Thursday, 17 November 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Education To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We deplore the unprincipled and self-interested attacks being orchestrated by minority sects and groups against the policies and person of the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Senator Susan Ryan. 2. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own Special Programmes and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Robertson (from 40 citizens), Ryan (from 16 citizens) and Zakharov ( from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that: General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on Local Government Authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in General Revenue Grants to Local Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 14 citizens), Jessop (from six citizens) and Lewis (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 185 citizens), Chaney (from 300 citizens), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 15 citizens) and Robertson (from 312 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament house assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We urge the government to declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia; We urge the government to repudiate any commitment of a non-labor government to the mining, processing or export of Australia's uranium; We urge the government to not permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to ALP policy; and We urge the government to discontinue the Roxby uranium mine development. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 25 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: That every child in Australia is entitled to government financial support for their education whether they attend government schools or non-government schools . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision for the continuation of Federal Government per capita grants payable in respect of all children in non-government schools at a rate calculated as a percentage of Government Standard Costs at a level not less than that prevailing in 1983. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Robertson (from 26 citizens) and Ryan (from 64 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 68 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled we, your petitioners, do humbly pray that: 1. This Government re-affirms its needs based funding policy for non-government schools and continue to pursue its mandate in this regard 2. the Government re-affirm its primary obligation to the needs of government schools 3. we support the Schools Commission Community Resource Standard as a basis for funding government schools 4. the recommendation of the Australian Schools Commission, in respect to the funding of non-government schools, be accepted. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 66 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MESSNER —(South Australia)-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate notes that: (i) the introduction of Medicare will cause an artificial reduction in the Consumer Price Index; (ii) this will adversely affect the millions of pensioners and beneficiaries whose income is linked to the C.P.I.; and it condemns the Government for its failure to recognise this fact and to take remedying action. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-In the Australian newspaper today on the feature page there is an article discussing the proposed increase in the number of parliamentarians. The article, in its heading, said: The ALP, Australian Democrats and the National Party support the increases, guaranteeing the passage of the legislation. Honourable senators will remember that I introduced a Bill into this Parliament in an attempt to break the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the second reading debate on that Bill some four or five weeks ago I stated very clearly that the Australian Democrats would oppose any increase in the number of parliamentarians and believed that the effective way was first to put to the people the possibility of their agreeing to break the nexus, so that a moderate increase in numbers in the House of Representatives would be able to be undertaken. It seems to me that the person who wrote that article-since it has no name to it I am unable to find out who wrote it-was in fact relying on the New South Wales Branch of the Institute of Public Affairs. An advance copy of its document , entitled 'More Federal Parliamentarians-Can They Be Justified?', was sent to me on 2 November. I read that article on the same day and immediately rang the Director, Alec Simpson, to point out to him the error in that it had been suggested that the Australian Democrats would support the legislation. Mr Simpson informed me that the person who had written that section was Mr Chris Puplick, who has been a senator in this place. Mr Puplick also attributed to the Australian Democrats a particular position in relation to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I pointed out to the Director of the Institute of Public Affairs that senators, when they appear on any Senate committee, do so at the behest of the Senate and not as representatives of their own political parties. I said that to so attribute that position was incorrect and in fact extremely damaging to the way that not only that Committee but all Senate committees operate. They operate in such a way as to enable all senators to put aside that very tight party allegiance and to look at issues on their merits. I am surprised that Mr Chris Puplick, who has been a senator, did not know that fact. I believe it is important that those matters be put on the record. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Fourth Report on the Operation of The Special Employment-Related Programs Act 1982-pursuant to resolution of the Senate of 16 December 1982. 2. Occupational Health and Safety-Statement made in the House of Representatives on Thursday 10 November by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. 3. Department of Resources and Energy-Annual Report 1982-83. Fourth Report Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.07) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. As is indicated on the list which was incorporated in Hansard by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), this report has not been available prior to tabling and hence I have not read it. But I want to take this opportunity to make a couple of comments about the special employment-related programs which are relevant to the matters which would be dealt with in the report. The report is tabled pursuant to the desire of the Senate, which was evidenced in its resolution of 16 December 1982, that we should get some check on the effectiveness of the expenditure of the wage pause moneys. Some hundreds of millions of dollars were saved, or potentially saved, by imposing a freeze on Public Service salaries-that applied also to the salaries of senators-and the moneys were to be disbursed in various ways, including the building of welfare housing. An amount of $100m was allocated for that purpose, and $200m was to be made available for programs which were to be conducted through the States and which would provide employment for the long term unemployed, with special consideration being given to disadvantaged groups in the employment market, including women. It is an unfortunate fact that the administration of that program did not result in the expenditure of the moneys in the efficient way in which the Parliament and the Commonwealth Government might have hoped. Indeed, the present Government has made a number of remarks about the inability of States to expend moneys, and there have been delays in making money available to the States because they have not been able to expend the moneys already given to them. That , in a time of high and, for most of that period, rising unemployment, is a matter for concern. Undoubtedly, the experience of the States in the administration of this program needs to be studied very carefully so we can avoid similar difficulties in the future if we are put in a position of wanting to create employment by these means. The particular point I want to raise today-I suggest to the Government that it might reconsider this-is the element of the program which was discontinued by the present Government when it came into office. A very small amount of money-I think it was a couple of million dollars-was set aside to enable States, through local government, to experiment with providing work in lieu of unemployment. The general proposition was that local authorities would make available employment at award rates for the number of hours per week required to make up the amount of unemployment benefit those people would otherwise be paid, plus an amount of $35. The additional amount of $35 was to ensure that in undertaking part time work there was no financial loss for the people concerned. If they undertook part time work while receiving the unemployment benefit they could supplement their income up to a certain level and then there was a gradual withdrawal of the benefit. Under this scheme they would be at least as well off as people who were on the unemployment benefit and getting some small amount of part time work . The Government's prediction is that we will have a continuing rise in unemployment. I think it is the Government's prediction that as many as one in three young Australians could be unemployed by early next year. I do not blame the Government for that. We have had a difficult situation for some years now. That difficulty has worsened over the last year, and the Government itself says that unemployment will continue to rise. My plea is that the Government should reconsider some experimentation in this area. The Government has shown itself ready to consider something as esoteric as a kibbutzim movement in Australia. I believe there would be a lot of support around Australia for at least a voluntary trial of enabling unemployed people to get access to part time work at award rates which would enable them to earn the money they receive, to get work experience, and for the community to get some return. I think the estimate was that we expect to expend over $3 billion this year on the unemployment benefit. Happily, the most recent figures show a decline in the number of people claiming unemployment benefit. We all welcome that, but is is a sad fact that there will be hundreds of thousands-probably in excess of 600,000- of Australians out of work. An amount of $3 billion will be expended. I believe there is room for at least a start in trialling some work provision in that way. I understand all the theoretical and administrative problems involved, but I believe the Government is being doctrinaire in dropping that experiment. I ask it to reconsider its decision. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ministerial Statement Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.12) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Again, this is a report which has not been available to us prior to tabling. Hence, I wish to make a couple of preliminary remarks on matters that we might address in more detail in a later debate on the report. During the debate on the Appropriation Bills I drew the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) to the fact that there had been a failure on the part of the non-political arm of government to assess the impact of certain excise increases on important elements of the resource industries. That failure to measure the impact led the Government to make decisions in the Budget which it withdrew or changed within seven or eight days of bringing down the Budget. I believe that that experience, which I do not suggest is unique to the present Government, is one which ought to teach us that there is a need for some additional mechanisms within the bureaucracy and within the process of Budget formation which will avoid that sort of error. It is not always possible for a government to recant on errors of that sort. I am quite sure that at times governments of my own persuasion, as with governments of the Labor persuasion, do make decisions in the Budget which, on seeing the actual impact, they feel they perhaps should not have made, or wish they had not made, but of course they cannot go on rewriting the Budget indefinitely. For that reason, I again draw the attention of the Senate to what I think would be the wisdom of ensuring that within the Budget process, and particularly with departments such as the Department of Resources and Energy which have some responsibility for major areas of industry, there should be a very careful assessment of the impact of proposed new Budget taxing measures before those measures are finally accepted by government. I have absolutely no doubt that had information been clearly placed before the present Minister for Resources and Energy that the excise changes would have impacted on, say, the operations of Nabalco at Gove in the way that they did or that they would have impacted on the operations of the Northern Territory Electricity Commission in the way they did, he would have successfully argued that those measures should not have been in the Budget. Senator Walsh was gracious enough in the Appropriation debates to say that his personal knowledge of the high use of fuel oil at the Greenvale nickel project was such that he could have realised that the measure was unwise. I do not believe that it is possible for any Minister to apply all of his knowledge to the enormous volume of material that goes before him at Budget time . I suggest that there is a deficiency, which again I do not wish to sheet home to the Government-I think it is simply part of the way the whole system is structured-in that there is a lack of concern about the actual impact of some of these measures when they are put before government for adoption in a Budget. I am sure there are other matters within the report of the Department of Resources and Energy which will excite the attention of the Senate and attract some debate . I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —by leave-I present the report of the Australia/ Korea Parliamentary Group's delegation to the Republic of Korea. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator JESSOP —As the then President of the Australia/Korea Parliamentary Group I was privileged to lead a delegation from the Group which visited the Republic of Korea from 5 to 12 June 1983. An invitation for the visit, both verbal and written, was received by the Australia/Korea Parliamentary Group from the Vice Speaker of the National Assembly and President of the Korea-Australian Parliamentarians Friendship Association, the Hon. Kim Eun-Ha. The visit represented the breaking of new ground as it was the first time a delegation from a particular parliamentary friendship group of the Commonwealth of Australia had visited another country at the invitation of its counterpart. I believe this is a step forward in our inter-parliamentary relationships. The benefits derived from members of one parliament sitting down and talking to members of another in a fraternal way should be encouraged for it is only through such direct contact with other parliamentarians that we can become aware of the attitudes which influence the formulation of policies in other countries. As representatives of the people, we largely have left the responsibility in the field of international diplomacy to executive government. With the advent of these groups we now have an excellent opportunity to make a positive contribution in this important area. Should any honourable senators have the opportunity, I would commend a visit to the Republic of Korea. The achievements of that country in the last 20 years are quite remarkable. A most notable point about the Republic of Korea is its economic growth and technological development which has been achieved in a relatively short time span. Our trade relations are quite substantial and are still expanding. As such, we should maintain a close interest in its general strategic situation because it is becoming increasingly significant as a regional power. The delegation to the Republic of Korea was warmly received and we, as representatives of the Australian Parliament, were most impressed with the program arranged as it enabled us to learn a great deal about the development and culture of that country. The National Assembly, the Korea-Australian Parliamentarians Friendship Association and all concerned with the visit deserve the highest praise. The report contains the program of activities as well as a record of some discussions, information gathered and conclusions arrived at by the delegation. I conclude by thanking the Inter-Parliamentary Union staff, particularly Mr John Dyer for his invaluable assistance in making arrangements for the visit. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.22) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes what are essentially technical amendments to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974. However, these amendments form an integral part of a total approach by the Government to export development. In recent years there has been an intensification of credit competition in international trade. The recession in Western countries and slow down in domestic activities has resulted in a scramble for all available export orders. In the capital goods area, interest rates and the cost of finance have become the key determinant of competitiveness. Most countries subsidise interest rates and there is an increasing use of aid funds to further soften credit terms in order to secure major contracts. Agricultural trade is also under pressure with major exporters aggressively attempting to expand overall market share. On top of these pressures, there is a lengthening list of countries with serious debt repayment problems. Requests for extended credit terms have become more frequent . An all out credit war has been averted largely due to the limitation on subsidised credit terms which has come from international understandings, particularly the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development arrangement on export credit which sets minimum interest rates and maximum repayment terms for capital goods transactions. The arrangement, however, is under pressure as domestic interest rates in a number of countries approach or fall below the minimum rates applying to export credits. Japan in particular is now in that situation. Against this background of intense credit competition, and also in response to widespread criticism from the business community that credit facilities currently available to Australian exporters are no longer on a par with those available to our competitors, the Government has undertaken an extensive review of Australia's export credit policy. It was the Labor Government in 1974 which last took a serious look at the problems confronting exporters in the field of export credit. At that time, the existing Export Payments Insurance Corporation was reconstituted as the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, or EFIC as it is generally referred to, with an export bank function to provide exporters with concessional finance to meet the subsidised interest rates being offered by most of our major competitors. The Government now has decided on a range of initiatives designed to ensure that markets for Australian exports are made secure and developed to their full potential. On the export credit side, the supporting services available to exporters through EFIC are to be strengthened and the Government will pursue a more effective export credit policy generally. The Government's intention is that EFIC's facilities be expanded to enable the Corporation to provide foreign currency financing and give Australian exporters access to lower interest rate currencies for medium and long term credit with which to meet the terms being provided by competitors. The Government is also examining the various sources of funding for EFIC's finance facility, including general offshore borrowing, to ensure that the most suitable funding arrangements are utilised. The operating policies of EFIC currently restrict the provision of export finance to Australian dollar loans and the provision of buyer credit guarantees to Australian lending institutions, that is, where EFIC provides a lender making a loan to an overseas buyer of Australian goods with a guarantee of repayment. While the interest rates of our major competitors were above the OECD minima, this did not, in general, place Australian exporters at a disadvantage. The fact that the yen and some other currencies can now be provided at below the OECD minima and that other important trading currencies may shortly follow suit, makes it desirable to extend EFIC's facilities to provide for foreign currency financing. This will be done by empowering EFIC to give a guarantee-what is known as buyer credit-to an Australian or overseas lending institution which provides a foreign currency loan to the overseas borrower or buyer, or, alternatively, EFIC itself raising foreign currency offshore in its own name and lending itself in that foreign currency to the overseas buyer. The benefits of foreign currency financing are twofold; not only will exporters have access to low interest rate currencies to match their competitors, but also with interest rates for many currencies presently lower than Australian interest rates, there is scope for the Government to achieve savings in the present cost of providing interest rate subsidies on Australian dollar loans. In some cases where the currency is below the OECD minima, no subsidy will be necessary. In other cases it will still be necessary to subsidise the interest rate of a foreign currency loan down to the OECD levels. It is this requirement with which the Bill is primarily concerned. No legislative action is required to enable EFIC to provide foreign currency financing. It is, however, necessary to provide EFIC with authority to provide subsidies to lenders giving buyers credit loans. As part of a more aggressive approach to export credit, the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) has requested EFIC to revise its operating procedures to reflect the Government's wish that the Corporation play a conspicuous and determined role in assisting Australian exporters to secure orders. Of course this will be consistent with the Corporation's obligation to operate in accordance with sound commercial principles and comply with accepted international practice. This approach will include the establishment of credit lines or other facilities with countries which offer worthwhile trade development prospects. Exporters will no longer be required to demonstrate a need to meet competition when seeking concessional export finance and EFIC, subject to OECD understandings, will take the initiative in determining appropriate credit terms. There will be a more flexible approach to the definition of capital goods and the value of transactions which qualify for export finance assistance. The Corporation has also been asked to inform the Government prior to withdrawing or limiting cover for individual countries on commercial grounds, where such action may place significant trade at risk. The Bill proposes a revised definition of 'lending' to include the provision of finance in any form. The expanded definition will enable EFIC to keep abreast of current trade financing techniques such as the purchase and dealing in bills of exchange and promissory notes. This is particularly relevant to the financing of lower value transactions where the more complicated, lengthy and costly process of loan negotiations and formal documentation can be avoided. The Bill will also give effect to the Government's decision to remove the restrictions which generally limit EFIC's services to those not 'normally' available from the private sector. The Government is concerned to ensure that EFIC does not become open to challenge if private operators were to seek to operate selectively in the less risky areas of EFIC's traditional activities. Rather than see the viability of a soundly run government operation undermined, this avenue for challenge is to be removed. Whilst the Government is anxious to preserve EFIC's traditional role, it does not see any need to extend EFIC's facilities into other areas of insurance as long as the private sector is effectively meeting the needs of exporters. The regulations under the EFIC Act are to be amended to enable EFIC to provide up to 100 per cent cover against the risk on non-payment arising from political causes. The basic principle of credit insurance is that of 'co-insurance' whereby the exporter, by bearing a share of the risk, will act with prudence and caution. While the Government sees merit in this practice as it can influence the firms and organisations with which an exporter chooses to deal, it does not apply with the same force with respect to 'political risk' which is beyond an exporter's influence. The increase in cover for political risks is consistent with the Government's wish to encourage exporters to pursue all reasonable commercial opportunities. Obviously, the practice of limiting Australia's exposure in countries with a poor payment record or those known to be an imminent risk of default will continue. Cover against 'commercial' causes of loss, such as buyer insolvency, will remain at 90 per cent. Earlier, I mentioned briefly the use of aid funds in 'mixed credits' by many of our competitors. A limited scheme, the Development Import Finance Facility, has been available through the Australian Development Assistance Bureau since 1981 to provide aid grants in conjunction with EFIC loans to soften the overall financial package available to support Australian exporters faced with competition from 'mixed credits'. The DIFF scheme has only now started bearing fruit and to overcome the uncertainty for exporters involved in protracted negotiations on the future availability of funds, the Government has introduced a $60m commitment ceiling for the scheme as an interim arrangement pending the outcome of the current examination of Australia's aid program by the Jackson Committee to advise on policies for manufacturing industry. This will significantly strengthen the scheme by enabling exporters to tender for contracts in the knowledge that funds will be available if they are successful. I also mentioned earlier the work within the OECD to avert a credit race in international trade. To date, these efforts have been directed towards limiting subsidised finance and extended repayment terms for exports of manufactured goods. More recently, there has been increasing pressure to extend more generous payment terms than the usual 180 days for a range of agricultural commodities. Much of this stems directly from the demands of countries with debt servicing problems but there is also a strong push towards the use of attractive credit by suppliers to expand market share. Australia has instigated a study of the use of credit in agricultural trade and will continue to pursue an international agreement within the ambit of the OECD to limit the provision of officially supported credit for agricultural products. Australia's ability to win and maintain export markets depends increasingly on an effective framework of export credit arrangements. In particular, the support services available through EFIC must reflect the changing needs of Australian exporters in a rapidly changing international trading environment which is presently characterised by intense international competition involving generous credit terms for all available export business. As this situation is likely to continue through the 1980s, an essential feature of export credit policy must be an aggressive approach towards maintaining existing markets. The proposals I have outlined do not in themselves involve additional expenditure by the Government. The consequences of a more vigorous approach to export may be an increased amount of interest rate subsidy. However, this will be dependent on the success of exporters in winning business and savings should be achieved through the use of lower interest rate foreign currency financing. The Government expects that these initiatives, when taken as a package, will meet much of the criticism from the business community that Australia's export credit facilities are not on par with those available to our competitors. They will also provide EFIC with the base from which it can play the conspicuous and determined role envisaged for it by the Government. These initiatives build further on the trade promotion measures to boost Australia's export performance which were announced in the Budget context. There is a continuing need to maintain Australia's international competitiveness and none of the Government's measures I have outlined seek to compensate for the basic competitive elements such as price, quality and delivery. However, they are all designed to achieve greater penetration into the growth areas of world trade by adopting a more aggressive approach to exporting. Our promotional measures are heavily weighted towards manufactured goods as it is this area of world trade which has expanded and where Australia's performance has slipped back. Our manufacturing sector has contracted and employment has fallen dramatically. Manufactured exports can play a key role in reducing unemployment. The full range of measures I have outlined and other initiatives such as the current review of the Australian Trade Commissioner Service and the examination of a possible overseas trading corporation, demonstrate clearly the planned approach that this Government is taking to revitalise the export sector of the Australian economy. Although the proposals contained in this Bill are technical and of limited impact in themselves, I am confident that the Government's total approach to export development, of which they are part, will be welcomed by exporters as a positive step towards regaining our position as a world trading nation. I commend this Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This legislation represents a further step by this Government towards the implementation of its industrial relations platform and is in accordance with the Statement of Accord reached between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions prior to the Government being formed. It introduces a range of measures aimed at improving the framework of industrial relations in Australia. At the same time the Bill incorporates significant elements of the industrial relations legislation that were introduced in 1982 by the previous Government, and which we supported, but which had not been passed by the time of the dissolution of Parliament at the beginning of this year. I refer in particular to the proposals in this Bill for greater co-ordination between Commonwealth and State industrial systems. The incorporation of the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator within the jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and changes to certain administrative arrangements under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Honourable senators will be aware that an essential principle of this Government's approach to industrial relations is to create a climate whereby any changes that are put forward by the Government affecting the industrial relations framework should first be fully examined by the parties through the National Labour Consultative Council. Accordingly the provisions of this legislation have been the subject of extensive discussion and examination by the parties through the NLCC; in some cases these discussions have been going on for several years. Apart from an aspect that I will mention later, the legislation has the full support of the NLCC. When the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) announced the establishment of the review of Australia's industrial relations system in July, he explained that this decision would not preclude the Government from introducing changes that it considered essential in the short term to overcome aspects of the current arrangements which were seen as deficient or which impeded the day to day effectiveness of the system. By its nature this legislation is designed to do just that. I should point out to honourable senators that the NLCC considers, with one exception, that all of the matters covered in this legislation should be implemented forthwith by the Government, and should not be delayed until the report of the review is available in 1985. The Bill consists of the following elements. First, it provides for improved co -ordination in the work of the Commonwealth and State industrial tribunals through the re-introduction, in identical terms, of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Complementary Industrial Relations System) Amendment Bill 1982. Second, it re-introduces, with certain amendments, provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1982 relating to term of office, common rules, casual vacancies. Third, it repeals the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920 and transfers the jurisdiction under that Act to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This is based on the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Government Service) Amendment Bill 1982. Fourth, it gives effect to proposals that have been agreed by NLCC in recent years but which had not been acted upon by the previous Government. These proposals concern: Changes to the accounting and financial reporting provisions contained in Part VIIIAA of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which were agreed by NLCC in 1982 ; and Amendments to the Act to enable certain persons to become or remain members of federally registered employee organisations. Fifth, the legislation gives effect to some proposals that have been extensively discussed by NLCC this year. These proposals concern: Changes to the presentation and publication of accounts and related statements by organisations; amendments to the disqualification from office provisions and to the loans, grants and donations provisions of the Act; Petitioning procedures to be followed in seeking officially conducted elections ; and Clarification of the rule amending powers of committees of management. Finally, there are several technical amendments which are introduced to overcome certain deficiencies and anomalies that have been identified in various administrative arrangements. I now turn to examine the amendments in greater detail. The amendments designed to achieve a greater co-ordination between the Commonwealth and State industrial systems are based on recommendations put forward by a Commonwealth-State working party. The previous Government introduced legislation last year to give effect to these recommendations. The changes introduced are in identical terms to those contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration (Complementary Industrial Relations System) Amendment Bill 1982. They provide for: Joint sittings by single members of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and a State tribunal; Expansion of the powers of local industrial boards-when constituted by a State industrial authority-to permit them to exercise federal conciliation and arbitration jurisdiction; and The exercise, by agreement, of State jurisdiction by members of the Australian Commission. In the past attempts to resolve some industrial disputes have been impeded because they have involved both Commonwealth and State jurisdictions. These changes are designed to remove some of the inflexibilities in the present systems so that tribunals concerned might come together to resolve them or authorise a member of one of the jurisdictions to deal with the matter. This issue was addressed at the National Summit Conference when the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations endorsed the views of other participants on the need for complementary industrial relations legislation as part of our overall prices and income strategy. The Government considers these amendments to be a significant first step in moving towards even greater co-ordination and this issue will of course be one of the major areas to be looked at by the review of Australia's industrial relations system. In May of this year the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations advised Commonwealth and State Ministers for labour that the Government proposed to re-introduce this legislation. State Ministers also agreed at that meeting to proceed with similar legislation. Already Queensland and New South Wales have enacted, but have not yet proclaimed, legislation to give effect to the proposals. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is confident that each of the other States will proceed as soon as practicable to introduce similar legislation to complement and give effect to the proposals contained in this Bill. I now turn to consider the proposals for extension of term of office. Under the Act the rules of organisations cannot permit a person to be elected to hold office for a period exceeding four years without being re-elected. This can create difficulties where an officer's term of office is to expire shortly before his proposed date of retirement. Such an officer must either stand for re -election, and serve only part of a term, or retire earlier than intended. The Government believes that organisations should be able to have rules enabling the holder of a full-time office, who is due to retire within a period of 12 months after the expiration of the period for which he is elected, to remain in office, if desired, until retirement. Clause 24 gives effect to this proposal. It is in identical terms to that contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1982. I refer next to the provisions under the Act concerning common rules. The Act provides that the Commission may declare any award or part of an award to be a common rule within a Territory. Once such a common rule is made all the employees and employers in the industry covered by the award in that Territory are automatically bound by the award. The existing provisions for varying such common rules are cumbersome and often result in long delays in passing on to employees the benefit of the award variations involved. In 1981, following representations from the President of the Commission, NLCC agreed to amendments to simplify the existing procedures in relation to common rule variation. Provisions contained in the lapsed Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1982 were designed to reflect NLCC's recommendation. However, for reasons of a technical nature, those provisions did not exactly conform with the proposal agreed by NLCC. The relevant provisions of the 1982 Bill are re-introduced with the necessary changes to reflect NLCC's recommendations. Clause 12 thus provides that where the Commission varies a term of an award that is a common rule, the variation, once agreed to by the Commission, will operate automatically as a common rule and, after a 28 day period for objections, the variation will be enforceable except against those who successfully object. Another amendment concerns casual vacancies. The Government also considers that the provisions of the Act concerning casual vacancies should be amended to overcome practical difficulties that have been experienced by organisations under the current arrangements. The Act requires the rules of organisations to provide for the election of office holders either by a direct voting system or a defined form of collegiate electoral system. There are no statutory provisions for the filling of casual vacancies in elected positions. Following consideration of the question of casual vacancies by NLCC in 1981, the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1982 contained a proposed amendment to enable the rules of an organisation to provide for the filling of a casual vacancy provided that the unexpired period of office was not more than 12 months. At meetings of NLCC this year, both the ACTU and Confederation of Australian Industry strongly urged that the 1982 legislative proposals be changed to permit the filling of casual vacancies by appointment for up to three years. The Government considered that the proposal went too far. On the other hand the provisions of the 1982 Bill were, in the Government's view, too restrictive and did not go far enough to overcome the inconvenience and cost currently incurred by organisations in having to hold special elections. The Government believes it is necessary to achieve an acceptable balance between the need to prevent undue inconvenience and cost for organisations and the need to maintain the principle of democratic control by members and prevent the possibility of abuse and manipulationn of the electoral system. The changes introduced by clause 25 provide that the rules of organisations reflect those considerations. The rules may provide for the filling of casual vacancies in elected positions in two circumstances. Firstly, where the term of office is for up to 12 months, then until the expiration of the term. Secondly, where the term of office is longer than 12 months, then up to three-quarters of that term or until the next regular election for the filling of that office, whichever comes first. Where a vacancy is so filled in a collegiate electoral system the person shall be deemed to have been elected to the office for the purposes of participating in a further collegiate election. The effect of this amendment will be to provide the necessary degree of flexibility to organisations in filling casual vacancies whilst at the same time reducing the possibility of abuse or manipulation. Both the ACTU and CAI have indicated their support for this amendment. I now turn to those provisions of the Bill which repeal the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920 and vest the jurisdiction under that Act in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Apart from certain changes which I will outline below this legislation incorporates the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Government Service) Amendment Bill 1982. The legislation gives effect to recommendations of the 1976 report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration. It reflects the principles of integration that were first agreed by the NLCC in 1977. Since the Public Service Arbitration Act was enacted in 1920 to deal with unique features of Commonwealth Public Service employment, the Arbitrator's functions have changed considerably and jurisdiction has merged to a significant degree with that of the Commission. Some of the most notable changes in that direction have been provision for appeals and reference to the Commission in 1952, transfer of hearing of some claims to the Commission in 1956, dispute notification and settling procedures in 1972 and the filling of the positions of Arbitrator and Deputy Arbitrator by members of the Commission. What is proposed is a natural progression from these developments and will mean that all major employment areas covered by Federal awards will now be regulated by the national tribunal. There are two substantive changes to the provisions of the 1982 Bill. These changes have the full support of the ACTU, the CAI and the Public Service Staff Associations. The first change is intended to restore the full scope of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal that applied prior to the amendments by the previous Government to the Public Service Arbitration Act in 1978. As a result of this change the Commission will not be constrained from considering matters involving the selection of persons for appointment, re-appointment, employment or promotion in public service. The Government has also decided that it would not be appropriate to restrict the scope of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in relation to orders that it may make in the manner proposed in the legislation introduced by the previous Government. Consequently the Bill does not include the detailed provisions concerning the types of orders that may be made by the Commission and the provisions concerning the consequences for employees of being stood down that were contained in the 1982 Bill. The Government is advised that this change in no way restricts the ability of public employers to gain stand-down or no work as directed no pay orders. Public sector employers will still be able to apply to the Commission for such orders in the same way that private sector employers are. This is consistent with the Government's general approach, fully supported by the NLCC, that the position of the Commission in relation to public and private sector employment should as far as possible be the same. There are four other amendments of a minor nature that are proposed to the provisions of the 1982 Government Service Bill to remedy technical deficiencies. The Government has also decided to amend the Act to clarify the position regarding membership of federally registered organisations. Once again I should stress that the two amendments relating to this area introduced by the Bill have the full support of the NLCC and were in fact recommendations by that body in 1982. The first amendment, in clause 22, is to take account of amendments in 1979 to the provisions of the New South Wales Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 related to membership of State registered unions in New South Wales. In conformity with the intention of section 132 (4) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the amendment proposed will allow persons able to join a New South Wales State registered union, which is a branch of a federal union, to become members of that federal union. The second amendment validates the membership of those who were validly enrolled as members of a federal union before amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in 1977 made them ineligible to remain members of federal organisations. The 1977 amendments aligned more closely the eligibility for membership of State and Federal organisations. The amendment proposed requires that such persons should have had continuous membership of the Federal organisation immediately before and subsequent to the coming into operation of the 1977 Act. I now turn to the amendments proposed to Part VIIIAA of the Act. This part of the legislation which deals with accounts and audit in respect of registered organisations came into operation at the end of December 1980. The then Government, the ACTU and the employers agreed that its operation be monitored so that any problems could be rectified. The NLCC has identified a number of these problems and the Government has accepted the recommendations for change. The first group of proposals are designed to introduce some flexibility into the requirements of Part VIIIAA concerning presentation and publication of accounts. The amendments do not affect the basic obligations of organisations and rights of members concerned in relation to the supply, presentation and filing of accounts, statements and auditors reports. At present an organisation is required under existing arrangements to supply or publish free of charge to each of its members, copies of that organisation's accounts, auditors statements and accompanying statement in full. This has imposed considerable cost burden on organisations; at the same time there is little evidence to suggest that members have derived significant benefits from the provision of such material in this form. The requirements of presentation are not structured to inform a person without some familiarity in accountancy. The Government accepts the recommendation of NLCC that a more practical and effective arrangement for all concerned would be to give organisations an option to supply summaries of the accounts, reports and statements to their members. Under the amendments to these requirements, in clause 33, such summaries will be regarded as fulfilling the obligations of organisations under the Act in those cases where: The summary is accompanied by a notice indicating that members could obtain, free of charge, the full set of accounts, reports and statements of the organisation on request; The auditor duly certifies that the summary represented a true and fair summary of the accounts, reports and statements of the organisation; Such a summary sets out in full any qualification on the accounts made by the auditor; and Copies are filed with the Registrar. At present where an organisation is divided into branches, the branches are treated as separate units for the purposes of the financial reporting requirements of Part VIIIAA of the Act. Thus even in those cases where the federal body of an organisation under its rules exercises effective control over the financial management of the whole of the organisation, the branches are nevertheless required to present and file separate accounts. The Government has accepted an NLCC recommendation that these requirements are too rigid and impose unnecessary burdens on organisations. The amendments contained in clause 29 are designed to take into account the existence of a number of employer and employee organisations that operate, in financial mangement terms, at the federal level. The Bill provides that the Registrar may upon application issue a certificate to an organisation if he is satisfied that the committee of management of the organisation has by the rules or by practice the right of custody, control or management of assets of the organisation, including assets of the branches. Where a certificate is issued the organisation will be able to comply with the provisions of Part VIIIAA of the Act by consolidating the accounts for the organisation. The amendments proposed do not affect the rights of members under Part VIIIAA. The NLCC is currently developing the details of proposals which would allow organisations with less centralised control of branch assets, to consolidate accounts for the purposes of Part VIIIAA if they so elect. Under these proposals branches would retain autonomy and members would be able to obtain details of branch accounts and reports etc on request. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations hopes to be in the position of introducing amendments to give effect to that proposal in the 1984 autumn sittings. The Bill also gives effect to essentially technical amendments designed to overcome practical difficulties in the operation of part VIIIAA identified by NLCC. These deal with various statutory time limits for presentation of accounts . The appointment of competent auditors and their attendance at meetings, accounting on a cash basis for membership subscriptions, investigations by the Registrar of qualified accounts and procedures relating to the publication of the federal organisation's accounts in branch journals. Both the ACTU and the CAI have strongly urged the Government to introduce all of these changes as soon as possible to overcome constraints which in their view are totally unnecessary. Another area of amendments relates to the disqualification from office provisions and the loans, grants and donations provisions passed by the Parliament last year. The Conciliation and Arbitration (Management of Organisations) Act 1982, which introduced those measures, was designed by the previous Government to give effect to recommendations made by the Winneke Royal Commission into the activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation. Those recommendations in summary suggested that the Government adopt in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the same sorts of provisions as in the uniform companies legislation to disqualify office holders and to prevent abuse of the making of loans, grants and donations by organisations. However, the 1982 Act went much further than the Winneke recommendations. For example, it provided for disqualification from holding office in a federally registered organisation where the person concerned had been convicted of crimes relating to damage of property and violence. The range of offences included was much broader than those applying under the companies legislation and had in most cases nothing whatsoever to do with the management of a registered organisation. The ACTU and CAI have proposed that these provisions be referred to the tripartite review of industrial relations for consideration. However, proposals have been put to the Government by the ACTU and other interested parties for amendments to the disqualification provisions that should be implemented prior to the report of the review committee as an interim measure. While the Government does consider that it is desirable that the provisions be examined by the review it does nevertheless recognise that the existing provisions might have the effect of debarring people from holding office because they have been convicted of relatively minor offences or of offences which are not directly connected with the person's fitness to hold office in an organisation; for example, a technical assault or a driving offence. Accordingly clause 23 amends section 132F of the Act by reducing the range of offences set out in paragraph 132F (1) (B) so that the offences are confined to those relating to elections or ballots under the Act and by changing the basis of paragraph 132F (1) (D) so that the paragraph will only refer to convictions imposed for crimes associated with damage or violence intentionally committed for which a person serves a sentence of imprisonment. Therefore only criminal offences which the court regards as sufficiently serious to warrant imprisonment will attract the disqualification provisions. The Government also believes that the loans, grants and donations provisions of the Act should be examined by the review. However, one practical difficulty has been identified by the NLCC which the Government considers warrants immediate attention. The problem with existing section 133B of the Act is that no loan et cetera of more than $1,000 can be made without the prior approval of the committee of management. In circumstances where a member or his dependents suffer sudden severe financial hardship, the committee of management may not be able to approve a payment out of distress funds in time to be of assistance to such a person. To overcome this situation, clause 26 provides that a person authorised under the rules of an organisation will be able to approve payment for such purposes up to $3,000, and the committee of management will be able to endorse the payment at its next meeting. This will only apply where the rules of the organisation so provide. Finally, clause 38 is designed to enable the making of regulations to prescribe a procedure for lodging petitions by members for officially conducted elections. This amendment is to overcome concerns that have been expressed to the Government that existing procedures are open to abuse. Many of the changes proposed in this legislation are, as I explained at the outset, identical or similar to proposals that were introduced last year by the previous Government but which lapsed. These changes represent important improvements which are designed to meet the Government's overall objective of establishing a flexible and effective framework for the resolution of industrial disputes and for the regulation of the affairs of organisations to the extent that this is necessary. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had disagreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That consideration in the Committee of the Whole of the message No. 144 received from the House of Representatives be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(10.26) —I move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: The establishment, operation, administration and accountability of bodies, which are neither departments nor statutory authorities of the Commonwealth, for which the Commonwealth is wholly or partly responsible. Since 1977 the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has been examining statutory authorities and has presented to the Senate six major reports on these bodies. The Committee in the course of its investigations into statutory authorities has become aware of the importance of another major group of bodies, bodies which are neither statutory authorities nor government departments of the Commonwealth but are nevertheless bodies for which the Commonwealth is wholly or partly responsible. These bodies are established through a variety of means-letters of exchange, agreements between States and the Commonwealth, ministerial fiat, order in council, creation of companies and by informal agreements. They cover many functions of government and are an important source of policy and administrative advice. However, there is little scrutiny of the establishment, operation and administration of these bodies. In fact there is concern in some places that they may not be effectively responsible to anyone. The Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration initiated a study of these bodies. A paper prepared for the Commission recommended that: . . . a committee or office (or a parliamentary committee) should be created to review the operation of such bodies. The Commission in its report recommended that a review be undertaken by departments, in consultation with the Public Service Board. Departments have generally kept these bodies under review; however, the Committee believes that a comprehensive review is required. The Committee also asked the Public Service Board whether any reviews had been undertaken and was informed that no co- ordinated action on this matter had been taken. The Committee in the course of its inquiry will seek to identify the number and type of bodies within this category, their cost, their present accountability to the Parliament and whether that accountability is satisfactory. The Committee will write to each Minister seeking information on all such bodies for which he or she is responsible and will hold public hearings next year. Question resolved in the affirmative. Reference to Standing Committee Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.28) —I move: (1) That the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 and the National Crime Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report, on or before 30 April 1984, as to whether the Bills fulfil effectively the objective of investigating organized crime and official corruption. (2) That the Committee confine its inquiry and report to the terms of the Bills and associated policy matters, and not receive any evidence, or conduct any investigation, relating to any individual person or body. (3) That, for the purpose of the inquiry, the membership of the Committee be increased to 8 Senators. (4) That one of the 2 additional members be nominated by the Leader of the Government and the other be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. The reason why I, on behalf of the Opposition, move that these Bills be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is really based upon the very chequered history that these Bills have had during the life of this Government. When this Government was elected to office in early March this year, the Fraser Government's National Crimes Commission Act had already been passed by the Parliament. It was passed at the end of last year. Although it had not been proclaimed it was on the verge of being so proclaimed. A chairman-designate, Sir Edward Williams, a justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, had been appointed and had already commenced a good deal of work in preparation for the proclamation of that Act. The policy of the present Government, as stated during the election campaign, was to review the structure, functions and powers of the National Crimes Commission. It stated that it supported the concept of a crimes commission with sufficient powers to continue and widen the vital investigative work commenced by the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. So the present Government gave a very firm commitment in its election policy that it would proceed with the establishment of a crimes commission. In fact, it said that the Crimes Commission should have sufficient powers to widen the vital investigative work commenced by the Costigan Royal Commission. Early in April, about a month after the Government was elected to office, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the former Special Minister of State indicated the program of review that was foreshadowed in the Labor Party's policy speech. That involved the preparation of a Green Paper and a seminar of interested groups and experts in the field, followed of course by a review and decision by the Government and a presentation of legislation to this Parliament. However, the history of the matter since then has been one of constant retreat by the Government from the principles and approach of the previous Government and of the National Crimes Commission. The Government has been subjected to considerable pressures, particularly by those who were critical of the National Crimes Commission on civil libertarian grounds. I have never understood why that should be the case because some of the basic civil liberties principles, such as the privilege against self- incrimination, were laid down and preserved in the National Crimes Commission Act. Certainly, other provisions of that Act, such as the non-identification in reports of the Crimes Commission of persons suspected of committing a crime were also preserved. Many of the objections which I heard at the seminar in this chamber at the end of July which discussed the Green Paper seemed to be based upon a complete misunderstanding of or a lack of attention to, I would have thought, the actual provisions of the National Crimes Commission Act. The Government, of course, has also been subjected to a good deal of influence by some of the States in regard to the review of the National Crimes Commission Act . Finally, it is notorious that the Government has been subjected to considerable problems-naturally, I do not know the exact nature of them or the reason for them-in getting Caucus to approve the legislation that is now before us. So, as I said, we now have before us a product of a retreat by the Government over a period of six or seven months, and a considerable watering down of the National Crimes Commission Act. I think the Attorney-General was quite prophetic in an interview he gave on the Sunday program on 16 October this year, when he was asked this question by Richard Farmer about the proposal for a crimes authority: 'Do you expect that you will end up with an authority?' Senator Evans said: 'I think we will end up with something'. That about sums up what we have before us. We have something which resembles a national crime authority or a national crimes commission. I readily concede that it has a lot of very sound provisions. A lot of the powers in it are very adequate, and the protections of civil liberties are very adequate. Nevertheless, we do not have before us a proposal for an effective type of authority which the National Crimes Commission Act of the previous Government provided. We debated this subject at some length in the Senate a few weeks ago and I said then that we definitely needed an authority or a commission-it does not matter what we call it-which could act firmly, effectively and fearlessly. I was referring particularly to the views that Mr Redlich, the Special Prosecutor, expressed in his report to this Parliament. He said: 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. I commend the efforts that have been made by the Attorney-General in this area, but I believe that one of the problems that has occurred is that in an effort to obtain participation by the States, which I concede is a most desirable objective, a tremendously high price has been paid. In the first place we have to decide whether that price is such that the Authority will be hamstrung and not able to operate in an effective manner. Of course, the other matter about which we do not have any guarantee is whether the States are going to participate in this scheme. I asked the Attorney-General a question a week or two ago and he was unable to say whether the States will participate, and if so, which States. Before the Senate passes this legislation we need to know two things: Firstly, whether the Authority can operate in view of the way in which it has been hobbled and hog-tied in this legislation; and secondly, whether there will be virtually full participation and co-operation by the States in the whole scheme. We could end up with the worst of all worlds, without proper participation of the States and with the creation of an ineffective authority. Although I think it is important that a crimes commission should be on foot, and as soon as possible, it is no good setting up a body which is not going to be effective. That may well prove to be quite counter-productive. As I have said, some aspects of this legislation I think have very serious deficiencies and compare very unfavourably indeed with the proposals for the National Crimes Commission. I believe that the most serious limitation on the effectiveness of this body is that it cannot investigate matters of organised crime, or-what is called in the Bill relevant criminal activity. It cannot investigate those matters or exercise its compulsive powers except in relation to a reference given to it by a new body that is created which did not feature in the National Crimes Commission Act, known as the intergovernmental committee. An intergovernmental committee will be established comprising Ministers from the Federal Government, State governments and also the Northern Territory. This body , by a majority vote, will be able to determine whether the National Crime Authority can conduct an investigation. It is all very well to say-I know what we will hear from the Attorney-General-that the Authority can do other things. It can collect intelligence and co-ordinate police task forces, whatever that really means. It can co-operate with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. There is a very great question mark in relation to the effectiveness of that Bureau. The general feeling seems to be that it has not been effective at all. It can make recommendations about law reform and so on. That body can do a number of things. It can only carry out its most important function-namely, the investigative powers it has in the exercise of its major function-in relation to a reference which is approved by the majority of the members of the intergovernmental committee. It is called an intergovernmental committee in the legislation but these days such bodies are commonly called ministerial councils. I believe the most serious limitation on the role of the Authority is the ambit and extent of investigation of crime at the federal level. Clearly royal commissions have established that. There is no argument about that. We are as one on the need for this Authority. We are as one on the magnitude of the problem. The Authority must be able to act independently, firmly and fearlessly. It will be unable to act in relation to this most important aspect of its functions without the political approval-that is what it boils down to-of Federal and State Ministers. They will make decisions at a political level as to whether the Authority can investigate a matter. Even though this Authority is to be set up by the Federal Government-it will be a creature of this Parliament-the Government will not be able to put powers into the hands of the Authority without the approval of the intergovernmental committee. Of course, a State Minister also may want the Authority to act in relation to organised crime at a State level. That Minister also will be unable to give a reference to the Authority without the approval of the intergovernmental committee. I think we all know perfectly well what occurs when we have intergovernmental committees, ministerial councils or whatever they are called, particularly when they have got executive functions. If they meet to try to co-ordinate activities and so on there is usually a great delay in getting any decisions. If that Committee is to perform the executive functions then opportunities will be provided for political bargaining, vetoing and general horse trading which may well occur. The Authority, as I said, is hobbled by that situation. Another matter of concern is the composition of the Authority. It is to be comprised of a chairman, who is to be appointed by the Governor-General, and two other members. That is all. The two other members are to be nominated, one by the unanimous decision of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, and other by the unanimous decision of the Police Ministers Council. One wonders just who, in the end, will be the product of these unanimous decisions in this area. Choosing the right person may be very difficult to achieve. I do not know; it may work out all right, but I think that it will be a great difficulty. I readily agree that if the Authority is to be a body in which the States participate, the States ought to have significant representation on it. But I do not think that they should end up with two out of the three members. Senator Tate —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I raise this point seriously. How are we to distinguish in the debate on this motion between second reading debate speeches, which would be appropriate to putting the case for or against the fundamental clauses of the Bill, and those matters which are relevant to the motion? Is it not sufficient to say that the members of the Liberal Party and the National Party are opposed to the Government's Bill in this regard and want to send it to a committee, and that we should get on with the actual debate as to the urgency or otherwise of getting the Bill passed by the Parliament? That is really the choice facing the chamber. A long catalogue of matters which are really relevant to a second reading debate on the Bill seems to me to be irrelevant. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Durack is advancing arguments as to why this matter should be referred to a Senate standing committee rather than being dealt with by the chamber, and he is in order in what he is saying. Senator DURACK —Mr Deputy President, I am not engaged in a long catalogue. I have spent most of my time on general questions relating to the motion. I am just giving some examples of problems that I see in the legislation. Another major problem that I see in this legislation-in order not to disturb Senator Tate too unduly, I shall not take long on this subject-is in the very restricted definition of what is called relevant criminal activity and various exclusions from what may be very obvious lines of inquiry in relation to organised crime and official corruption, particularly the fact that the relevant offences must carry a term of imprisonment of not less than three years. Furthermore-and this is a very surprising point-the offence must not arise out of a genuine dispute as to matters pertaining to the relations of employers and employees. When there are restrictions of that character on what a body of this kind can do in attempting to investigate areas in which there is so much wealth on the part of the suspect and so much ability to obtain expert advice and carry on all the legal manoeuvres under the sun, this is a gold-mine for the objections that people would have to the Authority investigating them or anything at all. We know what has happened. We have the experience of the various objections that have been taken where royal commissions' powers have been challenged, and so on. People may or may not be justified in the challenges that they make; I am not making any comment about that. But with provisions of this kind, we will be giving those who want to prevent the Authority from exercising its powers, those who want to stymie its activities, the most golden opportunity to do so. Those are some of the considerations that we should have firmly in mind. Certainly they would be objections which would be raised to this legislation passing in its present form if we were engaged in the dabate of the measure itself or in its Committee stage. I simply give those as examples of matters that need very close attention. Preferably, they need the close attention of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. We need to have expert advice in relation to these matters. There are plenty of experts in this field. At the crimes seminar held in Canberra a number of royal commissioners expressed their views. Of course, very few honourable senators were at that meeting. I believe it is appropriate that a measure of this kind should be examined by a committee which would inform the Senate as a whole of whether a number of these provisions would unduly restrict the operations of a crimes authority or whether there may be some ways in which such problems could be overcome, or whether some other amendments may be indicated. We ought to take the utmost care in our approach to this legislation. It is not simply any old legislation that we are being asked to pass. It is not a matter of what the Attorney-General said in his second most famous throw-away line: 'I think we will end up with something'. That really is not good enough. It is the duty of the Senate to look at this legislation carefully with the help of expert advice and comment. There should be a report on the matter by a Senate committee before we embark upon the second reading consideration of the measures. The other important thing for the Senate to ascertain is the views of the States and whether they will participate in an authority. That is very clearly a consideration. The Government may well make a number of concessions which it would prefer not to make for the sake of having State participation. I can understand that very well. But I do not think we are in a position at this stage to know whether the price that is being paid is too high, whether further negotiations may be able to get changes in that attitude, or indeed whether we will get the benefit of State participation at all. This legislation was introduced only last Thursday. It was listed for debate yesterday, less than a week after it was introduced. It is major legislation which deserves much closer attention and much lengthier consideration than the time frame that the Government has laid down, or which it proposes to lay down, would permit. The Government wants the matter debated today, if it is not referred to a committee. I do not believe that that is adequate time for consideration of measures such as these, bearing in mind the length of time the Government has spent in coming forward with the legislation. As I said, the Government embarked upon consideration of it soon after it came into office. It has been engaged in long behind the scenes negotiations, the details of which are not known to us. I do not say that those details ought to have been revealed , but the Government has had long behind the scenes negotiations with the States and deliberations in Caucus meetings. I think it is quite churlish to suggest that the Parliament should, without proper time for consideration, rubber stamp the product of these negotiations simply because the Attorney-General has been held up for some time as a result of them. I believe that this legislation should not be rushed. We are making now a major decision in response to a very major matter. The proper way of approaching it in the best tradition of this Senate is to refer the legislation to a committee at this stage. I instance the way in which the Freedom of Information Bill was dealt with. It was introduced and referred to a committee. Of course, that committee did a very good job. Both Senator Tate and Senator Evans were members of it. That tradition was very sound. Not only that Bill but many other Bills were referred to a Senate committee. In the era of the Whitlam Government the National Compensation Bill was also referred to a Senate committee. I do not think in this case that the Senate Committee would need a great deal of time to consider these matters. One pity of references to Senate committees has been that they have taken too long to consider the legislation. In this case a date has been given, 30 April next year, which should be ample time for consideration. I hope that the Committee can do the job in a much shorter time. If it did so, it could report before that date. Even following that timetable, the legislation could be resolved before the end of the autumn session next year. There would be very little delay in establishing the Authority because it is not anticipated that it would be established until April of next year in any event. Despite earlier assurances that it would be up and in business by 1 January next year, that timetable has been put back, I understand, to April. Thus, consideration of the legislation by the Committee should not delay establishment of the Authority. The terms of my motion ask that the Committee confine itself to the actual terms of the Bill and the policy related to it. It is not to embark upon any sort of witch hunt or McCarthyism or to give any opportunities to people to misuse the Committee. That is very firmly provided for in clause 2 of the terms of reference. Senator Gareth Evans —It wasn't in your first draft. Senator DURACK —I readily agree that the suggestion was made to me, but to have asked the Committee simply to look at the effectiveness of the Bill would have confined it in that way. But to make doubly sure, clause 2 has been included. For all these reasons, I hope that the Senate will give support to the motion that the legislation be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.58) —It will come as no surprise that the Government rejects this motion of Senator Durack, because we want to proceed without delay to the establishment of a National Crime Authority . What does come as a surprise, and should come as a surprise to all honourable senators, is that this motion should come forward from Senator Durack. Only a month ago, on 18 October, Senator Durack rose in this place to lead debate on a matter of urgency. He moved: 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. He did not ask that legislation be introduced without delay but that a National Crime Authority be established without delay. He reviewed the length of time it had taken and the degree of debate that had already been had on this issue and said that the time had come for action. He said that there may be legitimate grounds for disagreement about the precise form in which the authority might be created, but that was no excuse to prolong the debate, to prolong that disagreement, that what was needed was Government action. On page 1646 of the Senate Hansard, he is recorded as having said: 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- I interpolate that he did not say merely that legislation should be introduced- which can take this problem by the throat and deal with it firmly, effectively and fearlessly. What was just a month ago unconscionable delay is now legitimate further time for discussion, debate, argument, reconsideration and listening to the further views of experts on this. What would have been in the previous incarnation of Senator Durack as a Minister in this place a sensitive accommodation to the constitutional principles of federalism, now becomes a matter of capitulating to the States; bending over backwards to accommodate the obstreperous views of the States who do want to have a share in the administration of this national Authority-and properly so because, as we all know, organised crime in this country cannot be tackled without the effective co-operation of every unit in the Federation. Some people might describe this adjustment of perspective as a matter of situation ethics, I think that is the appropriate theological term for it. I would describe it as deserving no higher appellation than humbug and hypocrisy. There is no excuse whatsoever for the change of attitude that has been demonstrated here other than a willingness at all costs, irresponsibly, to score political points and to obstruct for its own sake. Senator Durack himself acknowledged in his speech on 18 October that there had been extensive, prolonged debate on this issue. In fact he could hardly do otherwise; there was extensive debate in this place on all the basic principles that we are now talking about in the context of his own Government's National Crimes Commission Bill. That debate carried over immediately the new Labor Government was formed when I set about trying, very actively and I think fairly visibly, to overcome the deficiencies that were perceived in the Fraser-Durack model-comparatively minor deficiencies but deficiencies nonetheless-and to get a workable system into operation. When it became apparent that that could not be done without taking the debate back into the public domain, a Green Paper was produced in June this year. That Green Paper was then made the subject of a two- day conference in this chamber at the end of July, attended by every major interest group and every major person who has had a role in this area, on a professional or other basis, over the last decade or more. It was a good debate, a constructive debate, and it produced some constructive suggestions for solutions. Those suggestions were followed up in the weeks and months that followed and very extensive rounds of negotiations, discussions and consultations with the States were held and an agreed position was reached. Certainly it was an agreement subject to the terms of the final legislation passed by this Parliament but we cannot ask any of the States to commit themselves overtly and publicly to something which has not yet achieved its final statutory form. But I assure Senator Durack and the Senate that there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind, as a result of the continuing discussions I have had with all the States, that there will be participation, that there will be co-operation, in one way or another, and that for the most part there will be full and total formal co- operation from the States in this particular model. It is humbug, as I say, to suggest that anything more is to be gained by prolonging this debate. Certainly there may be something to be gained by prolonging the Committee stage debate. Certainly the view may be taken by some honourable senators that there ought to be formalised mechanisms, for example, for parliamentary consideration of the role and activities of the Authority and we would certainly be prepared to look sympathetically at that. But to suggest that there is a case for sending the whole thing back to the drawing board, to suggest, as Senator Chipp did yesterday, that there are fatal flaws in this legislation as it presently stands, I think is to misunderstand-whether deliberately or inadvertently I do not know-the nature of the exercise until now and the nature of the particular proposal before us. What we do have before us is a Bill which strikes that very balance, but a balance nonetheless, between the very obvious and visible competing demands in this area. Essentially, there are three of them. The first is the demand for effective law enforcement, effective investigation, to back up the police forces , to fill in the deficiencies that have become so evident in the last decade or more in the way in which traditional policing has been able to respond to organised crime. The second objective that had to be met was the building in of appropriate safeguards for individual liberty in a way that would satisfy the legitimate concerns of all those people in the community who are concerned about the potential for organisations of this kind to acquire a life of their own, and a dangerous life of their own, in terms of the fundamental principles which we all espouse. There had to be, as a third objective, a properly derived, properly worked out, role for the States. I believe that in all those respects we have a model that is workable, that is effective and that is thoroughly defensible in principle. There does not seem to be much dispute now so far as the adequacy of the safeguards of personnel liberty is concerned. There does not seem to be much dispute now from the States' point of view about the way in which their interests are accommodated. I am not suggesting there is universality or unanimity in this respect-that is difficult to achieve-but by and large the aspirations of the States themselves for a formal effective participatory role have been satisfied. The catch-cry now is really reduced to just one area of those targets that I talked about. It is reduced essentially to the effectiveness of this particular body, its capacity to fight organised crime effectively and its capacity to perform the functions that are so obviously lying behind the thoughts of those of us who have been trying over the months to develop an effective body. In that respect I do think it is appropriate for me to try to answer some of the criticisms that have been made. The first point I make is that when one looks at the sharp-end powers, if I can use that expression, vested in the Authority they are in fact almost identical to the sharp-end powers in the Fraser-Durack National Crimes Commission Bill of the end of last year. The power to subponea witnesses to attend in person or to produce documents is there in almost identical terms; to the Durack-Fraser legislation the power to seek a judicial warrant for search and seizure of documents is there in almost identical terms; the power to get access to taxation records in appropriately defined and limited circumstances is there in almost identical terms; and the power to seek a judicial warrant to deny someone a passport to keep them in the country in the course of an investigation is there in almost identical terms. The powers are there. True it is that these powers are accompanied by a different array of safeguards -a much more extensive array of safeguards-as to the way in which the Authority operates in the exercise of those powers. True it is for a start that there are very significant constraints on the kind of publicity which can be associated with an investigation during its course. There are very significant and much more extensive constraints than were evident in the previous Bill on the capacity of the Authority itself to release material or for other people to report it. They are appropriate constraints, given the nature of this body not as a court or tribunal determining guilt or innocence but rather as one which is engaged in preliminary exploratory investigations. True it is there are much more precisely defined limits as to the jurisdiction which can be exercised by the Authority. There is a much more precise definition of relevant criminal activity-a definition, in effect, of organised crime-but not such a precise or narrow definition that it will make in any way impossible or even difficult the effective performance of the Authority's functions in this area. True it is there are additional oversight constraints in terms of the role for the Ombudsman and the concept of judicial audit. All of these things are very significant and substantial changes to the additional Fraser-Durack model but none in any way inhibits or limits the effectiveness of the Authority in going about its investigative business. I think there has been a total failure to appreciate that in most of the public debate and most of the public comment on this. The language that the Press Gallery has adopted, as usual, with its herd mentality, of the Bill being watered down from its original concept utterly fails to appreciate the fact that the Bill in the terms in which it finally appeared represents no watering down in any significant respect of the basic model that was presented originally to the Party not in a Bill but just general principle form. The Bill is effective so far as this particular balance of powers and safeguards is concerned. So then the argument turns from the effectiveness of the Authority to perform its functions to the role that is proposed for the States, and the attack tends to centre on the so-called veto role that it is said will be played by the States in making impossible the effective embarking by the Authority on investigative activity that is likely to be at all meaningful when it comes to dealing with the Mr Bigs and the various other nasties around the country who are engaged unquestionably in very serious sophisticated criminal activity. What has to be appreciated about this-and I do not think it has been appreciated so far; certainly that is true in regard to the public appreciation, and I am not sure whether it has been fully appreciated by honourable senators-is that what is proposed here is no more than a formal recognition of what the case is already. It is already the situation that whatever will the Commonwealth might have to establish in its own right an authority or agency or royal commission, with powers to move in and tear apart official corruption within a State involving breaches of State law only, whatever inclination the Commonwealth might have to move in on areas of illegal gambling, prostitution and things like that, which are again essentially matters wholly of State law, there is no capacity on the Commonwealth, as the Constitution now stands, to embark upon such activitity. There is no capacity in the Commonwealth to vest coercive investigative powers in this respect into a statutory authority of its own creation. There is no power in the Commonwealth to vest powers in a royal commissioner by way of letters patent to investigate breaches of State law unless the State in question also vests powers of that kind in the royal commissioner in question. There is no power in a parliamentary committee established by this Parliament, by either House or jointly, to embark upon investigations, should it be so minded, of possible breaches of State law. It is beyond the constitutional competence of the Commonwealth, however much we might be minded to so embark upon these areas, to do that unless there is a reference of power from the State in question to the Commonwealth authority or body or individual in question. Unless the States co-operate, as the law now stands it is absolutely impossible for coercive investigative powers to be exercised in any respect so far as breaches of State law are concerned. So however much people huff and puff about the limitations imposed on the necessary co-operation of the States so far as any reference to the authority in a matter involving a potential or actual breach of a State law, it has to be appreciated that that is the situation now. Unless the States vest that authority in the authority or commission in question , it is impossible for those sorts of inquiries to be embarked upon. The way the Authority will work is this: It is the case that the Authority, without limitation, without constraints of the kind I have just mentioned, can gather information and intelligence about anything it likes provided it does not seek to use coercive powers in the process. It is using the normal processes of co-operation, information exchange with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence or State police forces, or in other ways acquiring information on the ground but not by way of search warrants and subpoenas, it can go for its life. It can cover the whole field. Equally, the Authority can embark upon its function of co-ordinating police investigations, including joint State- Commonwealth or multiple-State investigations, with each of the participating police forces exercising the powers available to them, without the necessity for any reference of a formal kind from the States concerned. That is, again, very much part of its functions. It is only if the Authority wants to go beyond that stage of intelligence or information gathering, it is only if it takes the view that police powers are likely to be ineffective for the matter in question and that it wants to investigate the matter itself, using the inquisitorial and investigative processes available to it, it is only under those circumstances that a reference will be required. That reference has to be initiated, or at least acceded to, by the jurisdiction concerned. If the matter the subject of the investigation involves breach of the laws of a particular State, it has to be the case, true, that that reference is initiated or acceded to by the State or by the jurisdiction in question. I repeat that that is the situation under the law as it now stands. No amount of huffing or puffing will gainsay that short, simple and obvious fact. If the Authority wants a reference in an area and if it is initiated or acceded to by the particular jurisdiction in question, then the only other hurdle that has to be surmounted is agreement by a majority of members of the Inter- Governmental Committee that that reference should proceed. There has been some confusion about that. Some people seem to think that any State has a veto over any reference that it does not like so far as its operation in its own State is concerned. That is not the case. The only situation is that if the reference extends to the investigation of breaches of a particular State's law or, in the case of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth's law, that jurisdiction has to accede to the exercise of the reference in that way. But a reference of general application involving breaches, say of Commonwealth law, can apply nationwide and there is no question of a veto from any individual State. It is possible for the Inter-Governmental Committee as a whole to band together and deny the Authority some reference it is seeking, even though the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in question are keen for that reference to proceed. But as a practical political matter we all know that any such attempt at denial of the exercise of such powers in that way would be destined to absolute disaster. It simply could not be justified politically if the proposed reference had any semblance of credibility about it, as I assume it would. The other point I make in this respect is that when one talks about organised crime, the overwhelming majority of the criminal offences that are involved really do, so far as the really key operator, the Mr Bigs, are concerned, involve Commonwealth offences. They involve the importation of drugs, which is a Commonwealth offence. They involve tax fraud and tax evasion in a number of different ways, which are Commonwealth offences. They involve corporate frauds of various kinds, very often but not always involving Commonwealth offences. They involve, usually, off-shore monetary transactions which involve breaches of Commonwealth offences. All the major sorts of things that have been the subject of revelation by the Stewart, Woodward and Costigan commissions have been essentially focused around Commonwealth offences. It is perfectly clear that the Commonwealth itself can initiate references accordingly on all the key areas of organised crime based solely on its own capacity to initiate references for possible breaches of Commonwealth law. So even in the event that a particular State, or one or more States, does not want to co-operate in an investigation so far as that part of it is concerned which may involve breaches of the State law, those references and investigations can still proceed. So far as this Government is concerned, I assure the Senate that the investigations will proceed because we are totally and unequivocally committed to rooting out organised crime in this country to the extent that we possibly can. There are problems with further delay in this respect. There are two parts to the argument. The first part is that we are unlikely to do much better than the model we have presently reached. The second part of the argument is that there are difficulties with further delay in this matter. Let it be appreciated that it is not a matter of delay in this respect merely for one or two months. There is and will be a very substantial transition period involved, once the legislation is in place, before the new Authority can be effectively on foot, and before the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union can be asked properly to terminate its formal existence. At the moment we have assessed that transition period as taking necessarily something like four to five months from the enactment of this legislation, which we hope will occur sometime later this month or early December. Accordingly, we have indicated to Mr Costigan the current timetable we would be working on; that is, the enactment of this legislation either late this month or early December, the formal creation of the new Authority on 1 March next year, and a transition period extending both before and after that formal creation for a couple of months either side, running to a proposed termination date of around 30 April. It may well be that that has to be further extended because of the enormous logistic difficulties associated with gearing up the new organisation and putting existing inquiries on the new footing that they have to be put on in order to satisfy the terms of this new legislation. To delay any possible passage of legislation, as is proposed, until the end of May or early June-that is, the end of the autumn session next year-will result in a slippage in this timetable where the new Authority will not be able to put on foot. We cannot ask people to gear up for something which has no legislative existence or authority behind it. The new Authority will not be able to be put on foot until well into the latter part of next year, and probably not until the end of next year, applying the sorts of rules of thumb I have just indicated. We are buying, by this particular exercise, not just a month or two's delay but a very substantial delay in the effective establishment of the proposed new authority. I do not believe that delay can be justified given the enormous processes of consultation that have produced the particular model that is now before us and given also the difficulties and, let us acknowledge it, the dangers associated with continuing on a de facto crime commission basis through the Costigan Commission. I made clear my complete confidence and the complete confidence of the Government in the way that Mr Costigan is handling that Commission. However, I have also made clear on dozens of occasions publicly over the last year that I do not believe, the Government does not believe, I know the Australian Democrats do not believe, and I know that many people in the Liberal and National parties do not believe, that a full scale royal commission-type body is the appropriate way to deal with organised crime. The second reading speech spells out the arguments. Royal commissions are devoted traditionally to identifying the truth of particular matters, throwing the spotlight of publicity on them and bringing them into the public domain. Royal commissions are not traditionally geared up for on-going investigations on a broad front designed essentially to generate the kind of admissible avidence which will result in prosecutions which will get people who deserve to be behind bars behind bars. There is a basic difference in function; there is a basic difference in approach. Royal commissions are geared by their very existence to the concept of publicity. There are very few constraints on commissioners and the way in which they conduct their proceedings. There are very few constraints on the way in which those proceedings may in fact be reported and the way they traditionally have been reported. In the process, an awful lot of people have had their reputations sullied and destroyed through no fault of the commissioners conducting the investigations but through the inherent defects built into the royal commission procedure. In addition, there are all the points that can be made about the removal of the traditional privilege against self- incrimination as part and parcel of royal commission procedures and so on. There is the further point to be made-the obvious point-that the powers and terms of reference in relation to the royal commission presently in existence under Mr Costigan are enormously wide and enormously vague and are not such as to necessarily be appropriate for the kind of crime authority exercise that we have all been talking about for so many months now. So without implying any criticism at all-I would not want it to be seen that way-of what has been happening with the Costigan Commission, I make the point that it is simply inappropriate and potentially dangerous from the point of view of traditional civil liberty concerns shared by most people in this place for the Royal Commission to continue on the more or less open ended basis that we would be confronted with were this motion to succeed, were the National Crime Authority not to have a chance of establishment until around the middle of next year and were it not to be in a position of really taking over the field until towards the end of next year. Finally, it may be that it is appropriate that there should be, in the view of honourable senators in this place, a more leisurely examination by honourable senators and by members in the other place of this whole concept as it has evolved-its strengths, its weaknesses and possible areas for improvement. I do not resist that. The Government does not resist that. We would be perfectly willing for a reference to be made now to either an existing Senate committee or perhaps a specially created committee for the purpose of reviewing in as much detail or with as much vigour as the committee wanted to, the developments so far, what we have got and what might be done by way of improvement. I express my personal view that I do not think it is possible to accommodate all the competing interests in any other way than the present legislation does. Maybe that is because I have been so close to it for so long. Maybe I have been too close to it. Maybe there are other perspectives that can be put upon it. Do not let anyone take the view that this is in any way the product of hasty, overzealous or over-enthusiastic rushing in to legislate. The very points to the contrary were made strongly and effectively with a great deal of enthusiasm from the Opposition back benches in the debate in this place on 18 October. What we want is a body in existence which will get on with the job that we all know has to be done, a job that we all know must be done. What we want is a body that can secure the co-operation of the States and not be at war with the States which was the situation with the Fraser-Durack model that was created last year. What we want is a body that retains its effectiveness to subpoena witnessess, to issue search warrants, to have all those sharp-end powers that were there, and properly so, in the Fraser-Durack model last year, but which is at the same time sensitive to competing civil liberty interests and, in particular, sensitive to the requirement that those investigations not be conducted in the blaze of publicity unless and until such time as the hard admissable evidence is there to justify a charge to be heard and determined in the courts of this land. We want something that will achieve those objectives. I believe that we have been through an enormous process of public consultation and discussion which has identified the issues and produced solutions which are workable. If it is thought that those solutions can be improved upon in the light of experience and in the light of further discussion over the next few months, by all means get on with that process. But I implore honourable senators not to use that as an excuse to stop further the development of an authority which is so long overdue and which is so desperately needed in this country if we are to tackle the cancer of organised crime. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.26) —There are compelling and overwhelming reasons why the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 should be referred to a Senate committee. I intend in the course of my contribution to raise a series of questions which demand investigation. Let me say at the outset that there is an urgency for the establishment of a National Crime Authority. There is an urgency for one that works properly, not for one that can demonstrably do the reverse. Fundamentally, a number of questions have to be answered in any kind of inquiry. How is it that the goals as espoused in the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) are diametrically opposed to the mechanism of this Bill? The second reading speech envisages a probing investigating body. The mechanism, as specified in the legislation is one that emasculates, obstructs and even puts investigation into retreat. The test of this whole situation is a very simple one: Under this mechanism it would not have been possible for the Commonwealth to set up an inquiry similar to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The fact is that under this mechanism the Commonwealth would have needed the approval of the Victorian Government if it had wanted to inquire into the activities of the ship painters and dockers. This is a fundamental situation. We should bear this point in mind because virtually the great upsurge of demand for a national crimes commission comes heavily from the Costigan exposure of 35 bloody murders in regard to the ship painters and dockers, bottom of the harbour schemes and organised crime. I remind the Senate that the Victorian Police Force said that there was no need for such an inquiry into the ship painters and dockers even though only three of the offenders involved in some of the 35 murders have been brought to book. The Victorian Government said that it had been advised in this way. Therefore, under this mechanism there would have been a denial of such an inquiry. I remind honourable senators that only weeks ago the New South Wales Police Commissioner advised the New South Wales Government that there was no need for an inquiry in regard to the tapes concerning the former Minister Mr Jackson. Therefore, the mechanism by its very design will stop inquiry and will, in fact, encourage, because of an inability to inquire, the very things we are trying to probe. Let me test the situation. Are we happy to have a mechanism in respect of which we could not establish inquiries such as the Costigan Royal Commission? The answer to that quite clearly must be no. Let me take these matters one by one. The Bill defines relevant offences. Are we happy to have a situation under this heading in which three things occur? First of all, a series of offences is specified and delimited so that there will be eternal court and legal arguments as to whether a particular offence can be included because it is not so specified. For example, I looked to see whether arson was so specified. Arson constitutes part of organised crime. I did not see it mentioned at all. Why do we do this? Are we happy, for example, to have a Bill which states that one cannot have an investigation at all unless the offence 'involves more than one offender and substantial planning and organization'? Are we saying that we have to prove a network exists in the first place and to prove that more than one offender exists even though we strongly suspect that there is a network and that there is substantial planning? But clause 4 (b) states that 'relevant offence' means an offence: that involves more than one offender and substantial planning and organization; What kind of a situation of hog tying is this? Those who know how the Federal Bureau of Investigation in America ultimately tracks down the big offenders of organised crime know that it starts through using patient investigation of petty crime in a whole pattern-prostitution, tax offences, pornography and a whole range of other things. Ultimately it establishes the pattern. But are we happy with this situation? I ask whether this Senate would be willing to pass a Bill which states: ''relevant offence'' means an offence- . . . . the maximum punishment for which is imprisonment for a period of not less than 3 years; In other words, are we willing to say that the Authority will not pursue in the course of its investigation such offences as prostitution, gambling, currency violations, and tax offences-mostly cases which do not attract the maximum penalty of not less than three years. If one wanted to design a Bill that put the final obstruction in the way of a search, one would put that clause in. After all, the most infamous of organised criminals, Al Capone, was caught when pursued for tax offences as such. The FBI was not looking for something which would be classed as a maximum offence which would involve imprisonment for three years. It looked at his tax affairs to get a lead-in. Yet here we are facing up to this Bill which has more defects than Senator Ryan's Sex Discrimination Bill which virtually has had to be completely rewritten. So I pose this question: Are we happy about those three situations? Are we happy to say that under the constitution of this Authority the Commonwealth Government passes to the States its right of separate investigation of an offence which is wholly under Commonwealth law? I have never heard of such willing abdication in my life. In fact, what the Bill is saying is this: If the Commonwealth under clause 11 (1) wants to get a reference to this National Crime Authority in regard to a matter which is wholly under Commonwealth law, the only way it can do it is to get the permission of a majority of the Inter- Governmental Committee. In other words, if a majority of the States say no, the Commonwealth has hog-tied itself in that it will not be able to investigate a matter which is within its total sovereignty. The Commonwealth does not have just some minor obligations; it has absolute responsibility under Commonwealth law to discharge its rights and its responsibilities. I ask whether we are happy to pass a clause which states: The Minister may, with the approval of the Inter-Governmental Committee, by notice in writing to the Authority, refer a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity to the Authority for investigation insofar as the relevant offence is, or the relevant offences are or include, an offence or offences against a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory. In other words, the Minister may do so. But he can get that reference only if the States say: 'Yes, we are willing for you to set up an investigation into a matter which is wholly your responsibility and in which you have passed the responsibility of the Commonwealth to the States'. Incidentally, I notice that in proposing the setting up of the Inter- Governmental Committee no one has thought of the Australian Capital Territory. It has been ignored in the consultation in regard to setting up the Inter- Governmental Committee. Is it really intended that we should agree that we have a National Crime Authority which has a veto power like that of the Security Council in the United Nations? This veto power states that the only way in which issues can be brought up in the first place is: If it is a Commonwealth matter, it has to be raised by the Commonwealth; if it is a State matter, it has to be raised by the State concerned. If the State concerned says 'No, we do not want an investigation', it cannot happen. If a majority of States veto an investigation it cannot happen. If one wanted to stop or emasculate an instrument of investigation one would do that. I wonder how those who have been talking about the Costigan Royal Commission and extolling Mr Costigan's pursuit of crime would face up to this statement he made the other day: Organised crime thrives on corruption: Any proper investigation of its activities will inevitably find evidence of corruption. If a State Government or the Federal Government has the right to forbid a particular line of investigation then the independence and integrity of the commission is destroyed . What Mr Costigan said is that if there is a veto power the independence and integrity of the commission is destroyed. That could not have been more carefully done in this legislation. So I pose these questions in regard to the Inter-Governmental Committee: Is it good that there is no consultation with the Australian Capital Territory? Is it good that the Commonwealth should abdicate its own responsibility and powers? Is it good that there should be a veto? All of this is justified by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on the basis that this is the price that we have to pay for co-operation from the States. Honourable senators should not forget this: The price for co-operation with the States is that we pass our own power of investigation over to their hands. Can there be any national government on earth which is willing to say 'In regard to my national responsibilities in the case of drugs, currency, trade and passports and such major matters I will not act unilaterally in these investigations; I will ask the States: ''Please, may I set up an inquiry on these things?'' '? If a government were to do so it would be sending a clear warning-whatever the integrity of those concerned, everybody knows that leaks occur-to the offenders of what it intended to do. It will have disclosed its hand. This must happen in that situation. Is that what we want? I was very puzzled indeed by the proposed constitution of this Authority. I was puzzled as to why one of its members should be appointed by a unanimous vote of the Ministers of the States who are responsible for police matters. In other words, what is the vested interest of the police forces of the States and the Commonwealth that they have to have a ministerial representative as such on this body, because that would be the de facto situation? This is a nonsense situation altogether. Why would one entrench vested interests in a body that, in fact, needs to be absolutely objective, needs to be free of any suggestion that there is any entrenched interest in it? I cast no reflection on the average, decent policeman, but surely the main reason for the establishment of such an authority is that the ordinary law enforcement bodies-that is, the police forces of Australia-have been proven incapable, for whatever reasons, of pursuing organised criminals. Surely one would not want to suggest to the public that one is putting on this body what might well come to be a representative appointed by the police Ministers who would, of course, be consulting the Federal and State police forces in coming to those kinds of decisions. I cannot conceive anything that is more subjective or more Narcissus-like in its viewpoint than that situation. Is that what we will do in setting up such an authority? I believe that the Minister accepts the principles that he expounds in his second reading speech, as I do; that is, the pursuit of organised crime and, indeed, the need to watch civil liberties. However, I believe his unhappy situation is that he cannot act on what he knows to be right because he is enslaved by Caucus on this issue, as he is on so many issues. He can shake his head, but the facts are there. He has been compromised out of principles. Let me examine the situation. The second reading speech states that Australians are aware of the threat that organised crime represents to the economy. Perhaps that should refer to the threat organised crime represents to the community. Every one of us agrees with that. He then puts the balancing point-I do not disagree with it-that we must not endanger the rights and the liberties of individuals. That has never been thoroughly explored by the Australian Labor Party or by the Attorney-General. The endangering of the rights and liberties of individuals comes from organised crime. In fact, the great danger is that one will so protect the defendants and the suspects that the real liberties and freedoms of the citizens are destroyed. Those who know the great principles of liberty that have been expounded over the nineteenth century and beyond know that some restriction has to be placed on the rights of minorities to ensure the full freedom of the majority. Those who know that understand that this is a two- way principle. I plead with the Government to recognise that not only do we have to protect individuals; we have to protect both sides. If, in the end, what we do is protect the criminal and therefore allow the freedoms and liberties of the ordinary community to be restricted and prejudiced, we have done a fundamentally wrong thing. Quite often we pursue a restriction on the freedoms of a minority in order to widen or guarantee the freedoms of the majority. Right through this there is a clear conflict of understanding of the real principles that have gone down in the last century or two-that is, the principles of liberty and freedom of the individual. I, for one, believe that if what all the royal commissions have said on organised crime is true-I accept that it is-such damnable restrictions and damage have been done to the freedoms and liberties of the ordinary citizens of Australia today that I would not shed a tear if some restrictions were imposed on those who cause or who are suspected to have caused such restrictions and damage, even though I believe to my back teeth in the principles of British justice. But one has to be careful of the fact that the organised criminal, who is of course amoral and knows that we as a community must obey the orthodoxy of democracy and the rule of law, says: 'I know the vulnerability, I know the soft underbelly of democracy. I don't have to conform, they do and they will bend over backwards to preserve liberty'. So the organised criminal exploits it. The second reading speech states that we need to avoid the fragmentation of effort and ensure co-ordination and continuity in the fight. That is very good stuff indeed. Let me give an example. The National Crime Authority, in the words of the Minister, is designed to effectively co-ordinate and lead, on a national basis, the attack against organised crime. My goodness, how can we lead if, first of all, we have abdicated our basic national powers and responsibilities? We cannot and will not act unilaterally on things that are our responsibility to act on. We will ask the States: 'Please, may we do so'. The nonsense of the difference between the wording, the motherhood phrases, of the second reading speech and the emasculation and obstruction of the Bill make it clear that there should be a great deal of investigation on this matter. We have the fine phrases : 'checks, balances and limitations on the powers that prejudice the rights and liberties of individuals will be avoided'. Will they? Will this Bill put checks and balances on the rights and liberties of the ordinary citizen? If this Bill, however inadvertently, restricts our ability to get to the soft underbelly of the criminal it damages the freedoms and liberties of the ordinary individual. This is the dilemma which America is faced with in the fifth amendment and the right to carry arms. But in Australia in royal commissions we have accepted the principle that a person can be compelled to give evidence against himself. Self-incrimination is accepted in royal commissions, but of course, it is not allowed to be used in any action that follows. This Bill removes that right in the investigation. It removes the basis of hearsay. If that is the case, it gives the Authority fewer powers than we have ever had before, certainly fewer powers than a royal commission has had and fewer powers than police forces have had in the past. Costigan said: 'By following a series of financial leads in a determined exploratory fashion, widespread and serious conspiracies can be uncovered'. Yet, as I have shown, this Bill, step by step, does not allow those small trails that lead to prostitution, gambling and crimes relating to currency and taxes to be followed because they do not attract a penalty of a maximum of three years gaol. In other words, it limits and restricts throughout. Let me pull these questions together. The first question I posed was: Do we want a national crime authority that would not have allowed a Costigan-type inquiry into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to be set up? That must get the answer no. Yet, on this test, because the Government of Victoria, four years ago, received from the Victorian police the answer that there was no need for an inquiry, obviously such an inquiry would not have happened. Do we want the relevant offences restricted, as I said? Why would we want to restrict the offences to more than one offender, to demonstrate that crime must be organised? Why should we limit the investigation? Why in the name of heaven do we ask police Ministers to decide who shall be members of the Authority? Surely, members of the Authority should not represent police Ministers; they should not represent Attorneys-General. Members of the Authority should represent the ordinary people of Australia. They should have no responsibility to go back to their subjective interests and to justify what is happening to them. I cannot believe that one would want this situation. But the whole of this Bill ignores the recommendations of the Woodward, Moffitt and Williams royal commissions. It will make the work of the Special Prosecutor a great deal harder. Equally, there is the question of the nature of the evidence and how it is heard. Much of the Bill gives the Authority the privilege of hearing evidence in private. Indeed, the discussion of a person's private life can be heard in private. However much one wants to protect the ordinary individual, the fact of the matter is that the media plays a vital role in any democracy in the exposure of corruption and in the beckoning of people to come forward to give more and more evidence. Would the investigations in New South Wales in the past have gone on without the probing of the media, without exposure of the allegations to the public and the responses of people so that the available evidence was locked into place? I conclude by saying that I throw aside the Attorney's one attempt to say that two or three weeks ago the Opposition introduced a motion urging as a matter of urgency that a national crimes commission be established. He now says that we are urging a delay. We urged the establishment of a national crime authority that would work; that would carry out the responsibilities of the Commonwealth; that would be an effective institution. We asked him to create and bring forward urgently an effective mechanism. He brought forward, as he does so often, a Heath Robinson contraption. We asked him to bring forward an authority that would probe. He has brought forward something that will obstruct and emasculate and that will, however inadvertently , protect the miscreants in our society. So let him not talk in that way. He has taken eight months to introduce his Bill in this House. A delay of a few more months in order to get an authority with a decent mechanism would be fully justified. I believe that organised crime in this country has reached unbelievable proportions. Every day, it seems, in New South Wales more and more horrendous evidence comes forth that suggests that deep in our society there is a minority- not a majority, but an organised minority-that holds the rule of law in contempt , that is cocking its snoot at police forces, because the police forces are ill equipped to handle them. We need, above all, an authority that will not find itself caught in the web of competition and petty jealousies of the States, or particularly of the State police forces; not one that can veto cases because of some jealousy or competition but one that will get on with its job. Quite clearly and demonstrably-and many more questions could be posed-this Bill does not fulfil those requirements. Therefore, I commend strongly to the Senate that the Bill be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs under the terms of reference that have been laid out. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(11.55) —I say immediately that Senator Durack let the cat out of the bag in the concluding stage of his speech when he referred by way of analogy to the Senate's treatment of the freedom of information legislation. What we have here, really, is sweet revenge. There is an air of retributive vengeance on the other side of this chamber. Having experienced when in government a hindrance or a delay to the passage of legislation which was thought to be important to the Government's political credibility-that is, fulfilling the promise on freedom of information-the former Attorney-General and his colleagues on the other side of the chamber are now only too pleased to frustrate and impede the passage of legislation by the device of sending it to a Senate committee. It is a device, as I will explain later on. But there is really no analogy, because freedom of information dealt with the relationship of citizens to the bureaucracy, which is important. In this instance, we are delaying this legislation, despite the urgency and the demonstrated and acknowledged necessity on both sides of the chamber of the need to create an organisation which can effectively investigate the commission in a sophisticated way of certain relevant criminal offences in this country. Even though it is acknowledged on both sides of the chamber that something needs to be done urgently, an impediment to and a frustration of that project has been put forward. Really, it boils down to an embarrassment of the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans). That is what the bulk of honourable senators opposite are trying to do by moving the motion which is before the chamber today. To speak of the Attorney's continuous retreats in the contemptuous way which has flowed from honourable senators opposite is to completely and wrongly characterise what has been a process of consultation with the general community and with the States. After all, this is a federation, as we are constantly reminded from the other side of the chamber, with jurisdictional boundaries and areas which can be overcome not by a stroke of a legislative pen, but only by constitutional means which are in no way in question. The fact is that we do live within a federation which has required certain consultations which have been arduous, but which have been undertaken by the Attorney and which have resulted in a certain structure of the Bill which does not apparently appeal to the Opposition. The consultation of the Attorney went further and within the party forums was quite extensive and prolonged, as I, as Chairman of the Caucus Legal and Administrative Committee, can attest. But once again, that was to the betterment and refinement of the Bill. There is nothing to say that that betterment, refinement and modification of the Bill could not take place during the Committee stage of the debate in this place. If the Opposition has the numbers to have this motion carried, it will certainly have the numbers to bring any fair-minded proposals to the chamber to modify some clause of the Bill, get the support of enough members of the Senate and have that modification carried. The fact is that this is a delaying tactic to further embarrass the Government in the fulfilment of what was a very clear undertaking of the Government from its very earliest days in office. There is no other way to put it. As I say, there is no way that State jurisdictional boundaries can be overcome. Senator Sir John Carrick, in his description of the type of intergovernmental committee and authority which is to be established and composed in the way it will be, or is proposed to be, did not give due justice to that need to find a national mechanism which will have the support of the investigating, enforcement and prosecuting agencies in the States. He referred to the painters and dockers. But I remind Senator Sir John Carrick that that is a prime example of the formal mechanisms that have been incorporated. The Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union is, of course, a joint royal commission. In order to make it effective and to embrace all the jurisdictional questions involved, a commission had to be given by the Governor-General of Australia, representing the national interests, and by the Governor of the State , representing the State interests. I think that is a sufficient and very relevant answer to the sort of charge that has been laid against the Attorney's and the Government's preferred structure for the necessary mechanism for this Bill. Senator Sir John Carrick I thought got a little carried away. It is a fact that one is concerned with the rights of citizens to live in an environment free of fear, free of corruption, free of distortion of their social life, and indeed free of the threat to actual life and limb which unfortunately is associated with organised crime in Australia. In trying to deal with that phenomenon, I remind Senator Sir John Carrick of the words of Mr Justice Kirby at the National Crimes Commission conference held here in Parliament House, in this very chamber , in late July of this year, when he said: Many people in Australia-perhaps even the majority of the population-are not fully aware of or, when aware, are not really sympathetic to these limitations on the powers of officials. Because they do not themselves contemplate crime they are quite prepared readily to abandon or modify basic principles which govern the relationship between authority and the individual. I think that statement by Mr Justice Kirby is very true, and one of the few in that learned gentleman's address with which I would whole-heartedly agree. I think that explains much of the process of consultation and, indeed, the modification of the Bill which has taken place within the forums of the Australian Labor Party in latter months. The Government has produced its Bill. My plea to the Senate is that this Government is entitled to have its Bill passed into law to enable it to say to the Australian people: 'After going through the processes of consultation with the public, with the relevant State and Federal authorities'-I have explained how that process took place and has effect within the Bill and within the Party-'this is the Labor Government's attempt to deal with the problem of organised crime in Australia by means of a national crimes authority'. We are entitled to our Bill, just as the then Government was entitled to its Bill last year, despite serious misgivings on this side of the chamber. It was given its Bill despite the expression of those misgivings. However, because of the lack of consultation by the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack, with the States, the previous Bill was introduced into this Parliament in the very week that a sham consultation was going on with State authorities in relation to the necessary underpinning of the Bill. The States withdrew their support and the former Government was never able to proclaim its Bill because it was never able to regenerate that support. Nevertheless, the Parliament gave that Government its legislative framework, its legislative mechanism, to establish a national crimes commission, as it was then called, in order to deal with what we all acknowledge is a very real problem. I say to the chamber that this Government, in fulfilment of its mandate, is entitled to its legislative attempt to grapple with this problem and set up a national mechanism to investigate organised crime. I thereby, though, do not want to put to one side the entire intent of the motion before the chamber. Rather than indulge in endless second reading speeches such as those from the other side of the chamber, I will now confine myself to the terms of the notice of motion. As Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, naturally it is a matter of concern to me. My preferred solution to this impasse we seem to have reached would be to plead with the Senate to give the Government the legislation for which it will have to take responsibility in the electorate, but give to the Committee a reference which would embrace the reports of Special Prosecutor Redlich, the interim reports of Commissioner Costigan, perhaps of the Act, the legislative product concerning the National Crimes Authority, give us those references and reports which would provide a much more comprehensive basis for the sort of investigation which this chamber's committees are able traditionally to undertake. In other words, it would take us further than merely a narrow consideration of the clauses of this Bill. Such a reference would enable us to look at all those matters which, to take one instance, Special Prosecutor Redlich says need to be looked at, for example, law reform in relation to the Commonwealth Crimes Act, and the need to create and review the range of offences there provided in relation to supra-State criminal activity. We could also have a look at the question of administration within government departments which, as all commissioners have reported and as the Special Prosecutor has reported, is a cause for concern. There is such jealousy in relation to the turf of one department that it does not make the proper authorities aware of suspected criminal activity which comes within its scrutiny or knowledge. We could have a look at a whole range of matters in relation to statutory authorities such as Telecom Australia. We could call before us private institutions such as the banks and other financial institutions which, as the reports of Costigan and Redlich and so on have demonstrated, have a role to play in the pursuit of organised criminal activity within Australia. We could have a much more comprehensive examination of these problems. I ask those few honourable senators on whom this decision might depend to consider that as an alternative means of approaching the matter. I confine myself now to the actual terms of the motion, which state: That the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 and the National Crime Authority ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report, on or before 30 April 1984, as to whether the Bills fulfil effectively the objective of investigating organized crime and official corruption. Then follows a paragraph which I acknowledge is largely inserted because of fears and misgivings which I made known in the corridors of this place over the last 24 hours or so, namely: That the Committee confine its inquiry and report to the terms of the Bills and associated policy matters, and not receive any evidence, or conduct any investigation, relating to any individual person or body. Acknowledging, perhaps, the good will of those who have juxtaposed paragraphs (1 ) and (2) of the motion, I would say that really there is an intolerable tension between the two. I have maintained in the discussions that have taken place in the last day or so that the reference of the Bill to a Senate standing committee should not be a front or a subterfuge for a Senate select committee on organised crime, with a role assigned to it of investigating and adjudicating upon claims in relation to individual participation in alleged organised crime. I do not think we have the resources or the ability to undertake what would on some accounts become a sort of parliamentary royal commission, with all the dangers that that holds of becoming a McCarthyist parliamentary royal commission, with parliamentarians using the opportunity to grandstand in a way which would attract the sub-editors and the good headlines in the media but would not necessarily allow us to come to a conclusion which would lead to a sensible resolution of the problem of organised crime in Australia. Certainly we would be inundated with evidence which would not be of an admissible character such as would sustain any prosecution. In order to protect against that real misgiving of mine, paragraph (2) of the notice of motion does say that the Committee should not receive any evidence or conduct any investigation relating to any individual person or body. I say two things to that. Firstly, of course, we cannot stop the reception of evidence, in the sense that the sending of evidence to a Senate standing committee is itself a privileged act. There can be no law or hindrance put in the way of the sending of evidence to a Senate committee. Once it is within the Senate committee's possession, then it becomes a question of what the Senate committee does with that evidence. If the Senate committee publishes the evidence, of course qualified privilege will attach to so much of that evidence as is published. Therefore we will have a situation where I can see this Committee receiving a tremendous volume of evidence which, in order to avoid a situation where qualified privilege by way of media report attaches to the publication of that evidence by the Senate Committee, we will have to go into camera time and time again. The Committee will have to try to deal with these matters in a way which is so secret and which will lead to a whole range of questions about the protection of witnesses. I believe that we will get into a situation where it will be questionable whether the public will have confidence in the operations of the Committee which will have to operate in a secret way to ascertain the value of evidence which it will receive. Of course, nothing can be put in the way of the reception of evidence which, as I say, is privileged when sent to the Committee. Quite apart from that, as I said, there is an irreconcilable tension between paragraphs (1) and (2). If the Committee is to deal effectively with the reference which requires it to ascertain the effectiveness of the Bill as a means of investigating organised crime and official corruption then surely the Committee will have to take evidence which will involve certain people. For example, one would want to probably call Mr Peter Bennett of the Customs Officers Association who, in what I think was a very good contribution to the National Crimes Commission Conference, amongst other things, said: . . . silence and lack of action is often forced on concerned public servants including police officers. Often the bureaucracy fails to develop and maintain proper checks and control measures in their systems. When officers identify those shortcomings they are often faced with two options. Either they put a muzzle on it and keep their mouths closed and keep their jobs or they put their public concern above their personal costs and they buck the system. So it goes on. If we go beyond that abstract and general description of a situation which we might all suspect-it gains some credence because it comes from an officer of a union which is involved in the customs area-and test the real credibility of that sort of assertion surely we will have to ask for examples. Surely we will have to ask for a description of persons or situations where this is alleged to have been the case. We will have to investigate and receive evidence concerning individuals or particular sections within a department in order to fulfil our function, our primary responsibility, placed on us by paragraph (1) of the terms of reference contained in the motion. As I say, despite the fact that paragraph (2) tries to allay my worst misgivings I think that the Committee will be faced, in order to fulfil the primary objective outlined in paragraph (1), with the necessity to examine the truth of allegations concerning certain persons, organisations, departments or statutory authorities in order to come to a conclusion as to whether the Bill and the National Crimes Authority to be instituted and set up under it can effectively counter the sorts of practices which are revealed by an examination of the truth , the validity, and the veracity of allegations made concerning certain persons, organisations, departments, statutory authorities or whatever it may be. Senator Chipp —But that matter would be in your hands as Chairman. I would have total confidence in your ability to do that. I mean that. Senator TATE —I appreciate that and I thank Senator Chipp for it. Nevertheless, a tension exists which I believe ought to be recognised by this chamber before it votes on the matter and which it should not be thought is solved simply by the insertion of paragraph (2) in the terms of reference. In case this matter is passed by the Senate-of course, the Senate Committee will accept the reference and discharge it in absolute good faith and as efficiently and expeditiously as possible-for the information of honourable senators, I point out that the Committee has before it at the moment two references and another which is lurking in the background. The Committee is presently undertaking public hearings in relation to the National Service Amendment Bill 1983. It is a private member's Bill which deals with the question of conscientious objection to service in the armed forces. Senator Gareth Evans —Whose Bill is that? Senator TATE —That is a private member's Bill introduced by a senator from this side of the chamber. That series of public hearings is drawing to a conclusion. I believe it will occupy the time of the Committee until Christmas. The Committee also has before it for examination the Joint Opinion dated 23 August 1983 of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General given to the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies concerning a statement made in the South Australian Parliament by the Honourable Peter Duncan MLA. That reference has been given to us. Advertisements were lodged with various national newspapers earlier this week. It is quite clear that that particular reference will have to be put to one side. That other reference is an expectation, after arrangements with the Law Reform Commission, that the Law Reform Commission report on privacy which I believe-- Senator Gareth Evans —It will be tabled quite soon. Senator TATE —That report is to be tabled quite soon. It will form a short reference to the Committee, perhaps occupying the Committee for only a short time. Nevertheless, that is also on the Committee's plate. On the practical side of things, the fact is that Australia goes into a prolonged bout of festivities during the summer between Christmas Eve and Australia Day. We will then be in the middle of a referendum campaign which will commence, I believe, immediately after Australia Day through until 25 February. By the very nature of the composition of the Committee, many of its members will be engaged in the referendum campaign. The Senate will then resume on 28 February. I am saying that it will not be an easy task to discharge our obligation to the Senate and the Parliament in the time set down in the motion. I acknowledge that the date is now 30 April rather than the end of March which was indicated in the draft copy circulated yesterday. I appreciate that extension. I want to put on the record the work load of the Committee. I want to give fair warning that the Committee will require expert assistance in order to discharge, to the satisfaction of the Senate, the reference which it appears may well be given to it. I oppose the reference of this Bill to the Committee. I, of course, say to the Senate that should that reference be given my Committee will do its best to discharge the obligation thereby placed on it. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.17) —I have strong reservations about the effectiveness of this proposed reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and whether it will achieve anything significant in the way of improving the National Crime Authority Bill 1983. That is in no way a reflection on the Committee, its abilities or membership. That fact is that the legislation has already been widely debated in all levels of the community. Negotiations on its final form will be dependent, amongst other things-if it is to be changed from the form in which it is now before us-by agreement with the States. That is a matter which is beyond the powers of anything a committee of this Senate can do. However, after very careful consideration of certain issues which lie behind this matter and which it would not be fair of me to discuss publicly, I will support the reference to the Committee on certain conditions. First, I have had an assurance from the Liberal Party-I take it that the assurance was made on behalf of the Liberal Party-I take it that the assurance was made on behalf of the Liberal members of this Committee-that the motion is designed so that the Committee can genuinely examine the Bill and try to improve it by exposing it to public discussion. I believe that is the proper, it is certainly the declared, intention of the motion as Senator Tate has said. Paragraph (2) of the motion states: (2) That the Committee confine its inquiry and report to the terms of the Bills and associated policy matters, and not receive any evidence, or conduct any investigation, relating to any individual person or body. If this reference succeeds the Committee should not be a muck-raking Star Chamber operating under parliamentary privilege-I use those strong words advisedly-as that would allow all and sundry to smear individuals with impunity, with no reason. I am afraid-Senator Tate's words have not reassured me-that it may well turn out to be that. I am not in the least reassured by Senator Durack' s words on, I think, AM this morning when he said that the inquiry would provide a vehicle for all those in Australia who want to speak out against crime. When Senator Durack speaks at the end of this debate I would like him to explain just what he meant by that. As far as I am concerned I support this motion on the basis of the Liberal Party carrying out the undertakings it has given to me. If it does not do that in future my support for the matters raised by the Liberal Party will be questioned seriously, especially if a similar situation arises again. It is a fact that just a few words uttered before the Chairman can intervene can damage an individual at the hearing. One mischievous question and one brief reply could do the damage. Accordingly, I also give notice that I will not support in any circumstances any extension of the hearings of this Committee after the agreed last date of 30 April. So far as I am concerned, it ought to be able to report by that date if it confines itself to its proper functions. Certainly I will not support a muck-raking expedition which drags on through next year. I want to make that perfectly plain. I shall also watch with care what happens at this inquiry, because I think that we have had enough unfair accusation of people by innuendo already, and to provide further opportunities under privilege is of no value. I hope that Senator Tate, as Chairman of this Committee, if it takes on this reference, will use its powers fully to operate in camera at the least suspicion that such an unfair episode is likely to occur. Senator Tate has made the point that it is almost inevitable that it will occur. The Committee's recourse is to operate in camera. If the Press criticises that because it cannot get out the muck-raking bits that it wants, so be it. It is the responsibility and duty of the Senate to see that individuals are not harmed unfairly. It is a fact that individuals have been harmed unfairly in parliaments time and again. That is one of the reasons, I believe, for the disrepute in which the chambers of the Parliament are being held by many Australians. It is a situation which the community properly should not tolerate. Let us be reasonable and frank about this. There is a political motivation that is likely to be tempting. An election in New South Wales must be held before November of next year. I believe that I would support any justifiable and provable charge against people at all levels, including members of parliament and including members of the New South Wales Parliament, but I do not believe that a Committee of this Parliament ought to be allowed to become the unwitting vehicle of an election campaign of the muck-raking type for any political party. That point must be made abundantly clear. I make one final point. I take issue with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for his mean, peevish and childish utterances appearing in this morning's Press about the Australian Democrats. I quote statements which are attributed to him. The Democrats are 'rather weak minded'; and 'The Democrats who have been wobbling about all day will see a little more reason in this respect'. I am astounded that a man of the intellectual capacity of the Attorney-General should allow himself to make that kind of statement. I for one did my level best yesterday to listen to and understand both sides of this matter. I put in most of my day listening to the Attorney-General and to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in the belief that if one is to try to come to a rational decision, one needs to know the facts. That is not a matter of vacillation or of weakness. I should have thought that that is what we are here for. It will be a grave disappointment to the Australian community to find that the Attorney-General shuns that, that he does not believe in that, and that he believes apparently that what he says is right and that anyone who disagrees with him is automatically wrong and must be attacked, under privilege, in the Press as being weak and wobbly. That may be his own morality. He is welcome to it. But I inform him that the Australian Democrats are here precisely to investigate issues carefully for as long as is necessary before a vote is taken, and then to cast our vote in the best interests of the community, not in the best interests of any other person or organisation who may be behind this blessed thing, which I believe is a very sorry situation on the whole. We have always done that and we always will. It is a pity that the Attorney-General, who is an intelligent and able man in many ways, demeans himself by his cantankerous habits. Taking an optimistic view, which I hope is justified, I hope that this legislation will not be harmed other than by a short delay. With the whole concept of a National Crime Authority I suppose that it is right and proper that the community at large should have the chance of input to it. Then the Senate hopefully can look at the Committee's report, support amendments along lines that the Committee might propose-I stress 'might' because I would expect that there would be a minority report on this matter-and we could have a Crime Authority in place, one with teeth preferably, by June of next year. It is far better that we do that rather than create a paper tiger type of organisation at this stage and then pretend to ourselves that the paper tiger has teeth. That would be very much like the well-known story of the emperor's clothes. I urge the Senate, on the whole, to support this reference for that reason alone. Senator HILL(South Australia)(12.25) —I support Senator Durack's motion that the National Crime Authority Bill be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report. Before I commence the substance of my contribution, I assure Senator Mason that that Committee, of which I am pleased now to be Deputy Chairman, is not in the business of muck- raking. I also assure him that, from my personal point of view, my desire that this Bill be so referred to the Committee does not have a political motivation; rather, it is a motivation that is widely shared in this Senate-unanimously shared, I hope-that the National Crime Authority, or whatever it is to be called , will be effective. That is my motivation, and I am sure that it is the motivation of all on the Opposition side of the chamber. I hope also that we do not reach the stage of minority reports. Certainly in the time that I have been serving on the Committee, I am pleased to say that minority reports have not been necessary. I am sure that the Committee will not be approaching its task with that in mind. I am pleased to see my Chairman, Senator Tate, nodding agreement to that. I know that Senator Tate does not want to hear history in this matter. He is concerned that this debate does not become a second reading debate. But in some ways, I think that that is necessary, because as I see the matter, what we have had is a long road, and we are now well down that road. However, there is considerable doubt remaining-it has been expressed in the Press and on this side of the chamber today-as to whether we have reached a stage at which the agreed objective will be achieved. As I have indicated, the agreed objective is an effective National Crime Authority. The Senate will remember that I took an interest in the previous Government's Bill, which I supported in the end, but with considerable reservations. Those reservations were the obvious ones-that it was to be limited to breaches of Commonwealth law and corruption by Commonwealth officials. I must confess that I was surprised to hear the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) indicate-I thought that he was indicating it this morning-that perhaps that will be sufficient in itself to achieve the objectives that we all hold. I do not believe that that was his view in the past, and certainly it does not appear to be consistent with the view that has been expressed by such as Commissioner Costigan and the view as has been detailed this morning by my colleague Senator Sir John Carrick. I had that reservation. I thought that the body would be limited to breaches of Commonwealth law and corruption by Commonwealth officials , and I had reservations as to whether it would achieve the purpose for which I believed it was being set up. I had the benefit of attending the National Crimes Commission Conference set up by the Attorney-General earlier this year as the Deputy Chairman of the Committee to which I hope this Bill will be sent, and I think it is fair to say that the Conference was a most worthwhile exercise. Certainly it showed the considerable disparity of views on the subject, which I suppose should have been obvious when one looked at the breadth of the organisations involved. Considering that on the one hand we had delegates from civil liberties organisations, the Law Council of Australia, special prosecutors and royal commissioners, and on the other hand, the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission and police commissioners, it is not surprising that there was a great disparity of view. Certainly there was no consensus. The Attorney-General, in summing up, felt that he could define a majority view. I think it is fair to say that at that stage and over this considerable period during which we have been looking at this subject, majority views have been evolving. Since that Conference more disturbing reports have come before the Senate, further reports from Commissioner Costigan and reports of the Special Prosecutors Redlich and Gyles, which show, in the historical perspective, that the problem is continuing and in some ways is even worse than some of us may have previously appreciated. That brings me to consideration of the present Government's Bill, which I have read carefully and which, as with that of the previous Government, I would not oppose. But I retain considerable reservations as to whether it will be effective. I have no doubt that those reservations have largely arisen from the compromises which, unfortunately, appear to be necessary in Bills that are produced through the Caucus system of this Government. All of us who support the concept of a crimes commission or a crimes authority want it to be effective. If we do not think that it will be effective we have to look to ways by which we can make it so. I submit to the Senate today that the best way we can achieve that objective, bearing a number of factors in mind, is to send it to a Senate standing committee. There are two evils, two forms of crime that we are seeking to combat: Firstly, organised crime; secondly, corruption of officials and official bodies. I am pleased to see that both are specifically stated as such in this Bill. One reflects that the initial impetus for the commission early last year appeared to come out of apparent official corruption, the corruption of officials in New South Wales. As the year continued, we received the McCabe-Lafranchi report and the Costigan report, and the emphasis switched to organised crime. More recent events, unfortunately, have led us again to look in both directions, towards organised crime and corruption of officials. It is not unreasonable to say that the concerns that are apparent at the moment are quite distressing in that regard. The corruption of officials obviously does not need further definition. The reasons for the failure of law enforcement agencies to deal with the corruption of officials is obvious. What is more complex is organised crime. It is not capable of precise definition, which I think comes through in this Bill, even though the Attorney appears in some way to have attempted to define it. It is usually better described by a description of the activities within its structure , the type of criminal involved, and the organisation it takes. As we know, that has been the way that Commissioner Costigan has approached the matter. Costigan looks, for example, at the method of organised crime. He finds a basis of it in such things as prostitution, narcotics, pornography, loan sharking, gambling, starting price betting, casinos, organised labour, extortion and fraud . I invite the Attorney to reflect on those areas which Costigan sees as the basis for organised crime. If he does so I think he will find that all are subject to State law, yet the Attorney comes to the Senate today and suggests that organised crime may be able to be eradicated purely through a concentration on Commonwealth law. I am most surprised to have heard that from him today. Organised crime obviously has an immensely broad basis. Costigan looks at the type of criminal involved: Those who supply the capital necessary for a criminal enterprise-the financiers; those who provide the sophisticated services- regrettably, members of the professions who are prepared to deviate from professional codes of ethics; the criminal entrepreneurs who put the schemes together; and, finally, what we refer to as, I suppose, the operatives, the criminals who execute the schemes. He looks at the organisation and points out that often it is of an interstate nature. He points to the modern methods of communications and other sophisticated techniques utilised. I think it is now beyond dispute that organised crime exists and is flourishing in Australia. Unfortunately, it is some time since we have heard anybody in the Senate argue to the contrary. It is so flourishing despite orthodox methods of law enforcement. I do not intend to go through all the numerous commissions we have had but, to name a few, there have been the Moffitt, Woodward, Williams, Costigan and Stewart commissions. They have enforced in our minds the degree and depth of organised crime in this country. What is also not in dispute is the enormous cost to the community of organised crime, not only the financial cost but also the social cost, which is really immeasurable. It is clear that we have therefore a responsibility to take all reasonable steps to combat organised crime. As I indicated at the commencement of my remarks, I believe that finally debate on the subject is becoming narrowed. I am pleased to see that is occurring. To date one major aspect has been whether simply an updating of the current enforcement agencies would be sufficient. It has been argued that an updating of equipment and perhaps personnel might combat organised crime. Fortunately, that argument now appears to be something of the past. We must now feel that it is insufficient and that it is insufficient for two reasons. The first is the diffuse nature of law enforcement in Australia. It is divided into six States and a Territory and we have the Australian Federal Police Force. It is not only divided geographically but divided by separate legal codes. It is divided in the form of numerous other law enforcement bodies, such as the Australian Customs Service, the Australian Taxation Office and the Corporate Affairs Division, to mention a few. The diffuse nature of law enforcement clearly facilitates the criminal in avoiding apprehension. That has come through in the numerous reports we have had before the Senate. The second reason why orthodox law enforcement methods have proven unsuccessful is that those methods, the traditional methods, are basically complaint, investigation, arrest, trial and conviction. They may well work for the operatives who are involved, identified and convicted, but as has been clearly shown they do not represent a methodology by which the leaders, the entrepreneurs, the professionals, the bankers, the computer experts-those who are using the sophisticated techniques that Costigan and I have mentioned-can be apprehended and convicted. Senator Crichton-Browne —Why weren't there more prosecutions as a result of the Costigan inquiry? Senator HILL —I will mention that. That is an area of concern. I accept that. We must now accept that apprehension and conviction of the Mr Bigs of organised crime, which is our real aim, requires a new form of investigation. I believe it requires the use of an inquisitorial system and powers to compel answering of questions. In many ways I regret having to say that, but I think we have now got to the stage where we accept the necessity. It needs an interdisciplinary team of experts to analyse the information. It is a lesson that we have learnt from Costigan. It may need the eventual involvement of prosecuting counsel in the development of a case. I still think there are good arguments for that, although I note that it is not the direction being taken by this Government, as it was not the direction taken by the previous Government. The lessons learnt, the benefits, have become apparent from our experiences with royal commissions although, as Senator Crichton-Browne interjected, it is disquieting that special prosecutors are finding the evidence of the Costigan Commission so often inadequate for prosecution. I believe that is a serious matter that requires further analysis. Accepting the need for this new method, the next series of questions relates to implementation-whether the implementation should be by investigations by ad hoc royal commissions or whether a new standing crimes commission with similar powers is the most desirable course. Again, there appears to have been a further narrowing of the debate. Most now reject the concept of royal commissions, because they tend to be ad hoc. What is needed is the ability to build up a continuing expertise. I also acknowledge concerns about the powers of royal commissions in relation to civil liberties. Royal commissions have traditionally been investigations of a different nature and perhaps it is more legitimate that their powers in relation to the compulsory answering of questions be a little wider. Therefore, Mr President, it is generally accepted now that there should be a crimes commission or crimes authority. The debate now is largely on its jurisdiction, powers, authority and questions relating to its answerability and matters of that nature. I think even in that regard certain things can now be agreed to. Firstly, we must be able to look at organised crime from a national viewpoint. We must be able to overcome the geographical difficulties that I mentioned earlier. Secondly, we must have or have access to a computer-based data management system to analyse effectively the mountain of information that is necessary. Thirdly, we must have the full co-operation-I repeat, the full co- operation-of the States because so much criminal law in this country remains under State jurisdiction. Fourthly, we need a form of inquisitional power but we must always be wary of the reasonable protection of basic civil liberties. Somehow or other we must overcome the wall of silence which I think any who have studied our failure really to combat organised crime will appreciate is the most basic factor of that failure. For a while last year I thought we would have a joint standing Commonwealth- States crimes commission which would meet those objections. The idea collapsed, and some would say that that was inevitable. Some argued that it would not work. I remember last year in debate on the previous Government's Bill accepting that the States do not have a good record of co-operation and co-ordination in the areas of organised crime. However there have been, and I accepted them, arguments to the contrary. Those who supported such a commission have been able to point in the last couple of years to considerable improvements. The Australian Police Ministers Council achieved the development of a number of national co-operative initiatives. In the criminal intelligence area it set up the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence to facilitate the collection, collation, analysis and dissemination of criminal intelligence. That body has been going for only a short time. Senator Chipp —That has not been robustly successful, has it? Senator HILL —Well, I do not know whether it has really had a fair opportuninity to be put to the test. I think there are arguments that it could be much better utilised than it has been in the past and also, bearing in mind that combating organised crime requires the building collating and sifting of a mass of information, that is something that simply cannot be achieved overnight. I do wonder whether the condemnation-I regret we heard this morning-of that body at the moment is quite fair. The Police Ministers Council has also been able to point to other joint initiatives such as the National Police Research Unit, the National Institute of Forensic Science and the upgrading and relocation of the Australian Police College. Therefore I think there was some merit in the proposition to institute a joint Commonwealth-State body. But again there were reservations. Those reservations were really as to whether it would work in practice. However, the previous Government went in a different direction and supported a national crimes commission. We passed that legislation but it did not come into being. I have already the reservations I had concerning that body. Certainly it could have achieved some objectives but I had major reservations about it. That leads us to the third alternative which has come before the Senate in such a short period of time; that is, this Government's Bill to set up a National Crime Authority. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 3 November 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a first time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.46) —On the first readings of the Radiocommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill and allied Bills I wish to raise an issue which is prominent in the news today, and has been for the past week. It involves United States installations in Australia. The Australian public has never been given a full list of all the defence, scientific and intelligence installations in Australia. They are described variously, in various documents, as being installations for space research, upper atmospheric studies units and geological and geophysical research centres. The most recent list of United States installations was made available by the then Minister for Defence in answer to a Question on Notice in the House of Representatives Hansard of 10 October 1978. Amongst those facilities listed by Mr Killen were the naval communications station, the Harold E. Holt, at North West Cape; the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Alice Springs, commonly known as Pine Gap; the Joint Defence Space Communications Station at Woomera, commonly known as Nurrungar; the Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station at Alice Springs, commonly known as United States Air Force Detachment 421; Tranet Station 112 at Smithfield in South Australia; and the portable geodetic satellite observation posts, then operating at Perth and Townsville. The debate in relation to US installations has been going for quite some time, and I think basically it boils down to four main propositions. First of all, we have the implications for global strategic balance. The issue here is between those who argue that the facilities reduce the possibility of nuclear war by monitoring the enemy and those who argue that the possibility of nuclear war is increased by allowing the United States to plan a strategic posture so that it may engage the Soviet Union in a nuclear war rather than simply deter the Soviet Union from starting such a war. The second main area, and it is one which has had some prominence in the media, is that which involves Australia as a nuclear target. There is widespread acceptance, I think-we have had some evidence of it recently-that the United States facilities in Australia are likely to include this country in a nuclear war. Others argue, of course, that the effects of nuclear war would be limited because of the isolation of most of the installations and, to use the phrase of the current Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), Australia accepts the risks involved in supporting United States installations in Australia. The third area of debate involves the implications of a more independent defence and foreign policy. These facilities were installed in the 1950s and 1960s and ever since that time many people have argued that they have had a counter-effect on Australia's ability to defend herself and to take an independent defence posture in the world. The last element within the debate revolved around the notion of sovereignty, that sovereignty is an important issue to any nation, and that the United States installations in Australia have most certainly infringed Australia's sovereignty . For example, the high frequency transmitters at North West Cape were used to service the American mining of Haiphong Harbour during the Vietnam War and other North Vietnamese harbours in 1972. In material which became available at the Australian Labor Party Federal Conference in July 1973, there were assertions that satellites controlled through Australian ground stations had been used to pinpoint targets for American bombing in Cambodia. The present Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Bill Hayden, said in April 1981 that the Labor Party would seek to negotiate the North West Cape agreement to provide, first, that Australia's consent was mandatory for all orders to initiate military action which flowed from the stations and, second, that the Labor Party be given firm and convincing assurances that stations would not be used to send orders for first strike nuclear attack nor to initiate a limited strike. Such a proposition, of course, relies essentially on access. If one looks at the access that is currently available, I think we can see that that type of assurance given by the Foreign Minister has not been carried out by the current Government. Let us consider the Australian officials who are located at the United States installations. For example, at North West Cape there is a deputy commander who is an Australian naval officer, 50 other Royal Australian Navy personnel, and some 200 Australian civilians. There is a similar number at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. However, there are extremely important limitations to the access the Australians have. For example, at North West Cape, Australians are excluded from the United States national communications room, which of course constrains Australia's ability to ensure that that communications room is not used for a first strike nuclear attack. There is no way that Australia would know or could know whether such a message was being relayed through that communications room. No Australians are admitted to the national United States site and communications room at Pine Gap or Nurrungar. More importantly, they are excluded from one of the most vital sections of the control and computer building at Pine Gap. That is run by the signals analysis section of the Special Air Service and is staffed by the Central Intelligence Agency and NSA analysts. I believe it is imperative that Australian personnel be present in these sections to ensure that all material of interest to Australia is passed on. While there remains a section which is inaccessible to Australia there can be absolutely no confidence that domestic Australian transmissions are not being intercepted and routed through this section. Undoubtedly, as evidence has become available, the facilities are being used for internal communications surveillance against Australian citizens by a so-called friendly power. We need access not only in Australia but also in Washington. No Australians in Washington are specifically monitoring United States strategic policies, budgetary proposals or decision making which may affect Australia's interest through the United States installations. In May 1978 the controversy over the installation of a new satellite ground station at North West Cape resulted from the Australian Government admitting that it knew nothing about it. In 1981 consideration was given to posting a defence officer to the Embassy in Washington to monitor decisions. Again, that came up as part of the talks between Prime Minister Hawke and President Reagan in June this year and in discussions with the Minister for Defence, Mr Gordon Scholes, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Both of the proposals were turned down by the United States . The crucial point in this whole operation is that the Australian public knows far less than the American public about foreign bases on our soil. I believe that is incompatible with a democratic country and with a free nation's sovereignty. The target of any secrecy ought not to be the Australian people but our security. Yet time and again one finds, on leafing through material available to various United States congressional committees, that material is delivered to United States congressmen that we cannot get, even by way of questions, from this Government or the previous Government. I believe that is treating this nation and this Parliament in a fashion which makes us a mockery in the rest of the world. On the installation of the AN75C54 satellite ground terminal in 1976 there was no acknowledgement to Australia. There was no communication with Australia on the Pentagon's plan to replace the AWMSC61 ground terminal. There was no communication with Australia on the use of the NSA satellite tracking communications facilities for defence communication purposes. The ALP platform declares that Labor will make known to the Australian public the general purposes of bases and any changes to them. We have heard absolutely nothing from this Government. Obviously, from the statements of the Foreign Minister, it has no intention of keeping that promise on such a sensitive issue. There have been resolutions of Federal conferences of the Labor Party. They have been treated in the same way as the uranium policy has been treated, that is, with total disregard, by this Cabinet and this Government. Essentially, the Australian public has no idea what those bases are used for. I ask a very simple question: How is the Australian public to make up its mind whether it wishes to accept the risk involved with establishment of those bases on our soil if it has no idea what they are doing here? It is an absolute mockery when the Foreign Minister makes that absurd statement, as he did, standing on a nuclear armed and nuclear powered warship in Brisbane Harbour. The Government will not admit that the ship is nuclear armed but everybody knows that it is if they know anything about the distribution of nuclear arms in terms of the American arsensl. The information is available. One has only to go through the various conferences which have been held in America. There is various material which is unavailable in Australia even by way of questions on notice in this Parliament. I have available to me a document published by the Hoover Institute of War, Revolution and Peace in August of this year which contains volumes of material that is not available to parliamentarians in this country. I believe that at the moment we have an attempt on the part of some people in this country, who are currently at Pine Gap, to bring to the attention of the Australian public the fact that those bases on our soil undoubtedly make us a nuclear target. The Russian equivalent to the American strategic adviser to the President has already declared quite publicly that those various facilities in Australia are targeted. Undoubtedly they are. The information is available. It is not a matter of guesswork. It is a matter of military operations in an all out nuclear attack. If we have the eyes, they will necessarily be picked off. The installations are not just located in remote areas. Two other installations have important considerations apart from the one of fallout. There are immediate considerations for two population centres in Australia-Darwin and Perth. If those installations were attacked by nuclear weapons there would be an enormous loss of life to Australia. I hope at another stage to put on the record a fair amount of material I have received from America which is not currently available in Australia. The material is available to American congressmen but will not be made available by the Australian Government to Australian parliamentarians. The central point I wish to raise today in the short time that is available to me is the fact that the Australian public and the Australian Parliament are being treated with contempt by this Government, as they were by the previous Government. We are hosting installations which make us a target. We have no effective control over whether the installations are used for offensive purposes. We have no effective control over whether they will draw us into another world war. I speak two days after what I believe, if we have a history, could very well go down as the beginning of the third world war, and that is the deployment of the first Cruise missile in Europe. The world seems to be on an inevitable slide into mass destruction. Yet, the ability of anyone to stop it seems to be mixed up with all sorts of other discussions about whether or not there is a buck in it for them. When we are talking about the ultimate existence of the human race people want to talk about dollars. I believe we are on that track. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has now moved the clock closer to midnight than at any time in history as a result of the action two days ago of placing Cruise missiles in Britain. Yet, we in this chamber continue to discuss trivial matters . It seems to me that our priorities are all wrong if we are concerned about this nation and the world. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(1.01) —I wish to raise an issue concerning the desirability of retaining the present system of boards of review to review a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation on a taxation objection. On 6 June 1983 the Chairman of the Administrative Review Council forwarded to the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) report No. 17 by the Council entitled 'Review of taxation decisions by boards of review'. The report lists six recommendations which support the thrust of the proposition that the existing jurisdiction of the boards of review decisions made under taxation legislation should be vested in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is acknowledged that there was some support for such a review by the Victorian Bar Council and some accounting bodies. However, I believe such support must also be viewed against a background of barristers hoping to open up a new and lucrative field of business at a time when there are a lot of hungry barristers and solicitors around. When an assessment is received and a taxpayer is dissatisfied with that assessment, that taxpayer must notify and lodge his objection within 60 days. Section 185 of the Income Tax Assessment Act provides that the taxpayer who is dissatisfied with any assessment may lodge an objection against it and set out the requirement for valid objection. Under section 186 the Commissioner must consider that objection and may disallow it or allow it either wholly or in part and shall serve the taxpayer by post or otherwise with written notice of his decision. Section 187 provides that the taxpayer who is still dissatisfied with the decision may, within 60 days of such service, in writing request the Commissioner either to refer that decision to a board of review or, alternatively, to treat the objection as an appeal and to forward it to a specified Supreme Court. Under section 188, the request must be accompanied by a fee of $2 and the Commissioner must refer the decision or forward the objection to a board or Supreme Court in accordance with that request. If either the Commissioner or the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the decision of the board of review in relation to questions of law he can appeal to a Supreme Court. Later, on further appeal by leave he can go to the Federal Court. The next step is by a special appeal by leave to the High Court. An alternative is to go directly to a Supreme Court rather than to a board of review. The taxpayer or the Commissioner can appeal further to the Federal Court and it need then appeal by special leave to the High Court. The advantage, of course, of the board of review system is that it is essentially simple, it is understood by a broad category of taxpayers, it is cheap and generally in my State reasonably expeditious. It has the advantage that board hearings are in camera; but not if the recommendations of the Council were followed through the AAT; information relative to taxpayers' affairs could be made public. The history of boards of review is a long one. The first board was set up in Sydney in 1925. In 1947 the number was increased to two with a second board being established in Melbourne. A third board, with its headquarters in Brisbane, was set up in 1950. The boards operate through a chairman and two members who are drawn from ex-departmental officers with experience in taxation, many of the legal profession and the commercial sphere. The chairman has a deliberative but not casting vote and the quorum is two. The chairmen and members are generally appointed for seven years and they may be reappointed. Their function is to hear and determine cases referred by the Australian Taxation Office at the request of the taxpayer. Apart from the exception listed in section 226 of the Income Tax Assessment Act the boards have all the powers of the Commissioner of Taxation in making assessments, determinations and decisions under the Act. So the decisions of boards have the same force as decisions of the Commisisoner. One of the special features of boards of review is that membership must include people with commercial training outside the official life of Commonwealth departments. Unlike an Administrative Appeals Tribunal, board hearings are not so legalistic. Therefore, boards of review tend to be very much less expensive to taxpayers. I mentioned that boards of review were first established in 1925. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was established in the last seven years, has fairly limited experience. The Tribunal is legalistic and it must be headed up by a judge of the Federal Court. The arguments that are put forward in the report of the Administrative Review Council supporting change are fairly shallow. I believe one example set out in the report is quite fallacious. The Council cites a matter drawn from the editorial of the Australian Taxation Review 1980 No. 9. The editorial states: . . . it does not appear to be going too far to say that there is an apprehension that taxpayers appear prima facie to be treated as untruthful and as persons whose evidence should not be accepted. Why should that statement have any more relevance to a board of review than to an Administrative Appeals Tribunal? In fact, I think the statement is not only inaccurate but also absurd in the context of a criticism of current boards of review. It is not surprising that this argument was very seriously and soundly challenged by the Commissioner of Taxation. Other matters raised in the Council's report express some concern of a need for a standardisation of approach. The council believes that the strict legalistic system could provide such a great standardisation of approach. I would like to ask the Attorney-General: How many serious inconsistencies have there been, over the years, in relation to the decisions of the boards of review? After all there are only three boards with three men on each. So there are nine people altogether who are now hopelessly overworked. The report believes there is a need for consistency. How many cases around Australia involving major matters which were decided by boards of review have shown inconsistencies? The board members are specialists in their field, unlike the legal people who serve on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the decisions of which have to range over a wide area of administrative issues. The members of the boards are specialists in taxation. The report believes that the composition of a tribunal has a bearing on the quality of the review that it affords. I believe that this statement is an insult to the current and past members of the boards of review. It smacks at their credibility and the professionalism of their judgments. I have raised questions in the Senate about the backlog of delays in the number of cases which are awaiting hearing. If one looks at the figures these delays are associated principally with Board No. 1 and Board No. 2 which have headquarters in Sydney and Melbourne respectively. The answer to this problem is to provide for more boards. I mentioned earlier that the last board, Board No. 3 , was established in 1950. The number of returns and assessments has increased. The complexity of the Act has grown. So naturally, more disputes have arisen. The simple answer is to appoint a couple more boards in Melbourne and Sydney to assist the present boards. They are very economical to operate compared with replacing them with an Administrative Appeals Tribunal. If one looks at the composition of the backlog of cases, a lot of those awaiting hearing are very technical. For example, one could have the case of a school teacher in Victoria who has a problem in claiming a deduction for home office expenses which he believes are necessary as part of his work in the pursuit of his profession as a teacher. This issue is taken up by, say, the Australian Teachers Federation. The Federation, through its journal, may advise all teachers to lodge similar claims. So when one analyses the situation, the backlog variety is not as great as it appears. There is virtually no backlog in Hobart and none in Adelaide and it is very limited in Perth. Most Perth cases are associated with bottom of the harbour schemes, the majority of which will not even be heard because they will be withdrawn before hearing. Although the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia expressed views that the taxation boards of review were not working in the way in which they were originally intended, it did say that this was disappointing and there was need for reform. But I found it disappointing that both the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Australian Society of Accountants did come out with some sort of a preference in favour of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal approach. It is acknowledged that there is a need for reform of the decisions of the boards of review. This can be easily achieved. It can be economically achieved. I appeal to the Government not to adopt the recommendations of the report of the Administrative Review Council. As I say, we need to reform the taxation boards of review and we should not scrap them. I believe that if we accept the recommendations we will essentially take away small taxpayer's rights. The big boys may like things to be legalistic, et cetera; for them money is not always a problem. But I am speaking from the point of view of the ordinary Australian who has a minor claim, for example a small businessman. He does not want to be faced with a legalistic sort of system. I believe it is important that these hearings be held in secret. There is a need for reform of the system. As I am running short of time I appeal to honourable senators to read the 5 November edition of The Taxpayer in which the editor says : Do not hastily dump what is basically a sound system; rather the boards of review should be retained, because no evidence has been produced to say that an administrative appeals tribunal would be any more effective. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 1.16 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, will be absent from the chamber this afternoon. Any questions which would normally be directed to her should be directed to me. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the question I asked the Minister yesterday regarding the timing of the introduction of the assets test legislation and his reply that it would be introduced before the end of this session. Has the Minister seen newspaper reports today that state that the assets test package will be put to Cabinet next week and to Caucus on 29 November and that legislation will be introduced in the first week of December? In the light of these numerous reports, can the Minister confirm that this timetable is correct? If so, why was he not able to inform the Senate of this yesterday? Will the Minister now make a clear statement of the Government's intentions? Finally, with regard to that part of my question yesterday relating to the possible holding over of the legislation until the autumn session next year, will the Minister clarify whether we should be listening to him or the Treasurer, who has indicated to pensioner organisations that he is not opposed to such a course of action? Senator GRIMES —I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday. What I said quite clearly to Senator Messner yesterday and in a previous answer was that Cabinet and the processes of the Caucus had been considering the detail of the assets legislation as a result of consultations that I and others had had and that I expected the legislation to be introduced into this Parliament before the end of this session. There is no document, no plan or anything as far as I know which states that that legislation will be introduced on a specific date or in a specific week as Senator Messner suggests, although I certainly hope it comes in as soon as possible. In relation to Senator Messner's remarks about Mr Keating, on my return from Adelaide this afternoon Mr Keating spoke to me and assured me that he did not say to pensioner organisations that he expected the legislation to be held over until next year. He said that that was a newspaper report which was not true. I accept Mr Keating's word for that. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President, in light of the fact that no Government senator has risen to ask a question. I ask the Minister: By the use of the word 'introduced' in answer to my question, did he mean that the matter would not be debated before the end of the session? Senator GRIMES —I am sorry; if Senator Messner wishes to be pedantic, let me say that it is my intention and the Government's intention at the moment that that measure be introduced and debated. Senator Chaney —And passed? Senator GRIMES —And passed, I hope. Whether it is passed depends on a vote in this place. Senator Walsh —It is not entirely within your control? Senator GRIMES —No, as Senator Walsh said, it is not entirely within my control. Senator REYNOLDS —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government report on what action the Government is taking to promote constitutional recognition of local government in line with the Australian Labor Party platform and its electoral commitment? Senator GIETZELT —The Labor Government is committed, not only in spirit but also in its policy, to improving the status and the recognition of local government as one of the arms of government in Australia. We are committed to the development of local government as a genuine partner in the overall system of government in Australia. To that extent we are seeking to gain constitutional recognition, at both the Federal and State levels, for the role of local government in a more precise form than currently exists. This undertaking by the Government is based on a recognition that if the upgrading of local government is to take place it should be built into the Australian government system so that it will survive changes at both the Commonwealth and State government levels. One of the difficulties that we face is the large number of local government bodies operating in Australia. There is a reluctance on the part of local governments to be amalgamated into more effective and larger instrumentalities so that they can play a more meaningful role in the overall system of government. Of course, local governments are currently an adjunct and a subsidiary of State governments. If there is to be an upgrading of local government, as the Labor Government believes there should be, there have to be some changes in the present structure . The first step in this process of constitutional recognition, from the Government point of view, was the formation of a sub-committee of the Australian Constitutional Convention held in Adelaide in April this year, which was to examine the whole issue of local government. I understand that the sub-committee has recommended that this purpose would be best served by appending a charter to the Constitution rather than by amending the Constitution to provide for a more substantive role for local government. It is felt that this charter would more fully and accurately reflect the historical evolution of local government in Australia and would more readily gain the support of State governments than would an amendment to the Constitution. I understand that this approach has the support of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations. We hope that in the course of the next two or three years substantial progress will be made in this direction. Senator CHANEY —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It follows one asked by Senator Hamer on Tuesday, part of which was ignored by Senator Button in his response. I refer to the special State conference of the Victorian Labor Party to be held on the 27th of this month to discuss the Caucus decision on uranium policy. If, as generally expected, that conference censures the Government and declares that the Caucus decision is not binding on the Party, can the Leader of the Government tell the Senate what effect such a resolution would have on the Government's 10-day-old uranium policy? Senator BUTTON —I certainly did not willingly ignore any part of Senator Hamer's question. If the special State conference in Victoria censured members of this Parliament, that would be uncomfortable for members of this Parliament. It would have no effect whatsoever on the Government's uranium policy. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. There were two parts to that question. If, in fact, there is a declaration of policy on the part of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party which is inconsistent with the policy which was adopted by the Caucus on behalf of the Government 10 days ago, will that have any effect on the decision taken by the Government in the Caucus 10 days ago? Senator BUTTON —No. Senator COATES —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question about the provision of additional National Parks and Wildlife Service rangers for South West Tasmania. Has the Minister seen the report in yesterday's Mercury in which the State Minister for National Parks and Recreational Lands, Mr Pearsall, is quoted as saying in the State Parliament the previous night that the State would not accept the suggestion that Mr Hawke had written to the State suggesting that the cost of the protection of South West Tasmania should be shared by both governments? Has the Tasmanian Government officially rejected the suggestion contained in that letter from the Prime Minister that it should contribute to the cost of protection of the South West Tasmanian World Heritage area during the coming summer? Senator Walters —You have taken it over. Why should we pay for it? Senator COATES —Was the original proposal that 12 rangers be employed? Does the State, however, now intend to employ fewer rangers than that and for only four months, using the $500,000 given to the State by this Federal Government? Is the State Government siphoning off some of that $500,000 to the Hydro-Electric Commission, the police, forestry and the fire service? Would it really take $1m or $1.5m, as variously claimed by Mr Pearsall, to put 12 rangers in the field, or does the State's costing include all sorts of capital works which should not be decided upon before full consultation about the management of the South West? Finally, if the State is going to take this attitude, should not the Commonwealth consider taking full responsibility-- Senator Walters —It is not our attitude; it is yours. Senator COATES —Should not the Commonwealth consider taking full responsibility for managing the South West, that is decisions as well as funding, and put an end once and for all to the State Government's continual disputation with the Commonwealth about this area? Senator BUTTON —I am indebted to Senator Coates for his question. I was not able to hear it all because the answers were already being supplied from the other side as he read his question sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph. Senator Walters —You really did not understand the question. Senator BUTTON —I am told by Senator Walters that I would not understand the question anyway. Senator Walters, I might add, comes from Tasmania. If she would do me the favour of listening to what I have to say she might understand the answer even if she disagrees with it. I am not able to answer that part of Senator Coates's question which deals with the precise number of rangers who might be employed, which suggests that the Tasmanian Government is siphoning off money for purposes other than those originally intended, and so on. In respect of that part of the question I will obtain an answer for Senator Coates as soon as possible, and no doubt Senator Walters will supply him with a different one as well. Insofar as the question relates to the amount of money to be paid by the Commonwealth to Tasmania in respect of the protection of the South West National Park, there has been an exchange of correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Premier. On 3 November the Prime Minister wrote offering immediate assistance of $500,000 as a contribution to the costs of the summer program, including the cost of employing additional rangers and appropriate support staff . On 16 November, I point out to Senator Coates and Senator Walters, the Premier wrote to the Prime Minister acknowledging receipt of the $500,000 and outlining proposals for its expenditure on rangers, support service, the purchase of equipment and fire surveillance. These proposals by the Premier of Tasmania are now being assessed by the two governments in consultation. In the official correspondence which has taken place there has been no suggestion from the Premier of Tasmania of the kind which emanated from Mr Pearsall yesterday. The only suggestion of that kind has come from a Press report and, of course, the ubiquitous Senator Walters. As to whether the Commonwealth Government should take full responsibility for the management of the South West National Park, I am sure that this Government and the Tasmanian Government will be able to reach a satisfactory accommodation on the matters addressed in Senator Coates's question. I believe that that accommodation will take place. If it does not and the more stroppy element in Tasmania prevails, the suggestion, which again has emanated from Senator Walters, even by interjection today, that the Commonwealth take it all over, would have much greater appeal to us. Senator CHIPP —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Trade to a French Press report quoting the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, as saying that he has not suggested the abrogation of signed contracts for the sale of Australian uranium to France. He is quoted as saying: 'We shall deliver 250 tonnes of uranium to France late in 1984'. I refer also to Australian Press reports that the French Government will continue its despicable nuclear testing program in the Pacific. I ask: Is the report of the Prime Minister's statement correct? Was this known by the French Foreign Minister yesterday when he told the National Press Club that France expects to continue to receive Australian uranium shipments? Is such a statement contrary to Australian Labor Party policy that there will be no further uranium exports to France while French nuclear testing continues in the Pacific? Senator WALSH —The last sentence that Senator Chipp put to me referred to Labor Party policy. The Labor Party policy, already announced, is that there will be no shipments of uranium to France, at least before October 1984, and that no new mines other than Roxby Downs, subject to its commercial viability, will be permitted to proceed. Senator Chipp —Not Ben Lomond? Senator WALSH —No, no new mines other than Roxby Downs, subject to its commercial viability. If one wants to be highly technical about it, the only way the Commonwealth could stop a mine opening would be to invoke the draconian provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, but I expect that Commonwealth policy would be enforced through export licences rather than the Atomic Energy Act. However, I am not certain of what the Prime Minister is reported to have said, or the accuracy with which he was reported, and I can only refer that part of the question to the Prime Minister for his confirmation or otherwise. As Senator Chipp said, the original report seems to have come from a French magazine. I do not know the date of the interview. Equally, I am not able to say whether the French Foreign Minister was aware of that alleged statement having been reported in the French Press. I will just have to refer the substance of Senator Chipp's question to the Prime Minister. Senator JONES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation aware of the deep concern that is growing at the Government's proposal to withdraw rescue and fire fighting crews from Archerfield and Bundaberg airports in Queensland, transferring the responsibility to civil fire brigades which are not specifically designed to cope with aviation emergencies and which are often located too far from airports to be effective? I also ask the Minister whether he will undertake to review this decision which appears to threaten fundamental civil aviation safety procedures at two of Queensland's busiest secondary airports? Senator GIETZELT —Proposals were put to the Government by the General Aviation Association which claimed to act on behalf of the aviation industry. It suggested that there should be some downgrading of rescue and fire services at a number of secondary airports, including Archerfield and Bundaberg. The Government is currently examining this issue without in any way giving a commitment to what has been suggested. Those proposals include the proposition that the local fire services should take over responsibility in the event of any emergency. But, as the questioner has suggested, and certainly the evidence is there, it is not always possible for local emergency services to replace the current services. However, the Government has undertaken to have discussions with the staff at the affected airfields and with the unions which cover them, as well as with the local communities. No decision will be made until such time as those discussions have been held. I think I can give an assurance that the Government recognises that Australia has a very high safety record, and it would not want to jeopardise that record in any changes that might be contemplated. I undertake to pass on to the Minister for Aviation, whom I represent in this place, the honourable senator's concern that, before any review is completed, the safety aspects be seriously considered. Senator SCOTT —I address my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is the Minister aware of the concern of relatives of patients in the Bundoora Repatriation Hospital in Bundoora, Victoria, that a number of wards will be closed for varying periods? I ask: Why are the wards to be closed? Further, can the Minister give an assurance of continuing care for patients at this hospital? Senator GIETZELT —There have been some difficulties in that hospital. The Government is undertaking a review with the purpose of ensuring that those difficulties will be overcome. I can give the Senate an assurance that patients will in no way be affected by the difficulties that we have been facing. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Has the Minister seen the report in today's Australian Financial Review headlined ' ''Get ready now'' warning on next round of oil shortages'? If he has , did he note that it reported Mr Ian D. Whiteley, the President of the Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia, as predicting that oil 'shortages could occur as early as 1985-86, prompting a sharp increase in what had been stable oil prices'? He was further quoted as referring to 'a sharp shock of price increases by the middle of 1986, coupled with a renewed international recession'. Does the Government agree with Mr Whiteley's forecast? What does the Government see as the future scenario for the supply and pricing of oil and the impact any changes will have on economic recovery and growth? Senator WALSH —I have seen the Press reports to which Senator Crowley refers. Again, there is the doubt that one cannot be certain of the accuracy with which Mr Whiteley was reported. Assuming that he was reported accurately, there are a number of unlikely scenarios in his statement. Before moving on to that, however , let me say that the Government has already made a decision, based on the present surplus capacity of Australia's oil-producing potential and the Government's belief that that surplus capacity will continue for some years into the future, to allow the small amount of oil which is currently available, because it is surplus to the domestic demand, to be exported. Nothing could be more devastating to oil exploration and activity than the lack of a market. The Government has taken a very important move in that direction. Mr Whiteley is reported to have said that prices could take off in 1985-86. That is not compatible with the information which has been supplied to the Government, although I suppose, since it is two years hence, it could be possible. Indeed, the possibility of severe disruption to supplies in a major producing country, caused ultimately by political instability, could at any time conceivably substantially increase world prices. That, in itself, should it happen and should those higher prices be maintained in combination with the Government's import parity-related price, would be an incentive for oil exploration. In short, it is not the Government's expectation that there would be a major increase in prices at that stage although, in the long term, I think anybody who has seriously addressed this question expects that the real price of oil will go up. Even more puzzling-I add again the qualification that one cannot be certain whether Mr Whiteley was reported accurately-is that Mr Whiteley was reported as predicting that there would be an association between an economic recession and rising oil prices. Other things being equal, that is so unlikely as to be almost impossible. If there is a recession and, therefore, a decline in demand for oil, prices could be expected to go down and not up. Finally, it is likely-I stress the word 'likely' because it is too early at this stage to make definitive forecasts-that the recent Jabiru discovery off the north-west Kimberley coast even at this stage has clearly added significantly to Australia's known reserves . That area has the potential to add a good deal more to Australia's known oil reserves and has substantially changed the likely availability of oil into the later part of this decade. Senator LAJOVIC —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Has the Minister noted newspaper reports that there was a sharp decline in the number of arrivals in Australia during the June quarter, namely by 40,000, and that the number of permanent settlers also fell sharply? Can the Minister provide the Senate with exact figures on, firstly, how many permanent settlers arrived in Australia; secondly, which countries they came from; thirdly, how many belong to the family reunion category; and, fourthly, how many came as refugees? Senator GRIMES —Senator Lajovic has asked me a question of great detail the answer to which I do not have. I will refer that to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and get an answer as soon as possible. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I ask the Minister whether he has seen the article in today's Australian Financial Review headlined 'Strikes at 12-year low', which reports the latest August figures on working days lost through industrial disputes as the 'lowest August result since monthly surveys began in 1970'. Has the Minister also seen the paid advertisement in the same newspaper setting out Sir Ian McLennan's Chairman's address to the Elders IXL Ltd annual general meeting in which he called for the dismantling of the centralised wage fixing system? If the Minister has seen these items, can he say how Sir Ian's theories square with the reality of our industrial relations performance? Do Sir Ian's remarks represent a militant attack upon the consensus of the National Economic Summit Conference communique? Senator BUTTON —'Militant' is the last word I would apply to Sir Ian McLennan in respect of anything he does. Of course, there are differences of view about the Government's wage fixation policy which are demonstrated in the Senate and by other spokesmen outside. Both business and other organisations have made conflicting comments about the approach adopted by the Government in pursuit of a centralised wage fixation system. I turn to the first part of Senator Cook's question. I have not seen the Australian Financial Review article this morning, pointing to strikes being at a 12-year low, but I am familiar with the figures upon which that article is based. That is true. As I have said in the Senate before, one of the encouraging things about it is that those figures cover a period in which employment has been rising. It has always been an eminently respectable view that increasing unemployment militates against industrial disputation, just as a whole range of industrial relations policies affect the level of industrial disputation. I think the figures in the Australian Financial Review are important because they provide a tangible recognition of this Government's approach to industrial relations as distinct from the confrontationist approach of the previous Government. Senator Jessop —But the strikes went down during the Fraser Government. Senator BUTTON —No, they did not. Senator Jessop —You are being dishonest. Senator Chaney —How many man-days were lost in 1974? Senator BUTTON —A number of allegations are being made. I simply make the point that the Opposition cites a figure from 1974 as proof of the eternal-- Senator Chaney —Eternal truth. Senator BUTTON —Yes, as an eternal truth about Labor governments. Of course, in 1974 there was a high level of industrial disputation. Looking at the Liberal Party's record in government, one finds a very high level of industrial disputation, influenced by one factor alone-the breaking of its election promises in relation to Medibank. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —There is no doubt about that. It broke that promise. That year reflected a high figure in respect of industrial disputation. Senator Sir John Carrick —Are you talking about broken promises? Senator BUTTON —No, I am not talking about broken promises. All I am doing is pointing out that certain facts affect industrial relations performance-certain quite extraneous facts, in some ways. So the figures which have been shown in the Australian Financial Review today are encouraging in the current economic circumstances. I agree with the implications of Senator Cook's question about that. Insofar as Sir Ian McLennan's comment about a centralised wage fixation system is concerned, he is perfectly entitled to that view. As I indicated yesterday at Question Time, the Government's view is that that is the best system for this country in present circumstances, for a variety of reasons. Although it is sometimes said that at a time of very desperate need for a continuing improvement in the level of economic activity a centralised wage system is inconsistent, I just make the point, from history, that in the period ended December 1977, when there was a period of full wage indexation, between 1974 and 1977 average weekly earnings contracted by 20 per cent, and in the same period-- Senator Chaney —What? Senator BUTTON —The rise in average weekly earnings contracted from 20 per cent to 9.7 per cent in that period, and at the same time, in that period from 1974 to 1977, the rate of increase in the consumer price index fell from 16.3 per cent to 9.3 per cent, at a time when there was a deliberate policy of wage indexation as a centralised wage fixing system. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I was interested in the information that the Minister gave yesterday in response to a question regarding disabled persons programs. Is the Minister now able to give an assurance to organisations that receive funding under the handicapped persons assistance program that the great diversity and range of programs under the Act will be continued in future funding? On what basis will the funding be provided? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I can assure Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle that any future programs for handicapped persons assistance in this country while we are in government will involve funding a diversity of organisations and a diversity of programs. Although I believe, as I said yesterday-I believe most people take this view-that there needs to be a greater concentration on programs which provide assistance to those in the community, rather than those in institutions, that provide assistance to those programs which are aiming to facilitate and train disabled people to take part in as normal a lifestyle as possible and to make decisions about their own lifestyle as much as possible, there clearly will always be need in some cases for some forms of institution. What I am hoping is that as a result of the present handicapped persons programs review we shall get the views of the disabled themselves and of the organisations that care for the disabled, so that we can get a better idea of what they think, because I believe that in the past they have not been asked about that sufficiently, and get the views of the carer organisations so that we can come up in the end with a better balanced program than we have had in the past. Therefore, at this point I cannot give details to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle about what proportion of funds may go to one area or what proportion may go to another. I can just guarantee that there will be a diversification in the program. The percentage of future funding provided by government depends on, first, the result of that review; secondly, the deliberations by the Government and the Department; and, thirdly and ultimately, decisions of the Government in Cabinet. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the important role of Commonwealth bond sales in controlling growth in the money supply, is there any information available on the value of government bond sales overseas this year and, in particular, on long term bond sales overseas? Senator WALSH —I remember Senator Maguire raising the same question at an Estimates committee hearing earlier this year. As he indicated, it is a very important question. I was surprised to hear from the Treasury representative who was present that the Government did not have the information on the proportion of bonds which had been purchased overseas. I have since discussed this question with people in the money market, who have pointed out to me some of the difficulties of obtaining that information. But it is very important that that information be made available, because in the extreme case, if all bond sales had been taken up by overseas buyers, the effect on the money supply of any sale of bonds would be neutral, thereby completely negating the ostensible reason for making the bond sales, which is to reduce the money supply, as Senator Maguire has indicated. But I do not know whether the Government has been able to obtain any information other than that which the Treasury had available at the time of the Estimates committee hearing, which was none. I will refer the question to the Treasurer and see what information he can provide. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer to the review of the Repatriation Act which is under way. What is the current state of that review? Has the Government received from the committee conducting the review a full draft of its recommendations? Will the Government give an unequivocal guarantee that current benefits available to veterans will be maintained in any legislation which may result from the review? Senator GIETZELT —For most of 1983 a legislation review committee and an administrative review council have been looking at the Repatriation Act and the current procedures involved in the Repatriation Commission and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I have recently received information and draft reports on both of those inquiries undertaken this year. We are preparing for detailed discussions with the ex-service organisations on Monday and Tuesday of next week . I cannot give any guarantee in respect of what will arise out of those discussions or on the Government's intentions. As to the bodies concerned, the Legislative Review Committee in particular has had representatives of the major ex-service organisations working on the legislation, which, as the honourable senator will be aware, began in 1920. So we have had 63 years of experience with that. It has not been substantially improved; it has only been added to and amended in a rather ad hoc way in the subsequent years. However, I assure the honourable senator and the Senate that it is not the Government's intention to take advantage of this review in any way to reduce the range of benefits unless there were compensatory benefits as a result of changes in the way in which the Act operates. Certainly the consultations with the ex-service organisations have been very fruitful. Very shortly the results of the review process will be made available to the organisations for them to examine them over the December- January period so that the Government can then look at the matter when Parliament resumes in February 1984. Senator GILES —Is the Minister for Social Security aware that a number of organisations and associations providing care for disabled children, especially intellectually disabled children, require parents to give an undertaking to contribute regular working hours and financial assistance to those institutions in order to secure or retain placements for their disabled children? Can the Minister advise what is the Government's attitude towards this manipulation and exploitation of particularly vulnerable people? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware that, as Senator Giles said, some organisations caring for disabled children require such commitments, sometimes by contract, that the parents will in fact put in so many working hours or so much money before their child will be accepted. I think it is worth while to look at the fact that intellectually and sometimes physically handicapped children in this country have been cared for in the past by institutions which have developed in the absence of public funding and alternative public institutions for such training. In the past, when we were in a different time and had different attitudes, the institutions had difficulty maintaining their building programs, et cetera. As a result, the policy that Senator Giles talked about developed-a policy whereby people were asked to sign a contract committing themselves to so many hours work, to so much fund-raising or to the payment of so much money if their children were to be accepted. Probably what is even more distressing is the situation whereby, if parents did not or do not fulfil such a contract, their child would be removed from the institution. I believe that that latter situation is, in fact, even more distressing than the first. We have to realise that times have changed. Firstly, all such institutions invariably receive considerable amounts of public moneys, either from government and/or from public subscriptions through the various fund raising efforts of those organisations. Secondly, in some cases, the organisations, because of the way they have developed, have more or less a monopoly on the treatment of certain disabilities-sometimes intellectual, sometimes physical, sometimes both. Thirdly, times have changed to the extent that in this day and age most people in this country believe that the most important thing is the intellectually or physically handicapped child and the fact that that child needs treatment and the sort of program to assist the child to develop regardless of the attitude of his or her parents or the capacity of the parents to contribute in the way Senator Giles has described. The Government and I are opposed to organisations which coerce parents into working hour commitments, financial commitments or any other commitments, regardless of their financial capacity, their physical capacity or their emotional capacity to contribute in that way. In fact, most parents of children in this situation will willingly, to the fullest of their capacity, contribute as much as possible to the institutions. Therefore, I request any organisation which has such a rigid structure and approach to the care of such children to reconsider its situation, to consider these facts: It receives considerable amounts of public funds; community attitudes have changed; and it is unfair to refuse a child treatment or admission to a program or to remove a child from a program under which it is already receiving treatment or instruction because of some difficulty that the parents have. I believe that if that situation continues in existing organisations, or if new organisations are developed which set up programs in that way, it is the duty of the Government to consider how much it should fund those organisations in the future and whether it should not fund alternative organisations. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Minister seen the advertisement calling for public submissions to an inquiry into the Alice Springs-Darwin railway and the upgrading of the Stuart Highway? I draw the attention of the Minister to this statement in the advertisement: The Inquiry will not seek to evaluate the defence implications of proposals. Could the Minister explain why the public is denied the opportunity to make submissions on an important aspect of the railway, namely its potential for moving defence forces and supplies rapidly and in considerable volume to our largely undefended north? Does the implicit reservation of this matter to the Department of Defence indicate that a belief is held by the Government that the sole font of wisdom on defence matters lies with the Department of Defence, or does it suggest that the deterrent value of such a railway is unimportant because it cannot be quantified in economic terms? Alternatively, does it indicate that the inherent defence value of such a railway ought to be kept secret when it would be plainly obvious to the intelligence services of any potential enemy? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen the advertisement in question, but I do not have to as Senator Harradine has drawn out of it the point he wants to make in his question. I will certainly inquire as to why the defence aspects of the proposal were not included in the terms of reference of the inquiry. I do not in 1983 share the sorts of assumptions which are implicit in Senator Harradine's question about the need for a large transit system such as a railway to move defence equipment and personnel. I doubt very much that that is relevant in contemporary defence terms and in the circumstances of a potential war with some other country. I express my own opinion only when I say that I would attach doubtful weight to the importance of a railway of that kind for defence purposes in the current defence environment. I am asked whether the Government regards the Defence Department as the sole font of wisdom on defence matters. I have not had a discussion with any of my colleagues about that. All I can say is that I hope not. The one or two other aspects with defence implications in the honourable senator's question I will address to the appropriate Minister and obtain a more detailed reply if I can. Senator COATES —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he has seen the report of the statement of the Chairman of Qantas Airways Ltd, Mr Leslie, concerning the numbers of public servants and people from this Parliament using Qantas for their travel? Is the low proportion of use that has been quoted correct? If so, what does the Government intend to do about it? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen the statement by Mr Leslie. Once again, it is quite clear from the question what the statement is about; I do not need to have seen it. I appreciate that I am getting rapidly into the Senator Withers category, but by some magic sleight of hand, although I have not seen the advertisement in question, I am able to assist Senator Coates with an answer. The comments made by Mr Leslie which were reported in the Press this morning are subject to the following comment: Australians do rely almost totally on air travel in order to visit other countries and obviously there will be circumstances when services provided by-- Senator Chaney —Do imports come from overseas? Senator BUTTON —With the greatest respect, Mr President, I ought to deal with this interjection because my answer has been put in the Enderby class of 1975. I belong to a much later vintage than that. I just reiterate what I said-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Having picked up that interjection, I ask the Minister to ignore all others. Senator BUTTON —Yes, Mr President, I will come back to the question. Australians must rely almost totally, but not exclusively, on air travel in order to visit other countries. That is all the answer means. I have travelled by ship to a number of countries. Obviously there will be occasions when services provided by one airline, such as Qantas, will not enable the traveller to meet adequately his or her commitments within the time available. The policy of successive governments of all political persuasions has been to encourage Federal politicians and public servants to use Qantas wherever possible, but it is ultimately the Australian and overseas commitments of each person involved which determine the extent to which Qantas may be used. Having said that, I will take the opportunity of getting a comment from the relevant Minister on the details of the figures quoted by Mr Leslie in his statement. Senator KILGARIFF —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate yet able to confirm that the Government has decided to declare Stage II of the Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory and that this will be announced tomorrow , as is widely reported in the media? What is to be done about the Jabiluka uranium deposit? Is it true that the Commonwealth is trying to negotiate compensation for the Aboriginal landholders there and at Koongarra in an attempt to persuade them to withdraw from agreements to allow mining? Senator BUTTON —I was asked a question about this earlier this week and I said that the Government would make an announcement at the appropriate time in respect of the declaration of Stage II of the Kakadu National Park. If Senator Kilgariff has some intuition that the appropriate time to which I referred is tomorrow, I am very glad to hear it. Senator Peter Rae —He just heard it on AM from Barry Cohen. Senator BUTTON —AM is a great stimulus to Senator Kilgariff's intuition, if I might say so. If Senator Kilgariff is good enough to wait till tomorrow we will all be able to tell whether his intuition is correct. I assume that the same situation applies to the Jabiluka deposit in terms of when an announcement will be made. I think it is sufficient to say for Senator Kilgariff's purposes that in a general statement on uranium policy the Government has made it clear that it will not be opening new mines. I would have thought that even the honourable senator's intuition would have enabled him to work out what that means in relation to Jabiluka. If compensation for Aboriginal traditional landholders is a matter which the Government has to address I am sure it will do so, but it is not the sort of thing which can be done overnight. Senator ROBERTSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that the United States Department of Labor issued an emergency standard earlier this month to cut by 75 per cent the permissible exposure to asbestos fibres by the 375,000 workers in the manufacturing, construction and maritime industries? Will the Minister outline the measures taken by the Australian Government to regulate the use of asbestos in this country and the standards of safety that apply to exposure in the work place? Senator BUTTON —I cannot answer that question. I know that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, in conjunction with one or two other Ministers, has had a series of consultations about this matter and that actions have been taken in relation to specific industries involving high asbestos use. I think the question requires some detailed information indicating the extent of that activity in response to the use of asbestos in particular areas and I am not in a position to supply that. I am also aware of the United States Government's action in relation to the matter. But insofar as the question requires a detailed answer I will address it to the Minister and obtain a response as early as possible. Senator WATSON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Since the last increase in the number of taxation boards of review was in 1950 and there has been a significant increase in the number of assessments the complexity of taxation law and the number of objections since then, will the Government give consideration to appointing additional boards of review to handle the backlog of references awaiting decision by the three three- member taxation boards of review? Senator WALSH —The question was: Will the Government consider increasing the number of boards of review? I expect the answer to that question would be yes, the Government will consider almost anything. But as to whether any increases are planned, that is a matter which I would have to refer to the Treasurer. No increases are planned as far as I know, but I will refer the matter to the Treasurer for his comments. Senator ROBERT RAY —Has the Attorney-General seen reports in the Press that certain elements of the anti-uranium movement intend to advocate a write-in in the forthcoming referendums, the write-in being 'no uranium'? Will this action, because it involves the word 'no', confuse the voters as they have to write yes or no in a particular square, and will the Minister consider some action to outlaw the inciting of electors to write over their ballot papers? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen reports that some such course of action is contemplated. It would have a grave risk of invalidating ballot papers, to the extent that there could be some confusion. Senator Walters —Come on! 'No Dams' didn't. Senator GARETH EVANS —In an ordinary election situation, even Senator Walters will recall, ballot papers are marked with ones, twos and threes or crosses-or perhaps in her case thumb prints-but electors certainly do not write yes or no. In the context of a write-in vote of 'no uranium', there may well be confusion of the kind that Senator Ray refers to and the Government will have to give serious consideration to what measures might be taken to discourage voters from adopting that course of action. I do not think there can be any question, in the interests of free speech and all those other things we hold dear, of any more robust action than that, but it will be a matter to which the Government will pay close regard, given the possibility of confusion in what manifestly will be a very important referendum. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. It follows the answer given by Senator Button which related to the Northern Territory uranium province. Will the Minister explain to the New York Mining Club next week, when he addresses it, the way in which the Getty Oil Development Co. Ltd should treat its $50m investment, lawfully undertaken, with respect to Jabiluka? Will he recommend that it should write it off as a case of foreign expropriation? Senator WALSH —As Senator Chaney obviously knows, I will be speaking to the New York Mining Club next week and, yes, I will detail the reasons for the Government's uranium policy decision. As I understand the situation, with the possible and rather complicated and partial exception of the Ranger mine-that is related to the sale of the Commonwealth's one-time equity in that project-there is no legal basis for a claim for compensation from anybody. Senator MISSEN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. I refer to the recent disclosure that millions of feet of historic news film stored in the Australian Broadcasting's Corporation's Ripponlea studios are already rotting away due to the total inadequacy of its storage and preservation facilities. I ask the Minister: Firstly, does he agree with the description of the condition of these records and the total inadequacy of storage and preservation as described in the Age article of 2 November 1983? Secondly, does the Government agree that the matter is urgent and that failure to take immediate action would be a deplorable act of irresponsibility in relation to irreplaceable archives? Thirdly, what action is the Government now taking to save the remaining film archives and to provide suitable storage at controlled temperatures? Senator BUTTON —On the basis of my own knowledge I certainly agree with the description given in the Age newspaper in relation to the condition of the film archives. I agree that it is a very important matter. The archives are irreplaceable and they ought to be stored in much more satisfactory and modern premises. I know that this matter has been the subject of discussion and negotiation at quite considerable length by the Minister and, I think, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. As well, I think there has been some involvement by the Prime Minister. I believe that a response is contemplated at an early date. At present, I am not able to advise the Senate of the precise details of that, but I will endeavour to obtain a more complete answer and make it available to Senator Missen as soon as possible. Senator WALSH —I wish to add to an answer which I gave to Senator Chipp earlier today regarding a reported statement attributed to the Prime Minister. I have been given a transcript of the Prime Minister's Press conference, which I think was held this morning, at which this question was raised. The transcript states: JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, could I ask you on a different subject-a French business daily has reported that-quoting you as saying that Australia is prepared to review uranium exports on certain conditions and you are quoted as saying- This is purported to be a direct quote- 'we shall deliver 250 tonnes of uranium late in 1984'. The Prime Minister replied: Yes, it has been brought to my attention. Let me say unequivocally that that report is wrong. There is no foundation for it and to save your time I merely indicate that there is a transcript-a full transcript of that conversation that I had with the French journalist on 8th of this month and that is available in my office. Senator BUTTON —I am not quite sure how to handle this matter. Earlier in Question Time today Senator Walters made an excursion in my direction across the chamber. The PRESIDENT —You did not seek the protection of the Chair. Senator BUTTON —No. I apprehended, in the strict legal sense, that I was about to be assaulted. At that time, Senator Walters asked me to obtain a clarification of an answer which had been given in relation to correspondence between the Tasmanian Premier and the Prime Minister relating to the Bass Strait ferry service. The Prime Minister indicated in his response that he had replied to a letter from the Tasmanian Premier, including his letter dated 5 August. Senator Walters was concerned to know when. The answer is 18 October 1983. Joint Ministerial Statement Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —On behalf of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and myself, I seek leave to make a statement on the matter of crisis and youth accommodation. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —For the information of honourable senators, I wish to inform them of the outcome of the review of programs in this area. In doing so, we would stress that firm Government policies in the area of crisis and youth accommodation will not be finalised until the review's recommendations have been discussed further with the States and non-government organisations. When this Government came to office in March this year homelessness was seen as a major priority for urgent attention. There were no clear cut policies or directions to remedy youth or older age homelessness, and there was no co-ordination of emergency accommodation services for women and children. The major objective of the Commonwealth's involvement in crisis accommodation programs is to provide a range of services to meet the needs of the homeless, and those facing other crisis accommodation situations such as eviction or domestic violence. Arrangements need to be logical and practical to assist non- government sector involvement, to ensure needs are met in a cost effective way, and to help the co-ordination of Commonwealth and State action. We had already seen the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare report on homeless youth and there had also been an evaluation of the youth services scheme. Both these reports highlighted problems in this area and the need for action. As interim measures the Government provided a further $1.9m for a 12-month extension of the youth services scheme and in the recent Budget increased funding for the homeless persons assistance program and improved the subsidy arrangements under the program. In addition Senator Ryan and I announced funding of $4m for this financial year to set up the women's emergency services program. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has already written to the States to initiate action for the allocation and expenditure of these funds. The first step will be to see that the money allocated is spent in accordance with our priorities and this will be done in consultation with the States, women's refuge groups and other relevant non- government organisations. It has been recognised that the difficulty with access to permanent housing is a major cause of demand for crisis accommodation, and we have increased our funding for public housing under the Commonwealth-State housing agreement by 50 per cent, to $500m in 1983-84. Following the change of government, the Minister for Housing and Construction and I agreed to continue a review into programs in the crisis accommodation area . Because the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has responsibility for co -ordinating all Government policies relating to youth, her Department joined the review. There had already been consultations with the States and all parties accepted the need for the review. The review is now completed and, in summary, found that there is no logical basis for current arrangements, where some programs are administered and funded by the Commonwealth and others administered and cost shared by States. There is also no overall planning and programs are unco-ordinated and unnecessarily complex. Youth refuges, for example, are funded under two different programs. Needs are not being met due to this lack of planning, and due to restrictions on assistance able to be provided. Funding of approved projects under existing program guidelines is often inadequate; for example, wage levels in refuges are generally below award levels. Given these problems, the review recomended that, following negotiations with States and consultations with womens and youth groups, Aboriginal organisations and other non-government bodies, all Commonwealth crisis accommodation programs should be brought together under a crisis accommodation asistance Act. The review recommended that this Act provide funding to the States and Territories, and embody a five-year Commonwealth-State agreement covering such matters as guidelines for the operation of programs including protection for youth and women's refuges, funding arrangements, including matching and a guaranteed base level of funs, and the establishment of Commonwealth-State co- ordinting committees which would also include representatives of the relevant non-government organisations. The Act as proposed by the review would incorporate three proposed programs, to be administered and cost shared by States. These programs comprise a youth supported accommodation scheme, the women's emergency services program and a general crisis accommodation program, and would cover the full range of crisis accommodation provision. Guidelines for these programs would provide States with considerably more flexibility than currently operates. The review saw this as avoiding the present situation where individuals are in refuges because other assistance, such as medium term supported accommodation, is unable to be provided under existing program guidelines. This flexibility will enable provision to be more closely aligned to needs. The review's recommendations involve a shift in administration from the Commonwealth to the States. To enable the better identification of needs and the better co-ordination of programs, the review recommended that it would be administratively more sensible to operate from one level of government; States already operate a range of programs in this area. This could place additional pressure on the States, and accordingly such aspects as the anticipated administrative costs would be taken into account in discussing overall finding arrangements. The review recommends that any new arrangemens be in place by 1 July 1984, and negotiations commence as quickly as possible. Negotiations on these crisis accommodation arrangements will be the responsibility of my Department. The Government is conscious of the important role of non-government organisations. Non-government organisations provide most services in this area, and we do not propose to change this. We will be seeking to consult with them at the same time as we commence negotiations with the States on ways of making sure that the most appropriate forms of services are provided. The review recommendations involve changes to existing programs. Accordingly, the review recommended that any new arrangements ensure that the position of existing projects be protected, and consultations with service providers will cover this aspect. The Government is committed to developing, in consultation with the States, a national program for women's emergency services. Our prime concerns are to allocate moneys efficiently to areas in need of such services and to assist existing refuges with adequate funding and staffing. The review recommended that adequate and guaranteed funding for women's emergency services can best be ensured if this program constitutes a separately identifiable component of an overall crisis accommodation program. The review suggested that a five-year Commonwealth-State agreement, including guidelines for the operation of all components of the crisis accommodation program, would both eliminate funding uncertainties and guarantee adequate levels of funding for women's refuges. Accordingly, negotiations with the States will be undertaken to assess whether the review's recommendations provide an appropriate basis for developing a national program in this area. At the same time, consultations with women's refuges, which at present would prefer to be part of a purely Commonwealth program, will be undertaken to see whether they would find such new arrangements satisfactory. As indicated, we have provided $4m for the women's emergency services program in 1983-84. We are conscious of the need to ensure that funds are allocated as soon as possible and are taking steps to ensure that the funds can begin to flow quickly. It is envisaged that, prior to further consideration of the long-term structure of this program, arrangements for the allocation of this $4m will be consistent with the overall arrangements proposed for the crisis accommodation program. The review also considered a number of housing programs and proposed, as a basis for negotiations, that the crisis acommodation for families in distress program should be incorporated into an expanded mortgage and rent relief scheme. This would provide States with greater flexibility in the area, in response to their wishes. Negotiations on the housing programs will be carried out under the direction of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). The review recommended that, as part of the renegotiation of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, an agreed proportion of public rental stock be made available for crisis accommodation purposes, and that youth and other users of crisis accommodation such as women's refuges have improved access to public rental housing. I seek leave to table a more detailed outline of the discussion proposals, including a draft outline of program guidelines. These will be forwarded to the States prior to commencing negotiations. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —The Commonwealth Government recognises the crucial importance of effective crisis accommodation arrangements, including assistance for homeless youth and for women in crisis. Certainly there are issues to be resolved, but I am confident that in our negotiations with the States and non-government organisations we will be able to resolve these. The recommendations of the review provide a useful basis for Commonwealth and State governments to work together to develop coherent and effective arrangements in this area. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.14) —I rise to welcome this statement from the Government on the problems of crisis and youth accommodation. I think the statement is particularly timely in view of the fact that for some months the Government has been undertaking a review of this matter, which flowed on from review procedures established by the previous Government. We noted the concern generally in the community earlier this year about programs for crisis accommodation and support services for youth under the youth services scheme. In July the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) announced that there was to be some temporary funding of, I believe, some $2m. Since that time we have been waiting for the Government to make some further announcement on this type of service. This statement is based upon the Government's review of all programs. The review found that existing Commonwealth and State programs were generally unco- ordinated and in fact overlapped. I think that has been one of the great concerns of people interested in this area, and it was particularly drawn to the attention of the Senate and the Government by Senator Chaney when he was Minister. These problems are relatively recent. As they have grown and the Government has attempted to come to grips with them, I think there has been an evolutionary phase in the development of policies. The move to establish a crisis accommodation assistance Act and subsequent machinery is welcome, with perhaps one or two reservations. Certainly a number of good features are outlined in the explanation of the three programs to be administered under the Act. The innovation of the five-year funding basis will be welcomed by all involved in providing services. This will overcome problems raised earlier this year when funding for the youth support services scheme was coming to an end. Considerable concern and uncertainty was expressed about the future of youth centres which had been created as a result of that funding. The Government's emphasis on flexibility is a very admirable feature. I think it is very significant that this is going to be one of the keys to the success not only of the negotiation procedures into which the Government is now entering but also the subsequent operation of the schemes under which a more satisfactory type of accommodation will be provided for people who are in this sort of need. The Government's commitment to the continued use of State and non-government bodies in the administration and implementation of the programs is particularly welcome. It is true that State governments and those agencies have the expertise and are closer to the consumers and therefore are able to react more quickly than is possible under a centralised program administered solely by the Commonwealth. The establishment of bodies to enhance consultation between the Commonwealth, the States and non-government bodies is also to be widely welcomed . There are, however, one or two reservations in that regard. I believe that we must avoid at all costs the possible over-bureaucratisation of the program by the central control that may be exercised from Canberra. That would affect the flexibility which the Minister stated in the paper as being one of the keynotes of success in delivering the appropriate service. Assistance in this area must go to those in need. We have to recognise that different groups have different needs. Although there may be some overlapping of problems, groups such as the youth group have distinct and separate problems. Obviously the biggest problems faced by the youth group are unemployment, lack of vocational training, as well as homelessness. Those things need to be addressed very clearly as part of the overall program with regard to homelessness. The problems of that group are quite distinct from the problems of the more traditional homeless people-those in their middle age who are in need of rehabilitation because of alcoholism, financial failure, family breakup and matters of that kind. Those people are clearly in need of a distinct and separate kind of assistance from that required by people in the youth group. The third group, of course, is women who are homeless because of temporary or permanent family breakdown or disharmony. Of course, the special needs of the children of women in that unfortunate situation also need to be taken specially into account. I think that the point about the need for flexibility is very important, and the Government is commended for endeavouring to meet that difficulty. As we go through the negotiating phase there will be some need to clarify the eventual and final form of the committees which will be established with voluntary agencies, State governments and the Commonwealth government to administer these programs so that we will have a clear understanding of the way in which the programs can be properly administered. It is obvious that the problems, which have arisen in some areas such as in nursing home administration where similar committees have been established between those organisations and governments, are a signpost to the kinds of considerations which the Government must think about very deeply before implementing administrative programs at the Federal level in order to ensure that they reach their final conclusion. I believe there are some lessons to be learned. For instance, the question of staffing ratios which are applied by the Federal Government in regard to the operation of nursing homes, hostels and organisations of that kind are a guide to the difficulties which may be faced. These problems in regard to homelessness occur as a result of an inadequate appreciation of the quickly changing scene-the result of multitudinous factors in our society-in a community. We hope that restraints are not to be applied in these programs and that the Government will give very deep consideration to the implementation of its administrative and bureaucratic machinery. Obviously there is a need not to create centres where few people are in need. Clearly funds should not be squandered but should be directed to those who are experiencing the most real crises. I think that some queries arise when we consider that aspect. There is also the question of the women's emergency services program which stands out in this area. The guidelines which are attached to the Minister's statement state that Government sponsorship of projects is permissible where no suitable non- government agency is available. I think that first of all we need to establish what level of government we are talking about. Does it mean State government, the Federal Government or local government? Does the statement mean, if we are talking about the Federal Government, that intervention by the Federal Government is likely in the area where no non-government agency is available? I would like to hear the Minister's views about that matter in the course of the debate on this subject. Other matters are of concern and I hope there would be some scope for a far greater involvement of the third level of government-that is local government-in the implementation of the programs. I hope that the Federal Government in dealing with the States would be proposing that local government would be able to take a far greater role in this area. It is a truism to observe that local government is an enormous untapped source of expertise and can give a quick and very useful assessment of the local needs in regard to this matter. I believe that on the whole local government would be most willing to involve itself and to assist in the provision of services for the homeless, being as close as it is to the community. In fact we could clearly see co-operation occurring at all three levels being very effective in delivering appropriate services. Again, the Opposition welcomes the statement and looks forward to seeing the Government's firmer policies being developed in this area and we wish the Government well in the course of its deliberations and discussions with the State governments. I hope the Government notes the points that we have made in regard to establishing close liaison with local government and non-government agencies. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.25) —The Australian Democrats support the Government on the proposals contained in the statement on the review of crisis and youth accommodation. Unfortunately, I have not had time to review the statement completely, but on initial reading it appears as though the Commonwealth Government is at last seriously addressing itself to the crisis situation which exists in relation to youth accommodation. Having said this, I would like to express a few reservations in regard to major points. Firstly, I am concerned about the shift in administration from the Commonwealth to the States, in spite of the Government's undertaking to relieve some of the additional pressure which will be put on the States by providing for the additional administrative costs within the funding arrangement. My concern is that in passing administrative control to the States, we may allow the scheme to wind down eventually and to be lost completely, as happened with the Australian assistance plan. I believe it would be better to maintain a close supervision at the Federal level until the new programs have been firmly established. Secondly, my concern relates to the new youth support scheme in that although it is a vastly improved scheme, it still does not allow for capital expenditure for the purpose of purchase and maintenance of accommodation. I believe that there is very good evidence to suggest that in many places the outright purchase of accommodation would be cheaper in the long run than rental. I would have thought that this flexibility ought to have been provided within the scheme. Thirdly, my concern relates to the fact that it appears as though the Government has not thought of tying housing grants specifically to youth housing. The National Youth Coalition for Housing put forward such a proposal. It seemed to me that this proposal would indeed be able to be accommodated well within the range of programs which the Government is here proposing. I think that in many States single young people in particular are last on the list for priority for public housing and I would have thought that the Government might have been able to tie those things together in order to assist in that regard. But having stated those reservations, I would certainly like to reiterate the Democrats' support for the new initiatives. If the legislation may be needed to spell out any of the programs mentioned in the statement and if the legislation closely reflects the concerns in the statement, the Government will have our total support. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the fifth report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(3.29) —I move: That unless otherwise ordered, after consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order, intervening business be postponed until after consideration of General Business order of the day No. 109, Animal Welfare- Select Committee-Membership and Powers and, after consideration of General Business order of the day No. 109, General Business be not further considered this day. Mr Deputy President, I advise that this arrangement is being proposed at the suggestion of the Opposition. It will mean that after the Senate has considered Senator Chipp's motion, the Senate will continue with the debate on the proposed reference of the National Crime Authority Bills to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Question resolved in the affirmative. Policy Discussion Paper Record of Proceedings First Annual Report Consideration resumed from 10 November 1983, on motion by Senator Chipp: That the Senate take note of the papers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1982-83 Debate resumed from 16 November 1983, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.32) —In light of the fact that Senator Coleman is otherwise engaged and is not able to be here for this item of General Business, I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sixth Report Consideration resumed from 16 November 1983, on motion by Senator Peter Rae: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Agreement Consideration resumed from 16 November 1983, on motion by Senator Archer: That the Senate take note of the paper. (Quorum formed) Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 16 November 1983, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria)(3.35) —Firstly, in my opinion, the Government response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has been rather strangely formulated. In my view it may well have fallen off the back of a truck between Darwin and Timbuktu. The editor could have been any one of a number of persons because it is written in both the first and second persons. I find that rather strange. In the second paragraph on page 4 of the report, this terminology is used: . . . I do not think it warrants detailed comment now. Further down the page the response states: I now come to the last and most important part of the Senate report . . . Later it states: I shall take these together: Yet on page 5 it states: In a statement issued at the conclusion of his visit, Mr Hayden reaffirmed . . . Later, in the same paragraph, it states: At the same time, Mr Hayden made it clear . . . I am wondering who the author of the response is in actual fact. It came to the Senate without any signature whatever on it. As I said, it may well have fallen off the back of a truck. It could have come from the Sydney fish market or God knows where. It seems to me that the authors are obviously in the Indonesian desk at the Department of Foreign Affairs. I suggest that they go back to school and learn how to put a report together. If that is the best that they can do then God help Foreign Affairs and God help the Timorese. In other parts of the response there is a general tendency, in my view, to write down the Senate Committee's report by stating that the Senate Committee's report was largely prepared from evidence given by refugees as though there is something wrong with a refugee. It states that much of the report relates to the immediate aftermath of the Indonesian invasion. When I spoke on the tabling of this report, I pointed out that the Committee did its utmost and succeeded in taking evidence from people from Timor who had arrived in Australia only a matter of a very few days or a very few weeks before the hearings. Later, the reponse states: The suggestion that there was some semblance of normal political freedom in East Timor at the end of Portugese rule overlooks the extreme social and political backwardness of East Timor at that time. So what? The facts of the matter were, in the view of the Committee after listening to evidence from all over Australia and elsewhere, that there was some semblance of normal political freedom in East Timor at the end of Portugese rule . Why do the authors have to tend to denigrate the authors of the Senate Committee report by introducing material like that? Later on the response again, in a somewhat denigrating view of the Senate Committee's report, stated: It should be noted in this respect that food shortages have long been a feature of life in East Timor. The facts of the matter are that that is true, but what the authors of this response do not go on to say is that those food shortages were regional and were overcome by the transfer of food and other goods by the people within East Timor . When one area was short of food, food was transported from areas where there was plenty of food. For that reason I am very distressed at the way the authors have put this response together. In relation to the Committee's recommendations, vis-a-vis the question of some form of consensus being taken in East Timor for the people to decide whether they want to go in with Indonesia or not, the response is not in keeping with Australian Labor Party policy on this matter. The first paragraph of the ALP policy on East Timor carried at the last National Conference, states: The ALP recognises the inalienable right of the East Timorese to self- determination and independence and condemns and rejects the Australian government's recognition of the Indonesian annexation of East Timor. My time is running out. I just say, in the final analysis, that it is regrettable that public servants have, in my view, much more influence and input into government policy on foreign affairs than do the Australian people's elected representatives in this place. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.39) —I rise to speak on the Government response to the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on East Timor. I regret I did not hear all that Senator Primmer said, but I also find this response an extremely evasive and unsatisfactory one and one which does not stand to the credit of this Government. In the very short period that we have to discuss this matter may I comment on some of the remarks contained in the response which demonstrate what I say. In the early part of the Government's response, where it talks about the situation in 1974, it states: After that, the collapse of Portugese rule and the turmoil and chaos of civil war, led ultimately to Indonesian intervention. That really telescopes a lot of facts and truths, and leaves them out, because we know that the encouragement which I am afraid the Indonesians received from some United States sources and the encouragement which they received from the Australian Government at that time-that was the Whitlam Government-was such that the Indonesians were persuaded that they could get away with such an intervention. It certainly was not just the turmoil and chaos that led to the Indonesian intervention. There is a lot more to it than that. When one goes further, in the response one finds that it mentions the two reports, including the one of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation that went recently to East Timor. It states that the report of the Delegation was compiled on the basis of first hand experience and observation. Of course, it was the result of a four- day visit and a visit during which the Delegation rapidly went from one place to another. I think it must be recognised that there was inadequate material before both bodies when they prepared their reports. The report we are discussing today had to be based partially on evidence given by people who had not been in Timor for some time. Also, I think that in one or two cases witnesses could not come here-certainly they were not supported in coming here. So there are defects. I now turn to the various matters which this response deals with. The matter of human rights can only be said to be dealt with in a very scant and inadequate way. The response mentions the atrocities and abuses of human rights which took place on both sides. There is no doubt where the mass of atrocities took place. It was not the Timorese who were killing the 150,000 or so of their fellow persons who were there at that time. They were not dropping people from helicopters and planes. They were not doing these various things which are matters of history. Of course they are matters of the past, but we in this Parliament should still be watching for any continuation of them. We know that, despite the optimism of the Delegation that went to Indonesia, since then, a considerable campaign has been waged against an apparently almost non-existent enemy. But we were told that that was not going to happen. We were told by the members of the delegation which went there that they put all their trust in Governor Carrascalao. He seems to have lost a large part of his power since then and has been pushed into the background. I think we have to watch the area closely because we still have an interest, and a human rights interest, in Indonesia. I believe that in considering current conditions there one must recognise that current conditions include what seems to be violence and behaviour towards the native peoples of Timor that is, not worthy of a country of the size of Indonesia. Although there have been improvements in the normal conditions of the people there and there may not be the famines and so forth that there were, nonetheless the absence of human rights and the fact that people in their thousands are still in camps, and there without trial, are matters which should be constantly part of our concern. The recommendations are dealt with in a most cursory manner. I presume it is the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) who says in the response: The Australian Government has never sought to evade the obvious fact that there have been differences between Australia and Indonesia over East Timor. What a weak and pusillanimous attitude that is. Why should we be avoiding that obvious fact. We never sought to evade it? What have we done to explain it in straightforward terms to them? I think very often our Department of Foreign Affairs has tended to put the facts aside. It has not always investigated the complaints that have been made. I believe that altogether this response and its attitude towards the recommendations in the report do not make positive statements of what we will do in the future, in what way we will help the Timorese people and in what way we will ensure that the help we give to them goes into their hands and not into the hands of the officials, and Indonesian officials at that. I believe this is a totally unsatisfactory response to the report of the Committee. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.45) -I wish to address myself briefly to the Government's response to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence inquiry into human rights and the conditions of the people in East Timor. I preface my remarks by saying that I am convinced now, as I was then, that it was an unfortunate area of investigation. It was an area of great emotionalism. It was an area in which we found it extremely hard to get a cross-section of views, and it was an area in which we could find no way, as a committee, of investigating the situation on the ground. Having said that, it is abundantly clear to me, having read the Government's response, that the response very closely follows the conclusions of the three members of the Committee who unfortunately saw fit to issue a dissenting report. It very closely follows the views that were reached in that dissenting report. For instance, the Government's response highlights the sad history of the East Timorese under 400 years, or thereabouts, of Portugese occupation. It also indicates that prior to April 1974 there was no real emergence of an independence movement or of individual political parties. It refers of course to the collapse of Portugese rule-the collapse of colonialism-to the chaos, the turmoil and the civil war that followed that occurrence and to the intervention at that stage, at the conclusion of the civil war or indeed partly in an attempt to conclude it, of the Indonesian Government itself. The Senate Committee report was compiled largely from evidence that came from refugees, and much of it was five, six or seven years old. Of course these were matters which we, in our dissenting report, highlighted and which have clearly been observed by the Government in its response to that report. On human rights, the Government came to the conclusion that atrocities certainly were committed on both sides, but that there is now a human rights situation which is significantly better than the rather disastrous circumstances of five to seven years ago. That was the conclusion that our dissenting report likewise came to. Similarly the Government's response suggests, basically as a result of the visit of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to East Timor, that the current conditions are significantly better than they were some years ago. There is no specific food shortage. There is indeed a probability that within a few years East Timor may well be self-sufficient in rice and in a number of other fibres. The Parliamentary Delegation concluded that there is also to be seen a distinct improvement in communications and in the general health and welfare of the Timorese people in their present circumstance. The United Nations resolutions and actions was a third area of inquiry and the Government's response on that was merely to remark that these are a matter of historical record, which after all is true. On the question of Australian policy towards East Timor the Government response concluded, as indeed the dissenting report concluded, that the best thing we could do for East Timor was to maintain a pressure in a circumstance of close liaison with the Indonesians directed towards the welfare and development of East Timor itself. The final matter I wish to raise relates to the appropriate action to be taken by the Australian Government. I think the concluding words of the dissenting report really sum up the view expressed in the Government's response: As history has unfolded Australia can best serve the people of East Timor by expanding its determination to liaise with Indonesia in helping the wide spectrum development of the island as an Indonesian province instead of as a Portugese colony. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(3.50) —I think I can help Senator Primmer with regard to the ostensible author of the paper we are considering. I take it that in accordance with the current practice when the word 'I' appears in the report it refers to the Minister who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). In this case it is the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), although I understand he had no personal part in tabling this document in the Senate. It deals with a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which was tabled on 8 September. That inquiry began in November 1981. The Committee was charged with reporting not only on the human rights and conditions of people in East Timor but also on the actions taken by the United Nations and on the appropriate policies that might be adopted by an Australian government. Two days before the Senate Committee's report was tabled a report from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which had visited East Timor was tabled in the Parliament. It had the advantage, of course , which our Committee was denied, of visiting the province of East Timor. Our Committee's report was, regrettably, divided. Three Government senators supported the report and three Opposition senators opposed it. This is very regrettable but there was no way in which we could reach agreement in relation to most areas. Our criticisms of the report were as follows: It was almost entirely based on the views of refugees; much of their information was out of date; they were dealing not with matters that were referred to the Committee but with events that occurred some years ago; and refugees, whether from the Soviet Union, East Timor or elsewhere are notoriously a very unreliable source of information about the state of the country from which they have fled. We saw no satisfied Timorese. We saw no Indonesians. The whole tone of the report, in our view, was anti-Indonesian in slant. With regard to the recommendations-we agreed with one recommendation but disagreed with the others-the problem was that the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia is irreversible. The recommendations, if the Government had taken any notice of them, would have antagonised the Indonesians, harmed our ability to help the East Timorese and achieved nothing. For those reasons the Opposition senators on that Committee dissented from nearly all of the recommendations. I should make it clear that in my view-I think this is the view of my colleagues-the Indonesian invasion of East Timor was in clear breach of international law. It was accompanied by great brutality. The short term effect was to do great harm both to human rights and to the physical condition of the people of East Timor. However, our information is that the conditions of the people of East Timor are improving. That was supported by the views of the Joint Committee which visited East Timor. I agree with the Government's rejection of virtually all the recommendations made by the Senate Committee from which we dissented because they would be mere irritants and would achieve nothing but harm in our relations with Indonesia. They would not help us at all in our ability to assist the people of East Timor. We all agreed with one recommendation, that is, that Australia should encourage Indonesia to permit the free movement of East Timorese out of Indonesia and East Timor and that Australia should continue its family reunion program for East Timorese. In the Government's response, the point is made that as a result of that policy being implemented there has been a steady improvement in family reunion. That program is now virtually complete. I congratulate the Government on the decisions it has made. I think it made the proper decisions. The decisions will not be popular with some people. I do not think the people with whom the decisions will not be popular really understand the consequences to us, the Indonesians and the East Timorese of the actions they proposed. I can well understand why the Government did not choose to have this matter debated either by the Caucus Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee or by the Caucus itself. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.54) —The Government, by its response, has virtually rejected the majority report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and essentially has accepted the minority report. I speak as one who, a long while ago, had some knowledge of East Timor. The Government's response and ministerial statement has, for the first time of which I am aware, put down some of the essentials for any such debate, such as a description of the nature of the island, the meagre resources, the lack of any particular agricultural potential, the very poor quality of the colonisation of the Portuguese over the centuries, the lack of any public service infrastructure by the Portuguese, the fact that the people themselves have been subjected, as the Aborigines here have, to all the bad characteristics of the Western community, and the very low subsistence level of the people in East Timor. To understand the island one must understand that it has bare subsistence, it is mountainous and it has only very small pockets of agriculture. The people themselves live in very fiercely independent tribal areas. They are very proud of their tribal leaders and kings. No public service was developed by the Portuguese. I think that at the time the Portuguese left one medical officer on the island. The point I want to stress more than anything else is that when we look towards these people, for whom I have considerable affection and sympathy, our primary aim, apart from assistance given through the Department of Foreign Affairs, should be to give as much medical help to that island as we can. Senator Primmer —The Indonesians knock it off. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let us press on and let us check it. If that is the case we must overcome that problem. The fact is that the Timorese, in the same way as the Aborigines, have inherited from us upper respiratory tract infections of a chronic nature, tuberculosis which is tremendously infectious, venereal diseases, various other diseases of the Western world and, of course, those diseases that flow from our habits in relation to alcohol and diet. As one who knows something about the problems of health and diet in that area I emphasise that the first problem to tackle is that of health. A person who is healthy, who is not plagued with dysentery, malaria, avitaminosis, typhus or any of those kinds of diseases can exist on six or eight ounces of uncooked rice a day. I know, because I did so for years. A person who has two pounds of uncooked rice a day and who is subjected to any one or two of those diseases is likely to die. In other words, we should be attempting to improve their health by attacking malaria and the amoebic and bacillary dysenteries. We should attack, above everything else, tuberculosis and upper respiratory tract infections. We should get them healthy. We should immunise the young as we did in Vietnam. I saw that being done to the young in Vietnam. We should de-worm them, de-louse them and de -scabies them as we had to do with the Aborigines. We will be doing more for the new generations ahead if we can give them a healthy body. They will survive on their Indian maize, corn, gula, malacca, and the sago palm sugar. They will survive on the wild goats, caribous or buffaloes in that area provided they are healthy. I make the plea that above everything else we do we should seek to help them on a health level. I think that this is a time of need and understanding. It is true that we can criticise the Indonesians for their actions in 1975. We can criticise ourselves equally or even more strongly than that. The Indonesians themselves suffered enourmous problems because under the Japanese they had no public service structure or infrastructure. They had to build a public service from nothing. I say this to the Senate: Of all the nations I have seen in South East Asia and the nations in which I have lived the Indonesians have made tremendous gains. They started literally from nothing, from an army form of public service, and they now have a much more orderly show. There is a much greater distance to run. I ask the Australian people, not with any lack of criticism, to look at the Indonesians, to understand the problems that they face and to reach out to them with the hand of friendship. They are our next door neighbours. They are people who have a lot to give to this area. Of course where we have problems raised by Amnesty or anybody else, we must act. We must always be against any kind of tyranny. The message that ought to come through from this is that we should learn more about human understanding. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Ministerial Statement Annual Report 1982-83 Annual Report 1982-83 Report Annual Report 1982-83 Communique Ministerial Statement Papers Consideration resumed from 16 November 1983, on motion by Senator Crowley: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(4.00) —I wish to comment on two of the papers. I guess that other senators have different interests, but I was particularly drawn to the annual report for 1982-83 of the Human Rights Commission. I found it a most fascinating document. I cannot possibly give a report on all the points raised in it. It describes very nicely what the Commission is about and what it has done this year. In particular, the Human Rights Commission addresses itself to the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. Under that Act it can review legislation, investigate complaints, and undertake research and educational programs affecting human rights, and it is further charged with the administration of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Some things it can do on its own initiative; on others it takes instructions from the Attorney-General. I suppose that the most recent example of the Human Rights Commission acting under its own initiative was earlier this week when the Commission met and decided to send an observer to the Alice Springs gaol to observe the procedures following arrest of prisoners from the Pine Gap demonstrations. Senator Walters —How much did that cost the taxpayer? Senator Archer —Was that really necessary? Senator CROWLEY —I am very interested that Opposition senators are all suddenly so interested. Perhaps they will observe that when it is reported next year. One of the principal functions of the Human Rights Commission, apart from its responsibility in terms of reviewing legislation and taking complaints and investigating them, is to promote an understanding, an acceptance and a public discussion of matters of human rights in Australia. To answer the interjections just made, that is precisely what the Commission will be achieving with its observer in Alice Springs. Public discussion about what happens to people after they are arrested will be able to take place based on the independent observations by the Commission's observer. I should have thought that that was well worth whatever the cost is. Further, the Human Rights Commission is able to undertake research and educational programs and any other programs that it might see fit to undertake. I am particularly taken in the report with the effort the Commission has made to address itself to its responsibility for disseminating information and in taking up its educational role. In particular, the Commission has devised a course entitled 'Teaching Human Rights: Activities for Schools'. This course provides activities and materials organised around set topics, including human rights and the law, freedom of conscience, opinion and expression, the right to live and the right to die, freedom of assembly, association and participation in public affairs, equal opportunity, non-discrimination, the family, and education. These are organised into a course for school children. That is one area of the Commission's responsibility that ought to be applauded. I notice further that the Commission is hoping to address itself in the near future to the development of material for adult and community educators. I am interested that it sees the provision of materials for adult education as quite separate from the provision of materials for school education. Finally, I raise two points. The first concerns the comments made by the Commission on the Mental Health Ordinance in the Australian Capital Territory. I have had the privilege of sitting on the Mental Health Review Tribunal in South Australia for four years, so matters of rights of people under Mental Health Acts are of some interest to me. I notice that the Commission commented on these ordinances, and its report, which was tabled in Parliament on 9 December 1982, is summarised here. It stresses the right of people to suicide if they choose, and says that attempting to commit suicide is not in itself evidence of insanity or mental illness. It is quite an interesting challenge for us to consider the Human Rights Commission suggesting-and I do not believe that this has been widely debated by the public-that the choice to commit suicide is a right of people, the right to die, and that, further, it is not evidence necessarily of mental illness. The Commission also suggests that while it is very distressing to watch people who are becoming ill, particularly for relatives and friends in the community, compulsory intervention at an early stage to relieve that distress should not be permitted. I find that very interesting and somewhat perturbing. I would offer to follow this up with the Commission, because I am not sure that we should leave people who are becoming psychiatrically ill to make decisions on their own behalf until they are very ill, at which stage their care and treatment is more difficult. I was fascinated to discover that the Commission has taken a considerable look at the problems of corporal punishment because it had a submission from Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education. The most striking comment in the report is that the Commission will seek the reaction of children themselves before it concludes its inquiry. I am rather fascinated by the Commission asking children how they expect to be hit. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.06) — When I turned to the list of papers, I noticed that in relation to the treaties the document states: Text of Treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature. Over the page we get: Texts of Treaties which Australia has accepted or to which Australia has acceded. That is not accurate; it is not even a summary. I certainly do not have any of the texts or even a summary of the treaties and I have no idea what the treaties are. I believe that every honourable senator should know in detail what they are . I take just one of them, and I gather that the country of Australia has already accepted this treaty and acceded to it. It states: Amendment to Article 11, paragraph 2 (a) of the Constitution of the Asia- Pacific Telecommunity, adopted on 27 March 1976, which amendment was adopted at Bangkok on 13 November 1981. The Amendment was accepted by Australia on 16 August 1983 and has not yet entered into force. What amendment? I have absolutely no idea what that amendment is, and I defy anyone else in the chamber to have any idea of what the amendment was or, indeed , any knowledge of any of the treaties. The treaties might be tabled, but I am sure that the Government does not expect every honourable senator to go and sit at the table and read the texts of the treaties. Senator Gietzelt —Most of those matters were tabled in due course. Senator WALTERS —Yes, that is what I said. I believe that they were tabled, but I do not believe that the Government would expect us all to sit at the table and read the treaties one by one. Can the contents of the treaties-- Senator Gietzelt —Ignorance has never been an excuse. Senator WALTERS —I believe that that was wrong. I agree with Senator Gietzelt, but I believe that treaties have become far more important to the Australian community since his Party has been in government. The fact that since he has been in government the whole Constitution of Australia has changed by the present Government's use of the external affairs powers and by its challenge regarding Tasmania in the High Court of Australia-- Senator Crowley —Upheld. Senator WALTERS —As Senator Crowley says, it was upheld, but not upheld in a legal sense; it was in an opinion sense, and it cannot be described in any other form at all. There were seven High Court judges. The senior High Court judge said that the external affairs power of the Constitution could not be used in that way. Two other judges agreed with that view. Four judges were of the opposing view. It was on the opinion of those four judges, opinion only, and on their personal views and feelings that the Constitution of Australia was so radically and dramatically changed. It was forced to change by the centralist Government that is now in power. It is for that very reason that I ask the Government, now that the treaties and conventions have been signed and accepted, and will be carried out particularly while this Government is in power, to give each honourable senator the details of them. That was not necessary while we were in power, because only with the agreement of the States could the treaties be forced through to State governments. This Government is not of that persuasion. It is a centralist government. It demands, indeed forces on the States-whether they agree or not and even without consultation with them-any conventions or treaties that it signs. It is for this reason that I believe the whole system must be altered. Every honourable senator in this chamber needs to have a complete detailed knowledge of what the Government is about and on what it is signing on behalf of all the States. While Tasmania was the first victim of this Government's powers, of the change in the Constitution, every State and every honourable senator must be interested in the protection of their States and must be given the opportunity to obtain the necessary knowledge. Because of this situation, I ask the Government not just to table the treaties, but to allow each honourable senator to have a detailed copy of them in their rooms at the time they would normally be tabled. Senator Gietzelt —But when the documents are tabled you can ask to speak to the tabling of the documents. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Walters —Can I answer the interjection, Mr Deputy President, because I do not think the Minister quite understood what I was saying. I acknowledge the honourable senator's point. Every report is also tabled, and I do not think the Minister expects us to be able to talk to them or to go to the table and peruse them. They are put in our rooms. I am asking that the treaties also be put in our rooms. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.11) —A couple of very interesting matters have been raised by honourable senators under what is a compendious motion covering a series of papers. I think it would be in the interests of the Senate if we could separate those papers and leave them on the Notice Paper for further consideration. With that in mind, I seek leave to move a separate motion that the Senate take note of the Human Rights Commission annual report 1982-83, to have it adjourned and put on the Notice Paper, and to move a separate motion with respect to the Treaties-Australia's Involvement, papers. Leave granted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I think this report is a matter to which the Senate may wish to direct its attention, particularly in light of the announced intention of the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) to introduce human rights legislation. For that reason, this report, which raises a number of interesting matters, some of which were touched on in the very brief speech that was given by Senator Crowley within the five-minute limit, needs further consideration. It seems to me that in the General Business time which remains for us in this session there may be an opportunity for us to come back to that. At this stage, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Papers Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. Since another senator wishes to speak on this matter, which has already been addressed by Senator Walters, may I not speak at this stage and reserve my right to speak at a later date? Leave granted. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.16) —I wish to make some comments concerning the list of treaties. I wish to draw attention to the list that was tabled yesterday . As anybody who has looked at it would find, it contains agreements covering a fairly wide variety of areas. For instance, it covers matters dealing with telecommunications, the Antarctic, air services, meat trade, fishing, wetlands, coffee, marine living resources, and others. The point to be made is that the Government's attitude is that all these matters, whether at home or abroad, can now fall within the Government's use of its foreign affairs powers and interpretation. I do not think that many people would realise that to deal with a group of treaties of that nature could throw this net over all those matters, whether they be within or outside the Commonwealth. It may well be of concern to many people to know that irrespective of the Government's involvement with these matters, it may intervene. The centralist and expansive desires of the Government may well be felt in any of these areas as they will in any other area of the approximately 1,400 treaties and agreements on various issues that we have with other countries. All I wish to do is record the fact that I totally oppose the concept of the use of these foreign affairs powers in these totally inappropriate ways. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Ministerial Statement Senator Grimes-In the spirit of conciliation, may I ask that Senator Crowley have leave to speak on a report on medical fraud. As the motion was moved en bloc, she really does not have the right to speak again. Leave granted. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(4.19) —I felt it was important to make a brief comment about this statement, because very much discussion happened in this place during the introduction of the Medicare legislation. One of the arguments brought against the introduction of Medicare legislation was the possibility of fraud. These points were also raised during the Estimates committees, particularly during Estimates Committee B hearings. There are a number of things that must be noted. One is that the Government has made it very clear that it will not tolerate the abuses of medical fraud and is very serious about its intention to reduce the magnitude of the problem. I presume that means that it does not think it will reduce it altogether. It is also important to notice that the medical fraud that is currently being pursued is happening under the existing health insurance scheme which is a combination of private health insurance funds. While it may be the case that it will continue under Medicare, I think we have first to note that medical fraud of a considerable size has been happening under the existing insurance schemes. It may well be-I would argue that it is certainly likely to be-the case that under Medicare the likelihood of fraud will be reduced because it will be easier for the Health Insurance Commission to pursue that small percentage of medical practitioners who engage in this practice. The paper devotes quite some time to an estimate of how much medical fraud amounts to. I will not devote too much time to the extraordinarily complex formula arrived at, but it is certainly estimated that last year it was $100m and probably it will be nearer to $120m in the current financial year. That is a very large amount of taxpayers' money being lost to the community, and the Government says that it will address itself most seriously to preventing that continual loss. It is important to note that in the Budget $8m was allocated to pursue medical fraud practitioners. It is also important to note that only a very small percentage of medical practitioners are involved. It is estimated that about 3 per cent of doctors actually could be charged with or are involved in medical fraud. Even so, they are doing very well, thank you; they get away with about $120m a year. It is important to note, too, how much it is costing the taxpayer to pursue medical fraud moneys. It costs at least the $8m allocated in the Budget, but also a further $4m was appropriated to the Australian Federal Police. There are more appropriations in other departments, so perhaps the cost may be even higher than $12m. This expenditure is justified in terms of the possibility of reclaiming some of that $120m; however, during Estimates committee hearings we were given evidence that although that may be the estimate of what is lost, it is certainly not the amount of money that is reclaimed even when doctors are found guilty and charged . So I think we have to notice just how expensive medical fraud is and in particular the costs this Government is bearing to ensure that that medical fraud does not continue at the current rate. Even so it is a very big expense and I think it is important that we do take it very seriously. Some people in our community take considerable punishment by way of gaol sentences or large fines if they are found guilty of crimes. Many of that small percentage of doctors, although large numbers in terms of dollars might be involved, who are actually guilty of medical fraud, which is a considerable crime in terms of the size of the exercise, are able to avoid any punishment at all because it is very dificult to collect evidence against them. The Government is saying it does not believe one set of criminals should be treated differently from another set of criminals. Medical fraud is a crime that we do not tolerate. However, we also appreciate that chasing and catching that fraud is a very expensive business. The collection of data raises some very important difficulties in terms of the invasion of the civil rights of people whose evidence may be necessary in order to bring charges against the medical practitioners. The Government's legislation changes will address these matters but I think it is too complex a matter on which to develop an argument at this stage, so I seek leave to continue my remarks later. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Crowley, you cannot seek leave because you were given leave to make a statement. You made your statement by leave; that is the end of it. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.24) —We are all caught by the fact that a procedure has been followed which we would all agree is rather cumbersome and does not enable us to follow the normal forms. I suggest that if Senator Crowley or indeed Senator Walters wishes to keep this matter alive for further discussion now or at a later time, they might follow the procedure of seeking leave to move a separate motion to take note of the paper. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That would be appropriate. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 16 November 1983 on motion by Senator Chipp: Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.25) —I do not wish to detain the Senate for very long because this is a matter where, as I understand it, it is clear where the majority lies. Senator Chipp has moved a motion to establish a Select Committee on Animal Welfare, to consist of four senators. That matter has been addressed on behalf of the Opposition by Senator Scott who laid down a series of propositions about the work already being done and indicated that we would not oppose the establishment of the Committee notwithstanding the fact that a great deal is being done in this field. On behalf of the Opposition I wish to move an amendment to the terms of the motion to establish the Select Committee. I move: In paragraph (1) of the motion, leave out the words 'four', 'two' and 'one' and insert 'six', 'three' and 'two'. I shall speak quickly to that. Senator Chipp's proposal is to establish a select committee consisting of only four senators. That is not a unique proposition of course; there have been other select committees of that size although the more common size of committees of the Senate has been six. On this occasion four senators have been selected and I understand the reasoning behind that is that there is a heavy committee work load and it is not desired to add to that any more than is necessary. The feeling on the part of the Government, as I understand it, is that a couple of senators is a reasonable complement from its side to man this Committee. The difficulty that arises from the Opposition's point of view is that with two members to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), one to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) we will have the situation whereby the official Opposition has only one representative. The difficulty with that is two-fold: First, the Opposition is officially composed of two parties and within each of the parties, although we are in coalition and generally in close harmony, there are quite particular interests in this matter which is of great public interest around Australia. I think there is a particular interest in it in the State of Victoria but certainly there is in other States as well. There is a desire on the part of the Opposition to participate in this Committee, if it is to be established, on the basis of having two representatives rather than one. That would enable both the Opposition parties to be represented and would enable us to also have what we see as a slightly better balance between the official Opposition and the Australian Democrats. As the motion stands, five Democrats would be represented by one member and 28 Liberal and National party senators would also be represented by one member. In terms of the balance of the Committee we would prefer that change. I put the view, and I think we would be consistent in putting this in most cases, that we would wish the Senate, in general, to aim to have committees with a maximum of six members. Having that number of members eases the administration of committees, quite apart from the considerations I have raised. It does mean that a committee can divide into sub-committees, and that it can carry out its work when some senators are unavoidably absent on other business. It would ease the position considerably. It does make for a more fair representation of the official Opposition. I move that amendment for those reasons. It has been indicated to me by the Government and by the Leader of the Australian Democrats that they do not support it, although I should not purport to speak for them in this debate. On behalf of the Opposition I commend the points which I have made for the Senate's consideration and I seek support for that change. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.30) —I rise to confirm what the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, said; that is, that the Government is not inclined to support the amendment moved by him. I think that this is a matter of balance. We have a situation in which a very heavy work load is placed on members of the Senate in the committee area. I make no bones about it. There is always a problem on the Government side, as honourable senators opposite would know, that six people are removed from the possibility of being members of such committees because they are Ministers. We believe, on balance, that four is a satisfactory number of members on the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. We do not believe we will gain anything other than to increase the workload unnecessarily by making the number six. It is essentially a committee which will not, we believe, divide on any party, ideological or philosophical ground. It will be, as all committees should be, I suppose, a fact finding committee. Out of those facts will come recommendations. For those reasons and after looking at the matter on balance, we will not support the amendment moved by Senator Chaney. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.32) —Regretfully we cannot support the Liberal amendment, although we have great sympathy with it . The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, put an almost unanswerable case on the grounds of equity. On the other hand, the Government, to which we are grateful for accepting my motion, has a case on grounds of practicality. Senator Chaney said it was fair for the Opposition, which has 28 senators, to have more than one member on the Committee because of the Australian Democrats has only five senators. That also is unanswerable logic, but I suspect that he was talking with his tongue in his cheek. There is no joy in serving on committees; it is just jolly hard work. Seeing that the Australian Democrats sought the indulgence of the Senate to have the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare created, we thought it would be pretty bad sportsmanship if we did not offer to do our share on the Committee. We have offered to do so. We have tried to do our share. I see wisdom in the point that the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes , made. For example, Senator Bernard Kilgariff has written to me on a very serious matter asking for our support for a Senate select committee to inquire into the dreadful practice of glue sniffing, which is increasing at a frightening rate. We would like that matter to be investigated. I have replied to Senator Kilgariff saying that at this stage the Commonwealth-State Health Ministers conference may be the more appropriate forum in which to deal with this. If that forum is not a satisfactory one, the Democrats will be looking, hopefully, to support Senator Kilgariff in his pursuit of that investigation. Other honourable senators have other matters which they want pursued by Senate select committees. Wisely, I think, the Senate has made the unofficial rule that at any one time only two Senate select committees should be in operation. Limiting the membership of the Committee to four would allow, in an emergency such as Senator Kilgariff suggested, the rule to be stretched for a month or two so that three Senate select committees may operate at the one time. For those reasons we reluctantly state that we cannot vote with the Opposition's amendment . Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.34) —We do not intend to divide on the matter, since the numbers are clear. It should be clear from the Hansard that we, of course, support our amendment and it is opposed by the Government and the Australian Democrats. Question resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Reference to Standing Committee Debate resumed. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.35) —When I spoke earlier today on this matter I indicated that I believed we had gone a long way down the road with this. We had recognised the extent and nature of organised crime. We had recognised that traditional law enforcement agencies and methods are insufficient to combat organised crime. We had recognised that ad hoc royal commissions are not the answer. We had recognised, in fact, the need for a crimes commission or authority. We had also gone down the track on the consideration of a State- Federal standing committee, some body of that nature, and had analysed its potential strengths and weaknesses. We had gone even further on the alternative of a Commonwealth crimes commission, to the extent of actually passing a Bill to that effect. We recognised the strengths and weaknesses of that proposal. Now, finally, we are looking at a third alternative, which is this Government's proposed National Crimes Authority. We accept that it picks up some of the strengths of the previous proposals and attempts to overcome some of the recognised weaknesses. But some of us still have considerable reservations as to whether we have yet found the most effective body to achieve the now agreed objectives. I am pleased that this proposed National Crime Authority will involve the States through the Inter-Governmental Committee. The Inter-Governmental Committee must, of course, refer matters to the Authority. I think that can be argued to be a safeguard-it has certainly been argued by this Government to provide a safeguard-in that the Authority will not simply be able to go off and pursue matters on its own initiative. It may well be argued, and has been argued by others, that that very restriction is too limiting. I note the Authority is not to refer references unless it is satisfied that they cannot be combated by ordinary police methods. I understand and agree with the spirit of that provision, but when it comes to application it may well be found to be too restrictive. It is something that is very difficult to define. We have noted specifically the veto provisions in the National Crime Authority Bill, that a State or the Commonwealth can veto an investigation into offences which relate to its specific laws. I know that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) tried to comfort us this morning by saying that we could be assured that a State or the Commonwealth would not exercise that power. With respect, I submit that his argument was very effectively demolished by the examples that Senator Sir John Carrick gave to the Senate. We on this side are far less confident that a State, or in fact the Commonwealth, may not make a decision that is necessarily in the best interests of the nation in fighting organised crime. Many other specific questions could be raised. A number of them were raised by Senator Sir John Carrick. I do not intend to repeat the subjects that he covered . It may be difficult to specify a particular offence in relation to a proposed investigation into organised crime. I think that matter must receive further consideration. What if it led to other offences? What mechanism would operate in that regard? Senator Durack raised whether we can be sure that we will have the advantage that appears on the face of the Bill to be so; that is, that all the States will be participating. If they are not, this proposal will have a number of the weaknesses which existed in the Bill that was before the Senate last year . I am concerned with the definition of 'relevant offence'. In effect, the definition seems to be saying that we can only investigate a major offence. After reading the reports of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and other reports, I think it is quite arguable that that is not the most effective way to go about investigating organised crime. In fact, this procedure is made to sound more like an orthodox police investigation and this methodology has in fact failed. It has been suggested that a more effective way may well be the investigation of the whole series of petty crimes which tend to be at the base of an organised crime empire . I am not sure that this Bill is going to allow such an investigation to take place. If it is not, one has to be particularly concerned as to whether it will be effective. Of course, I do not want reports containing hearsay or scuttlebutt, as stated by the Minister in his speech. However, I am concerned that no protection is given in defamation law except insofar as the publisher is prepared to rely on the defence of justification. I am just concerned that perhaps we have gone a little too far. So I have considerable reservations still as to the effectiveness of the proposed crime authority that has been put before the Senate. Although it was suggested, I think by Senator Tate and Senator Gareth Evans, that if we are concerned about particular aspects we have the opportunity at the Committee stage to amend the Bill, I am not at all sure whether that will be possible. This argument is almost the same as the one we had last night because the provision that causes most concern is the veto provision. Can we amend the veto provision without the co-operation of the States? I presume that this provision is part and parcel of the package that has been agreed between the Commonwealth and the States. If in fact we amend this part of the legislation does it mean that we will lose the co-operation of whatever States are currently of that mind and therefore enact a body that will lose a considerable amount of its potential effectiveness? I have indicated that I do not oppose many of the incidental matters. However, I still have reservations. All of us who have contributed for so long to the debate on the principle behind this legislation would obviously like a few months to consider the detail of the Bill. It has been before the Parliament for only a few days and some new definitions and new concepts have been raised. As I said, we are concerned about whether it will work effectively. We now need the views and comments of the public who have shown interest in the subject in the past. We are not concerned about principle. I am pleased to say that the matter of principle is now settled. Rather, we need to consider details that are critical in regard to whether the Bill will be successful in operation or not. There is no better way that I can contemplate to allow the public to so contribute than to refer the Bill to a multiparty committee of this Senate which can consider such questions and, I hope, respond positively. It appears to me that a Senate committee is the best vehicle by which to eliminate the reservations that some of us have, to satisfy the questions of the public who are interested in stamping out organised crime and to assure people that the formula which has been arrived at will give us the greatest possible opportunity to create a body capable of achieving the agreed desired objectives. I therefore urge that course of action upon the Senate. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.44) —A month ago the whole of the Parliament- every member of Parliament-was grasped with the need for the establishment of a National Crime Authority now. Not one member of parliament would have suggested then that there was any need for delay in the establishment of such an authority . The spectre of organised crime in Australia has been raised in the minds of the public following the glare of publicity that has been associated with the inquiries of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The public has been made conscious of sophisticated crime involving such things as drug running, tax evasion, illegal gambling, currency violations, theft, fraud, obtaining financial benefit by vice engaged in by others, extortion, violence, bribery and corruption. The people of Australia are now well aware that organised crime is a major problem. The time has well passed for the need to raise public consciousness of the problem. The need now is for the establishment of an authority which will be able to generate admissible evidence to ensure that criminals are put behind bars. Despite the integrity and the energy of Mr Costigan, are the runs on the board? Are the criminals behind bars? I believe that probably more heat than light has been shed on the problem thus far. My remarks should not be considered in any way as being derogatory to the efforts made by the Royal Commissioner or by the Royal Commissioner's staff. However, I believe-I understood this was the attitude of every other member of parliament a month ago-that there is a need to establish an authority now, post haste, which will be able to generate admissible evidence. We are now faced with the proposition that the Bill brought down by the Government for consideration by the Senate, entitled the National Crime Authority Bill 1983, should be sent off to an expanded Senate standing committee and that that committee should report back by 30 April 1984. As has been explained by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), to my satisfaction, this delay would be unfortunate, to say the least, and may, indeed, be damaging to the consensus that apparently has been reached with the States and to the eventual effectiveness of the Authority. In my view, no case has been made out for such a delay. A case may have been made out for certain amendments to be made to the Bill after due consideration at the Committee stage. Senator Durack advanced an argument which is possibly admissible in considering whether or not this matter should be referred to a Senate standing committee and that is that the Bill arrived in the Parliament only last week and it may well be that members of parliament have not had time to consider its implications. As we all know, a considerable amount of discussion has taken place over how best to combat sophisticated organised crime throughout Australia and how best to establish the machinery which will give the backup required to the various police forces in Australia. That is an argument, but there has been considerable discussion on that matter. A Green Paper on a National Crimes Commission was published. Major discussions were held on the initiative of the Government, in Canberra in July. Only last month there were debates on this issue in this chamber and in the House of Representatives. The lines were clearly drawn. There have been discussions between the Government and each of the States. As was indicated by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech, agreement was reached at ministerial council level, we and now have the National Crime Authority Bill. Senator Durack raised a number of points about the Bill. He queried the appropriateness of the provisions relating to appointments. I do not think he queried the appropriateness of the provision relating to the appointment of the Chairman, but he queried the appropriateness of the provisions relating to two other members of the Authority. He questioned whether or not one should be appointed on the unanimous recommendation of the Attorneys-General and the other appointed on the unanimous recommendation of the State Ministers responsible for police matters. He queried the restricted definitions of 'relevant criminal activity' and 'relevant offences'. Senator Sir John Garrick and Senator Durack queried the provisions of clause 11 relating to references by the Commonwealth. Indeed, they queried clause 12, which refers to the operation of the Inter- Governmental Committee. All of these are really matters more properly to be considered at length and in detail in the Committee stage. I believe that neither Senator Durack nor any of the supporters of the reference to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs have denied the fact that the Authority will have appropriate powers to subpoena documents and persons, that these powers will be effective, and that the Authority will have other powers which were contained in the National Crimes Commission Act. It was admitted by the Attorney-General that there are significant differences between the contents of these measures and the previous legislation. One of those differences related to the right of a person appearing before the Authority not to incriminate himself or herself. Quite obviously, that right is not available to persons appearing before royal commissions, but then of course, that evidence is not admissible. If there were to be admissibility of evidence that was self-incriminating, it would throw open to possible attack the whole concept of British justice, the onus of proof aspect that one is innocent until proved guilty. I believe that the Government has attempted to come to grips with that problem and has struck a balance. It has balanced that aspect against the need for an effective National Crime Authority. I believe some features of the legislation need amending. I find it quite extraordinary that the Commonwealth Minister needs to have the approval of the Inter-Governmental Committee to refer a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity to the Authority for investigation where that matter relates to an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a Territory. I cannot see why that should be, but we are not debating the Bill now. If this were a major matter of concern on the part of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats, surely the place to have it aired would be at the Committee stage? I put it to the Opposition and to the Democrats: Surely it is proper that we should be able to vote for the second reading of the Bill, have it considered in the Committee stage, and have it appropriately amended. Then, if the Opposition desires, it could have the matter referred to a Senate standing committee. The Opposition should at least let members of parliament have a first bite at the cherry. We have not had the opportunity, as I understand it, of having a second reading debate on the Bill. We are faced with an unfortunate situation. I believe that the Democrats ought at least to allow this Parliament the opportunity of considering the Bills. We are not even debating the Bills; we are debating a motion to send them off to a Senate committee. What are we sending off? We are sending Bills which we have not even debated to a committee before they even get to us. That, in my view, is putting the cart before the horse. Frankly, I do not know of any other measure which has come before us for which this step has been proposed. Maybe there were a dozen measures, but they have gone over my head. I know that when the industrial relations legislation came before the Senate last year we at least had a second reading debate on the measure and it was then sent off to a Senate select committee. How can we properly send a Bill to a standing committee if members of parliament have not had the opportunity of addressing themselves to the Bill as a whole in the second reading stage? I believe it would be appropriate that if the Opposition and the Democrats so desire-I believe the Government will agree to this-we debate the legislation, adopt the measure, amend it if honourable senators like in the Committee stage, and establish the Authority so that the Government can make the appropriate financial and administrative arrangements for the appointment of persons concerned with the Authority. We should seize the opportunity that has been given to us by the co-operation of the States which was not there with the previous Government's Crimes Commission. I am not saying whether that is good or bad. It was not there. The States did not co-operate. The States have said that they will co-operate on this occasion. Let us get this piece of legislation on the statute book and then appoint, as it were, a review committee of the Senate to consider the appropriateness or otherwise, generally, of the terms of the legislation. At least let us get the Authority established. Otherwise we may well lose the co-operation of the States which is so essential for the effectiveness of a national crimes authority. A good deal of time will be wasted . I believe, and I speak from some experience because of consultations I have had with electors on this matter, that the electors are looking for the establishment of a crime authority to ensure that the criminals who are fleecing this country, the drug runners, the frauds and all of those people described in the definition of relevant offences are brought to justice. I repeat that the definition of 'relevant offenders' includes all persons engaged in offences such as, theft, fraud, tax evasion, currency violations, illegal drug dealings, illegal gambling, obtaining financial benefit by vice engaged in by others, extortion, violence, or bribery or corruption, et cetera. People engaged in those offences should be brought to justice. Enough is enough. We have had enough publicity. There is an expectation in the minds of the people that justice now ought to be done. For justice to be done, as every member of the Senate knows, we must be able to generate admissible evidence. Frankly, the generation of admissible evidence has been somewhat lacking in activities up to date. There has been plenty of publicity, but not too much admissible evidence. I appeal to the Opposition and the Democrats not to put the cart before the horse. If they do not accept what I have just said, if they do not accept the need for this Bill to be enacted to enable the Government to set the wheels in motion for the establishment of an authority, at least let the Parliament debate the Bill first in the second reading stage. Preferably it would go through the Committee stage and then, if honourable senators like, can be sent off to a committee. I believe that it is a reflection on members of parliament not to allow the Bill to at least be debated at the second reading stage, to allow honourable senators to have their say and, against that framework, to then have the Bill considered by a Senate standing committee after receiving evidence from those from whom that evidence is sought. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.05) —I find myself drawn into this debate against the normal custom that I have in matters such as this. Senator Gareth Evans —Resist the temptation. Senator ARCHER —I say to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that he is the temptation. If he is prepared to put up rubbish like this national crime authority legislation under the guise in which he has put it then he is likely to get me to come and, at least, express my displeasure. I agree with nearly all that Senator Harradine said in as much as what we are looking for is some way to effectively attack criminal elements of this country. But in spite of the fact that I have listened to an excellent lecture from the Attorney-General and from Senator Tate, neither was able to demonstrate that the Bill will succeed in even embarrassing Australia's top crooks in any way, shape or form. The Government suddenly now talks of urgency. I think most of us really understand what the urgency question is all about. I think the urgency of getting this legislation through is probably to assist a certain State government which has certain commitments next year. It does not wish this legislation to come on at a time when it is involved in the sort of investigation that real legislation might ensure. Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Hill, in particular, outlined so many of the ways in which this Bill is just so absolutely useless. It is a show piece only. I think we could be perfectly safe in saying that the big crooks in Australia this afternoon will be toasting Senator Evans in French champagne if this motion is lost. I believe it is a matter of terrible importance. Normally, I would agree that governments that put up rotten legislation should have the luxury of being able to live with it for a while to see how badly it goes. But in this case it is far too serious. I believe, that the National Crime Authority Bill should be renamed. I believe it should be called the crooks protection Bill because, as such, I believe it would be successful beyond the wildest dreams of anybody who proposed it as such. Sending this legislation off to a committee, I believe, is the best way that we can save time. The Bill provides protection to people in high places. If we pass this legislation in the pathetic form that it has been put up to us we will allow Australia's top crooks at least 18 months of total protection before we can do anything about trying to change it and before we could see the damage it would have done. I believe that by reference to proper legislation they would have been herded and prosecuted before that. I certainly support the motion for that reason. Senator Harradine made great comment about the need for the National Crime Authority. I certainly support that. We all do. My Party supports it, I support it and I think everybody in the community supports it. But the word that he missed in all that he said was 'effective'. There is no point in saying that we have an authority. It is much the same as the Sex Discrimination Bill. Just to say that we have it does not give us anything if it is bad legislation. I think Senator Evans and Senator Ryan are having a competition and I think they are about neck and neck with these two Bills. Senator Missen —This one wins hands down. Senator ARCHER —Senator Missen, who is a far better judge of these things than I , wishes to nominate Senator Evans. I believe that we need legislation. I believe that it needs to be as strong as we can make it. Clearly this Bill does not provide that. I have much pleasure in not only supporting the motion put forward but also in urging everybody to support it. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.10) —Mr Deputy President, I begin my contribution to the debate on the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 with a quotation: Organised crime thrives on corruption. Any proper investigation of its activities will inevitably find evidence of corruption. If a State Government or the Federal Government has the right to forbid a particular line of investigation then the independence and integrity of the commission is destroyed . The person who said that is Mr Frank Costigan, QC, and that excellent quotation was used by Marian Wilkinson in the National Times of 11 November in a magnificent article criticising the National Crime Authority. I was pleased to hear the contribution of Senator Archer. He put his view in, I think the strongest possible terms, saying that the present title of the Bill we are now debating is a misnomer and it should be the 'crooks protection Bill'. That is going much further than I would go, but as I say, he did put his view in very strong terms. I am staying with the line that where a Federal government has the right to forbid a particular line of investigation, then the independence and integrity of the Commission is destroyed. This Bill gives a State Government the right to forbid a particular line of investigation. On those grounds alone I believe it is unsatisfactory in the present circumstances. I came to the Senate in 1977 and I can remember honourable senators on both sides of the chamber, who are now very gung ho-if that is the in term-on organised crime, making fun of me, or trying to make fun of me then and in subsequent years when I got up time after time and made the point that organised crime in this country was earning profits of something like $700m or $800m a year. I am not a Johnny-come-lately to this debate. I have been associated with it since 1969 when I first discovered the extent of organised crime in Australia when I was a Liberal Minister for Customs. In fact all Australian Democrats are in favour of an effective national crimes commission and we all voted for it, for a model that maybe had some shortcomings, but a model which I thought was first class-the so called Fraser-Durack model. If we are accused of holding up legislation to fight organised crime I simply say to the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) that he has a Bill right at this moment that has been passed by both Houses of the Parliament and all it needs to implement that particular crime authority is for him to get in a car and go out to Yarralumla. Let it not be said that those of us who favour sending this Bill to a committee to look at it are holding up the appointment of the infrastructure of some form of authority. The Attorney-General has quite properly stated his difficulties in Caucus, and I sympathise with him. I have publicly praised him whenever I have had occasion to talk about a national crimes commission and organised crime. I have stated that the Attorney-General's wishes for a solution going far beyond what he has been able to get out of Caucus with this Bill. In return for that sort of support I get childish, churlish abuse from him in newspapers this morning, a subject to which I will return in a moment. Okay, the Attorney-General does have difficulties in Caucus, but so what? That is his problem. It is not my problem and it is not the problem of other senators here. This is a House of Parliament before which a Bill is being presented. If a majority of honourable senators believe that that Bill is unsatisfactory, their only criterion is to amend that Bill to such a stage that they believe it will be effective and will work. Our job is to tell the House of Representatives that. It is then the Attorney- General's problem to persuade Caucus that the Senate is of the view that the Bill is ineffective. That is the position I want to arrive at. All of us could make criticisms of this Bill now, but we believe the best, most constructive course of action is to send it to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator Tate, who, in passing, I complement on the excellent contribution that he made to this debate earlier this afternoon. Senator Harradine raised a valid point as to why we do not have a second reading debate here. He even suggested that we go into Committee of the Whole and tidy up the Bill and then maybe send it to a committee. I find a lot of merit in that view. In fact that was the original proposition I put to Senator Chaney and Senator Durack-let the Committee have what is at least in the Senate' s mind. They countered with the argument to me: 'Would it not be better to have the second reading debate and the Committee debate armed with the wisdom and the recommedations of the Senate Committee?'. I think on balance that has a great deal of wisdom. If we are going to ask a committee of hard-working and able honourable senators to look into this kind of legislation, why not then debate the Bill five months from now with that knowledge and with that wisdom that that Committee elucidates from the evidence that it receives? Senator Missen —If you do it the other way round you will have everyone in fixed positions before it even goes to the Committee. Senator CHIPP —That is a danger I acknowledge-I thank Senator Missen for his interjection-while at the same time acknowledging that there is validity in Senator Harradine's point. There is something else that Senator Harradine said that I want to challenge; something on which I disagree with him outright. He said: 'Let us get an authority started. Therefore pass the Bill today and get the structure there'. There is merit in having this done as soon as possible, but can I remind Senator Haradine that this is our last chance. Once we pass this Bill we have then to rely on the good will of the House of Representatives or the good will of the Government or the good will of the Caucus before we can get even one amendment to this Bill if we pass it today. I acknowledge the urgency of this matter but I would rather wait another five months and have an effective body to fight organised crime than come in with something-I do not want to be unkind to the Attorney-General-which one journalist has described as an authority that does not have in some instances as much power as a policeman on a beat. I say, without going to the extremes of Senator Archer, that it is a toothless tiger. I believe it would not make any significant contribution to eroding the $700m or $800m profits per year that are now going to organised crime. First of all, the Authority may not initiate inquiries, but may investigate only if a matter has been referred to it by the ministerial committee. Now arguments for this can sound very plausible. The Attorney could well say: 'Yes, but it does not have to be a total decision, it can be a majority decision'. Well, it can be, but then if we go to clause 9 we find that although a majority decision of the ministerial committee can investigate something, the reference may be stopped if one State concerned says that it is an offence against the law of that State. Therefore any State has a right of veto. Senator Gareth Evans —Nonsense-only insofar as that State is concerned. Do not misrepresent it. Senator CHIPP —Exactly. Let me take as an example my favourite State when I talk about the subject of organised crime-New South Wales. Let us assume that a majority decision is made by the ministerial committee to investigate something occurring in New South Wales involving organised crime. A majority decision is made; it is then referred to the Authority. That investigation can be vetoed by the Government or by the relevant Minister in New South Wales. I am not at all impressed with the arguments of the Attorney that most offences of organised crime are in the Commonwealth area. As has been pointed out, organised crime is notorious in areas such as prostitution, vice, gambling, those sorts of areas where they launder money- Senator Gareth Evans —But how can the Commonwealth investigate those without State support? Senator CHIPP —I am answering the Attorney's quite clear statement that most organised crime is in the area of Commonwealth offences. That is palpably not correct because a great majority of organised crime is in fact in the area of State offences and, indeed, relates to offences carrying a penalty of less than three years' imprisonment. That is the threshold over which one has to jump before the National Crime Authority is involved. References may not be made unless the committee is satisfied that ordinary police methods of investigation are not likely to be effective. In relation to this I quote the comments of Ms Wilkinson again. She makes some telling points: The shackles on the authority do not end there. Before the committee of attorneys-general can refer anything to the NCA, the committee has to show that the offences cannot be handled effectively by existing law enforcement agencies. How can this be established in the case of complex organised crime? This has yet to be explained by the Government. What seems likely is that the State or Federal police commissioners would advise the Government on whether the offences should be referred to the NCA. Two examples of how this might work come to mind. Last month, NSW Police Commissioner Cec Abbott-- I have stated in this House that he is an honourable, honest police commissioner - reported to the NSW Government that a judicial inquiry into the allegations surrounding the early release of prisoners was not necessary. This followed a police investigation of the matter. That was a New South Wales police investigation. Ms Wilkinson continues: One month later, with a new police inquiry under way, the NSW Government was forced to refer allegations concerning the former Corrective Services Minister, Rex Jackson, and the early release of three prisoners, to the newly established NSW Special Commission of Inquiry. On that very case a police commissioner said that no further investigation was necessary. But because someone stirred or someone sent more information, it resulted in the resignation of a senior Minister and a judicial inquiry into his activities. Senator Chaney —It would appear it arose because someone read the transcripts. Senator CHIPP —I acknowledge Senator Chaney's interjection if he wants to get into the debate by hook or by crook against the wishes of his friend, the shadow Attorney-General. The article written by Marian Wilkinson continues: Four years ago, the Victorian Police were asked by their Government if an inquiry into the Painters and Dockers Union was necessary. The Victoria Police replied: 'No'. I stand by the Victoria Police. I believe that by and large it comprises an outstanding group of men and women. It has a supurb police commissioner and a fine record in fighting organised crime. The Victoria Police was asked whether everything was okay with the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The article continued: Under the new National Crime Authority, it is unlikely that crucial aspects of the bottom of the harbour tax frauds would have ever come to light. For the record I will read this out. It is a fascinating story which could almost come from a Hadley Chase novel. The article continues: Frank Costigan QC was asked three years ago to investigate the Painters and Dockers. Early in his inquiry, Costigan examined a phoney ship repairing company . Until then, he had stated, he had not seen any money transactions in his investigations above $5,000. When Costigan examined the files of that ship repair company, to his surprise he found a cheque for $1.5m and an application to the Reserve Bank to bring into Australia $4.5m from Lebanon. That same company had a bank account in another State. An examination of these records found that in three months $250m had passed through that account and it was only one of dozens of similar accounts around Australia. Under the Attorney's legislation, if Mr Costigan wanted to pursue his investigation he would need the approval of every State government as well as the Attorney-General. Senator Gareth Evans —Don't talk rubbish. Don't talk absolute rubbish. You can do it with the informal co-operation in the way Costigan did. He had Victorian Letters Patent and Commonwealth Letters Patent. Senator CHIPP —I am quoting from Ms Wilkinson-- Senator Gareth Evans —You are quoting from Ms Wilkinson, who has written her usual heap of rubbish, and you know it. Senator CHIPP —I acknowledge Senator Gareth Evans's interjection to get it into the Hansard. Once again I disagree with him. I regard Ms Wilkinson as one of the most distinguished and fearless journalists who write about organised crime in this country. Thank goodness we do have people of the calibre of Marian Wilkinson writing such articles. I assure the Senate that, like the Opposition, we have no desire to go on a witch hunt. Yesterday, when these matters were being discussed with the Attorney -General, he passed the Australian Democrats a note. It is not marked confidential. I ask the Attorney whether I have his authority to read it into Hansard? Senator Gareth Evans —Try and stop you. Senator CHIPP —The Attorney can stop me. If he says no, I will not read it. Senator Gareth Evans —Go for your life. Senator CHIPP —It would be helpful to the Attorney's career if he could learn some common courtesies. Sometimes his petulance overcomes the great ability that we all know he has. It does not do his career any good. The Attorney said: I take it that in the event of any kind of committee referral motion proceeding , you would accept a limitation in the following terms: The Committee shall confine its inquiry and report to the terms of the Bill and associated policy matters, and not receive any evidence, or conduct any investigation, related to any individual person or body. Can you confirm? I was very pleased to confirm that. I subsequently found out that the Attorney sent an identical note to Senator Durack, who acknowledged in the same way as the Australian Democrats. Senator Durack in his motion has used the exact words for which the Attorney asked. I know that he does not want this Bill referred to a committee, but at least he cannot claim that we are on a witch hunt, which I know was one of his worries. I acknowledge that it was a real worry. Give a bunch of politicians the chance to get stuck into another bunch of politicians, with a State election coming up and, as Senator Tate said, we have possible McCarthyism. I, as one who hopes to serve on that Committee, give that categorical guarantee. I know that under the chairmanship of Senator Tate and with the Liberal members of that Committee this will not happen. I conclude by asking: What are the objections to referring this Bill to a Senate standing committee? Is it to be understood that the opponents of this proposal believe that all of the royal commissioners have nothing to contribute? Is that the proposition? At the crime summit that the Attorney held in this chamber-I thought it was an outstanding success, if only to the extent that once again it flushed out the petty mindedness of State politicians who apparently would rather see organised crime flourish than have their precious States' rights trodden on-each of the five royal commissioners-Mr Justice Moffitt, Mr Justice Williams, Mr Justice Woodward, Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Costigan-said that we needed a national commission. Senator Durack —An effective one. Senator CHIPP —Yes, an effective crime authority. These people had all the facilities of royal commissions at their disposal. They were virtually saying: ' Notwithstanding the powers with which we are clothed, we cannot do the job of uncovering crime. We need a national crimes commission'. If my memory serves me correctly, they certainly were in favour of one of the two models that the Attorney-General put forward, and they would have been appalled at the present Bill before the Senate. Senator Gareth Evans —Have you asked any of them subsequently? Senator CHIPP —No. Senator Gareth Evans —Why don't you do that? Senator CHIPP —I do not believe that it is my business, nor is it proper for me, as a senator, to be asking distinguished judges: 'What do you think of Gareth Evans's Bill?' If the Attorney-General thinks that that is a proper course, let him say so. I am saying that a Senate committee surely gives a dignified and proper vehicle for those royal commissioners to say: 'This Bill is too weak. This Bill is not effective. It will not do the job'. Or it would give them the opportunity of saying: 'This Bill is okay. This is what we want'. What is the Attorney-General worried about? Senator Gareth Evans —The problem of constitutional power and the inability to do anything without State co-operation. Why don't you address that one point? Senator CHIPP —I have already addressed it, and I have sympathised with the Attorney-General for the way in which he was mauled by those petty-minded State politicians. Senator Gareth Evans —But you cannot do it in any other way. Tell me how to do it in another way and we will do it. Senator CHIPP —With great respect, and with the admiration that I have for the Attorney-General, I am not yet prepared to acknowledge that he is an oracle. I am not yet prepared to acknowledge that he knows everything. I believe that the five royal commissioners could well have a contribution to make to improve this incredibly important legislation. We have been 83 years without a National Crimes Commission, unfortunately. Senator Gareth Evans —We will be without one for another 83 years at this rate, because of the fundamental problems. Senator CHIPP —I cannot believe that a delay of another five months so that we can get the best advice in the land from former royal commissioners and from commissioners of police would be wrong. If my memory serves me correctly, at the crime summit called by the Attorney-General there were several distinguished State police commissioners who were in favour of the two models that the Attorney-General put up-a quite different proposition from their State politicians. In conclusion, perhaps I may express, more in sorrow than in anger, my disappointment with words that the Attorney-General-- Senator Gareth Evans —Spare us the sanctimony, for God's sake. Senator CHIPP —The Attorney-General is a great user at times. Last week I paid him the courtesy of telling him that it was the Democrats' inclination to move this Bill to a standing committee of the Senate. He said: 'Please, will you make yourself available for discussion and comment?' I said: 'We are always prepared to do that'. Last Tuesday the Attorney-General was informed that we had come to a view that we would support a Liberal Party motion to refer this legislation to a committee. He rang me and said: 'Can you come and see the Prime Minister and myself, to discuss this?' I did so. They did not persuade me. They then said: ' Will you please allow the Attorney-General to meet your fellow senators in the morning?' I could easily have said that we had made up our mind-which we had-but I agreed to the meeting the next morning and admitted the Attorney-General into our party meeting. In return for that sort of courtesy, which we have extended to the Attorney- General, this is what he says about us: With a cooling-off period overnight, some of those Democrats who have been wobbling about all day will see a little bit more reason in this respect than they have so far. We 'wobbled about all day'-to use his expression-at his request, to accommodate his new points of view, and to try to do the right thing by him. Yet he appears on national television and radio and makes comments such as those. I simply write that into the record to tell him, as a person for whom I have a high regard, that if he wants things to pass through this Senate, if he wants the co- operation of his colleagues of parties other than his own, perhaps showing a little courtesy in future might not go astray. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.36) —in reply-This has been a very good debate. The arguments for and against the motion that I have moved have been very well expressed. I am particularly grateful to Senator Chipp for his strong support on behalf of the Australian Democrats. I am pleased about that. I do not propose to canvass again those arguments which have been very well advanced, particularly from our side in the debate, in support of referring this important Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. However, one or two matters have been raised with which I should deal. Senator Mason asked me to give assurances as to what the Opposition's object was in moving this reference. I thought that I had already made that clear in my speech in support of the motion. It is the Opposition's intention that the Committee should confine itself to the question of the Bill, the nature of the proposed National Crimes Authority, and its policy and effectiveness; and it is certainly not intended to be conducting a witchhunt against any person or any organisation, or anything else. That is not the object. The standing of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee and its membership would be a clear assurance that that would not happen. Senator Chipp says that he has nominated himself, so he will probably be a member of the Committee. He has assured us of that. Senator Hill, a member of that Committee who has spoken in this debate, has said the same. Senator Lewis, another member of the Committee, has asked me to say that he gives that assurance. The other member, Senator Missen, has confirmed it, and we all know anyway, from his reputation, that he would not be engaged in that sort of thing. But to make assurance doubly sure, and as Senator Chipp has indicated, on the suggestion of the Attorney-General himself, the second-- Senator Gareth Evans —You had to be backed into a corner to get you there. Senator DURACK —That is a most offensive and totally untrue interjection. I am surprised at the Attorney-General. Both Senator Chipp and I readily agreed to this being put into the terms of reference. Even though it was not, in my view, within the terms of reference to the Committee-the standing of the Committee, the membership of the Committee, did not require it-we readily agreed to put that clause in to make assurance doubly sure on this matter. The question has been raised by Senator Harradine and, somewhat obliquely I think, by Senator Tate, as to why we would refer a Bill to the Senate Committee at this stage and not later. The reason for that has been very well explained by Senator Chipp. It is simply that the object of this reference is that the Senate should be better informed when it comes to the second reading debate. There is a long and very honourable tradition in this Senate for that course of action to be taken. I mentioned what was done with the Freedom of Information Bill. That Bill was referred to a Committee at exactly the same stage. I introduced it in June 1978. It was referred to a Committtee before any second reading debate; before any debate on it at all, I believe. I see that Senator Missen is confirming my recollection. But Senator Tate said that I was referring to that precedent because I wanted some revenge. I reject that suggestion utterly. I am pleased to see him smiling and to note that he does not really seriously believe it. I am glad about that, because that is certainly not the case. I was referring to that as being a very distinguished precedent for what I am proposing here today. Other major Bills such as the National Compensation Bill and the Family Law Bill were sent to Senate committees before the second reading debate. That is a very proper use indeed of the Senate standing committee system. As I said, one of the dangers of that course of action is the very long delay that sometimes occurs as a result of that proceeding. That is why we have put an early date for reporting in this reference. I hope that the Committee may be able to report at an even earlier date, but in order for the Committee to do the best job possible 30 April next year seemed to be a realistic date. It still gives the fullest opportunity for the Senate to pass this legislation in the autumn sittings, if the Committee reports that it is effective or that it can be made effective with certain amendments. As to any delay that might be occasioned, I point out, as did Senator Chipp, that when the Government took office earlier this year the National Crimes Commission Act was ripe for proclamation. The Government chose to delay for eight or nine months while it brought forward legislation of its own. It is quite clear that the Attorney-General would have preferred a model rather more like the National Crimes Commission, and such a model was put forward in the Green Paper. The legislation has been steadily watered down over this period because of the various pressures and problems the Attorney has faced. I believe that it is a very suitable exercise for a standing committee of this Senate, and I trust that the Senate will agree with my motion and allow the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to get on with the very constructive job which we all know it will do. Question put: That the motion (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Mason, C. V. J. Chipp, D. L. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Evans, Jack Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Button, J. N. Grimes, D. J. Childs, B. K. Harradine, B. Coates, J. Hearn, J. M. Coleman, R. N. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Colston, M. A. McClelland, DouglasCook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. McIntosh, G. D. Haines, J. Bolkus, N. MacGibbon, D. J. Georges, G. Townley, M. Ryan, S. M. Lewis, A. W. R. Richardson, G. F. Messner, A. J. Maguire, G. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment and having been agreed to by an absolute majority: Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) Bill 1983 Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1983 Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1983 Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983 Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) Bill 1983 Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. Consideration resumed from 15 November 1983. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken together. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.53) —We are still in the Committee stage of Appropriation Bill (No. 1). I would like to refer back to the debate which took place at the Committee stage on 15 November. During the course of that debate, according to Hansard, at 4.49 p.m. I raised with the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, who was then in charge of the Committee, a number of questions, which had already been put. I refer to the Hansard, where I said: I should like to raise a matter with the Minister for Resources and Energy which is relevant to this matter and to other matters which are still before us but also relevant to matters which we have passed. I referred to the fact that we had had extensive discussions and questions raised, and I sought from the Minister answers to those questions before we completed our consideration of the Appropriation Bill. There had been a discussion between the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, and me which was referred to at that time. Senator Walsh replied: Senator Button spoke to me about this matter. I am not able to give a definitive answer about the Department of Trade. As I indicated at the time, I think a number of the answers to the questions asked would be regarded as being commercial in confidence information. That related to specific inquiries about uranium. The Minister continued: Concerning the Department of Resources and Energy, I think the answers should be available by mid-day tomorrow, or some time tomorrow afternoon, anyway. I think that that includes-I do not want to be absolutely held to this because I had a very quick conversation about it-the question Senator Peter Rae had asked about the latest estimates of the cost of power produced from quite small reactors, down to 200 megawatts. In response, I then said: Can we take it from that that there is no objection to that procedure-that we adjourn them for the moment, collect up the answers and then deal with them and complete the Bills after that information is to hand? The Minister replied: Yes, that is agreed. I said: Thank you. There has been a series of contacts between my office and Senator Walsh's office and I acknowledge and indeed thank him for the series of responses which he has provided. He has provided some responses from the Department of Resources and Energy and the Department of Trade, and he has provided other responses from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The information, insofar as it relates to matters which I have raised, appears to meet with the inquiries I have made. However, I am told that there are still matters outstanding which have been raised during the Committee debate. For example, Senator Peter Rae tells me that he has a number of outstanding inquiries. But at this stage I particularly want to refer to a matter which was raised by Senator Sir John Carrick and on which it is apparent to me that the Government could readily provide further and better information, but the indication I have had from Senator Walsh's office is that it does not intend to provide any further answer. I refer to page 2405 of the Senate Hansard. Senator Sir John Carrick said: Throughout the debate on uranium-it has been implicit indeed it was implicit in the decision-making of the Australian Labor Party on Monday-that the government has made a decision based on very expert evidence that the world market for uranium is rigidly limited and will remain so, and that there is an upper ceiling that can be very clearly defined for Australia and, therefore, the Government must intervene and decide which mines shall operate and which mines shall not. If that is so, quite clearly the Government must have in its possession precise projections as to what the accepted projection of world demand is for uranium, year by year, for the next 10 or 20 years. The Government must be able to indicate precisely what the demands of individual countries will be and precisely what the supply to meet that demand from individual countries will be. Otherwise the argument falls flat. How can the Government argue that it knows that markets are limited? This afternoon the Minister indicated that the Government did have such expertise. I challenged that and said that commerce and industry has a wider expertise. If the Government has this expertise, and if it is so arguing, I ask the Minister to provide to the Committee, in the next day or two, the precise details as to the world projections of demand by individual countries over the next decade or two and the world projection of the directionalism of supply, indicating therefore how the Government reaches the decision it does, that there be nothing more than whatever is the forecast-some 3,000 tonnes extra availability for Australia. I believe this is fundamental. If I may put a slight gloss on the matter which was raised by Senator Sir John Carrick, uranium is slightly unusual with respect to estimates of future use because obviously the quantity of use for peaceful purposes is dictated by the number of power stations which are using uranium. The number of power stations is not something which is speedily variable and indeed there are projections as to what power stations will be in train to, I think, the year 2000. The capacity of those power stations is known and the fuel usage is known so we are in a situation where, better than with respect to most commodities, it is possible to estimate what future use will be. Obviously there are variables in any projection because demand for electricity varies as indeed it has varied over recent years from the projections of only a few years ago, because of the world economic downturn. We are dealing with a rather less elastic commodity in terms of usage than many others. Senator Walsh came back to the question raised. I refer to page 2411 of the Senate Hansard of 9 November, where Senator Walsh picked up the words of Senator Sir John Carrick. I quote the Minister, beginning with those words of Senator Sir John Carrick. 'The Government has asserted that it had precise knowledge of the state of the uranium market'. Senator Walsh went on to say: The Government of course has asserted no such thing. The Government has made a judgment on evidence provided from a variety of sources, importantly from the interdepartmental committee report on the likely commercial global demand for yellowcake from Australian sources. The Government has taken account of an admission-if that appears to be a loaded term I shall use another one-or a statement by Mr Grey, of all people, the Chairman of Pancontinental Mining Ltd, who acknowledged only last month that for the first time in very many years we were approaching a situation in which the production of yellowcake was likely to come to balance with consumption because for very many years production has been in excess of consumption and stockpiles have continued to accumulate. Mr Grey expressed the opinion that consumption and production were about to come into balance. We have also taken account of a statement by Mr Townsend of the Central Electricity Generating Board of the United Kingdom, that not until 1995 would the product of a new mine or new mines be required on the world market. But the Government has not asserted that it has precise knowledge. What the Opposition seeks-it is clear from the passage which I read out from Senator Sir John Carrick that it is available to the Government-is an estimate of the likely commercial global demand for yellowcake from Australian sources. No doubt that is based on an estimate of the overall demand for uranium and then a sub-estimate of the extent to which it might be expected that Australia will supply that demand. Senator Button —Depending on a host of factors. Senator CHANEY —Depending, of course, on a variety of factors. I will go back to the point I made a moment ago. The figure with respect to the likely total commercial usage of uranium for electricity generation is a figure which ought to be able to be calculated with some accuracy because of the relatively determined situation with respect to nuclear power stations, many of which are in operation, many of which are about to come into operation and a relatively small number of which are yet to be commenced. We believe the Government clearly would have access to some accurate figuring, or figuring which is based on facts which ought to be able to be put on the table because they would relate to the Government's information on the number of power stations, their capacity and their extent of fuel usage and the Government's estimates of the percentage of market that can be obtained. Since there has been an interdepartmental committee report, it is very likely, as any of us who have seen the products of those reports would know, that all of this has been reduced to the sort of neat bundle of information similar to the sort of stuff that was circulated by the Government to Caucus before the Caucus debate on uranium. In this case, however, it should be less judgment laden because one is dealing with some precisely ascertainable facts. The reason we seek this information is quite clear. Very important policy decisions have been made by the Government which are, in part, based-if we are to have regard to the words of Senator Walsh in this place and elsewhere-on the Government's view of the commercial realities that face Australian producers. I think it is important, for the sake of an accurate public debate, that we have access to some of the factual information which is available to government so that we can have some way of assessing the accuracy of the information on which the Government has based its decisions and some guide which will help us who we are part of the debate and who represent part of the interests of the community, to make our own assessment of what the appropriate policy response will be. I think that in all respects this is a legitimate request. Clearly, because of the existence of the IDC report, we are not asking the Government to set off on a new information hunt. This is information which has already been gathered and put together in a form for absorption by those who sit on the other side of the chamber. It seems to me that if we are to have a proper consideration of the Appropriation Bills, and if we are to take seriously the responsibilities of the Parliament in voting many billions of dollars for the services of the Government on behalf of the people of Australia, we are entitled to ask the Government-as we do at Estimates committee hearings and during the Committee's consideration of the Bills-the basis for the decisions that it has taken and the basis on which it is seeking appropriations of money to support and implement those decisions. It becomes slightly farcical if the matters which are raised can simply be put aside and not answered and the Committee be expected to deal with the appropriations in any event. I put the proposition to Senator Walsh originally that these were matters which should be dealt with before we considered the Appropriation Bills. As I read to the Committee a little while ago, at that stage Senator Walsh agreed to that proposition. Therefore, I believe it would be appropriate at this stage to ask the Government to respond to that inquiry before we take the matter any further. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(6.05) —I want to speak very briefly to give an example of another group of questions that were asked and that remain unanswered. The common ground is that the National Film Archive is in a very unsatisfactory state. I asked a number of questions about the arrangements for the National Film Archive. A decision has been promised by the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made an announcement that something would be done about the Archive. In order to make sense of that decision, when it comes up, it was important in the consideration of the Estimates to establish certain facts about the National Film Archive. I made a list of quite a number of questions, about 20-odd, of which I gave notice to the Minister concerned two days before the consideration of the Estimates began. The office of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, was given a list of the questions. When the debate came on the Minister said she knew nothing about the questions, she was unable to answer them or to get answers for me. Today I sent around to her office to ask when the answers would be provided. Senator Ryan must have quite the most muddled and disorganised office in the whole Government, I think, by a wide margin. Her office said it knew nothing about the questions. If the Appropriation Bill is held up so that answers can be provided, and under that pressure there is still no intention or ability to provide them, what chance do we have of getting the answers after the Appropriation Bill has been passed? I think it is highly proper that these answers be provided. It is an important issue. It is very important to many people. I know that it is a relatively minor issue in the scale of government operations. Nevertheless, it is important to many people who are concerned about the operation of the National Film Archive. Before the Committee is expected to pass these votes it should have the answers to questions of which proper notice has been given and for which answers have not yet been provided. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.07) —For the benefit of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, I add to what was said so well by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney. The request for information on the world situation on the supply of and demand for uranium related not only to yellowcake but also to enriched uranium. That information was specifically sought, as Hansard will show, because on the same day the Chairman of the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia put out a statement indicating that UEGA had come to a conclusion that there would be a market for enriched uranium, as distinct from yellowcake, in the 1990s and not before 1990. In order to ascertain the Government's policies it is necessary to establish the availablility of yellowcake in the 1990s in terms both of supply and demand. As Hansard shows, that information was sought. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.08) —I still have not received answers to two matters which I would like to pursue. One relates to the Department of Administrative Services. I raised certain questions in relation to the allocation of a security contract, of which I gave the number. I asked whether the person who holds that contract is a fit and proper person, having been adequately checked out, to hold such a security contract. The other matter merely relates to the tabling of a document which the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, has made available to Senator Teague, Senator Peter Baume and me about bias in relation to the Australian scholastic aptitude test. At the time of the discussion the Minister said the document would be tabled and incorporated. I think that for those who follow the topic and who are very interested in it, and who may look at the Hansard, the document ought to be incorporated. As I say, copies of the document have been made available to us, but I do not think the record has been properly completed. Senator Button —Why don't you incorporate it if you are so keen to help? Senator REID —I do not have the document with me at the moment. The Minister said she would incorporate it. As it is an Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority document, I think it is more appropriate that she incorporate it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.09) —I too have not received answers to any of the questions I raised. I do not know whether the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, intends to give them to me in the near future, but to date I have not had any replies. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(6.10) —While we are indicating the state of play, I point out that I have received from the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, information relating to a number of questions which I asked with regard to the comparative costs of nuclear energy, coal fired thermal, oil fired thermal and hydro-electricity. I assume that these answers will be incorporated in Hansard or in some other way put in the record. If this is not the Minister's intention, I will seek leave to do so because the reply confirms and further illustrates the points I have raised. I am delighted with the very full information which has been provided. I thank Senator Walsh and his Department both for the expedition with which they obtained the information and for the fullness of the information, which puts beyond any possible doubt the fact that, with the exception of the United States of America, nuclear power in every country which one can imagine from which one can obtain figures is appreciably cheaper-the trend lines are that it is becoming increasingly cheaper-than coal fired thermal and oil fired thermal. A detailed explanation is given in the information with regard to the problems of hydro-electricity costs. However, I have not received an answer to a question I asked a week a go about the National Film Archive and the Corrick collection. There is a long history of correspondence and questions on this matter and I had hoped to receive an answer . However, information has not been provided as yet. I raised another matter in regard to estimates of the Department of Primary Industry with the proviso that the question would be passed on if it were regarded as coming within the responsibility of another department. My question related to the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. I also raised this question when the report of the Primary Industry Bank was tabled. However, I still have not received any answers with regard to that. I raised questions in regard to the research and development activities of the Department of Defence Support. I asked a question about the reviews which are taking place with regard to Australian industry participation in the manufacture of a cluster bomb. I wanted to know the reason for the refusal to permit a Royal Australian Air Force request for the manufacture of a limited number of these supremely superior defence weapons which are an Australian development. I want to know why the manufacture has not been allowed to go ahead. I asked a question of the Department of Transport and the Department of Aviation in regard to search and rescue activities. In particular I drew attention to the Bass Strait Aero Commander aircraft disaster in which a survivor from the crash was located in the water, was seen for a period but because of a variety of misfortunes was not able to be picked up. Lessons may or may not be learned in this respect. I wanted to know what is happening to the review that has been promised in regard to this accident. I asked one overall question about the review of coastal surveillance and have received no information on that. I also asked a question about the allegations which have been made in regard to Trans Australia Airlines and Hertz, the cost to the Australian taxpayer of the venture engaged in by those two companies and, more importantly, the nature of the terms of the sale of Hertz by a wholly owned Australian Government statutory authority. We have not had any information with regard to that. That is just a quick summary of the items I raised in respect of which I have not had any answers. I want to re-emphasise that I am extremely grateful to Senator Walsh and his Department for the expedition and the detail with which they have provided the answers. They have shown that it can be done. It is a pity that some other departments have not done likewise. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(6.15) —As of yesterday the Appropriation Bill had taken 22 hours and 41 minutes to discuss. This is the longest period for debate on these Bills since at least 1978, which is the last year for which I have taken out figures. A lot of the time taken resulted from Ministers being present in the chamber to deal with particular departmental appropriations. This is not a course I would recommend in the future if the Committee wants to be assisted in these matters. I would have thought that some of the examples which have been given today indicate the nature of the expedition which has been indulged in in the last quarter of an hour. Forms of the Senate are available to honourable senators to obtain information, other than by asking questions during debate on the Appropriation Bills. Many of the questions asked during the Committee debate were not even addressed at the Estimates committee hearings. In fact, if I might make the comment, there was a very lacklustre performance at the Estimates committee meetings. Senator Hamer, for example, made a comment about the National Film Archive. Senator Missen asked a question about this matter today and I undertook to get him an answer. I will do that. Senator Hamer —He wasn't asking about the National Film Archive; he was asking about the ABC. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I am sorry. However, a similar question was asked about the National Film Archive during Question Time in the Senate. Whilst the process of the Appropriation Bills might be intended to be exhaustive, I was never of the view it was intended to be exhausting. A number of questions were referred to during the debate this afternoon. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard answers to the following: A question from Senator Chaney in relation to uranium exports and prices-I believe that information has already been made available; questions by Senator Peter Rae in relation to the comparative costs of nuclear power and electricity generated from other sources; information sought by-- Senator Peter Rae —Senator Jessop also. Senator BUTTON —Senator Jessop in relation to-- Senator Peter Rae —Can that be incorporated, Minister? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I am just doing that. If I might say so, that indicates some of the calibre of the questions that have been asked this afternoon. I just said that I would incorporate the information. I am seeking leave to do so. I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard information requested by Senator Jessop in regard to coal and oil fired power stations; and two pieces of information on Vietnam veterans which was sought by Senator Messner. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1983-84 Department of Resources and Energy and Department of Trade Consideration-9 November 1982 The following information is provided by the Minister for Trade in respect of matters raised by Senator Chaney. Uranium Exports and Prices Much of the information sought regarding sales in what is now a two-producer Australian uranium industry has either been made available to the Government on a commercial-in-confidence basis or could, by reference to other publicly available information and/or by reference to its own operations, be used by either producer to derive commercially confidential information concerning its competitor. It has been necessary, therefore, to provide the information in the form of weighted average prices for export shipments under all uranium contracts, on an annual basis, as set out in the table below. The export shipment tonnages include material which, under some contracts, would not be delivered until a following year. The weighted average prices for export shipments, therefore, differ from the annual weighted average prices for actual invoiced deliveries and are thus not an accurate representation of annual weighted average settlement prices. Separate compilation of the latter, however, has been undertaken from the beginning of 1982. In 1982 the weighted average price of Australian uranium delivered under all contracts was $US36.28 per pound U3O8 and for the period 1.1 .1983 to 31.10.1983 it was $US37.37 per pound U3O8. It is noted also that variations can occur between uranium export statistics compiled by the Department of Trade and the Australian Bureau of Statistics as the Department's figures are entered on the day of shipment whereas the ABS entries are made at the time at which the shipping documents are received and processed by them. EXPORTS OF AUSTRALIAN URANIUM SINCE 1.1.78 (ALL CONTRACTS) Weighted Difference average Average betwen weighted shipment spot price average shipment price for year price and average Tonnes Value US$/lb U308 US$/lb U308 spot price Calendar year U308 $Am (1) (2) US$/lb U308 1978 1,066.95 69.826 33.99 43.23 9.24 1979 1,245.08 97.691 39.79 42.57 2.78 1980 1,116.96 94.782 43.86 31.79 12.07 1981 2,208.09 164.020 38.72 24.19 14.53 1982 4 663.17 361.919 35.81 19.90 15.91 1983 (to 31 Oct.) 2,532.30 233.334 37. 62 23.13 14.49 (1) Values have been converted to United States dollars on the basis of an average exchange rate for the relevant year as shown in International Financial Statistics November 1983 published by the International Monetary Fund. (2) The average spot price quoted is a simple annual average of the Exchange Value published monthly by Nuexco. It is not available on a tonnage weighted basis. APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1983-84 Department of Resources and Energy Consideration-9 November 1983 The following information is provided in respect of matters raised by Senator Rae: 1. COMPARATIVE COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER AND ELECTRICITY GENERATED FROM OTHER SOURCES My Department has not been able to quickly identify each of the specific studies quoted by Senator Rae. However, in recent years there have been a number of comparative economic assessments of nuclear electricity with that generated from other sources. In general these have drawn conclusions similar to those quoted by Senator Rae ie that nuclear power has a significant cost advantage over competitive forms of electricity production, notably coal and oil (although in the US studies are showing that the long term cost advantage of nuclear coal has narrowed to the point that nuclear and coal are in a 'virtual deadheat' in most regions of the country). Recent authoritative figures were published this year by the UK Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) as part of its statement of case for a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell (Sizewell B). This study adopted three broad approaches to comparing costs; snapshot 1981-82, lifetime to date, and whole of lifespan. Within each of these, variants of the basic approach led to eight different bases of cost estimation being used. For the nuclear stations the costs included interest on stocks and full allowances for reprocessing spent fuel, radioactive waste disposal and decommissioning. The CEGB's coal fired stations were estimated to have a 40 year lifespan, oil fired stations 30 years. The results show that nuclear has not been the cheapest option historically in the UK but is likely to be so in the future. Generation costs on a lifetime to date basis show that magnox reactors commissioned in the period 1965-1977 have been more expensive than coal fired stations. All appraisals show oil to be the dearest option. The calculations for generation costs of possible future stations over whole of life time show that nuclear, whether PWR or AGR, has a significant edge, viz: Coal fired plants-3.88 pence per kWh Nuclear advanced gas cooled-3.15 pence per kWh pressurised water-2.61 pence per kWh The new coal stations do not assume any installations of flue gas desulphurisation plant which would add appreciably to the capital charges. The difference between the two nuclear options is mainly attributable to lower capital costs of the PWR and to a small degree by lower fuel costs. Other recent studies the results of which the Department is aware include: Forecasts by Electricite de France for the 1990s (this may be the French Study referred to by Senator Rae) which indicate the cost of a kilowatt-hour in 1981 francs produced by an EDF nuclear power plant coming on line in 1990 will be 16. 5 centimes, while for coal it will be 34.6 centimes and for oil (theoretically, since none is being built), 58.3 centimes. This would make nuclear power in 1990 only 48% of the price of coal power, and 28% of oil fired electricity. EDF attributes nuclear's advantage to a stabilisation of construction and investment costs while fossil fuel costs are rising. The analysis accounts for all nuclear fuel cycle costs including decommissioning. A breakdown of the 1981 kilowatt-hour figures indicates that the 16.5 centimes for nuclear is composed of 8.9 centimes for investment costs, 3.2 centimes operating costs and 4.4 centimes fuel. Coal investment costs are 6.9 centimes, operating costs 3.2 centimes, fuel 21.5 centimes and anti-sulphur pollution devices 3 centimes. Oil fired station investment costs are 6 centimes, operating costs 2.9 centimes, fuel 45.7 centimes and anti pollution devices 3.7 centimes. Estimates by the Japanese Institute of Energy Economics in 1982 indicate that in 1980 Japan was generating nuclear electricity for about half the cost of oil. In the US the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration has published a study focussing on new units beginning operation in 1995 which shows nuclear losing its cost advantage in the US. This study shows for capital costs alone, a nuclear plant beginning operation in 1996 would cost about $5.3 billion while coal burning plants would cost between $3.1 and $3.2 billion depending upon the type of coal. However, the cost of delivered fuel varies from region to region making nuclear much more attractive in the long term in New England, the Southeast and the far Northwest. In New England, for example, nuclear power is projected to have at least a 5% cost advantage while the balance tips the other way in the Southwest where coal is 26% to 28% below nuclear in overall costs. A comparative study by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (designed to establish the superiority of the CANDU reactor system), whilst admitting that it is difficult to make meaningful international comparisons or nuclear power costs, compares nuclear to coal fired power costs in seven countries based on various cost studies in recent years. The Department considers that these conclusions should be treated with extreme caution. The results of this study expressed in currencies of each country in question, indicate costs of the following order: Nuclear power Coal fired cost per kWh cost per kWh Canada 13.83 23.09 U.S. 20.67 22.35 Sweden 7.0 10.5 Italy 16.8 21.3 France 13.52 24.79 U.K. 1.32 1.52 F.R.G. 5.69 8.89 The Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD has also been looking at this question. It concluded in 1982 that: electricity produced from existing nuclear plants is considerably cheaper than that produced from oil in all OECD countries costs of electricity produced from coal generally lie between those for oil and nuclear generated electricity, but note in Europe, Japan and parts of Canada and US cost advantage of nuclear over hard coal is very noticeable, particularly for base load in parts of US where coal is abundant the economic advantage of nuclear is marginal or even negative. Analysts in this field have used a range of methodologies to arrive at comparison of the total cost of electricity generation making it extremely difficult to compare costs between regions and across industries. Because of these difficulties, the Nuclear Energy Agency has established an ad hoc Group of Experts to develop a methodology for costing nuclear electricity generation in comparison with electricity from other sources. This Expert Group has generally accepted as a starting point a methodology used in a detailed study of generation costs by UNIPEDE (Union Internationale de Proucteurs et Distributeurs d'Energie Electrique). This study used a single station levelised costing approach based on discounting costs of generation over a station's lifetime. The method took into account all costs, from construction, external during constructions, through operation including fuel costs, to spent fuel management and any subsequent reprocessing, waste disposal and reactor decommissioning. The results of the UNIPEDE study were as follows: UNIPEDE ASSESSMENT-GENERATION COSTS (ECUXIO -2/kWh) U.K. F.R.G. Italy Netherlands Belgium France Nuclear 4.62 2.87 1.99 2.93 2.51 2.07 Coal 6.07 5.41 3.13 4.66 3.50 3.62 2. Small and Medium Power Reactors There are currently some 140 nuclear reactors of less than 600 MWe capacity operating worldwide. 90 of these have been in commercial operation for over ten years. A list of small and medium reactors currently under construction is attached below. Only three reactors (440 MW Pressurised Water Reactors for Poland on order from the USSR) are known to be on firm order. This list includes several experimental reactors, (Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors in U.S.A., F.R.G. and Japan, and a Thorium High Temperature Reactor in F.R.G.), which have not been tested commercially. WESTERN NATIONS Canada Four 516 MWe Pressurised Heavey Water Reactors (PHWR) under construction at Pickering in Ontario. Expected commercial operation 1983-85. F.R.G. 296 MWe Thorium High Temperature Reactor (THTR) under construction at Hamm- Uentrop. Expected to be fully operational in 1985. 295 MWe Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) under construction at Kalkar. Scheduled to be operational in 1986. India Five 220 MWe Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR) are under construction at Kakrapara (one), Kalpakkam (two) and Narora (two). These units are expected to commence commercial operations between 1984 and 1987. Italy 40 MWe Light Water Cooled, Heavy Water Moderated Reactor (LWCHW) under construction at Latina. Expected completion date is 1984. Japan 300 MWe (LMFBR) under construction at Isuruga, due to be completed in 1987. 500 MWe Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) under construction at Oshikagun. Originally scheduled for completion in 1975, now expected to commence commercial operation in mid-1984. Libya 300 MWe Pressurised Water Reactor was scheduled for construction by the USSR. This has been deferred indefinitely. USA 350 MWe (LMFBR) at Oak Ridge, Tennessee was originally scheduled for completion by 1980 but completion has now been deferred indefinitely. Comecon Countries Information for Comecon countries is not readily available; however, we understand that 440 MWe Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR) are under construction in Czechoslovakia (8 units), Democratic Republic of Germany (8 units), Hungary ( 3 units), Cuba (2 units), Poland (1 unit) and Romania (1 unit). All units being constructed by the USSR (Atomenergoexport), based on a design operation in USSR since early 1970s. Current Status of Small Nuclear Reactors Recent small reactor design concepts have been developed by: Sweden (Asea-Atom)-300 MWe BWR Federal Republic of Germany (Kraftwerk Union)-200-400 MWe BWR United Kingdom (Rolls-Royce)-320 MWe PWR United Kingdom (NNC)-300 MWe Magnox France (Technicatome)-325 MWe PWR USSR (AEE)-440 MWe PWR India (AEC)-220 MWe PHWR (not available outside India) Of these, only the United Kingdom Magnox, USSR and French PWRs and Indian PHWR are based on operational reactor units. The United Kingdom design is based on the early Magnox design, and is considered to be relatively unsophisticated. The USSR PWR is an established design at the upper end of the small to medium size range. Only two of this type of unit have been constructed outside Comecon countries (2 x 420 MWe units in Finland), with one unit ordered by Libya indefinitely deferred. The Indian 220 MWe PHWR design is not available outside that country. France has operated a prototype of its small PWR for some years, and this design would be available immediately. However, prototypes of the Swedish and German (FRG) and UK PWR designs have not yet been constructed. The UK PWR is understood to be based on a submarine reactor design. We understand that Canada is working on the design of a 300 MWe Candu reactor, with projected capital costs per kW comparable to the commercial 600 MWe Candu reactors. Small reactor designs for district heating rather than power production have also been developed in USSR, France and Sweden. Two prototype units are being constructed at Gorki, and two further units are planned for Woronesch in the USSR. No definite plans have yet been made for construction of district heating reactors in France or Sweden. Cost Comparison With Larger Reactors There has been little published on the economics of modern small and medium sized power reactors. Two recent papers which have come to our attention, by Reiner Schmidt of the IAEA and Tor Pedersen of Asea-Atom Sweden, have estimated that a 600 MWe nuclear plant would cost approximately 65 per cent more per kW installed capacity than an equivalent 1,200 MWe plant. In turn a 200 MWe is estimated to cost between 50 per cent and 100 per cent more per kW than a 600 MWe plant. 3. Cost of Hydro-electricity in Japan Although the cost of hydro-electricity in 1982 was estimated by MITI at 20 yen/ kWh and is thus well in excess of nuclear electricity at 12 yen/kWh, the two types of plant are used in different modes. Nuclear plant is used to supply base -load electricity while hydro-electric plant is used mainly for peaking purposes in a similar manner in which the Snowy Scheme complements the coal-fired base- load units of New South Wales and Victoria. The capacity or utilisation factors of the hydro-electric plant are about half those for nuclear plant so that the capital charges are spread over fewer units of output. A more meaningful comparison of generating costs would be to compare hydro-electric generation with other common alternatives utilised for peaking purposes such as oil and distillate fired gas turbines, oil-fired steam plant and older smaller coal-fired plant for which the cost of generation would be expected to be well in excess of hydro-electric generation. As an example in Australia, the cost of production of electricty from old coal-fired plant for peaking purposes in New South Wales is typically between four and ten times that for base-load electricity from large modern coal-fired power stations. 4. Electricity Pricing in Australia In recent years, the price of electricty has risen as a result of substantial rises in each of the three major components of the cost of production, namely fuel, operating and capital servicing costs. The experience of the Electricity Commission of New South Wales (ECNSW) is illustrative of the situation which has affected all the electricity authorities to a greater or lesser extent. The ECNSW operates by far the largest electricity generation system in Australia which is based on coal-fired power stations supplemented by hydro-electric generation mainly from the Snowy Scheme. Coal costs rose by 80% in real terms between 1976-77 and 1981-82 partly as a result of increasing dependence on more expensive underground coal and purchases from private mines. After coal costs and leaving aside financing charges and non-cash costs eg depreciation, personnel costs are the next largest element of the Commission's costs. Between 1976-77 and 1981-82 personnel costs rose by an average of 4.8% per annum over and above the inflation rate. Between 1976-77 and 1981-82, financing charges per unit of electricity sold increased by 84% in real terms as a result of an increase in the Commission's outstanding loans from about $900m in 1976-77 to over $2,000m in 1981-82 and an increase in the average interest rate from less than 8% in 1976-77 to over 12% in 1981-82. APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1983-84 Department of Resources and Energy Consideration-9 November 1983 The following information is provided in respect of matters raised by Senator Jessop. 1. Carbon Dioxide Pollution of the Environment through the use of Coal and Oil Fired Power Stations My Department, under the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program, is providing $72,600 to the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Physics to investigate the current and historical levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. This research will help to provide a clearer understanding of the consequences of increased Carbon Dioxide resulting from fossil fuel use. 2. Cost Escalations of New Coal-Fired Power Stations The cost of new coal-fired power stations has escalated in real terms in recent years as a result of various factors including more stringent environmental standards, industral disputation, exchange rate movements etc. Examples are: (a) Loy Yang, Victoria In 1976, the estimated cost of the 4,000 MW project was $1,640m compared with its latest estimated cost of $5,120m in December 1982 prices. This represents an increase of 64% over CPI. (b) Eraring, New South Wales In 1978, the estimated cost of the 2,640 MW project was $725m compared with an estimate of $1,650m in January 1982. (c) Callide B, Queensland In 1980, the estimated cost of the 700 MW project was $490m compared with the current estimate of $840m. APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1983-84 GROUP F Department of Veterans' Affairs-Additional Information Senator Walsh took questions on notice on behalf of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs from Senator Messner during consideration of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) on 15 November 1983. The following additional information is supplied: Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service (V.V.C.S.) Senator Messner asked for the numbers of persons using the V.V.C.S. centres and the cost of operating each of the centres. Up to 30.6.83 the Service had handled 1,721 individual Veterans; 1,338 in the 12 months preceding that date. Other persons, such as the families of the Veterans, are using the centres but the numbers are not recorded. There were 14, 914 client contacts during 1982-83. The following estimates are made of the cost of operating each centre during 1983-84. The estimates will be subject to fluctuation as funds will be directed on the basis of need. There is difficulty also in estimating the client load for each centre, particularly the centres recently opened. The estimates include apportionment of Central Office administration costs. The estimates are: Centre Cost $ Sydney 140,000 Melbourne 135,000 Brisbane 120,000 Adelaide 113,000 Perth 118,000 Hobart 75,000 Darwin 75,000 Townsville 80,000 Canberra 80,000 936,000 Senator Messner also asked about the intention of the Government in establishing further Vietnam Veteran Counselling centres. There are no plans at this stage to open any additional centres. An evaluation of the Service has been taking place over recent months and a report is due soon . Senator Messner also asked about the numbers of Vietnam Veterans who have received free medical assistance since the introduction of free services for urgent treatment for Vietnam Veterans. This information has been provided previously in a written response to the same question raised during the Committee stage. A copy of the answer is attached. Royal Commission into the use and effects of chemical agents on Australian personnel in Vietnam Senator Messner asked for the expected overall cost of the Royal Commission. I refer him to the answer to his question on notice No. 259 (Hansard, 20 September 1983, p. 818-9). Defence Service Homes Scheme-effect of new taxation arrangements applicable to lump sum superannuation receipts Senator Messner asked about the effect of the new taxation arrangements applicable to lump sum superannuation receipts on the Defence Service Homes Scheme. The Defence Service Homes Scheme is being reviewed and the needs of members an former members of the regular Defence Force will be taken into account in the course of the review. Assets Test Senator Messner asked how it was estimated that the assets test would save $ 300m in the Department of Veterans' Affairs since the Minister had said that only 3 per cent of people would lose their pensions. The source of the $300m is not known. It was not the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Department does not have enough information about the asset holdings of pensioners to be able to estimate precisely the savings to accrue. This is because the present income test does not require full disclosure of asset holdings, only income obtained from assets. Nevertheless the Department of Veterans' Affairs does have sufficient information about a number of particular pensioners to know that they may be classed as ''wealthy'' by most standards and certainly have sufficient financial resources at their disposal to provide for their retirement without the need to rely on either the service pension or fringe benefits. The results of a survey of Departmental officers in continuing contact with pensioners were that some 2.4 per cent of service pensions could be cancelled and some 20.8 per cent could continue in payment at a reduced rate. In a full year changes of this order could give savings of up to $112m in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It is not claimed that this will be the actual result. These figures are indicative only. Senator Messner's other comments have been noted. Statistics for Treatment of Vietnam Veterans Senator Messner asked for the numbers of Vietnam Veterans who have been provided with free treatment in urgent cases since January 1981. Since the emergency treatment arrangements were introduced on 14 January 1981, 193 Vietnam Veterans have sought treatment at Repatriation General Hospitals. The Scheme does not apply to non-departmental hospitals in the metropolitan area as there is a Repatriation General Hospital located in each capital city, except Darwin. There is no mechanism for recording the number of Vietnam Veterans admitted to country non-departmental hospitals but the number is thought to be very small. Senator BUTTON —In respect of the various other matters which have been raised, I adopt the practice which has been followed for as long as I have been in the Senate when Appropriation Bills have been dealt with and that is to say that answers will be supplied. Whether they will be supplied today or tomorrow I cannot say. They will be supplied as quickly as possible. It is not always possible to do that immediately the questions are raised in the Senate. I think that this practice has been recognised by governments of one political persuasion anyway, namely the last one, for as long as I have been in the Senate . I hope that that recognition extends to us as well. Two other matters were referred to by Senator Chaney in relation to a discussion between Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Walsh which is recorded in Hansard of 9 November. Might I say that I think it would be indulging in something very akin to hypocrisy if I pretended, on behalf of the Government, that the Government's sole considerations in relation to uranium mining were based on the projected price of uranium into the 1990s and so on. Senator Chaney-Senator Walsh has used that very heavily in argument in this place. Senator BUTTON —No, he has never said it was anything more. At the highest, I think, Senator Walsh said it was a factor which the Government had considered. Senator Chaney-He has also said that it is the reason why the Opposition's argument is invalid, because there is no room for another uranium mine. Senator BUTTON —I think that Senator Walsh, in the course of his remarks, referred to the possibility of sequential development of uranium mines. I think that may be a factor which has not been taken into account in the questions which have been directed. I refer to the passage of Hansard of 9 November in which Senator Walsh responded to Senator Sir John Carrick, to which Senator Chaney referred. Senator Sir John Carrick asserted that the Government had asserted that it had precise knowledge of the state of the uranium market and Senator Walsh replied on that day that the Government, of course, had asserted no such thing. The only thing I am able to add to that is to say that the Government has made judgments on information which it has received from a variety of sources, including the Commonwealth bureaucracy and others, as to what the likely commercial demand for uranium will be. That statement was made in the context of the comments I have just made, that a variety of considerations have led the Government to constrain the development of the uranium mining industry. Commercial considerations have been a factor, and it is put no higher than that. Secondly, on page 2411 of the Hansard of 9 November, Senator Sir John Carrick raised the question of a reference to the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) and Senator Walsh responded. It is recorded on that page that he said he would address a question to the Minister for Trade but he expected to get the reply that much of the information was commercially confidential. I have to confirm that that information has been sought and the answer is much as Senator Walsh predicted. Senator Chaney-Senator Walsh has provided an answer which I regard as very adequate to those particular inquiries. That is not a complaint at all. Senator BUTTON —In connection with the various other questions which have been raised, in regard to some of them I can advance the position no further and doubt whether I will be able to. On behalf of the Government I give an undertaking to respond to the questions about which Senator Hamer is concerned. I have no specifics on the matters about which Senator Walters is concerned. Senator Walters-Would you like me to give them to you? Senator BUTTON —Not now, for goodness sake. If the honourable senator sends me a letter, I will undertake to answer it. Senator Walters-I have already indicated the questions I require an answer to. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator has just offered to indicate them again and I suggest that she indicate them again in writing. Then she can put it on me and I will give her an answer. Senator Walters-I have not had any answers. Senator BUTTON —I assume the honourable senator is interested in the answers rather than stunts. That matter will be followed up if she directs it to me in writing. I will see that she gets the answers. Senator Walters-Is the Minister indicating that if I do not put them in writing I will not get an answer? Senator Robertson-I take a point of order. The running interjections from the Leader of the Opposition and some members on the other side make it very difficult for the rest of us to follow the argument that our leader is trying to put. I call attention to standing order 422. Senator Walters-I will get up as soon as the Minister finishes. I am trying to save time. Senator BUTTON —I have extended an invitation, and I do it again. If Senator Walters is interested in, firstly, saving time, and, secondly, obtaining information, I ask her to make her request in writing and she will get the answers. As I have said, the practice in this chamber over many years has been for answers to be provided in that way and it should be the practice again. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.24) —I wonder whether the Minister could tell me whether he is indicating that, unless I ask again the same questions which I asked on 8 and 9 November, by putting them in writing to him, I have not got much chance of getting the answers? Is this what he is indicating? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(6.24) —The answer is no, not at all. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.25) —I thank the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) for incorporating that information. I remind him I did acknowledge having received it. I thanked Senator Walsh and other Ministers for having provided answers to some of the matters which were raised. I also accept that it is not always possible for the Government, in an administrative sense, to produce all of the answers within the time that might be required. Senator Button —It has never been possible; never in the 10 years I have been here. Senator CHANEY —Right. I am not seeking to impose anything impossible or to request the impossible of the Government. I am a bit disturbed, however, that with respect to an area in which there has been quite specific inquiry-I mention the question from Senator Sir John Carrick-and where there has been quite a clear response from the Minister, Senator Walsh and there is in fact a source of factual information available to the Government, the Minister's office has indicated to me not that it is not practical to get me the answer in time, but simply that it does not think it need provide any further answer. On any basis, that is not satisfactory to the Opposition. I propose to ask the Government to adjourn the consideration of the Appropriation Bill until tomorrow to enable that question to be addressed. It is quite clear that the information is readily available. Other questions can be addressed as soon as possible and we can return to the consideration of the Bill then. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.26) —The Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) has not answered my questions. I will put them again. The questions I asked in the debate on the appropriations were questions that I had asked in the Estimates Committee proceedings. They were not new questions requiring new answers; they were questions I asked at the Estimates Committee and to which I have not received answers. I think that the Minister would agree that it is appropriate in the appropriation debates to seek information which I have not yet received. I ask the Minister again: Does he really want me to ask the questions a third time by putting them in writing to him personally? Is that necessary? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(6.27) —No, I do not think it is necessary. I was making an offer which the honourable senator may wish to avail herself of. She will get the answers. I only offered a solution which might provide even greater expedition, because the honourable senator has said that she is concerned about not wasting time and about obtaining information. It was in that spirit that I made the offer, but if the honourable senator is not as concerned about that, I will ensure that she gets the answers. Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: That the Committee report progress and seek leave to sit again. Progress reported. Consideration resumed from 16 November 1983. Bills agreed to without amendment or requests. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 16 November 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(6.30) —The States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill proposes to amend the petroleum freight subsidy scheme in terms which were foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech. Specifically, the Bill provides for the removal of power kerosene from eligibility for a subsidy, which is a long-standing subsidy designed to try to provide some equality of opportunity between those in the major urban areas, those closer to the centres of distillation and distribution, and those who are further afield, venturing and adventuring in various ways. Of course, the Northern Territory is also included under the Commonwealth Act. That formerly was an exceptional situation and I do not think there is any objection to that provision. The Bill specifies that delivery be a requirement which must be met before the subsidy payments are made. That provision follows an inquiry which was established last year under the former Government in relation to the operation of the scheme and is a recommendation that was made to make it more efficient. The Bill also provides authority to pay subsidy on eligible products to places which are not specified in the schedule to the scheme. As I mentioned, the Bill is the product of a review of the scheme which was announced last year, and I think it is important to trace through something of the history of the reviews which have taken place. Last year the former Government announced a review of the scheme. On 23 August this year the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) announced in a Press release: The former Government initiated a review of this Scheme in last year's Budget because of concerns that the Scheme was being abused and costs were escalating. The conclusions of that review have led to the decisions announced by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech. That included the decision to remove power kerosene, allegedly, and a number of other decisions which I will come to shortly. When some objection was raised by sections who were adversely affected, in particular by sections of the fishing industry and, in particular again, by sections of the fishing industry involved in prawn fishing in northern Australia , the matter was allegedly reviewed again. Shortly before 1 November my colleague Senator Archer, who shortly will speak in more detail in relation to this aspect, received a telex from the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, which stated in part: Following representations from the industry about the Budget decision which among other things excluded safe anchorage locations from the freight subsidy schedule, I have taken the matter up with my colleagues in the strongest possible terms in view of the financial difficulties confronting prawn fishermen . Following a comprehensive review and the impact of the decision on safe anchorage locations the Government has decided that it must maintain the Budget decision. So there we have the original review and the decisions taken in the Budget as a result of the review. Following objections and requests, a further review was undertaken and a further decision was taken by the Government after what is described there as a comprehensive review. In relation to this piece of legislation, we now have a further statement dated 15 November 1984 which, I presume, is not in anticipation of next year but is a mistake for 1983, which was made for the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It states: However, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, who announced the decision today, said the extension was to enable a full review of the scheme to take place. So apparently we will have a third review within 12 months. It will apparently relate to the problems of the fishing industry, particularly the prawn fishing industry and more particularly to the safe anchorage aspect, where fishing vessels are fuelled at sea and the subsidy should apply on the cost of transporting the fuel to where the fishing vessel is refuelled and not only to the port at which it can, if it calls, obtain fuel. So what we have is a rather unclear and vague statement by the Department referring to an announcement by the Minister that we will have a further review of this scheme. Because the statement is about the fishing industry, the review will be primarily related to that, but it does not limit the review of the scheme to that. Perhaps we will hear tonight from the Minister for Industry and Commerce before this Bill is passed that the review will also include a review of others who have been hard hit by aspects of this legislation, including some of that relatively small group within the community which still uses power kerosene for various industrial purposes. The removal of power kerosene from eligibility for subsidy is estimated to save $100,000 in 1983-84. So perhaps in the course of this third review of the scheme we will have a review in relation to those people. For the sake of saving the cost of a review that $100,000 might as well be given to them to save the expenses which have been undertaken on so many occasions. The Bill gives the impression that it is much like the 1983 Budget in so many aspects. It is ill-conceived and ill-considered. Once again we have a situation where the Government has made the big announcement, back-tracked on the big announcement, and will now review the review of the big announcement. One wonders with what certainty anyone can approach business in Australia, even living in Australia, when one has this sort of continuous review of a review of a review situation, when objection is taken by people who are hard hit. We had the pilots and the unions complaining about the superannuation decision. What did the Government do? It went off and played palsy-walsy with its union friends and then came back with some review of its firm resolute decision to take this country forward on a clear path. This is the sort of attitude the Government had when it announced the May mini-Budget. Then what did we find? It started back- tracking from the May mini-Budget. We then found the same sort of resolute leadership of Australia in the August Budget. What did we find then? People objected to it, so again the Government changed it around and reviewed it again. Why did it review it? Coincidentally, there happened to be a lot of prawn fishermen in the Northern Territory. Coincidentally there happens to be an election coming up in the Northern Territory. Coincidentally, the Government happens to announce that it will let the prawn fishermen have the benefit of the subsidy until the end of next year, when it will have reviewed the scheme. One would not need to be very much of a cynic to think that there was some association with the sort of decision Mr Cohen will make, if somebody tells Mr Cohen what he is allowed to say, or somebody else will make in relation to Kakadu National Park and the $36m in tourism development funds that are supposed to assuage the anger of Northern Territorians for what has been done to them by this Government in relation to uranium development, Ayers Rock and various other things. There will be a whole series of these extremely convenient announcements by this Government of convenience which have nothing to do with economic management, nothing to do with making firm, clear, considered decisions and then sticking to them. Rather it will bounce around like a ping pong ball in a rough sea. It is cynicism unsurpassed. It is typical of this Government that when it wanted to pretend it was giving firm leadership it struck at those sections of the community it thought were most remote from it. It struck at primary industry , it struck at the people who were likely to be users of diesel in off- road conditions and it struck at those people who used power kerosene. It struck at all of the sections of the community it thought did not vote for it, and then it forgot one thing-the possibility that there might be a Northern Territory election. Then it thought: 'Oh dear, we had better do something about that'. So out it comes and it starts changing it all. Senator Grimes —They all live in Cairns, not in the Northern Territory. Senator PETER RAE —Strange as it may seem, as the honourable senator might hear from Senator Kilgariff and Senator Archer, both of whom will speak with great authority on this matter, there are a significant number of people in the Territory who are most concerned with the Government's decision in relation to this. I do not want to take up an undue length of time in covering the full detail. Let me say that this is just a further example of the incapacity of this Government to do anything about the creation of employment. It is a further impost on industry and it is a further impost on those sections of industry which are furthest from the Government. It is a further impost adding to inflation and it is a further inflationary factor which, along with indexation of excises, to which we have already referred in the preceding Bills, can have an effect which will only add to the inflationary pressures of Australia. It will do nothing to create employment. In fact, like so much of the rest of the legislation that has come before this chamber since this Government has been in power it does nothing to create the employment for which it was elected on the promise that it would create it. The employment that has been created, and the Bills that we have had in relation to employment creation, have all related to the things that the former Government did, connected to the wage pause. So with those comments, Mr Acting Deputy President, I move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill: At end of motion, add: ', but the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for the discriminatory imposition of extra fuel costs on industries already heavily disadvantaged, such as remote area fishing, pastoral, mining and farming activities; and (b) calls upon the Government to review this legislation, with a view to ensuring that industries in remote areas will not be made worse off as a result of changes to the Petroleum Freight Subsidy Scheme'. Notwithstanding the rather vague announcement made by the Department of Industry and Commerce, which was embargoed until midnight on Tuesday 15 November and which appears to be related to the fishing industry but may extend further, we seek to have a full review to ensure that those industries to which I have referred will not be further disadvantaged, so that in the course of the review that the Government is going to undertake-the third review of this scheme-it will endeavour to achieve that purpose. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.44) —In speaking briefly to the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill 1983 I stand to support Senator Peter Rae who has given quite an able description of the problems that exist in this area. As I see it the purpose of the Bill is to remove power kerosene from eligibility for subsidy. This includes the Northern Territory under the Commonwealth Act and it specifies that delivery be a requirement which must be met before subsidy payments are made. It provides authority to pay subsidy on eligible products to places which are not specified in the schedule to the scheme. I suppose the one thing that affects most people, if not all people, in the outback in the Northern Territory these days is the cost of fuel. Perhaps the city dweller is not affected so much, but no matter what an individual in the outback does day by day, his first cost usually comes from transport. Over the last few years incredible costs have been placed on the people in the outback, yet we hear on the other hand that the Territory, the outback, needs to be more densely populated, industry must be encouraged, northern development must be brought about and all these things. Now there is a person who is prepared to carry out this type of work, as can be seen. When one looks at the population of the Northern Territory now one sees that it is developing quite remarkably, at some three times the rate of the average population growth in Australia. This is despite all the heavy costs. Whether one is on the land or in the sea in the north, there are tremendous costs. Let us first of all look at the fishermen. Very many fishermen who have operated out of Darwin, out of Nhulunbuy and out of Groote Eylandt have gone out of business because of the high cost of fuel. I think it is a pity that we see these individual fishermen being put out of business. On the other hand we see these fishing arrangements being made with overseas countries with the result that many overseas trawlers come in and we see them in large numbers along the northern coast. Yet the people we want to have along the northern coast are the local fishermen but because of the various costs they are pushed out of business. I believe that this applies to the people in the outback too, the people who depend on road transport such as farmers, station managers and all those other people. As I understand it now the 10,000-odd individual locations at which the subsidy is paid are to disappear and a retail point is going to be the point where this 1.1 cents per litre subsidy is to be paid above that. What is the definition of a retail site? Surely if the people are to have some understanding of the situation-indeed if we are to have some understanding-there must be an understanding of what this particular point, the retail site, is. I understand that part of the Budget statements of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) stated that the Government is moving the subsidy payable points to retail outlets. What is to happen then to the people who live past the retail outlets, to those very many people, whether they are on cattle stations, mining camps or Aboriginal settlements? How is the subsidy to be applied to all those people in the outback who live past the retail points? What is the rate of the subsidy? As far as I can see no procedures are established as yet to determine what rate of subsidy will apply to those current locations which are downstream from retail sites. This of course includes the outback stations and elements of the fishing industry. This seems to be a hasty piece of legislation. It seems to be incomplete. How is the message to be given to the people as to what this is all about? Surely when one looks at the Bill one sees that it is incomplete. These procedures are important, so the Bill says, for outlying non-retail locations which would appear to be disadvantaged by the legislation. But I can think of very many people such as farmers, say along the Daly River, who are really scratching for a living. Gradually they are going under because of the high fuel costs. What can be said to those people? How does this Bill apply to them? Senator Peter Rae —You cannot say 'Use power kerosene', can you? Senator KILGARIFF —As Senator Peter Rae points out, they cannot use power kerosene. For what reason is power kerosene removed from subsidy eligibility when one examines the savings to the Federal Government? Is it for the miserable amount the Federal Government will save? I cannot see the reason behind it. Even though it is said that very little power kerosene is used these days the fact, of course, is that power kerosene is used in the outback. Why should its users be penalised? I think it is up to the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) to give a clear indication of what this is all about. Perhaps he can spell out very clearly what advantage this measure will be to the people of the outback. Frankly, I am very concerned about the situation. I await the Minister's explanation. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.50) —I would like to speak to the States Grants ( Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill 1983. I will restrict my remarks to one particular aspect because I believe the rest of the Bill has been adequately covered by other senators in this debate. I would like to take the somewhat unusual course, I suppose, at this stage of making a short speech of thanks and congratulations. Since the Budget I have exerted as much influence as I can in an effort to reflect the absolute horror of safe anchorage users of diesel fuel in the fishing industry. Having spoken in this chamber about this matter on three occasions and having written letters, sent telegrams and so on to various Ministers, I am pleased that the general representations I have made all round have been recognised. Not many people in Canberra have any appreciation whatsoever of the vast distances or of the costs of non-fishing and non-earning steaming time that goes with the operation of trawlers in the north. I am talking about vessels for which the extra costs of fuel will amount to about $35 ,000 a year and where the safe anchorage alone might be as much as $5,000 to $8, 000 of that. In those cases the fuel actually represents about $2 a kilogram on the entire catch of fish. It may have escaped the attention of some honourable senators but I am a great supporter of the owners and operators of the nearly 300 boats that are part of the overall $360m a year export fishing industry. I believe that the people in this industry should be given a little more consideration than they are getting. The old divide and conquer theory is alive and well when these fishermen are strewn about at sea and hardly ever get together to create problems. Every country tries to support vital export industries. Why does Australia not support this industry? What do we do to match the assistance given to Australia's competitors in world markets? There have been several statements that the Government's Budget decisions have to be maintained. Even though some unkind people are thanking Mr Paul Everingham for the decision, I am not like that. I just thank the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button. I go a little further though. I note that the reprieve is provided until the end of 1984; I seek a declaration of permanence. The statement that I have seen alludes to abuses in the system. The Government has used that as a reason to cancel this subsidy. I too have heard that there may be abuses. However, my advice to this Government is the same as it was to the last Government, that is, do not blame and penalise the vast majority of honest people for the reputed miscreants that nobody seems to be worrying about anyway. I suggest that penalties should be sufficient to deter miscreants and that the rules, when implemented, should be implemented and carried through very solidly. I do not have any brief for crooks, if there are any, and their misdemeanours. If they are detected I would be the first to say to them: 'It serves you right; I would not wish it to be any other way'. The northern prawn fishing industry earlier this year showed signs of an improvement in profitability. The fishermen welcomed the devaluation of the dollar which it was thought would make the industry more competitive. The market looked quite good. However, regrettably, since then the situation has faded very badly. Over the last six months world prawn prices have dropped from about $14 a kilogram in April to $8 a kilogram in September; the value of the Australian dollar is now higher than it was in March; there has been an increase in fuel costs, irrespective of the safe anchorage question; there have been extra costs in wages and wage related costs which are estimated at about 6 1/2 per cent, and there have been reductions in the export incentives, besides the other matters contained in the Budget. That is all, of course, in addition to the loss of the safe anchorage allowances that the fishermen were receiving. The safe anchorage scheme was instituted only in 1979. It was not implemented to provide any great advantage but to remove some of the disadvantages that the sea fleet suffers. In 1979 it covered costs based on Karumba. In 1980 it was extended to Darwin. In 1981, 13 other anchorage locations were used by fishermen in the north. The six big companies that make up the Northern Fisheries Companies Association themselves use about 50 million litres of fuel a year. Of this amount, 33 million litres are actually delivered at sea. Safe anchorage fuelling is, of course, an integral part of the industry. It represents much of the net profit for these sorts of fishermen. I am not making this appeal for 1983 but for the long term future of this very valuable, potentially long-term export industry. These people are responsible, hard-working Australians. They are producing export dollars and not asking for benefits. They are simply seeking continuity and stability so that they may proceed to tidy up and rationalise the whole industry for the good of the industry itself and for the good of the resource. Again, I appeal to the Minister in relation to the safe anchorage allowance. The safe anchorage scheme is a must. It is up to the Government to ensure that it works. I never want to hear any talk of its cancellation on the basis that either the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority does not like it or because of alleged abuses. The present decision is most welcome. It is nice to be able to get some credit occasionally for actions, such as those which have been taken in this instance. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(6.58) —I thank those honourable senators who have commented on the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill 1983. Any honourable senator who attributes any change I announced last week in the application of the Government's decision in the Budget on the petroleum freight subsidy scheme to Paul Everingham or anybody of that kind is indulging in charity and fantasy. Let me be quite frank about it: The Government has had representations made to it on this matter since the Budget was introduced. Representations have been made by Mr Gayler, the honourable member for Leichhardt; fishing organisations in Queensland, not in the Northern Territory; and Senator Boswell who is sitting opposite, together with fishermen from Queensland, not the Northern Territory. The Government took a number of factors into account which led to the announcement that I made in the Press release which has been quoted. Those considerations were very much of the kind Senator Archer mentioned in his speech-the increased costs being incurred by the industry, poor prices, the revised estimates of the costs of each boat that were being incurred, the very real need for a management scheme to be put in place in respect of the northern prawn fleets and the desire of the Government to get that in place with the greatest degree of consultation and co- operation with the fishermen concerned and so on. All these factors were taken into account. Some people have taken the terminology of the Press release which was put out on 15 November as meaning that that foreshadows a review of the whole petroleum freight subsidy scheme. The expression in the Press release which has been quoted relates to a review of the mechanisms for supplying diesel fuel to the fishing vessels in the prawn fishing areas. At the time of the Budget, the Government said that it was very difficult to administer the petroleum freight subsidy scheme in relation to a number of areas. I do not know whether the farm gate issue has been mentioned in the course of the debate, but when the Government looked at this matter it found that there were some 10,000 farm gate sites in Australia to which the subsidy scheme applied. That number was growing very rapidly and creating enormous administrative difficulties. It was almost impossible to police the application of the scheme to the fishing fleet. This Government has reponsibilities, as have all governments, in respect of the taxpayers as well as responsibilities towards particular industries and sections of the community. I say to Senator Archer that I do not know whether the difficulties of administering the scheme led to so-called rorts. I do not know of my own knowledge. I know that many fishermen have told me that it led to rorts. Senator Boswell knows that, too. A lot of fishermen have told me that they have seen diesel fuel being pumped out of a tanker vessel in Cairns Harbour into a fishing vessel alongside, and that the petroleum freight subsidy has been blamed for that. I am not able to state the precise distance from the shore that that operation was said to take place. But those sorts of administrative difficulties are there, and the interesting thing is that they are acknowledged by the fishermen. Senator Archer —And they can be solved by the fishermen. Senator BUTTON —And they can be solved by the fishermen in consultation with the Government. By the end of 1984, which is the extension period which has been provided, we hope to have solved those problems, because there is no point in taking this measure otherwise and a government cannot provide a system of particular assistance to a particular industry when it knows that malpractices are taking place. It is in order to correct those malpractices that the extension of time has been granted. Senator Kilgariff raised the question of the use of power kerosene. The Government considered this matter at some length at the time of the Budget. The use of power kerosene is minimal. The cost of administering the petroleum freight subsidy in respect of that item was becoming absurd in the light of the very minimal use of the fuel. Senator Kilgariff also asked what a retail site is . Without wishing to be kept to this as the definitive explanation of what a retail site is, perhaps I can say that it is to be regarded as a site where there is dispensing equipment approved by an appropriate State or Territory government or a statutory authority and where that equipment is installed for sale of eligible products to the public. Senator Peter Rae —Is that the equipment approved or the site approved? Senator BUTTON —The site is approved, as I understand it, not the equipment. Senator Kilgariff —Not necessarily an oil company retail point. Senator BUTTON —Not necessarily, no. I think I am correct in saying that there are retail sites, for example, at Gove. I think there is a retail site under the scheme which is not an oil company site. So it means an approved site for the purposes which I mentioned. As Senator Kilgariff was not present at one point earlier, let me say that if there was one consideration that was not taken into account in the Government's change in relation to the prawn fishing fleet, it was-believe me or not-the Northern Territory election. A whole range of other factors were taken into account. The imposition of the Budget decision suddenly and without further opportunity for consultation about means of getting rid of malpractices was the main reason for that decision. I took Senator Peter Rae to be concerned about the question whether the review referred to in the Press statement meant a full scale review. The expression as it is contained in the Press statement relates to the review of the safe anchorages situation only. Senator Peter Rae —Thank you. Senator BUTTON —But I do not wish to be taken, by saying that, as implying that the Government would be precluded from having a review of the whole scheme, because that is always something which a government has to keep within its contemplation about any scheme. In answering the question in that way, I am not saying that the Government will not be making any review at all of the scheme; but that is not currently in contemplation. I should make the point, in answer to Senator Kilgariff, that the press statement refers to the fact that the Government will continue to review subsidy rates to remove anomalies between locations near each other and to examine rates for very remote farms or isolated communities where the rate applicable at the nearest retail site may not be appropriate. That is to say that the question of the extremely remote farms has been taken into account in an administrative way and will continue to be taken into account. Senator Archer —It will always be difficult but it will never be impossible. Senator BUTTON —I thank Senator Archer for those immortal words. The Government is prepared to confront the difficulties. Having said that, I commend the Bill to the Senate. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(7.08) —Before the second reading motion was carried , I had moved an amendment to it, which I now reiterate: At end of motion, add: '', but the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for the discriminatory imposition of extra fuel costs on industries already heavily disadvantaged, such as remote area fishing, pastoral, mining and farming activities; and (b) calls upon the Government to review this legislation, with a view to ensuring that industries in remote areas will not be made worse off as a result of changes to the Petroleum Freight Subsidy Scheme''. The question on that amendment was put. The Opposition-that is, the National Party of Australia together with the Liberal Party of Australia-voted in favour of that. In other words, members of those parties were here to be counted, to stand up for the people of the outback of Australia, the disadvantaged people, the people in the outlying areas, the people who will be hit by this change. But there were no representatives of the Australian Democrats and no independent senator here to support the amendment. For that reason I did not seek to have a division in relation to it. I did not want unnecessarily to waste time, but I am disappointed that they were not prepared to support it. Senator Robertson —Do not confuse the issue. You thought you would lose. Senator PETER RAE —I did not wish to have a division which, if they did not support the amendment, we would lose and thus waste time. I take this opportunity to point out those facts of life. We still reiterate that we think that the Government's action will disadvantage people who are already disadvantaged. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(7.10) —I wish to speak briefly to the point just made by Senator Rae. Senator Rae has expressed his feelings and the Australian Democrats feel the same. In fact, I am a little disappointed that the matter did not go to a division so we could have a very clear expression of this Senate's opinion on that matter. I would like it recorded in Hansard that the wholehearted support of the Australian Democrats is with the Opposition and the amendment as it was suggested. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(7.11) —In view of the indication just received from Senator Jack Evans on behalf of the Australian Democrats, I move: That in reporting the consideration of the Bill by the Committee, the Chairman report that the Committee- (a) condemns the Government for the discriminatory imposition of extra fuel costs on industries already heavily disadvantaged, such as remote area fishing, pastoral, mining and farming activities; and (b) calls upon the Government to review this legislation, with a view to ensuring that industries in remote areas will not be made worse off as a result of changes to the Petroleum Freight Subsidy Scheme. I thank the Democrats for their indication of support for that amendment. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(7.12) —Senator Rae gave a warm and emotional display on behalf of the disadvantaged, which I was pleased to note and acknowledge. I understand that. Senator Jack Evans also expressed the feelings of the Australian Democrats on this matter. But I really feel that those matters are all now recorded in Hansard. We know how the Liberals and the Democrats feel and, of course, it has been indicated in the course of the whole discussion arising from the Budget that they are concerned about particular matters. Of course, that is likely to be the normal course of events. I just indicate that the Government will not support the motion, because I think it is a sort of debating trick to have three bites at the cherry. It is a most cynical exercise. Essentially, the exercise is this: 'We saw the numbers as not being here, so it was not terribly important. We were not prepared to have a division. We were not prepared to display our feelings to the extent that they were recorded in Hansard with the numbers against us.' Now, because of the fortuitous arrival of Senator Jack Evans-I hope he has his friends here- who expressed his sentiments about the matter, there is a quite cynical attempt to get this motion resurrected, as it were, although the feelings have been amply displayed. If people say that this place is about argument, as distinct from numbers, it will come strangely from Senator Rae in the future if that is his view, and if he seeks this rather specious resort to this kind of motion in the Committee stage of debate on legislation. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Senator Peter Rae, before calling you, if you wish to speak, could I suggest that I put the question 'that the Bill stand as printed'? The next question would be that the Bill be reported. If you wish to pursue your motion you could move it as an amendment to the question ' that the Bill be reported without amendment'. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(7.15) -No, but I thank you, Mr Chairman. The point has been amply made that representatives of a majority of the chamber hold the view-- Senator Button —And acknowledged, Senator. Senator PETER RAE —It has been acknowledged by the Government. I take it that the Government will bear that in mind in conducting the review. Therefore, I do not propose to pursue the matter further. Having received acknowledgment that a majority of senators support this view, and an acknowledgment from the Government that it will take it into account, nothing more would be achieved by putting the motion to a division. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Senator Rae, do you wish to withdraw your motion, by leave? Senator Peter Rae —I seek leave to withdraw the motion. Motion-by leave-withdrawn. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 16 November 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.16) —The Representation Bill is the first Bill to come before the Senate of a package of three Bills dealing with electoral matters. The Representation Bill is certainly the shortest and, one might think, the simplest of those three Bills, but it has given rise to considerable argument and public debate. The Bill, though short, is not without significance. I indicate that the Liberal Party will vote against this Bill for reasons which I will set out. The Liberal Party does not support the Bill and does not believe that its enactment would be in the best interests of democratic practice or parliamentary representation in Australia. The Bill seeks to do two things: It seeks to repeal and replace the two existing Representation Acts. Some of the provisions of the existing Representation Acts, I believe, are reappearing in the Electoral Bill which we will discuss tomorrow. At any event, the important thing is that the Act which is proposed to replace the Representation Acts, contained in this Representation Bill, will seek to increase the size of the Parliament by increasing the number of senators representing each State. Honourable senators will be aware that the size of the Parliament is determined by the size of the Senate and that the number of the House of Representatives can be no greater than twice the number of senators. Honourable senators will also be aware that an attempt has been made previously to alter this situation, to break this constitutional nexus which relates the number of members of the House to the number of senators. They will be aware that although my State of New South Wales voted in favour of that proposal in a referendum, it was the only State that did so, and the proposal was defeated quite resoundingly. The people of Australia at that time voted against breaking the nexus. I think it is fair to say that they did so not on any well considered or deep constitutional arguments; they did it simply because they did not like the idea of more politicians. It was put to them that breaking the nexus would make it simpler to increase the number of politicians in Canberra. It was on that basis that the no case had such a resounding victory. Senator Button —Are you adopting that as a persuasive reason against the legislation? Senator PETER BAUME —I am merely relating what I believe to have been the thinking behind the rejection by the people some years ago of a referendum proposal which was put to them. This new Bill, if enacted, would have the dual effect of repealing the existing Representation Acts and putting in their place this new Bill which would increase the number of senators for each State. Members of the Liberal Party do not believe that increasing the number of senators is desirable. We do not believe that it is in the best interests of the Senate. We do not believe, therefore, that it is in the best interests of parliamentary practice in Australia, and for those reasons we will oppose it. There are really two sets of questions that need to be answered. The first is covered by the question: What are the reasons for saying that it is necessary to increase the size of the Parliament? That, of course, divides into further questions, including the reasons which would lead one to consider that it is necessary to increase the size of the Senate in particular. The second group is covered by the question: What would be the consequences of this proposal if it were put into effect? Honourable senators will be aware of the first report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which was tabled in the Parliament I think in September. It was a mammoth work which represented the findings of a bipartisan committee which worked in Canberra throughout the winter and considered a large number of matters relating to electoral practice in Australia. It was a bipartisan committee representing all groups within the Parliament, except Senator Harradine, and on many, though not all, of the recommendations the Committee was unanimous. One of the areas in which it was not unanimous is the area before us now, the question of the size of the Parliament. Arguments have been put that it is necessary to increase the size of the parliament because it has not been increased for a long time, because the population has increased, and because each parliamentarian has to service a larger number of electors than he or she had to do in years gone by. From that basic argument people have developed a case for it being necessary to increase the size of the Parliament. However, there are other arguments, and I draw the attention of the Senate to the dissenting opinion expressed by my colleague Senator Sir John Carrick at page 235 of the report of the Joint Select Committee. Senator Sir John Carrick, in a fairly brief dissenting report, dealt with some of the problems which he sees this question raising. He made the point that evidence to the Committee was that if there was to be an enlarged Parliament steps needed to be taken soon because in the normal course of events the 1984 redistribution was likely to prevail for two parliamentary terms. Whether the term is six years or seven years only the electors of Australia will tell us. The redistribution lasting for two terms may mean that if we do not increase the size of the Parliament the electorate will be even larger and that members of parliament will have even greater representational duties. Senator Sir John Carrick went on to acknowledge that many of the arguments for an increased Parliament are cogent. He acknowledged that the increase in population increases the demands upon parliamentarians, which the Joint Select Committee actually sets out in some detail. Those demands have become more complex. He acknowledged, as does the Joint Committee, the increasing complexity of parliamentary practice and parliamentary life in Australia. All of these matters are acknowledged, but they do not represent the totality of the argument. The fact that the community puts enormous demands upon its parliamentarians, its politicians, and that it demands the personal attention and presence of politicians is also acknowledged. A number of questions raised by Sir John Carrick and set out in his dissenting report are questions which should engage the attention of the Senate in considering this matter. The questions are these: Is there justification for a larger Senate, whether to fulfil its evolving responsibilities or simply to enable the enlargment of the House of Representatives? Can I draw a distinction here. There are arguments for increasing the size of the Senate which have to do with the Senate and its functions-I have yet to see or comprehend or be influenced by arguments of that kind-and there are arguments for increasing the size of the Senate which relate not to the function or practice of the Senate but merely to the desire to increase the number of members of the House of Representatives who may be elected. Senator Sir John Carrick goes on to ask whether a Senate of 72 members, plus territorial senators -that will be of interest to Senator Robertson-- Senator Button —Provincial senators. Seantor PETER BAUME-I am shocked to hear the Leader of the Government say that. I think they are full senators representing the Territories. Senator Sir John Carrick asks whether that is a workable figure, or would it incline to deadlocks . That is the question posed by Senator Sir John Carrick. Would it incline-for reasons which I will set out, and which are known to many senators-to three-all votes? Would it incline to the major parties each winning three seats of the six to be filled in most half-Senate elections? There would be 12 senators; six would go out for each half-Senate election. If this proposal tended to produce three-all situations as a routine we may end up with an unworkable Senate. This is an important and valid question raised by Senator Sir John Carrick, and one which must be dealt with by anyone who supports this particular enlargement. I recall that in 1948 or 1949 when the size of the Senate was increased, care was taken to make the increase for each State not from six senators per State to eight, which would have produced all the same problems we are facing now, but to make the increase from six senators to 10 senators. Because the half-Senate number then was an odd number they avoided the problems which are likely to arise whenever we have eight or 12 or 16 senators from a State. The likelihood is that, because of the way the voting is structured and because of the quotas which are established, with 12 senators per State, six going out at a half- Senate election, we might well tend towards three-all results. Another question raised by Senator Sir John Carrick is whether it would make it easier or more difficult for minority groups, who nevertheless represent significant minority views in the community, to gain a place in the Parliament? My view is that it is much less likely that we would have, for example, the Australian Democrat presence in the Senate in anything like the same numbers. Senator Button —Are you complaining? Senator PETER BAUME —I respond to Senator Button's interjection by saying that there are occasions when one has to balance the crude desires of party advantage with some wider public considerations. I say to Senator Button that I think there is some public support for the Senate's present position, where neither of the major parties has a guaranteed majority, where events in the Senate are argued out. While the fire and thunder may take place in the House of Representatives, all votes there are predetermined and absolutely predictable. Of course, one of the reasons there is no shouting and yelling in the Senate is that the votes are real and have a chance of altering what goes on. So there is some public support for a position in which the Senate is a real chamber of decision and where, as we saw today, one cannot predict with certainty that results will go one way or the other. Arguments on the floor of the Senate actually influences the result of votes. In parliamentary terms there is some advantage in having several groupings within the Senate, and there is a strong argument that says that will be less likely if we move to a position of having 12 senators per State. Senator Sir John Carrick went on to ask: Would the public now support the breaking of the nexus between the two Chambers ? That is a very important question, and one to which honourable senators will wish to address themselves. If the public would support the breaking of the nexus then this Bill is unnecessary. That is the wrong way to proceed. If there is a desire and a need to increase the numbers in the House of Representatives there may be an alternative means by which this can be done. Debate interrupted. Criticism of the Northern Territory-Criticism of Tasmania The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(7.30) —I do not normally make a practice of speaking on the adjournment debate, but I feel impelled to do so tonight, very briefly, to refer to the latest example of the anti-Northern Territory stance of one of our major newspapers, the Australian Financial Review. Honourable senators will recall that over a number of years articles have appeared which were critical of the Northern Territory. The one I wish to refer to tonight is contained in the 16 November 1983 issue called 'Territory blues'. I seek leave to have that article incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The article read as follows- The Northern Territory Government has called a snap election in the hope of capitalising on the inevitable unpopularity that recent Federal Government decisions affecting the Northern Territory will involve. They may very well benefit from popular reaction against these decisions. The question is, as Mr Everingham, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has said, one of self-government. But he assumes that the Northern Territory has the right to self-government. Why? The N.T. is not an original State in the Australian Federation. It is a tiny collection of people, most of whom subsist in the Territory only because of the generosity of the rest of Australia. The N.T. is heavily subsidised on almost every count and exists in its present form mainly because of the wave of popular sympathy that followed the cyclone of Christmas 1974. The cyclone, which devastated Darwin, was a heaven sent opportunity to reduce Darwin to its proper function, a small port at the central-northern extremity of Australia serving a few military installations and a tiny hinterland. Instead the mistake was made of trying to develop Darwin, and the N.T., into an independent entity. The present population of Darwin, including most of the members of its parliament, are carpet-baggers, arrivals who followed the influx of funds after the cyclone. The residents of Darwin who precede the cyclone are a minority of the present population. The same is true in varying degrees of the other towns of the N.T.. It is a dependent area, in which the only long term residents are a few whites and a few blacks of much longer ancestry and claim. This is not to say that attention should not be paid to the N.T.'s welfare. But it ought to put in doubt the validity of the claims of the new rich of the N.T. to still further assistance from the Australian Commonwealth, while they claim the right to act independently of and contrary to Australian Commonwealth Government policy. The three great offences of the Hawke Government against the NT, as perceived by the NT Government, are: first, the decision not to go ahead unconditionally with the rail link to Darwin; second, the decision to prefer uranium development in South Australia to uranium development in the NT; and third, the decision to hand over the Uluru national park, including Ayers Rock, to the Aboriginal inhabitants of the area. The first of these decisions was simply a concession to reality. The Darwin rail link could never be justified on economic grounds. It would simply subsidise freight and passenger traffic, which could be better met in other ways . In short, it was one of the proposals of the previous Government which would have involved an unconscionable waste of Australian taxpayers' funds. The second is more open to criticism. The preference for Roxby Downs against other uranium mines involves a waste of resources, in that it involves the choice of a relatively high cost uranium mine as against relatively low cost mines-there is a huge implicit subsidy to jobs in South Australia which should be questioned. Why are South Australian jobs worth more than NT jobs? However, the decision was made in the form it was for reasons connected with the internal conflicts of the Labor Party, and the prejudices of white anti- uranium activists formed regardless of the interests of the Aboriginal residents of the NT who hoped to benefit from the development of uranium mines in their lands. It is a classical piece of racist patronising of the Aborigines: if they are to be granted land rights why should they not have the right to decide that those land rights include the royalties from the mining and export of uranium? The third decision is that Ayers Rock should be handed over to the appropriate Aboriginal authorities. This one is contestable. Ayers Rock is as much a symbol of Australia in its present multiracial, multiethnic existence as it is of the original Aboriginal inhabitants. Both the existing Australian society and the original inhabitants deserve to be consulted on this matter. But if the action was more than a one sided piece of patronisation by the Federal Government, and if the Aboriginal inhabitants are in fact committed to the maintenance of access to the Rock and its related surroundings, then the only harm done is a massive transfer of revenues from NT and federal authorities to Aboriginal land councils. How those funds are expended is another question but not a small one. It is clear that the NT Government is going to present each of these three decisions as being an offence to the residents of the NT. The railway decision can be represented as depriving all of the facility to which they think they ought to be entitled, regardless of the fact that every man, woman and child, regardless of race and colour, in the NT is already a pensioner of the Australian nation. The uranium decision can certainly be presented to the Aborigines as an interference in their rights and revenues. After that why should they vote Labor ? The Ayers Rock decision will outrage the white citizens of Alice Springs and related towns such as Katherine, who see a similar fate looming over them. So the Federal Government might well have succeeded in uniting all the voters of the NT, white or black, to vote for Mr Everingham's Government. After December 3, therefore, the fundamental issues will loom large once again. Do we need a pretentious local government in the NT, and should we continue to subsidise people to live there? Perhaps the solution will be to revert to pre- cyclone policies. Senator ROBERTSON —I thank the Senate. I sought leave to incorporate the document, firstly, to save time. It is necessary for the article to be incorporated to make the comments which I intend to make more meaningful. Secondly, it will enable people to fully appreciate the paranoia of the writer who penned the article to which I refer. I am told that the writer is a Mr Paddy McGuinness, who holds an editorial position on the Australian Financial Review. I am assured that this is his style. Certainly, the article itself is long on generalisations and short on facts. If that is his style, it certainly fits. In the second paragraph of the article this statement appears: The question is, as Mr Everingham, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has said, one of self-government. But he assumes that the Northern Territory has the right to self-government. Why? It seems the author finds it incredible that the Northern Territory should feel it has the right to self-government. He seems to feel that there is a certain impertinence on the part of the Northern Territory citizens, people who are of course citizens of Australia, that they should want to have the right to self- government. The arguments which he put against self-government were: Firstly, that it is not an original State. Of course, this is indisputable, but one would question the relevance of the argument. Certainly, the Constitution anticipated new States and made arrangements for them. Australian citizens, wherever they are geographically located, are entitled to expect self-government if they want it. I appreciate the proposition that the Australian Capital Territory poses a particular case which could be debated. I am speaking of the Northern Territory at the moment where the same conditions do not apply. The second point he made was that the Northern Territory is heavily subsidised. That is true. Certainly, it has been commented on; I have commented on it in this place. But what is so unusual about a mendicant State? Which of the States have not been mendicant at some time? Apart from New South Wales, most of the smaller States have been mendicant, at one time or another, since Federation. The taxpayers in the Northern Territory-they are just that, taxpayers, in the full sense of the word- pay their taxes the same as every other citizen of Australia. I might even put an aside here that they pay an additional tax in that they were required, until very recently, to pay sales tax on freight. The next comment made was that the Northern Territory exists in its present form because of the wave of sympathy that followed Christmas 1974. He was referring, of course, to the cyclone of 1974. I do not know quite what the author meant by the phrase 'present form'. If it was the physical reference that he was making then certainly Darwin has been rebuilt, but it was rebuilt because of the Labor Government in Canberra at the time of the cyclone. The then Labor Government laid the foundations and started the process going. To the credit of the following government, this was continued. If the author was talking about the parliamentary system of the Northern Territory, once again, this was due to the initiative of the Labor Government, followed, commendably, by the Country- Liberal Party. If he was referring to the mendicant situation, due to the size of the Territory and its small population, it is simply the same as any other State in its early development. The article goes on to say: The cyclone . . . was a heaven sent opportunity to reduce Darwin to its proper function, a small port at the central-northern extremity of Australia serving a few military installations and a tiny hinterland. The area to which he referred as a tiny hinterland, I assume, is one in which the author's own State would fit more than once. Senator Peter Rae —It has places such as Jabiluka and all those sorts of potential developments, hasn't it? Senator ROBERTSON —That is right. I appreciate the honourable senator's contribution. There was no mention of those things and things such as the cattle industry, mining and some of the most attractive country in Australia. There was no mention of the gateway to the north which is supposed to be so valuable and certainly has attracted so many writers. The article goes on: The present population of Darwin, including most of the members of its parliament, are carpet-baggers, arrivals who followed the influx of funds after the cyclone. It is not surprising that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Everingham, called the author an ignoramus. I do not want to use such a harsh term, but I wonder from where he obtained his figures. The figures normally cited are that 60 per cent of the present population was there before cyclone Tracy. These figures are derived from the obvious comment that 40 per cent of those who left did not return. But the author was talking about the politicians. As far as I know, all the politicians are pre-cyclone. I cannot think of one who is not. At least two of them were born locally. They would have been there for some years. All the Federal representatives have been in the Territory for a long time, certainly well before the cyclone. But so what? What relevance has this comment to what we are talking about? Senator Button —No member of parliament in Tasmania is Tasmanian born. I am talking about the State Parliament, not Federal members. Senator ROBERTSON —Perhaps the Ministers can make something of that in a later speech. Too much is made of this nonsense. It is the contribution that counts. Whether the person comes from Tasmania or the Northern Territory it is his contribution which is important. The article went on: The residents of Darwin who precede the cyclone are a minority of the present population. The same is true in varying degrees of the other towns of the Northern Territory. This is just not true. It is typical journalistic licence and falls into the 'do not spoil a good story' syndrome. The author then went on to talk about the Darwin-Alice Springs rail link. He called it the proposal of the previous Government. He did not indicate which government-which government from 1911, all of which indicated that something might happen to the Darwin-Alice Springs rail link. It certainly was not the Fraser Government. The Fraser Government promised several times that it would do something about the rail link, but I do not think it had any intention of keeping that promise. Certainly, nobody gave any significance to the promise which was made. Senator Peter Rae —That is a bit unfair, isn't it? Senator ROBERTSON —I suggest that the facts do speak for themselves. It was promised four times. Senator Peter Rae —That they had no intention of keeping it? Senator ROBERTSON —One would think so, since they did so four times, had opportunities to do so and did nothing about it. The honourable senator's Government initiated no footage of railway, let alone mileage of railway, in Australia. Therefore, one would assume that it would not have gone ahead with the Northern Territory rail link. Nevertheless, we can make that up again. An effect of the Darwin-Alice rail link would be employment. We are told that in the first three years 737, 662 and 562 people would be employed. We are told that there would be 240 full time positions when the railway became operative. The Northern Territory Department of Transport and Works has suggested that 1, 200 jobs would be generated by the building of the railway. The tourism of which I hinted earlier would be increased, quite clearly, with the building of the railway. We know that for every $1m of overseas money spent, there is a rise of $2.5m in the gross domestic product. For every 44,000 tourist dollars spent, three new jobs are created. The South Australian Chamber of Commerce, when talking about the fiscal drawbacks, suggested that in the time of the building of the railway, $40m to $50m in wages and salaries tax would be returned to the Commonwealth Government, and $40m would be returned in company tax. In all, there would be a total return of $120m. If we look at the unemployment benefit, we know that each unemployment benefit recipient adds $8,600 to the deficit. The suggestion has been made by those who have computed the figures that $103m would be saved over the six years through not paying the unemployment benefit to those people who would be working on the project. I do not want to bore the Senate any further with elaboration on the information which I have raised, or on the other sections which I have mentioned . I notice that the two honourable senators who are present in the chamber are hanging on my every word. They are anxious to get away so I will cut my remarks short. It is unfortunate that this reputable paper has a blind spot. The Northern Territory is an integral part of Australia. The people who live there are not only citizens of the Northern Territory but also of Australia. I trust that the editor will appreciate these facts when he produces further articles and that he will check his facts to make sure that they are right because that does help, although most people who work on newspapers tend to pluck their facts out of the air to suit their arguments. I hope he will avoid his bias against the Northern Territory and he will see the Northern Territory as having achievements to date and potential for the future. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(7.40) —I will be extremely brief. I wish to support part of the general concept of what Senator Robertson has just said. Representing Tasmania, at times I become extremely annoyed at-at other times I am just patiently tolerant of-the misunderstanding of people who criticise, with an extraordinary view, the position of some of the smaller population areas, some of the smaller States or Territories. I give but one example. We hear a lot of criticism about the benefit that Tasmania receives in relation to the freight equalisation scheme, a benefit which amounts to just a bit more than the bounty paid to one industry in Victoria. The money for both comes out of the taxpayers' purse. Senator Button —Fibremakers. Senator PETER RAE —The senator interjects 'Fibremakers'. That is the company concerned. Last year the company in Victoria which employs about 1,100 people received $18m. The amount budgeted for this year for the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme is $23m. That amount is for every industry and every person in the State of Tasmania. Tasmania depends upon shipping for all of its transport other than a very small amount that can be brought by air. Government policy has been that the goods will be carried by ships built in Australia and this requirement has helped the South Australian and New South Wales ship building industries. These ships were probably the most expensive ships in the world; they were manned by probably the most expensive seamen in the world and they operated through the most expensive waterfronts in the world. It was nothing to do with Tasmania that we had to have all those things. It was all part of Commonwealth Government policy. The freight equalisation scheme is a form of compensation. Yet, people such as the editor of the newspaper to which Senator Robertson has just referred would write a similar type of article about the support and subsidy received by Tasmania as if we were a mendicant. In fact, it still costs us an awful lot of money, notwithstanding that bit of compensation, for what amounts to benefits received by people in other States of Australia. I want to take this opportunity, following the remarks of Senator Robertson, to say that it is not only the Northern Territory that is sometimes misrepresented and maligned; this happens to my own State. There is a great tendency for those who live in the big centres of population to regard everybody else as somehow being dependent upon them. When one looks at those who receive the benefits of the protection system of its various nature one happens to notice that they mostly live in the big urban areas. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.43 p.m. The following papers were presented: Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 235. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 268, 269, 270, 271. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 264. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 262. Judiciary Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 263. National Health Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 267. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 266. Overseas Telecommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 265. Public Service Act-Appointment-Department of Social Security-Ms O. Taylor. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Notice of Variation of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs (80th Series), dated 16 November 1983. Ordinances 1983-No. 54-City Area Leases (Amendment). Regulations 1983-No. 22-(Health Commission Ordinance). The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 258 Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Why is service in Borneo during the 1960's not considered as service in a ' theatre of war' in relation to eligibility for a service pension, despite Australia suffering casualties, some fatal. (2) Why is this the case when participating servicemen are eligible for the general service medal and the returned from active service badge. (3) What are the terms of reference for the Minister's proposed investigations into the case of the HMAS Sydney and does he intend to widen this investigation to include other anomalous cases such as Borneo. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The question is based on an incorrect assumption. Service in the Northern Borneo areas of Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei is covered under the Repatriation ( Special Overseas Service) Act 1962. For the purposes of this Act, Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei were designated as special areas between 8 December 1962 and 1 October 1967. Consequently, any serviceman who was allotted by the Department of Defence for special service in these areas during the above period is considered as having served in a theatre of war and is eligible to apply for repatriation benefits, including service pension, from my Department. (2) The returned from active service badge and the general service medal ( Borneo Clasp) are provided to servicemen for service in operations in Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei over the periods 8 December 1962 to 30 September 1967 for the former and 24 December 1962 to 11 August 1966 for the latter. The period for which repatriation cover is provided to these servicemen for service in the same areas (8 December 1962 to 1 October 1967) overlaps the periods of eligibility for these awards. Hence, servicemen who hold these awards and were allotted for special service in a special area by the Department of Defence would be eligible to apply for repatriation benefits, including service pension. (3) The investigation in relation to HMAS Sydney was directed at examining the exclusion of such servicemen from benefits under the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act. The benefits are provided to eligible veterans who were allotted by the Department of Defence for special duty in a special area. Allotment was based on the concept of continuing danger to personnel from the activities of hostile forces. Advice I have received from the responsible departments is that existing allotment criteria are fair and cover the majority of personnel who served in the Vietnam area. Question No. 394 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Is there a danger to householders whose homes are constructed with fibro, duralex and asbestolux products that contain asbestos. (2) Do fibro ceilings constitute a health hazard due to friction when they expand and contract in areas that experience temperature extremes, releasing asbestos dust and fibres. (3) Does the extreme range of temperatures on duralex sheeting in bathrooms cause a similar health hazard. (4) Can the Minister for Health assure pensioners and other householders whose homes are mostly, or partly, constructed with these asbestos products that they are safe; if not, will there be any avenues for compensation for householders who bought these products in good faith if they have to pay to have them removed . Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) It is considered that there is no danger to householders because any adverse effects of asbestos on health stem largely from the generation of harmful concentrations of dust caused through incorrect handling of asbestos- based materials in the working environment. Where dust generation is minimised, health risk is minimal. (2) and (3) Expansion and contraction of asbestos cement materials due to temperatures encountered in domestic applications are insignificant and would not cause creation of asbestos dust or loose fibres: Indeed, a particularly useful feature of asbestos is its good adhesion and cohesion in a cement matrix and a high resistance to heat, moisture and abrasion. Any health risk associated with asbestos cement sheeting is due largely to dust generated during manufacture, cutting and installation. Where asbestos cement products are installed in domestic buildings, they are normally sealed with paint and very little, if any, dust is produced. (4) I draw the honourable senator's attention to the National Health and Medical Research Council Report on the Health Hazards of Asbestos and, in particular, the statements (page 8 of the report)- that research findings do not support the frequently stated suggestion that slight, casual or brief non-occupational exposure of the general public to asbestos may lead to mesothelioma; and that despite the high proportion of individuals, especially in urban areas, who have asbestos fibres in their lungs, there have been no substantiated cases of asbestos-related disease in the general public. A copy of this report has been placed in the Parliamentary Library. The expert sub-committee which prepared the report adopted the view that, at this stage, there is no evidence of a risk to the general public from exposure to asbestos in, for example, ambient air. I am not aware of any further evidence that would require modification of that view. In fact, asbestos fibres are found in the lungs of most people who have died of causes other than asbestos-related diseases, as a result of their having inhaled asbestos fibres that are found generally in the normal environment. In the circumstances, the question of any government assuming responsibility for compensation related to the removal from private dwellings of material containing asbestos does not apply. Question No. 466 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: (1) What short range air-to-air missile has been selected to arm the FA18 when this aircraft type enters service with the Royal Australian Air Force. (2) Which medium range air-to-air missile has been provisionally selected for the FA18. (3) Have arrangements been made, or will such arrangements be made, to secure missiles from early production batches, if the advanced medium range air-to-air missile has been selected for the latter requirement, in view of the fact that a production decision for AMRAAM will not be made till 1985 and the FA18 will enter service in 1986-87. (4) Will the first order for the AMRAAM be placed in the fiscal year 1983. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The AIM9 Sidewinder has been selected as the short range air-to-air missile for the FA18. (2) The AIM7 Sparrow has been selected as the medium range air-to-air missile for the FA18. (3) Not applicable, see (2) above. (4) No, not applicable, see (2) above. Question No. 479 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 November 1983: (1) Are women being recruited as engineering cadets in the Royal Australian Air Force. (2) How many male applicants and how many female applicants were in the 1983-84 intake of RAAF engineering cadets. (3) How many males and how many females were invited to attend the final selection board in the above intake. (4) How many males and how many females were finally recruited into the RAAF as engineering cadets in the above intake. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Applications for entry as RAAF engineering cadets in financial year 1983/84 were: 377 male, 48 female. (3) 152 male, 14 female. (4) 80 males and 4 females were recommended for entry into the RAAF as engineering cadets, but the entry of these applicants is still subject to their Higher School Certificate results.