our spokesman, the Hon. Michael Hodgman, in another place. We will draw the attention of the Senate to some aspects of the legislation. The amendment which we will move has been circulated and proposes that the following words be added: 'but the Senate is of the opinion that- (a) the increased charges will cause personal hardship by preventing a large number of private overseas students from obtaining the benefits of secondary and tertiary education in Australia; and (b) the substantially reduced overseas student intake for 1984 is not in the interests of Australia and its relations with our Asian and Pacific neighbours in that it is elitist, isolationist, selfish and mean'. The legislation seeks to increase the maximum rate of charge per prescribed course for overseas students attending secondary and tertiary institutions in Australia. The extent of the increase in the maximum charge will be from $2,500 to $2,900. As with other changes affecting tertiary students, what the Labor Government is doing is making it more difficult for private overseas students to be able to afford or get access to, secondary or tertiary education in Australia. At the same time as it is increasing the charges, the Government is cutting the intake of overseas students quite significantly and the Opposition is concerned about this action. The increasing of charges by the Government is an affirmation that education is a good and that there are costs associated with the provision of that good. It is an affirmation by a Labor Government in Australia that circumstances do exist in which the charging of fees for access to higher education in this country is something that Labor supports. That is quite an admission because the charge itself was, of course, introduced by the previous Government and what we are debating now is really the fact that the charge has been increased. It is worth noting that in 1979, when the charge was introduced, the Australian Labor Party was unanimous in its opposition to it. It was unanimous in its opposition to the Overseas Students Charge legislation. The Australian Labor Party at that time, when it did not have the numbers and was in opposition, said that it was disgraceful that we should seek to charge overseas students for the privilege of being educated in Australia. Now that it is in government and has the capacity to redress what it saw as wrong in 1979, there is no move to do that. Let me be clear about our position. We believed it appropriate to introduce this charge. It was the Australian Labor Party that condemned it when in opposition. Now it is in government it has declined to take the first opportunity open to it to redress what it saw as wrong when it was convenient to take that view. In fact, Labor supporters ran around the campuses of Australia indicating that if elected they would get rid of the legislation. Of course, we find that now they are in government they are not going to do that. One of the obligations which we really must assume, and have assumed, as a highly developed country, a country with special capacities in our region, is to provide educational opportunities for our neighbours in South East Asia and the western Pacific. Some of the things which have been occurring, particularly the limitation on the numbers of private overseas students to be allowed access to Australia, are not in accord with assuming those obligations. It is worth observing that the Australian Union of Students has expressed its opposition to this move by the Government. Although I am frequently in conflict with the Australian Union of Students, on this occasion it is appropriate, as a contribution to the debate, to mention what Miss Gayle Sansakda had to say as Education Vice-president of Australia: It was disappointing to see the Minister being pressed into taking this position which was based on the situation at only one campus, the University of NSW. I might come back to that and say that at the University of New South Wales some of the courses had large numbers of overseas students participating. There was in the Sydney Press earlier this year a not entirely savoury debate which drew upon some of those less admirable tendencies in Australian society which lie just below the surface and suggested that somehow overseas students were displacing, inappropriately, Australian born students. I can understand the difficulties which the very enlightened Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales faced in dealing with this circumstance. I would say that at all times his position was careful, proper and reasonable, but I do not think that some of the Press comment that occurred in my own city during this time was either good or helpful. The fact is that some of the students, on merit, earned their way into courses and it was a matter for some public comment that in some courses overseas students did represent some 90 per cent of students. On many other campuses space and capacity was available for overseas students to enrol. Many campuses have the capacity to take extra students, and to extrapolate from the position at the University of New South Wales and on that basis make it not possible for students, above a very small quota, to come to Australia, is something which has concerned the Australian Union of Students as well as a number of other people in the community. The AUS also drew attention to the lack of consultation which had occurred on the issue. We understand that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) had considerable difficulty in coming to an agreement on a number of matters relating to this issue. I understand that it was even difficult to settle upon a Press release. So, considering the difficulties that they had, I am not surprised that there was minimal consultation with outside groups, but that is a pity, because this is just the kind of issue where extensive consultation with the institutions and with the AUS would have been helpful in obtaining acceptance and perhaps some modification of what the Government has proposed. The AUS opposed also the level of increase in fees and had this to say: There is a presumption that all overseas students come from wealthy families, but this is not true. Most overseas students find it very difficult to pay their annual visa charge-- At that stage it ranged from $1,850 to $2,500. I must say that the Liberal Party and the National party do not oppose the concept of a fee for private, non- sponsored, overseas students. We acknowledge clearly that we introduced the fee and resisted the fierce opposition of the Australian Labor Party when we did so, but the same Party, now that it is in government, has failed to redeem the promises that it made when in opposition. Not only has the Hawke Government not got rid of the overseas students charge, as it said it would but also it has increased the charge substantially and has narrowed the access of those students from our region who may want access to education in Australia. That is a pity, especially in view of the other ways in which students in this country have been disadvantaged. I would just refer to the promises made to students about the level of the tertiary education assistance scheme, and so on, which have not been honoured. The other concern, in addition to the increased charge, is the reduction in overseas student intake. There is real concern as to the extent to which adequate levels of intake will be maintained over the next few years, and the extent to which the Government will make adequate access as part of its good neighbour policy in the western Pacific and South East Asian region. We believe that the Government has responded in a knee-jerk fashion to a problem that is present predominantly on one campus in one State. There has been some difficulty on this and perhaps a couple of other campuses, but in view of the capacity that exists across Australia to take students, and in view of the Government's promise to increase access to higher education, the Government could have been less restrictive in regard to the numbers that it would allow in. Indeed, if the Government's promise of increased access and participation in higher education is to be met at the expense of overseas students, if what it is saying is 'We will keep them out to allow more home grown people in' it is a very short- sighted and unneighbourly policy in a region in which we have so much to offer and in which, traditionally, we have offered so much. Therefore, the Opposition will not seek to prevent the Bill from passing. I shall formally move the amendment which has been circulated and I indicate that no Committee stage amendments will be moved by the Opposition. I therefore move: At end of motion, add '', but the Senate is of the opinion that- (a) the increased charges will cause personal hardship by preventing a large number of private overseas students from obtaining the benefits of secondary and tertiary education in Australia; and (b) the substantially reduced overseas student intake for 1984 is not in the interests of Australia and its relations with our Asian and Pacific neighbours in that it is elitist, isolationist, selfish and mean''. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.00) —I point out that the Opposition's amendment is in terms different from those originally read out by Senator Baume. I seek clarification as to which of those we are speaking to. Senator Peter Baume —The Opposition's amendment is that which has been circulated. Senator MACKLIN —The Australian Democrats believe that the decision indiscriminately to levy fees on overseas students is ill-conceived, counter- productive, and inconsistent with other policy objectives for Australia, particularly in the area of foreign policy. As an economically developed country in the Asian-Pacific region, the Australian Democrats believe that Australia has an obligation to assist in the development of struggling nations in our area. Many quite small nations have urgent problems in providing the bare essential needs of their population such as food, fresh water, primary schools, and basic health services. Thus, they cannot divert many resources towards the provision of extensive tertiary facilities. If they are to solve these problems in the long term they require doctors, medical researchers, technicians, agricultural scientists and technicians, biologists, teachers, sanitation and civil engineers , economists, agronomists, accountants and social scientists. In other words, their needs are great and their desire and thirst for knowledge is commensurate with their problems. The decision to levy fees, which amount to an insignificant proportion of Australia's total education budget, makes a mockery of the many statements of support that Australia has given to the issues of Third World development and the North-South dialogue. The very essence of the North-South dialogue is the transfer of technology from the developed to the underdeveloped countries. If we are to prove that our statements are not mere rhetoric and that we are seriously committed to helping those nations solve their pressing problems, one of the most obvious and immediately effective ways that we can do this is to make our tertiary institutions accessible to nationals of underdeveloped countries in an ordered way. Another aspect of this issue is that this Bill, in levying higher fees on overseas students from underdeveloped countries, is that the percentage of students from very rich families will increase sharply while middle class families will find it much more difficult, if not impossible, to continue to finance their children's further education. I refer here, of course, to the private students and not to those students who are currently financed by the Australian Government. This, in turn, leads to greater inequalities within the countries themselves and is not an appropriate policy to be advanced by the Australian Government and certainly not, I would have thought, by an Australian Labor Party Government. In this area the Australian Democrats believe that students should be assisted to study here by arrangements being made between ourselves and various nations in our region as an integral part of our entire foreign policy arrangements, this not only for students who are here on Australian-assisted study but also for private students. I emphasise that I am referring to both categories. The only proviso the Australian Democrats would wish to make on this would be that it should not be open to the governments of these countries to exploit such a policy to further any racial ends. For example, it ought not to be acceptable to Australia for Malaysia to send only Malay students while excluding Chinese students; nor should it be possible for the Philippines to exclude the Moslem minority from taking advantage of Australia's policy in this area. In addition, the Democrats advocate the establishment of a system of variable fees for overseas students. This would involve an analysis on a country by country basis differentiating between living standards and rates of exchange. The fees charged would be paid in the country of origin and based on capacity to pay. The conditions under which Australian nationals can undertake further studies in these countries would also be taken into consideration. Such a scheme could be easily administered through our embassy network. It would involve a person applying to our embassy for assessment. We do not believe there would be any need for a policing of these applications as this would be too cumbersome and expensive, but we would support a provision that if a student was apprehended making a false declaration that student's tertiary course would be immediately terminated and no further study could be undertaken by that person in Australia. Quite apart from the aid Australia can provide to other nations by making access to our tertiary institutions more easily attainable, Australia would reap many benefits from such a policy. The most important benefit for our country would arise from having people educated here who understand our outlook and way of life. In effect, they would become ambassadors of good will for Australia when they returned to their own nations. The major problem that the world is facing, the Democrats believe, is in the area of disarmament. Surely in a positive direction Australia can contribute towards this goal by creating a climate of good will between ourselves and those nations surrounding us, a contribution, I add, in excess of the amount we now make. At a tertiary level that contribution really boils down to a very small one indeed. Also, our students would get to know other cultures. I believe that this would be invaluable to Australia in developing a less xenophobic attitude to the world. We have difficulties in that regard because of our isolation and our monolingual structure. I believe that any efforts we can make in this regard are beneficial to our own citizens as well as to the citizens of other countries. The Democrats believe that in the long term such a policy will contribute far more than anything else towards understanding between nations, because it is understanding at the most fundamental and important level, an understanding between peoples. If one wanted to take a less idealistic view and wished merely to approach this on a materialistic and economic level, one might look at the cost that is involved to Australia and put against that the enormous amount of foreign exchange which comes into this country from overseas students. I draw the attention of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) to the various statements that have been made, even within the last week, by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the importance that the Government, as a policy matter, now attaches to attracting tourists to Australia. One of the arguments that Mr Brown has advanced in relation to that is the ability of people to come here and bring foreign exchange into Australia. Indeed , when one looks at figures one sees that the staggering amount of foreign exchange brought in by overseas students who live here on a year to year basis easily outweighs any current costs to the Australian Government. If one looks at the recent report of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs-I refer to the 1981-82 report which came before the Senate in the last couple of weeks-one sees on pages 10 and 11 under the heading 'Education and Training' a discussion of the current efforts the Government is undertaking in this regard. The report states: During 1981-82 over 4,000 students and trainees, ranging from undergraduate students to senior managers, were sponsored by the Australian Government to study in Australia . . . The unfortunate part about that report is that the various lengths of stay of those people in Australia are not itemised. One has to read between the lines to work them out. I have been involved in some of these matters myself. The lengths of stay vary from as little as a week to up to a full two-semester or three-term operation at a tertiary institution. In effect, the number that we are looking at is not 4,000. In resource terms we are looking at 1,500, because we are looking at the tertiary institutions and at that level. The resource implications at other levels are minimal. Indeed, much of the resources allocated in other areas are picked up as an incidental cost only by tertiary institutions, Government departments and private industry. The Government should be very careful when it throws around figures which suggest that we are looking at 4,000. The figures to which we ought to address ourselves are figures for areas in which there is a substantive input, and in this regard it is those who attend tertiary institutions of whatever kind. I am referring not only to universities but also to colleges of advanced education and to technical colleges, because they are at the level from which the various underdeveloped countries within our region require technicians to help them to develop in the areas that I have already outlined in which they have such desperate need. It is extremely disappointing that after the various statements that the Australian Labor Party has made-in fact, statements that we made together while the Labor Party was in opposition-it has not followed them through when in government. An enlightened policy in this area ought to be moving to cater not for the small vocal minority groups in the community, which are basing their arguments on pure racism and nothing else, but to a realisation that what comes to Australia from this area is to our benefit and is probably more to our benefit than it is to the benefit of the countries that we are helping. It is a disgrace and an extreme disappointment after the various things which the Labor Party said when in opposition, and which we said together, that it has not now, in government, followed through on its rhetoric. It is certainly extremely disappointing to the overseas students who are studying in Australia, as I am sure it is to many of the countries in our region. Now that Senator Peter Baume's amendment has been clarified, the Australian Democrats can certainly support it. We could not support it previously because we are opposing the Bill, a Bill which we believe ought not to have been introduced. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.13) —The Opposition strongly supports the private overseas student program and the ability of overseas students, especially those from South East Asia and the Pacific, to come particularly to our tertiary institutions and to participate with Australian students and gain skills that they can then apply in their own countries. I remember participating in the debate when the Act that we are seeking to amend tonight was introduced in 1979. At that time all of us in the debate, on both sides of the chamber-the Australian Democrats did not participate in that debate-supported the overseas student program, saw it as worthwhile and wished to continue the by then well- established tradition in Australia of welcoming overseas students amongst us. However, in the debate in the House of Representatives in particular, it is evident this time, by the judgment of the Government, and by the Government's attack particularly upon Malaysian students coming to Australia, and by the terms of the review that was instituted to look at the private overseas student program in Australia, that perhaps there is a wavering on the Government's part from the full support that we have always given, on all sides of the chamber, in the past. I hope that that is not the case. I urge the Government, in response to the review that will come down eventually from Professor Goldring and the members of his committee, to come to a firm statement of support for the overseas student program in Australia. What Senator Macklin has just said echoes my own view that the overseas student program is important to Australia. It has already created, particularly in the period after the Second World War, 30 years of good will between Australia and those countries in our immediate region with which we have special relationships . So many of the leaders of these countries were trained in Australia and they look with friendship and appreciation and with a knowledge that they have experienced in Australia a mutual friendship which is enduring. Australia should continue to contribute through both the sponsored overseas student program and the private overseas student program. I cannot say anything that would detract from what anyone has ever said in this Parliament about the importance of the overseas student program. I urge the Government to clarify any wobbling statement that has appeared in this debate already to the effect that there might be less than the full support that was indicated in earlier debates. As Senator Peter Baume has said, the Opposition will support the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill, which will amend the Act established under the Fraser Government. At that time, in 1979, we in government sought to achieve a balance between, on the one hand, access and assistance for overseas students to come and study in Australia, and, on the other hand, a reassurance to the Australian taxpayer that the contribution being made was appropriate, that in the judgment of the Parliament it was an appropriate amount to be contributed, and that there was not an open-ended drain upon government revenue in that direction. The cost of the private overseas student program is $70m, and some $ 25m is proposed to be recouped by the overseas student charge as amended by this Bill. I draw back a little from Senator Macklin's full-bodied idealism which did not also state the obligation that we in this Parliament have to the taxpayers of Australia. As I said earlier, I share his idealism and his sense of vision about Australia contributing to the countries about us, but we need to have this balance. I do not resile at all from the measure introduced by the Fraser Government which proposed a balance in this matter. The terms of this Bill are that what has been a range of charge of from $1,850 to a maximum of $2,500 will rise by about 15 per cent to a range of $2,150 to $2 ,900 as a maximum. About three-quarters of the private overseas students will pay at the lower end of that spectrum. It is estimated that about 35 to 40 per cent of the real cost of providing courses of tuition in our colleges and universities is thereby paid by the participating private students. It should also be recognised that not all private students are required to pay this charge . Secondary students are exempt from it, so it affects only those students who enrol in universities and colleges of advanced education. Also, all private students coming from Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific countries are exempt -or, rather, the Australian Government through the Australian Development Assistance Bureau or other overseas aid appropriated moneys pays the overseas student charges for those students. There are also private tertiary students from other parts of the world in some categories who, if they meet certain requirements as originally set out in the Overseas Students Charge Act, are exempt from paying this charge. There are now 8,000 overseas students in our universities and colleges. It is expected that about 5,000 of them would be paying this charge, and three quarters of those would be paying at the lower end of the charge spectrum. I refer again to this sense of balance. The Parliament has an obligation to express its vision of Australia being of assistance and co-operating with students from the region about us, and indeed from all parts of the world, but that must be balanced with our obligation to the taxpayers of Australia. I am trying now to emphasise the hyprocrisy of members of the Australian Labor Party. Not only are they increasing the overseas student charge by introducing this Bill but also, quietly, in their hyprocrisy they are bringing in quotas. They are renewing quotas that will restrict the number of overseas students that will come into Australia. They are doing this despite the fact that four years ago in this chamber and in the other place they condemned the proposal that the former Government had introduced. They gave the impression that not only would they remove this overseas student charge when they came to office but also that they were against any restriction that would not allow the benefits that had been extended to overseas students, from Colombo Plan days especially, to continue to be available to them. Senator Peter Baume —This is their chance, isn't it? Senator TEAGUE —This is their great chance now, being in government, to follow up the conscientious statements that were made four years ago. In that debate the Labor Party spokesman on immigration and ethnic affairs, Moss Cass-who has now retired from the Parliament-made certain statements. The Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, who is in the chamber tonight led the debate in the Senate tonight. He made certain statements, as did Senator Colston and Senator Tate. All of them condemned this measure and all of them said that it was ill advised. I do not want in any way to so remind them of their statements then as to lead them to retract those statements. I am only asking them to recognise that back in 1979 we, in government, tried to argue that they were short sighted , that they were not seeking a balance, that they were just opposing for opposing's sake, being reactionary. I am not seeking to oppose this measure. Senator Robertson —What did you do for years? Senator TEAGUE —I have reread my speech of 25 October in the Senate and I still stand by all the words of that statement. I do not want to be hyprocritical like the Labor Party was at that time. I will not bore honourable senators with long quotations, but Dr Moss Cass said: Unfortunately, the Government has taken the cheapest, nastiest and most superficial and irresponsible approach to the problem by imposing charges without honestly or fully assessing how the program is working . . . Senator Grimes, who has just left the chamber, said: It is in this scenario that Government Ministers searched around for the least odious way to bolster the Government's coffers. Who do they seize upon but the group, amongst many others, which is unable to defend itself and which is completely disenfranchised in this country . . . Is the Government of today still imposing an increased charge and a restrictive quota on this same, as they put it, disenfranchised and weak group unable to defend itself? What has Senator Grimes to say about that? When in opposition, the statements made were reactionary. They were just opposing for opposing's sake. Now members of the Government are displaying their hyprocrisy. They are in fact not only endorsing our measure but also increasing the charge and whacking in a restrictive quota. At that time, Senator Colston stated: . . . these overseas students charge Bills . . . introduce clear inconsistency into our educational policy. They revive, whether justly or not, suspicions that our immigration policies are racist. I do not agree with that. I did not agree with it in 1979 and I do not agree with it now. I do not believe that this sense of balance between our obligations to the taxpayer and our vision towards overseas students is in any way racist; to the contrary. That is what was put up. Where is Senator Colston now? Is he claiming that his own Government's measure fits that description? He went on to say: It also contradicts our foreign policy, in which Australia says that it will help people in overseas countries to obtain a better standard of living and to have more educated people. The whole thrust of our foreign policy is contradicted by these measures. Indeed, Senator Tate said: . . . this Bill . . . will have a disastrous impact on our international relations. Where is Senator Tate now? Does he still believe that? I want to remind the Senate in this debate that in 1979 we came forward with a reasonable measure. It did not ruin our international relations. It was not seen as racist and it was not seen as a purely revenue raising measure, as was alleged; rather it was seen as a matter of balance. Honourable senators opposite, now they are in government , are stepping into our shoes fairly exactly but are imposing a higher charge. They have let down the overseas students in Australia, and indeed many other students in Australia who were concerned about this. The Labor Party claimed it was more concerned about this than we were and raised expectations that it would remove these charges. My last quotation from the debate in 1979 is from Senator Tate, who said: For an investment of some $6m- six million dollars was the amount expected to be raised in 1980, but now it is $25m- we are gaining all that. I cannot think of any expenditure of a mere $6m which could devise such a system more calculated to create within the Pacific region and in south and south-eastern Asia a body of influential opinion inclined to understanding Australia. It must auger well for our political and commercial relations with that area. At the time I agreed with Senator Tate's hope that we would build good relations with the students who would become graduates and leaders in their own countries, but I differed from Senator Tate by saying that it was appropriate that there be a contribution of that dimension to balance our obligations to the taxpayers of Australia. The hypocrisy and the failure of the Australian Labor Party to meet the expectations that it whipped up in its period in opposition are directly demonstrated in this Bill. I am glad that the Australian Labor Party Government has endorsed a particular measure which we introduced after the passing of the original Act, that is the measure to exempt the students from Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific. The overseas student charge which applies to the private overseas students from those areas is paid for through the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, through the overseas aid vote of the Australian Parliament. I am glad that the Labor Government has seen fit to continue these arrangements. I now turn to the question of quotas. In the period of the former Labor Government, in 1973, a quota of 10,000 students was introduced for the first time. The former Labor Government restricted the number of overseas students in 1973. In 1979, in parallel with the introduction of this original measure, we removed that quota. We said: 'In order to justify an open-ended number of overseas students we need to introduce a balance by imposing an overseas student charge.' But we expect, in these new circumstances, that the 1979 decision will lead to increased numbers of overseas students in Australia. The reactionary opposition of the day said: 'Numbers will not increase. They will be killed off. This charge will lead to a decline in numbers'. Do honourable senators opposite want me to quote all of the statements? What has happened? The numbers did increase. We said to the Senate in 1979 that, as a direct result of taking away the quota and of introducing a moderate charge-about 40 per cent of the average cost of tertiary education-we would expect to see an increase in the numbers. The number has increased. It has increased from 11,500 in those days to 13,500 now. In fact, it has increased so much and the pressure for further increases has so worried the Government that in a knee-jerk reaction it has whipped in a new quota for next year. Labor governments bring down quotas on overseas students in Australia and Liberal governments remove the quotas. That should be understood. The quota is extraordinarily restrictive for 1984. It will allow only 1,500 new tertiary students to enter Australia. There are 4,000 students who will be able to enrol for the first time. It is estimated by the Government that 2,500 of those students are already enrolled in Australian secondary schools which allows for only 1,500 new tertiary students to enter Australia. That must be the lowest number in the last 25 years. This is an inappropriate, restrictive, slap in the face to the many overseas students who want to come to Australia. I do not support that quota. I now urge the Government to remove the quota and to await the result of its own review. Professor Goldring and his committee have been given terms of reference for an inquiry into the private overseas students program. Why does not the Government await the results of that inquiry before prematurely bringing in this highly restrictive quota? It is not just a highly restrictive quota on newly arrived tertiary students but also it is especially restrictive on secondary students enrolling from Malaysia. The Labor Government has chosen on this matter to attack our near neighbour Malaysia. Why has the Government picked on Malaysia? One argument may be that the student numbers in secondary schools from Malaysia have increased most dramatically. A substantial number of overseas students in Australia have always come from Malaysia. Strong ties have been established between Australians and Malaysians in every profession, especially in the fields of engineering, dentistry, medicine and the humanities. I think it is inappropriate and that it is contrary to the now reasonably bipartisan view that we seek to be closely aligned with our neighbours of the Association of South East Asian Nations. I know that we can be critical of a number of intiatives taken in the United Nations or with regard to Vietnam or with regard to consultation with ASEAN leaders. Those matters can be dealt with in foreign affairs debates. For the most part we have now established-both the Government and the Opposition-a goal of seeking close relationships with the ASEAN countries, Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific countries. But why muddy those waters with this particularly restrictive quota upon Malaysian students? Why introduce this quota before the review has been completed? I should like to quote just briefly the actual words used by the Opposition when dealing with our measure four years ago. Dr Cass moved this amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'consideration of the Bill be deferred until the Government presents a comprehensive proposal for a program of education aid for students from developing countries according to defined criteria including priority attention to academic ability, the needs of the developing nations and the needs of particular students. In other words, he said, 'Defer the measure until you have reviewed the situation properly'. We maintained in that debate that this measure was an appropriate one to balance the abolition of the quota. But this Government has reimposed the quota and it has increased the charge without waiting for the results of the review. This is in direct contrast to the advice of the then Opposition spokesman four years ago. I ask the Government Ministers present, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), to take away these newly imposed quotas for 1984 and to await the review of the private overseas student program. If the Government does not wait for the results of that review I believe it will undermine the good will towards Australia amongst our near neighbours, particularly in ASEAN. This measure will be seen to be clumsy and bureaucratic and it will cause damage to Australia. In the light of what I have said about the 1979 debate, the hypocrisy of the Labor Party in this matter has been demonstrated. Why should we settle for a quick and unthinking reaction from the Government in this matter? Why should there not be a more considered and careful approach-an approach that is more consistent with our overall foreign policy and more consistent with the overseas student program of recent years which we have seen flourish in Australia? I wish to refer briefly to two other matters. One is the notion of competition from overseas students with Australia's own students in universities, colleges, technical and further education colleges and schools. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) said this in his second reading speech on 20 September: In the past few years, particularly in 1983, the numbers of overseas students admitted to Australia increased substantially over those of the previous year. The Government is concerned that as a result Australian students may not have been able to obtain places in the course of their choice at tertiary institutions. I believe there is no evidence for that claim. The Minister did not refer to any university or any college where that was alleged to be the case. In which course are Australian students being denied enrolment because of overseas student competition? The Minister in his summing up in the House of Representatives debate referred to pressure of numbers-this is no surprise-in the traditional areas of enrolment of overseas students in Australia from ASEAN and South Pacific countries. This would include the faculties of medicine, dentistry, engineering and architecture. He referred to that but he did not give any concrete cases. He did not note any complaint from a student, an Australian family or from an educational institution. I believe that this competition or pressure, this apparent squeezing out of Australian students, has not been established and is not factual. There is no evidence for it. By saying this in the Parliament the Minister is being derogatory of overseas students in Australia. He is pointing the finger at those students rather than underlining the welcome that we as Australians give to them . I think his attitude is unfortunate. I again urge the Government to retract such a statement, pending a careful examination by the review. In any event, how can 8,000 overseas students in our colleges and universities be much competition for more than 200,000 Australian students? Can 4 per cent squeeze out the 96 per cent? I do not think this argument is plausible. I believe that this action is a scare tactic. I harken back to the point I made at the beginning of my remarks when I asked the Labor Party to desist from this new departure which is compromising the overseas student program. Let there be a wholehearted statement from the Government that we value and want to see flourish an overseas students program in Australia. In any event, the institutions themselves are quite capable of introducing quotas, as they do, in a number of faculties to preserve a proper balance in those numbers. My time has expired. I can only urge that the Opposition's amendment be supported. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.42) —I thank those honourable senators who have taken part in the debate, particularly Senator Baume and Senator Macklin who succeeded in making their points. Indeed, they made more points than Senator Teague did and in about half the time. First of all, in addressing Senator Teague's remarks, I wish to say this: There is no suggestion in any speech by any member of the Government in either House of the Parliament or outside of it that this Government, of all governments, intends to act to prevent private overseas students coming to this country in the way that he suggested. There is no suggestion that we intend to introduce any sort of program to prevent students from Asia, the Pacific or any country coming to Australia. Most of us on this side of the Senate who have been to universities in fact undertook our studies at a time when there were large numbers of Asian students in this country and we recognise the worth of that program. I think if anything is going to do damage to our relationships with other countries in this area it is people like Senator Teague coming into this place and saying: ' Because you are having a review of this program you might be a bit wobbly on it and you might be going to knock it off'. I think this is a cheap tactic which is not worthy of anyone in this House. It is a tactic which is destructive of our relationships with other countries. I think if the honourable senator cannot do any better than that he should not come in here and try to muddy the waters. With due respect, Mr Acting Deputy President, it is Senator Teague who is muddying the waters in this area and not anyone on this side of the Senate. The simple fact of the matter is that this legislaton and this program provides for an increase of 15 per cent in fees payable by overseas students which will in fact mean that there will be a recoupment of about 34 per cent of costs in this area. For people to come in here and complain that that increase is too high, when the recoupment factor was about 40 per cent in 1959 when the scheme was introduced, is a better example of hypocrisy than anything that Senator Teague has brought up today. In fact, the aim was to recoup 40 per cent when the program was first introduced. The level of fees has remained unchanged for three years and this measure will recoup 34 per cent of costs. At the same time the Government has instituted a review of private overseas student policy under Professor Goldring which we believe is important now as we believed it was important back in 1979. I am the first to accept that some of the predictions that we thought might have taken place after the introduction of this program in 1979 did not take place. We were wrong. We did not have all the figures and as a result our predictions were wrong. We accept they were wrong. I have no worry at all about accepting that at that stage we were wrong. But we now have an entirely different situation which obviously requires review. Because of the budgetary considerations and because of the situation which now exists, we made two decisions. The first one was to upgrade fees by 15 per cent to a level which is still not comparable with the amount that was set in 1979. The second was that, because of advice from the Department of Education and Youth Affairs and the tertiary institutions and because of the burgeoning numbers of students who were coming to Australia, we introduced quotas. The quotas will mean that there will be 4,000 new private students from overseas who will attend our tertiary institutions. One must include the 2,500 who are already here. Of course, we have not changed the situation in regard to students from Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific as well as students who come to Australia under Australian Development Assistance Bureau schemes. They will in fact still be covered. I accept Senator Macklin's point of view. I accept that if we are going to maintain good relations with the countries from which we take students, if we are going to assist underdeveloped countries develop, we should take students from overseas in increasing numbers to the extent that we can and we should strike a balance whereby we have a mixture of students who are aided and students who come under private schemes such as the ones we are talking about here tonight. But I believe that to take up Senator Macklin's suggestion that we in fact just have unrestricted entry and that we have no fees, particularly in the private student area, is in fact the most elitist thing we can do. I think that Senator Macklin should recognise that. Of course a system is elitist if the entry of private students is determined only by their capacity to pay. As both governments have tried to do in this area, we have to strike this balance. We have tried to make sure that we get a balance of students from different socio- economic groups and different countries. If we are going to introduce the sort of unrestricted system that Senator Macklin talks about we are going to have to increase enormously the number of our tertiary institutions. Maybe that is what we should be doing. I and the Government accept the policy that we need to have overseas students. I have taken part in debate in this place with Senator Baume when we have both drawn the wrath of the racists in this country. We have deplored the sort of anti-foreign student nonsense which is going on all too often in some of our tertiary institutions, particularly at the University of New South Wales, but also at La Trobe University. In fact, at every university I have visited in recent times chancellors and vice-chancellors have expressed concern about this. In times of economic difficulty, in times when people are concerned about their future, there are those who will stir up this problem. There are those who will prey on the perception of some students that they are being restricted by the entry of overseas students. They will prey on this fear of students and cause the sorts of difficulties we are facing now. It is deplorable, and it is up to everyone in this place to get up and condemn that sort of behaviour. In the present difficult situation a slowing down of the rate of increase may help the situation a little, but I would not like anyone to believe or to suggest that that has anything to do with the introduction of this policy and these increased fees. I repeat that all we have done is for the first time in three years, increased the fees by 15 per cent. All we have done is to bring the amount recouped to 34 per cent, where previously it was 40 per cent. All we have done is to act on the advice we have received from the various departments concerned that a quota should be introduced while we conduct this very important review of overseas students policy, a review that I believe should have been conducted a long time ago. The amendment moved by the Opposition suggests that, firstly, bringing the fees to far less than the percentage recovered in 1979 will cut down the number of students and, secondly, that this is an elitist, isolationalist, selfish and mean policy. I do not believe that that can be sustained by the facts, and particularly by the facts in the example that Senator Teague used regarding Malaysian students. Malaysian students make up something like 50 per cent of all overseas students in Australia. The restrictions we have placed in this area have not been put in place without talking to and consulting with the Malaysian Minister for Education. When the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) was in Kuala Lumpur he urged the Malaysian Minister and the Malaysian Government to make a submission to the inquiry chaired by Professor Goldring. As a result of the Minister's talks with the Malyasian Government representatives, there is an understanding of what we face and what is going on. I hope that in future the number of overseas tertiary students in this country will continue to increase and that the great contribution this country can make to the world, through our tertiary education system, will continue. I am sure that it will. It can only do so, I suggest, by increasing the facilities available in tertiary education in this country, because already we have a deplorable retention rate at the tertiary and upper secondary levels of our own students in this community. I think the criticisms of this combined change, which introduces modest increases and at the same time provides for a proper and sensible review of our overseas students system, are unfair. I accept that for political and all sorts of reasons the amendment will succeed, as he obviously has the support of the Australian Democrats. I am only grateful that the Bill will pass despite the amendment and that we can look forward in the future to the more sensible and balanced policy that Senator Teague claims he wants. Under those circumstances I thank those who have contributed. I will not delay the Senate any further. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-A matter was raised by way of point of order in relation to the vote on the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill. At that time I suggested that we might seek some clarification of the issues. After a lengthy discussion I am able to report that there is not much clarification, but that we are agreed on a course of action. The dispute arose over a miscount, in one case, and also over the question of pairs. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) would care to indicate his position, and then I can respond. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-The matter affects two of the private senators' Bills which have been brought forward, that is, the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill and the Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill. Firstly, we seek leave of the Senate to recommit the vote at the second reading of each of those Bills, the first of which showed a defeat for the Bill on the basis of a majority of votes being against it, and the second of which was defeated on a tied vote. The problem with respect to the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill is that there was some confusion about the question of pairs. In each case the Government and the Opposition had an official stance with respect to the Bill and, therefore, in the normal course of events the pairing arrangements would apply. The pairing arrangements between the Government and the Opposition at this stage on this day are that six pairs are outstanding. As I understand it , the count which was taken effectively reflected four pairs being shown. In any event, a number of Government senators and a larger number of Opposition senators were missing. In the event, because of that the motion was lost. The Opposition would simply ask for the recommittal of that vote so that the vote can be taken again and the number of pairs held at six. With respect to the Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill, the same problem with respect to pairs arises but, in addition, Senator Lewis was present for that vote but was not picked up as being present. I do not think there is any dispute that he was present. I am sure that he is about to assert that very strongly. In any event, I think there is no disagreement that inadvertently he was not included on the list; he was not counted. For that reason the vote on the second reading was lost when it should have been carried. I understand Senator Lewis's preference would be to have the original division list corrected because he does not want it to be thought that he was absent from that vote. I do not know whether that is possible or not. In any event, I wish to put it on the record now that he certainly was present for that vote although he was not counted. We are now seeking the recommittal of the second reading vote of the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill 1983. Subsequently that will go to a third reading which the Opposition understands will, in fact, be lost because the Bill cannot be carried with the required constitutional majority. The same will apply to the Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill 1983. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —by leave-The Government is in broad agreement with the course outlined by Senator Chaney. I should say for the record that it was the Government's understanding that there were no pairs in respect of those two Bills. It was the Opposition Whip's understanding that there might have been. In all those circumstances it became a little difficult. We are quite happy that the course suggested by Senator Chaney take place, but we suggest it take place as rapidly as possible. I do not know how many minutes we have to ring the bells for. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) whether he would give consideration to my seeking leave to have the Hansard record of the voting on the Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill corrected to show that I was present for that vote. I do not think it will create any great difficulty if, by leave, that correction is made. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —by leave-I do not mind accepting people's word that Senator Lewis was here, but I do not want him to delay the Senate for a long time trying to get his name in Hansard. Senator Chaney has said Senator Lewis was here; I am happily persuaded that he was here. Of course the votes will still have to be recommitted whether he was all here, all there or not. Certainly, if the Government's leave is all that is required for that alteration to be made, I give it. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for the recommittal of the votes? Leave granted. Question put: That the Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill 1983 be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the HonourableDouglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 1 —— Archer, B. R. Hill, R. Baume, Peter Jessop, D. S. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Lajovic, M. E. Chaney, F. M. Lewis, A. W. R. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Collard, S. J. Mason, C. V. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Messner, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Jack Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Haines, J. Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Missen, A. J. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Scott, D. B. Elstob, R. C. Watson, J. O. W. Cook, P. F. S. Rae, P. E. Ryan, S. M. Martin, K. J. Walsh, P. A. Boswell, R. L. D. Grimes, D. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Chaney) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 1 —— Archer, B. R. Hill, R.Baume, Peter Jessop, D. S.Bjelke-Peterson, F. I. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Lajovic, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Lewis, A. W. R.Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J.Collard, S. J. Mason, C. V. J.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Messner, A. J.Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E.Evans, Jack Teague, B. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M.Haines, J. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Missen, A. J.Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F.Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O.Jones, G. N. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D.Scott, D. B. Elstob, R. C.Watson, J. O. W. Cook, P. F. S.Rae, Peter Ryan, S. M.Martin, K. J. Walsh, P. A.Boswell, R. L. D. Grimes, D. J. The PRESIDENT-Order! There being 26 ayes and 25 noes, as there is not an absolute majority of the Senate as required by the Constitution pursuant to standing order 242, the Bill is laid aside and shall not be revived during this session. The PRESIDENT-Order! The question now before the Chair is: That the Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill 1983 be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(7.18) —The Government's position is perfectly clear on this but we will make it even more clear on the third reading division, which now must follow. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Hamer) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S.Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E.Carrick, Sir John Lewis, A. W. R.Chaney, F. M. Macklin, M. J.Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J.Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J.Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E.Evans, Jack Teague, B. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M.Haines, J. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G.Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M.Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Maguire, G. R.Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F.Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A.Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. The PRESIDENT-There being 27 ayes and 24 noes, as there is not an absolute majority of the Senate as required by the Constitution, pursuant to standing order 242 the Bill is laid aside and shall not be revived during this session. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(7.23) —Mr President, I just wish, on behalf of the Opposition, to thank the Senate for putting those Constitution alteration Bills back to a division. I note that standing order 182 , which you drew to my attention, provides that in the case of confusion or error the Senate shall proceed to another division, but I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) for the consideration that he gave this matter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.25 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 October, 1983 The following papers were presented: Companies Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 214 and 215. First Home Owners Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 208. Honey Levy Act (No. 1)-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 209. Honey Levy Act (No. 2)-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 210. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 213. Lighthouses Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 212. Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 216. Navigation Act-Marine Orders-1983- No. 10-Part 12-Ship Construction. No. 11-Part 41-Cargo and Cargo Handling-Dangerous Goods. No. 12-Part 48-Nuclear Ships. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1983- No. 28-Chiropractors Registration. No. 29-Machinery (Amendment). No. 31-Lakes (Amendment). No. 32-Building and Services (Amendment). No. 33-Architects (Amendment). No. 34-Scaffolding and Lifts (Amendment). No. 35-Pounds (Amendment). No. 36-Water Rates (Amendment). No. 37-Racecourses (Amendment). No. 38-Sale of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 40-Registration of Deeds (Amendment). No. 42-Adoption of Children (Amendment). No. 43-Nature Conservation (Amendment). No. 44-Lotteries (Amendment). No. 46-Wills (Amendment). Regulations 1983- No. 10-(Public Health Ordinance). No. 11-(Machinery Ordinance). No. 12 and 13-(Liquids Ordinance). No. 14-(Lakes Ordinance). No. 15 and 16-(Building and Services Ordinance). No. 17-(Pounds Ordinance). No. 18-(Sale of Motor Vehicles Ordinance). No. 19-(Adoption of Children Ordinance). No. 20-(Nature Conservation Ordinance). Shipping Registration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 211. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 251 Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Have the rules relating to who is entitled to travel on VIP aircraft been changed by the Hawke Government. (2) Are Ministers and members of parliament required to obtain the specific permission of the Minister for Defence to use the VIP aircraft, as was the case for the Fraser Government. (3) Who is permitted to use VIP aircraft. (4) Did Mr Clyde Cameron travel aboard a VIP aircraft to Darwin with the Special Minister of State, Mr Mick Young, as was reported in the Weekend Australian 4-5 June 1983. (5) Was Mr Cameron given permission to travel to Darwin aboard the VIP jet. (6) On what grounds was permission to travel on a VIP aircraft granted to Mr Cameron. (7) How many other former members of parliament and non-Ministers of parliament have been on VIP flights since 5 March 1983, and who are they. (8) Will ALP officials and supporters be able to receive permission to travel aboard VIP aircraft. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) Yes. (3) A list of persons entitled to travel on SP aircraft is provided in the Rules Governing the Use of Special Purpose Aircraft which were tabled in Parliament in March 1973 by the then Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard. (4) No. (5) (Not applicable-see (4) above). (6) (Not applicable-see (4) above). (7) The honourable senator's attention is drawn to the schedule of special purpose flights conducted by the Royal Australian Air Force in the period 1 January to 30 June 1983 tabled in the Senate on 6 September 1983. This schedule contains all details of passengers carried. (8) In accordance with guidelines which have been followed by successive governments, approval may be given for persons to accompany Ministers on special purpose aircraft in special circumstances. In the case of members of political party organisations, among others, fare recovery action is usually taken. Question No. 320 Senator Jessop asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: Will Australia lose the benefits of a sunrise medical technology industry, export income prospects of over $100m, and direct employment of 250 people by handing the beneficial ownership of the assets, goodwill, and business of Hospital Products Ltd, in New South Wales, to the United States Surgical Corporation. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The ownership and control of the assets, goodwill, and business of Hospital Products Ltd in New South Wales has been the subject of extensive legal proceedings. I understand that the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal was to the effect that, because of breaches of fiduciary duties, all the assets of Hospital Products Ltd should be regarded as held in trust for the United States Surgical Corporation. An appeal has since been lodged with the High Court against the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. There was a hearing of some interlocutory matters on 2 September 1983, where the parties gave undertakings not to divest themselves of property and generally maintain the status quo in respect of Hospital Products Ltd. The matter is expected to come on for a full hearing in the High Court sittings commencing in February 1984. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on this case while this appeal is before the Court. Until the Court makes a ruling and the final intentions of the respective parties become known, the implications of this case for Australia's medical technology industry cannot be accurately assessed. The Commonwealth will continue to keep the matter under review. Question No. 366 Senator Colston asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: Does the Department of Social Security accept a reverse charge telephone call after country hostels have been telephoned by STD or by way of a booked call in relation to information required by the Department and where the hostel personnel are obliged to return the call with the information required; if not, will the Department adopt this practice. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: My Department's normal practice when seeking information is to request the information in writing. If the information is required urgently it is the usual practice for officers to telephone back at a pre-arranged time to collect the information requested. It is not normal for my Department to accept reverse charge calls, unless exceptional circumstances are evident. My Department has no plans to adopt this practice; rather it endeavours to keep telephone requests for information from organisations to a minimum. Question No. 374 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 September 1983: (1) Will reductions in staffing levels within the Department of Defence affect the Defence Research Centre at Salisbury, South Australia; if so, to what extent will this centre be affected and in what manner will staffing levels be reduced. (2) Will the Minister give an assurance that this centre will not be affected to a disproportionately large extent compared with his Department as a whole. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. As part of planned staff reductions within the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), the total strength of the Defence Research Centre, Salisbury (DRCS) will be reduced by about 60 during 1983-84. Some further reductions are contemplated within the DSTO over the following three years but the effect on individual laboratories has still to be determined. The reductions will be achieved by selective non-replacement of wastage; there will be no retrenchments. (2) At present, reductions planned for the administrative elements at DRCS are larger than those proposed at other DSTO laboratories because the number of staff engaged there in administrative functions appears disproportionately high. A special review is to be made of this area before final decisions are taken on the level of cuts to be applied.