Tuesday, 18 October 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr President, I advise honourable senators that on 17 October the Hon. Sir Howard Beale, former member of the House of Representatives, died. I move the following motion of condolence: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death of the Honourable Sir ( Oliver) Howard Beale, member of the House of Representatives for the Division of Parramatta from 1946 till 1958, Minister of the Crown from 1949 till 1958, Ambassador to the United States of America from 1958 till 1964, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Sir Howard Beale died last night at the age of 85. He was born in Tamworth in December 1898, the son of a Methodist Minister whose family had come to Australia in 1838. He was a graduate in Arts and Law from the University of Sydney and was called to the Bar in 1925, where he established his own practice. From 1942 to 1945 he served as a sub-lieutenant with the Royal Australian Naval Reserve. In the general election of 1946 he was elected for the seat of Parramatta, New South Wales, succeeding Sir Frederick Stewart of the then United Australia Party. His maiden speech, on 14 November 1946, displayed his lifelong interest in international affairs. In 1949, after Sir Robert Menzies was elected to power, Sir Howard Beale commenced service as a Minister in the Government and remained in that capacity until his retirement from Parliament in 1958. During that time he served as Minister for Information, Minister for Transport, Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production. He resigned from the Parliament and the Ministry on 10 February 1958 following his appointment as Ambassador to the United States of America, a position he was to hold until 1964 . Sir Howard Beale was well regarded as a speaker both within this Parliament and elsewhere. After his retirement in 1964 he was made Regents Visiting Professor at the University of California in 1966, Regents Visiting Professor at the University of Wisconsin in 1967 and 1969 and President of the Arts Council of Australia from 1965 till 1968. His memoirs were published in 1977, and I understand that they are a fascinating recollection of the history-making events of his time. As will be seen from what I have said, he was a man of wide-ranging interests and concerns who served this country in a great variety of capacities. He is survived by his wife, Lady Beale, and a son, Julian. On behalf of the Government and the people of Australia I extend our sympathy to his family. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I support the remarks made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) with respect to the late Sir Howard Beale. I think it is appropriate that the Senate should pay tribute to the life and work of a very distinguished Australian. Sir Howard Beale, in his early years, had a career in the law. He had a career in the armed forces during the Second World War. He had a career in the national Parliament. He had a career as an ambassador and, more latterly, he had a career as a businessman. I think that in the great variety of his life there was something that many of us would wish to emulate, Mr President, and many of us would like to rank our achievements with his. Sir Howard Beale was a very significant figure in the formation and success of the Liberal Party. He was a member of the first New South Wales State Executive of the party which was formed by Mr Menzies and he became a Minister when the Liberals came to office in 1949. His appointment as Ambassador to the United States was a recognition of his life long interest in foreign policy which was the subject of his maiden speech to the House of Representatives. Sir Howard Beale retained an interest in national and political affairs for many years after his retirement from active public life. He contributed from time to time to the pages and letters columns of our newspapers on matters as diverse as the growing welfare payments burden, meat substitution and political tactics engaged in by his successors to the non-Labor benches in this Parliament. He was in my view a man of keen perception with a great sense of history and a good sense of perspective. I recall something which would perhaps interest the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). Sir Howard Beale did enter the public debate when Sir Phillip Lynch's comments on pensions paid to wealthy members of the community caused some political furore some years ago. In his writings at that time he recalled a warning by Sir Robert Menzies to the Cabinet in 1950 that welfare services could end up imposing a very heavy financial commitment on society as a whole. I note that he came down firmly on the side of a needs based welfare system and canvassed the need for changes to taxation on superannuation and questioned whether Australia should return to an assets or income test system. I want to inject one brief personal note into my remarks. I had the good fortune to spend a day with Sir Howard Beale in the late 1970s in Athens. My wife and I were there at that time and he returned, I think, from a dig on the island of Rhodes where his wife had undertaken some archeological work. We spent a day discussing Australia and its politics. I was particularly struck by the balance which it seemed to me he had brought to his life. As I said earlier in my comments, I think the range of his achievements is something which many of us would wish to emulate. On behalf of the Opposition I express our sympathy and, I am sure the sympathy of the Senate, to his widow and to his son Julian. I think we should be grateful for the contribution which he made to Australia over a very lengthy period. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I would like to associate the Australian Democrats with this condolence motion and also convey our regrets to Lady Beale and Sir Howard's son. I note briefly that Sir Howard Beale was a well loved and respected member of the community of New South Wales, for which I am a senator. More than that, since his retirement Sir Howard Beale lived and was admired and respected in Leura which is my home town in New South Wales. I would like to associate the Australian Democrats with this motion. We have lost a person of great distinction. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I would like to associate myself personally with this message of sympathy to Lady Beale and to Howard's son Julian. It has been my privilege to know Howard Beale since 1946. He died both in the fullness of his years at 84 and in the fullness of his accomplishments. It is true, as both the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) have said, that he was a man who in his life played many parts. They include lawyer, naval officer, parliamentarian, Minister, diplomat, business director and wise advisor. I want to say at the outset that so much of his success, in my view, was due to his admirable choice of life partner, his wife Margery who brought into that partnership dignity, ability, natural talent and a sharing of the duties which served him well in everything he did, both as a Minister and as a diplomat abroad. In expressing my sympathy to Lady Beale and to Julian, I want to pay that tribute to the family as well as to the man. I simply remark, in that journey, that I knew Howard Beale as one of the most articulate speakers and debaters in this Parliament in the post-war years. He was a man who had the ability to express ideas clearly and attractively. He carried that ability through to his role as diplomat in America. I was most agreeably pleased to find that the American people found his service there of great credit to him and to Australia. That was reflected afterwards by a continuous association between himself and the American people, and it was reflected by tributes to him throughout the business community of Australia. Very few men were able to journey so widely to play so many parts. On that basis I pay tribute to the work that he had done, but special tribute to his wife and son for their partnership in it. The PRESIDENT —I invite all honourable senators to signify their support for the motion by standing in silence. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Coates (from 66 citizens) and Walters (from 144 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Whereas the Government of Australia has signed UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states the family is the natural and fundamental unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State. Whereas the terms of the UN Covention 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 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, believing that its implementation would result in the following: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) The elimination of any sterotyped 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 in childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce with the provision of a network of creches and babycare centres as outlined in Article 11 of the Convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in part 3 Article 10 (C) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation and your petitioners in duty bound to pray. by Senator Robertson (from 118 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 51 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 destory 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 destory 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 131 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. by Senator Giles (from five citizens) and Ryan (from 13 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 181 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth: That any reduction in Government funding of non-Government schools would seriously affect the quality of the educational services provided and cause financial hardship for many parents. Your petitioners therefore pray that any change in the funding system for non- Government schools recognises the fundamental right of all children to an equitable share of Government funds for education. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from five citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about the effects of the withholding tax. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should irrevocably abolish the withholding tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 231 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That as Mr R. J. L. Hawke has publicly stated; (1) 'The Defence Force Reserves are the backbone of our nation's defence', (2) The Defence Force Reserves are a highly economical and viable means of training men and women to serve Australia in times of emergency, (3) The Reserves are composed of volunteers dedicated to Australia. Furthermore, we the undersigned recognise that members of the Reserves are required to maintain levels of efficiency at least equivalent to those of the permanent forces, and that members of reserves spend much of their own time and money towards reserve training obligations. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government recognise the role played by the reserves in serving Australia, that Reserve pays and allowances are already far below the levels for equivalent work in the general workforce, and that therefore the proposed introduction of taxation to the meagre pays earned by members of the Defence Force Reserves is a poor way of saying thank you. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hamer (from 43 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 the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of applications and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 61 citizens). The humble petition of residents of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth: (1) that temporary salaried and full-time sessional teachers working for Adult Migrant Education Services are disadvantaged in status and security by lack of permanency and (2) that this disadvantage is reflected in its effect on and implications for multicultural education. (3) Victoria is particularly disadvantaged as with 30% of national Adult Migrant Education Program it had only one permanent member of staff. Your petioners therefore pray that: (1) This imbalance be redressed by providing realistic funding for permanency. (2) Funding should be used to balance the present inequity of permanent positions throughout Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your Petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 733 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: Should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 16 citizens), Button (from 769 citizens), Chipp (from 165 citizens), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 159 citizens), Lewis ( from 145 citizens), Missen (from 190 citizens), Primmer (from 173 citizens), Robertson (from 157 citizens) and Zakharov (from 644 citizens). Petitions received. The PRESIDENT —I refer honourable senators to page 1613 of the daily Hansard of Thursday, 13 October 1983, where a division on the second reading of the Constitution Alteration (Double Dissolution) Bill is recorded. A printing error has resulted in the omission of the names of senators who voted No to the question. The omission will be rectified in the weekly Hansard. CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ELECTORS' INITIATIVE) BILL 1982 [1983] Notice of Motion Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the second reading of the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1982 [1983] be restored to the Notice Paper and be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Before Question Time begins, I inform the Senate that Senator Ryan, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, will be absent from the chamber today. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Ryan in relation to her portfolio or her responsibilities should today be directed to me. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy whether he recalls that, in answering a question I asked him some weeks ago on market prospects for uranium, he quoted a letter written from Total Australia Ltd to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment to support his contention-that is, the contention of the Minister for Resources and Energy-that it was economics not politics which was preventing the development of Australia's uranium deposits. I ask the Minister: Is he aware that the author of that letter has written to the Business Review Weekly disputing the suggestion that his company's position should be interpreted as support for the Government's uranium policy? I ask the Minister whether he has seen the letter which says, in part: In our view there will be demand in the late 1980s to justify production from Ben Lomond at that time. I further ask the Minister whether he accepts the conclusion of the letter published in the magazine's edition of 23 July that: If a two-year delay in development of the Ben Lomond deposit because of world economic conditions has indeed been seized upon by opponents of uranium mining as a reason for delaying the development of the uranium industry generally, they must be desperately short of arguments. Senator WALSH —I recall quoting from a letter from Total. I have not seen the letter published in Business Review Weekly to which Senator Chaney refers; therefore, I am obviously not fully familiar with the details of it. I gather from what Senator Chaney has said that the representative of Total has said that the letter the company had written earlier should not be interpreted as support for Government policy on uranium mining. I have certainly not interpreted it that way. I quoted from that letter in support of the Government view, verified and corroborated from a number of different sources, that the present uranium market is such that contracts cannot be written at prices which would have been acceptable to the previous or the present Federal Government. I add that I am currently following up a report which appeared last week that Mr Tony Grey, the Chairman of Directors of Pancontinental Mining Ltd, which has the major, if not the sole, interest in the Jabiluka uranium prospect, has been reported as having said in London that, in fact, the outlook for the world uranium market is even gloomier than had been anticipated a few months or a year ago and that indeed the anticipated demand for the early 1990s might well not materialise until the end of this century. I do not know whether Mr Grey was reported accurately; that is a matter I am having followed up. But, independently, or as a further piece of corroborative evidence, the most recent figures on the deferment and cancellation of nuclear power stations planned in the United States and Europe, in particular, further confirm the Government's judgment made some time ago that not only is the world demand for uranium such that contracts could not be written at prices which would be acceptable to the previous or the present Government, but also, if anything, the indications suggest that the situation in the medium and short term is likely to deteriorate even more than had been previously anticipated. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask: Can the Minister inform the Senate of the date upon which Sir Victor Garland's appointment as High Commissioner to London will terminate? Can the Minister confirm that Sir Victor's full salary is paid to him by the Department of Foreign Affairs without the deduction of any tax? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek an early reply. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask: Firstly, how seriously does the Government view the threat by Iran to block the Straits of Hormuz; secondly, have there been any discussions by the United States or United Kingdom governments with Australia towards any Australian commitment to a task force to act in the event of such a blockade-if so, what is their nature; thirdly, what actions would be envisaged for such a task force; fourthly, has the Australian Government taken any steps at all at the international or bilateral level to attempt to mitigate the possibility of the closure of the straits; and, finally and specifically, has the Government had any talks with the Iraqi Government, particularly to urge that Government not to provoke this very serious danger by the use of Exocet-type missiles? Senator GARETH EVANS —Obviously the Government takes seriously any possibility of the Straits of Hormuz being blocked as a result of the Iran-Iraq conflict. I indicated the Government's concern in this respect in answer to a question last week. As to the Press reports that have been circulating to the effect that Australia could be asked to contribute to a naval force in the Middle East if there is an escalation of the war between Iran and Iraq, my brief from the Minister for Foreign Affairs is to the following effect: There has been no discussion with any country of such an Australian involvement. Australia has, however, discussed the situation in the Gulf in general terms with a number of countries and it has expressed its concern in those discussions at the possibility of an escalation of the Iran-Iraq war. Australia has supported calls for a ceasefire in the conflict and negotiations to remove differences between Iran and Iraq ever since the hostilities began three years ago. We hope that both countries will look again at the possibility of a peaceful resolution of the conflict. To the extent that that briefing material does not answer the further specific questions that have been put to me by Senator Sir John Carrick, I will seek an early reply from the Minister and advise him accordingly. Senator ELSTOB —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology. It refers to recent discoveries in medical bio-chip technology whereby paraplegics have been helped to walk and the blind to see. Firstly, can the Minister advise what funding, if any, has been allocated specifically for research of this nature and, secondly, is the Minister of the opinion that there is potential for further development of this kind of technology in Australia? Senator BUTTON —I cannot provide a precise and detailed answer to the honourable senator's question but I must say, first of all, that in the recent Budget the Government made available a specific sum of money for biotechnology research and development. Probably the largest increase in the Budget related to research and development generally and research grants. The Government also made a substantial increase in the level of funding available to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I should add that the Australian people have a very good record in terms of medical and biomedical technology, and some of the research that has been done in Australia is of world class. Some of the so-called sunrise industries about which we hear a lot of talk, but which perhaps do not have as dramatic a representation as we would like, are in the medical technology area. A number of very highly successful Australian companies operating in that area have obtained substantial penetration of world markets. I will refer that portion of Senator Elstob's question referring to specific technology to the Minister for Science and Technology and obtain a fuller answer as soon as possible. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. It refers to a subdivision of land in the rain forest region of Cape Tribulation in Queensland at a place called Cow Bay, just north of the Daintree River. Is the Government aware that much of this large subdivision of more than 4,500 hectares is being sold as one-hectare blocks? I think most conservationists consider that the development of all those blocks would induce the complete destruction of the rain forest with which they are covered. I might say that an inspection I made of that area earlier this year confirmed that belief as reasonable. Is the Minister aware that it has been reliably reported that an attempt by the Douglas Shire Council to restrict this subdivision to a more conservational minimum size per block of two hectares, which indeed at the time was the Council's minimum requirement, was overruled by the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing in the Queensland Government, Mr Russell Hinze, and that as a result much of the area was subdivided into one-hectare blocks and sales of the estate so far amount to some $4m? Can the Government, through the use of its environmental powers, do something to save what is regarded as one of the most important areas of rain forest left in the tropical area of Australia? Will it investigate the circumstances of the subdivision, including the involvement of Mr Hinze, with the objective of rezoning this region so that the natural rain forest there can be preserved? Senator BUTTON —I am not as full bottle as Senator Mason on the details of the subdivision of the rain forest region of Cape Tribulation. Senator Missen —Senator Ryan knew nothing about this on Thursday. Senator BUTTON —I am indebted to Senator Missen. It appears that ignorance is not bliss in this case; it is widely shared. I was not aware that the subdivision approved by the Council had been of two-hectare blocks and that the Minister for Local Government in Queensland had intervened with the result that the subdivision was into one-hectare blocks. I am, of course, familiar, as every other Australian is, with the practice of the Minister for Local Government in Queensland of intervening in these matters. It seems to be part of the present Queensland Government's style. Certainly, I will obtain advice as to whether the Commonwealth has any possibility of influencing events in this matter. But I am hopeful that after 22 October the Commonwealth will be able to influence events much more easily in Queensland with a new Minister for Local Government. Senator COATES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the interview broadcast on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio in Tasmania this morning about Medicare? Can he say how representative of the medical profession the person interviewed is, and is his claim true that he is merely continuing the fine tradition of Hippocratic medicine and all he wants is to return to a free market in medicine? The person interviewed stated that private hospitals are half as costly as public hospitals. Perhaps the Minister can explain why this is so. Finally, how close is Medicare to being communist doctrine, as claimed in the interview? What is the doctor concerned really frightened of? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I did read a transcript of an interview this morning on the program Becker's Broadside with Dr Jodhi Menon, who is in fact the President of the General Practitioners Society in Australia. I must say that Dr Menon confirmed all the remarks I made about him and his organisation last week in answer to a question from Senator Hearn. Dr Menon, of course, as Senator Coates pointed out, said that the Australian Labor Party was involved in introducing communist doctrine to this country in Medicare. He also made the same remark, as I understand it, about the Canadian system. He said that what he and his colleagues were doing was following in the finest tradition of the Hippocratic oath which doctors take. I make the point that I made last week-that in fact any organisation such as the General Practitioners Society in Australia and any doctors such as Dr Menon who are willing to use patients and to disadvantage patients in order to push their own political views and their own philosophy are in fact not supporting the principles of the Hippocratic oath. They are in fact going directly against them. It is quite clear from reading the answers given by Dr Menon that he and his colleagues are not concerned about their patients. They are concerned about their own pockets. They are not concerned that their tactics will disadvantage many of their patients, including pensioners, because most members of the General Practitioners Society allege at least that they will not bulk bill pensioners. They are disadvantaging pensioners, some of the most vulnerable people in the community. Dr Menon made many other statements during his question and answer session this morning. He made a great point of the fact that private hospitals are less expensive than public hospitals, but he failed to mention that the facilities that need to be introduced into public hospitals to handle the most severe medical and surgical emergencies and the illnesses that are the most complicated and most expensive to treat inevitably mean that public hospitals are more expensive to run than private hospitals, some of which do not deal with any of these conditions at all. Equally, he claimed that private hospitals in this country receive no assistance from public funds. As Senator Coates and other honourable senators would know, that is quite wrong. There are government subsidies to most of the private hospitals in this community. I think the whole tenor of Dr Menon's remarks is typical of the remarks made by the General Practitioners Society in Australia and bears no resemblance to the attitude of most responsible doctors in this community which is, in fact, to take the Hippocratic approach and put their patients first. The General Practitioners Society is a very small organisation. It is representative of a small percentage of general practitioners and other practitioners in this community. It does not have the support of the vast majority of medical practitioners. The organisation is maintained by considerable support from certain drug companies which also have reason to oppose the Government. As such, as I said last week, it is an extreme right wing political organisation which is not representative of any organisation which would want to see the standard of medical practice in this country improved. Senator COLLARD —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Further to my question of 22 September concerning the application of the assets test for retired couples on farms, I now ask: How will the Government apply the assets test to the farm home when the older generation farm family still owns the farm but the son or son-in-law is actually working the farm and living either in the farm home while the parents live away from the farm or in a second home on the farm? Senator GRIMES —As I think I said to Senator Collard in answer to the question he asked on that earlier occasion, as was the case in the previous assets test or the previous means test which was in place in this country before 1976, there was a need to give special consideration to the very people he was talking about and to farmers in general. In fact, we are doing that now. As a result of discussions with pensioner organisations, members of parliament and other interested groups, we are putting together our proposals which will be discussed this week and next week by the Government as to how we will handle all the assets. The matter of the elderly farmer and his wife who for years have been living on a farm will have to be taken into consideration. It is a fairly common occurrence in the rural community that an elderly farmer does live on a farm but the farm has been run for many years by his son, his son-in-law or other members of the family, often for very low incomes or practically no income at all. In the past the house in which they lived and the curtilage around the house was all that was considered to be exempt, except in special hardship cases. As I think I said in answer to a question on this matter-it may not have been Senator Collard's question-we do not consider that that is sufficient. At the moment we have proposals to extend that. As I do not want to open up unnecessary debate, I assure Senator Collard that before the legislation comes into the Parliament he and other honourable senators will be able to see the proposals which we will finalise in the next couple of weeks and have a discussion on whether they are sufficient. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of recent comments by Mr Robert Paterson, the President of the New South Wales Chamber of Manufactures, to the effect that there has been in the past a lack of Federal policy direction in manufacturing industry? Does the Minister consider that there is a need for, in Mr Paterson's words, 'a coherent long-term strategy for manufacturing industry'? How are the Government's policies directed towards this end? Senator BUTTON —Mr Paterson's remarks have been drawn to my attention. I share his concern. Senator Chaney —You are not planning an incoherent short term strategy? Surprising! Senator BUTTON —It would be tremendous if I could answer the question without the assistance of Senator Chaney. One of the Government's first priorities in manufacturing industry policy was to try-we certainly tried in the Budget context-to get together a number of matters which would constitute a framework for sound medium and long term industry policy development. I agree with Mr Paterson that in the past policy has been incoherent and ad hoc, as he put it. We cannot afford more of the band-aid remedies of the last 20 years involving short term industrial planning, sudden retrenchments and ad hoc decisions. He went on to say, 'Nor are we simplistically arguing for protection for protection 's sake' and that wrangling between the so-called wets and dries was barren, sterile and unable to produce a viable solution. Wrangling between the so-called wets and dries, I notice, is still a current preoccupation of the Opposition. It is a preoccupation which extends not only to industry policy but also into wages policy. Since the Government came to office it has taken a number of initiatives in industry policy including a review of the Industries Assistance Commission which it regards as very important. The restructuring of manufacturing industry councils and the Australian Manufacturing Council has been undertaken. Particular initiatives have been taken in respect of two vitally important industries, the steel industry and the motor car industry. A number of other initiatives, taken by the Government in the last Budget, include initiatives taken in the science and technology area with the expansion of a number of programs which are vitally relevant to the future and pattern of development of Australian industry, initiatives taken by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in respect of training programs and, of course, the prices and incomes policy. All these things are regarded by the Government as essential to the long term health of Australian manufacturing industry, particularly in a time of what, undoubtedly, will be severe restructuring and change. I think it is important to recognise that any government, faced with the situation of Australian manufacturing industry as it was at the start of 1983, will face severe problems of restructuring and change. Those problems have to be met in a variety of areas, including the areas outside the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to which I have referred. It is a source of a great regret that the previous Government did not tackle some of those issues in the seven years which it had available to it. None of these things was, in fact, attempted by the previous Government. In the foreseeable future, the Government will be looking towards placing less emphasis on tariff measures than it has in the past, but much more on the area of positive industry assistance measures such as improved depreciation and investment allowance provisions which were, of course, brought together in the Budget context to give Australian industry the best cost of capital regime it has had, probably ever. In the general area of government assistance, the Government has already made a number of alterations to the function and capacity of bodies such as the Australian Industry Development Corporation to assist industry with particular restructuring programs. The details of those matters have already been drawn to the attention of the Senate. I share the concern of Mr Robert Paterson about these matters. The Government's basic view, however, is that it is necessary to get the guidelines and parameters right so that industry has the best opportunity to flourish. In particular areas of concern and in particular industries, the Government is quite prepared to assist on a co-operative basis, as it did in the case of the steel industry and is seeking to do in the motor vehicle industry. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I ask that the paper from which the Minister has quoted be tabled. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is the recent statement by the Chairman of the Australian National Line, Mr Bolitho, hinting at safety dangers if a foreign ship joins the Bass Strait run a personal statement or does this statement reflect the Government's view? Is not such a derogatory statement a reflection on some of the world's finest shipbuilding nations, including the world recognised shipbuilding industry of Finland, a country capable of supplying a vessel for the Bass Strait service? Are these scare tactics part of an attempt to keep Tasmania isolated from the mainland and to protect ANL's excessive profits on the Bass Strait service compared with its returns from other services ? Senator GIETZELT —I will have to take that question on notice. Senator MAGUIRE —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence: What are the implications for defence and security of the large oil find in the Jabiru 1A oil well in the Timor Sea? Are the defence and security implications of a potentially large oilfield in our northern waters likely to differ from those for other off-shore oilfieds, such as those in Bass Strait; and, if so, how? Senator GARETH EVANS —The defence of areas containing off-shore oil installations would generally pose additional operational problems for the Australian Defence Force compared with operations to secure oil installations on mainland Australia . These problems have been addressed in planning relating to the Bass Strait and the North West Shelf fields. Generally, however, operations, to state the obvious, become more complex the further off-shore the installations are. Planning for the security of existing off-shore oil and gas fields against the threat of, for example, terrorist attack is assessed to be of national importance. Should the Jabiru find be proved, planning for the security of installations in that area would also assume clearly that level of significance. It will be appreciated that it is not appropriate for either the Minister for Defence or me on his behalf to discuss in any detail the operational concepts and planning relating to the security of vital national installations or potentially vital national installations. I hope that Senator Maguire will be happy with an answer expressed in those necessarily fairly general terms. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security in his own capacity and also in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is he aware of the significant concern amongst many organisations and individuals involved with the care of the aged about suggestions that the proposed Office of Aged Care be located within the Department of Health? Given recent reports that the Minister intends to split the Department of Social Security into two departments, can the Minister explain the moves to locate the proposed Office of Aged Care under the aegis of the Department of Health and not in the proposed new social or community services department? Can the Minister categorically assure the Senate that this will not now happen? Senator GRIMES —First of all, Senator Messner and other honourable senators will be aware that it is Australian Labor Party and therefore Government policy that in fact we have an Office of Aged Care. I believe this is a sensible policy. At the moment, accommodation for the aged, nursing homes, hostels, et cetera, are split between the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health with the Department of Health making approvals in principle, the Department of Social Security providing capital expenditure and the Department of Health providing recurrent expenditure. It, therefore, would seem to be sensible to incorporate these functions into an Office of Aged Care. It certainly has been the recommendation of committees in the past that the Office of Aged Care under these circumstances should be in the Department of Health. It is also true that in the past I have said that I would expect a government to investigate the possibility of splitting the very large Department of Social Security into a department of income security, say, and a department providing community or human services. This has been a suggestion not only of mine but also of other people who have looked at the administrative arrangements. I finally make the point that it is not up to me to split the department. Administrative arrangements of this type are a matter between the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and government itself. At the moment certainly there is discussion in the Government, first of all about the establishment of an Office of Aged Care, which is something I certainly agree with, and, secondly, about the development of a department of community services. Whether the Office of Aged Care will go to the Department of Health, to the department of community services or to the Department of Social Security or any other department will depend on discussions and investigations that we make in the future; whether there is a department of community services split off from the Department of Social Security and incorporating those service areas which naturally go together, again is a matter for discussion and investigation. I am aware that some organisations would prefer the Office of Aged Care not to go to the Department of Health. I suppose there are others who would prefer that it did. I ask Senator Messner to restrain his impatience. This is a matter for discussion within the Government and a matter for investigation, and I am sure that a decision one way or the other as to all these options will be made in the near future. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer, but I wonder whether he could be a little more specific about the time. Senator GRIMES —We do not believe that we should rush precipitately into such a decision without thinking about it. Senator Walters —You could have fooled us. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters, that would be the easiest thing to do in this place if I should so wish, but I do not. What I am saying is simply that, in trying to deal with an economy in the state in which your side of the chamber left it, in the position of trying to deal with the sometimes confusing, always bewildering administrative arrangements in which your side of the place left the bureaucracy of this country, we believe that we should sit down, as we have and as we will continue to do, to work out the best plans so that in the future we can have a rational system of administration of community services in this country, a rational system of retirement incomes and a rational system of care for the aged. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . I ask whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Canberra Times of 17 October in which the Executive Director of the Australian Mining Industry Council, Mr James Strong, is quoted as criticising the Government's proposed resources rent tax, stating: . . . that since the mining industry was already subject to excessive total levels of taxation and other Government charges . . . AMIC is, therefore, totally opposed to any additional taxes or levies. Can the Minister indicate whether the proposed resources rent tax is an additional tax or whether it is intended as a replacement tax? Will the proposed resources rent tax offer any advantages over the existing mineral taxes? Senator WALSH —Yes, I am aware of a report in the Canberra Times yesterday which quotes Mr Strong in terms similar to those used by Senator Childs. I am also aware of an interview on the AM program yesterday between Mr Strong and Pru Goward. I cannot remember precisely all of the question that Senator Childs asked, but the essential part was whether the Government was proposing an additional tax. The answer to that, which I repeat again slowly-unfortunately, I cannot do it in monosyllables; I would like to be able to do it slowly and in monsyllables because apparently it is necessary to say it slowly and in monosyllables before some people actually manage to understand it-is no, the Government is not proposing to place an additional tax. The Government is proposing to replace an existing inefficient form of taxation with an economically superior form of taxation. I would have thought that since I have told Mr Strong that directly, since I have told various representatives of the mining industry that directly, the message ought to have got through by now. Perhaps I should devote some time to attempting to devise a form of words in which it can be stated in monosyllables and then perhaps understood. In regard to the AM program, the interview itself between Pru Goward and Mr Strong, with one minor exception, was a reasonable interview. The introduction of the program, however, by the program compere Mr Red Harrison was, to say the least, slothful. He referred to a decline in mining industry investment of $500m in the last 12 months and then said that the Government was talking about imposing new taxes. He stated: The Minister responsible, Senator Peter Walsh, argues that the mining industry ought to pay more than merely corporate taxes-- I was under the impression-I would have thought that the compere of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's AM program might have known-that the mineral industry traditionally has paid more than corporate taxes. If he does not know that it is about time he discovered it. I suggest that he should give more attention to the manner in which he introduces items on AM. With respect to the interview itself, in response to a comment from Mr Strong similar to that quoted in the National Times, Pru Goward said: The Minister hastens to assure you that it's only to replace existing taxes and not to add an extra one. I note that the interviewer, as revealed in that statement, was at least better informed-significantly better informed-than the compere of that program. Mr Strong in reply said, inter alia: If this is to be what is commonly known as a rent tax, then we're not too clear as to why it should particularly apply to the mining industry and not to many other sectors of the economy where similar philosophy could apply. If that is to be taken at face value, it is indicative-if it is not indicative, it is prima facie evidence-that at least Mr Strong does not understand the concept of economic rent. Manufacturing industry can be infinitely replicated at similar or identical costs; extractive industries cannot. It could be argued from that, of course, that a rent tax ought to apply to agriculture or a rent tax ought to apply to people in very specialist service industries such as highly talented surgeons, highly talented musicians and so on. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. This has been a very long answer to the question. It is clearly an answer which is in the nature of a debate. We have the interesting spectacle of the Minister debating Mr Strong, who is not here. I ask you, Mr President, to bring the Minister within the Standing Orders and ask him to shorten his answer. The PRESIDENT —I think the Minister is extending his answer under standing order 100. I ask him to confine his remarks to the question. Senator WALSH —Very well, Mr President. The point is, of course, that with those other industries personal income tax is normally applied, and that is progressive, so that to some extent in agriculture and in very specialised and very highly talented personal services an element of the economic rent inherent in them is picked up. My final observation is that Mr Strong is quite clearly at variance with support for a resources rent tax or at least movement away from present production-based taxes, coming from some quite surprising sources. For example the Daily Telegraph of today reports Mount Isa Mines, one of Australia's major companies, as saying that taxes ought to be based on profits instead of on output. The Leader of the Queensland Liberal Party has advocated the same thing, as has the Leader of the Queensland Labor Party. I was informed by a journalist yesterday that another major Australian mining company, CRA Ltd, has expressed similar views, for publication. Mr Strong and all of those who oppose what the Government is proposing to do are clearly trying to swim against the tide of rationality and, I suggest, the tide of history. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It follows from the answer that he gave to Senator Zakharov with regard to the comments of Mr Paterson and industry policy. Has Mr Paterson communicated any views to the Government with regard to the attitude of his association to a shorter working week, as supported by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the effect that this would have on industry unit costs and on the competitive position of industry in the domestic market and the overseas market? Senator BUTTON —The answer to that question is no. Mr Paterson himself has not been in communication with me regarding that issue although-- Senator Chaney —With the Government? Senator BUTTON —Or the Government, as far as I know. But Mr Paterson, although not directly, and many other people involved in industry have communicated views about these matters to me and others over a period. I am quite aware of views within industry that the shorter working week will be detrimental to the interests of Australian manufacturers. I do not shrink from that or even from acceding to the validity of that proposition, because the fact remains that one of the issues which must be addressed in considering the competitiveness and viability of Australian industry-and there is a wide range of issues-is the whole question of on-wage costs, which have been assessed, reasonably independently I think, as being about 48 per cent; that is, for every dollar in wage increases there is a 48c additional impost in terms of on-wage costs. I remind Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, however, that that includes a number of things. I should have thought, for example, that a government in 1983, and a thoughtful government in 1982, would have had to be concerned about a wide range of issues involving the competitiveness, and so on, of Australian manufacturing industry. Those include the various aspects of on-wage costs to which I have referred; they include workers compensation payments; they include payroll tax; they include penalty rates. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Long service leave. Senator BUTTON —They include a number of other aspects associated with long service leave and long annual leave. All those matters must be included for consideration as being impositions on industry. So must government charges, whether they be State or Federal government charges-they have risen enormously in the past two years-and the cost of investment. All those issues must be addressed. Mr Paterson has not made any comments to me about the 38-hour week. The Government's attitude to the 38-hour week has been expressed by me, for example, in relation to the textile, clothing and footwear area in terms of indicating dissatisfaction about the claims for a 38-hour week and requesting that any claims that are granted will be granted in the light of set-off arrangements in terms of productivity. That has been the official position that we have advanced in relation to that industry. In conclusion, I remind Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle simply that about 75 per cent of Australian workers currently enjoy a 38-hour week or less, and that it is usually those who are on the 35-hour week who are most vociferous in opposing those who are seeking a 38-hour week. That is no answer to the question Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me, I appreciate, but it is a very important factor to be taken into account. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. First, when will Telecom Australia be in a position to provide a full videotex service? Secondly, is there any danger that the gateway facility will intrude into the security or privacy of third party data base owners? Finally, will the Minister answer criticisms relating to Telecom's decision to use the British developed Prestel standard? Senator BUTTON —I cannot answer that question in great detail at this stage, but I can make some comment about it. I understand that Telecom will be in a position to provide a full videotex service at least by the end of 1984. I was asked, secondly, whether the gateway facility to be provided by Telecom will intrude into the privacy of private or individual company data bases. I have every reason to suspect that it will not. I was also asked whether the Prestel standard which Telecom is currently pursuing is, in a sense, the appropriate one . I say, by way of preliminary comment in answer to this question, that if the previous Government three or four years ago had had the ideological understanding and the intestinal fortitude to provide Telecom with a videotex capacity at the time it was fully developed to the extent of being ready to go into service, many of the problems associated with the introduction of new telecommunications technology in Australia would have been avoided. At that time there was almost universal agreement that Telecom would provide the hardware of the service and that the data which would be transmitted over it would be provided by private enterprise. That agreement was welcomed by both private enterprise and Telecom. It was the best possible way of providing a service because it embraced the old engineers' hardware-software separation principle, which is of tremendous importance in the provision of public telecommunications services of this kind. Because of the delays occasioned by the previous Government's position of three years ago, the whole approach of Telecom has had to be revamped, I think to the possible detriment of the service which Telecom will now be able to offer. I am not sure that that hardware-software separation will now be present to the extent to which it ought to be. A lot of criticism of the Prestel standard has been based on the fact that other systems such as Telidon can provide more colourful graphics and things of that kind. But I am unable to say at this stage whether Telecom will finally go ahead with that standard and whether at the end of 1984 it will have the capacity to make it compatible with the other videotex systems. I will seek further information from the Minister for Communications regarding the details of the honourable senator's question, but I think it is important to put it in that perspective. Senator LAJOVIC —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask whether he can state the Government's reasons for a quite spectacular about turn in Australia's policy towards Israel expressed in the Australian Government's statement of 30 September, which was partially described by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs as follows: Various components in the Australian statement must be considered as a deviation from the traditional approach, despite repeated reassurances brought to our attention. I ask further: What were those repeated reassurances and who gave them? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that, following the recent announcement of certain modifications to our Middle East policy, the Israeli Foreign Ministry did express some regret at the statement and particularly at decisions regarding the Arab League and contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. In response to that, the Australian Ambassador who dealt with the Israeli Foreign Minister in this respect emphasised that the Government's statement on the Middle East policy review was a balanced one based on a full understanding of the Middle East situation and of Israel's position in that area. That communication to the Israeli Government remains the Australian Government's position. Our statement reaffirmed Australia's fundamental commitment to the security of Israel and Israel's right to exist within secure and recognised boundaries. The Israeli statement itself, made by the Foreign Ministry, welcomed that reiteration of Australian friendship for Israel. There are bound to be some bumps from time to time in a relationship like this but there is no fundamental change at all in the character of our relationship with Israel and nothing of that kind should be read into the recent statement by the Australian Government. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy . Did the Minister see the report in the Age newspaper in which it was suggested that there might be some dispute about the sovereignty over the area in which the Jabiru 1A oil well is located and about which government would receive royalties from oil found in that area? Can the Minister advise the Senate whether the Jabiru well is affected by the currently outstanding border negotiations with Indonesia? Can the Minister assure the Senate that Jabiru is in Australian territory and that it is the Commonwealth Government which will receive any royalties which flow from this discovery? Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. That question was asked by me weeks ago and I received the assurances of Senator Walsh. A further question was asked on the payment of royalties. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney is quite correct: The question was asked before by him. Nevertheless, a report did appear in the Age, I think, on Wednesday of last week-at least it was one day last week-and there appears to be some continuing misunderstanding about this matter. Mr President, as you have ruled, I think it is quite in order to clear up that misunderstanding again in the Senate. The Jabiru 1A well is approximately 200 kilometres away from the area in respect of which agreement on the border between Australia and Indonesia has not been reached. The Timor Gap, to which Senator Chaney referred, is a gap between two points on which agreement was reached some years ago, but the Jabiru well is some 200 kilometres away from that area and is not affected by the gap in the border on which common agreement has not yet been reached. The second part of Senator Robertson's question referred to the constitutional or legislative status of the territory in which the Jabiru well and surrounding areas are located. The well is in the Ashmore and Cartier Islands area-an area in which drilling permits are administered by the Northern Territory, as drilling permits generally in off-shore areas are administered by territorial or State governments. But, in regard to all areas other than the Ashmore and Cartier Islands area, the provisions of the 1967 legislation, as amended in 1979 -the 1967 legislation being the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act-stipulate both the rate of royalty which will be applied and the distribution of that royalty between the Commonwealth and/or territorial governments. The Ashmore and Cartier Islands area is not subject to that distribution of royalties between the Commonwealth and a State or Territory and therefore royalty charges, if any, in that area would accrue entirely to the Commonwealth. Senator JACK EVANS —Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of statements made recently by both the Australian Labor Party and Liberal Party leaders in Queensland that it is their respective parties' policy to divorce the control of retail petrol outlets from the oil companies in Australia? As each of these Queensland party leaders is promising the separation of retail outlets from the multinational oil companies but neither of them possesses the power to bring this about under State legislation, does this mean that the Federal Labor Party has turned another somersault and will now either legislate or support the Australian Democrats' Bill to separate petrol retailing from petrol wholesaling, or should Queenslanders, like the rest of us, regard the promises to petrol retailers as expendable immediately after the election? Senator BUTTON —First of all, I would like to make it quite clear to Senator Jack Evans of Western Australia that no promises made by either the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland or particularly the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland are binding on the Federal Government. Senator Jack Evans —Are the promises binding on them? Senator BUTTON —That is a matter for the honourable senator and the electors of Queensland to judge. I think they will probably judge that promises made by the Labor Party are more binding than those made by the Liberal Party in its present state of disarray. The Federal Government may well be accused, as all governments are, of turning somersaults on particular issues. We certainly do not do it at the behest of political parties in Queensland. I indicated in this Senate not very long ago that the Federal Government has the matter of the divorcement of retail petroleum outlets from ownership and control by the oil majors under review. Proposed legislation is being discussed with a number of the parties involved, and it is anticipated that an announcement will be made fairly shortly. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of media reports of a military raid mounted yesterday by South Africa into Mozambique? What is the Government's reaction to this latest act of aggression by South Africa? Will the Government condemn outright this gross violation of the principles of international law and civilised behaviour? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government was appalled by Press reports of a statement by the South African Minister for Defence, General Malan, confirming that a South African task force yesterday mounted a military operation in Maputo in Mozambique. The operation was reportedly directed against offices said to house officials of the African National Congress, and several people are said to have been injured. The Australian Government unhesitatingly condemns the latest use by South Africa of its military forces to attack a sovereign neighbouring country. This attack, like similar forays by South African forces against South Africa's neighbours, will do nothing to resolve the continuing problem of instability and violence in southern Africa. The Australian Government does not condone the use of violence, which is an unacceptable way either to effect political change in South Africa or to impede legitimate aspirations for change. As the Prime Minister made clear in Parliament in May following the tragic bomb explosion in Pretoria and the subsequent South African air force raid into Mozambique, it is likely that there will be continuing resort to acts of violence as long as the South African Government continues to refuse to negotiate a decent and equitable solution to the problems in that country. May I say, finally, that the Government has made it abundantly clear that it is totally opposed and continues to be opposed to the inhuman apartheid system in South Africa. Until that system is dismantled and a form of government is introduced that recognises the aspirations of black South Africans, violence will, unfortunately, recur. The latest South African violation of Mozambique territory further demonstrates the disregard of the South African Government for accepted standards of international behaviour and its unwillingness to negotiate peaceful solutions to the problems of apartheid. Senator JESSOP —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that the public has been deceived as a result of the Budget undertaking that broadcast teletext decoding devices and similar equipment for the deaf would be exempt from sales tax? Does the Minister appreciate that 10 per cent of the Australian community has a hearing loss? Did the Government realise, when the decision was made to back down on the Budget promise and restrict this sales tax exemption to the estimated one per cent of the community that is regarded as profoundly deaf, that a majority of these people would be disadvantaged? It would be interesting also to know what criteria are laid down to define the term 'profoundly deaf'. In view of yet another broken promise and the fact that this represents a relatively small cost to revenue, will the Minister ask his colleague to review the decision in order to assist 10 per cent of Australians who have a significant hearing loss and would wish to take advantage of such devices? Senator WALSH —Senator Jessop's question referred to deception of the Australian people. The greatest deception of the Australian people on fiscal matters that has been perpetrated for many years, if not ever, was that perpetrated by the discredited former Treasurer, who in the run-up to the 1983 election said that the Government was facing a prospective Budget deficit in 1983-84 of $6 billion. On the day after the election it was revealed by the Secretary to the Treasury that the true figure was $9.6 billion. It was revealed also that the discredited former Treasurer was advised of that fact five days before the election, was asked whether the information should be released and answered: 'No, let us sit on it; let us keep the mugs in the dark; let us continue to deceive them'. Senator Jessop —I raise a point of order. I appreciate the diatribe that is being carried on by the Minister, and I could debate what he is saying right now . Mr President, I draw your attention to the fact that it bears no relationship to my question. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to relate his remarks to the question. Senator WALSH —I was, Mr President. The question referred to deception. I was just pointing out the greatest fiscal deception that has been perpetrated on the Australian people for many years, if not ever. In respect to the other aspect of Senator Jessop's question, there was considerable discussion on this when the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 2) was debated in the Senate last week. I think Senator Jessop may have taken part in that debate. The form of words which was to be applied for qualification for the exemption was, if I remember correctly, that people who are taken to be profoundly deaf qualified for exemption from 32 1/2 per cent sales tax. I believe I quoted from a document from the Commissioner of Taxation or the Minister for Health, which I do not have with me now, a paragraph which further clarified that definition. I will have the matter checked and see whether I did quote that paragraph. If I did not do so, I believe there is such a paragraph. The other matters regarding whether the Government would consider broadening the criteria for exemption I will refer to the Treasurer and provide an answer as soon as possible. Senator BUTTON —On Wednesday, 12 October, Senator Missen addressed some questions to Senator Ryan relating to an article that appeared in the National Times about approvals for development of a rain forest area in the Daintree district of north Queensland. Senator Mason followed up Senator Missen's question with a further question today. While I am not yet in a position to provide as fully detailed an answer as I may have hoped to do, I am able to inform honourable senators that I am aware of the article in the National Times. The matter raised is essentially one for the Government of Queensland, but one can only be astonished at the reported intrusion by the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing if it occurred in the way in which the article described. The area in question has been listed on the Register of the National Estate, because of its national significance. Unhappily, that listing only affects decisions made by Commonwealth Ministers, departments and agencies and does not enable the Commonwealth to intervene in State land use decisions in the State of Queensland. As has been reported, the Daintree River rain forest is reputed to be one of the most environmentally significant and fragile rain forest areas in the Commonwealth. The Australian Heritage Commission is now seeking to determine whether the area might be of world heritage significance and so recorded. Senator GIETZELT —Earlier in Question Time Senator Watson asked me a question relating to a proposal to increase the passenger ferry service from the mainland to Tasmania. This matter is under consideration. Negotiations between the Tasmanian Government and the Commonwealth Minister for Transport have been proceeding for several weeks. I will therefore take the opportunity to refer the question in detail to the Minister for Transport and see whether there is any progress as a result of those negotiations. Matter of Urgency The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 18 October 1983, from Senator Durack: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- 'That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Hawke Government to establish a National Crimes Authority without delay.' Yours sincerely P. D. DURACK, QC Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the motion supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.21) —I move: That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Hawke Government to establish a National Crimes Authority without delay. The Opposition has brought forward today, as a matter of real urgency, the problem of establishing a national crimes authority and the failure of the Hawke Government to act effectively in this regard to date. It has been brought forward for two major reasons: Firstly, this chamber should be most concerned about the urgent need for the establishment of a national crimes authority, a national body, to meet a national and pressing problem; and, secondly, because of the lamentable failure of the Hawke Goverment to meet this challenge. The shifts and starts, the delays and indecision of the Hawke Government in regard to this matter are, I believe, a matter of urgency and a matter for serious debate and consideration by the Senate. Before I deal with that I want to deal with the first problem which is to establish the urgent need for a National Crimes Authority. I do not believe that there can be any real doubt, in the light of all the evidence over many years and in the light of the very authoritative findings which have been made by experts who have investigated this subject, that the existing law enforcement agencies in Australia, whether they be at a Federal or State level or whether they be in the form of a bureau of criminal intelligence or joint task forces, are an adequate response to the problem of organised crime. Of course, associated with the problem of organised crime is the degree of sophistication of that organisation, the expert advice that it can command and, most regrettably of all probably, the official corruption that seems to go hand in hand with the existence of organised crime. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) recognised this when he spoke, as shadow Attorney-General, last December. He said: The primary evidence of the need for some better investigative mechanism is the series of reports which have been made in recent years involving royal commissions, special company investigations and, occasionally, police task forces . . . those reports appear to amply demonstrate that existing law enforcement machinery is not very good at pinning down that organised crime and securing the convictions of those reasonably believed to be involved. The Attorney-General said that, when in Opposition, in the second reading debate on the Bill for the establishment of a National Crimes Commission. I make it quite clear at the beginning of this debate this afternoon that the Opposition is not saying that the National Crimes Commission, which was the subject of its legislation when in Government, is the only model or the only form to be implemented to the actual letter or word of that Bill. But the Opposition has been prepared to let the Government have some time to look at the question for itself and decide whether it wants to amend that, bring forward some other model or whatever. What the Opposition is most concerned about is that long before now a national body should have been established to meet the national crisis. It has been described in those terms by experts. The phrase 'national crisis' is that of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, whose report was tabled in the Senate last week. The problem has been described by Mr Costigan as 'the cancer of organised crime'. It has reached such proportions in recent years that major discrepancies are appearing in the national accounts of this country which can be explained, because of their magnitude, only in the light of the underground economy represented by organised crime. It is, at least on all the evidence we have, one of the most serious threats that has ever confronted Australian society. It is depriving countless Australians, by the fraud perpetrated upon them, of their savings and investments and it is depriving the revenue of probably billions of dollars into the bargain. Organised crime has been looked at over the years by many royal commissioners, going back perhaps to 1974 as a starting point with the appointment of Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Moffitt in New South Wales. Royal commissioners were appointed during the period of the Fraser Government. Mr Justice Williams looked at the problem of drug trafficking throughout Australia during 1977, 1978 and 1979. Mr Justice Stewart was appointed to look into the ramifications of one of the major drug trafficking syndicates in this country, the Clark syndicate. His report, which was tabled a few months ago, is again of great importance and significance. There were also investigations by the Costigan Royal Commission on the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and, of course, by the counsel assisting Mr Costigan, Mr Douglas Meagher. The papers Mr Meagher gave to the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Conference earlier this year should, I think, be read along with the reports of Mr Costigan to get a full assessment of the magnitude and seriousness of this problem. Finally, I mention again the report of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich. I believe Mr Redlich was in a particularly favourable position to survey the field and to make an assessment because he was appointed last year following the tabling of the fourth Costigan report in this Parliament. He was appointed to procure specific evidence for which prosecutions could be launched. His report indicates the problems that he faced as a prosecutor dealing with the magnitude of the material that was available from the Costigan investigations. He was required to put the act together and to bring prosecutions. I believe in a number of pages in his report he has been able very succinctly to identify the problems. Whereas previous royal commissioners tended to emphasise one of the major problems as being the fragmented nature of law enforcement in Australia between the Federal and the State area, Mr Redlich has also emphasised the fragmented nature of it at the Federal level itself and between Federal law enforcement agencies. I think Mr Redlich's report, which we have before us and which repays the most ample study by members and senators, is one of the most important contributions which have been made to this debate. The point is that all of these experts, from Mr Justice Moffitt to Mr Justice Williams, Mr Justice Stewart, Mr Costigan, Mr Meagher and now Mr Redlich, in addition to the reports of joint police task forces that have been set up as well in recent years to overcome the problem of fragmentation between Federal and State agencies, have come to the same conclusion. There is nobody better, nobody more experienced, in this area than these various gentlemen. They have all concluded, as I have said, that there is a national problem and that it cannot be solved with the existing law enforcement agencies as they are or even by upgrading their resources or bringing them together in bureaus of criminal intelligence or joint task forces or whatever method of co-operation is required . They have emphasised the fact that these solutions just do not and will not succeed, no matter how much good will exists and how many resources are given to them. They have emphasised the magnitude of the problem at the national level. They have described it, as I have said, using such terms as crisis, cancer, menace, threats and so on. At that level, they say that there has to be a response which measures the problem. As I have said, that response that we as the Opposition see is the same as we saw clearly in government and as we acted to achieve in government: It should take the form of a national crimes authority. Whether it is in the form of the National Crimes Commission that we sought to establish by legislation that we introduced and passed through this Parliament, or whether it should be a somewhat different model is, I believe, a subject for very reasonable debate. In fact, reasonable debate has occurred amongst experts on that problem. There are differing views amongst experts on that problem. But what there is no difference about, what there is no doubt about, is that there has to be a response by the national government. There has to be an authority created which can take this problem by the throat and deal with it firmly, effectively and fearlessly. That is precisely where I believe this Government has failed and why this matter is brought forward for urgent debate today. I quote Mr Redlich on this aspect of the matter because he says so definitely: Now is the time to implement a scheme which will result in effective national law enforcement through co-operation and co-ordination. What is required is a national response to a national issue. A robust, independent national authority, unfettered by jurisdictional or bureaucratic constraints must be created. But what I fear, from the way the Government has been proceeding in its seven months in office, is that we are now beginning to ask not when will there be a national crimes authority, but will there be a national crimes authority? The prospect is getting as doubtful as that. This state of affairs contrasts with a number of statements which have been made over a period by the present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). In opposition, in April 1982, when the Fraser Government first publicly floated the idea of a National Crimes Commission, Senator Gareth Evans said: The Labor Party is willing to give serious and constructive consideration to proposals now being floated for a National Crimes Commission . . . A compelling case can be made that the traditional criminal investigation process, and occasional ad hoc Royal Commissions . . . are simply inadequate to deal with this new reality . . . The next quotation from Senator Gareth Evans is very interesting from the point of view of the reasons that he and the Labor Caucus seem to be advancing for their inaction, delay and doubts. When the Bill for a National Crimes Commission was introduced in October last year, Senator Gareth Evans is reported as telling the Sydney Morning Herald: It is unlikely that the ALP will oppose the Bill although we may have amendments on matters of detail. That was a very good forecast, Senator, at the time. But this is the interesting part. He said: The bill does appear to have met most of the concerns we have expressed about the Crimes Commission . . . The basic model seems to strike a reasonable balance between civil liberties and the interests of the community in effectively dealing with organised crime. That was the level of the debate-I think a rational debate-that took place in this chamber on the subject. The Bill finally was passed, although the Labor Party opposed it at the third reading stage because it failed to get agreement to some important amendment. In the recent election campaign, Senator Gareth Evans, presented the law and justice policy of the Government, which would: Review the structure, functions and powers of the Crimes Commission. Labor supports the concept of a Crimes Commission with sufficient powers to continue and widen the vital investigative work commenced by the Costigan Commission . . . So, on that promise, it looked as though the Government would act, when it was elected to government. It may have wanted to amend the body in some ways but basically it accepted the problem and would proceed with the concept. But it was not very long before difficulties were found. In April of this year, in a joint statement with the then Special Minister of State, Senator Gareth Evans said: . . . the Government has decided that a further process of consultation and review is necessary before any final decision is taken as to the future of the National Crimes Commission. Senator Gareth Evans is even quoted as telling the Canberra Times: We are not committed to establishing anything. The whole issue is up for grabs. Senator Missen —That sounds like him. Senator DURACK —It is all up for grabs. Yes, it is all very authentic. Anyway, he will tell us if he did not say that; but it sounds very true. In May this year, in answer to a question in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was very much more firm and definite about the subject when, in answer to a question by Mr Anthony, he said: What we are doing is to ensure that by increasing the resources of the Costigan royal commission the work of the commission will be increased and improved and that, at the beginning of 1984, we will be in place, with the proclamation of the Act, for the National Crimes Commission-- this is the Prime Minister referring to the former Government's Act- to take over, in the most effective way, the work of the royal commission. What has happened to that firm assurance, that firm assertion, from the Prime Minister? It seems to be running into the sand, and sinking deeper and deeper into the sand. I believe there have been a number of very disturbing moves in recent weeks which greatly qualify that situation. As recently as June of this year, Senator Gareth Evans was telling the Australian Institute of Political Science: The Commonwealth Government supports the establishment of a National Crimes Commission and would like to see it operating from January . . . In the next breath, he said: The Government has now made up its mind, though no decision in this area can be regarded as absolutely irrevocable. He must have known that there were great forces within the Labor Party which would resist this concept through hell and high water and that is now of course exactly what is happening. Indeed, at the National Crimes Commission Conference in this chamber at the end of July this year, the Prime Minister himself was starting to shilly shally about the very firm assurance that he had made. He stressed the fact that no final decisions had been taken in this area. I refer the Senate to the details of what he then said. As I have said, it is quite clear that this whole proposal is now getting completely bogged down in the Caucus and is being frustrated at every turn by some very curious coalition of forces in that Caucus. I believe that the undertakings that have been made in the past by the Attorney-General and the firm assurance that has been given to this Parliament and to this country by the Prime Minister are now at real risk. It is not a question, as it seems to have been until now, of time; it is a question whether we will have a crimes commission in place at all. Certainly it does not appear that it can possibly be in place at the beginning of next year to take over from the Crimes Commission. Senator Gareth Evans has admitted that fact in answer to a question which he was asked last week, I think it was by Senator Jessop, when he made it clear that the date, 1 January next year, must be considered very much in doubt. I regret that Senator Evans adopted a superior attitude in answer to a question I asked him a couple of weeks ago. He told me to be patient and that all would be well in a week or so. That was a fortnight ago. He said that a full statement and a full model would be presented to this Parliament. Of course, they have not emerged. They will not and cannot emerge because he still has to do battle tonight with his Caucus committee on this subject. The so pathetic nature of this Government's response to this national problem was apparent when Senator Evans appeared on the Sunday program last Sunday. He was asked by Richard Farmer : Do you expect that you will in fact end up with an authority? Senator Evans's answer was: I think we'll end up with something. How pathetic is this response by the national Government to what is a national crisis. How pathetic it is in contrast to what the former Government, the Fraser Government, did in response to this problem. It not only formulated but passed through the Parliament legislation for a National Crimes Commission. Legislation was on the statute books ready to be proclaimed at the beginning of this year. The previous Government established the important Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. It also appointed Special Prosecutors Gyles and Redlich. That was a firm response to a national problem in a timely way. The performance of this Government, of course, is pathetic. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.41) —I remind the Senate of the terms of the matter of urgency we are debating today: The need for the Hawke Government to establish a National Crimes Authority without delay. There may well be a need for the Hawke Government to establish some kind of national crimes authority. I have said so myself on numerous occasions, as Senator Durack has not been slow to remind me. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) and other Ministers have said so. The Federal parliamentary Labor Party said so last year when it supported the second reading, the vote on the question of principle though not the detail, of the Fraser Government's own National Crimes Commission Bill. But there is no need to establish such a body without delay, to use the terms of this matter of urgency. There is no need to establish it with the kind of urgency that is suggested by this matter of urgency. There are great and difficult issues of principle involved on which there are clear divisions of opinion within all the major parties, within the media and within the community at large. It would be absolutely senseless on a matter as sensitive as this, with implications as far reaching as this, to rush in without full and ample consideration of where we are going and without full consideration not only of the general principles involved but also a line by line consideration of the drafting detail. It is for this reason that the Hawke Government cannot and will not be pressured into making a hasty decision on the national crimes authority or crimes commission issue. It is for this reason, the need not for haste but for care, that we do not agree that this matter is a matter of urgency. The Fraser Government's own Bill, about which Senator Durack waxed so lyrical a moment or two ago, did not observe these strictures. The Fraser Government finished, as a result, with egg all over its collective face, with the worst of all possible worlds. It finished with an Act that had, in the form in which it finally emerged, no support at all from the legal profession, from civil liberties organisations or from groups of that kind with that voice in the community. It finished, moreover, with an Act that had no support at all from the States whose co-operation, or at least the co- operation of the majority of them, is obviously crucial to the effectiveness of any such body. It had no support at all, in the event, from civil liberties organisations, from the legal profession or the Australian Labor Party because the Act which finally emerged was left with ill-defined functions, insufficiently limited jurisdiction, insufficiently defined and limited powers and insufficient safeguards. The Act as it finally emerged, from the Fraser Government's consideration of it , had no support from the States because, despite the passionate rhetorical enthusiasm for the principles of federalism that we hear so often, particularly in this chamber, the Fraser Government failed utterly to go through the detailed consultative processes that are necessary to win the co-operation and the support of the States on a matter such as this. I simply presented the States with a unilateral fait accompli, demonstrating heavy-handed and total indifference to the legitimate concerns that the States had on that occasion. The ironies are abolutely delicious, but let them be enjoyed, particularly by Senator Durack, as he reflects upon the course of events for which he or the then Government was responsible. The Hawke Government's approach, by contrast, has been very different. We did come into office with a commitment to review the Fraser Government's National Crimes Commission Act and to try to produce the kind of organisational structure and balance of functions, powers and safeguards that did meet all these various concerns. The last seven months have involved a continual process of working out that commitment, of debating and dealing with the issues and of trying to resolve all the many and various vexed issues that are involved in this matter. It may be that at the end of the day the Government will adopt the view that the problems here are just unresolvable and that there is no better or more acceptable way of monitoring, investigating and ultimately prosecuting organised and sophisticated crime than through relying on the police forces, the ad hoc royal commissions with their draconian inquisitorial powers and the desolatory assistance of the kind that might be able to be provided in the intelligence co- ordination area from the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. We have certainly been trying to develop a generally acceptable alternative approach. We have not been dragging our heels in the process. Let me demonstrate that by giving the Senate the chapter and verse. We have gone through at least four or five separate stages so far. The first two months were spent by me-I spent more time on this issue than any other single issue, including even the dam's case that was occupying me at the time-on exploring what could be done with the Fraser Government's model. Was it capable of redemption by minor amendment? Was it capable of organisational implementation in such a way that the co-operation and support of the States could in fact be secured? Hours were spent, days were spent and weeks were spent consulting with the chairman designate, Mr Justice Williams, and talking with all sorts of groups and interested bodies in an endeavour to answer those questions in the affirmative and to try to get a quick implementation of that Act in some appropriately amended form. But the conclusion we were forced to at the end of that roughly eight-week period was that there were basic problems in the structure. There needed to be a much more wide-ranging public debate involving all interested groups and parties before an acceptable result could be secured. So the second stage of our approach to this matter-we spent most of May and June doing this-was preparing, publishing and distributing a Green Paper identifying systematically but succinctly all the issues and shaping up the questions that needed to be resolved before the final answer could be given and policy solutions stated. In particular, that Green Paper identified the basic choices as being between two quite fundamentally opposed approaches. They were set out as model A and model B respectively in that Green Paper. The third stage of our approach to this matter was the organisation and the holding of a national conference. The conference was held in this chamber on 28 July and 29 July. It attracted the participation of something like 100 people representing State governments, the police forces, the legal profession, civil liberties organisations and other appropriate community organisations. It was an outstandingly successful conference by any measure. It was not just an occasion for set piece rhetoric. I think this was generally acknowledged. But it did involve a very serious attempt to come to grips, in a very constructive way, with the problems that were identified in the Green Paper. At the conclusion of that conference, certain tentative lines of solution seemed to be emerging, which were expressed as best I could in my summing-up speech at the conclusion of that conference. That, then, formed the foundation for the next stage of our approach. That fourth stage involved discussions with the States and the formulation of a basic working model identified over two or three pages in point form. That process took us the whole of August and most of September, involving several rounds of meetings with officials and Ministers, culminating in a major round-table conference of Ministers and officials in Melbourne on 19 September, at which general agreement was reached, subject in each case to consideration by the respective Cabinets and governing parties, on an approach which would be basically acceptable. That is, an approach that would involve an appropriate balance of powers and limitations on power, and would involve an appropriate input in both the composition and the procedures of the body for the States. The current stage has been the shaping-up of that basic model into the form of detailed legislation. It is that which has been occupying the Government in the two or three weeks that have elapsed this month of October. Necessarily that has been a somewhat protracted process, as anyone who has ever been involved in the actual drafting of legislation will fully appreciate. One cannot foresee simply at the stage of drafting a basic model all the issues of detail which will arise and all the problems which would arise in relation to the language of it. Necessarily that is a process that cannot be resolved in a matter of days. It takes weeks; but it is occurring. Once the Parliamentary Labor Party, had taken the view that it wanted to see the whole of the Bill before endorsing the model in principle, which was a perfectly understandable view, we had to move to the stage-rather more quickly than I had envisaged-of drafting the actual legislation. It is that that we are dealing with now. I hope that the outcome of this process, the consideraton of a draft Bill, will be a national crime authority model which does satisfy the concerns that people have. In that case we will proceed as a sixth and a seventh stage of the process , to a final round of consultation with the States in an endeavour to resolve such outstanding difficulties as one or more State may have in relation to this matter, and we will move to the stage of legislation. Let me repeat what I have said before. It may be that at the end of the day-I hope that this will not be so-as a responsible governing party, we will decide that it is simply impossible to get the balance right; that it would not be wise to set up any kind of ongoing body; that it may be better to leave the situation to police forces and to ad hoc royal commissions. But if that is the result-I hope that it will not be-it will not have been for want of trying to get a solution. It will not have been without an enormous amount of energy and effort- something unknown to the previous occupant of my office-going into that particular process. Let no one be in any doubt about the complexity and the difficulty of the issues that must be resolved here. It is not just a matter of being for or against some kind of crime authority or crime commission. If the debate is to be a sensible one-and it rarely has been in this chamber, and it has been even more rarely still in the media-it must be a matter of a debate about what kind of crime commission or crime authority one is talking about. The best and most succinct way in which I can demonstrate the complexity of those issues is simply to read into the record the list of questions set out at the end of the Green Paper as matters that needed to be resolved. There were three threshold questions for a start: (1) Has organised crime developed in Australia to the extent that special, and perhaps novel, steps must be taken to combat it? (2) Can the problems encountered by law enforcement bodies in dealing with organised crime be met by improvements to existing police forces and resources available to them? (3) If a new body does need to be established in Australia to deal with organised crime, is there a feasible alternative to establishment of a standing Crimes Commission? If one moved past those questions, one would face the very detailed questions as to what kind of body one is talking about. Under the heading of 'Functions', questions (4) and (5), though expressed in more technical terms, essentially boil down to this: How should the jurisdiction of such a body be defined? Should it be flexible and general in its terms, or should it be more narrowly limited to organised crime, and, if so, how does one define organised crime in such a way that makes some sense? The questions continue: (6) Should the Commission's activities extend beyond the gathering and analysis of criminal intelligence to the assembling of evidence for the prosecution of offenders? (7) Should the Commission itself be empowered to prosecute? (8) Should the Commission be empowered to initiate particular inquiries independently of a ministerial reference? (9) To what extent, if at all, should the Commission be charged with compiling statistics on crime? (10) What responsibility should be given to the Commission for making law reform recommendations? That is as to functions; then, as to powers: (11) Should the excuse of self-incrimination be available to a witness called before the Commission in respect of (a) oral evidence (b) documentary evidence? (12) Should the legislation enable the Commission to refer to the Federal Court a witness who fails to attend or refuses to answer these questions? There are 25 questions in all, and I am demonstrating the complexity of the issues involved. The questions continue: (13) Should the Crimes Commission be empowered to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person who fails to attend or where it has reason to believe that a witness is likely to flee to avoid attendance? (14) Should the Crimes Commission be empowered to grant immunities to witnesses or should this be reserved for decision by the Attorney-General? (15) Should the Crimes Commission be enabled to apply to a Court for issue of a search warrant? If I may, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will incorporate in Hansard the remaining 10 questions. I do not want to bore the Senate. There is plenty more that I want to say, but I want to demonstrate for the record the difficulties and complexities of the issues here involved. I seek leave to incorporate the questions in Hansard. Leave granted. The extract read as follows- (16) Should such a warrant authorise the seizure of things other than the particular thing named in the warrant found in the course of a search pursuant to the warrant? (Paras 7.27-7.30) (17) Should the Crimes Commission itself be empowered to issue search warrants? (para. 7.30) (18) Should the Crimes Commission have access to information held by the Australian Taxation Office relevant to an inquiry being conducted by it and, if so, should access be available: (a) on request; or (b) under an order made by a judge on the application of the Commission? (Paras 7.32-7.37) (19) Should the Commission be permitted to publicly identify in its reports or otherwise persons merely suspected of committing offences? (Paras 7.39-7.43) Composition (20) How many Commissioners should there be (Paras 8.1-8.3) (21) Should the Chairman be a judge? (Para. 8.5) (22) What should be the term of appointment of members? (Paras 8.6-8.7) (23) What should be the tenure of members? (Para. 8.8) Accountability (24) To what extent should the Commission be accountable: (a) to the Executive; (b) to the Parliament? (Paras 9.1-9.5) State and Northern Territory (25) How may effective participation by the States and Northern Territory in the workings of the Commission best be ensured? (Paras 11.1-11.5) Senator GARETH EVANS —The nub of this debate is the question of delay. Are we just fiddling while Rome burns? The answer to that is twofold. We are not just fiddling. We are going through an exhaustive process of consultation and debate, unresolved to date but necessarily exhaustive because of the nature, the complexity, the difficulty and the sensitivity of the issues involved. The other point that needs to be made is that Rome is not, in any event, burning. We have a de facto national crimes authority in operation right now with the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. It is not as if nothing is happening by way of the monitoring, the investigation, of organised crime. A great deal is happening and it is nonsensical for those on the Opposition benches to be pretending otherwise. The Costigan Commission is investigating organised criminal activities on a very broad front. On last count-depending on how one defines them-it had between a dozen and 20 major separate investigations proceeding, all of them linked in some way to the original painters and dockers reference, but in some cases the link is pretty marginal. But clearly they are a wide-ranging set of investigations. The Costigan Commission, secondly, is producing reports to government, most recently last week, one volume of which was tabled but accompanied by massive and detailed evidence of very far reaching and alarming criminal fraud in one State. The Costigan Commission is generating prosecutions. Six people have already been charged in relation to the particular matter in respect of which the report was produced to government last week, and many others are being prosecuted as a result of the efforts of special prosecutors Gyles and Redlich, whose task has been to implement the recommendations and the prosecutorial implications of the Costigan Commission inquiry. The Costigan Commission is supplying further information to law enforcement and other agencies around the country, which has been and continues to be enormously helpful in tightening up the systems as they are operating and the procedures as they are applying, in removing loopholes and in avoiding future problems with the criminal law. I am not suggesting and the Government has never suggested that there are not difficulties, however, with continuing on a completely open-ended basis with the present Costigan Royal Commission. That Commission has inappropriate and really ill-defined terms of reference for a body which is to operate as an across the board national crime authority. There are insufficiently precisely defined limits to its jurisdiction. Furthermore, that Commission is operating on the basis of unlimited royal commission powers which are draconian and possibly inappropriately so for the kind of body about which we are talking, with an ongoing charter. There is an absence in the present Costigan Commission arrangements also for systematic input or involvement by the States and Territories. Clearly, that is an unsatisfactory basis for any ongoing exercise of this kind built around the Costigan Commission. But it is a going concern and it is doing more to expose and attack organised crime in this country-heroin importers, tax evaders, those involved in massive corporate frauds and the rest of the series of unhappy things that are happening in this area-than anything else that this country has seen before or is seeing operating through the police forces at the moment. Apart from the Costigan inquiry, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking is continuing in operation to deal specifically with the Nugan Hand matter. It is also continuing to play a major role in mopping up after the Terrance Clark investigation. There is a good deal of further information coming to light about that in respect of which Mr Justice Stewart, in co-operation with Mr Redlich, is doing something. Equally, police task forces are operating on a bilateral and multilateral basis in many areas of drug law enforcement in particular, but also in other areas of concern such as organised and sophisticated crime. It may be that we need, as I began by saying, something better than that ad hoc array of responses which presently exist, but let it not be thought that the jungle is unmanned by hunters at the moment so long as the Costigan Commission and the Stewart Commission and that array of police task forces are in operation . There is no need for panic about the problem of organised crime in this country. It is a problem and it demands a Government response but it also demands a measured and considered response, not a rash and hasty one. The Government is giving it that treatment. We are proceeding with all deliberate speed and so long as we continue to do so there is simply no justification for an urgency motion being proposed in the terms it has been today by Senator Durack or being accepted by the Senate. Senator Sir John Carrick —What a pathetic contribution! Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.02) —As my colleague said, what a pathetic speech! The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) at the beginning of this year came into the Parliament like a lion prepared to do all those things the previous Government had not done. Now, like a lamb, he lies down and tells us: 'There is no need for urgency, no need to panic and no need to worry. Of course, it may be that at the end of our investigations we may find that there is nothing to be done and that the whole problem cannot be solved'. Perhaps we should panic when we see that this matter is in the hands of a man who has obviously-I do not blame him entirely-been liquidated in small pieces by his Caucus and by his law committee. They are, of course, pulling to bits his small scheme for a crimes commission. I can understand his difficulty. But we in this country have to recognise, as he recognised in the past, that there is a real problem. It is a problem of urgency that has led to this motion today, which I will repeat: That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Hawke Government to establish a National Crimes Authority without delay. I will devote my speech to the question of the need for action without delay, action which has been deferred since the previous Government in December passed through both chambers, after considerable debate and amendments which satisfied some of the problems which some of us had, an Act which could have been brought into operation. Ten months after that legislation the Attorney has done nothing of achievement. No wonder he is now retreating from the chamber. It is, in fact, a position about which he must feel very ashamed because of his lack of action. The Attorney has today given us 25 questions. Earlier in the afternoon, we had questions without notice. We then had 25 questions without answers, a new version of parliamentary proceedings. But the Attorney did have the courage to answer his extra question: 'Are we fiddling while Rome burns'? Surprise, surprise! The answer to that was no, we are not fiddling and that in any case Rome is not burning. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery of a delegation of judges and lawyers from China led by Mr Wang Zhanping, Vice President of the Supreme People's Court . On behalf of honourable senators, I extend to all members of the delegation a warm and friendly welcome to Canberra and the Senate chamber. I trust their visit to Australia is an enjoyable and interesting experience. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Matter of Urgency Debate resumed. Senator MISSEN —Mr Acting Deputy President, let us consider again this question of urgency that Senator Evans has said is no longer there. Let us look again- Senator Durack referred to this-at the question which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) answered in the House on 19 May 1983. Other parts of the answer by the Prime Minister show more resolution in the Government, even as short a time ago as May, than today. Mr Hawke, in answer to Mr Anthony in respect of his and the Government's actions in respect of a National Crimes Commission, said: I am in a position to inform the House of very concrete steps which the Government is taking, not to talk words but to translate into action the unqualified determination of this Government to ensure that everything that can possible be done is done to smach organised crime in this country. Is that not magnificent? Senator Sir John Carrick-When did he say that? Senator MISSEN —He said that on 19 May, a few months ago. He said that the Government would do everything it could to smash organised crime. Honourable senators will see that in those words there is a recognition that organised crime is important and serious and that it needs to be smashed in this country. Senator Sir John Carrick-And now there is no panic. Senator MISSEN —Apparently, there is no panic now. There can be a slight smashing over a period. In his answer, Mr Hawke continued: I can assure the House that, in the very short time we have been in government, those steps make the relative inaction of our predecessors pale into insignificance. No doubt our colleagues felt very unhappy about those tremendous steps. What are the steps that have been taken? Those steps, presumably, are the discussions in the Labor Party slowly dissolving the idea of a National Crimes Commission. We then had another piece of pearly wisdom from the Prime Minister. In speaking of Commissioner Costigan, Mr Hawke said: While ensuring that the resources available to Royal Commissioner Costigan-and I think the honourable member will appreciate the great work that has been done there-are increased, we are ensuring that, as a result of those increased resources, there will be a position in which there can be the most effective transition from the work of the Costigan royal commission to the work of the National Crimes Commission. One would expect this. The limited power and limited operation of the Costigan Royal Commission is most unsatisfactory. Despite what Senator Evans has said, it is no good to say, 'Oh, Costigan is going ahead doing his work. That can go on. All is well.' What about the people who are working for Mr Costigan? What about the insecurity and inadequacy of not knowing whether that work is going to continue, whether it is to be brought to fruition or whether we are to come to the conclusion after a while that the whole operation is unresolvable. I think it is very unsatisfactory to find it left in that position. I do not think the people of Australia would want that to happen. It is clear that there is an enormous amount of organised crime in this country. We do not really need to argue that point today because reference has been made to the very many royal commissions and inquiries which have indicated its existence. We do not need to argue that point because on 7 December 1982 in the Senate debate on the National Crimes Commission Bill, Senator Evans, our Attorney-General, then spoke with strength. On page 3165 of the Hansard, he is reported as saying: . . . the Opposition-- He was then in opposition- comes down, on balance, on the side of the proposition that the case has been made out both as to the existence of very significant levels of organised crime in this country and for the need for better investigative enforcement machinery to deal with it. The then Opposition found at that time, as Senator Durack pointed out in this debate today, that the model put up by the Fraser Government seemed to strike a reasonable balance between civil liberties and the interests of the community in dealing effectively with organised crime. I believed that at that time and I believe it now. I happen to disagree with many of my colleagues in some civil liberty organisations who, I think, have unnecessarily panicked and unnecessarily recognised that the balance has to be struck when one has a situation of organised crime in this country which so many of these commissions over so many years have revealed. Likewise, we have the words of Mr Costigan in his recent report. I refer to his Interim Report No. 5, volume 1. In it he reiterates what he said in previous reports about the need for a national crimes body. At page 18 of the report he says: I have referred to this matter in some detail in Chapter Ten of Volume 2 of the Fourth Interim Report which was tabled in Parliament last year. I have no desire to change anything which appeared in that chapter. My conclusions are still valid. Those conclusions lead inevitably to the result that some permanent body should be established to make use of additional powers and sophisticated techniques of identifying and arresting this cancer. That cancer, of course, is the cancer of crime throughout Australia. Mr Costigan on the next page went on to say: The extent to which additional powers are given to such a permanent body must affect the view of Government and the community as to the point at which a balance should be struck between an effective desire to challenge the forces of organised crime and, on the other hand, the desire to restrict as little as possible the traditional liberties which citizens of this country have enjoyed. Mr Costigan, for whom I have a great deal of respect, has conducted an investigation into so many of these things and has shown the effectiveness of exposing crime in quite a number of fields. We know that in this recent report he has not disclosed the detail, because that is in secret documents at the moment, but he has revealed that the investigation has shown there is a very serious further outbreak and that the revenue is being deprived of millions of dollars as a result of that. So there is, obviously, an ongoing need for this sort of investigation. Today we found that Senator Evans was uncertain as to how it will all turn out, with so many questions in his mind unresolved. It is obvious at this stage that we will not get from this Government an attack on organised crime. I repeat the words that Mr Redlich, who has the important position of Special Prosecutor, used at chapter 11.21 of his recent report: Now is the time to implement a scheme which will result in effective national law enforcement through co-operation and co-ordination. What is required is a national response to a national issue. A robust, independent national Authority, unfettered by jurisdictional or bureaucratic constraints must be created. Today we had the interesting spectacle of Senator Evans coming forward as the knight-errant of the States. He felt that somehow they were being disregarded and had not been considered in this matter. What we do know is the extent to which previous attempts to get co-operation between police forces of the States and other bodies has been unsuccessful. Of course organised crime can get across State boundaries with the greatest of ease and the greatest of success. What we have not been able to get at is the current operations of these various groups, including State police, who have an idea of 'turfdom'-I think that is the word. They are concerned with looking after their own turf, their own area. In some some cases one wonders why they are so concerned for the protection of their own turf or their own areas. Senator Tate-Why do you think? Senator MISSEN —When I look across the border into New South Wales, to take an example-- Senator Sir John Carrick-Steady on; look kindly on us. Senator MISSEN —There are honest men in New South Wales-Senator Sir John Carrick and others are shining examples-but there is some very funny business going on in New South Wales. I have had personal experiences in the last year or two of trying to get documents out of the New South Wales Police and finding very curious things indeed. Let us note what was said by one man who was in office and who had experience of this. I refer to Fred Silvester, one of Australia's top criminal investigation officers who had to resign from his position as Director of the Australian Burerau of Criminal Intelligence. He could not get the co-operation of the State police. A report following Mr Silvester's resignation, in the Age of 2 June, had this to say: But he said the bureau, which he has headed since it was formed two years ago, was powerless against the organised crime interests which fostered corruption. When it was set up in 1981, the bureau was regarded as the saviour of a system of fragmented intelligence sources and poor interstate co-operation. But two years later, Mr Silvester said, it was clear that the bureau had failed in its object of setting up a national intelligence network because of internal squabbling with the Federal police and the continued apathy of most States except Victoria. He went on to say that the Bureau had never been effective and he was forced into resignation because of that. An even more disastrous position is revealed when one looks at an article by John de Meyrick appearing in the September journal of Law News. He points out the danger of the continuance of interstate crime, the dimensions of the effect it has on our own judicial system and the importance of having no interference with the integrity of the Bench. The article reports what Mr Douglas Meagher, QC said in a paper at the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Conference. It states : . . . the situation is so serious that it is only a matter of time before attempts are made to corrupt our judges. At the same conference, the President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Moffatt, delivered a paper warning how oranised crime, as it becomes entrenched and sophisticated, ascends in its corruptive influence the ladder of authority and power. 'For example', he said, 'police officers in ascending levels, investigators, prosecutors, magistrates, judges, members of the executive government and members of the legislature in relation to the passage of legislation. So the article goes on. It is a matter of urgency, a matter of danger to this community, that action is not taken to set up this authority. As one who has belonged for many years to many of the civil liberties organisations in this country, I believe that a number of them have overlooked and failed to recognise the balance which must be set in this country at this time. We have seen the extent of corruption in the United States and we have seen the growth here of organised crime to an alarming degree. We must recognise that this means some restriction on the desires and previous rights of persons to appear and not to produce documents. Of course some of those measures are in the Bill already but it is not, as Senator Durack said, the details of the Bill that are significant; it is the fact that we must have a decision on these matters and put it into operation. At the moment the Australian Labor Party is busy with its left and right wings. I understand that its right wing in New South Wales wants some sort of authority because it will take the heat off the New South Wales Government. The left wing says that, because of civil liberties, it wants changes and so it is whittling down the Bill. We must see that this idea is not whittled down, that delay does not turn into complete inaction. The Government is to be condemned for its failure to act before now and this matter of urgency is right on point; it is what the Australian people need to protect their society from organised crime. I support this motion. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.17) —I join with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in rejecting the assertion by the Opposition that there is a need for the Hawke Government to establish a National Crimes Authority without delay, with the emphasis on the term 'without delay' in the context of an urgency motion. It has to be asked-I am rather distressed and troubled that Senator Alan Missen has taken the gung ho attitude he has taken on this matter-what is the imperative need for a hasty conclusion to the deliberations of the Government in relation to this matter? Why this haste? Will it achieve the sort of Australian society that we want to see emerge until the end of the century? Quite clearly the sort of Australian society we want is one that is not riddled by corruption, and the corruption in particular that is fostered by those engaging in criminal or illegal activities. That corruption can then reach into law enforcement agencies and political authorities and distort the better features of our Australian way of life. Surely we also want to see emerge an Australian society which equally is not ravaged by the undue intrusion of inquisitorial authorities and an extension of police powers that would put in jeopardy many of the freedoms which we do enjoy, if not alone then certainly amongst a smaller and smaller group of nations. As Mr Justice Kirby said in his address to the seminar on the National Crimes Commission conducted in this chamber, in regard to civil rights: It is easier to diminish or abolish those rights than later to revive them. He went on: Many people in Australia, perhaps even most, are not fully aware of or even sympathetic to these limitations on the powers of officials. Because they do not themselves contemplate crime, they are prepared quite readily to abandon or modify basic principles which govern the relationship between authority and the individual. The defence of civil liberties has never been a particularly popular cause in Australia. Senator Missen ought to know that. This whole enterprise requires some sort of vision of the sort of Australian society we want to emerge over the next decade or so. Therefore we have to strike the proper balance in ridding ourselves of organised crime, on the one hand, but, on the other hand, not imposing on ourselves extensions of inquisitorial powers, the defaming, smearing and destroying of characters and reputations without one iota of admissible evidence emerging from that process before commissions in a way which will found a prosecution. If there is anything we have learned from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the report of Special Prosecutor Redlich, it is that the activities of a commission in intelligence gathering do not necessarily lead to the accumulation of such evidence that can lead to a successful prosecution but in the meantime, of course, can destroy many Australians in the process. Senator Durack —But the National Crimes Commission Act provides against that. Senator TATE —I will come to the honourable senator's National Crimes Commission Bill very shortly. I remember that the Labor approach was well put in a statement by Senator Gareth Evans last October at the time Senator Durack's Bill was introduced. Senator Gareth Evans put down some 12 amendments which we were seeking to have the Government make to that Bill. We asked that the Government widen the grounds upon which the Commission could order hearings to be held in private. We sought to empower the commission to prohibit publication of the fact that a witness had appeared before it. We sought to remove the protection available under the law of defamation for reports of public hearings of the commission. We sought to make it a lawful excuse for refusal to answer questions that this would tend to incriminate one's spouse. We sought to reduce the terms of commissioners to two years, renewable once only, to ensure a regular turnover at the top and to reduce the prospects of the commission developing an unaccountable life of its own. One could go on and on. In addition, of course, Senator Durack's commission could act of its own volition and set off on its own hunts into the activities of various Australians whereas we at least are trying to devise some system of true political accountability which must apply. Senator Durack —Some of those amendments were carried. Senator TATE —But many of them were not. That is why at the third reading stage the Labor Party refused to endorse the proposal of the then Government. All of those matters of concern are being dealt with in the proper forums of the Labor Party. As Chairman of the Caucus Legal and Administrative Committee, I say that I am certainly not going to be bluffed, blustered, pushed or steamrolled into dealing with these matters other than by a process which allows the fullest deliberation and consultation to try to get the balance right. Unless that happens, there will not be a national crimes authority. Senator Durack —But Senator Evans said that the balance was right when the Bill was introduced last year. Senator TATE —He did not say that when the Bill was introduced last year. We put forward certain amendments. Our support at the third reading stage was conditional upon the acceptance of those amendments but that was not forthcoming . We are trying to build in certain safeguards. The excuse of self-incrimination , of course, is a paramount one. We want hearings to be held in private if a public hearing would prejudice the subsequent fair trial of a person or the safety or reputation of a person. We are looking to provide legal and financial assistance to witnesses in appropriate cases, the authority to come within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, periodical judicial audits of the working of the authority, sunset clauses and the whole question of accountability which we believe it is essential to address and to get right. But my real objection to this matter being brought forward by the Opposition today is that I believe it does a grave disservice to the Australian community in general in that it puts undue emphasis, I believe, on the creation of a national crimes authority to combat organised crime in Australia. We have this sense of urgency, this thinking that there must be no delay and that we must act immediately to set up this national crimes authority. The creation of this sense of hysteria and panic about the need to act this week rather than next week after considered deliberation has led to a gung ho attitude being built up among certain sectors of the community-a constituency which I believe will come back to haunt this chamber in future years. Given the current range of matters which fall into the category of some organised criminal activity such as the distribution of marihuana and other matters-and I will come to that in a moment-this continual generating of hysteria within the community has led to the development of a very dangerous situation in which there is more and more demand by fearful people throughout Australia for more and more draconian penalties. We get petitions in this chamber asking for the death penalty for the pushers of heroin. Honourable senators opposite should not try to wash their hands of the sort of situation which, I believe, is being developed by the sort of encouragement which they are giving to this hysterical attitude. Once again, I think that Mr Justice Kirby's statement that these rights are easier to abolish than to revive needs to be kept in mind in the context of this debate. My first real objection is the conjuring up of fear and hysteria in the community on which honourable senators opposite are playing for political purposes to suit their own ends rather than seeing the clear need for the sort of balance which the Attorney has constantly put forward. But my second point-and it is related to the first-is that, even if the national crimes authority were established tomorrow, it would constitute only a partial response to the problem of organised crime. As I say, the Opposition is putting too much weight on the establishment of this organisation. In fact, I think it is really putting considerable emphasis on the investigating, the gathering of evidence and the pursuing of inquiries by this authority and one hopes that in the end from all this some admissible evidence will be brought forward as a basis for successful prosecutions. The Opposition is putting a lot of emphasis on those aspects. But, of course, that action takes the heat off us as legislators and as the creators of government. In other words, we are responsible for making laws and administering departments and government authorities. When one looks at the reports of various authorities over the last few years- and I will come in a moment to the very pertinent report tabled here last week of Special Prosecutor Redlich-one comes to the conclusion, I think, that really a lot of the blame for the growth of organised crime lies not in defective investigating techniques, though I do not excuse or doubt that some police forces have not been as vigilant or robust in these regards as they ought to have been, but fairly and squarely on the shoulders of legislators throughout Australia and those responsible for the administration of departments and agencies of government. Every year since I have been in the Senate I have made speeches in various forms on the whole question of the circulation of marihuana in the community. I find that I have emphasised again and again in those speeches that by legislators throughout Australia failing to face up to the reality of the situation of the circulation of marihuana they have really forced hundreds of thousands of Australians, particularly young Australians, into a semi-criminal subculture where they are quite clearly the prey of those who want to lead them into the use of harder drugs for the greater profit of those criminal syndicates which are lying behind the distribution of large amounts of marihuana. We know that there is no pharmacologically proven progression from marihuana to heroin. On the other hand, it is probably true to say that all heroin users started with marihuana. The fact is that they get into that semi-criminal subculture where they are easy prey for those who want to manipulate and abuse them, make money out of them and then throw them onto the trash heap in such a socially destructive way. Perhaps these people then move on to harder drugs and as a result their young lives are destroyed. It is a peculiar legal system, a failure and inadequacy on the part of legislators, which allows that condition to flourish. Senator Missen in his concluding remarks mentioned the growth of organised crime in the United States of America. Precisely, it grew in an era when prohibition was in full force. When alcohol was prohibited as a socially accepted legal drug in the United States organised crime flourished. We are doing exactly the same with marihuana. Until we as legislators face up to this problem, we are being hypocritical and, as I say, we are certainly putting too much weight on what we can expect of a national crimes authority. I want to say something about the administration of departments. There is no doubt that we know that hundreds of millions of dollars were lost to the revenue of this country through the inadequate administration of the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office, particularly the Perth office, and various sections of the Australian Taxation Office and the Attorney-General's Department. Mr Redlich made very clear in his report-I could list three our four areas-that institutions, both private and public, are at fault in allowing themselves to be manipulated by those who wish to carry on illegal activities within our community. He indicted one of Australia's biggest banks which had sanctioned a system of using banking facilities for round robin accounts to avoid the payment of taxation. He pointed to the opening of false bank accounts and the high daily balances in branches. That was why it was connived at, aided and abetted by those banking institutions. In relation to public institutions, Mr Redlich referred to Telecom Australia. He said: Telecom was consciously tolerating the use of its facilities for illegal purposes and denying police access to equipment to intercept the calls of SP operators to gather evidence. Those are two examples of private and public institutions of great importance to our community allowing themselves to be manipulated by organised criminal activity. In relation to the whole question of the response of governments to organised crime, Mr Redlich said, amongst other things: Poor administration, training and resources made Government departments and law enforcement bodies incapable of an adequate response to the ravishings of crime. He also said: The primary task of regulatory bodies was the administration of their acts rather than the investigation of crime. He continued: This approach results in an inadequate response to law enforcement needs. He went on to speak of how those departments jealously guard their own territory . He said: They frequently lack the basic resources to enable them to discharge their duties effectively and there is often a division of responsibility which works against efficiency. What I am trying to build up is a picture which places the creation of a National Crimes Authority in its proper perspective. The fact is that this overhysterical approach of the Opposition not only, as I said, does not give due weight to the grave matters of the balance between civil liberties and the combating of crime, which is so important, but also could well distract us and the Australian community from our basic task as legislators and as creators of government to ensure that the laws which we make and the departments which we administer do not themselves become seminaries of crime. It is when we, as lawmakers and as administrators of departments, take our responsibilities seriously and responsibly that the National Crimes Authority, if it is to be created, with the proper safeguards, will play its part, which I am sure is what we would all wish to see. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.32) —This matter of urgency exposes a further major failure of and a further major retreat by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) in what is an uninterrupted chapter of failures and retreats that mark the administration of his portfolio. He goes from failure to failure and from retreat to retreat. Today he laid out again the ground of his retreat from Moscow. Honourable senators heard his very prophetic words: 'It may be that the problems are unsolvable'. They were his words; not mine. They were his words after the holding of the seminar, after the Green Papers and after the months have gone by. I repeat his words: 'It may be impossible to get the balance right. Maybe we will have to rely on the present enforcement agencies and nothing else'. Where now is the clarity of the garrulous, if I may say so, Senator Evans in opposition? The man of urgency said: 'There is organised crime. It is very serious. It is urgent to deal with it. We must deal with it now. We in the Australian Labor Party have the instant solutions. They must be acted upon now'. Where now is that man? What is the defence today? The defence is that there is no urgency at all about this matter. I use the words of the Government: 'There is no need to panic; Rome is not burning. There is not any urgency at all about this. Everything is all right. We are not certain now whether there ought to be a crimes commission'. How did this happen? It happened in a twinkling of an eye, from opposition to government benches. The man said that crime was rampant in Australia, that we had to act immediately regarding the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. In opposition he tore us to shreds. The garrulous man became the Gareth Evans. How did that happen? The man is now retreating; he is moving steadily backwards. He is preparing himself, against all the advice that he has had. As Senator Durack said, in October of last year Senator Evans saw the matter with some clarity. When speaking about the then Government's National Crimes Commission Bill, he said that it did appear to have met most of the concerns which the Labor Party had expressed about the crimes commission. He said that the basic model seemed to strike a reasonable balance between civil liberties and the interests of the community in effectively dealing with organised crime. That was not a bad statement in opposition. Honourable senators will remember that Costigan painted a picture, a picture that is not urgent, now, of some 35 bloody murders. Most of them are unsolved. He painted a picture of a union which was then affiliated with the Labor Party. Costigan said that it was not a trade union at all; it was an organisation of criminals, organising as criminals, to assist criminality. There is no urgency at all about that now. There is no urgency at all about the fact that judges Moffitt, Woodward, Williams, Stewart and Costigan have said that crime in Australia has reached a state of great complexity, particularly in relation to drugs, that it is in the multibillion dollar sphere and is causing the deaths of and tremendous hardship to hundreds and hundreds of Australians. There is no urgency at all about that matter now. The Government believes that it can delay. When the Labor Party was in opposition it knew with certainty that there was urgency and it knew the solutions. I can only remind myself of what Aneurin Bevan said of another Minister at the time. 'He has an absolute genius for putting flamboyant labels on empty luggage'. My goodness, when I listened today to the speeches by Senator Evans and Senator Tate-who knows better, if I may say so-I could only say that those were flamboyant labels on empty luggage if ever there were such. Senator Evans said that there may be other solutions to this problem; we do not know. A seminar was held to look at the matter. I think it would be very interesting to look at what was said at the seminar. I will give a summary of Senator Evans's interpretation of it. Incidentally, everybody knows that the series of royal commissions has said that the present law enforcement agencies are not good enough. In summing up the seminar, Senator Evans said that it was agreed that organised and sophisticated crime is a serious problem in Australia today. Senator Archer —Not now. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It is not now; we can delay. Since July delay on this matter is a good thing. Never mind, that was what was said. Senator Evans stated that the seminar concluded that the police forces, in their present form, were under-resourced-that was his beautiful euphemism-meaning, in various people's terms, inadequate, inefficient, ineffective, undertrained and unskilled, without reflecting on the great body of decent policemen. As some of the commissions have exposed, there is some degree of corruption throughout the forces. They are inadequate, certainly, to do their job. Senator Evans said the seminar stated that co-ordination between law enforcement agencies was hopeless, that there was no great co-operation between police force and police force either State by State or Federal and State. He said that for a whole variety of reasons there was no willingness to co-operate. He said that ad hoc royal commissions were not the total answer and that there was a need for a more systematic form of national criminal intelligence collection. He then tried to crystallise what the majority view was. It was that there was strong support for a national intelligence gathering investigatory and co-ordinating authority. So there was the situation of this seminar summed up. The seminar concluded that law enforcement agencies today are just not good enough, that, sadly, our police forces, for whatever reasons, are not equipped to meet the complexity of organised crime. We do not have the skills, the educational standards and the technology inside our police forces to deal with it. We do not have co-ordination between police forces to cope with the problem. The royal commissions have stated that so many of these matters are national ones and so many of them can be approached only in terms of national powers, passports, taxation, drugs, imports and exports-the whole fabric of Commonwealth powers as distinct from State powers. It was quite clear that this was a matter that had to be decided upon. The situation is that nobody, royal commissions or seminars, has said that the existing investigatory bodies are good enough. I remember those beautiful words that Senator Evans used today in his retreat from Moscow. He said: 'Maybe the problems are unresolvable. It may be possible to get the balance right. Maybe we will have to stick with what we have got'. Can honourable senators imagine the retreat of that man? Napoleon would have declared himself an amateur when comparing himself with the retreat of that man from his position last year. He was the man who knew the answers to everything. Today he uses nothing but buzz words. Indeed, Gilbert and Sullivan must have had such a man in mind when they invented the Poo-Bah and wrote those lovely words of the Poo-Bah that it was merely a corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. Who could describe his speech today better than that? Words, words, words! In order to spin out the time he recited 25 questions with no answers. He had no answers after all this time. He did not have an answer to any of the questions at all. He knows that we, on this side of the chamber, always urged urgency on this matter. We, in fact, brought in legislation for the establishment of a crimes commission. We appointed a chairman. Senator Chipp, in speaking for the Australian Democrats, day after day , has moved for the urgent setting up of a body to inquire into organised crime. Nobody could be more forthright than Senator Chipp has been in drawing attention to what he regards as the urgency of this matter. It is a pity that the Democrats are not part of this debate today. That is the situation. What have we found? The urgency motion states: The need for the Hawke Government to establish a National Crimes Authority without delay. It is opposed on two grounds. Senator Evans said, first of all: 'Why worry about the delay? There is no urgency'. Secondly, he said: 'We may not need any national crimes authority at all; we may not be able to get one; maybe what we have got is all that we can possibly have'. I have never heard in this place such a pathetic retreat by any political party from the principles upon which it has stood or from the arguments which it has enunciated. I can only say that Senator Evans has been caught. His rhetoric has entrapped him in the jungle of his Caucus. His buzz words have been caught up with. He finds himself so trapped that he has to make this retreat. It is incredible that anybody could stand up here and say that at a time when, only days ago, it was revealed by the Australian Federal Police that there had been an invasion of the environment of a State Minister by an international crime boss. There had been an invasion into the surrounds and the environment of the State Minister yet to be fully identified in terms of its nature, and there is no urgency about that, even though, when he reported it, a police inquiry said that the information was inconclusive. Is it good enough that the very fabric of our community today is being exposed, not by politicians, but by royal commissioners, as being threatened? Royal commissioners say that crime is so organised and so complex today that every part of the framework of our society is involved. Business, commerce, the unions , the judiciary, the politicians and the police forces are involved. Are we willing to have this Parliament, which after all is the basis from which democracy flows and the basis upon which our temporal values are formed, go on and have people pointing to us day after day and saying that there is evidence that politicians, the judiciary and the police are corrupt? No society can be safe or happy or go about content and with integrity if it believes that its police force is not safe. Is it only competition between police forces that forces them to be not willing to exchange information? What an ugly thing it would be if there were also an element of corruption stopping that from taking place. In any case we know-let me pull this together-that royal commissions have said that the present framework of law enforcement is totally inadequate. We know that the present framework has failed to detect, much less to prosecute and secure a conviction. We know that the royal commissions have exposed. Of course we must look to civil liberties. When we look to the liberty of the individual, we must bear in mind John Stuart Mill as well; there is an overriding liberty- the liberty of the community. Day after day we sit here and allow the liberties, the freedoms and the integrity of the community to be shrunken because we are not willing to act because of some principle. Let us remember that this is not civil liberties we are talking about but a libertine behaviour. This is the law of the jungle and one that we must not tolerate. There is no doubt in the world that there is an urgency about this matter. There is no doubt in the world that there is an urgency for major Federal intervention. It has been clearly established by the Opposition-sadly today it has been revealed to the public-that the Australian Labor Party has neither the desire for urgency nor, at this moment, the certainty that there is a need for any Federal intervention at all. The Attorney-General said: 'Maybe what we have today is what we will have to stick with'. That is simply not good enough. The Democrats have indicated that, the Opposition has indicated that and the public has indicated that. This has been one of the most abject retreats and failures that I have witnessed in this chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Grimes —Why didn't you make another speech about you and Askin, you old fraud. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(4.48) —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take Senator Grimes's point. It is rather ironical that debate from the Opposition has just been closed off by someone who is reputed to have been the bag man for the former Liberal Party Premier of New South Wales. Senator Sir John Carrick —I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I should not have to rise on this point of order. Madam Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to the Standing Orders and ask you to enforce them. You know that any reflection on any honourable senator is offensive. I reject that remark out of hand. I have never been a bag man in any sense at all for any political party. My integrity is as precious to me as the integrity of anybody sitting opposite. Let Senator Bolkus look to his own integrity. Senator Chaney —Madam Acting Deputy President, I merely wish to support the point of order and draw your attention to standing order 418. Senator BOLKUS —I withdraw. In commencing the debate for the Opposition, Senator Durack, the Attorney-General in a government that was in office for over eight years, made the point that there is urgency for a national response to a national problem. This afternoon we have had from the Opposition the response that we saw from the former Government in the eight years it was in office. It was a totally inadequate response, full of rhetoric, full of superficialities, and did not address itself to the problem at heart. There are a number of matters that are undisputed in respect of organised crime in Australia. It is undisputed that there has been an explosion in recent years. It is undisputed that organised crime has existed in some States in Australia since the commencement of those States. That has been written about and evidenced in books and reports. Mr McCoy in a book called The History of Organised Crime in Australia showed that very well. But, as I said, it is undisputed that there has been a recent explosion in this area. It is also undisputed that organised crime has centred on a specific number of offences. Some have been going on for quite some time but the sophistication that has entered organised crime has now come about because of the use and abuse of financial systems, company structures and those sorts of avenues that are now available to sophisticated crooks. Traditionally we have had drug problems, the corruption of officials, prostitution, vice and illegal gambling, but now we have the other layer, the layer of sophistication-tax avoidance, currency violation and the like. Senator Tate, amongst others, mentioned that the problem with organised crime is that it is run from the top but that it is the individuals who are affected. Whether they are affected because they are denied the fruits of the Australian economy by the tax rorts or whether they are affected because they are the ones who are suffering because of drug abuse or the manipulation and abuse of them by crime figures using them as drug users and abusing them as prostitutes of one sex or the other, it is individuals who are being affected. It is also undisputed, as I said earlier, that organised crime has developed in part over the last 30 or 40 years by sophisticated methods. The Cusack report into organised crime in Victoria in 1950 isolated the problem then as being one of the local family Mafia organisation. Cusack then predicted that unless measures were taken it would extend, and extend it has done. It has now reached greater dimensions and it is run by international crooks. Organisations within Australia have been organised with international links and they are flourishing because of that. We have seen Nugan Hand flourish. We have seen the Mr Asia organisation flourish and we have seen companies such as those involved in the poker machine industry also transcending State and national boundaries. Senator Walters —Who wrote the speech for you? Senator BOLKUS —Unlike Senator Walters I do not need to have mine typed out in large print. We have also seen organised crime interwoven with security organisations throughout the world. In fact it has extended its area of operation to unhealthy levels. Senator Missen —You accept the urgency then, do you? Senator BOLKUS —I accept the urgency but I think the response is something greater than the honourable senator is proposing today. The basis of organised crime is linked very much with official corruption. If honourable senators look at the United States of America and at the responses that country has made, they will realise that the inception of crime authorities there may have helped to some extent, but organised crime continues. In Australia quite recently we set up a Narcotics Bureau. Now royal commission after royal commission finds that much of the activity that has gone on within Australia has been facilitated by the inactivity and corruption within that body. It is rather curious that we have before us a motion moved by the Opposition as a matter of urgency, an Opposition which when in government was confronted with what is very much now at the core of organised crime-that is, as I mentioned earlier, sophisticated money channelling organisations. Year after year the previous Government received reports from its commissioners of taxation and reports going to the Crown Solicitor's Office to respond to tax avoidance-an integral part of organised crime, one that has been defined as such by Costigan, by Robert Redlich and others. But what was the previous Government's response? In one instance files were lost for over five years. I quote the now Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Howard, who is reported on page 887 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 25 August 1982 as saying that one of the reasons the two and half years elapsed before the Government acted against tax avoidance was: there were people in . . . Government who wondered whether this piece of legislation was necessary- It took the previous Government two and a half years. What we are talking about now is demanding an adequate and total response from a new Government after eight months. The Opposition that had eight years to do something about it now demands an answer within eight months. What was the former Government's response to that? Its response was to act on the Lynch razor cut proposals, to cut back the staff of the Taxation Office and to facilitate organised crime by facilitating the tax avoidance industry. That was its response then. Need I say that the person who moved the motion this afternoon was himself fingered. In the document that was published very widely in September 1982 it was mentioned that tax avoidance schemes had proliferated over the last few years and that Senator Durack's office had not responded to them. Senator Durack 's Department had been conducting investigations for years without any efficient response to the particular problem. Now we are faced with a new government, a government that is prepared to meet the problem and to meet it fully, but there are basic problems to be addressed in this respect. There are issues that the Opposition has neglected to attend to this afternoon. What offences are covered by organised crime? Let the people who for years have been travelling around Australia crying about States rights respond now. What are the offences that should be covered by a crimes authority? How should such an authority interrelate with the States? What sort of interests should the States have? Do they not recognise that there are constitutional barriers to an effective national response to this matter, or are they just prepared to forget the particular problem that rests in the Constitution that they hold so sacrosanct? Where is Senator Walters now that we are talking abut States rights? There is another basic problem that we need address ourselves to. If we set up another body the problem that this Parliament must address itself to, the problem that this Government is addressing itself to, is that of accountability. How should such a body be accountable to this Parliament, to this Government and to the States? How and in what way should it be audited? Should it have sunset provisions and so on? Let me quote from Mr Justice Michael Kirby-much was made of this earlier by speakers of the Government- Senator Missen —He is not always right. Senator BOLKUS —Neither is Senator Missen. Mr Justice Kirby made this point in his statement about the national crimes commission: Whilst there are dangers that accountability to political representatives can be used to muzzle the effectiveness of a body such as a crimes commission, there are far greater dangers in allowing such a body to range widely over the landscape, with unusual powers within imprecisely defined functions, at the whim of those who constitute the body and who are not effectively accountable in a democratic way. That is a concern that we should all have when we are addressing ourselves to the setting up of an authority. But the details, the particular problems, the accountability, the rights of the individual-I take the point from Senator Sir John Carrick that it is a very fine line between protecting individuals who are damaged by organised crime-are the sorts of problems that need to be addressed and Senator Gareth Evans has taken very much haste in addressing himself to those. I mentioned earlier the powers of the States. There is another matter, of course-that is how effective such a body will be. That is a problem that the Government must also face. The Senior Vice President of the Law Council of Australia, Mr Ian Temby, once again at the National Crimes Commission Conference , questioned how such a body could work. He addressed himself to the augmenting of powers of existing law enforcement agencies and went on to say: The alternative is to erect a new edifice . . . that is likely to be expensive, the new structure might not serve the purpose for which it is designed, and it might even collapse and do a lot of damage. Senator Tate mentioned-I quote only members on the Government side in respect of this because the input from the Opposition was rather inefficient-and I support his position-that there needs to be a total and comprehensive response to this problem. Of course, I can quite understand that this is a jovial matter for Senator Peter Baume and Senator Chaney. They had eight years to muse over it. Let me refer to the annual report of the Special Prosecutor. He acknowledges and claims that there is a need for an authority but he goes on to say that other areas need to be looked at, areas that could have been looked at over the last eight years, including the need for a uniform Evidence Act. Senator Walters —Are you going to get rid of the painters and dockers commission ? Senator BOLKUS —I refer Senator Walters to page 137 of the Special Prosecutor's report. It shows that there are problems with evidence that need to be addressed , that there are problems with the Crimes Act, with inconsistent procedures in different States. The Special Prosecutor suggests that there should be a federal offence to cover the problems that Senator Tate highlighted, those of federal facilities being used in State crimes. He suggested the codifying of criminal laws. He even raises the problem of evidence from foreign countries. He goes on to say that tax laws are in much need of reform. He lists on page 144 at least seven areas that need to be reformed and goes on the state that some of these areas incur a fine: . . . of not less than $4.00 or more than $200.00. They are problems that he highlights, problems that have been brought to the notice of government in the past but problems which, after eight years of government, the Opposition now comes in to tell us are a matter of urgency, even though it did not think so at the time. He goes on to refer to abridgment of time-this is a very vital matter which my colleague, the honourable member for Hawker, Mr Ralph Jacobi, has raised a number of times-and says that the Commissioner of Taxation has no effective powers to stop someone absconding. I read paragraph 16.39 to instance the particular problems he has. Mr Redlich says : In one case I had to deal with involving millions of dollars of unpaid tax, the taxpayer on learning of the commencement of the investigation, but prior to the assessment being issued, had departed Australia and taken up residence overseas. They are the sorts of problems that government needs to address itself to in the context of its deliberations on how to attack organised crime. Senator Walters —Just what are you frightened about? Senator BOLKUS —I am not frightened about Senator Walters. She should be frightened about the vested interests that her colleagues have been protecting for eight years. Senator Walters has come to this chamber this afternoon with this concept, this edifice, and she proposes that that is the total answer to organised crime in this country. Let me say to her that the problem is much more than can be catered for by a national crimes authority. It is one that needs a total national response, as highlighted by Senator Durack. It is one that this Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is prepared to embark upon with haste and, if one looks at the history of this matter over the last eight months or so , one will see that he has taken measure after measure towards some sort of resolution of the production of the body and it is one-- Senator Withers —You have lost your place, have you? Senator BOLKUS —I would not look to Senator Withers to find my place. Senator Withers —I will put you in your place. Senator BOLKUS —In government, thank you. It is a matter to which the Attorney- General is addressing himself. Let me say in closing that there are problems involved with the National Crimes Commission. Problems were highlighted at the National Crimes Commission Conference which was held in this place earlier this year. They have been highlighted by more authoritative people than those mouths on the other side and I recommend those papers for the reading of the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.03) —In my contribution to this debate today I wish to review the debate that has taken place on this real matter of urgency, the need for the Hawke Government to establish a national crimes authority without delay, a national crimes authority to investigate organised crime, that which has been called by Costigan 'the cancer in our midst'. That there is organised crime should be now beyond dispute. It has been identified. We have had so many examples given to us by Mr Costigan. We have had the examples, as we have been reminded of today in Senator Durack's speech, given by Mr Costigan's assistant Meagher to the last Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Conference. We now have the report of Special Prosecutor Redlich. We have previously had the reports of Williams, Stewart, Moffitt and many others. I would have thought that by now the question of whether there is serious organised crime within our midst would be well beyond dispute. That it is a national problem should also be beyond dispute. That it cannot be solved by existing agencies is a debate that we have been through before. It is not purely a question of reorganisation of existing police forces and other crime authorities. What there must be is a national authority. That was the state that we reached at the end of this debate last year. It can either be, as Senator Durack said, in the form of the previous Government's national authority or in some other form. We are not here today to put up the previous Government's authority as necessarily the perfect form. But it must be an authority which, as Senator Durack said, can act fearlessly and forcibly and it must be able to do so soon. The question before this Government is, however, no longer when there will be a crimes commission but, clearly, whether there will in fact be such a commission. We have seen in recent months a clear back pedalling. It is suprising, particularly to us, because it was not long ago, as the Senate has been reminded today, that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) himself was so supportive of it. I remind the Senate of his Press statement of 28 April when he said: The Labor Party is willing to give serious and constructive consideration to proposals now being floated for a National Crimes Commission to investigate and monitor organised crime. On 25 October, he said: It is unlikely that the ALP will oppose the Bill . . . In May his leader, Prime Minister Hawke, was even more firm in his resolve. I remind the Senate that he assured us that: . . . at the beginning of 1984, we will be in place, with the proclamation of the Act, for the National Crimes Commission to take over, in the most effective way, the work of the royal commission. He assured the House of Representatives on 19 May 1983, that at the beginning of 1984 the Act will be in place, a crimes commission will be in place. We have seen since then a clear back pedalling so that now those assurances are at real risk. That leads me to the incredible statement of the Attorney-General in June when he said: The Government has now made up its mind-- It had made up its mind to support the establishment of the National Crimes Commission- Though no decision in this area can be regarded as absolutely irrevocable. So it has made up its mind, but it is entitled to change its mind again. I suggest that that is an astonishing statement, but not as astonishing as the statement made last Sunday morning on the Sunday television program. When asked by Farmer: Do you expect that you will in fact end up with an authority? His answer was: I think we will end up with something. What was Senator Evans's argument today? He said that there may be reasons for the establishment of a National Crimes Commission. He conceded that much. But he principally said that there was no urgency. That is something that I would have thought was totally in conflict with the numerous commission reports that have been put before us. He said that there is plenty of time for debate. In fact, there has been plenty of time for debate. The debate led last year to an Act. We have had the National Crimes Commission Conference that he reminded us of, we have had numerous reports, commissions, other debates and the Green Paper which he also reminded us of. He referred to the questions in the Green Paper which he said must now be answered. But I remind the Senate that in his final statement to the National Crimes Commission Conference he, in fact, answered most of those questions. I draw the attention of the Senate to page 270 of the transcript of the proceedings, which I do not have time to read in detail. But-to give the Senate an example-he said: . . . I discern no disagreement about at least the following propositions: Firstly, organised and sophisticated crime is a serious problem in Australia today. Secondly, the police are under-resourced in dealing with the problem. Thirdly, co-ordinated mechanisms, such as they are, are capable of improvement in dealing with that problem. So the questions have been asked and answered. Then he said: 'Are we fiddling while Rome burns?' It is not for us to say what fiddling takes place in Caucus sub-committees. But clearly what fiddling is taking place is not leading to a commission being set up. Senator Missen today proved to the Senate that the urgency for the establishment of a crimes commission was beyond dispute. I think it is significant that Senator Missen, who is known to be one of the chief civil libertarians of this Parliament, is so convinced of the need to set up a crimes commission. Senator Tate also, astonishingly, saw no need for urgency. He said that undue intrusion by inquisitorial and police powers is something that we must guard against. We all accept that. That is the debate we went through last year, the debate that was hammered out, the debate that in effect was answered again by Senator Evans when on 25 October last year he said: The bill does appear to have met most of the concerns that we have expressed about the Crimes Commission concern. The basic model seems to strike a reasonable balance between civil liberties and the interests of the community in effectively dealing with organised crime. So he acknowledges there that that debate has passed and a reasonable balance has been found. Yet he called the Opposition hysterical. I just cannot understand that. To regard organised crime in Australia and the extent to which it has reached as hysterical is an astonishing rationalisation. I am severely limited in time and though I should like to review the eloquent contribution of Senator Sir John Carrick, I cannot. Senator Bolkus surprised me, I must acknowledge, because he accepted the existence of organised crime. In the first half of his speech he also acknowledged, in conflict with Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Tate, the urgency of dealing with it. But then, towards the end of his speech, he seemed to depart from the question of urgency. It is clearly now decision time. In the last week or so we have had further evidence put to us by another Costigan report and the first annual report of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich. The latter was a most disturbing, disquieting report, particularly in its criticism of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Telecom Australia, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Taxation Office which were all singled out for their failure to check serious crime occurring under their jurisdiction. He said in summary: The opportunity is now present for the Commonwealth Government to achieve a major breakthrough in the co-ordination of the investigation of crime in Australia. A national authority to investigate crime should be an immediate priority. I remind Senator Bolkus who mentioned this report that Mr Redlich said that it should be an immediate priority. Mr Redlich continued: The public expects such an authority. Some State and Federal law enforcement agencies support it. Other law enforcement agencies are resigned to it. The state of crime in Australia and the disorganised response thereto cries out for it. What is the problem with the Australian Labor Party in this matter? Why is it unable to make a decision now that it is in Government and has to face the problem of making decisions? I think it was delightfully summarised-I will conclude on this point-in an article of 5 August this year by Claude Forell in the Age when, in the last paragraph, he said: Compromise and consensus may be trendy political virtues but they won't cut much ice with crime and vice. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Institute of Marine Science-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972. 2. Construction of 2 FFGS at Williamstown Naval Dockyard-Text of a Statement made in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Defence on 12 October 1983. 3. Final Report on the Operation of the Wage Pause Legislation pursuant to resolution of the Senate of 16 December 1982. 4. Commonwealth Schools Commission Report for 1984-Response to Government Guidelines-together with a text of a statement relating to the report by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. 5. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-Report for 1982-84 Triennium- Volume 4-Recommendations for 1984-together with the text of a statement relating to the report by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. 6. Study of Living Away From Home Facilities for Isolated Children-Report by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. 7. Australian Egg Board-Annual Report 1982-83-Extension of Time-pursuant to sub -section 34 (c) 6 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 8. The Wheat Industry-Industries Assistance Commission Report 1983. Annual Report Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.13) —In the absence of Senator Peter Rae who is away on parliamentary business, I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. There have been some opportunities to debate the significance of the wage pause and the positive contribution which it has made to those signs of economic recovery which do exist. There seems to be little doubt, from the Government's own statements in the Budget Papers and elsewhere, that there are some tentative signs of recovery in some areas of the economy. Those signs of recovery, where they do exist, can be related to the restraining of wages which occurred under the wage pause which was instituted by the Fraser Government. The present situation is one where it has been made quite clear that there will be an increase in unemployment. There is little hope for the unemployed in light of the wage rise which has occurred under the urgings of this Government and with the acquiescence of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Statements are currently being made which make it quite clear that in industry there is great concern about our uncompetitive position. Indeed, if one looks at the report in this morning's Australian Financial Review of a speech made by Mr Hugh Morgan, one finds a most disturbing report about Australia's comparative competitive position. That report suggests that we are grossly uncompetitive with the sorts of countries with which we would like to compare ourselves. I do not believe there is any matter which is more central to the welfare of Australia than the question of the creation of employment and the sorts of policies which have been pursued by this Government which are inimical to that end. For that reason, I do not believe that this final Report on the Operation of the Wage Pause Legislation should pass without debate. I realise that now is not the time to prolong that debate. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report and Ministerial Statement Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. This report has not been circulated in the chamber. Honourable senators do not have a copy in front of them. Neither do we have a copy of the text of the statement tabled by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). This makes it very difficult to give a considered response. Senator Chaney —It could be worse; we could have the Minister here. Senator PETER BAUME —We could have the Minister here. I do want to make some comments on this report which we have not had a chance to see. I draw the attention of honourable senators first to the last page of the report which contains- Senator Harradine —I raise a point of order. The list of papers for presentation states: 4. Commonwealth Schools Commission Report for 1984-Reponse to Government Guidelines-together with a text of a statement relating to the report by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. That statement is not before us. As I understand, it may well be better for this matter to be debated tomorrow when the Minister is here and when she is able to present the text of her statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There was a note on the list that copies of the text of the statement were not available prior to tabling. I understand that copies are being circulated now. It is open to anyone who wishes to have this debate resumed either on Thursday afternoon or on the next day of sitting so to move. If Senator Peter Baume wishes to speak now, he is in order. Senator PETER BAUME —I certainly do wish to speak, Mr Deputy President. I will try to exercise my rights and make some more remarks later. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the last page of the report which contains an estimation of government school standard costs. I say to those who are interested in non-government schools that it is an important table because it sets down standard costs imputed for 1984 and gives people a chance to estimate the effect of the Government's funding policy. I also draw attention to certain comments which are contained within the report. At page 1 the Commonwealth Schools Commission has found it necessary to make the following observation: The Commission regrets the significant reduction which has occurred in the general allocation for the Professional Development Program. This program has been designed to help teachers expand their professional capacities. The Commission goes on to say: . . . it believes that reductions of the order determined in the Guidelines will have dislocative effects on existing in-service education programs. First, the Commonwealth Schools Commission itself has criticised the Government on these grounds. Secondly, also at page 1, the Schools Commission has criticised the amount of provision for the computer education program. It has done so in the following words: The amount provided is less than that recommended by the Commission. This will necessitate increased contributions from government and non-government school authorities if the objectives of the program are to be realised. It also goes on to make certain comments indicating that extra resources will have to be provided for the provision of computer education to primary schools. It is important that people understand that the Schools Commission is calling upon the Government to provide resources to make its rhetoric a possibility or a reality. The main point about this report is that it contains the funding figures which put into place the Government's cuts to 41 non-government schools. It indicates the extent of those cuts. It puts into effect its decision to break the percentage link between the grants to non-government schools and the cost of educating a child in a government school. We have said already that we find both those propositions inappropriate and offensive. In the few seconds remaining, I wish to draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that so offensive are the two features that the Catholic bishops of Victoria found it desirable on 9 October to issue a pastoral letter to be read in every Catholic Church in Victoria, in which they condemned these two features. They said: We insist that the percentage link between the Government-school standard costs and per capita grants to non-Government schools must be retained. I seek leave to incorporate this pastoral letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- PASTORAL LETTER FROM THE BISHOPS OF VICTORIA ON EDUCATION MATTERS Dear Catholic People, Nearly twenty years ago the Australian Government took the first small steps to remove the injustice under which parents who wanted a Christian education for their children had laboured since before Federation. In 1967 the Victorian Government introduced a basic grant for children at all independent schools. Since that time there has been progress, especially at the Federal level, towards justice for all Australian school children. However recent developments, both locally and nationally, threaten to reverse this progress. It is for this reason that we, the Catholic Bishops of Victoria, believe it necessary to reaffirm our basic principles and to voice our grave concerns. We are concerned about three things especially. First, the Australian Government is abolishing the percentage link between the cost of educating a child in a Government school and the size of per capita grants to independent schools. Second the Australian Government is backing away from the principle of a fair basic grant to every child. Third, the Victorian Government has already accepted the first two parts of the extraordinary first Report of the new State Board of Education and is considering the acceptance of the third part, which is so hostile towards independent schools. These developments threaten giant steps back into the unhappy past. Right of Parents All children have the right to education. So too all parents, not only Catholic parents, ''have the prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children''. These words are taken from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. Australia is a signatory to this Declaration. Such rights are also asserted in the European Convention of Human rights. The right of parents to freedom in choosing to have their children educated according to their religious and philosophical convictions is not merely an empty freedom to bear the cost of sending their children to private or parochial schools. It is one which involves a corresponding duty on the part of political authorities to furnish parents with the financial assistance necessary to enable them to exercise this human right. No Government committed to parents' right to choose can set up one system of education and insist that everybody should use that system or pay for their chosen alternative. This effectively destroys the rights of parents to choose and is an act of injustice towards those parents. We categorically reject the notion that Government money ear-marked for education belongs by right only to Government schools and that anything given to non-Government schools is by way of concession or hand-out. The right of choice is not one on which Catholic parents are selfishly insisting. They seek it with all confidence in the fairness and goodwill of their fellow Australians and with all willingness to pay their share of the total expense of educating all Australian children. They do not see themselves in competition with the Government system, but regard justice in this matter as a victory for education in all its forms. At State level, funds granted this year to a child in an independent school approximate 23% of what is granted to a child in a Government school. At Federal level, the grant is between 20% and 40% depending on how needy a school is judged to be. Acceptable Principles We insist that the percentage link between the Government-school standard costs and per capita grants to non-Government schools must be retained. unless this is done, there is clear discrimination between parents who exercise their right to a choice of a non-Government school and parents who-no matter how rich they may be-have their choice of a Government school totally supported by taxpayers' money. We repeat that freedom of choice is not genuine if people are discriminated against unless they choose one of the available options. We understand that those who seek special facilities over and above the basic needs of schools may be expected to pay for them. We would support a system which recognises need as a factor in funding, provided that such a system builds on the provision of a basic grant for all children and that the basic grant is fair and realistic. We wish to see the parents of children in independent schools treated as fairly as those with children in Government schools. Any other system is basically unjust. New Government Guidelines Recently the Australian and Victorian Governments appear to have moved against the rights of parents by severely reducing the basic grant to some non- Government school pupils. In both cases, these are only interim measures. There is the possibility that further cuts, or even the elimination of the basic grant , might follow. The fact that most of the pupils affected are not at Catholic schools does not lessen our concern. The issue is one of principle. We support the right of all parents to a share of the taxpayers' money for the education of their children, whether they choose Government schools, Catholic schools or other independent schools. The basic grant must not become a mere token, or be completely abolished. It is unfortunate that some money appears to be earmarked for 'needy' Catholic schools at the expense of other Church schools. This is not the whole story. If the recommendations of the controversial Report of the State Board of Education were to be accepted by the Victorian Government, then less than half of the money available for reallocation would be available for 'needy' schools. The whole tone and content of the Report of the State Board was disturbing. The Report was hostile in tone and divisive in trend. There was no evidence of any attempt at effective consultation, much less any evidence of consensus. In the Federal sphere, the last Budget increased the money available to education. This is to be applauded. However, while there was an increase of 5.6% in the money for Government schools, the increase for independent schools was only 1.5%. But what is more important, and alarming, is that the Commonwealth Schools Commission guidelines have broken the automatic percentage link between Government school standard costs and the per capita grants to non-Government schools. This can be seen as the prelude to further assaults on the basic grant and an attempt to foster division among independent schools. The Catholic community feels strongly about the principle involved in the present substantial cuts to the basic grant. Cooperation with Governments The freedom of Catholic schools and their religious and moral character have always been central concerns of the Catholic community. We are most disturbed therefore by the Schools Commission's proposal that funding for schools in ' established' areas will not be recommended unless it can be shown that there will be no significant impact on enrolments of other schools in those areas. We have tried and we will continue to try to coordinate our plans and to cooperate with Government school authorities. But we fail to see why so much of the blame for earlier planning errors should be attributed to independent school communities. In the wake of the Radford College Report we were relieved to hear the Federal Minister for Education state unequivocally that ''this Government has no intention of pursuing a policy of integrating non-Government schools with Government schools''. In the light of the State Board of Education's recommendations on financial accountability, curriculum, enrolments and governance in non-Government schools, we will welcome a similar assurance from the Premier of Victoria that our freedom will not be curtailed in these areas. We support cooperation, the sharing of resources where appropriate and the requirement of accountability for the use of taxpayers money in all Victorian schools, Government and non-Government. We are determined to protect not only our rights, but the precious freedom and rights of all educational agencies in a democracy. Catholic School Achievements The Catholic community has every reason to be proud of the achievements of its schools. Over the last fifty years Catholic teachers, both religious and lay, have enabled huge numbers of their students to achieve a degree of social mobility which has not been bettered anywhere in the Western world. The vitality of ethnic communities in Catholic schools is special proof that this work is continuing. Message to Parents We assure you parents who have entrusted your children to the care of Catholic schools that the bishops, priests, religious and lay teachers associated with these schools see these children as a sacred trust. We the Bishops of Victoria, urge you to continue to support the priests, the religious and the lay teachers in their work with school children, especially in circumstances where religious and educational development is difficult. We urge you to take up once again the task of explaining the Catholic position to the general public. We urge you to continue to protect the position of Catholic schools in the mainstream of Australian life. One great strength of Catholic schools is the extent of parent involvement. Parents are not just behind the schools with money and moral support. They contribute an enormous number of hours of unpaid work and expert advice. Confidence in Students We want to say a special word to you young Catholics who are the students in our schools. To you we say: We Bishops are proud of you. You fill us with optimism. You respond so generously to the sacrifices made by your parents, to the degree of funding provided by our Governments, and to the lives of Christian professionalism dedicated to you by your teachers. Enjoy all this, get all you can out of it, in Faith and in study, in games and in friendships. And we would also say to you. Never let anyone make you regard Government schools as the enemies of our schools or Government school children as your antagonists. They are your fellow Australian adults of the next generation. We trust you then to work with them for an Australia even better than it is today. Our Common Task We conclude by commending these concerns to the Catholic community for consideration and action. We have restated and reaffirmed our principles. We cannot remain silent while the improved ecumenical relationships between the Churches are damaged or when different sections of the community are set against one another. Our common task as citizens is to improve the educational opportunities of all young Australians. Much needs to be done, which will require those qualities of the spirit which have sustained Australians in the past. A satisfactory outcome of the educational enterprise cannot be achieved by money alone, nor can it be achieved by trampling on the rights and freedom of people in a democratic society. That is one of the great lessons of history. May we all be wise enough to heed it. T. F. Little Ronald A. Mulkearms John A. Kelly Eric Perkins Joseph P. O'Connell Noel D. Daly Eric D'Arcy 9th October 1983 Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. Because there are many more things that I should like to say about this report, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. (Quorum formed) Report and Ministerial Statement Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.22) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. This report, too, was not available to honourable senators until it was tabled. Detailed study of this report and the text of the statement will also take some time. I should like to make a few brief preliminary comments. First, the unavailability of the report has not been helpful to those honourable senators who wish to comment on it in detail. Nevertheless, the report contains some round condemnations of the Government for inadequacies in the provision of funds to fulfil or redeem its promises. I draw the attention of honourable senators to some comments of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, an instrument of the Government, a statutory commission, to the Government that it serves. The Commission, in commenting on the Government's decision to provide $10m extra for the provision of recurrent support for new university places, has found it necessary to criticise the Government, in the following words: The Government accepted the Commission's recommendation regarding recurrent expenditure but did not accept the associated recommendation for a building program that would ensure that there are additional places available when needed . So we have a situation in which the Government is requiring extra participation, it is providing money to pay some extra salaries or administrative costs, but it has failed to respond to the recommendations of its own Tertiary Education Commission to provide the capital amounts to build the buildings and provide the equipment to make that extra participation possible or a reality. The Government 's own Commission, in this report, says further: Nor is there a firm commitment to meeting the longer term costs of the levels of participation that the Government's announced policies imply. So the Commission is also criticising the Government for requiring extra participation, putting in $10m this year, but giving no forward commitment that the support for this extra participation will continue to come. Further, the Commission, on this same matter, says that it is: . . . concerned that the Government, in seeking extra participation by disadvantaged groups and providing inadequate support, may only be able to achieve that extra participation by the disadvantaged if it can displace other students who presently have access to tertiary education. That is a most serious charge by the Commission. I charge the Government to ensure that its policy of extra participation by the disadvantaged is not achieved by the displacement of those who currently take part in tertiary education, and that the policies, through inadequate provision of resources, do not have that effect. This report, containing the recommendations for 1984 together with the Budget figures as they relate to student assistance, comprises the Government's program for tertiary education in 1984. That program has been roundly condemned on campus after campus. We have been able to obtain some of the student newspapers. Just as an example, an issue of Honi Soit, the newspaper of the University of Sydney, No. 15, of October 1983, had the following comments to offer: Recently the Federal Labor Government and particularly the Minister for Education, Senator Susan Ryan, have been doing a great deal of huffing and puffing about their commitment to education. However, the gap between the rhetoric and the reality is a wide one. This is what they are saying on campus. The article continues: The Minister for Education has been at pains to stress, firstly, the need to increase participation in education and, secondly, encourage access to disadvantaged groups. The reality of increased demand and increased competition, however, makes a mockery of the Minister's stated intention. It talks about Labor's tokenism, which will ensure that students from high socio -economic backgrounds will continue to be over-represented. It goes on to talk about the broken promises on the tertiary education assistance scheme and the failure to redeem promises. While this report sets out many of the building programs, it contains significant criticism of what the Government has failed to consider. The report needs further discussion. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjouned. Report Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.28) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I have not seen this report. When Minister, I commissioned this study-- Senator Chipp —That should have stopped you talking about it. Senator PETER BAUME —It does not stop me talking about it. I commissioned it because there was a great need and a problem in the community for children who are required to live away from home, in addition to the facilities for isolated children. The problem came to our attention when it was apparent that a large number of boarding schools and boarding facilities around the country were being forced to close because of financial difficulty. Any kind of survey showed that the number of places available for country children for accommodation for their education was falling away in large numbers. It was desirable to start this study. I am delighted to see that the Schools Commission has completed it. I look forward to seeing what kind of recommendations it makes. I simply say that the provision of adequate boarding facilities for children from remote Australia is an important part of any kind of program. They are only part of the program. The other part is associated with the benefits which are given to students from isolated areas as part of the Government's program for isolated children. I was concerned to read last week in a paper-not a mainland paper but an Australian paper-some comments to the effect that the Liberal Government had slashed benefits available to isolated children. It may be appropriate in the few minutes available to set the record straight as to the situation between 1982 and 1983. The aid to isolated students is of three kinds: First, there are basic allowances; secondly, there are additional allowances; and thirdly, there are special supplementary allowances for boarding . Between 1982 and 1983 the basic allowance, far from being cut, was increased by 11 per cent from $780 to $866. That was not acknowledged in what was a very inaccurate Tasmanian newspaper report. The boarding allowances, were in fact, increased. The additional boarding allowance at secondary level had previously been $600 and the special supplementary boarding allowance had previously been $ 726 at senior secondary level. How the Tasmanian paper was able to say that they were decreased beats me. The figures had actually gone from a total of $1,326 on a means tested basis to a total of $1,537 on a means tested basis, the only difference being that this 16 per cent rise was only available to cover costs which were incurred. Between 1982 and 1983 there were very significant increases in aid to isolated children. In the 1983 Budget, the first Labor Budget, there was a lamentable failure to continue to maintain in real terms the 1983 levels for 1984. The increases were not enough to keep up with inflation. In 1984 isolated children around Australia will be worse off in real terms under the Labor Government in its first full funding year than they were under the Government that preceded it. That will be a tragedy for those Australians living in remote areas, suffering all the disadvantages of remoteness, yet still wanting an appropriate education. While I welcome this report and hope that it leads to useful programs and extra help, and while I hope that it can lead to the maintenance of a number of boarding places for students, I am keen to comment on the report against the background that it is only part of what we provide for isolated students and against the background that the Labor Government has failed to look after those students for 1984. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.33) —It happens that a copy of the report entitled 'Study of Living Away from Home Facilities for Isolated Children' arrived in my office some 10 minutes ago. Therefore, I have had a brief chance, unlike my colleague Senator Baume, on whom I have a 10 minutes start, to look at the study. It is an important report which, as Senator Baume, the former Minister for Education, said, was commissioned in December 1981. It seems from my brief flipping through the chapters and especially the recommendations and conclusions that it is a comprehensive report dealing with its terms of reference. This is the third major report of note relating to isolated children in the last ten years. The first was the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts report into the needs of isolated children, which consolidated the beginnings at that time of special grants for isolated children. It also led to the formation, through many local initiatives, of the Isolated Children's Parents Association, which has had such a continuing, genuinely good impact for the benefit of children in remote areas of Australia. This original Senate report was followed up by a report commenced by Professor Tannock before he became Chairman of the Commonwealth Schools Commission and completed by Professor Tomlinson. That Tannock-Tomlinson report was a thorough and very important one that again drew to the attention of the Government, and not least to the attention of members of the Senate, the continuing needs of isolated children in Australia. Because there needed to be a more detailed study into accommodation for these students in country areas or capital cities, this third report was commissioned and has now been completed. I am gratified to see that the first recommendation is: That the right of children who live in rural and isolated areas to have reasonable access to an adequate range of educational opportunities should be recognised and facilitated. The report not only makes global and important statements that I strongly support, but also details how the deficiencies in accommodation for isolated children can be remedied, for example, with an annual program of $2.5m a year applied to the upgrading of student hostels and a program of $5m a year to boarding schools to overcome deficiencies. Apart from these new programs, there is reference to the need for continuing assistance in capital grant form for non -government schools and to moneys under the professional development program, which unfortunately the Government slashed in the last Budget, being especially available for supervisors, counsellors and managers of hostels and boarding schools, so that they have the professional skills to meet the needs of these children. There is also reference to the other continuing programs-the country areas program and the special education program of the Schools Commission-which are valuable and which ought to be made directly accessible to children from remote areas. These recommendations look immediately attractive to me because they draw attention to the needs of isolated children in a way which goes beyond the upgrading of the allowances that Senator Baume referred to. Those allowances saw an increase in the last years of the Fraser Government, but I believe, as one senator from South Australia who takes an interest in isolated children-I seek to visit the isolated areas of my State and to keep in touch with the Isolated Children's Parents Association in all parts of Australia-that isolated children still have continuing needs. When we talk about access, participation, equity and equality of opportunity for Australia's children, we must not overlook those brave pioneering families involved in development in remote areas. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.38) —Senator Teague complained that he had the 'Study of Living Away from Home Facilities for Isolated Children' report in his hands for only some 10 minutes and that Senator Baume had it for possibly only a few minutes. My complaint is, of course, that I do not have the report at all. However, I will seek leave to continue my remarks later. Before I do so, I commend Senator Baume, the former Minister for Education, for the work he did in the area of isolated children when he was the Minister responsible. Much good came of that. However, the situation rests now with the Isolated Children's Parents Association, which is now a very strong body. It is very concerned about the inroads that are being made into isolated children's education. I believe that there is much more to be said, but I wish to have time to peruse the report . Therefore, Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83: Extension of Time Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.40) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I have moved the motion in order to place on the record what this business is about. There is a special committee of this Parliament which takes great interest in reports that are overdue. We are concerned purely and simply with giving an extension of time to the Australian Egg Board to get its house in order by 31 December. The only reason I believe that this is acceptable is that a letter from the Board in regard to annual reporting requirements also advises the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) at the same time: As you are aware, the Board has recently reviewed its operations and will in 1983-84 discontinue all trading activities. That means that in the future we should not have any difficulty with the Board. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Report 1983 Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.41) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. As usual, this Industries Assistance Commission report is a thorough and very well researched report. It is in the normal mould of IAC reports. Australia's wheat industry is very large and very important to Australia because of its export earnings. It would appear that the wheat industry in Australia is more soundly placed for the years ahead than any other industry. It is very sound practice that there should be regular reviews of Australia's major industries. Their structure, their operation, their merchandising and their funding should be regularly scrutinised. What is more, I know that the industry itself will look forward to being under regular scrutiny in regard to these matters. The report recommends, amongst other things, that the objectives of the Australian Wheat Board should be spelt out in enabling legislation so that it is clear to everybody. It also recommends that the price of domestic market wheat be no longer administered under the scheme and that the growers be paid according to market place rates. The report recommends that the Board not be permitted to trade in futures, but I do know that the industry has made strong representations, as is reported in this document, that it would wish to retain that right. While I recognise both the best and worst aspects of organisations such as the Board dealing in futures, it must be recognised that dealing to some extent is gambling and that gamblers do not always win. I think the Queensland Graingrowers Association can attest to the fact that playing the market does not always come off. If this power is retained I urge that it be exercised in a most judicious manner. There is quite an amount of discussion in the report on the first payment question. Its pros and cons are fully put, as are the advantages it produces and the cost that it takes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allowed for the consideration of ministerial papers under sessional order has expired. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 13 October 1983. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.45) —I understand that Senator Hill proposes to move an amendment. Perhaps before we deal with that, I can solve one small technical matter by moving an amendment to the amendment which was adopted the last time this legislation was discussed. I am talking about the definition of the expression 'self-governing Territory'. As the Bill presently reads, '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 exlusively vested in a body of the members of which are directly chosen by the people of the territory; It is proposed to delete the expression 'under that section' so that it simply reads: where, apart from the powers of the Parliament, the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government- It is purely a technical amendment. It is desired to remove the langugage of the previous amendment because it constitutes verbiage. The overwhelming weight of judicial opinion is that all Commonwealth laws operate in the Territories by virtue of section 122 rather than any other provisions of the Constitution. But even if that view were not to prevail, the words still would add nothing to the clause. Whether or not the Parliament's powers derive solely from section 122, the clause is perfectly self-contained as it stands. It is a small technical matter and I hope the Committee will not feel unduly troubled by it. I move: From the proposed definition of 'self-governing Territory', leave out 'under that section'. Amendment agreed to. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.47) —In relation to my amendment, which is already before the Committee, with the co-operation of the Government I now have what I think is an improved set of words and I seek leave to withdraw my original amendment in order that I may move the new amendment in the form that has been circulated. Amendment-by leave-withdrawn. Senator HILL —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'- (a) where that expression is used in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1), and paragraph (a) of sub-section (2), of this section, means- (i) in relation to the Parliament of the Commonwealth or of a State-a proposed enactment in the form in which it has been agreed to by both Houses of the Parliament concerned or, in the case of a Parliament that has only one House, in the form in which it has been passed by that House; or ((ii) in relation to the Parliament of a self-governing Territory-a proposed enactment that has been passed by the body constituting that Parliament; and (b) where that expression is used in paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of this section, means a proposed enactment in the form in which it is before the Parliament concerned at the time of the reference;''. I do not wish to speak to this amendment to the extent that I repeat the arguments put to the Committee last week. However, I thank the Government for agreeing to the adjournment of the debate to allow my party the opportunity to consider the matter in detail. The amendment has the support of my party-in fact , of both coalition parties-and I thank them for that. I am hoping for support from the Australian Democrats and in anticipation of that I thank them also. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.48) —Mr Chairman, it demonstrates extreme graciousness when the result of granting an adjournment is to guarantee the defeat of the Government's position. That seems to be the likely outcome and I am quite philosophical about it but for the record I should state that the Government does resist still Senator Hill's proposed amendment. Let me briefly state why: While still leaving much of the Bill intact and certainly still leaving it as a proposal worth supporting at a referendum, it is the case that Senator Hill's amendment would remove from the scope of the Bill one very important aspect of the High Court's proposed advisory jurisdiction, namely, the right of the Government to obtain a ruling on the validity of the provisions of a Bill after it has been introduced but before it has been debated in Parliament. The rationale for including this type of problem in the matters which may be covered by an advisory jurisdiction basically come down to this: There are occasions when it would be desirable to obtain an advisory opinion before legislation is enacted because of the large savings of parliamentary time that would be involved. Honourable senators will not need be told that parliamentary time, particularly in the Senate, is a very scarce resource. It would be arguably quite absurd for a major piece of legislation, such as the National Companies Act, to be debated clause by clause over a very lengthy period if the subsequent outcome of a legal challenge would be simply to cut that legislation off at its knees because of the shakiness of its constitutional foundations. The other example that should appeal to honourable senators is something that might arise in the context of the family law legislation and the Commonwealth's powers with respect to marriage and matrimonial causes, the scope of which is still quite uncertain. An ability to obtain an advisory opinion at an early stage would not only expedite the parliamentary consideration of these things and not waste time on things that had no chance of ultimate survival but also would, of course, help to remove uncertainty in the community at large which may well prevail for the duration of such a debate on complex legislation. That is something which is particularly, I believe, to be avoided in the context of commercial legislation in the areas of companies, securities and other matters of this kind. The whole confidence of the business community is crucial to its effectiveness and being neurotic about regulatory legislation of some kind or another, particularly in an area fundamental to its operation, can have untoward economic consequences. I would add further that there is nothing particularly unusual about this proposal in the form in which it has been advanced by the Government. Certainly, in Canada the advisory jurisdiction, although not couched specifically in the language of proposed enactments, is very wide and extends expressly to private Bills and to what are stated to be important questions of law or fact involving the interpretation of the British North America Act; that is, the Canadian Constitution as it then was. It would appear that this kind of jurisdiction is available in that country and its existence does not seem to have alarmed anyone particularly unduly. Finally, I say this in relation to the historical background of this proposal: The Judicature Committee of the Australian Constitutional Convention recommended in 1977 that the jurisdiction should extend to proposed enactments. Although it did not spell out the reasons for this recommendation, it is clear that it was based largely on the view that it ought to be possible to obtain an advisory opinion-and I quote from page 21 of the 1977 report embodied in the proceedings of the Perth Convention of 1978-'before the lengthy and time consuming process of passage through Parliament has been completed and perhaps wasted'. The Adelaide Convention in April this year approved a resolution on which this Bill is based which again covers proposed enactments. An amendment moved by Mr Spender, rather along the lines of that of Senator Hill today, to remove that right and to seek advisory opinions being limited to actual enactments was in fact defeated by 38 votes to 48 votes, the ultimate resolution in favour of advisory opinions being passed by a larger margin. Senator Missen —This goes back to what you and I and the rest of our committee recommended in 1977. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs-not of Senator Missen and me, because I was not in the Parliament until 1978 and I do not think I was party to the Committee report-did not extend to proposed enactments. This proposal came, rather from the Judicature Committee of the Constitutional Convention. It was a matter of marrying the two together. It was in that context that I understood the Senate Committee accepted the argument about proposed enactments. I state all this simply for the record, to indicate that it is not some hare-brained notion. There are good reasons why the matter is sought to be included in the power of the High Court, there is precedent for it elsewhere and there is a solid historical background behind it. With those valiant remarks, I consign the original clause to such fate as the Committee may care to bestow upon it. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.54) —Although Senator Hill foreshadowed that the Opposition will support his amendment, the position is that the proposal for an advisory jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia is a very controversial one which has created many doubts and divisions. I think that those doubts have been enlarged since the Bill was introduced and debated in this chamber in May of this year. I think there has been more criticism of the proposal than was perhaps thought likely. There has certainly been more criticism than took place during meetings of the Australian Constitutional Convention in Adelaide at the end of April. Those concerns have probably been increased significantly as a result of the address by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Harry Gibbs, at the Australian Legal Convention in Brisbane in July this year, speaking as he did, I understand, on behalf of all his colleagues on the High Court Bench. I think that indicated some very powerful considerations in respect of this Bill. Senator Evans himself proposed amendments to give the Government a greater degree of flexibility in regard to specific questions that could be put to the High Court. I think that this was a help. I think that the amendment proposed by Senator Hill will also be helpful in limiting the innovation of this proposal. I think that a useful area-admittedly an experimental area-will still be available. But, undoubtedly, to go to the extent to which this Bill originally proposed and for which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) still argues, will likely create greater concern and opposition to the proposal when it goes to the people. I think the proposal that Bills will be able to be submitted to the High Court for such an opinion without necessarily having the support of the Parliament confuses to quite an extent the difference between the legislative and judicial role, and it is that confusion of roles which, of course, is at the heart of the concern at the whole proposal for an advisory jurisdiction. I think in all the circumstances it would be wise for the proposal to be submitted in the more limited form which would result from the adoption of Senator Hill's amendment. I think that a useful area would still be left for advisory jurisdiction. It would give the High Court and the government of the day the opportunity to test the proposal on a more limited basis. I think that in the long run it would be better to put the proposal to the test in that way. We could see how it worked before the more adventurous proposal of Senator Gareth Evans's which is contained in the Bill was pursued. For all those reasons, the Opposition has decided that it will support Senator Hill's amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.58) —The Australian Democrats will be supporting Senator Hill's fresh amendment. We indicated last week that although the previous amendment had merit we required some time to study it. In the event, the amendment has been tidied up and certainly the Government can see that it will fit in with the overall Bill. I must admit that our main worry last week was that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) had not had the opportunity to vet the amendment. We wanted the amendment to hold up and not run foul of other parts of the legislation. We indicate that we will support Senator Hill's amendment and we hope that after 25 February he will find himself enshrined in constitutional history. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.59) —I want to reiterate my opposition to the whole Bill before the Committee. I believe that Senator Hill's amendment makes the legislation a bit better but it is still unacceptable to me. I am surprised that we persist in abrogating our responsibility by handing over some of these advisory matters to the High Court of Australia, particularly in view of the fact that the High Court is so busy anyway. I refer to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of Thursday, 6 October, dealing with the work load that is faced by the High Court. The article states: While the Court is faced with an ever-mounting workload, it is also on the eve of some momentous changes. Perhaps this is one of the momentous changes that is anticipated. I believe it will place a heavier work load on the High Court. We are abrogating our responsibilities as parliamentarians. I am opposed to the whole measure on those grounds. We have advice available to us through the Solicitor-General and the officers of the Attorney-General's Department. We also have recourse to seek the advice of QCs who are eminently qualified to assist in matters such as we are dealing with now. For all those reasons, I reiterate my position. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Baume, Peter Hearn, J. M.Bolkus, N. Hill, R.Button, J. N. Jones, G. N.Carrick, Sir John Kilgariff, B. F.Chaney, F. M. Lajovic, M. E.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.Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G.Durack, P. D. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M.Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F.Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C.Giles, P. J. Teague, B. C.Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Withers, R. G.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O.Hamer, D. J. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Townley, M.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Walters, M. S.Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W.Jessop, D. S. (Teller) 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. [COGNATE BILL: REPATRIATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 13 October 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(6.09) —The Opposition does not oppose the greater part of the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill, but we will be opposing sub-clauses 30 (2) and 30 (3) at the Committee stage. It is expected that the matter will probably be debated in its final form tomorrow. So, at this stage, I address my remarks to one or two other matters included in the legislation. Firstly, I note that the increase in the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill this year is something like 19.3 per cent over the total allocations in the 1982-83 financial year. That represents an increase in money terms of some $2.7 billion. If we examine the components of that increase, it breaks down very roughly into three items. The first billion dollars is due to the increase in the unemployment benefit this year. The second billion dollars is made up of the cost of index- ation of various pensions and benefits. The remaining $700m relates more particularly to items associated with the extra payments this financial year and to one or two increases in benefits which arise from this piece of legislation. I think the point has to be made that, significantly, the increase which, as I have mentioned, is of the order of 19.3 per cent this year, arises chiefly from two items-indexation and an increase in the unemployment benefit. It is pretty easy to recognise where the bulk of the increase in welfare expenditure in the Federal Government's Budget comes from. The two factors that influence this increase this year, and have done so for some years, are inflation, which is the reason for the indexation of pensions and benefits, and the very significant recession that we have in the Australian economy that is causing such high levels of unemployment. The point I make is that the fundamental issues that confronted the Fraser Government during its seven years in office in dealing with the question of the so-called blow-out in expenditure and welfare are exactly the same items and issues that confront us at the present time; that is, the main causes for our problems are the recession and, of course, inflation. It remains to be seen how the Hawke Government will deal with these matters. So far it has shown absolutely no indication of how it will deal with either of these questions to the satisfaction of the Australian people. In some sense, the increases that it signifies in this Budget for welfare expenditure are admissions of that defeat. Quite apart from those aspects, one or two items are included in the Bill which are, I think, of great benefit to the community. There has been a recognition of those who live in remote areas of Australia. We applaud the Government for introducing the remote area allowance which will add another $7 a week to a person who receives a pension, a benefit or a sheltered employment or rehabilitation allowance and who lives in the tax Zone A as it is defined. That matter was drawn to my attention when travelling through the remote areas of Australia and particularly through the Northern Territory recently. I believe that is a very worthwhile measure in that it recognises the extra costs that arise from residing in those difficult areas of Australia. The second item for which we give due credit to the Government is the introduction of the spouse career's rebate which is more or less a mirror of the wife's pension which is available to wives placed in the situation of caring for disabled spouses. One point which concerns me in relation to that is the apparent lack of ability on the part of the Government to estimate what might be the take-up rate in this area. In fact, in an answer to a question on notice that I received last week, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) said that his best guess at the number that would take advantage of this new benefit would be roughly 2,000 men. I hope that the Government will make every effort to advertise this benefit to the people in the community so that there is a very significant understanding about its availability. It is also a little worrying that no attempt has been made accurately to estimate the take-up other than that which I have mentioned. The third item which is of significance and is, I think, a very important initiative is the open employment incentive bonus which will be payable to people who complete six months sheltered employment and who complete 12 months open employment thereafter. That person will receive a payment of $500. The Government has indicated that there is a potential demand from a little over 9, 000 people in that category. I am not sure what the take-up rate will be and I am not certain that the Government knows either, but it is another point that needs to be brought home as a result of the decision. The people should be made aware of this entitlement and we should make sure that they take up this very significant advantage. There have been several different changes, too, in respect of the rates of unemployment benefit. There has been an increase of $4.95 a week in the unemployment benefit for single persons over 18 years of age. Indexation was introduced this year on the over-18 single unemployment benefit starting from 1 May next year. One wonders why it was not introduced a little earlier than that. There was an increase of $5 a week for single unemployed people aged between 16 and 17 years. I understand that these increases were introduced as a result of promises made at election time. We believe that they are generally warranted. However, one point that needs to be drawn to the Government's attention in this regard is the growing gap between the unemployment benefit and the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance. The Budget deliberately restricted the TEAS increase but increased, very significantly, the unemployment benefit in a number of ways. That is somewhat contrary to the very precise statements made by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) when in opposition. I quote from a statement that she made in October 1981: It seems to us in the Labor Party and, I think also to the Australian Democrats , that the Government's-- that is, the Fraser Government's- strategy of forcing students out of full time study and on to the dole is totally irrational and indefensible . . . She went on: While ever there is such a disparity between the level of payment available for unemployment benefit and the level of assistance for full time students, students from modest backgrounds will from time to time be forced out of universities and tertiary institutions and on to the dole. How the Government can possibly defend and maintain that system really defies rational understanding. It seems to me that this growing gap flies right in the face of those remarks. It is a very strange decision for the Government to make, given the very fervent commitment on the part of the Education Minister to that idea. In fact, whereas we should have seen some attempt to rationalise the differences between the unemployment benefit and the tertiary education allowance, there has obviously been no attempt whatsoever to do that. We wonder why. We hope that the Minister will be able to explain the circumstances when there was such a firm commitment given in 1981 by the now Minister. I also point to another quote from Senator Ryan made a little earlier in 1981. She said: I think that while this positive financial incentive to go on the dole exists, the Government's claims that it is really serious about reducing youth unemployment are shown to be absolutely hypocritical. There ought not to be such a positive financial incentive. I think it is worth putting that on record too because again it demonstrates the very vehement feelings on the part of this Government, when it was in opposition , about this matter. Yet when given the opportunity, it has not sought to redress the point at all. We believe that is a significant matter which ought to be addressed if the Government is at all serious in its commitment along the lines of Senator Ryan's thinking, as I have just quoted it. I turn now to the most important objection to the Bill that the Opposition has, which we will be pursuing at later stages of this Bill, in order to defeat if possible the passage of clauses 30 (2) and 30 (3). That amendment I believe, if it has not yet been circularised, will be in the not too distant future. The purpose of the Government in this Bill is to reinstate a position which existed before October 1979 whereby unemployment benefits were paid to certain categories of employees either as a result of action being taken by unionists outside the work place of those people or as a result of union action on the part of another union in that work place. In 1979 the Fraser Government amended the social security legislation to provide that indeed that would not be the situation, that unemployment benefits would not be payable in those circumstances and would certainly not be available in the event of strikes being brought on and people having to be stood down in their present work place as a result of that particular industrial action. The point is one of very major principle. Trade unions may disdain responsibility for calling a strike in the first place to ensure that their members are not affected by loss of income as a result of the strike; yet they can cause maximum disruption to the economy and to the community generally as a result of activities such as I have outlined. In fact they seek to protect unionists against the effects of their own decisions. In other words, they lay off the cost of strike pay on the taxpayer. For that reason and because we were very keen to introduce those amendments in 1979, which of course were part of a total package of industrial legislation which affected amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as well, we will be pursuing that matter to a greater degree during the Committee stage. I think we need to draw the Senate's attention to some of the reasons why we feel so strongly about this. It is true that, if industrial action can be called virtually at any time with protection for all striking employees in the circumstances outlined in the legislation, clearly there is no sanction against the leadership of unions which can be exercised by employees. We believe that in order to introduce responsibility into the affairs of trade unions individual members unions should have the right, and indeed should be encouraged to exercise that right, of control over the union leadership. Obviously, this is a democratic idea. Obviously, because of the Government's present action in moving to introduce this legislation, it is something to which the Government is not committed. But it is a point that we feel particularly concerned about because it not only affects individuals and the broader community, or even members of parliament, who may be affected by strikes but also goes to the very heart of our current economic problems. I think all of us here would recognise that our present situation revolves very largely around the difficulties of the employed. If very powerful union muscle is used against the employers, and thereby of couse governments and indeed the community generally, in such a way as to force wage increases from the community, the benefits flow to unionists, in employment ; they do not flow to people who are not in employment. We on this side have the view that if the Government is truly compassionate about the unemployed, is truly concerned about the way in which the economy should work and is truly concerned about issues of wage restraint it should be seeking to control as much as possible the power and the muscle of trade unions in forcing wage claims out of this economy rather than moving in the other direction by allowing fewer sanctions and thereby introducting a more lenient approach to the trade unions. That is our concern because we see the economic issue of today being very closely bound up with this problem of union power. It is one which we would hope the Government will have the opportunity of thinking about should our amendment be carried in the Committee stage. We believe it is one of such vital principle, right at this time when the economy in such disarray, that it needs to be brought right home to the Government that the community is in a state of very great concern about the degree of union muscle and the way in which that power is being exercised to the detriment of not only the broad community but particularly those who are unemployed. We believe that that deserves the support of all honourable senators, and we will certainly be seeking the support of the Australian Democrats and the Independent in this place for our amendment. There are one or two other issues that I would just like to touch on as we are now running out of time. I would like to return to that matter at some later stage of the debate. I will quickly refer to the amendments in the legislation in respect of friendly societies. Under this legislation income they provide to their members will be included, for the purposes of determining eligibility for the service pension and for the age pension, in the income test provisions as they presently apply. The Opposition is not opposing that measure in any way, but we draw attention to the fact that friendly societies are a very significant group and have been serving purposes far beyond those things which are the subject of these amendments. We believe that they have a very relevant place in the community. We have not as yet seen statements or any legislation from the Government in respect of what has been breathed about-possible taxation changes for friendly societies. We will be looking at those in great detail and with a great deal of interest if the Government decides to proceed with them. In respect of the delegations and the matters of technical concern in relation to the affairs of the Department of Social Security and the relationship between officers and the Director-General, I have only one matter to bring to the attention of the Senate. In recent months the Government has issued questionnaires to people over the age of 70 seeking information on their assets, ostensibly with the object of assessing their eligibility for the age pension on the basis of the present income test. As part of the declaration at the foot of the questionnaires was an authorisation for the Department to obtain whatever information was required from various sources. If the Government were confident about its legal situation in that regard I would have thought that it would not have sought any authorisation on the part of the person who was going to be now treated in this way by virtue of the questionnaire by seeking the person to sign an authority of that kind. Debate interrupted. Cape Flattery Silica Mine-Australian Broadcasting Corporation News Service The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(6.30) —I speak this evening on an issue of grave concern relating to Aborigines in far north Queensland. Some of my colleagues may be aware of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Nationwide report in Queensland last night. This program highlighted the conditions of Aboriginal workers at the Cape Flattery silica mine in far north Queensland. Workers from the Hopevale Aboriginal community have been on strike for approximately ten days because of blatant racism practised by the management of this Mitsubishi mine. Interviews with Aboriginal workers revealed that unionism is being actively discouraged at the Cape Flattery mine. Workers do not have access to their terms of employment, as contracts were negotiated by the company and the paternalistic Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement. Furthermore, workers reported discrimination in the allocation of jobs, with those with the darkest skins being graded into the most unpleasant tasks. Aboriginal workers are forced to live in single accommodation at the mine site, and this is despite the fact that married quarters are provided for their white counterparts. There appears to be a great deal of secrecy surrounding the terms of the lease negotiated for the operation of Cape Flattery Mines Pty Ltd and this secrecy is of grave concern particularly, I think, to this chamber. The people of Hopevale report that the area was excised from the reserve and that the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement has control over any royalties paid. While it is understood that the Hopevale people were to benefit from this venture, no one knows just what royalties have been paid. This applies to the Hopevale community council, a body, one would have thought, that would have been consulted by the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement in Queensland. But apparently these details are highly confidential and remain totally in the control of the Director of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, now a National Party candidate in the forthcoming Queensland election, a Mr Pat Killoran. All of these issues are of the utmost concern to the people of Hopevale and I trust that the Nationwide program will be successful in forcing the Queensland Government and others to answer these grievances. However, the point I wish to raise as a very special additional concern expressed by some Cape Flattery workers is one that was not discussed on the program last night and one which I think should have the attention of this chamber. The potential risk of the disease silicosis is one that concerns me. Silicosis is a disease brought about by a fine dust settling on the lungs over a considerable period. It would appear that this is possibly a great risk at Cape Flattery. Several workers have reported severe discomfort from working at the silica mine. It has been claimed that adequate health and safety measures are not practised continuously at Cape Flattery. I understand, for instance, that protective goggles should be worn by workers to protect their eyes from the intense glare brought about by the brilliant white sand. This is not always the case. Furthermore, I understand that protective breathing apparatus should be introduced for those workers handling the silica sand, particularly in the enclosed areas of ships' holds during loading. My reports are that this is not always the case. There appears to be no evidence of any special health checks and no effort has apparently been made by either the Queensland Government or the Mitsubishi company to monitor potential health risk by means of regular chest x-rays. Overseas studies have revealed that there is considerable concern about the effects of industrial silica dust on workers' health. Studies also reveal variation in response to exposure to industrial silica dust, depending on individual health characteristics and the length of time those workers are in contact with silica dust. I consulted a doctor in far north Queensland over the weekend and he advised me that Aborigines do have a higher than average rate of lung disorders. Therefore, it would seem vital that immediate steps be taken to screen Cape Flattery workers from the Hopevale community. I am extremely concerned about the potential health risk at the Cape Flattery mine and I will be making representations to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) to have the appropriate Federal Government department investigate these issues as soon as possible. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.35) —In the past 50 years, the Australian Broadcasting Commission-now a restructured Corporation-has established a reputation, world-wide, for the integrity and impartiality of its news service. There have been numerous occasions, of course, on which the impartiality of the programs section of the ABC has been called into question. We have all had experience of that. But through it all, down the years, the ABC news has remained to many Australians spread right throughout the country one of the great credible and impartial news services of this country. Now, under the Hawke Government, in cahoots with its Labor friends in the States, it seems that that is all about to change. It seems that if the Australian Labor Party has its way, we will have the quite incredible situation in which the Labor Party, through its connections in the communications Ministry and through that Ministry to the Corporation itself, will attempt to take unto itself special favoured treatment through the ABC news service to the disadvantage of the other parties. This is a direct threat to the impartiality and integrity of the national broadcasting service. That tactic is being tried, and openly admitted by the State Secretary of the Labor Party in Queensland, Mr Peter Beattie, in a desperate attempt by the Labor Party to influence the outcome of next week's State election in Queensland. For as long as the ABC news service has been functioning it has, down through the years, handled news coverage of events and comments by political parties, before an election, on the basis of news value and fairness. That is a principle that has been staunchly defended by professional journalists within the ABC news service for as long as the ABC has been functioning. Now, by a direct approach to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) the Labor Party in Queensland has to change that. Based on the ALP approach, admitted by Mr Beattie, ABC journalists in Queensland have been issued, but have rejected, a directive that ABC political news coverage, in the last week leading to the State election be on the basis of a predetermined formula emanating from Canberra and, surprise, that formula just happens to favour the Australian Labor Party in Queensland to the disadvantage of the non-socialist parties. The formula sets out a daily lineage rate under which the Labor Opposition in Queensland would receive almost twice as much ABC news coverage as the National Party Government and also about twice the coverage of the Liberal Party. The Australian Democrats do not even get a mention in the formula and directive. My advice is that this amazing directive, quite unprecedented in the 50 years of the national broadcasting service, stemmed directly from an approach by the Labor Opposition leader in Queensland, Mr Keith Wright, to the Minister for Communications in Canberra. The Labor Party is not admitting that, but Mr Beattie concedes that an approach did take place. He has admitted so publicly in the Brisbane Sunday Sun of last Sunday, 16 October. This is evidence of attempted political interference of the most serious kind in the operations of this country's independent national broadcasting service. It represents a gross misuse of the national broadcasting service for which the Minister for Communications, as a party to it, must be removed from office to restore public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the ABC. To their credit, ABC journalists in Brisbane, at a special meeting of their House Committee, rejected this attempted interference and are refusing to obey the directive. These people are to be commended for their personal courage and integrity in taking this stand. It is an indictment on the Hawke Government and the way things in government are going in this country that these journalists should ever be tested or have to face such pressures from an incumbent government. It has never happened before. The resolution carried by the Australian Journalists Association House Committee, at the ABC in Brisbane, objected strongly to the news directive on the grounds that such interference threatens the integrity and the independence of the news department. It reaffirmed the ABC news department's long standing policy of handling pre-election material from political parties on the basis of news value and fairness and balance through fair and, as far as possible, equal treatment. But that is not good enough for the Labor Party. It wants to be treated more fairly and more equally on its own directive. I would like to take the opportunity now to read a statement by the AJA that has been issued today. It states: The Queensland Branch of the Australian Journalists' Association today condemned a reported direction to ABC journalists to allot 'artifical' news ratios to political parties in the State election campaign. Queensland Branch President Ken Blanch said in a news release today journalists should reject any management attempt to impose the ratios. The AJA directed ABC news journalists to stand by the AJA code of ethics in their coverage of the campaign. The code required journalists to report the news with scrupulous honesty and prohibit the distortion of trust by omission or wrongful emphasis. 'It would be unethical for any journalist to ignore a genuine news story because one party had already filled its arbitrary quota or to broadcast a suspect story to pad out the time for another party,' Mr Blanch said. The only criterion should be the traditional test of news value, he said. The ABC's acting controller of news, David Prior, said yesterday he had told Brisbane news staff to aim for a ratio of about 43 per cent air time for Labor and 28 per cent each for the Liberal and National parties, in proportion to the vote they attracted at the last election. The actions which followed Mr Keith Wright's approach to Canberra have involved ABC officials from the Deputy General Manager down. They have placed men and women of integrity and independence within the ABC in the most untenable position. It is a frightening indication of things to come under socialism if these attempts by the Labor Party to muzzle or stifle opposition to it in Queensland go unchallenged and unchecked. This sort of political pressure must not go unchallenged by this Parliament. Action should be taken to ensure that it never happens again. We could perhaps expect this sort of thing to happen in Russia and for Radio Moscow to be the voice of its socialist government. We could perhaps expect the same thing in China, through Radio Peking. But who would ever have thought that we would see the day when the same socialist- Senator Colston —I raise a point of order. If Senator Boswell is so intent on bringing these issues before this Parliament he should be aware of standing order 406. I have been watching Senator Boswell carefully. He is undoubtedly reading his speech. Senator Walsh —Which somebody else wrote for him. Senator Colston —It undoubtedly has been written for him by somebody else. Standing order 406 clearly states: No Senator shall read his speech. When Senator Boswell finishes his speech, I intend to inform you, unless Senator Walsh does, that something has been mentioned about this matter in the House of Representatives this afternoon. It refutes all that Senator Boswell is saying. I bring your attention, Mr President, at this stage, to standing order 406. The PRESIDENT —The Chair is aware of standing order 406. Of course, as Senator Colston would know, there is a recommendation before the Senate from the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration of that standing order by the Senate when the report of the Standing Orders Committee is debated. Meanwhile, Senator Boswell who is addressing the chamber, should be aware of that standing order and should take heed of it as much as possible. For the time being I will have regard to the fact that the honourable senator is looking at copious notes. Senator BOSWELL —I am referring to my notes fairly closely. This is not an isolated incident. Unfortunately, in the run-up to next week's State election in Queensland- Senator Walsh —You are referring to the speech which the propaganda machine of Bjelke-Petersen wrote for you. Senator BOSWELL —I am referring to the speech in front of me. This is the second example in a fortnight of Labor in Canberra using its political power in the communications area to try to advantage the ALP and to disadvantage the elected Queensland Government in the run-up to the State election. About a fortnight ago the Federal Government used the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to direct the Queensland Government's weekly television program Queensland Unlimited to carry pre-election opening and closing credits basically declaring it, falsely, an election program. The fact is that the Queensland Government's program has featured weekly for more than four months. The first 16 programs in the weekly series were required to carry no such credits but, all of a sudden just before the election, they now have to carry those credits. How did this come about? It followed a complaint to Canberra from the Mackay branch of the Australian Labor Party about a program concerning the training of policemen. This complaint was given the most unusual speedy consideration and backing. The strange thing about all this is that for more than 3 1/2 years, through several local, State and Federal election campaign periods, the Labor Party in Queensland, through its Brisbane City Council administration, has been featuring a similar weekly television program. But not once in all this time has the Labor city program had to meet the requirements and controls now placed on the Queensland Government's program by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Plainly , this is another attempt by the Hawke Government to try to minimise the effect of any other government or party attempting to tell the people of Australia, or Queensland in this instance, the real story of what is going on. These two incidents hold frightening implications for all Queenslanders and all Australians. They indicate the length to which the Labor Party, in government and out of it, is prepared to go to stifle legitimate public debate, to misuse its power and authority to disadvantage publicly its opposition and its critics in an endeavour to control the minds of Australians by controlling the means of communication and what the community is told. If that is not socialism and totalitarianism at work, I do not know what is. Motion (by Senator Colston) agreed to: That Senator Boswell be ordered to lay on the table the speech from which he quoted. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.47) —If any further evidence was needed that the speech or the diatribe we have just heard was written by the Bjelke-Petersen propaganda machine in Brisbane I think it can be deduced from the fact that it had a big word in it which Senator Boswell did not know how to pronounce. People who do not know how to pronounce ' totalitarianism' do not usually write it into speeches if they write their own speeches. In listening to that account of 50 years of unsullied integrity in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation news service I was reminded of two things. The first is: What a short memory the members of the National Party must have. I recall that in 1974 the same ABC news service reported a military engagement in Vietnam in which it said that forces opposed to the Saigon Government had engaged Saigon Government forces in a battle. The ABC was then viciously attacked by Mr Nixon who belongs to the same party as Senator Boswell. The ABC was viciously attacked for allegedly misdescribing the forces which were engaged in that battle. Mr Nixon said that the description of these forces as 'forces opposed to the Saigon Government' instead of 'communist North Vietnamese forces' , as he asserted they were, was absolute proof of the infiltration of the ABC by left wing propagandists. If Senator Boswell is going to deliver a speech like this he ought to check out a few historical facts. There is nothing new, of course, about attacks of that type by Mr Nixon on the ABC news service. What the National Party traditionally does and what it does in its most extreme form in Queensland is, of course, to attempt to intimidate all news media. This ABC news , with its unsullied 50-year record of absolute integrity, is, according to Senator Boswell, precisely the same ABC news which was attacked in such vicious terms by the then member for Gippsland in the House of Representatives in 1974. The final irony of the Nixon 1974 story was that subsequent information revealed that the military action in question had been a clash between whatever government was in power in Saigon at that time and some hill tribesmen. So, the ABC news had correctly described that engagement as a clash between the Saigon forces and forces opposed to the Saigon Government, whereas Mr Nixon sought to impose his politically filtered and his jaundiced view on it and to insist that the ABC must misdescribe that engagement as a battle between the then Saigon Government and, as he put it, communist North Vietnamese. They were not communist North Vietnamese at all. But, of course, the Country Party had little regard for truth at that stage; it has no more regard for truth today. The matters to which Senator Boswell has referred were raised in the House of Representatives today and were flatly denied by the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, and I understand that he is taking legal action against both Sparkes and Evans in Queensland, who are respectively president and secretary of that redneck Mafia which is temporarily running Queensland for the next three or four days. Even if it were true-and it is not true-to suggest that 50 per cent of the news coverage should go to the party which receives approximately 50 per cent of the vote seems to me to be quite a reasonable proposition. Even by the standards of the Country Party, or the National Party as it calls itself these days in Queensland, it takes an incredible amount of chutzpah to complain about attempts to intimidate and manipulate, to allege that anyone has attempted to manipulate and intimidate, and to say that that is a reprehensible thing to do. Just look at the record of the party that Senator Boswell represents. The present Queensland Premier said publicly in Mount Isa in 1980 that, if Mount Isa returned a Labor member, it could forget about any Queensland Government money being provided for Mount Isa's water supplies. That is standard modus operandi for the Bjelke-Petersen Government. It was publicly stated by Mr Justin Hickey, who by then was Sir Justin Hickey, that, for a contribution of $100,000 to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, Mr Hickey, being a resident of the State of New South Wales, could get a knighthood; and, said Sir Justin Hickey, he put in the $100,000 and he got the knighthood. Those are the sorts of standards with which we are dealing. Senator Boswell —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. I think that the $100 ,000 to which the honourable senator is referring was a donation to a nursing home. I think that that is the donation to which he is referring. It is the only one that I know about. Senator Colston —You ought to read the Standing Orders. The PRESIDENT —Order! That is a point of view. It is not a point of order. Senator WALSH —This is the party to which Senator Boswell belongs. That is the sort of record that it has. It is a party which believes in public funding of election campaigns, public funding of the party which happens to be in control of government, which is currently spending millions of dollars, misappropriating and misspending millions of Queensland taxpayers' dollars in crude advertising campaigns, disguised as Government advertising campaigns, designed to save the seats of the assorted mediocrities promoted into the Bjelke-Petersen Cabinet following the collapse of the coalition Government. That the National Party should throw such smears and should attempt to intimidate news media in the way in which it has today is in keeping with its record. Senator Boswell —We have not intimidated; you intimidated. You are the one who has told us what to do-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator WALSH —It is also indicative, a measure of its desperation. The Bjelke- Petersen Government is about to pass into history. Bjelke-Petersen, the greatest political barracouta that this country has seen this century-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark. Senator WALSH —In deference to you, Mr President, I withdraw. Senator Peter Baume —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Surely a withdrawal has to be without conditions, without any other words attached. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr President. As regards Bjelke-Petersen, it is becoming increasingly apparent-and I am surprised that Senator Peter Baume sees fit to defend him; perhaps he was just defending the Standing Orders-- Senator Peter Baume —That is all. Senator WALSH —It would surprise me if any self-respecting member of the Liberal Party-and I have always regarded Senator Peter Baume as being such-would in any way seek to defend the Bjelke-Petersen regime. The Bjelke-Petersen regime is about to follow the dodo-or perhaps, in the evolutionary scale, the dinosaurs would be a more appropriate term-into political extinction in three days or four days time, and this unsubstantiated, inaccurate-- Senator Boswell —It is not unsubstantiated. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator WALSH —This unsubstantiated, inaccurate and historically unsupportable series of allegations made here tonight by Senator Boswell and evidently made earlier today in the House of Representatives is a fair measure of the desperation of that regime, thrashing about in a desperate last ditch attempt to save itself from the extinction which it faces on Saturday. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(6.56) —I was not aware that Senator Boswell would be raising this matter in the Senate this evening. Senator Peter Baume —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Was the Minister closing the debate on the adjournment? The PRESIDENT —No. There is no point of order. Senator COLSTON —I will start again, Mr President. I was not aware that Senator Boswell would be raising this matter in the Senate this evening. It seemed to me that what was said in the House of Representatives this afternoon put this story at rest. The Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, made a statement about it and refuted the allegations which were brought forward in the House of Representatives and the allegations which have been parroted to the Senate by Senator Boswell. I was also aware of the fact that legal action was to be taken against Sir Robert Sparkes and perhaps the secretary of the National Party in Queensland. I was therefore very surprised when Senator Boswell thought fit to come forward and repeat what had been said in the lower House and refuted there. It seems to me that the National Party has singled out Senator Boswell as its hatchet man in the Senate. It certainly could not give the prepared speech to Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen, because she is not here today. She is up in Queensland electioneering for the National Party. She has some idea that it might be possible to save the National Party, so she is up there. I wonder whether the Senate knows what she did today. She took fresh pumpkin scones down to the miners in Ipswich who are having a sit-in. There she is, on television in Queensland tonight with her fresh pumpkin scones. Senator Boswell has been lined up as the hatchet man. I give him a little warning. There was another National Party senator in this chamber who was once lined up as the hatchet man-not to do what Senator Boswell did tonight, but to do something out in the electorate. We know what happened to him. He got on the skids. He never got into the House of Representatives. He was looking forward to getting into it. He never got back into this place, either, when he put his name forward as a person to fill his own casual vacancy. We have become fairly used to something in Queensland, and it has become folklore around the place; that is, the malapportionment of electorates in Queensland, or the gerrymander as it is often called. This will change when Labor becomes the government after the elections on Saturday. But the National Party is upset. It can gerrymander the electorates in Queensland, but it cannot manipulate the Press. This is the sort of rubbish that comes across here this evening. Tomorrow Senator Boswell can be assured that when people are able to come in here with all the facts that were presented in the House of Representatives this afternoon-something we have not been able to gather; we have just been able to gleen them at this stage-if he keeps raising these sorts of matters, the real truth will be thrown back at him. He ought to be sure of his facts before he comes in here. Senator Boswell —I was. Senator COLSTON —If Senator Boswell wants a lesson in the Standing Orders, I tell him to get into his own place if he is going to interject. He does not even know the first thing about what is going on in this place and he comes in here with a pack of untruths that have been presented to him and tries to deliver them before the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 289 Senator Colston asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice , on 23 August 1983: Why does the Government not recognise de facto relationships for the purpose of providing a basis for eligibility for independent status under the tertiary education assistance scheme-TEAS. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: There are a number of aspects of the tertiary education assistance scheme-TEAS- including the previous Government's decision that de facto relationships should no longer provide a basis for eligibility for independent status, which might be reviewed but which the Government would not wish to consider piecemeal but rather as part of a broad review of the program. The likely cost of such changes would also have to be taken into account. My Department has already commenced a general examination of TEAS conditions with a view to submitting proposals to me for consideration in the 1984-85 Budget. The question of the recognition of de facto relationships for eligibility for independent status will be one of the matters to be considered in the course of this review, when examining the overall criteria for independent status. Question No. 309 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) When did the continual difficulties with amphibian vehicles, referred to in the Department of Transport and Construction 1981-82 annual report page 40, become apparent. (2) How much has been spent rectifying these problems in each of the last seven years. (3) How much of the cost relates to labour cost in the Department's Victorian workshop. (4) How many of these vehicles does the Department own. (5) How many of these vehicles are owned by other departments. (6) Have other owners experienced similar problems; if so, what liaison has been established between other departments to overcome these mutual problems. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The difficulties referred to relate to problems in obtaining spare parts which arose during the latter part of the 1970s. The amphibian vehicles used by the Department are the LARC V type manufactured in the United States. This type of vehicle is also used by the Australian Army from which the Department obtains spare parts. (2) Because of the difficulties with spares for the transmission system the Department undertook investigations into modifying the transmission system of one of the amphibians. About $125,000 has been spent on this project which could provide the basis for converting other LARCS should the need arise. However, the difficulties with spare parts now appear to have been overcome, at least for the time being. (3) Approximately $25,000 of the cost has been attributed to labour in the Department's Victorian workshop. (4) The Department owns nine amphibian vehicles. (5) As far as I am aware the Department of Defence is the only other Commonwealth department which owns LARC V amphibians. I understand that it owns about 80 of these vehicles. (6) I understand that the Department of Defence has experienced similar difficulties. My Department has maintained a close liaison with the Department of Defence on the question of spare parts. The Australian Army has been conducting a review of the supportability and operation of LARCS up to 1990. My Department expects to receive the results of this review in the near future. Question No. 349 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: (1) Is the Army Reserve pay matched exactly to the Regular Army pay and then is approximately one-third deducted so that the Army Reserve gross pay matches the Regular Army 'take-home' pay; if so, does this mean the Army Reserve wages will be subjected to a form of double-taxation under the Government's recent decision to tax Army Reserve pay. (2) Will this new measure have any effect on the number of people attracted to the Army Reserve. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The short answer is no. In 1975 pay and allowances for the reserve forces were reviewed by the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay which concluded that there was an inequality of skill, efficiency and professionalism between the regular and reserve forces which should be reflected in differing rates of pay, but that the inequality in rates should be more marginal than substantial. The pay relationship was last quantified by the Committee of Reference in August 1982 as follows: (a) Officers of the ranks of 2nd Lieutenant to Major and equivalent ranks in the other two Services-90 per cent of the permanent Force salary for equivalent rank; and (b) Officers of the ranks of Lieutenant-Colonel and above, and equivalent ranks in the other two Services, and all other rank members-85 per cent of the permanent force salary for equivalent rank. (2) I believe that provided the rates of pay and allowances are equitable recompense for the commitment required of members, a tax exemption is not an essential ingredient for attracting sufficient members into the reserve forces. Question No. 324 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) Does the Australian Government now have a greater responsibility under the ANZUS alliance for regional defence as a result of the recent ANZUS Minister's meeting in Washington; if so, what action is the Government taking to fulfill that greater responsibility. (2) Does Australia need to strengthen its defence capability in the light of the Washington communique; if so, how is this reconcilable with the Government's abandonment of the fixed wing elements of the Navy's Fleet Air Arm and the Government's decision not to purchase an aircraft carrier. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I refer the honourable senator to the parliamentary statement, made by my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 15 September 1983, which reported the outcome of the ANZUS Council meeting and the review of the ANZUS Treaty undertaken with our partners. (2) Carrying responsibility for our own security requires that priorities are clearly defined and resources allocated for maximum effect. Those priorities led to the decision not to acquire an aircraft carrier. A range of weapons systems which the Defence Force either has now or is planning to acquire can effectively perform the roles in which an aircraft carrier might have contributed. These weapons systems, combined with other improvements (planned and in progress) such as upgraded airfields, provide capabilities that a small carrier's aircraft could not remotely match. Question No. 399 Senator Colston asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 5 October 1983: Is any restriction placed on the quality of a denture supplied to a person on a war widow's pension, the quality of any of the components of a denture, or the fee paid to a dentist who supplies such a denture; if so, what are the restrictions and, if there are no restrictions in relation to the dentures, what action can be taken where a dentist supplies a substandard denture. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: There are no restrictions on quality of dentures as long as the dentist accepts payment at government approved rates. The only restriction on components of dentures is that prior departmental approval is necessary for 'cobalt-chromium' type dentures. In the event that a beneficiary complains about dentures, arrangements are made to obtain a report from the local dental officer and to have the patient examined by the Department's Consultant (Dental Services) in the State concerned . If the denture is considered sub-standard, payment of fee may be refused and arrangements made for a new denture. The Department has a comprehensive range of dental fees for service of which all local dental officers are aware. The dentist bills the Department according to the applicable fee for the type of denture provided. The fee for service is approved by the Government and agreed with the Australian Dental Association. Senator Gareth Evans —On 21 September 1983 (Hansard, page 859), Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology a question without notice concerning government support for high technology and referring specifically to the proposed reduction of 80 personnel within the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The external review of the Defence Science and Technology organisation ( DSTO) which was completed in October 1980 made a number of recommendations to redress the effects of decreasing resources. The thrust of some of these recommendations-and the Government endorses this thrust-was that there was a need to: (a) Provide adequate operating resources for DSTO scientists and engineers; and (b) Replace obsolete DSTO plant over a period of time. (1) Resources available to DSTO have had to be constrained in the light of overall defence priorities in a period of tightly controlled defence expenditure overall. This constraint has led to a situation where the support funds available to the DSTO scientists and engineers were falling below levels judged necessary for effective research and development activity. (3) It was therefore decided that some reductions would be made in the manpower resources for the DSTO in exchange for increased allocations for operating costs and minor capital funds. Manning reductions of about 80 positions out of a total of about 4,500 are being made in 1983-84 by selective non-replacement of natural staff wastage. There will be no retrenchments. (4) This will increase the effectiveness of DSTO in most areas, but as a result of the staff reductions work in some lower priority areas will be curtailed. Senator Walsh —On 15 September 1983 (Hansard, page 739), Senator Watson asked me a question, without notice, concerning research in Australia into utilising hydrogen as a source of energy, and Government incentives for such research. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The 'Compendium of Australian Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Projects', published by my Department, identifies four hydrogen projects currently in progress in Australia. These are in the areas of hydrogen production using solar energy, hydrogen storage and processing, and the use of hydrogen as a vehicle fuel. Most of the funding for these projects has been provided by the Commonwealth through the national energy research, development and demonstration (NERD and D) program. Between 1978 and 1982 $462,115 was committed under the program. Senator Gareth Evans —On 13 September 1983 (Hansard, page 590), Senator Missen asked a question concerning a report by the London-based Anti-Slavery Society for the Protection of Human Rights concerning alleged human rights abuses of the Melanesian population of Irian Jaya. In my reply I outlined the nature of the Indonesian Government's transmigration program in Irian Jaya and international efforts to protect the rights of indigenous peoples. I also noted that Australia has played an active role in focusing international attention to this issue. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following additional information: The Anti-Slavery Society for the Protection of Human Rights plans to publish reports on its findings in Irian Jaya within the next 12 months. Until that report is published, the Society's statement to the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations in Geneva is the most definitive account of the Society's views. A copy of the society's statement is available from Mr Hayden's office. It is difficult to obtain accurate figures on the number of transmigrants who have gone to Irian Jaya as target figures are often not realised. However, according to the Indonesian Department of Transmigration, 58,000 people had been transferred to the province as at the end of August 1983. In addition to transmigrants, there are also another 100,000-160,000 unsponsored migrants in Irian Jaya. According to a study by Professor Arndt of the Australian National University, transmigration to Irian Jaya during the Indonesian Government's current third five-year development plan (1979-1984) represents around 4.3 per cent of total official transmigrants. This compares with 60.6 per cent settled in Sumatra, 20. 2 per cent in Kalimantan and 12.3 per cent in Sulawesi. Senator Gietzelt —On 14 September 1983 (Hansard, page 659), Senator Childs asked me a question, without notice, concerning repatriation pensions and in particular the growth in the number of people seeking a war widow's pension. The supplementary answer to Senator Child's question is as follows: The numbers of new grants of pensions to war widows for the last two years were : 1981-82, 548; 1982-83, 2,601.