Friday, 18 November 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Sex Discrimination Legislation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; deny to parents their rights to insist that the school 'community' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from 35 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 Peter Baume (from 78 citizens), Crichton-Browne (from 24 citizens) and Scott (from 1,020 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senators in Parliament assembled: should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine: (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 43 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia, being parents and other persons concerned about the education of all children, showeth that the present Government has commenced a policy of reduction and eventual abolition in Government funding to independent schools. This policy has been adopted without an appropriate and reasoned consideration of the circumstances of those schools and the parents who choose to send their children to them. In particular the Government, in making its decision, has failed to take into account the impact of the state school system of an increased enrolment of students who otherwise would have attended Independent Schools in the event that Government funding had not been reduced or abolished. The change in policy overlooks the fact that the cost of educating a child in a government school is two to three times the cost to the tax-payer of educating the same child in an independent school. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled reverse the decision of the Government and re-instate funding on an equitable basis as has been the case in previous years. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray: by Senator Peter Baume (from 154 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 Peter Baume (from 289 citizens), Harradine (from 2,554) and Scott ( from 26 citizens). 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 Senator Zakharov (from 76 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Gietzelt (from 58 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: that to date no postage stamps have been issued to commemorate the services of Australian Forces in Korea and Vietnam. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should seek and support the issue of such commemorative stamps. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 321 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 Chaney (from 15 citizens), Crichton-Browne (from 17 citizens), Hamer (from two citizens) and Scott (from 44 citizens). Petitions received. 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)(9.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to make technical amendments to the bank account debits tax legislation to overcome doubts that have been expressed about the constitutional validity of the provisions which enable banks to recover from account holders the amount of tax payable in respect of taxable debits to accounts kept with banks. The bank account debits tax was part of the former Government's 1982-83 Budget. The tax applies, subject to exemptions specified in the legislation, to debits made to cheque accounts kept with banks. The legislation was enacted in 1982 and the former Government announced before the election last March that 1 April 1983 would be proclaimed as the date of commencement of the tax. Following the election, the necessary formal proclamation was made, but we, as the New Government, announced that the operation of the tax, including the appropriateness or otherwise of exemptions, would be reviewed after approximately six months. That review is now in course and an announcement will be made after the review has been completed and the Government has taken decisions arising out of it. The present Bill is not intended to pre-empt any decisions which the Government may wish to make as a result of the review, but simply to effect technical changes that ensure the constitutional validity of the provisions under which the tax has in fact been collected since 1 April 1983. Although, as was indicated when the legislation was introduced last year, the banks are primarily responsible for payment of the tax, the legislation is designed so that the incidence of the tax effectively falls on bank customers rather than on the banks. That is intended to be achieved by giving the banks a statutory right to recover from their customers the tax payable on debits made to customers' accounts. Questions have recently been raised about the constitutional validity of the provision that is expressed to give the banks that right of recovery. If that provision were held to be constitutionally invalid, so that banks would be unable to rely on statutory rights to recover the tax, the operative provisions of the legislation would fail. This would occur because a taxable debit made to a cheque account by law ceases to be a taxable debit if the tax imposed on it cannot be passed on by the bank to the account holder under the recovery provisions of the Administration Act. The Government has received advice that, if amendments were made to the legislation so that liability is imposed jointly and severally upon the bank and the account holder, the constitutional validity of the law would be put beyond doubt. Accordingly, this bill will formally make the tax a joint and several liability of the bank and the customer concerned. The amendments proposed in this Bill do not introduce any new policy but simply give effect in a constitutionally valid manner to the scheme of the legislation as envisaged by the former Government. The Commissioner of Taxation will continue to call upon the banks to pay the tax in respect of their several liability with the account holder and, having done so, the banks will be authorised by the law to recover the tax from the account holder. A bank, under contractual arrangements with its customers, will also be at liberty, as it is now, to recover the tax in advance of its actual payment to the Commissioner. It is proposed that the amendments have effect from the formal commencement of the bank account debits tax legislation, namely, 31 December 1982. All of the amendments, including those that are consequential on the main provisions, are explained in an explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable senators and I think I need do no more at this stage than commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Rep- resentatives. 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)(9.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Bill before the Senate will amend the Health Insurance Act 1973, the National Health Act 1953, the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 and the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937. The most significant amendments relate to the administration of the Government' s nursing home program. The Government is concerned that proper priorities should be set in developing services for aged people. Inquiries conducted during the past decade have addressed this matter and there is a general consensus that there are serious imbalances in the services provided for the care of the aged. While Australia overall has very adequate provision of nursing home accommodation its community care and domiciliary services are underdeveloped as are its facilities for hostel care. The priorities of the Government as expressed in its election policy for the care of the aged are to moderate growth in the nursing home sector and encourage the further development of hostel, community and domiciliary care services. Currently it costs the Commonwealth $600,000 a year in recurrent expenditure for each 50 bed nursing home that is approved. For this reason, it is vital for the Government to restrict nursing home growth if it is to find funds for urgently needed hostel community, and domiciliary services of the care of the aged. Another important element of the Government's aged care policy is to encourage the development of assessment so that aged people can be guided to the available services most appropriate to their needs. The amending legislation before the Senate is an initial step in pursuing these priorities. The principal matters concerning the Government's nursing homes program which are the subject of the amendments apply to both the National Health Act and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act. Under this legislation the Minister for Health, instead of the permanent head, will be empowered to approve new or additional nursing home accommodation. The need for such accommodation will be assessed in accordance with principles to be tabled in the Parliament, and therefore subject to the scrutiny of both Houses. Further changes affecting nursing home approvals are made in clause 34, which would amend the National Health Act, and clause 60, which would amend the Nursing Homes Assistance Act. These provisions insert new sections 39A and 3A into the relevant statutes and enable the Minister to grant a certificate, or in other words, an approval-in-principle, to an applicant. This approval-in- principle guarantees the holder that if he applies for approval of the completed nursing home or alterations to an approved nursing home under either act within a period of 12 months or such longer time as the Minister allows, the approval will not be refused on needs grounds. The legislation provides further for specifications to be imposed on the certificate and, where appropriate, that admission to the nursing home will be confined to persons representing a special need for which the certificate was granted. An example of special need would be where nursing home approval is granted to specifically cater for crippled children or patients of a particular ethnic origin. To ensure that a full and comprehensive assessment of nursing home need can be effected, the proposed new sub-section 39A (1) of the National Health Act and proposed section 3A (1) of the Nursing Homes Assistance Act allow the Minister to invite interested persons to make application for a nursing home in a specified region. To date the approval system has operated on a 'first in first served basis'. The purpose of the published invitation is to enable a more informed evaluation to be made, particularly having regard to the existing aged care accommodation and services in the area, their effectiveness and what a future appropriate mix of accommodation and services should be. The legislation specifically provides for the invitation to interested parties to be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The practice to be adopted by the Department of Health will be for the relevant details to also be published in appropriate local and capital city newspapers having regard to the needs of the area. Consideration of nursing home applications has been deferred while the new growth control guidelines are being settled and the arrangements proposed in this Bill are being put in place. Honourable senators will note that the provisions concerning nursing home approvals and decisions by the Minister in that regard will come into effect from a date to be proclaimed. This date will be the date when the principles have been formulated and tabled in Parliament. Let me assure the Senate that the Government is conscious of the need to enable evaluation of nursing home accommodation requirements to be undertaken as soon as possible. The Government's aged care policy will be underwritten by an effective system of assessing the medical, social and emotional needs of the aged and disabled to enable them to be guided to the most appropriate, available services. Ultimately , such assessment will be a precondition for aged persons being admitted to a nursing home, or for receiving Commonwealth subsidised community care in their own home or a hostel. A complementary form of assessment is the classification of a nursing home patient as requiring extensive care. Currently, approval of entry to a nursing home, and approval of a person's eligibility for the higher extensive care benefit, can only be made by a Commonwealth medical officer. This system does not involve any personal contact. The proposed amendments are a step towards achieving more meaningful assessment procedures. The Bill provides for the Minister, instead of the permanent head, to grant or refuse applications for admission to a nursing home or for classification as a patient requiring extensive care. As a consequence, these decisions will be appealable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Significantly, the Bill also provides the Minister with greater flexibility to delegate powers for the approval of admissions and patient classification. This will enable these decisions to be delegated not only to a Commonwealth medical officer but also to others such as those participating in assessment units. Honourable senators will recall that $2m was allocated to the Department of Health in this year's Budget for the development of assessment procedures and the establishment of assessment units. The Government is concerned that the interests and welfare of nursing home patients should be safeguarded. There is a need to protect patients from the unscrupulous practices of a few nursing home proprietors. For example, in a case where a proprietor is given power of attorney over a patient's affairs, that patient may need to be protected by a trust fund or similar arrangement. The proposed amendment will enable conditions of approval to be imposed on proprietors of nursing homes to preclude practices and arrangements which are detrimental to the interests and welfare of patients. This Bill also applies uniform conditions of approval to both government and non-government nursing homes. The existing provisions of the National Health Act exempt government nursing homes from statutory conditions which relate to the number of beds in an approved nursing home, and the approval of patients for admission to a nursing home. Government nursing homes have in practice been subjected to restrictions on the approved number of beds since 1981. That practice is formalised in this legislation, for both new government nursing homes and additional beds in existing government nursing homes. It is proposed that formalised assessment procedures will also apply in government nursing homes. In introducing this measure the Commonwealth recognises the importance of developing co-ordinated approaches to assessment which should be followed in deciding to admit a patient to any nursing home, including a government nursing home. The legislative amendments before the House will permit this. The Minister for Health has written to State health ministers advising them of the amendments. In recognition of the continuing need for consultation on these matters the legislative changes affecting State government nursing homes will come into effect from a date to be proclaimed. The statutory conditions relating to fees control and charging policies will continue not to apply to government homes, because their financial operations are subject to State government policies. Honourable senators will appreciate that it is necessary for the Department of Health to have details of current nursing home proprietorship to administer the nursing homes program. The present legislation places the onus of notification on the person leaving the system, that is the outgoing proprietor. Administrative difficulties will be minimised by clauses 43 and 71 of the Bill which will require the incoming proprietor to notify the Department of the impending change in ownership. Such an arrangement will enable the Department to advise new proprietors of the nature of the Government's nursing home program and of the responsibilities placed upon them under the legislation. The Bill also provides for ministerial and then Administrative Appeals Tribunal Review in respect of a range of decisions. The principal decisions involved relate to the need for new and additional nursing home accommodation, approvals of nursing homes and additional services, admission and classification of patients, imposition or alteration of conditions of approval other than fees determinations where ministerial review would continue to apply and suspension or revocation of a nursing home's approval. Provisions for the amendment of the Medical Research Endowment Act are included in Part III of the Bill. Under the current provisions of that Act the Minister for Health on the advice of the National Health and Medical Research Council, administers the medical research endowment fund. This fund is the major channel through which the Government provides financial support for medical research in Australia. The Senate will recall, Mr President, that in the Budget the Government provided for an appropriation of $37.979m to the fund for 1983-84. This represents an increase of some 28 per cent over the funding for the previous year and is an indication of the Government's commitment to foster and to encourage first class medical research in this country. The existing legislation was enacted in 1937 and, consequently, does not conform to modern legislative concepts in respect of auditing and financial management. The current position is that the fund, and bequests to it, are maintained in Commonwealth Trading Bank Accounts. Separate from the public account, administered by the Minister for Health, and subject to annual audit by the Commonwealth Auditor-General in accordance with the Act. However, in view of the magnitude of the Government's appropriation to the fund, it is considered appropriate to bring it within the public account and the concomitant audit and accounting provisions. Inherent in this proposal, Mr President, is the transfer to the Minister for Finance of the responsibility for investment of surplus monies in the fund. On the other hand, authority to approve grants from the fund will remain with the Minister for Health. I emphasise, however, that the Minister for Finance can delegate the investment power to a senior officer of the Department of Health and it is envisaged that a delegation will be made to the first Assistant Director-General, National Health and Medical Research Council. Such an arrangement will, in fact, permit the fund to be administered in much the same way as now, but it will give the advantage of ensuring the use of modern accounting and audit procedures. The Bill also provides, Mr President, for the Act to be amended so that the report to Parliament of work done under the Act for the preceding year, is to be presented as soon as practicable after 31 December each year but that, in any case, it must be furnished to the Minister for Health within nine months of that date. This provision, which differs from the usual six months for such reports, takes account of the particular method of preparing the report whereby the text of the document consists mainly of reports prepared by selected researchers on their projects. These reports must, of course, be couched in terms understandable to the informed layperson and this procedure takes considerably more time than is the case with reports prepared within departments or agencies. Experience has shown that the report can normally be presented to Parliament within nine months of the end of each year but that it could not be presented within six months. Accordingly, this amendment will avoid the Minister for Health having to regularly seek an extension of what would be an unrealistic deadline. These amendments will not have any financial impact. I now turn to clauses 27 to 32 of the Bill which will amend the provisions of the National Health Act relating to the isolated patients' travel and accommodation allowance scheme, the purpose of which is to remove certain anomalies and overcome some deficiencies inherent in the scheme. The amendments will generally allow greater flexibility in the operation and administration of the scheme and in some instances, will enable patients in isolated areas to obtain benefits where previously the legislation precluded payment. Specifically , IPTAAS benefits will be extended to patients referred by an optometrist to an ophthalmologist, and by a dentist to a specialist or consultant physician for the treatment arising from a dental service. Currently, claims for payment under the scheme are not accepted until after the patient has returned home. The amendment will allow, in cases of hardship or in special circumstances, for interim payments to be made. The amendments will also allow greater flexibility in the approval of further specialist treatment, and in certification of the need for an attendant or escort, the scheme will also be expanded to assist families where a patient, attendant or escort dies while away from home. Honourable senators will appreciate that during the 1982-83 financial year out of a total of $9.2m paid in travel and accommodation allowances, some $2m was for accommodation allowances. Given that approximately 50 per cent of persons in receipt of allowances stay with relatives, it is considered that the present allowance based on accommodation rates at commercial premises is unnecessarily generous in reimbursing persons for private accommodation. The amendments will therefore empower the Director-General of Health to determine an accommodation allowance in relation to specified classes of accommodation, by instrument published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The financial implications of these amendments is expected to be minimal. Clause 53 of the Bill provides for the repeal of section 91 of the National Health Act. This section has restricted the number of friendly society dispensaries in each State which can supply pharmaceutical benefits to all members of the public, whether they are members of the friendly society or not. Friendly society pharmacies in excess of this restricted number receive only a limited approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits only to members of the friendly society, to their spouses and children. There are currently only eight limited approvals in Australia. This amendment will remove the discriminatory legislation against friendly society dispensaries and allow all friendly society dispensaries to be placed on the same footing as private pharmacies. The amendment will have no financial impact. Clause 56 of the Bill provides for amendments to the secrecy provisions in section 135A of the National Health Act. This amendment brings the secrecy provisions more into line with similar provisions of the Health Insurance Act and will remove the confusion and ambiguity which has existed because of conflicting interpretations of existing provisions. The new provisions, whilst protecting the privacy of innocent persons, will enable the permanent head of the Department of Health to divulge to specified persons-such as State regulatory authorities-information acquired under the Act about the affairs of a person in certain circumstances. They are that that person has been convicted of any of certain specified offences, or the Minister for Health has certified it desirable for the administration of certain Federal, State and Territory legislation, or where it is necessary in the public interest , that such information be divulged. The amendment will also allow information to be disclosed to a court with respect to the affairs of a person who is a party to the proceedings. These amendments have no financial impact. The Bill at clauses 13 and 14 will also amend the provisions of the Health Insurance Act relating to costs involved in proceedings before a medical or optometrical service committee of inquiry. Under the Health Insurance Act as it now stands, provision exists for a practitioner to request a review by a medical or optometrical services review tribunal of a determination made by the Minister following recommendations from a medical or optometrical services committee of inquiry. Where a request for a review is lodged, provision currently exists in the legislation for the costs incurred by the practitioner in relation to proceedings before the tribunal to be borne by the Commonwealth unless the tribunal otherwise directs. This approach is out of step with the usual practice in courts and the administrative appeals tribunal. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its report on medical fraud and overservicing recommended that the Commonwealth should not be automatically required to meet the costs of doctors who request a review of a ministerial determination, but should require such doctors to meet their own costs unless the tribunal or court decides otherwise. The Government has generally accepted the Committee's recommendation. The effect of clause 13 of the Bill would be that practitioners who request a review of a ministerial determination on overservicing by a tribunal will now meet their own costs. The savings to the Commonwealth under the proposed arrangement would be minimal-probably less than $10,000 a year at today's prices-but the amendment would bring the operation of the medical and optometrical services review tribunals into line with the practice of other administrative tribunals. The repeal of section 123A by clause 14 would mean that, where a practitioner lodges an appeal to a prescribed court, normal court procedures would apply and the awarding of costs would be left to the court to decide. To date there have been no such appeals. The Health Insurance Act will also be amended to simplify the referral procedures currently in force in respect of persons suffering from cleft lip or cleft palate conditions. The amendment removes the requirement that patients certified as having a cleft lip or cleft palate condition be formally referred for treatment, before services rendered to them by an accredited dental practitioner attract Commonwealth medical benefits. Experience has shown that this referral is unnecessary. The Bill provides for a number of amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 in respect of the health care card arrangements. The first of these is the restoration to unemployed school leavers of their legal entitlement to a health care card inadvertently denied to them by the operation of social security legislation introduced by the previous government. This legislation in effect made school leavers ineligible for health care cards in their own right during the six week period before they become eligible for unemployment benefit. The correction of this anomaly is provided for in clause 5 of the Bill. To avoid causing hardship to such persons, the matter has been dealt with administratively and consequently no additional expenditure is involved in 1983- 84. Clause 5 of the Bill removes the discrepancy that occurred following the introduction of the family income supplement. This discrepancy was between the health care card income test for sole parents, and that for married parents with the same number of children. This amendment will give legislative authority for administrative action taken by way of Department of Social Security from May 1983 which corrected the anomaly. The estimated additional expenditure for this measure by Commonwealth medical benefits in 1983-84 is $30,000. Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill provide for the issuing of health care cards to persons in receipt of unemployment and special benefits for a period of 12 weeks instead of the present period of two or three weeks. This will result in administrative savings to the Government estimated at $4m for 1983-84. Against this there is an offsetting cost of an estimated $1m in 1983-84 in health care card benefits payable to people issued with 12 week cards who will continue to use the card after their eligibility for unemployment or special benefits has expired. Clause 5 of the Bill excludes the new remote area allowance, to be introduced from May 1984, from the definition of income for the purposes of the health care card income test for low income earners. The allowance will be paid to pensioners and beneficiaries living in income tax zone A. These people generally receive little or no benefit from the tax rebate applicable to residents of this area as their income is often below the tax threshold. The allowance will reduce any zone rebate otherwise applicable. The exclusion of the remote area allowance for health care card income test purposes is considered by the Government to be necessary in the interest of equity for these persons. This Bill also permits the Director-General of Social Security to obtain information from a third party which may affect the entitlement of another person to a health care card. At present a third party can only be required to furnish a report on matters which might affect the continuation of entitlement to a health care card. It has often been found that applicants for health care cards are not able to provide satisfactory details of, for example, their income and it is considered desirable for the Director-General of Social Security to have the power to obtain this information. Finally, I am pleased to inform the Senate that a further amendment is to be made to the Health Insurance Act by clause 4 of the Bill to bring within the category of eligible pensioner, and therefore make eligible for the attendant benefits that are available, persons in receipt of the new spouse carer's pension. This pension is a new Government initiative announced in the 1983-84 Budget which will become payable as from next month. It is to be payable to husbands providing full time care to an aged or invalid pensioner wife. The estimated cost of Commonwealth fringe benefits associated with the introduction of the allowance is $0.4m in 1983-84 and $0.4m in 1984-85. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday , 29 November 1983 at 2 p.m. Debate resumed from 17 November, 1983 on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.07) —Last night we started the debate on the Representation Bill 1983. I told the Senate that this Bill seeks to repeal the existing Representation Acts and to provide, in their place, for the election of an increased number of senators. I was identifying for honourable senators the fact that the purpose of seeking an increased number of senators is to allow for an increase in the number of members of the House of Representatives. What has not been made clear is what reasons exist for an increased number of senators for the Parliament of Australia other than the desire of some people to increase the number of people in the House of Representatives. Last night I discussed whether the approach should not be to look at the question of the nexus which exists between the size of the two Houses if, indeed, the purpose which people have in mind is to obtain a larger House of Representatives. What I had not discussed last night was the fact that the public has been polled on this matter. It was asked as recently as a month ago what were its views on an increase in the size of the Federal Parliament. A report from the Morgan gallup poll published on 18 October this year shows quite clearly that there is overwhelming resistance from the public to the idea of a larger number of parliamentarians. The question asked of the people was: ' The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform recommended that the number of members for the House of Representatives be increased from 125 to 148 and that the Senate be increased from 64 to 76. Do you agree with or disagree with this recommendation?' It should be very salutary for all parliamentarians to note the response of constituents. Seventy-six per cent of people disagreed with the recommendation that the numbers in the House of Representatives and the Senate be increased. I repeat: Seventy-six per cent of our electors disagreed with that. Only 13 per cent agreed with the proposals of the Joint Select Committee that an increased number of members of parliament was desirable. We could argue here about the increased work load, we could argue about the increased complexity of Parliament, we could argue about the new functions which Parliament is taking on, we could argue about the representational duties of members of parliament, but the public does not accept the arguments. Three out of every four people polled were against it and only one out of every seven was in favour. The remainder were undecided on the question. So there is some doubt as to why we need to press ahead at this time to seek to increase the number of members of parliament; but even if we do, no case has been advanced, as far as the Liberal Party can ascertain, to justify an increase in the number of members of the Senate. We have to ask ourselves as well what would be the consequences of having this Bill passed into law and having an increased number of senators. For a start, it would permit the House of Representatives to increase through the arrangements which exist under the nexus provided for in the Constitution. I think that is the sole reason people are seeking an increase in the number of senators. No reason which relates to the Senate as an institution or to the Senate as a chamber or to the function of the Senate or to the representation of States in the Senate has been advanced which would make an increase in numbers in this place desirable or necessary or justifiable. In the absence of such arguments there is some real doubt as to whether we should proceed to take action which in my mind will be to the detriment of the Senate and its function. There will be some consequences of passing this Bill. The first one will be to allow more members of the House of Representatives, and that consequence is the one which is dominating the minds of those who wish to support this legislation. One of the other consequences will be in terms of resource needs, and these are not going to be inconsiderable. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is taking the Bill through the Senate, although he is temporarily absent. I hope his advisers, who are not here at the moment, I regret to say, will take on board the fact that the Hon. John Dawkins, in making a ministerial statement recently, set down that the Australian Labor Party would bring in a financial impact statement with every new Bill and every measure. I will quote Mr Dawkins' s words, and I am indebted to my colleague, Senator Lewis, for this document. Mr Dawkins said: Another major reform involves the presentation of financial impact statements. In future all second reading speeches of Ministers will include a statement of the financial impact of the legislation. Senator Lewis —On what date did he say that? Senator PETER BAUME —I think it is September 1983. That is within the last couple of months. He said: 'I promise that there will be a financial impact statement with the second reading speech of every piece of legislation'. Now the first question at this second reading stage is this: Where is the financial impact statement for this legislation? I indicate that should we go into Committee we will ask that question again. Where is the financial impact statement and what is the financial impact of this measure? One might well look at the messages we received this morning on the health legislation and on the bank debits legislation and ask the same question. Where are the financial impact statements which the Government promised and which we suspect are not forthcoming? It is another piece of empty rhetoric. But suppose the Government was serious. What is the financial impact of this move to increase the number of senators and members? I think the public would be interested to know that the effects are not inconsiderable. I do not know what the cost of maintaining senators or members is, but it would certainly include the cost of their salaries, their parliamentary allowances, their travelling allowances while away from their home bases, the cost of their staff, the cost of their offices and equipment, the cost of their travel, and the cost of all the incidentals such as stationery. It has been put to me that a member of parliament would not come any more cheaply than $150,000 a year, even excluding the costs of maintaining and supporting members' staff. Even that calculation of the cost of the extra number of members of the Parliament would come to more than $5m in a year. But in addition to that, those members would require in the Department which you administer, Mr President, extra numbers of staff, extra capital expenditure and extra maintenance. You, Mr President, would need extra Senate staff. Extra House staff would be required, and extra Joint House staff. Senator Walters —What about capital expenditure? Senator PETER BAUME —I am indebted to Senator Walters. Mr President, you would need extra capital expenditure to house and service these new people. Senator Macklin —It is going into the rooms of the people who vote for it. Senator PETER BAUME —I am indebted to Senator Macklin. But I must also suggest that what we know of the plans for the new Parliament House gives us no confidence that there is provision there for the extra 36 suites that would be needed for the extra members of the Parliament. The money costs and the requirements for space will not be inconsiderable if this increase in the number of members of the Parliament takes place. But the Liberal Party's main concern is that we believe that there would be political consequences from increased numbers coming into the Parliament, and that those consequences would be undesirable. Because the Senate is elected under the system that it is, it is possible to do mathematical projections to identify the percentage of votes required to establish a Senate quota and, by looking at past election results, to make some predictions about the kinds of outcomes which might result in Senate elections. Our concern as senators is for the Senate and what might happen to this chamber under a new voting system. If six senators were to be elected for each State at each half Senate election, just under 43 per cent of the formal vote would obtain quotas for three senators . It is our concern that in normal election times the two major groupings, the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties, between them will achieve three quotas immediately. That will mean two things. I see the senators of the Australian Democrats present. It would diminish the opportunity for groups such as the Democrats to gain a place in the Parliament. Going back to the last couple of elections, I think that it was only twice that the Democrats achieved full quotas, under the new figures, immediately in their own right. The rest of their quotas they built up as the count went on. We think that the first result would be that the major groupings would each get three senators on most occasions. Secondly, we believe that it would produce a very different kind of Senate from the one that we have now. From casting my memory back over 20 years, I believe that there have been few occasions on which the government of the day has had a majority. On most occasions there has been a third grouping in the Senate, whether it has been the Australian Democrats or the Democratic Labor Party, which has had an important voting role, and governments have been able to cope and function perfectly well in that kind of situation. It has meant that the Senate has been a place of real decision and significance in the Australian political system. We are concerned that if the proposed system comes into operation we shall reach a situation in which the major groupings will between them have virtually half of the numbers in the Senate. Senator Chipp —A hung Senate all the time. Senator PETER BAUME —A hung Senate. Senator Chipp —Or one person controlling it. Senator PETER BAUME —Or, as Senator Chipp says, one person controlling it. Some people might say that the present Senate is a hung Senate, but the present Senate is a workable political chamber in which it is possible for negotiations to be carried out and for decisions to be examined. We Liberals are concerned that the Senate as a chamber and as an institution will be diminished and weakened. Senator Lewis —And ultimately destroyed. Senator PETER BAUME —And, as Senator Lewis says, ultimately destroyed. This is another fear-that this may be a means or a way of making the Senate less significant and less viable in the long term. Senator Chipp —Well, you haven't any doubt that that is the intention of the Bill, have you? Senator PETER BAUME —I fear that is the intention of the Bill, as Senator Chipp says. It is another reason why we will oppose it. We oppose it, first, because there is significant public disapproval of the proposal to increase the numbers of the Parliament and, secondly, because no case has been made for a need to increase the number of senators, or for an enlarged Senate, although of course a case has been made in regard to the problems facing people in the House of Representatives. It is in fact a move with very considerable political consequences. Also, it would have certain resource consequences, which is perhaps the minor reason. I indicate that the Liberal Party will oppose this Bill at the second reading. We do not think it is in the best interests of Australian parliamentary practice or the democratic functions which this Senate is here to serve. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.22) — The Representation Bill 1983 to increase the numbers in the Senate and the House of Representatives was essentially brought about by a recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. That Committee had received a number of submissions arguing for an increase in the size of the Parliament. A majority of the Committee accepted a recommendation in relation to that increase. I was one of those people who agreed to that proposal. I did so because I believe that there needs to be a debate about the size of the Parliament and about associated matters. One could have gone a number of ways in the discussion in the Committee. I believed and hoped that arising out of that Committee recommendation there may have been a relatively reasonable community debate about the issue, but I suppose that was probably hoping for too much. It is an issue which, unfortunately, has been dealt with in the media in a way which was predicted by the Committee, that is, in an offhanded, anti-politician way. I suppose that is to be expected, but it is an unfortunate way of dealing with this topic. If one looks at countries around the world similar to Australia, one notices different forms by which people tend to cope with the growing demands on their parliaments. Many parliaments have gone down the road of increasing the number of support staff. For example, in the United States of America it is not uncommon for a United States senator to have in excess of 100 staff. When one makes comparisons between the number of politicians in this country and the number of politicians in other countries, no matter on what side of the argument one falls, it is one's duty actually to present those cases in their correct light. Essentially, the correct light in which to present them is the total number of people employed in relation to the legislative process, or the total number employed in making decisions of a legislative kind. For example, comparisons between Britain and Australia have been made in the popular Press, which are false, and plainly false. They refer, for example, to the House of Commons and to Australia, as though the House of Commons were the only elected political body in the United Kingdom. People who know that particular system know that the counties have fully-employed people and that they have considerable power, power which in many cases could be equated to that of our State parliaments. For example, they run police forces and education departments . So it is important at the outset that the Australian Democrats not be painted as supporting some of the rather odd and false arguments that are floating around in opposition to this particular point. As I said, a comparison with the United States may well incline us to increase the support staff of each senator from two to over 100. The cost of that, of course, would be astronomical. When we are talking about costs, we must bear in mind the variety of systems available and open to us. Another method open to us is also pursued by the United States. Instead of the rather interesting tradition we have built up, of parliamentarians jetting their way to Canberra each week, engaging in three days of legislative work and then returning to their constituencies to deal with the problems in their offices and to meet their constituents, the United States senators and members of the House of Representatives move to Washington. Not only do they move to Washington themselves but they also take their families with them. That is important from the point of view of the health and well-being of parliamentarians in the United States. They are able to lead a more reasonable existence-a more human existence , if I may put it that way. I believe that in many cases that ability to live with one's family and enjoy a normal home environment would be an added advantage for the legislative work that parliamentarians carry out. That is an alternative which unfortunately has not been raised in this debate. What we have gone for instead is a very simplistic view; that is, when the pressures build up we go for more members. That is a view taken by many people in this country. It is a view that more is necessarily better. I do not think it is. When we are confronted with problems in 1983 it is at least imperative, and I would have thought obligatory, that we look at more lateral ways of dealing with those problems. I do not happen to believe that increasing the numbers of parliamentarians will necessarily mean that we will have better legislation. The realities are that, if the numbers remain the same and if the political party organisations remain the same, all we will have is different numbers when the final count is taken. If the Australian Labor Party wins government at the next House of Representatives election, the only difference we will see in terms of legislation in the House of Representatives will be larger numbers on the division lists in Hansard. The legislation itself will not necessarily be improved by having more parliamentarians. I do not think that that can be disputed. So we cannot make out an argument for needing more parliamentarians to conduct our primary role-that is, our legislative role. Increased numbers will not alter that role in any way at all in the House of Representatives. I must admit, the work that is done within the electorate could be enhanced, as it ought to be enhanced, by having more parliamentarians. I cannot say that it necessarily will follow but it should follow that the smaller numbers of electors with which each parliamentarian in the House of Representatives has to deal will mean that members will have more time and hopefully greater opportunity to deal with and resolve the individual problems of electors. Senator Jack Evans —There will be smaller distances, too. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, obviously there will be smaller distances to be covered in many parts of Australia, and that is important. One of the issues that the Committee was concerned with was the problem in relation to large country electorates. I believe that some consideration has to be given to that particular argument. However, when one comes to the Senate, one is confronted with a very serious and, I believe, long term problem, that the proportional representation system as it has been implemented around the world is variously accepted by people in those communities depending upon how accurately it portrays the feeling of the electorate. The Australian Democrats are extremely strong proponents of the proportional representation system. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform put in its report on electoral reform not so long ago. I submitted a minority report urging that proportional representation ought to be applied to the House of Representatives as well because I believe it is the best system to reflect the varying views within the community. A few weeks ago I had the privilege of being a member of a parliamentary delegation to Japan. I had discussions with members of the House of Councillors which has just introduced half proportional representation, that is, half of the members of the House of Councillors are elected by proportional representation. I was also able to talk to a large number of women who, for the first time in that society, had gained significant representation in the Japanese Diet. I think it is interesting that the Senate was the first house of parliament, really, to pioneer having increasing numbers of women members. It is also in this House that those parties which have minority support within the community, such as my own, are able to gain a voice in the Federal parliament. I think this is extremely important, when one looks at the experience of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland, the Catholic section of Ireland, is used to proportional representation. It has always managed to incorporate Protestants within its parliamentary structure at the highest level. They have been part of the ruling structure. They have been incorporated in to the places where decisions are made and therefore that sectarian violence that we know occured in the north, which has a first past the post electoral system, did not occur in the south. Indeed, the President of Eire has on most occasions been a Protestant . Eamon de Valera, for instance, the person who held the presidency of that country longer than any other, was a Protestant. The system by which significant minority voices within the community are able to be heard at the highest level is extremely important for the well-being of the society and for the democratic structures. Our concern is indeed with the proportional representation system and with maintaining it in this chamber. This chamber, despite the fact that it is elected on State boundaries one could believe that it would be by and large much further away from representing the views of the electorate than the House of Representatives has consistently been closer, in terms of numbers, to the percentage support for each political party. This is the case despite the fact that we have such disparate population sizes in this country, as exemplified by Tasmania and New South Wales. The power of that system I think has been shown by how it is able to overcome such disparities and have an elected chamber the numbers of which are closer to the percentage support for the parties than is the case in the House of Representatives. So I think that we have to think very carefully of any move which could in any way bring into disrepute the proportional representation system. I believe that this Bill has within it that possibility. In saying that, one has to make assumptions and I admit first of all that in this particular area of political life making assumptions about what will happen tommorrow is an extremely dubious occupation. That well-known phrase 'a day is a long time in politics' sums up the difficulty of trying to predict what might occur in the future. Senator Robert Ray —As Malcolm Fraser found out this year. Senator MACKLIN —As indeed he did. One cannot say that certain things are going to happen. I want to make a few comments about what I feel could happen in the future. I would like to point out a few facts about the parties and independents that have from time to time gained representation in this place since the proportional representation system was introduced in 1949. As a result of elections held between 1951 and 1983, some 207 groups in the various States have gained representation in this chamber. Of those groups only one-that is one out of 207-has gained a percentage higher than 57.1 per cent and that was the Liberal-National team in Queensland in the 1975 election. I think nobody in this chamber would disagree with me that we would be very surprised if that combination occurred again this century. Therefore, one is making a reasonable prediction about the future when one says that no party is likely to gain 57 per cent of the vote in any Senate election in any State in the foreseeable future. Looking at the various figures that are around, that is about the only prediction I feel I could make. However, that is sufficient for the argument I wish to present that no party-and here, of course, I am talking basically about the major parties, that is, the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal-National coalition parties-will be able to gain a majority in this chamber in the foreseeable future. That argument, of course, is also based on a further assumption that we will have half Senate elections. In the case of a double dissolution, the Festival of Light will probably be represented here. If that is what the Labor Party wants, it is welcome to it. The situation is that in the foreseeable future we are looking at a situation in which neither of the major parties will have a majority in this chamber. On the other hand, I think it is pretty difficult to predict the percentage of the vote parties will receive. On many occasions the vote of the major parties, due to a combination of factors, has dropped below 43 per cent. Basically, since 1951 the percentage of the vote received by the major parties has been affected, firstly, by Democratic Labor Party percentages. It has been affected by Australian Democrat percentages since the foundation of my party. In some States it has been affected by the percentages of independents such as Senator Harradine and, in my own State, former Senator Bonner who polled a very large percentage of the vote at the last election. The situation, then, is very difficult to predict. However, one knows that the possibilities are certainly there in half Senate elections, which under ordinary circumstances are subject to voting fluctuations , for the percentage of votes polled by the two major parties to fall within the 43 per cent to 57 per cent range. The percentage of votes polled by the major parties normally has fallen within this range for some time. It is impossible to say whether the votes will fall within this range in the future. The percentage will not exceed 57 per cent. However, of course, the percentage of the vote could, as happened in the case of the Australian Labor Party on many occasions in the 1960s, drop well below that range. The point I want to raise is that if that circumstance prevails there could be a block in the Senate which holds half the seats with less than 50 per cent of the vote. That has to be a possibility when an even number of senators stand. Proponents or supporters of the proportional representation system demand that when that system is used the number must always be an odd number. That means that a party or group of people who gain more than 50 per cent of the vote get a majority of seats. That is an essential element of the proportional representation system. To make that system work and to retain its democratic base the number must be an odd number. What we have here is the possibility of a party gaining 43 per cent of the vote and getting three seats and another party gaining 57 per cent of the vote, 14 per cent more, and still getting only three seats. That is the essential problem that is being built into the system by an even number. I am not able to predict- I do not think Senator Robert Ray who will speak after me is able to predict- what will happen. We can take educated guesses but that is about as far as we are all able to go. But we know that we are setting up a system which is building in the possibility of a party, wandering around the base line of 43 per cent or 44 per cent, being able to come into this chamber when it reassembles with half the number of senators. In this chamber under the Constitution that is the magic number. That group, despite the fact that it does not have the support of the majority of people within this democracy, would be able to prevent any Bill passing this chamber. At the moment for a Bill to pass this chamber it has to be supported by those senators who have the majority of votes in the community. No Bill can pass this chamber without senators voting for it who constituted over 50 per cent of the vote in the March 1983 election. That will not be the case after this Bill is passed. That, essentially, is the undemocratic nature of introducing an even number and using a proportional representation system to achieve the election. In future, a minority of the community will be able to control the Parliament, not just this chamber. There will be a blocking mechanism in the Senate, supported by less than 50 per cent of the electorate, which can defeat any Bill. That is not the case now. It has not been the case in this chamber since 1949. On every occasion since 1949 the group to pass a Bill in this chamber has had to be the group supported by over 50 per cent of the electorate. Senator Robert Ray is entitled to look at the figures. He will see that that is the case. Senator Walsh —Not in 1975. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, in 1975 too. Senator Walsh —Not after Petersen appointed Field. Senator MACKLIN —I accept that point. It is perfectly correct and the people have already deliberated on it and changed it. That was an undemocratic act. Senator Robert Ray —So I am right. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Robert Ray is correct on that point. Since the people have changed the Constitution that no longer can be the case but, with this Bill , we are again introducing that possibility in this chamber. Whereas two replacements were against the wishes of the electorate and they essentially created in this place numbers at that stage that was not representative of the people, by this very vote that possibility will be built into the system. I think that is the danger. Whether or not it will occur will depend, obviously, on a whole range of possibilities and items. For example, it will depend on whether the next election is a half Senate election, in which case seven senators will be elected. As a result of that election, with the odd number to be elected, the 50 per cent ratio will again be maintained, but only because seven are to be elected. The half Senate election after that will be the first of a number as a result of which eventually this place can get to the point at which less than 50 per cent of senators will be able to control it. I appeal to the Australian Labor Party to think about that item. As was often said in the Joint Committee's deliberations, it is very difficult to make decisions in this area. If one makes a decision and thinks it is in one's interest, the horrible thing is that eventually it rebounds on one. I believe that what is proposed is essentially also depriving the Labor Party of that opportunity but I suppose, looking back, since 1949 it has not had the opportunity very often; so it might not worry terribly much about losing the opportunity. However, I do believe that it has supported and has argued for on many occasions, notably in 1975, that notion of a democratic base for this chamber. I believe that the proposed move will present a possibility of destroying that notion and destroying it in a very real way. What will happen to the Australian Democrats in that situation is difficult to predict. If we fall between the 43 per cent and the 57 per cent we will disappear completely. Given these numbers, that obviously is on the cards. Then again, the possibilities could be otherwise, given a combination of double dissolutions and the like. The long term viability and survival of any political party in this place is not as important as is maintaining the democratic nature of both chambers and, because of the power of this chamber vis-a-vis the House of Representatives, essentially the democratic nature of this chamber. It is so finely balanced that it can be upset easily. This Bill purports, by increasing the numbers, to give greater representation to the people. In effect, while it has that as its ostensive reason, it moves to take away from the people that majority rule which is such an important ingredient in a democracy. That is why the Australian Democrats oppose this increase. On a previous occasion I introduced in this chamber a Bill, which was subsequently passed, to break the nexus. We believe that there is a case for a reasonable increase in the size of the House of Representatives. For example, there is a case for at least an additional seat in Victoria, which is about to lose one because Queensland's population has risen. There is a case for more seats in South Australia because of the quota, the numbers in each seat in that State, and the possibility that under the current arrangement it will never be able to get another seat. Therefore the people of South Australia are disadvantaged vis-a-vis the people of the rest of Australia. If one took both of those instances into account one would be looking at consequential increases of the order of five or six. That is reasonable, I think, at this time. We believe that an attempt to break the nexus, if accepted by the people, would allow the House of Representatives, on those occasions when it was demanded by various movements of population, to make sensible and reasonable increases from time to time and that, at an appropriate time in the future, the Senate would then move from a representation of 10 to 14 senators from each State should that be thought desirable. I believe that if, in fact, the Senate committee system continues to improve and to do the work that it has done there are some reasonable arguments for looking at that at some time in the future. But unfortunately what we have here is, in fact, a proposal which manages to give us the worst of all possible worlds. We are to increase the number of parliamentarians against the wishes of the people. I have heard various estimates-Senator Ray might like to give an estimate when he speaks- of the number of people who would be likely to support this proposal if they were asked . I suppose that one might be generous and suggest that the figure is 10 per cent-- Senator Chipp —Ten per cent of Australians would support this. Senator MACKLIN —I think it is probably about that. In that situation, with so few people supporting this proposition, it seems to me that one needs excellent reasons for pursuing it. I readily admit that on many occasions proposals pass this chamber which might not have the overwhelming and enjoyable support of the entire community. That is one of the hard decisions that this chamber makes from time to time, and so it should. So that cannot be the overriding argument. What must be the overriding argument is that we must never do anything to change the system which will make it undemocratic. That is what this Bill will do if it passes this chamber today. It will present the possibility of the Parliament of Australia being controlled by people who have less than 50 per cent support in the community. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(9.53) — Of course I oppose the concept of increasing the number of members of parliament. I believe that at present, although our workload has increased, there are other ways by which we can overcome that. I was pleased to read two minority reports dealing with the size of the Parliament in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Senator Sir John Carrick, a member of that Committee, drew attention to a number of questions. I would like to read them. At page 235 he states: However, a number of questions emerge and require answers: Is there justification for a larger Senate, whether to fulfil its evolving responsibilities or simply to enable the enlargement of the House of Representatives? Is a Senate of 72 members (plus territorians) a workable figure or would it incline to deadlocks (i.e. 3-all in each State in a half Senate election) or make it easier for minority groups to emerge and secure the balance of power? Would the public now support the breaking of the nexus between the two Chambers ? Is an increase of at least 35 parliamentarians (12 Senate and 23 House of Representatives) justifiable on work-load and, more imperatively, acceptable to the community at a time of serious economic recession? Senator Sir John Carrick concludes by stating: In my view, while the logic of a larger parliament is strong, the overriding restraints of the current economic period must prevail. I therefore believe that the question should be deferred and its various aspects (including the nexus) put under further study. My experience is no doubt similar to that of other senators and members; that is , that our work load has increased considerably over the last decade or so. Apart from the normal, routine electoral matters, such as immigration, social security and health, the other work that senators do, in particular associated with their committee activities, has resulted in an additional work load which is evident in the offices of senators who are members of those committees. As Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment I noticed that whenever we conducted an inquiry into subjects such as woodchips and their impact on the environment or agent orange and its possible effect on the health of Vietnam veterans and their families these inquiries excited a lot of interest in the community, as does the work of other committees. This brings people into the offices of members of parliament making representations on special subjects such as those that require additional work to be done. I recall that, when I was Chairman of that Committee, my research officer had to supplement the work carried out by the support staff of four on the Committee secretariat. I estimate that my research officer did 25 per cent of the work generated as a result of the Committee's operations. Admittedly, now that I am Deputy Chairman, the work load is not quite so pressing. Nevertheless, I inherit a lot of interest from the public on these various subjects to which I have referred. Senator Elstob —You could do with a lot more staff. Senator JESSOP —I will get to that, certainly. I believe that that is the answer . The honourable senator may recall what happened in the 1970s. I tried to get hold of the Remuneration Tribunal report on this subject. The comment was made in that report that the work load of members of parliament had increased quite extensively and an increase in staff was quite justified provided the space was available to accommodate them. I suggest that many of us now have offices which are larger and could well accommodate extra staff. I think that is the way we ought to go. The cost of providing office space for 35 or 36 new members of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the complex that is being built on Capital Hill at the moment would be quite considerable. I tried to get some estimate as to the cost of providing office space for those members but it is not possible at the moment. I know that the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House has called for designs to be carried out. Until those designs are brought forward and estimates are made that figure is not available at the present time but I imagine that it would run into millions of dollars. I believe that the salaries for 35 additional members, their staff, their travelling and other allowances to which they are entitled would amount to a considerable sum. In the current economic climate this is unacceptable not only to me and my colleagues in the Liberal Party on this side of the House but also would be resoundingly objected to by the electorate at large. My answer to the problem at this stage is that the Government should consider increasing the staff for members of parliament. I think we should have, say, an additional junior research officer and a junior stenographer in our electorate offices as undoubtedly the work of a research officer would considerably increase the work load on the secretarial assistant. In my case-I have no doubt that Senator Elstob and other honourable senators would be in the same position- quite often I require additional assistance from the very limited staff available in the various States. In my view two officers should be added to staff in the electorate offices of members of parliament; one junior research officer and one junior stenographer. We should also have a senior research assistant with unlimited travel capacity. I found, as a chairman of a committee, that I had to take my research officer into various parts of South Australia to help me in the work that I was required to carry out. That, of course, has to be done at the expense of members or senators. Honourable senators would know that we have a very limited capacity at the moment to bring our research officer or electorate secretary to Canberra. Having regard to the important work that we are required to do, in the committee areas as well as others, I believe that we should have a research officer with unlimited capacity to accompany us wherever we go. I am sure that all honourable senators occasionally find themselves interstate addressing a dinner meeting, a conference or a congress of some sort. On these occasions it is invaluable to have the back-up support of a research officer to relieve the member or senator of the responsibility of having to contact his office during the day. He can get reports from the officer accompanying him, thus saving a lot of time. An example was given of the United States of America. It is difficult to compare the Australian system with that of the United States because it has a different system. I was fortunate to represent Australia at a science and technology policy conference in Ottawa about three years ago. I was also fortunate in having with me our scientific adviser from Washington, by courtesy of the Ambassador and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Eight other Commonwealth countries were represented, together with the United States of America, which was the guest country. Congressman Brown, the Chairman of the Science Committee of the Congress, attended with two of his senior advisers, who were very highly qualified and, I expect, suitably paid. I was informed that his personal staff was something like 19 and that the committee's support staff was of the order of 40. I was also informed that Senator Kennedy's personal staff runs up to something like 90. I agree that it is difficult for us to compare Australia with America because of the different systems that are employed. However, those figures give honourable senators an idea of the situation in America. I understand money is made available to congressmen and senators in a lump sum. They can use that money to employ the staff they believe is necessary, and I understand that the political parties provide some back-up support for the Congress and the Senate. When one looks at a senator who has 90 staff and chauffeur-driven cars, it makes our work load seem quite a lot heavier. I was interested to read a report on this subject from the Institute of Public Affairs . In making one or two points, I refer to paragraph 2.6.4 on page 8, which deals with increasing Parliament's authority. It states: In 1981 the Senate Select Committee (Jessop Committee) on Parliament's Appropriations-- Senator Grimes —Can you tell us who wrote it? Senator JESSOP —It is a report from the Institute of Public Affairs. Obviously it is intelligent comment as it refers to the Senate Select Committee on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing. Senator Grimes —Tell us Chris Puplick wrote it. Senator JESSOP —Was it? He is an intelligent observer. I must say that Senator Grimes's colleagues on the back bench should be grateful for the work which is being done as a result of that Select Committee's recommendations and what will be done in the future as a result of the Senate now being able to have some say in the running of Parliament, divorcing us to a large extent from the influence of the Executive Government. That is quite important. I was very grateful at the time for the tremendous support given by the now President, Senator McClelland, who was the Deputy Chairman of that Committee. However, allow me to read on. It does not really matter who the author is because I think he is certainly an intelligent observer. He goes on to say: . . . the Senate Select Committee . . on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing led to some changes to give the Parliament power to control its own internal affairs, which had previously been very much in the hands of the Executive. This imbalance between the Executive and the Legislature still needs further attention, and any improvement in the powers of the Parliament in this regard would allow Members to do a more effective job on behalf of their constituents. I think that is quite an intelligent observation. I believe that the majority of the Senate would agree with that. I would like to refer to another minority report. I think it is important to read this report to the Senate. It was made by Mr Steele Hall who was the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Dealing with the size of Parliament, on page 243 of that report, he states: There are 189 Members in the Federal Parliament and 562 Members in the six State Parliaments. Collectively therefore 751 Members of Parliament serve the public and compete for politicial approval. They are joined by 19 Members of the Northern Territory Assembly and the Australian Capital Territory Assembly of 18. Quite obviously the different Parliaments operate with their own Constitutions and State Administrations are confined to their own borders. However, they are all part of a federal system and Commonwealth electors are also State electors. The public view is that there are politicians all over the place and one has only to attend public functions to find this to be often the situation. Taking all 788 politicians including members of the two Assemblies into the calculation, Australia has a Member to each 12000 electors. The public would rightly be offended if the size of Federal Parliament was increased at a time when many businesses are reducing the number of their employees because of recession. An increase in Members would inevitably swell the bureaucracy and put a stamp of approval on its growth when much of Australia is asking for smaller government. My view does not hold that there should never be an increase. Population growth will make this desirable probably at the end of the century. In the meantime, Members of Federal Parliament and the public would be well served by an increase in electorate office staff. The work load of electorate offices is continually increasing as media influence and Member involvement in it grows. Additional assistance in this way for Members to fulfill their representational role will allow them more time for their legislative and parliamentary duties. In particular, more country electorates should receive more special assistance related to multiple office needs and travel allowances. I agree with that. I believe that that is the sensible, economic approach that would meet with general public approval. If we, as a parliament, approve the increase in members we will be subject to massive criticism. We would thoroughly deserve that criticism. I suggest that we should vote on this matter with care and consideration giving account to the economic state of Australia and to the fact that the Government and everyone else is trying to come to grips with the economic problems associated with the massive administration that the Federal Parliament has. We are encouraging people to draw in their belts a bit and economise to try to haul ourselves out of this recessionary period. I think that the Federal Parliament ought to lead and give an example in a responsible way. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.09) —I would have hoped that when the Representation Bill came before the Senate it would have been able to attract bipartisan support, but from today's debate it is obvious that it will not. It seems to me that there are about three different levels of response from the Liberal Party of Australia. First, there are those like Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Peter Baume who take the high road and oppose the increase on the basis that it is not an appropriate time because of the economy; that it may bring about problems in terms of the future functioning of this House and that, in fact, we should go via the Constitution to break the nexus. These are perfectly honest and straightforward arguments. I will seek later on to meet those arguments. There is the second approach of the Liberal Party, taken by a couple of members of the House of Representatives and others, which I call the low road, which is really the snouts in the trough argument; that is, that we do not need any more politicians. What they are really doing, of course, is making a populist appeal to attract cheap political points. I think that demeans politicians and this Parliament and I think they will live to regret it. There is, of course, a third section of the Liberal Party, that only ever talks to members in the corridors, who hope they will win the argument today but, by cripes, they hope the Bill will go through. They again are probably a minority of the Liberal Party. Senator Jessop summed up one of the major objections to this Bill; that is, that there are 788 politicians to 15 million Australian citizens. This objection fails to make a proper assessment by not asking: Are there enough Federal politicians to carry out the task properly? I think there are not enough, but I certainly agree that there are too many State politicians. It is interesting to look at the figures. The last time this House was increased was in 1949. Let us look at what happened in the States from 1949 to 1983. In my home State of Victoria in 1949 in the Legislative Assembly there were 66 seats. Today, following a redistribution, there will be 88 seats. There has been a 25 per cent increase in the size of the lower House in Victoria. In New South Wales there were 82 seats in 1949, and today there are 99. That represents a 17 per cent increase in that State. In Queensland in 1949 there were 62 seats, and today there are 81. That is a 25 per cent increase in the size of the lower House there. South Australia has gone from 39 to 47 in the same period, a 17 per cent increase. Western Australia has gone from 50 to 57, a 14 per cent increase. Finally, even Tasmania has gone from 30 to 35 in that same period, a 15 per cent increase. Each State lower House has been increased since 1949. I cannot remember whether , by my research or anything else, any Liberals or anyone else objected to increasing the size of those parliaments. In fact in most cases the Liberals were the sponsors of the increases. I think we had better realistically look at the actual size of increase we are suggesting-about a 16 per cent increase in the House of Representatives. We are not going for some absolutely gigantic increase in the size of the Parliament. It will mean that there will be an average throughout Australia of 65,000 electors per electorate. It is valid to compare the position with that in the United Kingdom where there are 47,186 electors per electorate, or Canada where there are 56,026 electors per electorate in the lower House. Those countries have a similar Westminster system to our own. I also draw the attention of the Senate to the increases that have occurred since 1949. To illustrate that point, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table on page 137 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AVERAGE ENROLLED VOTERS PER ELECTORAL DIVISION, 1949, 1983 AND WITH PROPOSED INCREASE Average Average Average enrolment enrolment enrolment per Division per Division with more 1949 March1983 Difference Members Difference State (A) (B) B/A (C) C/A % % New South Wales 40,782 75,536 (43) ** 85.2 63,687 (51) * 56.2 Victoria 41, 510 75 663 (33) 82.3 64,023 (39) 54.2 Queensland 38,724 81,826 (19) 111.3 61, 369 (24) 58.5 South Australia 43,432 80,085 (11) 84.4 67,764 (13) 56.0 Western Australia 39,471 72,507 (11) 83.7 61,352 (13) 55.4 Tasmania 32,308 56,493 (5) 74.9 56,493 (5) 74.9 Australian Capital Territory 11,841 68,662 (2) . . 68,662 (2) . . Northern Territory 6,586 57,471 (1) . . 57,471 (1) . . Total average 39,948 74,989 (125) 87.7 63,335 (148) 58.5 ** Figures in brackets in Column B refer to number of Members at March 1983 * Figures in Column C refer to number of Members if proposal to increase size of Parliament were accepted. Senator ROBERT RAY —I thank the Senate. The table shows that New South electorates are now 82 per cent bigger than they were in 1949. In Queensland there is a 111 per cent higher enrolment per electorate than in 1949. Even if we bring about an increase in the size of the House of Representatives, in not one State will any seat be less than 50 per cent bigger than they were in 1949. We are not going back to the relativities of 1949. So honourable senators can see that there has been a massive increase in enrolment per seat, which makes those seats much more difficult to service. I shall put forward some positive reasons why the Senate should support this legislation. First of all I refer to the Queensland National Party's submission to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. That submission, in a very stark way, highlighted the problems created by the tyranny of distance in certain seats; that is, that certain seats were of enormous size and were very hard to service and that any equalisation in the enrolment of seats would worsen the position in those seats. The National Party suggested, of course, that the easy way of handling this problem is to have a 20 per cent bias in favour of those seats. Knowing the philosophy of the Australian Labor Party, honourable senators will realise that we could never support that sort of distortion in the electoral process. The only way we will ever deal with the problem of the tyranny of distance is by increasing the number of seats, thereby reducing the size of rural seats. Let us look at some remote seats. I do not want to bore everyone with statistics, but they are relevant. The largest seat is Kalgoorlie which has an area of 2,324,081 square kilometres. That electorate at the moment is only about 863 voters below quota, so it probably will get only an additional 1,000 voters after the next redistribution. That means that it will probably also pick up 20, 000 or 30,000 extra square kilometres, which I guess in the context of two million square kilometres is not that much. The seat of Grey comprises 890,584 square kilometres and its enrolment is already 5,386 below quota. Come the redistribution, it will need 8,000 new electors. Where will it get from? The size of Grey, which already constitutes 90 per cent of South Australia, will be increased, presumably to 92 or 94 per cent of South Australia. Let us look at the National Party seats in Queensland. The electorate of Kennedy is over 600,000 square kilometres in size. At the moment it is 13,350 below quota, which means that it will have to pick up 18,000 extra electors after the next redistribution. One can imagine the size to which that seat will grow. The electorate of Maranoa covers over 500,000 square kilometres and is 9, 000 below quota, so it will presumably have to pick up 13,000 extra electors after the next redistribution. The seats of Leichhardt and Riverina will be similarly affected. There is one common thread between those six electorates: The National Party holds three and the Labor Party holds three. Obviously we are concerned about their size. The Liberal Party does not hold any big electorates, so why should they care less? If we go ahead with a redistribution without increasing the size of the House of Representatives, we will make some of these seats massive in size and very difficult to service-far more difficult than they are at the moment. The second major argument in favour of increasing the size of this Parliament relates to the new responsibilities that the Parliament has undertaken since 1949. I list some of those areas with which we now deal and with which we did not deal in 1949: Aboriginal affairs, a far more extensive social welfare responsibility, a far greater role in education, environment and conservation, family law, legal aid, ethnic affairs, consumer affairs, child care, minerals and energy policy, tourism, small business, sport and recreation, cultural affairs, science and technology, communications and overseas aid. The list goes on and on. All those new areas of responsibility have been given to the Federal Parliament since 1949, yet there has not been an increase in the Parliament's capacity to deal with them other than perhaps in the quality of its membership. The third major reason why I think we should support this legislation relates to a good reason for increasing the size of the Senate. One of the arguments from the other side of the chamber is: 'We can see that there is a reason to increase the size of the House of Representatives but there is no real reason to increase the size of the Senate'. I suggest that honourable senators opposite look at the way in which the Senate committee system is running at the moment. It is at breaking point, in my view. In this chamber just the other day we had a debate on whether to set up a select committee on animal welfare. The relevant question was not whether that was a good issue to inquire into, but from where we would get members of the Senate to serve on it. Therefore, Senator Chipp suggested that we have a committee of four. Senator Chaney asked why that was necessary. It is because that is what would be workable. Not enough of us have the time to serve on so many committees. Committees are seeking to meet while the Senate is sitting because that is the only time available. We have people serving on two or three committees. In the recess they have to run from one committee to another to serve this Parliament. Let us take the situation in the Labor Party which has 30 senators, six of whom are Ministers and do not serve on committees, and one of whom is the President, who does not serve on committees. That leaves a pool of 23 people to serve on all the standing committees-the Privileges Committee, Standing Orders Committee, Joint House Committee and all the other committees. We are reaching the point where the senators themselves no longer participate in the committee process. It is the research staff and the staff who write reports who have the greatest involvement. Honourable senators do not give proper consideration to those reports. When we are trying to cover so many areas, we might as well just remove the senators from committees and tell the staff that we want a report on one subject or another. There is a case for enlarging the numbers in this chamber. It is often said that enlargement will be costly. I just point out that most Senate committees represent the cheapest possible form of inquiry we can get. Let us consider, say, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs inquiring into a crimes body Bill. All up, the cost of that may be $30, 000 or $40,000. If we had appointed a royal commissioner to investigate that subject, we would have been up for an expenditure of $3m or $4m. Honourable senators opposite should not bring up the cost argument and say that electing more politicians will necessarily cost more. It is a lot cheaper to have parliamentarians conduct inquiries than to have royal commission judges conduct them. Senator Teague —And do a better job. Senator ROBERT RAY —And do a better job; Senator Teague is right. We do not know what the result of the cost-benefit analysis of having more politicians would be , but it would not include an automatic cost of $5m or $10m per year. This place could run more efficiently. Matters like medifraud could have been picked up earlier and this could save money rather than cost money. I would like to raise a more philosophical matter and that is the relationship between the Ministry and the back bench of the governing party. My remarks are relevant to both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. At the moment we have 27 Ministers out of a parliamentary party of 105 members. What that tends to lead to, although it has not become too evident in the Labor Party as yet, is domination by the Executive of the rest of the party which is in power. I am sure that this happened with the Liberal Party, especially as there was Cabinet solidarity. In our case we have 27 people in the Ministry and they tend to dominate. The figure of 105 members is unusual for the Labor Party. We tend to govern with 90 or 93 members in normal times. In that case one-third of the governing party will be in the Ministry. I think that is an appalling ratio and it is a ratio which we should try to change if we really believe in the future of the institution of Parliament and in a proper system of government. I now turn to some of the Liberal Party objections. One which has not been voiced here today, but which I have heard before, is that we have accommodation problems around this place and that an extra 35 people would be hard to fit in. Having just been removed from my room a few months ago so that the wall could be cut down to make a gigantic suite for someone or other-good luck to whoever it is-I can say that there is, and there was, room in this place for another 35 people and it can be found. I dare say that some people in the Parliament-maybe not everyone in this chamber-are willing to make a sacrifice and have one of their fellow politicians share a room with them. I do not think that is a particularly relevant factor; nor is it relevant to say that the new Parliament House cannot take an extra 35 people. If that is the case, and I do not dispute it one way or the other, I suggest we sack a couple of architects, because surely they should have anticipated that at some stage, maybe not next year or the year after, this Parliament would have to be increased in size. Let me turn to the second argument which is the nexus argument. I really find it very amusing. It is put up in all sincerity by some people who say: 'Look, the strongest case for expanding parliament is in the House of Representatives', I concede that, 'therefore let us break the nexus'. As someone who spent 10 hours in a polling booth in 1967 and listened to all that anti-politician, philistine argument which was produced then and will be produced again in 1983 or whenever that referendum proposal is put, I feel that we probably will not get it through. The Liberal Party is the victim of a double pincer movement. By putting up that proposal it is a victim of those who say there should be no more politicians, and that sort of argument is very easy to run. There will be plenty on Senator Peter Baume's side who say that States' rights are being hurt by breaking the nexus between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Honourable senators should remember that in the 1967 referendum it was the no- politician argument which won the day in Victoria and Queensland, but in South Australia and Western Australia it was the States' rights issue which killed the referendum. If I thought that every Liberal Party member opposite would support the breaking of the nexus, I would be very happy to support it. But there are always narks on that side. There are always people who, for whatever reason, will say: 'There will be no change. We cannot gave that'. There is very little chance, of course, that we could realistically put up the nexus proposal in the 1984 February referendums. I think everyone concedes that five referendums is about the maximum to put to the people at one time. I do not rule out, and I certainly do not think that the Labor Party rules out, the possibility that in the next round of referendums, whenever they may be, we will put the nexus proposal to the people to decide once again. I look forward to some of those people, who today have given it such strong support, giving it adequate support. A third argument put up by the Liberal Party-I have not heard it here but I heard it in the House of Representatives and saw it in the document of the Institute of Public Affairs-is that this proposal advantages the Labor Party. Opponents of the proposal have done some quick calculations. They say that if there are to be an extra 23 seats in the House of Representatives, 14 will go to Labor and nine will go to the coalition. I have yet to meet anyone on the other side who can do those calculations accurately. I pride myself on being able to do such things. No one, but no one, could make those sorts of predictions realistically. But I accept that that argument is probably right. That reflects the majority in the House of Representatives at the moment. If we repeat our 1983 voting figures in an expanded parliament I expect that we would get 14 seats and the coalition would get nine. I expect that if the Liberal party repeated or reversed the result in terms of primary votes and preferences, it would get 14 seats and we would get nine seats. So it is not really an argument. I do not think there is any real political advantage. Senator Peter Baume —The argument rests here in the Senate, not in the House of Representatives. Senator ROBERT RAY —I will come to that in a moment. I will also deal with Senator Sir John Carrick's major objection because it was a rather considered minority report by him. I do not want to mislead the Senate as to what he said. But basically, in summary, he said that, at some stage, the size of the Parliament should be increased. The major blocking factor in his mind was that it should not be done in times of economic recession. We could now go on and argue whether the economic recession is over. But I very strongly argue that, by the time the new politicians may arrive in this place, we all hope I think-some of us confidently predict-that the worst of the economic recession will be over and that we will be on the way to recovery. So, I do not think that argument necessarily stands up. There has been a whole series of arguments put by the Institute of Public Affairs, New South Wales branch, against this proposal. It is entitled to its views. It is not an objective body; it is a front organisation for the Liberal Party, a bit like the Fabian Society is for the Labor Party. We all know that it was set up by the Liberal Party to provide a different point of view. I think it serves a very useful role for intellectual stimulation for the Liberal Party. But I do not think that we should seriously consider its objections here. Let us get to the guts of the argument. The argument has been put forward that this proposal, by increasing this chamber to 76 senators, will bring about a hung Senate. Former Senator Hall who is now the Liberal Party spokesman on this matter in the House of Representatives went on at great length about this. Senator Missen, in his comments about the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, dealt with it in detail. Senator Peter Baume and Senator Macklin from the Australian Democrats have given it great weight. In my view, this chamber has been hung for a long while. I think that, during the time of the McMahon Government, the Liberal Party did not have a majority. There was not a majority in this chamber right through the days of the Whitlam Government. Between 1980 and 1983, the Fraser Government did not have a majority in this chamber. And the Labor Party Government now, obviously, does not have a majority . Minority government representation in this chamber is the norm; government control is the exception. But to make the bald statement that no party can win a majority when there are 12 senators from each State is absolute nonsense. I have produced six tables which refer to the projected election results from 1975 to 1983 based on this change. I seek leave to have those tables incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- EXPANSION OF THE SENATE TO 76 MEMBERS (6 States x 12, plus 4 Territories) HISTORICAL PROJECTION FEDERAL ELECTION, 13th December 1975(Double Dissolution-Quota 7.7 per cent) Final Primary Quota position Total New South Wales- Liberal-Country 49.4 6.4 1 7 Labor 44.1 5.7 . . 5 Others 6.5 0.8 . . . . Victoria- Liberal-National 50.5 6.6 . . 6 DLP 5.9 0.8 1 1 Labor 41.3 5.4 . . 5 Others 2.3 0.3 . . . . Queensland- Liberal-National 57.3 7.4 1 8 Labor 36.8 4.8 . . 4 Others 5.9 0.8 . . . . South Australia- Liberal 51.5 6.7 . . 6 Labor 40.6 5.2 . . 5 Liberal Movement 6.5 0.8 1 1 Others 1.4 0.2 . . . . Western Australia- Liberal 51.7 6.7 1 7 National Country 6.9 0.9 1 1 Labor 36.5 4.7 . . 4 Others 4.9 0.6 . . . . Tasmania- Liberal 49.0 6.4 . . 6 Labor 35.2 4.6 . . 4 Harradine 12.9 1.7 1 2 Others 2.9 0.4 . . . . Territories- Liberal 2 Labor 2 Hypothetical Actual Australia- Liberal-National 43 35 Liberal Movement 1 1 Harradine 2 1 DLP 1 . . Labor 29 27 76 64 HYPOTHETICAL PROJECTION 1975 FEDERAL ELECTION, Half-Senate retiring (Quota 14.3 per cent) Final Primary Quota position Total New South Wales- Liberal-Country 49.4 3.5 . . 3 Labor 44.1 3.1 . . 3 Others 6.5 0.5 . . . . Victoria- Liberal-National 50.5 3.5 . . 3 DLP 5.9 0.4 . . . . Labor 41.3 2.9 1 3 Others 2.3 0.2 . . . . Queensland- Liberal-National 57.3 4.0 . . 4 Labor 36.8 2.6 . . 2 Others 5.9 0.4 . . . . South Australia- Liberal 51.5 3.6 1 4 Labor 40.6 2.8 . . 2 Liberal Movement 6.5 0.5 . . . . Others 1.4 0.1 . . . . Western Australia- Liberal 51.7 3.6 1 4 National Country 6.9 0.5 . . . . Labor 36.5 2.6 . . 2 Others 4.9 0.3 . . . . Tasmania- Liberal 49.0 3.4 . . 3 Labor 35.2 2.5 . . 2 Harradine 12.9 0.9 1 1 Others 2.9 0.2 . . . . Territories- Liberal 2 Labor 2 Hypothetical half-Senate- Liberal-National 23 Harradine 1 Labor 16 40 FEDERAL ELECTION, 10th December 1977 (Half Senate retiring-Quota 14.3 per cent) Final Primary Quota position Totals New South Wales- Liberal-National 43.3 3.0 . . 3 Labor 40.1 2.8 1 3 Democrats 8.3 0.6 . . . . Others 8.3 0.6 . . . . Victoria- Liberal-National 41.9 2.9 1 3 Labor 34.2 2.4 . . 2 Democrats 16.2 1.1 . . 1 DLP 6.2 0.4 . . . . Others 1.5 0.1 . . . . Queensland- Liberal-National 51.3 3.6 . . 3 Labor 34.6 2.4 . . 2 Democrats 8.9 0.6 1 1 Others 5.2 0.4 . . . . South Australia- Liberal 49.0 3.4 . . 3 Labor 36.8 2.6 . . 2 Democrats 11.2 0.8 1 1 Others 3.0 0.2 . . . . Western Australia- Liberal 46.4 3.2 . . 3 Labor 32.8 2.3 . . 2 Democrats 12.5 0.9 1 1 Nationals 6.1 0.4 . . . . Others 2.2 0.2 . . . . Tasmania- Liberal 49.8 3.5 1 4 Labor 37.7 2.6 . . 2 Democrats 5.9 0.4 . . . . Others 6.7 0.5 . . . . Territories- Liberal 2 Labor 2 Hypothetical Actual Australia- Liberal-National 21 (39) 18 (35) Democrats 4 (4) 2 (2) Labor 15 (32) 14 ( 26) 1 (Harradine) 1 (Harradine) 40 (76) 34 (64) FEDERAL ELECTION, 18th October 1980 (Half Senate retiring-Quota 14.3 per cent) Final Primary Quota position Totals New South Wales- Labor 44.7 3.1 . . 3 Liberal-National 41.9 2.9 1 3 Democrats 6.9 0.5 . . . . Others 6.4 0.4 . . . . Victoria- Labor 43.0 3.0 . . 3 Liberal-National 40.8 2.9 1 3 Democrats 11.3 0.8 . . . . Others 4.9 0.3 . . . . Queensland- Labor 38.5 2.7 . . 2 Nationals 26.8 1.9 1 2 Liberal 23.0 1.6 . . 1 Democrats 10.0 0.7 1 1 Others 1.8 0.1 . . . . South Australia- Labor 40.8 2.9 . . 2 Liberal 43.3 3.0 . . 3 Democrats 13.1 0.9 1 1 Others 2.7 0.1 . . . . Western Australia- Labor 38.8 2.7 . . 2 Liberal 45.0 3.1 . . 3 Democrats 9.3 0.7 1 1 Others 6.9 0.5 . . . . Tasmania- Labor 35.6 2.5 . . 2 Liberal 39.4 2.8 1 3 Harradine 21.4 1.5 . . 1 Others 3.6 0.3 . . . . Territories- Liberal 2 Labor 2 Hypothetical Actual Australia- Liberal-National 20 (41) 15 (31) Democrats 3 (7) 3 (5) Harradine 1 (1) 1 ( 1) Labor 16 (31) 15 (27) 40 (76) 34 (64) FEDERAL ELECTION, 5 March 1983 (Double Dissolution-Quota 7.7 per cent) Final Primary Quota position Totals New South Wales- Labor 47.4 6.2 . . 6 Liberal-National 38.1 4.9 1 5 Democrats 8.6 1.1 . . 1 Others 5.9 0.8 . . . . Victoria- Labor 46.5 6.0 . . 6 Liberal-National 38.2 5.0 . . 5 Democrats 12.0 1.6 . . 1 Others 3.3 0.4 . . . . Queensland- Labor 39.6 5.1 . . 5 Nationals 29.1 3.8 . . 3 Liberal 15.0 1.9 1 2 Democrats 7.9 1.0 . . 1 Bonner 6.7 0.9 1 1 Others 1.6 0.2 . . . . South Australia- Labor 44.6 5.8 1 6 Liberal 40.4 5.2 . . 5 Democrats 12.1 1.6 . . 1 Others 3.0 0.4 . . . . Western Australia- Labor 49.3 6.4 . . 6 Liberal 41.0 5.3 . . 5 Democrats 6.8 0.9 1 1 Others 2.9 0.4 . . . . Tasmania- Labor 32.8 4.3 . . 4 Liberal 42.6 5.5 . . 5 Harradine 17.8 2.3 . . 2 Democrats 6.8 0.9 1 1 Territories- Liberal 2 Labour 2 Hypothetical Actual Australia- Liberal-National 32 28 Democrats 6 5 Harradine 2 1 Labor 35 30 (1 Bonner) 76 64 HYPOTHETICAL PROJECTION 1983 FEDERAL ELECTION, half-Senate retiring(Quota 14.3 per cent) Final Primary Quota position Totals New South Wales- Labor 47.4 3.3 . . 3 Liberal-National 38.1 2.7 . . 2 Democrats 8.6 0.6 1 1 Others 5.9 0.4 . . . . Victoria- Labor 46.5 3.3 . . 3 Liberal-National 38.2 2.7 . . 2 Democrats 12.0 0.8 1 1 Others 3.3 0.2 . . . . Queensland- Labor 39.6 2.8 . . 2 Nationals 29.1 2.0 . . 2 Liberal 15.0 1.0 . . 1 Democrats 7.9 0.6 1 1 Bonner 6.7 0.5 . . . . Others 1.6 0.1 . . . . South Australia- Labor 44.6 3.1 . . 3 Liberal 40.4 2.8 . . 2 Democrats 12.1 0.8 1 1 Others 3.0 0.2 . . . . Western Australia- Labor 49.3 3.4 . . 3 Liberal 41.0 2.9 1 3 Democrats 6.8 0.5 . . . . Others 2.9 0.2 . . . . Tasmania- Labor 32.8 2.3 . . 2 Liberal 42.6 3.0 . . 3 Harradine 17.8 1.2 . . 1 Democrats 6.8 0.5 . . . . Territories- Liberal 2 Labour 2 Hypothetical Actual Australia- Liberal-National 17 (35) 28 Democrats 4 (7) 5 Harradine 1 (2) 1 Labor 18 (32) 30 40 (76) 64 Senator ROBERT RAY —I thank the Senate. I return to the basic philosophical argument. It contends that if each party gets 43 per cent of the vote the split will be three senators each. Some people argue that that is the norm. But what happens when there are five senators to be elected? The norm at the moment is that the governing party takes two, the opposition party takes two and the Democrats take one. A situation can exist in this place where the Opposition gets 34 per cent of the vote and the Government gets 48 per cent of the vote and both get two senators each. I ask honourable senators to tell me what is fair about that? That is the situation as it currently exists. The Democrats get the other position. The most likely outcome that everyone would concede in the situation of six senators coming out in a half-Senate election is that the Government, whichever it is, Liberal or Labor, will get three, the Opposition will get two and the Democrats will get one. I will go on to expand on that by looking at past results. Let us look at 1975 when there was a double dissolution . If there had been 76 senators to be elected, the Liberal Party would have won 43 positions out of 76. Quite clearly it would have had a majority in this chamber. Senator Teague —That was an exceptional election. Senator ROBERT RAY —It was an exceptional election, but I will come to that aspect in a moment. Let us also look at it with six senators coming up for election. Let us apply that test to that same vote. The Liberal Party would have won 23 postions out of 40 of which 21 senators would have been long term. In 1977 with six senators to be elected the Liberal Party would have won 21 out of 40 seats; two of which were Territory seats. So what that comes back to is that at half Senate elections in 1975 and 1977 the Opposition would have had 40 out of 76 seats. So it is clear to me that a party can win a majority of seats in this chamber. It is not ever going to be the norm, but it can be done. I could also say that in 1980 the Liberal Party would have won 20 out of the 40 seats available at that election-two in the Territories and 18 others. That would at least have halved the Senate and, combined with the 1977 vote, would have given it a majority in this chamber, so it is possible. At different times Senator Macklin has indicated that he thought the Democrats might be wiped out. I am not here to say whether that is a good or a bad thing. It is for the electorate to make that judgment, but I can assure him and others that this Bill is not designed to wipe out the Democrats. If that is a beneficial by-product, I would suggest we may not object to it, but I do not think it will be, and it was never planned to be. In 1977 the Democrats would have had four senators elected under this system of six. They got only two that year. Let us look at 1980. They had three senators elected and they would have had three elected under this system; so, they would have maintained their representation. In a double dissolution in 1983 they would have picked up six seats-they currently have five. In a half-Senate situation with six being elected they would have picked up four. If that were repeated in the following election they would have eight representatives in this chamber. A lot of assertions have been made about this being a hung Senate and everything else. Unfortunately, apart from myself, no one else appears to have done the figures. They are all guessing. Senator Teague —Next speech. Senator ROBERT RAY —Next speech; but I hope that Senator Teague does not assert that 43 per cent is a magical figure that a party gets every time. Let me quote the figures back to him. In the 1975 election in only one State out of six did Labor poll 43 per cent. Where, in the election in 1977-this is the 43 per cent syndrome that Senator Peter Baume, Senator Macklin and everyone else goes on about in great detail-did the Labor Party get 43 per cent of the vote? Regretfully nowhere. That is the tragedy. Let us look at 1980. In New South Wales we get it, in Victoria we get it, in Queensland we do not, in South Australia we do not, in Western Australia we do not and in Tasmania we do not. It is an absolute fallacy to say that it is going to be a 3:3 split every time. Honourable senators can look at the Liberal Party performance in 1983 to see if that is a 3:3 split. In New South Wales it got 38 per cent and in Victoria it got 38 per cent, but in relation to Queensland let us forget about trying to add up what the real Liberal Party, National Party of Australia, Bonner vote and everything else means in Queensland because it does not make the analysis particularly interesting. In South Australia the Liberal Party got 40 per cent and in Tasmania it got 42.6 per cent. In the crown of the Liberal Party these days, Tasmania, it does not even make the 43 per cent. So this hung Senate argument that both major parties are in fact going to win an equal number of seats is absolutely farcical and I think should be dropped off the agenda. Another suggestion has come from Senator Missen that we should split the senators and States up; that in one year three States elect seven senators and the other three elect five, and it is reversed the next time. In that way we are supposed to get a result. I do not know much about the Constitution but it does not appear to me to be particularly consistent when section 13 requires that: . . . the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly equal in number as practicable . . . Five and seven does not seem nearly practicable. If we look at proposed new section 13 (3) of the legislation on the referendum for simultaneous elections it is clear that if that referendum is successful, anything carried in this Bill would be inconsistent. In summing up I come to two final points: Why do it now? Why not leave it for a few years time? Why not do as we did with the new Parliament House legislation, debate it in 1940, 1950, 1960 and 1970? Why make a final decision now? I think the Opposition should make a decision now because of forthcoming legislation which I anticipate being passed. I do not want to anticipate it other than to say that it brings about a form of redistribution process that may make the next distribution the last of the gigantic ones, the last time that all States are done at the one time. Because of the provisions that are going to be put into the Act each State will probably be done at a different time. There will be no chance to increase the size of parliament in a few years' time. New members in this place will serve only about two years in this House before we move to the new Parliament House. That being so, I do not think that we need to delay. I refer to one other matter. If this Bill passes this place today, we shall have a great reaction outside. Senator Baume has already indicated that he thought that 10 per cent or 12 per cent of the people support this matter, as reflected in opinion polls. If we had asked them the question 'Are you in favour of cutting politicians pay by half?', I doubt whether we would have got half way to 10 per cent. It depends on the questions asked and the background. Just consider this: The blasts that we shall get out of the media, not all of them, but a lot, will be 'snouts in the trough', 'the pollies are at it again', 'they are looking after themselves'. It is interesting to consider that we have had no increase in the size of this place since 1949, yet the size of the Press Gallery has increased fourfold. There are four times as many accredited members of the Press in this Parliament than there were in 1949. Senator Watson —What has that done for democracy? Senator ROBERT RAY —I think it means this, Senator Watson: Either our productivity, our quality and our abilities to deal with all the complex issues have increased fourfold or the productivity of the Press has dropped by 75 per cent. I do not know. If members of the Press, being representatives of private enterprise which is a taut, brilliant and efficient system, according to Senator Baume, have had their numbers increased by 400 per cent, this Parliament should have had its numbers bloated out by 400 per cent. This Parliament, as a government-funded socialist institution, has not increased its numbers. The reverse should have been true. Our numbers should have increased by 400 per cent , and the Press numbers should have remained the same. In summing up, the case for this Bill rests on several bases. First, there has not been an increase since 1949 and electorates are getting large. Secondly, country electorates, especially in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland, are getting to a size that is becoming ridiculous, and after the next redistribution they will increase in size yet again and become more unmanageable. Thirdly, this chamber and the Senate committee system are straining for lack of members to participate. Fourthly, the areas of responsibility of this Parliament have increased enormously since 1949. I say again that the most substantive argument brought up by the Opposition today, that this chamber will be hung because of the 43 per cent syndrome, has to be considered when looking at the figures that I have incorporated. Honourable senators may not agree with my calculations, but at least the raw percentage figures are right. The occasions on which parties poll below 43 per cent seem to me to be more common than when they poll above that. Senator Macklin —The important figure is 57 per cent. Senator ROBERT RAY —I suggest that Senator Macklin go back and look at the figures. I have two minutes left. I shall just go back for Senator Macklin's benefit. In 1975 the Labor Party polled over 43 per cent in one of the six States. In 1977 the Labor Party polled over 43 per cent in one State again. In 1980 the Labor Party polled over that figure in one State; et cetera. What Senator Macklin and company are arguing is a theoretical model that has no basis in past results. We cannot anticipate what future results will be. We are reaching a rather pathetic stage. If he says that the self-interest of the Australian Democrats is hurt, as a party, the past figures again disprove that. No one can anticipate the future. I commend the Bill to the House. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.39) — In this debate on the Representation Bill 1983, Senator Peter Baume has already outlined why Liberal Party senators are opposed to the Bill. Senator Sir John Carrick, in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, also set out reasons for opposition to the Bill. I am opposed to the Bill. The bases for this opposition can briefly be summarised in this way, and these arguments have been put at much more length by my colleagues: First, the people of Australia are overwhelmingly opposed to this measure. The gallup poll of mid-October, only a month ago, found that 76 per cent of Australians oppose the specific proposal for this increase in the number of parliamentarians. Only 13 per cent were in favour; the balance, some 11 per cent, were undecided. As Liberal senators-in this we are joined by the Australian Democrats-we seek to represent this overwhelming number of Australians, and we oppose the Labor Government's Bill. Secondly, given the present difficulties in the Australian economy, now is not the time to see Parliament spending a lot more money on more and more politicians. It is wrong for Parliament to put on more politicians when so many small and large businesses all over Australia are putting off employees. This Bill means more costs, more expenditure, that Australia cannot now afford. Thirdly, it is our view-I put this argument despite Senator Robert Ray's comments on this-that consideration should not be given to any increase until the new Parliament House is completed and opened in 1988 so that there may be the capacity, the space, the practical facilities, to accommodate any increase. Even then, that increase can be justified only for the House of Representatives and not for the Senate. The way forward, even after 1988, would be to break the nexus, so that the Senate would maintain its present number but the House of Representatives would be allowed a small increase. The fourth argument, which I will come back to in some detail in the second half of my speech, for why this Bill should be opposed is that the arrangements for half-Senate elections that flow from it will build in a permanent deadlock, a disability in the Senate for any party to gain a majority. The prospect of a permanent stalemate in the Senate numbers will, I believe, undermine the Senate by threatening to make it unworkable. I disagree with Senator Robert Ray's conclusion on that matter. However, I agree with much of the numerical analysis that he gave, in particular with regard to the exceptional election of 1975 and its flow-on even after 1977. I will come back to that in some detail with figures later. These four arguments have been taken up by Liberal senators. I am glad that the Democrats have taken up these arguments also. I now refer to a fifth argument, relating only to the Democrats as a minority party. This argument against the Bill amounts to a special factor which affects only the Democrats. It therefore amounts to a vested interest for them to protect. What is the Democrats' vested interest in opposing this Bill? It is not, as many allege, that it will be harder for the Democrats to be successful if we move from a five-vacancy half- Senate election, as is the case now, to a seven-member vacancy or, especially, a six-member vacancy for which this Bill provides. The allegation that that is a disadvantage to the Democrats was put by Senator Macklin. I do not agree with that allegation. It can be called the 42 per cent argument or the even-odd number argument, as Senator Macklin put it. I do not believe that it can be substantiated. I am not convinced by that argument, but I am putting forward the proposition that the vested interest of the Democrats in this Bill is something different. In arguing against the 42 per cent argument let me go in this way. It is my assessment that there is no disadvantage to the Democrats or to any minority party in moving from a five-vacancy half-Senate election to a six- or seven- vacancy half-Senate election. In fact, to the contrary, with larger numbers in the Senate it will be in a directly corresponding way easier for a minority party candidate to be elected in a six-vacancy election than in the present five -vacancy election and easier still in a seven-vacancy election, which is provided for in the transition arrangements for the next election. Let us consider some examples. In South Australia and Victoria for both of the last two Senate elections a Democrat would have been elected whether the vacancy had been for five, six or seven senators. An analysis of the figures in each of these elections, 1980 and 1983, shows that if a minority party candidate is elected in a five-vacancy situation that candidate would have been elected in a six-vacancy situation and in a seven-vacancy situation. A 10-vacancy situation is different and does have some paradoxes which I will refer to later on. Let us look at the figures from just one of the instances I have described; that is, South Australia in the March 1983 elections. This was a double dissolution election and there were 10 vacancies to fill. The actual outcome reflects that. The outcome, as we know, happens to have been Australian Labor Party five, Liberal Party four and Australian Democrats one. The total formal vote was 763,349. When that figure is divided, not on the basis of primary votes but at the point of establishing the quota for the last vacancy to be filled, the result is as follows: ALP 343,898; Liberal 314,493; and Democrats 104,958. Had the March 1983 election been for a five-vacancy Senate election-that is, the normal half-Senate election as Senate numbers are now-then a division of quotas corresponding to these votes would have been ALP 2.472, Liberal 2.703, and Democrats 0.825. The outcome would have been Labor two seats, Liberal two and Democrat one. Had it been a six-vacancy election, the quotas would have been ALP 3.154, Liberal 2.884, and Democrats 0.962. The outcome would have been ALP three , Liberal two and Democrats one. This example illustrates the general case that I am maintaining, that if a minority party candidate is successful in a five-vacancy election then that candidate will be successful at a six-vacancy election and at a seven-vacancy election. Indeed, the larger the number of vacancies the easier it is for a minority candidate to be successful. I have looked at all the Democrats elections since 1977 and that conclusion can be maintained in respect of every one. To drive home this conclusion I refer to one more example-the case where in a five-vacancy election a minority party candidate was not elected but would have been elected had the election been to fill six vacancies or to fill seven vacancies. This case is illustrated-there are a number of examples-by the half Senate election in South Australia in 1977. As we know, the outcome for the actual five-vacancy election then was Liberal three and ALP two. However, had this been a six-vacancy election the 702,218 formal votes then cast would have been divided at the point of determining the last quota for the sixth vacancy in the following way: Liberal 350,392, ALP 267,128 and Democrats 84,698. The division of quotas corresponding to these votes would have been Liberal 3.49, Labor 2.66, and Democrats 0.84. The result of that set of quotas would be Liberal three, ALP two and Democrats one. The conclusion, then-this example illustrates it-is that a minority party may just miss in a five-vacancy half- Senate election but in fact be successful in the move to a six-vacancy half Senate election. So the Democrats' vested interest, or any minority party's vested interest, does not arise from any alleged disadvantage accruing from a six-vacancy arrangement; rather, the reverse is true. So why is it that the Democrats oppose this measure? Is it high-minded altruism ? Is it a shining example of a minority party denying its self-interest in order to be popular with the great majority of Australians who will oppose the measure ? Mr Deputy President, there is no shining example here. Rather, as I understand it, the Democrats are putting more weight into protecting another vested interest; that is, they are trying to prevent a serious disadvantage which they as Democrats will uniquely suffer if this measure proceeds. I refer to the transition arrangements in this Bill whereby at the next half-Senate election, only, there will be a seven-vacancy election and the seventh elected will be filling only a half term-that is, only a short term; not six years but only three. This transition arrangement, on the experience of all recent elections, will seriously and uniquely disadvantage Democrats. To demonstrate this point I will now describe the analysis of voting patterns in all the States. This is the vested interest, I put to the Senate, that the Democrats are protecting by opposing this measure. Senator Macklin did not refer to these transition arrangements in one sentence in his speech. The situation plainly is this: If this increase in the Senate goes ahead, then in the transition seven-vacancy half-Senate election, that is the next Senate election, the Democrats can only reasonably expect, if elected at all, to be elected in the seventh position and thus be elected for only short terms. This is especially the prospect for Senator Macklin, for Senator Jack Evans and for Senator Mason. It is also the prospect-- Senator Macklin —I got elected ninth. You didn't know that, did you? Senator Bonner would have got in. You didn't even know I was elected ninth. Senator TEAGUE —Mr Deputy President, I ask Senator Macklin not to interject. I think I have him on a sensitive point. He has not disclosed a vested interest for the Democrats. I ask him not to interject. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Macklin, you should refrain from interjecting. Senator TEAGUE —The situation plainly is that if this increase in the Senate goes ahead then in the transition seven-vacancy half-Senate election, that is the next Senate election, the Democrats can only reasonable expect, if elected at all, to be elected in the seventh position and thus be elected only for a short term. This is especially the prospect in Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales. It is also the prospect for the Democrat candidates who may contest the next election in South Australia and in Victoria. As Senator Chipp's and Senator Haines's present terms extend to the subsequent election, they themselves would not be the candidates at the next elections in those two States . In brief, the prospect is that any and all Democrats senators who may be here in the next Parliament will have their Senate terms concluding at the end of that Parliament, and that may be as early as 1987 but, depending on next February's referenda, could be in 1988 or 1989. Whilst it may be possible for a minority candidate to be successful on a six-vacancy basis in the subsequent 1987 or so election, any one or two Democrats who may then be elected will be the only Democrats in the subsequent Senate, that is, in the post-1987 or 1988 Senate. This is so because any and all Democrats in the Senate in the next Parliament will have their terms completed at the end of that Parliament. Let me outline the alternative situation, that is, if this Bill fails and there is no increase in the number of senators. In this event, the next half- Senate election would lead to every elected senator gaining a long term, a term of six years, possibly extended to eight years if the referendum for the four-year term for the House of Representatives is passed in February. In this event, the Democrats may be completely unsuccessful and not gain a Senate seat in any State , but if they do have sufficient public support to gain a seat or two, it is most likely, on all past experience, that this would be in Victoria and in South Australia, and any such successful candidates would have terms extending one Parliament beyond the present terms of Senator Chipp and Senator Haines. But this continuity advantage in Victoria and South Australia will be directly lost if this Representation Bill is passed. In summary, I believe that the Democrats' opposition to this Bill arises not only for the reasons Senator Macklin gave but also because of a vested interest that the Democrats are protecting in the transitional arrangements. This argument is not the 42 per cent argument which Senator Robert Ray rightly argued against and which I am arguing against but which Senator Macklin, nevertheless, put forward. Rather, it is a consequence of the transition arrangements in the next election. This can be summarised in this way: They want to avoid the circumstances where, firstly, continuity in Victoria and South Australia would be lost making it impossible for these two States to provide a possible four Democrats rather than a possible two Democrats after the subsequent election; and secondly, Senators Macklin, Jack Evans and Mason are looking down the barrel of its being impossible for them to achieve any more than a half term, even if that, after the next election. In order to clarify these conclusions and establish them for all to see it is helpful to display the pattern and order of quotas being formed in the event of a seven-vacancy half-Senate election. This can be displayed using voting figures from any of the recent elections. I have prepared an analysis of the March 1983 voting figures in all States. This analysis is not based on primary votes alone, which is the approach taken in papers prepared and circulated by the Parliamentary Library, but rather is more accurate, being based on actual preferences counted out and available from the Australian Electoral Office. I have drawn up a table which displays what would be the outcome when the actual March 1983 voting of the States is translated to a seven-vacancy half-Senate election. I seek leave to incorporate this table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- MARCH 1983 ACTUAL VOTING TRANSLATED TO A SEVEN-VACANCY HALF-SENATE ELECTION Party Votes Quota Result NSW ALP 1,309,998 3.823 4 or 3 Lib-NP 1,051,623 3.069 3 3 AD 248,218 .724 0 1 (7th elected) CTA 131,699 .384 0 0 Total 2,741,268 7.999 7 7 Vic. ALP 993,153 3.716 3 Lib-NP 814,910 3.049 3 AD 256,063 .958 1 (7th elected) DLP 48,014 .180 0 Cairns 12,058 .045 0 Others 13,736 .051 0 2,137,934 7.999 7 SA ALP 343,898 3.604 3 Lib 314,493 3.296 3 AD 104,958 1.100 * 1 (7th elected) Total 763,349 7.999 7 (*Note: AD primary vote was only 0.955 quota, hence 7th elected) WA ALP 339,156 3.961 4 or 3 Lib 290,415 3.391 3 3 AD 55,487 .648 0 1 (7th elected) Total 685,058 7.999 7 7 Qld ALP 494,844 3.174 3 or 3 NP 354,203 2.272 2 2 Lib 189,950 1.219 1 1 AD 112,928 .724 0 1 (7th elected) Bonner 95,396 .612 1 0 Total 1,247,321 7.999 7 7 Tas. Lib 110,551 3.524 3 or 3 ALP 85,680 2.732 3 2 Harr 35,530 1.133 * 1 1 AD 19,171 .611 0 1 (7th elected) Total 250,896 7.999 7 7 (*Note: On these voting figures the 7th elected would be the third ALP Senator rather than Senator Harradine or it would be the Democrat if the Democrat beats the third ALP Senator) Summary Half-Senate result New Senate ALP 20 or 17 or 17 36 or 33 or 33 Lib-NP 18 18 18 33 33 33 AD 3 6 6 5 8 7 Harr 1 1 1 2 2 2 Bonner 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total 42 42 42 76 76 76 Senator TEAGUE —This table shows conclusively that if any Democrat, given this voting system, is elected any and all such Democrats would be seventh elected and thus have a short term. It is interesting to observe that this conclusion cannot, given those voting figures, be drawn in respect of Senator Harradine who was the only other independent or minority-party candidate to be successful. The table shows that Senator Harradine would have gained the third vacancy out of seven and so would have been long term. However, this should not, I believe, be used as a basis for predicting such an outcome for a Harradine party candidate at the next election. I believe the vote would then be considerably lower and, if elected, I believe that candidate would then be likely to be in the seventh position as a short term candidate. Another interesting point to observe in the table is that in Queensland Senator Macklin might have been elected-as in fact he was in the actual double dissolution 10-vacancy situation-but the analysis indicates that it would have been more likely for former Senator Bonner to have gained the seventh position on Liberal Party and some National Party preferences. Thus, we have the paradox that whereas former Senator Bonner was beaten by another minority party candidate in the actual 10-vacancy situation of March 1983, the outcome would have been reversed to Senator Macklin's disadvantage had there been a seven- vacancy situation. Before I leave the table, I should explain that it shows two alternative results in four of the States-New South Wales, Western Australia, Queensland and Tasmania. This arises because the allocation of the preferences of the final one or two candidates in the seven-vacancy circumstance is not clearly shown in the data from the Australian Electoral Office. Accordingly, I have included figures in the table that are certain. From this point on the resolution of the final quota can only be estimated. However, in each of these four States I am confident there are only two possible outcomes. These are given in the table. In New South Wales the seventh position contest would have been between the Democrat and the fourth ALP candidate, with the outcome dependent on the preferences of the Call to Australia Party. In Western Australia, the seventh position contest also would have been between the Democrat and the fourth ALP candidate, with the outcome being extremely close and dependent on Liberal preferences such that the Democrat would win only if Liberal preferences did not leak to the ALP by more than 10 per cent. That is quite likely. In Queensland, the contest for the seventh position would have been between former Senator Bonner and Senator Macklin-the outcome dependent on the preferences of the three major parties. As I have already said, this most likely would have run, I think, in former Senator Bonner's favour. In Tasmania, the contest for the seventh position-at that stage three Liberals, two ALP candidates and Senator Harradine having been successful; that is the first six based on the 1983 actual figures-would have been between the Democrat and the third ALP candidate. The outcome would depend on some 4,000 Harradine preferences and some 16,000 Liberal preferences. The most likely outcome would have been the Democrat gaining the seventh position at the expense of the ALP. The Queensland and Tasmanian cases then, both show the paradox of a minority candidate being unsuccessful in the actual 10-vacancy March 1983 election, nevertheless, being elected had that election been to fill seven vacancies. In Victoria, just to complete the picture, the table indicates only one outcome, that is, the Democrat gaining the seventh position. In South Australia again the outcome is the Democrat gaining the seventh position. I only add that whilst the table rightly shows the Democrat with more than a quota at this final stage of the count it must be recognised that this full quota would be gained only after the first six Senate seats had been determined and thus the Democrat would have gained only the seventh position. I have now described a number of conclusions which can be drawn from this analysis of the 1983 election. I am certainly not predicting these outcomes. Senator Macklin —What are you talking about? Senator TEAGUE —I am talking about the flow from the actual 1983 result if there had been a seven-vacancy analysis. For my part, I think it is reasonable to say that the minority parties are likely to do less well but that is a matter for the electorate to determine at the next election. In my final remarks I wish to concentrate on the effect that this Bill will have on the majority parties, that is, the Liberal-National coalition and the ALP. The effect of this Representation Bill 1983 on the majority parties will be enormous in that, unlike the present situation it will, in practice, deny both major parties the opportunity of ever gaining a majority in the Senate. This Bill is opposed by the Liberal Party chiefly for this reason. It is for me the principal reason for opposing this Bill. With the proposed enlarged Senate it is virtually certain that at the end of the next Parliament the continuing senators , that is, next Parliament's long term senators, will comprise 18 Liberal- National coalition senators and 18 ALP senators. This 18: 18 residue from the next Parliament is virtually certain for the detailed reason I have already outlined, that is, that the first six senators to be elected at the next election, that is the seven-vacancy election, are virtually certain to be, in all six States, three Liberal-National Party senators and three ALP senators. The table I have incorporated shows clearly in the case of 1983-- Senator Macklin —What happened to Brian? Senator TEAGUE —I agree that Senator Harradine would have made it but I am arguing-if Senator Macklin had listened to me he would know-that I do not believe that the Harradine party will do as well in the next election. The table I have incorporated shows clearly in the case of 1983-the same is true for 1980, 1977 and all recent elections-that the first six senators elected for each State next time will be divided three each between the major parties. Just as importantly and with even more certainty it will be the case that neither major party will gain a majority in the Senate; that is, neither the ALP nor the Liberal- National Party coalition can ever expect to gain 39 seats in the Senate . This is so because if one minority candidate is elected in any one election the Senate numbers will be 38, 37 and one. If two are elected the numbers will be 37, 37 and two or 38, 36 and two, and so on. It is not possible in practice for a major party to gain the magic majority number of 39 seats because that would mean one of the major parties gaining four of the six available Senate vacancies. To move from winning three seats to winning four seats requires an extraordinary and almost unprecedented State-wide preferential vote of 57.14 per cent-in this I agree with Senator Macklin-rather than 42.86 per cent. Clearly, the 57 per cent goal will, on the whole history of Senate voting, be virtually unattainable. In addition to the example I have already given of Queensland in 1975, I have found only one other instance and that is South Australia in the same election. In all the elections of the last 40 years only those two examples, I believe, would have allowed any party to gain the 57.14 per cent of the State-wide preferential vote which would allow four of the six vacancies to be won by one party and hence allow the possibility of a majority being gained in the Senate. As my time has almost elapsed, I summarise by saying that the Democrats oppose this legislation for some of the reasons that the Liberal Party opposes it. We share substantial reasons but, in addition, the Democrats, in opposing the transition arrangements, have a vested interest which has not been discussed by them. It is fully displayed and can be comprehended by anybody who reads the analysis I have set out in the table I have had incorporated in Hansard. I urge honourable senators to oppose this Bill. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(11.08) — It must be Friday because we have been treated to one of those peculiar speeches in which Senator Teague, in opposing the Representation Bill, sounded as if he were supporting it. In a long dissertation he spent a lot of time telling the Australian Democrats what was in their best interest, only to be heavily heckled by Senator Macklin, representing the Democrats, denying that what he said was in the Democrats' best interest. On behalf of the Government I wish the Opposition parties would get their act together and present a united front. It would make debate easier in terms of identifying what they are opposing. Senator Mason —You will be voting with the National Party on this issue, will you not? Senator COOK —From time to time the National Party shows great good sense and it is to be commended for that. The Bill increases the number of parliamentarians because of the increase in the sizes of electorates and the population of Australia. In supporting this Government measure, I commend to the Senate the speech delivered a short while ago by Senator Robert Ray, who I believe canvassed all the main issues completely and comprehensively. I am disturbed to see, however, that earlier today Senator Baume and just now Senator Teague, in starting their addresses, referred to popular opinion polls as an argument why this Bill should not go forward. Anyone who relies on popular sentiment in the superficial way in which it is bandied about in this chamber is relying on capricious, contradictory and muddled reasoning. Popular sentiment has it that taxes should be decreased but pensions and other government outlays should be increased. Popular sentiment has it that all wage increases are wrong but my personal wage increase is right. Popular sentiment has it that strong leaders are desired but we also like to cut down tall poppies. So popular sentiment is indeed a capricious and conradictory being. Anyone who wishes to rely upon it, as Senator Baume and Senator Teague have done, is really just taking a soft option for a superficial input to a serious debate justifying perhaps the popular sentiment that all politicians are cads and what we really want in this country is not politicians but statesmen. The key aspect of the polls that have been raised here as some evidentiary base for opposing the measure is that the result depends upon the questions asked. If you were to ask people in the community 'Do you want better laws?' they would say yes. If you asked people 'Do you want fewer politicians?' they would probably say yes. If you asked people 'Do you want no politicians at all; would you prefer statesmen?' they would say yes. What is important is not the answer but the way in which the question is framed and, as well, the information that the electorate has before it in making up its mind and giving its answer. I would commend to anyone the excellent first report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Perhaps if all of those who responded to the polls that Senator Baume and Senator Teague have been so determined to rely upon had had a chance to read that report first we would have had an informed response and I dare say that the result would have been vastly different from that quoted and relied upon as a superficial, off the cuff, easy option judgment. As I have said, the electorate prefers statesmen to politicians and, if we are to presume to be in the first category and not the second, we ought to look at the issues and make our decisions according to logic. There are two key issues in terms of this legislation. The first is whether our representational task has changed and, if so, how. The second is the work test argument: Has our work load changed and, if so, how. Also, do both changes, taken together, justify an alteration in the number of parliamentarians to be elected to this place. I want to examine both issues but will start with that of the representational task because I believe that it is the more important. It is important for the fundamental reason that Parliament, as an institution, should always be, and remain, in touch with the common elector, not to be aloof, not to be a means of executive government rubber stamp. It should always be sensitive to the mood and feel of what ordinary Australians are concerned about. The important thing is that members of this Parliament, whether in the Senate or the House of Representatives, should be able to approach and talk with their own constituencies as local members. For that reason I reject the suggestion that we should pursue the course that unfortunately has beset the United States of America, where one member of Congress represents 198,881 electors. It is argued by them that their task is made easier because of their huge support staff; that therefore they are able to get across the issues and communicate with their electorates. That means, though , that the member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate is much more remote as a person, much more aloof, much more unapproachable by the ordinary elector. There is a plethora of support staff between that member, he or she, and the community. Of course, politicians are like policemen: You do not particularly want to see them all of the time but when you need them they ought to be on tap straight away. The community has to battle through a front desk of support staff. That is one of the reasons politicians fall into disrepute; electors cannot have access when they need it. So I reject the course of maintaining our numbers as a small elite and adding additional support staff as it would keep us from having to confront the community on a personal basis. The other risk that the United States course runs is that it puts government in the hands of experts who are not elected-the advisers to the members and those who are specialists in various areas-whereas, of course, the real theory should be that the experts should be on tap and not on top. Government should be run by the elected representatives, and not by the experts. Technocrats do not have a role when it comes to expressing the will of the community. Those of us who are elected as politicians should be in touch. To expand along the lines of the United States course, which opposition to this Bill fundamentally assumes is the course we should take, would be wrong. Finally, I make the point in regard to the United States system that one must have great wealth to be elected. To cover an electorate of the size of one representative to 198,800 electors requires a huge investment by the individual member in campaign expenses, just to travel across that electorate. In the United States one tends to have to be wealthy to do that. Therefore, the possibility of a cross-representational group being elected to parliament from all walks of society is diminished to some extent. I think that the alternative pattern we should look at is really at the bottom of the theory behind this Bill . If we look at the United Kingdom and at Canada we find that in the United Kingdom, one representative represents 47,000 electors and in Canada, one representative represents 56,000 electors. Currently in Australia one representative represents 74,989 electors. This Bill will merely mean that one representative will represent 63,000 electors-still well ahead of the United Kingdom and Canada and, I think, still well enough in touch with the electorate, in terms of other needs, to keep parliament to a manageable size. Figures show that, in my own State of Western Australia, the average divisional enrolment is 72,000 electors. This Bill will reduce that enrolment to 61,305 electors, assuming that it is carried and we have more parliamentary representation. Senator Macklin —It is a bit difficult to make those comparisons with the situation in Australia, as both Canada and Britain have appointed upper Houses. Senator COOK —Yes, but that does not diminish the fact that nonetheless the role of those upper Houses is to represent the electorate and that the important fundamental point is that the electorate should have access to and control over electors. I think that if one takes those two factors together, the point is still sound and strong. In regard to the electorate of Kalgoorlie, if this Bill is not passed, a quite grotesque and unfortunate responsibility will be put upon the shoulders of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, Graeme Campbell. At present, the Federal electorate of Kalgoorlie is 2,324,081 square kilometres in size-the biggest electorate in the world. Yet it is 863 under its quota. If there were a redistribution of electoral boundaries, the electorate of Kalgoorlie-gigantic though it is-would have to get bigger in order to be brought within the limits. So the task of representing that electorate would be made harder. What this Bill would do in the case of Kalgoorlie and a number of other country electorates would be to make it easier for elected representatives from those areas to represent a more discernible and naturally geographical area and to enable representatives to cover great distances to be in closer contact with their own constituents. In 1949, when the last representation Bill was produced in this Parliament 39,000, nearly 40,000 electors, constituted the average size of an electorate. Today about 75,000 people constitute the average size of an electorate. As I have said, this Bill will bring that figure down to 63,000. In 1949, when the last representation Bill was before this chamber, the Liberals supported it. But since that time it looks as if that Party has lost its way and it has found alternative reasons to oppose the legislation. My last reason for supporting this legislation, based on size, is that the principle of one vote one value-a fundamental principle of democracy-is more likely to be enshrined by the passage of this legislation than by its defeat. There will be less disparity between the size of Federal seats in the various States with the passage of this Bill. Therefore, in terms of the House of Representatives in particular, the important point of one vote one value is made . I turn now to the other argument that I wish to put. The first point I made related to the size of electorates and the number of people we represent, and the second point I now wish to make relates to the work load of the Parliament. I think it is essential that there be retained a necessary tension between our duties in dealing with electors and our duties as legislators. That tension should always be one of competing demands. When we look at the increase in work in the Parliament we need go no further than the list of extra areas of involvement of Federal Parliament as set out on page 142 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform where 21 new areas are identified. At this stage I do not want to read out those 21 areas as they are on the public record. But any one of them is comprehensive and increasing in terms of its complexity. It is much more likely that, as we travel through time in the future , more areas will be added as life becomes exponentially more complex and, therefore, the work of representing the community and dealing with all those issues increases and becomes more difficult. The number of senators and members to serve on all the committees established in this parliament is a matter of common remark. There are not enough. There are calls consistently for more committees to be established. I am certainly not one to complain; in fact, I take a great pride in the work load that I shoulder as a senator. I just turn as an example to my own case in which the issue of the work load can be best demonstrated. I stress that this is not a complaint; I simply refer to the privilege I have to be faced by further and additional challenges. As a Senator in this place I joined the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That Committee has a number of vitally important tasks before it. Also, when the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare took on board the issue of the retirement incomes inquiry, a matter of major concern and interest to me, I joined that Committee. It is conducting that vital and fundamental inquiry which will affect the lives of all Australians. Yesterday the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee had put before it an inquiry into the national crimes commission-another vital and fundamental concern facing all Australians. Both matters are important. Both matters have to be reported on in a limited time. Both matters require an immense amount of energy and attention. As I have said I do not complain about that; it is a privilege to have those challenges. But I make the point that all members and senators are in a situation similar to me in that respect. In meeting those challenges and the extra work load we would be greatly assisted if there were more people in this place to shoulder those burdens and face the specialist responsibilities that are required of them. With a bigger parliament there is a greater chance for more speciality and a better quality of representation by the members. There is a chance, too, of a bigger pool of talent from which the Executive of the Parliament can be elected. That is important when one considers that the size of the Executive that grows commensurate with the increasing responsibilities placed upon the House and the necessary balance between the number of back benchers and the Executive to lessen the allegation of rule by Executive. A number of speakers in this debate have concentrated on the possibility of a hung parliament and in particular a hung Senate. I do not think it is necessary to go into any other detail or to supplement the speech made by Senator Ray who, on this point, has provided a devastating argument that the allegations and fears that have been raised in debate are not justified. The possibility of a hung Senate increases with the composition we now have and by not supporting the Bill. On that basis and on the basis of my other remarks, I commend the Bill to the Senate and trust that my colleagues will see the wisdom of carrying it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.26) —We have just heard from the last two Australian Labor Party speakers, Senator Ray and Senator Cook, incredible speeches supporting centralised government. They said that what happens to the Senate does not really matter. That will be the situation if the Representation Bill 1983 is passed. Senator Ray spoke about the breaking of the nexus, as though that is what the Senate should do. Senator Peter Baume, the shadow Minister, spoke about the breaking of the nexus from his point of view as a senator from New South Wales. I can see his point. The Senate is not as important to New South Wales as it is to my State of Tasmania. That is why Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia or Western Australia would never go for the breaking of the nexus. As Senator Baume said some time ago when the referendum to break the nexus was held, even Victoria backed off; New South Wales was the only State that voted for it. Why should we vote against the breaking of the nexus? Why do Senator Ray and Senator Cook want the nexus broken? It is very easy for Labor to go for the breaking of the nexus because it has been said repeatedly in this place that the Senate is of no value to the Labor Party. It does not want the Senate. It was very clearly part of Labor's policy to do away with the Senate, as I have repeatedly said in this place. The Attorney-General said: 'Let us cut that out of our policy because it is not too popular with the people outside, but of course that will not stop us from having it as our main objective'. For many years the Labor Party has been working to do away with the Senate. It is quite hypocritical for Labor senators to sit in this place with that as a priority so they try to do it through the back door. Of course this is another example of that. Labor senator have suggested in this place that we break the nexus. If we did, it would mean that the number of senators would no longer have to be half the number of members of the House of Representatives. If we broke the nexus the number of members in the House of Representatives could be increased 100-fold. There would be no brake at all on the increase in the number of members in the House of Representatives. The number of members of the House of Representatives could be increased 100-fold and the Senate would be left with just 10 members representing each State. The Senate would be absolutely drowned by the House of Representatives; it would no longer be of any value. That is exactly what the Government wants. Senator Robert Ray and Senator Cook have talked about breaking the nexus. Senator Jack Evans —You are on the wrong Bill. This Bill is about increasing the numbers in the Senate, not breaking the nexus. Senator WALTERS —It is a pity that Senator Jack Evans did not hear me start my speech. If he had listened at all he would have heard me talking about Senator Robert Ray's contribution. I was not saying the nexus has anything to do with this Bill; I was talking about Senator Ray's contribution. To do Senator Jack Evans justice, I do not think he was listening because surely if he had been he would have picked that up. I will get back to the Bill. I agree with the comments made by Senator Jack Evans. Even though Senator Ray talked about the breaking of the nexus, it had nothing to do with this Bill. The Government has acknowledged that the small States would never pass this legislation, so it is prepared to increase both the Senate and the House of Represenatives. It is pretty arrogant of the Government to say that it knows so much better than the people of Australia. The people of Australia will be paying the bill. Senator Teague has spoken of an opinion poll which was conducted in mid-October . A recent opinion poll was conducted earlier this month. The results indicate that 84 per cent of Australians oppose the increase in numbers of politicians, 9 per cent are in favour and only 7 per cent are unsure. Let us have a look at Labor voters: 84 per cent say to the people they vote for: 'Don't go ahead with the increase. We don't want it'. Of the Liberal and National Party voters 86 per cent say: 'Don't go ahead with it. We don't want it. We don't want to pay the bill'. After all, they are the people who are paying the bill. What will that cost? Senator Baume referred to that matter. His estimation was that the bill will certainly not be inconsiderable. It will be a considerable cost to the taxpayer. The Hawke Government carries on and says that money is pretty short, that we are still in economic crisis, that wages have to be contained and that the unions must abide by the wages accord. The Government has made great play of that. I agree with every word. If this country is to recover and if Australia's standard of living is to be maintained wages must be contained. I agree with everything the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said in that regard. It is a pity that he cannot enforce it because indeed the wages accord has collapsed. As you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President, there are unions that have gone way outside the wages accord. We have been assured by the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, for instance, that there will be anarchy in the building industry if its members do not get an increase above the award. The Government is saying that in the present economic situation the need is there to contain wages. In the next breath it says: 'Let's increase the Parliament by at least 35 members'. Evidently the Chief Electoral Officer has said that the likely figure is 35 extra politicians. What will that cost us? Senator Baume referred to the fact that a financial impact statement had been promised to us by this Government shortly after the presentation of the Budget. It is now November and we have not had one such statement. We do not know the financial cost of any of the Bills that have been brought into the Senate. It was promised. It is good rhetoric, it sounds wonderful, but there has been no action. I ask the Government why there is no financial impact statement on this piece of legislation. The people of Australia need to know the financial impact. They pay our wages; they are the ones who have to pay the bill. They need to know what an additional 35 members of parliament will cost them. We have had no word from the Government. It has broken another promise by not giving a financial impact statement. In the Committee stage I shall certainly ask for the cost. I sincerely hope that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will be able to provide the cost. Due warning has been given by several Liberal speakers today; we want to know the cost of this legislation to the Australian people. I shall review the expected outcome of having 35 additional members of parliament. There will be 12 extra senators; two for each State. It has already been said in this place this morning that that will result in six senators standing for each half Senate election. There is no doubt that if six come from each State there will be three Labor and three Liberal senators. There is no argument about that. The minority parties, when in the Senate, will influence the result and will have control of the Senate. No doubt the Australian Democrats believe-if I were one of them I would also believe this-that it is to their advantage to have control of the Senate. I do not think it is good for the country that a minority party-a small number of people-should have the final say over every piece of legislation that comes before us. I think the major party- whichever one happens to be in power-should have that advantage. But that is the situation. Senator Jack Evans —Do you want to rubber stamp the Senate as well? Senator WALTERS —Senator Jack Evans has not been a senator for very long. He will find that on many occasions Liberal Party senators cross the floor. It has happened many times. He will find that there is no rubber stamp in this place as far as the Liberal Party and the National Party are concerned. I have crossed the floor and voted against my Government on several occasions, as all other Tasmanians have done. Therefore, we will not be a rubber stamp and cannot be accused of being a rubber stamp. Senator Jack Evans —When Labor is in power? Senator WALTERS —Labor is a rubber stamp. Honourable senators must agree wholeheartedly that Labor senators are not part of the States House. As I said when I commenced my speech, the aim of Labor senators is to abolish the Senate. It is hypocritical of them to be members of this place when their main priority is to abolish the Senate. Let us look at the figures that are likely to result. As far as my State is concerned this would be disastrous legislation, and I shall tell the Senate why that is so. At the moment New South Wales has 43 seats, but under the new arrangements the number of seats in New South Wales will jump to 52. Presently Victoria has 33 seats, and under the new arrangements that number will jump to 39. At the moment those two big States alone have 76 seats, and that number will increase to 91. The number of Tasmanian seats, and it is the only State which will not have an increase, will stay at five. The new arrangements will make no difference to the number of Tasmanian seats in the House of Representatives; it will remain at five. The combined voice of the small States, South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland, and the Territories is presently 49. Under the new arrangements with the increases for South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland the combined voice of the small States and the Territories will be 57 . The present situation is bad enough. The two big States completely swamp the small States by having 76 votes as against 49 in the House of Representatives. Under this legislation that disadvantage will increase because the combined vote of the two large States will be 91 and that of the small States and the Territories will be only 57. So an extra seven votes will go to the large States . That again, I believe, is a certain disadvantage. Much has been said in this place today about the extra work load of the House of Representatives. Senator Cook has talked about Kalgoorlie being the biggest electorate in the world. It is, but it has a very small population. If his Party 's member of Parliament cannot cope he ought to give up his electorate. Our member of Parliament before the last election was coping perfectly well. If the Australian Labor Party's member cannot cope with Kalgoorlie he ought to give it up and hand it back to the Liberals, who were coping very well. It is quite incredible that Government senators tell us that their members cannot cope in their electorates. If they cannot cope they should not be holding them. Senator Cook —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. Senator Walters is running dangerously close to misleading this chamber as to what I said. What I said was-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Cook, you will resume your seat. If you have been misrepresented you are entitled to make a personal explanation at the end of Senator Walters's speech, but you may not do it now. Senator Cook —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I will avail myself of that opportunity. Senator WALTERS —Mr Deputy President, Senator Cook had better read Hansard first because he was saying that his Party cannot cope in the biggest electorate in the world. I repeat that if it cannot cope the honest thing to do is to get out and let someone who can cope take over. There is, I believe, a real push on senators with the committee system but, as has been said by others in the Senate today, this can be overcome by giving senators additional staff. If we each had a full time officer in Canberra in addition to our officers in our own States, that would be one solution. It would mean an additional cost, but it would be absolutely minuscule compared to the additional costs that are proposed by this legislation. I do not think I should say any more on this Bill. It has been covered very thoroughly by Senator Peter Baume, and there are many others to follow. I will relinquish the rest of my time to those who are to follow me. Senator COOK(Western Australia) —I claim to have been misrepresented, Mr Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Under standing order 410 you are entitled to explain yourself in regard to some material part of your speech. You are not allowed to bring forward any debatable matter. There is to be no debate in your personal explanation. Senator COOK —Senator Walters in her remarks claimed that I said that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) could not cope with the size of his electorate. That statement did not occur at any point in my remarks and her allegation is entirely untrue. The point I made was that the Federal electorate of Kalgoorlie is 2,324,081 square kilometre in size. That electorate is, however , 863 electors below quota. If the Representation Bill does not go through, the Federal electorate of Kalgoorlie will be increased in size to bring it within quota. The point I made was that that would make it an even bigger electorate and would make it more difficult to cover. That is a consideration. It has nothing to do with coping; it has to do with the geographical size of the electorate. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(11.45) —I am very pleased to support the Representation Bill which provides for a long overdue increase in the size of the Federal Parliament. Section 24 of the Constitution provides that an increase in the size of the Senate must be the starting point for an increase in the size of Federal Parliament. It should be noted by all honourable senators that the Constitution clearly provides for an increase in the size of Parliament. When the founding fathers drafted the Constitution at the turn of the century they did not provide for fixed numbers over time. They made it very clear that it should be possible to change the number of people in the Federal Parliament, and this is what this Bill is about. The Bill stems from the work of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate that Committee on the fine work it did. The case for increasing the size of the Parliament, according to the Committee's report, was put to the Committee by a very prominent political scientist and also, I understand, by the New South Wales branch of the National Party of Australia. It was a majority recommendation of the Committee to increase the number of senators in each State from 10 to 12. I am very pleased to say that the Government accepted that recommendation. There are some very compelling arguments for an increase in the size of the Federal Parliament. The Joint Select Committee calculated that since the last increase in the size of the Federal Parliament in 1949 there had been an 87 per cent lift in average enrolments. That is an increase from 39,900 in 1949 to 74,900 in March of this year. I am now aware from figures published in October, that the average enrolment has gone over 75,000. So the 87 per cent increase in average enrolments since 1949 is a very large increase. That by itself suggests larger work loads and greater pressure on the electoral offices of members and senators . I would like to make the point today that the enrolment growth figures understate the increase in the presssure developed by a growing population. What we should look at is the number of people in the Commonwealth rather than the number of electors, because from my experience and from the experience of many other members and senators a great number of the constituent cases which come into our offices are from people who are not on the electoral roll. In fact, a very striking figure can be calculated from the number of people coming into offices with constituent problems who are not enrolled to vote. If we actually look at the increase in the number of people in Australia since 1949 and try to pick up this factor of people who are not enrolled to vote, we get an increase of well over 90 per cent since 1949. It is noteworthy that those people who are not on the roll tend to have problems in regard to immigration policy or social security policy. We all know which government is responsible for those matters; it is the Federal Government. People come to see us about those problems. It should be noted that the current proposal for an increase in the size of parliament is very modest. It provides for only a partial remedy to the change in the situation since 1949 and consequently will not return average enrolments to their 1949 level when the last change was made to the size of the Parliament. Over the last 30 to 40 years the Commonwealth Government has become much more active in a range of policy areas. The Commonwealth has drafted and passed much more legislation each year. More committees have been established in the Federal Parliament and more Ministers have been chosen to act as Members of the Executive of this nation. The trend towards more committees is very much in evidence at Westminster. It is a trend which is developing in parliaments around the world. Servicing the committee system really requires a large enough pool of members to staff those committees and to make sure that more expert decisions are made. We have many more committees in Canberra now than we had in 1949. By the same token, the pool of members and senators available for committee work has been reduced somewhat by the lift in the size of the Ministry and the shadow Ministry . It is interesting to note that since the last Chifley Ministry in the 1940s, the size of the Ministry has increased by 70 per cent. The size of Parliament has been fixed over that period while the size of the Executive has increased by 70 per cent. I think it is quite possible to come to the conclusion that the balance between the Parliament and the Executive has been altered over that period. I think some people would argue that Parliament's independence in relation to the Executive has suffered as a consequence. I believe that the availability of more back benchers and more talented back benchers would strengthen the position of Parliament versus the Executive. I think one of the important factors that has not been looked at in this debate is that the availability of more back benchers could mean more subject specialists. I think subject specialists are desperately needed in the Federal Parliament. There are too few at present. Amateurs certainly have their place in Parliament, but we really need people who are more expert in particular subjects so that they can monitor the work of the Executive more closely. Since the last increase in the size of the Federal Parliament, the Federal Government has taken on many new responsibilities. For example, regulation of the national economy is something which has developed over that period. The Government has taken on what is called the stabilisation function which basically requires it to take fiscal and monetary actions to regulate the level of economic activity. That was an out-growth of a very famous White Paper in the 1940s and it has led to an enormous work load on the Federal Parliament. The welfare state has developed somewhat since the 1940s following the major referendum in that decade which conferred extra social security responsibilities on the Federal Parliament. We also see a Federal Parliament which is now involved in almost totally new areas such as family law and the environment, areas in which it was not involved in the 1940s when the Parliament was last inreased in size. I believe that the increase in the size of Parliament will mean that members of parliament will be more accessible to their constituents. I think that the increase in the size of Parliament should help maintain rural representation here. In the case of an ordinary redistribution of electorates, it is quite conceivable that the rural area could lose seats. I think, importantly, those in the large area electorates will benefit. I am talking about seats like Kalgoorlie, Grey, Leichhardt and so forth. I think that the effect of the proposal to increase the size of the House will mean that those seats will not keep on increasing in size to ever greater and greater levels. In my State of South Australia, the seat of Grey currently accounts for some 90 per cent of the area of South Australia. I think a much larger area, following an ordinary redistribution, could mean a much harder job for the MP in that district. It would mean that the MP's constituents would also see him somewhat less. Do not let us forget that since the 1940s, not only has the work load of members of the House of Representatives increased, but also the work of senators has increased with the increase in population. The proposal to increase the size of the Senate should mean that in a six-vacancy situation for a half-Senate election there should be more stability in government. Mathematically, it seems more likely that the party winning government will get at least three out of the six vacancies in a half-Senate election. I am very pleased to note that my State of South Australia should benefit from this proposal. As of 31 October, the average enrolment in my State's Federal electorates was 79,700. That is the highest of any State or Territory and makes the average enrolment of my State some 4,000 above the national average. The proposal to increase the size of the Parliament should reduce the disparity between the average enrolment in South Australia and the national average. I hope that we can in fact move closer to the principle of one vote one value as a result of this change. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders- (1) (a) The Senate meet on Friday, 2 December, Friday, 9 December, and Friday, 16 December 1983, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. (b) On each Friday questions take place at 12 noon. (c) The hours of meeting of the Senate on Tuesday, 29 November 1983, Tuesday, 6 December and Tuesday, 13 December 1983, be 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 10. 30 p.m. (d) The sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time on those days. (2) Government Business take precedence of General Business on Thursday, 8 December 1983, and Thursday, 15 December 1983. These times are proposed as an effort to get the program completed as quickly as possible prior to Christmas so that we are not kept here too long. Within that general framework I am happy of course to discuss details with the Opposition, the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine. Government Business on Thursdays is a matter which I am also happy to discuss within this general framework. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I know we do not want to debate this matter now since only notice has been given but I wish to make brief comment. I think it is entirely appropriate that the Government should give us notice now, rather than when we come back the week after next, of what it proposes for our sitting times, so I welcome the fact that the notice has been given. I also welcome the fact that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) suggests that we should have the opportunity to think about the matter and discuss details before the matter is finalised in 10 days or so. There may well be some concern around the Senate chamber that, in following what the Government has proposed, we may be burning the candle at both ends in that the sitting hours are to be supplemented by evening sittings on Tuesdays, but the Opposition wishes the Senate to have appropriate time to debate the Government's program in a reasonable way. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that, although the Government has mentioned that we have spent a lot of time, for example, on the Appropriation Bills, this week the Opposition has not brought forward any matters of public importance, which has saved a number of hours of the time which is normally taken up by the Opposition. We have done that because legislation of the sort which is currently before the Senate is of great interest to a large number of honourable senators and invites a great deal of debate. We will endeavour to co- operate with the Government to the extent that we want there to be appropriate debating time for important Government legislation which is of great interest to this chamber. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being near the hour of 12 noon, I shall call on Questions without Notice. Before calling anyone, however, I should mention that for purposes of Australian Broadcasting Corporation news broadcasts, I shall be lifting the Senate at one minute to one o'clock. Senator CHANEY —Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of reports concerning the introduction of a 38-hour week in the clothing industry early next year? Does he agree with industry projections that the cost of the 38-hour week, combined with national wage increases, will add over 12 per cent to the cost of production? Does he agree that wage increases and reduced hours can only lead to further loss of jobs and further tendency towards the use of outworkers and the sending of Australian jobs overseas? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the proposed introduction of a 38-hour week in the industry to which Senator Chaney referred in 1984. I am not aware of any particular comment which suggests that the increase in cost to the industry of that projected change will be about 12 per cent. Senator Peter Rae —Ask Ray Aitchison. He will tell you. Senator BUTTON —I am greatly indebted to Senator Peter Rae for his interjection. I have been meeting members of the textile, clothing and footwear industry this morning, and there was no projection put forward of anything like a cost of 12 per cent. Senator Peter Rae —Read the papers; I think that you will find that it is. Senator BUTTON —They have had ample opportunity this morning to put that view to me, if it is their view. Certainly, I agree that the imposition of a 38-hour week will have an impact on the competitiveness of the textile, clothing and footwear industry in Australia, just as any wage increases under the centralised wage fixation system and indexation will have an effect on the competitiveness of those industries. As I have said in the Senate previously, however, these things are all matters for judgment. If the wages pause had been extended forever, by the year 2000 Australian industry might have been competitive with other industries in all respects, but that is not a consideration which this Government would take into account. I make the point that the textile, clothing and footwear area is basically the last major industry area to introduce a 38-hour week. That is a factor which also has to be taken into account. In a telegram which I sent to the textile industry and other industries and the unions involved some months ago, I indicated clearly that insofar as the 38-hour week was concerned, the Government would expect offsetting productivity increases in return for the 38-hour week. That has been a subject of criticism from both sides of the industry. But in the course of negotiations, I think that some very significant offsetting productivity increase arrangements have been set in place in particular firms. I very much welcome that and encourage it. Senator Hamer is not in the chamber at present, but he and I both visited a major factory in the textile industry in Australia, one to which Senator Peter Rae referred in another context last night, and I think that we both came away quite satisfied that significant changes have been made to work practices and so on which would improve productivity in exchange for the 38-hour week. That has been the Government's view. It is an important view. As I have said in another context which has been the subject of criticism, it is my own view that all these issues, including the issues of costs to an industry, have to be addressed in consultation between the various parties involved. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It refers to non-formal education for Aboriginals. Can the Minister say whether non-formal education is an effective development strategy particularly for Aboriginals living in rural and outback areas? Is the Minister able to advise whether it is likely that this type of education will be developed further, especially where the formal schooling systems have proved unsuccessful? Senator RYAN —I agree that non-formal education may have a role in the social and economic development of Aboriginal communities throughout Australia especially where such programs are developed as part of an overall educational and community development program. My colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, advises me that there are institutions conducting courses of this nature with financial assistance made available through his Department. The continuation and possible extension of such assistance depends upon the demonstration by grant recipients that their programs are of direct benefit to the Aboriginal community and therefore justify a higher priority claim of Government funds than innovative and conventional education programs. Senator MARTIN —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. It relates to an extract from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet annual report 1982-83, published and circulated recently, entitled 'Office of the Status of Women-Activities of the Office 1982-83'. My question is on the section headed 'Register of Women for Government Appointment' which, in part, says: Ministers will put forward names of men and women in equal numbers for government appointments, wherever possible. . . . The Office of the Status of Women will assist ministers in identifying women suitable for nomination for such appointments, drawing on its register of women qualified to serve on government advisory bodies. I ask the Minister: When was this register instituted? What does the term ' qualified to serve on government advisory bodies' mean, that is, what sort of qualifications are relevant? Are they professional, community or political involvement qualifications? Are specialised qualifications-for example, claimed professional qualifications-checked as to whether they are genuine? Who drew up the register, and from what sources? Senator RYAN —I am surprised that Senator Martin is not familiar with the register, who is on it and how it operates, because it was instituted by the previous Government. It has been in operation for some years. I understand that, when it was first instituted, the Office of the Status of Women contacted women' s organisations widely throughout Australia and invited them to suggest women who would be appropriate for government appointment. I understand that it has also advertised over the years inviting suggestions of women who would be appropriately qualified and experienced to serve on government boards and authorities. Since the change of government, the new Government has sought to have the register expanded by asking the Office of the Status of Women to go again to women's organisations asking for more names and some updating of information. The reason why we were anxious to have more names, of course, is that it is the policy of our Government to appoint wherever possible appropriately qualified women to boards and statutory authorities. At the last count, we had appointed approximately 30 women in that way. Ministers are not obliged to accept the advice of the Office of the Status of Women, but it is very useful for Ministers when seeking appointments to have available to them information from the register. Senator Martin asked what sorts of qualifications are required. As honourable senators would be aware, the range of boards and statutory authorities to which the Commonwealth has the right of appointment is enormous. We have women who have qualifications in economics, small business, community work, community organisations, education, and so forth. On the list also are a very large number of women academics and women whose main contribution has been through voluntary organisations and so forth. The register, of course, would be available if Senator Martin would like to take advantage of this invitation to go and scrutinise it. It is information available to anybody. Finally, I think Senator Martin concerned herself with how women got on to the register. I repeat the invitation to the Senate that any women's organisation, anybody who is aware of a woman who is appropriately qualified to serve on the vast range of boards and statutory bodies, may send in names and the Office of the Status of Women will add them to the register. As to whether the qualifications are suitable for any particular nomination, that, of course, is for the particular Minister making the nomination to find out. It is not possible for the Office to investigate the qualifications of every name which has come forward, but no Minister would put up names for appointment to a board or statutory authority, until he or she had satisfied himself or herself about the appropriateness of the person's qualifications and experience. Senator MARTIN —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I think the Minister misunderstood one part of my question. I asked: Are specialised qualifications-for example, claimed professional qualifications -checked as to whether they are genuine? My reason for asking that is that governments have had previous experience of people allegedly having PhDs and being appointed to very high powered positions; later it has turned out that they did not have any qualifications at all. It was those sorts of qualifications which I was questioning. Senator RYAN —I am happy to clarify that. I do not think the Office has the resources to check the claims to professional qualifications of every woman appearing on the register. If a Minister puts forward a name, nominates a person for a Cabinet or even a non-Cabinet appointment, it is the responsibility of that Minister to make the appropriate inquiries. Of course, as Senator Martin will be aware, when such appointments are made there are extensive inquiries as to the experience and qualifications of the persons involved. I do clarify the matter by saying that in my view it is the responsibility of the Minister making the nomination rather than the Office to carry out investigations into the authenticity of professional qualifications. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Given that Australian servicemen and women are and have been serving in a number of overseas peacekeeping forces, will the Minister advise whether there are any specific provisions under the Repatriation Act for these service personnel? If there are, will he advise me of those specific provisions and, if there are not, will he be introducing amendments to the Act to cater for them? Senator GIETZELT —Members of peace- keeping forces do come within the provisions of the Repatriation Act. They are eligible for consideration under Division 10 of that Act. From time to time the Government does decide to commit Australian troops, male and female, to peacekeeping forces outside Australia; sometimes at the request of a particular country and at other times at the request of the United Nations. It appears that in those circumstances all such personnel are recognised by the Repatriation Act, as long as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, whose responsibility it is to make the decision, designates by notice in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette that such a group is participating as a peacekeeping force. In normal circumstances, persons involved in a war because of a decision of the Australian Government are automatically covered by the Repatriation Act but in respect of peacekeeping force personnel a specific decision of the Minister is required. So, members of such forces are covered by the Repatriation Act for repatriation benefits from the moment of their departure from Australia until the moment of their arrival back in Australia. The Commonwealth is therefore liable to pay pensions in respect of incapacity or death that has arisen out of or is attributable to their service in that peacekeeping force. Of course that includes incapacity or death arising out of travel to or from that particular country. I am advised that Australian personnel are currently serving in a number of such multinational peacekpeing forces in the Sinai, Uganda, Kashmir and on the border of Syria and Lebanon. At the moment something like 120 personnel, mainly from the Royal Australian Air Force, based in the Sinai, are serving in such forces. I am further advised that those members of the Australian Federal Police serving in Cyprus are not covered by the Repatriation Act. I think that is a matter that the Government will have to examine. Senator MASON —Did the Minister for Resources and Energy see the statements in the Australian Financial Review yesterday by the President of the Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia, Mr Ian Whiteley, that he believed oil shortages could occur as early as 1985-86, which is not very far off, prompting a sharp increase in what had been stable oil prices? The article states: Mr Whiteley warned that world stockpiles of oil were likely to have fallen to the equivalent of only 50 days' consumption by the end of this year, compared to 65 days' in June and 115 days' at the end of 1981. He regarded this as a potentially dangerous level of reserves, especially if there is a major conflict in the Middle East next year. Again that background I ask the Minister: Why, in these circumstances, is the Government betraying the interests of Australians by selling our locally produced oil on the export market? Is the reason that the Government wishes to keep up its tax revenues? Will the Government reconsider the serious likely consequences of selling off our small and diminishing resources of a commodity, every litre of which will in future be vital to this country? Senator WALSH —Senator Mason has asked a number of questions. The answer to the first is yes, I did see Mr Whiteley's comments. Indeed, I answered a similar question yesterday on the same subject or arising from it. To deal with the other points, the forecast that there would be a shortage of oil by 1985-86 is certainly not in accordance with the information which is available to the Government. I would go so far as to say that barring serious disruption to supplies caused either by political instability or by some natural disaster it is certainly not a realistic expectation that there will be world shortages at that time although, in the long term, one must expect real petroleum prices to increase. I am not able to confirm or deny whether world stocks have fallen from 65 days' supply in June to a forecast 50 at the end of this year. The real point of Senator Mason's question was the Government's decision to permit, on a cargo by cargo basis, exports of Australian crude oil surplus to domestic refiners requirements. I take the point that he has put, that relative to other energy and mineral resources, Australia's reserves of oil are very limited. The logical extension of the argument which he has been putting would lead us to shut down production in Bass Strait and save all of the oil which is currently being produced and consumed within Australia for some time in the future because it would be possible at this stage to replace Australian crude entirely with imported crude. That is not an option which, as far as I know, anybody is seriously suggesting, but that is the logical extension and conclusion of Senator Mason's argument. The principal reason that the Government made this decision to allow limited exports for the rest of this financial year and probably, I would expect, for succeeding years, is that present production potential is surplus, after the necessary technical and other minor adjustments have been made, to the demands of the domestic market. Senator Mason —You could store it. Senator WALSH —We could store it, but it is an extremely expensive commodity to store, not only because of the cost of providing the tanks but also because of the capital which is tied up in the stocks which would be in the tanks if we decided to store it. I see little point, apart from holding necessary reserves for emergency, in pumping oil out of the ground and storing it in a tank on top of the ground if we have no intention of doing anything with it for a substantial period. The most important factor influencing the Government's decision is that we do have surplus capacity right now. There are strong indications that that surplus capacity will inrease marginally or even substantially for some years into the future. If Australian producers or potential producers were in the situation in which existing production was locked in for lack of a market it is, I think, inarguable that that would have a very serious, even a devastating, effect on exploration activity. The Government is anxious to maintain high levels of exploration activity and sees the decision to allow limited exports of Australian oil as an important component of a package aimed at maintaining high levels of exploration activity. Finally, to put it into perspective, the amount of crude which it is expected will be exported this year-I am going from memory here-is between 2 per cent and 3 per cent of total Australian production. So it ought to be seen as quite a small amount relative to total production but one which is, nevertheless, important because it provides the assurance which actual and potential producers need, that there will be a market for oil should it be discovered. Senator MASON —Mr President, the Minister mentioned a point which prompts a supplementary question. I ask the Minister: Has he had the experience I have had of a number of people who are eminent in defence attributes of this country in fact putting forward the idea that at least some of the Bass Strait crude should be kept in the ground as a strategic resource? The PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a supplementary question. Senator MASON —The Minister raised the point himself, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —I will allow it if the Minister is prepared to answer it, but it is stretching the long bow. A supplementary question is for the purpose of elucidating an answer. I thought Senator Walsh had done that amply. Senator WALSH —I concur, Mr President. I believe that Senator Mason's supplementary question, to the degree that it has relevance, has already been covered in the answer I have given. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. What medals or decorations are now available for reserve force members with long and meritorious service? What steps is the Department of Defence taking to contact former reserve force members who may be eligible for one of the reserve force medals or decorations? Are supplies of the medals or decorations available for distribution to eligible reserve force or former reserve force applicants? Senator GARETH EVANS —On 20 April 1982 Her Majesty the Queen of Australia instituted three new medals within the Australian system of honours and awards specifically for the purpose of recognising long and efficient service in the Defence Force. The new awards were the Defence Force Service Medal for members of the permanent forces, the Reserve Force Decoration for officers of the reserve forces and the Reserve Force Medal for other ranks of the reserve forces . The Reserve Force Decoration and the Reserve Force Medal are for members and former members, as one would expect, of the reserve forces. The following steps have been or are being taken by the Services to contact eligible members and former members of the reserve forces. As far as the Navy is concerned, information has been placed in Reserve newsletters and advertisements will shortly be placed in newspapers. As far as the Army is concerned, advertisements have been placed in major city newspapers and corps magazines and newsletters. Information has also been widely disseminated to reserve units. As far as the Air force is concerned, all Reserve units have been requested to supply names of eligible members and former members of the Reserve. I understand that supplies of the medals and decorations are available for distribution. It is expected that the initial recommendations for awards of the new medals will be submitted to the Governor-General before the end of the year. I might add that if any personnel who happen to be listening to this broadcast or hear about it believe they are eligible for these awards-- Senator Grimes —Send them a cheerio. Senator GARETH EVANS —Apart from sending them a cheerio, as Senator Grimes suggests, might I suggest that they apply to their respective Service offices for further information. Senator PETER BAUME —I draw the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to newspaper reports which appear today indicating that the Commonwealth Schools Commission has released a report on computer education and that articles in the newspapers go on to discuss the content and implications of the report. Why has this report, available to journalists, not been made available to parliamentarians? Is she aware that the report is not available even now from the Senate Records Office and that it has not been tabled? Why have parliamentarians neither received nor had access to this important document here in the Parliament where a Bill presently before us asks us to approve the program which is the subject of the discussion paper? If it is not the intention of the Minister to treat the Parliament with contempt, will she ensure that significant papers of this kind from within her portfolio area are made available here in the Parliament as well as to journalists when they are released? Senator RYAN —The decision to publish the report was a decision of the Schools Commission. I do not know why it has not made it available to honourable senators. I hope that all honourable senators will address themselves to this report. It is a most important report because it deals with a very important innovation which the Commonwealth Government is funding. Senator Peter Baume is quite right to complain that parliamentarians ought to have access to it. I will make sure that this defect in the dissemination of the report is corrected as soon as possible and that Senator Baume has a copy of the report. Senator Peter Baume —And for the future, Minister. Senator RYAN —Senator Baume is giving me a little bit of advice across the table on how to manage these affairs. I will make sure that Senator Baume has a copy within the next hour. Senator PETER BAUME —I have a supplementary question. I did ask the Minister whether she will ensure that in future important reports like this from within her portfolio are made available within the Parliament as well as to journalists . Senator RYAN —It is the desire of this Government to make as much information available as is possible, both to the public and to the Parliament. As Senator Peter Baume will be aware, we have a very difficult timetable situation on our hands. I will be seeking opportunities to table all reports. Another report in which Senator Baume will be interested is the participation and equity report. I will be seeking an opportunity to table that too. However, as I said, I will investigate the availability of these reports for honourable senators and make them available as soon as possible. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Does the Minister recall an outrageous advertisement which appeared in the Tasmanian Press earlier this month in which over 100 medical practitioners indicated that they rejected the Medicare scheme? Is it also a fact that, either by legally binding arrangements imposed by the previous Government, such as on optometrists, or by virtue of the ethics of practice guidelines issued by associations of medical practitioners, medical practitioners and optometrists wishing to participate in the bulk billing arrangements under the Medicare scheme are prohibited from advertising that fact ? Will the Minister undertake such steps as are necessary to review the law and undertake discussions with associations of medical practitioners in order to ensure that those wishing to participate in the bulk billing arrangement under Medicare can inform potential patients of their desire to so participate? Senator GRIMES —I do recall the advertisement to which Senator Tate refers. I think I made mention of it in the Senate a couple of times. I also am aware that there is an arrangement with optometrists-I understand that it arose out of a discussion between the optometrical association and the previous Government- whereby optometrists who bulk bill under the existing health scheme are unable to advertise that fact and are unable to notify their customers or potential patients of that situation. I can inform Senator Tate and the Senate that my colleague the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, is presently reviewing that situation. He is reviewing the need for optometrists or, indeed, other medical professionals to be deprived of the ability to let their potential patients know just what is the situation. As for the medical profession-- Senator Walters —It has nothing to do with the Commonwealth. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry that Senator Walters is again demonstrating her ignorance. In the case of the optometrists it is to do with the Commonwealth. It was the result of an agreement between the previous Government and the optometrists. Senator Walters —We are talking about the medical profession. Senator GRIMES —I am now going to talk about the medical profession, if Senator Walters wondered when I would deal with it. It is true that under the etiquette- not the ethics-of the medical profession, medical practitioners are not supposed to advertise. However, in recent times a double standard has developed. It is perfectly legal for medical practitioners, like the group of medical practitioners in Tasmania recently, to advertise very widely in the Press that they will not bulk bill and that they will not have anything to do with patients who want to be bulk billed provided they put it into an advertisement getting stuck into the Labor Government, Medicare or the Department of Health. If, on the other hand, another doctor wants to advertise in the Press that he bulk bills and that he will give this service to his patients, he is not allowed to do so under pain of the disapproval or worse of the Australian Medical Association or his profession. Senator Walsh —What hypocrisy. Senator GRIMES —That is hypocrisy, as Senator Walsh has said. It is a double standard. It is typical of one small section of the medical establishment and it is a matter that I will draw to the attention of the Minister of Health. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. On Wednesday in Question Time the Minister said: I will seek information to see whether I can confirm that. The confirmation referred to the situation that next year not just the 41 schools on the hit list but all group 1 schools and all group 2 schools will receive less financial support than they would have received under the percentage link formula. The Minister also referred at that time to school fees having to be raised as a result of the Government's new policies. Will she now agree that those fee rises will be much greater next year in New South Wales and Victoria than she outlined on account of the New South Wales Government freezing the money amount going to non-government schools and the Victorian Government severely cutting such grants, in some cases by more than half? Senator RYAN —I have available the detailed information that Senator Teague was seeking about the group 1 schools other than the 41 about which there has been so much discussion. Apart from the 41 schools that received a small reduction in their Commonwealth grant, that is a reduction of 25 per cent, under our needs policy schools in group 1 will receive $10 less at primary level and $6 less at secondary level than they would have received under the percentage link formula. Schools in group 2 will receive $8 less at primary level and the same at secondary level under the needs policy. As the majority of students-60 per cent- in group 2 are at the secondary level, there has been no decrease in the grants attracted by the majority of students in group 2. Schools in group 3 will receive $2 more at primary level and $21 more at secondary level under our needs policy than they would have received under the percentage link formula. What this means, for Senator Teague's information, is that 85 per cent of non-government schools, that is, 1,870 out of 2,220, will be better off under our needs policy than they would have been under the previous Government's percentage link formula. The matters that Senator Teague raised concerning decisions made by the governments of New South Wales and Victoria are appropriately addressed to those governments. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. Do the Minister's figures confirm that all group 1 and all group 2 schools will be worse off than they would have been under the percentage link formula? The PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a supplementary question. Senator RYAN —It is very difficult when I spell out the decisions with such clarity and then Senator Teague still has to to ask. The schools in group 1 get less than they would have got under the percentage link formula. About schools in group 2 I said this: The majority of students, that is, 60 per cent, in group 2 are at secondary level, where there has been no decrease in the grants attracted by the majority of students in group 2. So the majority of students in group 2 will attract the same grant. It is true that schools in group 1 will get less than they would have got under the percentage link formula. I repeat that the majority of schools in the non-government schools sector are much better off under our formula, which is a needs based formula, which Senator Teague agrees with, than they would have been. The PRESIDENT —I point out that five questions have been asked by the Opposition today and there have been four supplementary questions. It is making it difficult to give a fair call to everyone in the Senate. Senator ROBERTSON —I refer the Attorney- General to the question that I asked him on 21 September about the Northern Territory Criminal Code. His reply to that question indicated that he was aware of the objections that had been voiced to the Code and that he was having it fully examined and analysed. I now ask the Attorney whether he can indicate what progress has been made with that examination and what further steps he proposes to take? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case, as I have indicated previously to the Senate, that the new Northern Territory Criminal Code, which was assented to on 4 October and is proposed to come into effect from 1 January, has attracted numerous representations and complaints, addressed to both the Northern Territory Government, of course, and this Government. As I previously indicated, these representations and the Code itself have accordingly been subjected to very close study by the Commonwealth Government in order to see what encouragement we might be able to give the Northern Territory government to make appropriate amendments. That study has included a visit to the Northern Territory by a senior officer of my Department and a number of consultations with officers of the Northern Territory Government on the question. As a result of that study of the Code, yesterday the Prime Minister wrote to Mr Everingham as the responsible Northern Territory Minister, requesting that he reconsider a number of aspects of the Code with a view to possible amendment of it. The Prime Minister's letter made it clear that it was accepted that not only had most aspects of the Code given rise to no expressions of concern but also it contains many provisions which have been recognised widely and properly as working substantial improvements in the law. The Prime Minister's letter also acknowledges that a number of complaints about the provisions of the Code have been found upon examination to quite lack substance. However, the letter does go on to draw attention to six particular matters which do appear, at least on the face of it, to justify some of the concern expressed. These matters are: The intoxication provisions reversing the traditional onus of proof; the provision that intoxication is to be regarded in certain circumstances as a ground of aggravation of an offence, to be reflected in a substantially increased penalty; the abolition of unsworn statements from the dock which, although it might be defensible in principle, generally does raise some very acute issues so far as the Aboriginal community of the Northern Territory is concerned; the creation of mandatory life sentences for murder; the creation of an offence of attempted suicide; and also the provisions relating to terrorism and proscribed organisations. Mr Hawke's letter concludes by saying that he hopes it may be possible for Mr Everingham's Government-should it of course be around long enough to do anything in this respect-to give further consideration to the matters outlined and to amend the Code accordingly. He indicates that he is looking forward to receiving Mr Everingham's views. It might assist the convenience of those honourable senators who are interested in the matter if I were to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the full text of the Prime Minister 's letter, which I understand has now been received by Mr Everingham. I seek leave accordingly. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- PRIME MINISTER CANBERRA 17 November 1983 The Hon P. A. E. Everingham MLA Chief Minister of the Northern Territory Parliament House Darwin NT 5790 Dear Chief Minister, I refer to previous communications between you and the Commonwealth Attorney- General in relation to the Northern Territory Criminal Code 1983, assented to by the Administrator on 4 October 1983. The Federal Government has received numerous representations about aspects of the Code. These representations have in the main, but by no means exclusively, been made by people of the Aboriginal community or their representatives, no doubt in recognition of the powers of the Federal Parliament pursuant to s.51 ( 26) of the Constitution to make laws with respect to the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. My Government's attention has also been drawn to published criticism of provisions of the Code by lawyers' and civil liberty organisations. On 2 November 1983, the Attorney-General was asked a question on notice by Senator Chipp requesting what action, if any, the Government intends to take. Finally, I have also been advised that the Australian Law Reform Commission has recently written to you setting out provisional conclusions in its Evidence and Aboriginal Customary Law References which are inconsistent with provisions of the Code. In all the circumstances I thought it appropriate to write to you requesting that your Government reconsider certain aspects of the Code before it comes into operation on 1 January. At the outset I should make it clear that I readily accept that not only have most aspects of the Code given rise to no expressions of concern, but that it contains many provisions which have been recognised as working substantial improvements in the law: examples include the clarification of the defence of duress, the ''defence'' of coercion which can reduce murder to manslaughter, the extension of provocation to offences involving property, and the marital rape exclusion. I also note that section 31 imposes a heavier burden on the Crown in respect to criminal intention in that, except where intoxication is involved, the Crown must prove actual intent or, failing that, actual foreseeability of the consequences: if the Crown fails to prove the former but establishes the latter it must further prove that a reasonable person in a similar circumstance and having such foresight would not have run the risk involved. I also readily acknowledge that a number of complaints about the provisions of the Code have been found upon examination to lack substance. For example, it has been claimed that drunken driving causing death could lead to conviction for murder. I agree that, provided the Courts interpret the Code in accordance with the publicly expressed intentions of the draftsman, this would not be the case. (It may, however, have been preferable to explicitly exclude the offences created by section 154 from the operation of paragraphs 162 (1) (b) and 162 (2) (a) in order not to leave something of such fundamental importance as a matter of statutory construction). On the other hand, there are a number of aspects of the Code which clearly continue to give concern. These have now been discussed at some length, pursuant to an invitation extended by you, by Mr Woltring of the Attorney-General's Department with Messrs Sturgess QC and Conron. As a result of those discussions, I am advised that further consideration was to be given by your Government to the three following matters: (a) acquittal on grounds of voluntary intoxication followed by punishment and possible incarceration arising from section 383 (consideration was to be given to the deletion of the expression ''to pay by way of fine'' and the repeal of sub-section (3)); (b) the mandatory life sentence for murder in cases where the convicted person is other than an adult; and (c) the 'sexual instincts' provision, insofar as it permits re-incarceration-as a person incapable of controlling his sexual instincts-merely for failure to notify address and occupation. I would be pleased if you could advise me as to what progress has been made in accommodating these concerns. Other matters discussed were not resolved, and it is particularly in respect of those matters that I now write to you. They fall into one or more of the following categories: matters which may involve breaches of Australia's international obligations; matters which appear to adversely, and possibly unfairly, affect the Aboriginal community; matters significantly limiting individual rights in a manner inconsistent with current legislative trends; and matters which may be thought more appropriately dealt with by Commonwealth law. (1) Intoxication-Reversal of Onus Section 7 of the Code appears to involve not only a departure from established legal principles but may amount to a breach of Australia's international obligations. It is in the following terms: In all cases where intoxication may be regarded for the purposes of determining whether a person is guilty or not guilty of an offence, until the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that- (a) the intoxication was voluntary; and (b) unless the intoxication was voluntary, the accused person foresaw the natural and probable consequences of his conduct and intended them. The doctrine espoused in sub-section 7 (b) has never been part of the criminal law in Australia. Indeed, the adoption of it in England led to the earliest statement of the High Court that it could not and would not follow a House of Lords decision. In Parker v. The Queen (1963) 111 CLR 620 at 632 Dixon CJ said as follows: In Stapleton v. The Queen we said: 'The introduction of the maxim or statement that a man is presumed to intend the reasonable consequences of his act is seldom helpful and always dangerous'. That was some years before the decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Smith, which seems only too unfortunately to confirm the observation. I say too unfortunately for I think it forces a critical situation in our (Dominion) in relation to the judicial authority as precedents of decisions in England. Hitherto I have thought that we ought to follow decisions of the House of Lords, at the expense of our own opinions and cases decided here, but having carefully studied Smith's Case I think that we cannot adhere to that view or policy. There are propositions laid down in the judgment which I believe to be misconceived and wrong. They are fundamental and they are propositions which I would never bring myself to accept. I shall not discuss the case. There has been enough discussion and, perhaps I may add, explanation, to make it unnecessary to go over the ground once more. I do not think that this present case really involves any of the so-called presumptions but I do think that the summing-up drew the topic into the mater even if somewhat unnecessarily and therefore if I left it on one side some misunderstanding might arise. I wish there to be no misunderstanding on the subject. I shall not depart from the law on the matter as we had long since laid it down in this Court and I think Smith's Case should not be used as authority in Australia at all. I am authorised by all the other members of the High Court to say that they share the views expressed in the foregoing paragraph. The High Court has adhered to this view and, in 1980, in R v. O'Connor 29 ALR 449, it held that an intent to do the physical act involved in a crime is indispensable to criminal responsibility and that acts the subject of a criminal charge must be voluntary in the sense that they be acts done pursuant to an exercise of the will of the accused. These were matters which the prosecution had to establish on the criminal standard of proof. The reversal of onus in respect of an essential ingredient of a criminal offence places an insuperable burden on an accused to prove that he did not foresee nor intend the natural consequences of his conduct in circumstances where, for example, he has absolutely no recollection of the events leading to his arrest. Additionally the presumption created applied to 'all cases where intoxication may be regarded for the purposes of determining whether a person is guilty or not guilty . . .'. Thus it could apply to an accused even though the reason why he may not have intended the act, or the applicability of some other defence, may be independent of the intoxication. For example, a mentally defective drunk will be presumed to have normal mental capacity. The effect of the presumption and the persuasive onus cast on the defendant is that, providing all other elements of the offence have been proved, the prosecution need establish the criminal intent or mens rea only on the civil standard of proof. In my view, this involves a radical departure from accepted criminal law standards and has serious implications for the precept that the innocent should be exposed to conviction. It also has serious implications in relation to the presumption of innocence and fair trial guaranteed by Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (2) Intoxication-Aggravation of Penalty Whilst I appreciate that your Government is anxious to curb alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory, there would appear to be a case for suggesting that the approach taken in section 154-which adds substantially to the penalties applicable for dangerous acts or omissions where the defendant is intoxicated at the time-does not appropriately address the real problem so far as Aboriginal people are concerned. In this regard I draw your attention to the words of Muirhead J, an experienced Territorial judge, in R v. Douglas Wheeler Jabanunga (Unreported, Northern Territory Supreme Court, 16 October 1980, transcript pages 27-9): (T)he courts cannot effect a cure or diminution of the incidence of alcohol induced violence, but the situation cries out for community concern, intelligently planned programs and action rather than words. All the courts can do in the meantime is to punish those who kill or injure, but the deterrent value of what we do is, I am afraid, precisely nil. The Australian Law Reform Commission appears to have adopted the same view in its Aboriginal Customary Law Research Paper 6 where, at page 99, it states: One thing however is clear. Despite recent moves in this direction, the more vigorous application of legal penalties for drunkenness is practically certain to be ineffective, resulting only in more and longer terms of imprisonment for offenders whose real problems remain unaddressed, and without any element of general deterrence. I would also draw to your attention the words of Forster CJ in the trial of an Aboriginal person, Ronnie Roebin Kamaranga, as recently as 16 September 1983: I mean these people will continue to drink too much, a lot of them, so long as their life is full of despair and futility . . . that's the basic tragedy of the whole thing. A tremendous lot of white European people drink too much too but they haven't got the same almost overpowering motives to make themselves insensible as Aboriginal people have. As you know, and I've said it often over the years, and it hasn't fallen on very receptive ears, but I regard drunkenness as being a considerable mitigating factor of black people, although what the new Criminal Code is going to do to this I don't know. I believe these views demonstrate that the approach adopted in the Code may be incapable of achieving the stated objective of your Government. (3) Abolition of Dock Statement Section 360 abolishes the right of any accused person, whether Aboriginal or European, to make a dock statement. Whilst I concede that the original reason for retaining dock statements may no longer exist in many societies, abolition of dock statements would appear to have the potential to operate harshly against Aboriginal people generally and tradition-oriented Aboriginal people in particular. The problem is best demonstrated by the judgment of Forster J (as he then was) in R v. Anunga (1976) 11 ALR 412. (Forster J indicated that he was authorised to state that Muirhead and Ward JJ agreed). He stated: I preface this statement of guidelines by pointing out that Aboriginal people often do not understand English very well and that, even if they do understand the words, they may not understand the concepts which English phrases and sentences express. Even with the use of interpreters this problem is by no means solved. Police and legal English sometimes is not translatable into the Aborifinal languages at all and there are no separate Aboriginal words for some simple words like ''in'', ''at'', ''on'', ''by'', ''with'' or ''over'', these being suffixes added to the word they qualify. Some words may translate literally into Aboriginal language but mean something different. ''Did you go into the house?'' means to an English-speaking person, ''Did you go into the building?'', but to an Aboriginal it may also mean, ''Did you go within the fence surrounding the house?''. English concepts of time, number and distance are imperfectly understood, if at all, by Aboriginal people, many of the more primitive of whom cannot tell the time by a clock. One frequently hears the answer ''Long time'', which depending on the context may be minutes, hours, days , weeks or years. In case I may be misunderstood, I would also emphasise that I am not expressing the view that Aboriginal people are any less intelligent than white people but simply that their concepts of certain things and the terms in which they are expressed may be wholly different to those of white people. Another matter which needs to be understood is that most Aboriginal people are basically courteous and polite and will answer questions by white people in the way in which they think the questioner wants. Even if they are not courteous and polite there is the same reaction when they are dealing with an authority figure such as a policeman. Indeed, their action is probably a combination of natural politeness and their attitude to someone in authority. Some Aboriginal people find the standard caution quite bewildering, even if they understand that they do not have to answer questions, because, if they do not have to answer questions, then why are the questions being asked? As can be noted from His Honour's remarks, even the services of an interpreter may not solve the problem. Again, the Australian Law Reform Commission appears to have reached a similar conclusion at page 69 of Research Paper 13 entitled ''Aboriginal Customary Law Problems of Evidence and Procedure''. At page 69 it states: What can be said is that the difficulties in giving evidence experienced by many Aborigines, as well as others with problems of illiteracy and poor comprehension of English, are powerful reasons for not abolishing the right to make an unsworn statement. In particular, it is regrettable the the Northern Territory, where these problems occur with some frequency, proposes to abolish unsworn statements in its new Criminal Code. It would appear that, at least in respect of Aboriginal persons, the abolition of the right to make a dock statement has potential for infringing the cardinal precept of our legal tradition, namely that the risk of convicting the innocent must be obviated. (4) Mandatory Life Sentence As a general rule, the imposition of a mandatory life sentence for murder would appear to run counter to current trends. For example, the ACT does not have a mandatory life sentence for murder and it was abolished in New South Wales in 1982. Other jurisdictions, I am advised, have the matter under consideration. There is the additional problem that some Aboriginal persons may be convicted of murder in circumstances where there may be a tribal or customary basis for the act, but that same tribal or customary law precludes revelation of it. Had the true facts been known, the person may have been either charged with or convicted of manslaughter. Whilst I appreciate that Territory law presently requires the imposition of a mandatory life sentence for murder where the convicted person is other than an Aborigine, the extension of it to Aboriginal persons is perceived to be a retrograde step. (5) Attempted Suicide The creation of the offence of attempted suicide carrying a penalty of imprisonment for one year is seen as another regressive step. In the view of many it is an attempt to make the subject of criminal law a medical problem. I am aware that the justification put forward for the creation of the offence is that it attracts police powers of entry and apprehension in would-be suicide cases, and that it is not intended to prosecute such persons. It would seem that a more presentable manner of achieving this object would be to either expressly confer such a power on the police in such cases or, alternatively, to deal with such cases under mental health legislation. (6) Terrorism and Proscribed Organisations Whilst conceding that terrorist acts can amount to offences against State or Territory laws (e.g. murder, abduction, malicious damage, extortion etc.) there is concern that the laws of the Commonwealth already cover areas included in the Code definition of ''act of terrorism''. Clearly any act against overseas and interstate aircraft, internationally protected persons and foreign governments should, in the eyes of the international community, be within the domain of Commonwealth law. Similar considerations apply to terrorism aimed at, for example, the overthrow of the Government or capable of affecting the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth or the sovereign integrity of the Commonwealth. These areas are to be further examined during the major review of the Commonwealth Crimes Act which, as was announced recently, is to be conducted next year. With respect to the provisions relating to proscribed organisations I note that , under section 51, the Administrator may make regulations proscribing an organisation which either: (a) in the opinion of the Executive Council has as its objects the use of violence to achieve its ends; or (b) the members of which, in the opinion of the Executive Council, have, in the Territory or elsewhere, demonstrated a propensity to use violence to achieve the organisation's ends. 'Propensity' means a likelihood or tendency, not a demonstrated past use coupled with reasonable grounds for believing a continued use of violence. The Legislative Assembly may, by simple majority, approve the Regulation. The framers of the Code must have foreseen the potentially wide application of this section, as sub-clause 5 exempts registered trade unions. Belonging to a proscribed organisation, soliciting financial or other support for it, knowingly making or receiving contributions to it, or arranging or addressing certain meetings of it, are all crimes carrying 2 years imprisonment. It is only the opinion of the Executive Council, and the agreement of a simple majority of the Assembly, which is required before these consequences flow. There is no provision, for example, permitting an organisation to show cause why it should not be proscribed such as that in s.30AA of the Crimes Act 1914, where the Attorney-General may apply to a Court for an order that a body is an unlawful association. Concerns have been expressed that this section has potential implications for interference with a number of civil rights, which Australia has international obligations to protect including the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of association and the right to peaceful assembly. I hope that it may be possible for your Government to give further consideration to the matters outlined, and to amend the Code accordingly. I look forward to receiving your views. Yours sincerely, R. J. L. HAWKE Senator PETER RAE —I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether it is a fact that he has, as an apparently leaked report in the Australian Financial Review of 14 November indicates, concluded his long awaited restructuring of the industry advisory councils? Is it also a fact that, contrary to the practice adopted by the Liberal-National Party coalition Government, there will be no Opposition participation? Is this another example of the Government's much vaunted but not practised 'bringing Australia together'? Does Bob Hawke, the Prime Minister, support this divisive action by his Minister for Industry and Commerce? Finally, will the Minister now table in the Parliament that which appears to have been leaked to the media and has certainly been circulated to industry and the unions? Senator BUTTON —A statement which appeared in the Australian Financial Review under the byline 'John Durie' reported on correspondence that I had had with various industry organisations relating to the establishment of industry advisory councils. I cannot say yes to the first question. The setting in train of those councils is well under hand-I mean in hand-- Senator Peter Baume —I think you got it right the first time. Senator BUTTON —Perhaps I am answering a later question. An announcement will be made when the membership of those councils is finalised. It is true that, according to the letter which I circulated, there will be no Opposition political representation on those industry councils. There will be no government political representation on those councils. The councils will be much more independent of government than they have been in the past. They will be supported by an independent secretariat. They will be task-orientated. They will have the capacity to invite anybody whom they wish to council meetings. If Senator Peter Rae is well known enough to anybody in industry there is even a chance that he might be invited, I suspect, under the projected program. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Will you attend? Senator BUTTON —By invitation, I will try to attend; yes. The third question is whether I will table the letter I wrote to various industry organisations. The answer is no. Senator PRIMMER —Can the Minister for Resources and Energy inform the Senate of progress made in implementing the Australian Labor Party's 1983 election policy commitments towards the better management of the nation's water resources? Senator WALSH —Last year I think it was, Mr Jacobi, the honourable member for Hawker, who has shown a long-standing interest in this matter, introduced a private member's Bill to establish an Institute of Freshwater Studies. That was a major component of the election policy which the Labor Party put to the people in February and March this year. I am pleased to report that the Interim Council appointed to make recommendations on such an Institute was formally appointed about two weeks ago. The first meeting of the Council was held yesterday. That meeting continues today. The members of that Council are, I believe, a particularly prestigious group of people and well-equipped to discharge the task which the Government has given them. The Chairman is Professor Quirk, Director of the Waite Agricultural Research Institute in Adelaide. Other members are: Professor Nancy Millis, Professor of Microbiology at the University of Melbourne, Dr R. J. Millington, Chief of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Water and Land Resources, Mr B. D. Scarsbrick, of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture and Fisheries who is Regional Director for the Murray and Riverina region, Mr K. J. Shepherd, Director of Water Resources for the Ministry of Water Resources and Water Supply in Victoria, Dr D. W. Connell, Reader in Environmental Chemistry, Griffith University and Dr B. R. Davidson, Senior Lecturer in Agricltural Economics at the University of Sydney. I believe that that group of people is admirably equipped to discharge the task which the Government has given it and which it has accepted. It is the Government's intention, as stated to the members of the Council, that it report within six months. While such committees have in many cases a tendency to require a little more time than they have often been allocated to complete their report, the Government certainly hopes that the Interim Council is able to produce the report in that time. I have one final comment. Since assuming office, the present Government has received the 'Water 2000' report which was the product of a study originally commissioned by Senator Sir John Carrick and the previous Government. I have responded in general terms on behalf of the Government to that report that was tabled last week and drawn attention to the particular recommendations of that report with regard both to priorities for funding and areas of neglect in the past in water supplies in its various forms and to questions of pricing policy. One of the points which that 'Water 2000' report highlighted was that the water supplies, in both quantity and quality, available to a great number of country towns, and in particular smaller country towns, were inadequate. The traditional methods of providing finance for water supplies have concentrated on other areas , to the detriment and exclusion of people who live in country towns, especially smaller country towns. That, I think, ought to be a matter of shame for the National Party, which has governed federally for almost all of the last 34 years , for a good deal of that time in New South Wales and for the greater part of that time in Queensland. It ought to be a matter of shame for the National Party that it has neglected the very people it claims to represent. This Government has taken some steps towards rectifying that previous neglect with the allocation within the community employment program of $20m to improve the water supplies for admittedly what would have to be a relatively small number of those country towns which have been so shamefully neglected for so many years by the people who claim to represent them. Senator HILL —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, follows the question of Senator Peter Rae, but refers specially to small business. Is it a fact, as reported in the Australian Financial Review of 14 November, that the Small Business Advisory Council has been abolished? Is it also a fact, that part of the Australian Labor Party's Australian small business action program includes the reform of the Small Business Council so as to give small business a meaningful say in Government policy? Does not the Minister agree that the abolition of the Small Business Advisory Council will not give small business a meaningful say in Government policy? What action will the Government take to redress this situation? Senator BUTTON —The Small Business Advisory Council is to be replaced by a Small Business Council, which will have very similar functions but will be a little more task-oriented and I think better structured than the Small Business Advisory Council of the past. Firstly, I think the specific concerns and interests of small business have been recognised in the proposed new structure, which will involve the directors of each of the States. Secondly, there has been further recognition of the importance which the Government attaches to small business-the question was directed very much to structure-in the appointment of a small business representative to the Economic Planning Advisory Council. Both those things are a structural recognition of the contribution which the Government believes small business has to make. Senator CHILDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Communications aware of a report by Susan Anthony in today's Sydney Morning Herald entitled ' Nuclear nightmare on prime-time'? The article reports that this Sunday night a film called The Day After will be shown on American television. The film portrays in graphic detail the aftermath of a nuclear missile exchange between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on an American town. The 1981 report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence stated: The Joint Australian-United States facilities at Pine Gap, Nurrungar and North West Cape are likely to be on the Soviet nuclear target list. In view of that statement, will the Minister inquire of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation whether it intends to purchase this film for showing on Australian television? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the question is yes. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government. In view of the Liberal Party decision last night to vote as a block in the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly against the proposed casino for Canberra and the likelihood of the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party upholding its Party policy to oppose a Canberra casino, will the Government withdraw its ministerial direction for a casino to be imposed on the people of Canberra? At the very least will the Government allow the people of Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory to vote in a referendum and have the right to make their own decision on this matter which will have a major impact on their lifestyles. Senator GIETZELT —It is fairly commonly accepted that the Government is awaiting the decision of the House of Assembly which is due shortly to discuss the fate of the casino so far as it is concerned. I think it is proper that the elected representatives of Canberra should have the right and obligation. The Government has agreed to delay the debate in this place until such time as the Assembly has had an opportunity to debate the issue and to make a decision on it. Obviously the Government will have to examine the views of the Assembly before making a decision. I am quite happy to draw to the attention of the Government and particularly the Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Uren, the question that has been asked of me. Senator Jack Evans would recognise, of course, that I only represent the Minister in this place. Therefore any decision about what action the Government may take along the lines suggested by Senator Jack Evans is obviously not my decision but one to be considered by the Minister whom I represent. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to an article in the current edition of the Australian Pensioner headed ' Rift Over Age Care-Office is still only a promise'? Can he advise the Senate whether he agrees with the statement that the Office of Aged Care must be basically medical and health oriented? Finally, can he indicate to the Senate whether, as the shadow Minister claims, the Government is backing off in its commitment to establish the office? Senator GRIMES —I can assure Senator Zakharov and the rest of the Senate that the Government has not backed off and is not backing off on its promise to establish an office of aged care. It is interesting to note that the shadow Minister for social security was formerly a member of governments in power for seven years and until 1972 for 23 years. They never established, or thought of establishing, an office of child care-I am sorry, office of aged care. Senator Ryan —Either. Senator GRIMES —Yes, either. It is interesting to note that the shadow Minister should come into this place and complain bitterly that this Government, after eight months in power, has not established it. As I said in the Senate last week or the week before, there will be an office of aged care. There is no rift between Government members on this matter. The Government Ministers agree that there shall be an office of aged care. Dr Blewett and I are in agreement that it should be so. Dr Blewett's involvement in the development of the frail aged policy of the Australian Labor Party for many years before the last election makes it appropriate that he, as much as anybody else, including me, should be the ministerial administrator of such an office. There will be an office of aged care. The announcement about the administrative arrangements of that office will be made in the next few weeks. No Government decision has been made to put this matter on the back burner. We will be investigating the general arrangements in the welfare and health area before we make our decision. We do not want to make them hastily. Secondly, yes, I did notice the statement in the Australian Pensioner that an office of aged care 'must be basically medical and health oriented'. That quote is attributed to Dr Anna Howe who is well known to some people in this place and who has a very specific view on the care of the aged. It is not a view I agree with. It is not a view that is agreed with by the vast majority of people involved in aged care in this community. By and large, the aged, even the frail aged, do not have as their basic problem the fact that they are sick. They have many problems and those problems should be looked after by the community and under the direction, or with the assistance, of a multi-disciplinary team. I believe there is no reason why that team, of necessity, should be composed of doctors although one would certainly, I dare say, include a geriatrician in any assessment team. I do not believe, and I do not believe that the majority of people in the community believe, that aged care is basically a medical and health problem to be solved by a medical and health oriented health program. I do not believe Dr Blewett or anyone in this Government believes that. This is the view of Dr Howe which is not widely shared within the community. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that the Prime Minister yesterday publicly canvassed the question of a capital gains tax for Australia? In particular, is he aware whether the Prime Minister said, on noting a reference in a book he was launching to Australia's lack of a comprehensive capital gains tax: I was very pleased to be given that piece of information. I will take it back to the Treasurer immediately and see if he regards it as relevant to what we should be doing in the fiscal area next year. Is Senator Button encouraged by the Prime Minister's remarks, given his own strong public support for such a tax? Does he believe there is now a good chance a capital gains tax will be part of the next Budget, contrary to the Prime Minister's election policy promise? Senator BUTTON —I did see the reference to what Senator Crichton-Browne describes as the canvassing of the question of a capital gains tax by the Prime Minister in the course of launching a book yesterday. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —It was really the day before. Senator BUTTON —Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has corrected the honourable senator; it was the day before. The Prime Minister said he noted the lack of a comprehensive capital gains tax in Australia compared with other countries. That is a matter of fact and record. When honourable senators are making speeches in this Senate eulogising the economic performance of other countries they might take that point into account. But I take the view expressed by the Prime Minister that he will refer the matter to the Treasurer who has a public profile on this position. I take this as an example of what some people call a sense of humour, Senator Crichton-Browne. I would not get unduly worried. Senator Chaney —A bit of whimsy. Senator BUTTON —Yes, a bit of whimsy. I would not get too worried by that if I were the honourable senator. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —But you are encouraged. Senator BUTTON —I am asked whether I am encouraged or discouraged. Nothing Mr Hawke said publicly in any way influences my understanding of his position or encourages or discourages me. I remain totally-- Senator Chaney —Unrepentant. Senator BUTTON —relaxed on this issue, and unrepentant. The question whether I believe that comment will make any change to the Budget is not a matter on which I intend to comment. Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2 p.m. Debate resumed. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(2.00) -Before the debate was interrupted I made the point that the Representation Bill currently before Parliament will reduce average enrolments in the South Australian divisions to a figure much closer to the national average. It will help to increase the value of the votes of the electors of my State which have been relatively undervalued in recent years by the current distribution. In 1949 when the Parliament was last increased it was acceptable to reduce enrolments in Federal divisions from around 65,500 to 39,900. In 1983 it should be acceptable to cut the average enrolment from 74,900 by a smaller amount to 64,000. It is striking that the proposed new average enrolments in Federal divisions are virtually the same as those which were regarded as unacceptably high before the redistribution in 1949 . Both averages are in the range of 64,000 to 65,000. If it was appropriate then to reduce the size of electorates, I believe it is appropriate now. The report produced by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform was first class. This Bill is timely. The reforms that will be set in train will represent a watershed in Australian political history. I believe honourable senators should consider the real question of whether we want members of parliament and senators to carry out adequately their two major tasks; that is, to represent the people and to contribute to national policy formulation. I believe the Bill will enable members of parliament and senators better to carry out those two major responsibilities, and for that reason the Bill should be supported. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(2.03) —I rise to speak on the Representation Bill which provides for an increase in the size of the Parliament; that is, an increase of 12 senators and 24 members of the House of Representatives. As is known, the Opposition opposes this Bill. My reasons for opposing this Bill are somewhat different from those of a number of my colleagues. Over the years I have been known to favour very strongly an increase in the Parliament, and I still do. I still think that now is an appropriate time to increase the Parliament. But there are factors in this Bill which I think have been greatly underconsidered by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and which, I am afraid, would lead to a highly unfavourable result for the continued existence of the Senate if the legislation were passed in its present form. We have to face the fact that there is a populist argument against increasing the number of members of parliament. I do not hold or support that argument. Senator Peter Baume —Do you think arguments apply equally to both chambers? Senator MISSEN —My criticisms apply more to the Senate. I believe there is a case for an increase in both Houses of the Parliament, but the results will be felt most disastrously in the Senate. It is easy to say that members of the public show by polls that they do not like increases in the number of members of parliament. Any poll dealing with members of parliament and politicians produces an automatic result, and this is the success of the media over the years. Senator Robert Ray —It has grown fourfold since 1949. Senator MISSEN —Yes, I noted that point when the honourable senator made it. I think it is significant that the size of the media reporting the Parliament has increased fourfold, but members of the media will very rapidly say that there is no need for any change in the number of members of parliament, not noticing the incongruity of their argument. The media thrives upon attacking members of parliament, reporting trivia and sometimes somewhat disgraceful behaviour by some members, but ignoring those occasions when the chamber is in agreement on any matter and failing to report substantially anything good that comes out of this Parliament. Therefore they have injected a prejudice in the public that anything that might improve the working conditions of politicians is to be opposed. I refer now to one of the arguments that have been put in this debate; namely, that we should try again to get rid of the nexus so that we can increase the size of the House of Representatives without increasing the size of the Senate. I leave aside the fact that I think there is a stronger case for increasing the size of the Senate than for increasing the size of the House of Representatives. It is my belief that because of the tremendous work which this chamber does and which the other chamber does not do in regard to committees and the fact that we are finding it impossible to cope and there is a risk of breakdown in this area, there is a strong case for increasing the size of both chambers. I leave that aside for the moment. The proposition to break the nexus was defeated when it was put to the people some years ago because a couple of senators and a few others managed to persuade the people that this would lead to our having many more members of parliament. I think it was a completely illogical argument but it was enough to persuade the public, against the opinions of all the major parties, to reject the removal of that nexus. The reason is the constitutional requirement that the numbers in the House of Representatives be twice those in the Senate and which limits, therefore, the way in which we can increase the size of the Parliament. I am quite sure that if we again put that proposition to get rid of the nexus the same argument would arise. A number of State politicians and others would join in the fun and games. Of course, there is something in that argument because if we had no nexus we could increase the size of the House of Representatives by a few members one year and a few more in the future. We would not be limited to having to comply with the necessity of increasing the size of the Senate by, say, twelve, which would make for a fairly substantial increase in the size of the House of Representatives, which must be double the size of the Senate. We should put aside the general populist argument, which is always to be found, that politicians should not be paid anything; they are a lot of no-goods and they do no work. The fact that we may work perhaps 60 or 70 hours a week, which I think would be a fair average for members of both chambers, would be totally ignored and probably disbelieved by the public. Members of the public, with their fight for a 38-hour week and so forth, would find it impossible to understand that most members of parliament work jolly hard and find it impossible under current conditions to cope with all the changes that are made. I heard the speech of Senator Robert Ray. I compliment him on the activity and interest he has taken in electoral matters both in the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and in his speech today. I find myself in substantial agreement with many of the matters that he brought before the chamber. He set out the changes in the duties of MPs and senators over the years and the number of major areas of policy in which we are supposed to be expert and in which very often we cannot be expert. I do not think the comparisons that are made and have been made in this chamber with the United States Congress are particularly useful. I have visited the United States of America and talked to senators and members of the House of Representatives there. In effect they are highly divorced from the people of the United States. They are really departmental heads. They have staffs of up to 80 or 90 people. The result is that they do not read their own mail. In fact, while I was in the United States in recent years one of the legislative assistants to a senator told me in a scandalised voice that he had caught his senator reading some of his constituents' mail. I said: 'I read all my constituents' mail'. He said that United States senators did not read their own mail but that the mail was divided amongst various groups of staff and dealt with in that way. Only the mail of very significant figures like judges and local politicians is read by the senators. Therefore, the senators in the United States who represent a lot more people do so with an excessive number of staff, in my opinion, and they are very much divorced from the people. A better comparison, I think, is to be found in Canada, which has a bigger House. The case for the increase in the Senate and in the House of Representatives is quite considerable and must be based not only upon the change in demands and requirements of members of parliament but, more importantly, on the fact that in Australia, with such a small Parliament, the executive dominates too much. I think that Senator Robert Ray mentioned the executive component on the Government side, but on the opposition side, which is always smaller than the Government side, the dominance is even greater. The fact is that the back bench needs to be larger. If we were to get 24 extra members in one House and 12 in the other we could expect to get a few resolute back benchers who would stand up to Executive dominance. I think that would be a real value of an increase. I have read what the New South Wales Branch of the Institute of Public Affairs has claimed in its report on the proposed increase in the number of Federal parliamentarians. I regret to see that my good friend Mr Christopher Puplick, a former senator, is one of the people who contributed to that report and to a statement therein about a smaller increase in the Parliament. Speaking of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which investigated this proposal, he said: At no stage did any witness, nor did the Joint Committee itself express support for more Senators, and indeed there are no arguments which support this proposition. That is an arrogant statement if ever I heard one. The report continues: If then, the object of the exercise is to increase the size of the House, the logical solution would be to put the matter to the people via a referendum to do away with the nexus. I have already said that it would be a forlorn task if one hoped to do it that way. There is a case, and the case has been put in this House, for an increase in the Senate. I believe that senators would be accommodated and would be able to do a great deal of extra work, some of which is not being done at the moment. As I have put it, I think that the great value of an increase lies in the removal of the Executive dominance or in a decline or watering down of that dominance, which we have seen occurring in recent years. We can hope that among the new members would be people who would be able to contribute in that regard. There is no doubt that a staff increase is not the answer. A staff increase is obviously necessary. It has been a screaming necessity for some years. That argument has been put up by the Remuneration Tribunal but so far it has been put aside by government after government. One other argument which I think was mentioned by Senator Robert Ray this morning was that he doubted whether the new Parliament would accommodate, or whether plans had been made to accommodate, the increased number of members. Clearly, that is a misconception. As one who has served for eight years on the Joint Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House, I can assure him that this matter was very much in mind. The new Parliament House is clearly capable of expansion. One only has to go up to the site now to see the House of Representatives chamber, which is taking real shape, and to see how easy it will be to put extra seats in the chamber. It was also clearly envisaged that extra rooms would be available for a bigger parliament. That was always in the contemplation of the parliamentary committee. It might be true that here in this Parliament House there might be some discomfort for a couple of years, but I think that would be less important than the value which would come from acceptance of this proposal. It is never time to increase a parliament. That has been argued. Unfortunately, most of my Liberal colleagues on this side take the view that it is not the time . It never is the time. I regret that I cannot support this proposal because of another matter which was so completely overlooked by the committee of review, and that is that unless some change is made this proposal will lead automatically to six senators being elected for each state each time in the future. This would not apply in the first election after the Bill was passed, because seven senators have to be elected at that time in order to achieve the increased number. So in that election there will be an opportunity for a result, for a real contest to take place in the various States where one party which is more popular than another can get an increase. There might even be a result of four to two for the main Opposition and one Australian Democrat, but a majority is possible. I have doubts about and must disagree with some of the things that Senator Teague said this morning. But I have the same opinion that in a six vacancy Senate election 57 per cent of the population in a State would have to vote for a party for that party to get a four to two majority. That has only happened once in recent memory, I think, in 1975 in Queensland. It is unlikely to happen with the fairly even nature of parliamentary parties. Senator Teague presented an argument on the basis that the Australian Labor Party has never got, or did not in recent elections, get 43 per cent of the primary vote. The important thing is, of course, that, when preferences are distributed, I have no doubt that both the major groupings, the Liberal and National parties on one side and the Labor Party on the other, would manage, in a six vacancy election, to get three senators and, in many cases, would crush out the Democrats. I have no doubt that this is one thing that persuades the Government to have this form of election for the Senate. I believe that, unfortunately, the result of a six vacancy election will make, in most cases, the Senate elections in the various States a non-event. Perhaps the Senate might be then brought into some disrepute because of the unimportance of its election process. In speaking on the report, I have argued that this could be overcome by the election, in three States, of seven senators in any ordinary half-Senate election and five senators for the other three States. Then in the next three-year election the process could be reversed. Five could be elected from the three States and seven from the others. It has been questioned whether this proposal could be operated under the provisions of the Constitution because section 13 of the Constitution requires us, after a dissolution of the Senate, to create two sets of senators, one set continuing for a full six-year term, or eight-year term if that amendment is passed, and the other continuing for a three-year or four-year term. It requires that that division must be as near as practicable to an equal division of the number of senators from each State. I argue that any distribution that leads to a six vacancy election is one that is not practicable from the point of view of electing and decently upholding the position of the Senate in this country. Senator Robert Ray —What you are saying is that this is a party House. You have finally admitted it. Senator MISSEN —No. This is a party House, among other things. It is a House of review, it is a party House and, to some degree, it is a States House. It has all those features. We live in a situation where party government generally prevails in this country. I do not think there is any surprise about that. I believe that we need a situation whereby a government which is very popular has a small majority in the Senate. But I believe that when we have a seven vacancy election, after we get past the first election we will rapidly get ourselves to the position where perhaps the Labor Party will always have a blocking majority or blocking minority. It will have half the senators. By the time the opposing party, in government, has elected the President of the Senate-and it will have to have a majority to pass anything through the Senate-the Labor Party would be able to stop any legislation from being passed. If it wants to do something on a negative basis then it would have a negative blocking majority. But we on this side might also have the same thing. I believe that a government which has proved popular and been re-elected ought to be entitled to expect a small majority in the Senate and to get its legislation through without having to rely on others. On the other hand, if we have a six vacancy Senate election we will probably have what Senator Macklin was getting at this morning; that is, we will have a government that is not supported by a majority of the people having a veto on whatever the other parties want to do in the chamber. For example, no doubt the Democrats will be reduced very much in size and, with the other parties on this side of the House, there will be a situation where those parties, between them, may represent the majority of the people but they will not be able to get legislation through this chamber. The people who will finish up running this chamber will probably be Senator Harradine and perhaps Senator Chipp, if he survives in this process. I do not think that Houses which are dominated by one or two individuals are desirable and I think it is a very undemocratic process. I fear what will result by the Government not thinking through this proposal and not thinking through the proposal I made that we should have groups of sevens and fives and therefore get a result. I know that Senator Evans, the Attorney-General, received an opinion-he supplied me with a copy of it-from an officer in his Department about whether my proposal was feasible. The officer mistook the first part of my proposal because he did not realise that I was not talking about the first election, which must be for seven senators anyway. However, thereafter he said in the opinion: As you indicated, there is a problem with s.13. That provision requires that after a double dissolution 'the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly equal in number as practicable'. In my view, any division of senators for a State into groups of 7 and 5 after a double dissolution would be inconsistent with this provision. One would then expect he would go on to give reasons for that view, but unfortunately he does not do any such thing. It is just a sheer assertion on the part of some junior officer of the Attorney-General's Department that that is not the correct meaning. But if he is right, I think we will still have to come back to this problem. If this Bill goes through and we are stuck with the equal number of senators, within a few years we will have to come back to bring the Senate into some sensible voting system. We would then be able to put a constitutional amendment to the people. I have no doubt that, if faced with the choice not of increasing the Parliament or otherwise, because that would have long since been done, but of deciding whether they wanted a practical election that had a result in the Senate or would be content to just have the six all, the people would vote for that first alternative in the proposal which I put forward. I believe it is a fundamental defect to this Bill that it will provide the Senate soon with a deadlock situation which will be quite disastrous for firm government in this country. It will put us and the government in the hands of one or two individuals who may delight in having that excessive power but it will not be a good thing for democracy in this country and it will not be majority rule in this country. Because of that serious defect I therefore must vote against the Bill. I do it with great regret because of the fact that I think there is a good case for increasing the Parliament. I am sorry that the Attorney-General and his Department are so arrogant about this that they have not looked at any alternatives and have therefore been content to go along with it. I would even give them the benefit of the doubt that they did not intend to emasculate the Senate if I could see some evidence of it, but that will be the effect, in my opinion, if this legislation is allowed to continue. If it goes through we will have to come back to repair this situation after the event. True, there will be time to do that because there is first to be an election with seven and then, two or three years later, there is to be an election where the sixes would take place. So there would be time, and no doubt we will put constitutional amendments before the people in that period. I believe that, because of the inherent defect and the unthought-out nature of this proposal in its dealing and effect on the Senate, it must be opposed. For that reason I vote against the Bill. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(2.24) —In debating this proposal, the Representation Bill 1983, to increase the size of the Parliament-the House of Representatives and the Senate-it is entirely appropriate that we should spend some time discussing the effect of this proposal on the Senate. Senator Missen has, in his usual eloquent and well thought out way, put forward a very detailed argument in terms of what effect this proposal will have on the political realities of the Senate and how those political realities will overwhelm the opportunities the Senate has to carry out its duties. I will say a little later on a few more words on my views on this. I commend Senator Missen's speech to the members of the Government and hope that they give it the usual high regard that they give his speeches. There has been an air of some unreality for me in listening to this debate today, here in a House of Parliament of which we are very proud. We are very proud of the fact that we have democratically elected assemblies and governments in this country and yet the very issues of democracy are ones that are not issues in this debate. I have found that air of unreality grow as I have heard Labor senators saying that one of the reasons we need more members of parliament is so that we can better serve the people. I think that Senator Maguire, a Labor senator from South Australia, actually said that one of our main tasks was to serve the wishes of the people and in describing our task he was giving that as justification for needing more members of parliament. It is the height of absurdity, if not of hypocrisy, on the part of the Labor Party to be advancing arguments such as that in the face of quite overwhelming popular opposition to the proposal. There has been reference to some Morgan gallup polls during this debate today and reference to a gallup poll of a couple of months ago which showed that 76 per cent of Australians were opposed to an increase in the number of members of parliament. Later in the debate Senator Walters was good enough to outline to the Senate a more recent gallup poll than the poll to which the Press seems to refer all the time and that is one which was taken early this month, which showed, as I recall, that 83 per cent of people were opposed to an increase in the number of members of parliament. It is interesting that there is even that much shift, given that the position was so strong to start with. It has been in the last month that there has been so much public debate and awareness of the fact that the number of members of parliament is about to increase. So those who have advocated an increase in the number of members of parliament have obviously been abysmal failures in their attempt to persuade people that there is a need for more, because their best efforts have only managed to increase the percentage of people who are opposed to an increase in the number of members of Parliament. There is a further element of unreality in the whole conduct of this debate. Here we have, throughout it, politicians telling the people that what the people really need is more politicians. But the essence of a democracy is supposed to be people telling politicians. I believe the people will tell the politicians when they want more politicians. That is about what it comes down to-politicians telling the people that they need more politicians. Senator Grimes smiles and shakes his head. It was a whimsical smile. Senator Grimes —Could I ask you whether Senator Walters follows her dictum on such things as abortion law reform or other things? Is it not phoney to bring in that argument now? Senator MARTIN —Senator Grimes should have asked that of Senator Walters while she was present. Senator Grimes —I was not present, unfortunately. Senator MARTIN —I follow my own dictum. Senator Grimes —In other words, you only vote the way the polls go. You are putting yourself down. Senator MARTIN —I have a rather out of date list of speakers here, Mr Deputy President. I do not see Senator Grimes's name on the list. Senator Grimes —I am asking you a question. You are putting yourself down. Senator MARTIN —I see from the list that after I have finished speaking there are to be several Opposition speakers, but there are no further Government speakers until Senator Gareth Evans. There is room on the list for Senator Grimes. He is using my time to make his points. His speakers can make their points. He is very welcome to use his own time to make his points. That is what Parliament is about-debating the issues. But I intend to return to the point and to get on with the speech that I was making. We are under some constraints of time because we have been requested to reduce the length of our speeches. That is an additional reason why I am so reluctant to join with Senator Grimes in this very pleasant interchange. I was saying that here we have politicians telling the people that what they need is more politicians. I have never had a complaint from a constituent to the effect that there are not enough politicians. I have never had a complaint from a constituent such as: 'By golly, I wish that there were more politicians that I could ring up or write letters to'. I have had complaints from people about difficulty in getting appointments because I spend so much time in Canberra and, these days, Fridays as well. I have some gripes myself about the difficulty of finding time. But I have never had someone say, when there has been difficulty in arranging an appointment, let us say, for today, at short notice, 'Oh Lord, if only there were more politicians then my problems would be fixed'-never. Senator Missen —I expect that some say that they wish there were more like you. Senator MARTIN —Frequently they make comments such as 'If only we had more politicians like you', but I do not think that is really a proposal for increasing the numbers. I think that is an argument for improving the quality. That, of course, has been an element of this debate-that by increasing the numbers somehow or other we will improve the quality. We have had this plaintive cry from the heart from members of Caucus, from Senator Robert Ray who just had a little chat to me across the room and from Senator Cook from Western Australia . Senator Robert Ray very passionately told us that if there were more members of parliament there would be a higher proportion of back benchers and that in the party room the Executive would not be so dominant. Senator Ray was a little bit naughty because he should have said that he was talking about Caucus for a start, because in Caucus people vote. He was doubly naughty when he alleged that the Executive members vote together, because in the Labor Party Caucus, members of the Executive, I gather, do not all vote together. Members of the Ministry can vote in ways other than Cabinet has indicated. I do not want to get into that argument. I just want to say that is a lot of rubbish. The quality of an argument in my experience has far more often prevailed in the party room than have Executive numbers. Fortunately, on a majority of occasions, quality of argument and Executive numbers tend to coincide. But that is no argument at all because Senator Ray, if he were really telling us the whole truth about what goes on behind those closed doors in party rooms, would know that there is as big a risk of getting more sycophants into the party room who will not get up and say what they think because they are hoping for the next Cabinet appointment. I do not really think there is any consistency in the argument that more back benchers will improve the quality. What it is as likely to do is reduce the quality, because if we have the quality that we have, given the limited number of places in parliament, and Senator Ray thinks it could be higher-- Senator Robert Ray —You just do not want to get knocked out of the shadow Ministry after having made it. Senator MARTIN —I do not think there is anything wrong with being on the back bench. Senator Ray will come to enjoy it too. If this is the best we can do with the limited number we have, I would say that there is as logical an argument that by increasing the numbers all we will get is more people down the scale. If these are all the excellent brains that have managed to float through the political process to the top, that is as good as we will ever do. But I do not want to put down my colleagues in that way. I happen to think that the average standard in Parliament is really quite good. It is just a pity that more individuals do not get the opportunity to show more adequately to the public their full talents. I think that as we work here in the Senate and on committees we get a far better appreciation of individual talents. That argument really is a bit of a red herring. The argument that I really found intriguing-again Senator Maguire put it in his speech; it has also appeared in print in just about every document or newspaper story I have seen on the subject-was that because there are so many more issues these days in which the national Parliament is involved, we need more colleagues to help us. I have been in the Senate for nine years and in that time there have been more issues than there were nine years before that. I do not find that there is anyone suggesting to me that somehow or other we ought just to confine ourselves to certain issues. I certainly do not find constituents suggesting to me that I should not spend time on this issue, or that I should just spend time on that issue and that it is okay not to be able to answer either for government or opposition on the range of issues that are available. However many members of parliament there are, all will have to vote in this Parliament on every issue that comes to a vote. We are not excused from a division because that issue is not our specialty. Every member of parliament will play a role in as many issues as possible. The additional issues argument is nonsense. As has been said several times, what we need are some basic facilities to make us more effective. The problem with additional issues and the growth in the scope of parliament is that, as those issues have grown, as the Budget has grown , as the responsibilities of the national Government have grown, the means of helping us effectively to cope with that growth has not kept pace. Before I came into parliament nine years ago I worked in a university administration. I was au fait with what happened in administration and in offices. I would think that if I went back into the same office today I would not be able to operate half the equipment in it because I have not seen the modern equipment that is available. It certainly is not available to members of parliament. I was mildly entertained, I must say, by one misinformed editorial in a newspaper which said that we did not need more members of parliament because we all had word processor machines. That was news to me because just a little while ago I wrote to the then Special Minister of State, Mr Mick Young, and raised the issue of word processor machines for members of parliament. We have more constituents than in the past, certainly members of the House of Representatives , who like to write to new constituents on the electoral role. That is an excellent idea because it is reaching out and communicating with people, telling them who their member of parliament is and how to contact the member's office. Members of the House of Representatives certainly need those facilities, but I feel a need for them in my work, too. In the reply received dated 5 July 1983, Mr Young said: Cost is the major factor which militates against the provision of specialised equipment. There are 182 electorate offices and funds are not presently available to provide word processors to all. In July this year the Government did not have the money to give its present members of parliament word processors but now, in November, it has the money to have all these additional members of parliament. We do need more staff, although I accept Senator Maguire's statement about the risks if members get too many staff. I am very well aware, from my contacts with members of the United States Congress, that when members get very large staffs unfortunately a lot of time is spent managing them, which gives members less time to have access to people. The simple fact is that, during the time we spend in Canberra our offices have to keep functioning. Our constituents still have problems; they still need advice. They still want to bring problems concerning immigration, pensions or whatever to the office on a particular day and they cannot wait until Saturday morning or some other time when I have finished here-when I would not be able to do anything about it anyway. So the constituents contact my office and my staff handle all those routine queries. The honest truth is that the staffs of members of parliament do a very large amount of that sort of work. If members of parliament sit in their offices to answer routine queries, queries which come to them because people usually do not know where to go so they head for their member of parliament first to seek advice and assistance, they are wasting their electors' money. If they did not do that they would have the time to spend on all these issues for which they complain they need more time. I am not advocating larger staffs for members, I am not here putting a case for a specific increase, but we do need some increase, of perhaps one or two people, as well as updated facilities. It would by much cheaper to provide that staff and those facilities to all of us as we are now than to have more politicians. Eventually, in any event, it will come. There will be more staff; there will be more facilities. Last year my office got a second electric typewriter for my second staff person, whom I have had since 1975. So these things do catch up with us eventually. I did not have one electric typewriter when I was elected in 1974. That is the pace of things and that is very sad because of the pressure it puts on our staff and because of the way in which it makes us less effective in serving our constituents than we would want to be. I find 1949 numbers in this context a very poor joke. We keep on hearing how many members and votes there were before 1949 and there were many after 1949, and we are told that because an increase in members was seen as being necessary then as a result of the greater number of voters, an increase is necessary now. Remember that 1949 was before jet aircraft, electric typewriters-one thing that we have caught up with-and a whole lot of other things. For instance, now people have telephones in their homes and are able, even if they are bedridden, to make telephone calls to parliamentarians' offices. Senator Colston —Petrol was rationed, too. Senator MARTIN —People did not own cars. Very few people owned cars in 1949. Senator Colston —I just made the point that petrol was rationed. Senator MARTIN —Senator Colston makes the point that under the Labor Government petrol was still rationed four years after the war. It was indeed. A whole range of things have made us more effective, and so the raw figures are no longer an argument. Senator Missen —We still open our own mail. Senator MARTIN —Yes, we still open our own mail except when we bring one of our two staff here to do it. Senator Missen there makes the point that I was going to come to. It is one that Senator Robert Ray also raised. Senator Robert Ray, in about eighth grade debating style, took up the matter of cost of additional members of Parliament. He said that more members of Parliament may actually save us money. The strain of his argument, as I understood it, was that we have needed royal commissions to investigate certain things; royal commissions are very expensive but if we had more members of parliament we would not need so many royal commissions. That is a manpower question-- Senator Robert Ray —It is a bit simplistic, but nevertheless-- Senator MARTIN —That was his argument, put simply. He did mention that royal commissions are more expensive than members of parliament. Senator Robert Ray said that if there had been more members of parliament, medifraud might have been exposed a little earlier and therefore that money would have-- Senator Robert Ray —No, that is not-- Senator MARTIN —You did, Senator. Senator Robert Ray —I said it was a cheap investigation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! Senator Martin, could I suggest that you direct your remarks through the Chair and that might save some further interjections. Senator MARTIN —I am trying very hard, Madam Acting Deputy President, but I keep on having my eyes diverted by Senator Ray's attention and it is rather difficult for me to concentrate. Senator Robert Ray —You are not the first one. Senator MARTIN —It is difficult to miss him. Senator Robert Ray, from Victoria, was pursuing an argument and he did use the words, 'It may actually save money' in the context of medifraud and royal commissions. I suggest that we would be able to do our job better if we had the facilities, if the drudgery of our job was taken away. I have nothing against drudgery but, as Senator Missen has pointed out, the amount of time we spend just physically opening our mail or running down to the stationery room to get pencils because we have run out of them, or something like that, makes us the most overpaid messenger people in the world. If we had some staff to do that sort of thing and the time to spend on these important issues that Senator Robert Ray referred to, then we would be working more effectively, which is precisely what we are all talking about. The question is: Will the money spent on these additional members of parliament be cost effective? Are we just going to get more people in the same position of not being able to do their jobs as well as they would like? Will we continue to be frustrated because we cannot do our job as well as we would like to? Will it be value for money? I am not utterly opposed for all time to increases in the numbers of parliament. I can see some merit in what Senator Missen was saying and I can see some merit in some enlargement. But that is not what this exercise is about. If in 1949, for example, populations of electorates was the issue the number of representatives in the Senate would have been increased to more than 12 per State. If there was going to be any consistency in that argument we would now have more than 12 senators per State and we would have had an increase more than the proposed increase in the number of members of parliament that is being talked about now. But people have done their sums. For members of parliament not to be able to understand all the implications of a particular numerical increase is a bit like an English teacher who cannot read or write. It is basic to our job. I notice you smile, Madam Acting Deputy President. I realise that that might not have been the best analogy I could use. But most people would understand what I meant by that. The simple fact is that this is about what is to the best advantage of the Government. It has not attempted to produce any consistency in its argument. It has not at any stage attempted to produce a straight line in its argument on cost effectiveness and value on the will of the people, on the number of voters since 1949. None of those things have hung together in a coherent line at any stage. 'Make Parliament more effective', they say, 'but do not make individual members of parliament effective.' As Mr Young said in July: 'We cannot afford a word processor for you, Senator. There is not enough money for that'. But there is money for more Labor senators, more Liberal senators and more National Party senators and members of the House of Representatives. It is not an issue of money at all for the Government. It is an issue of numbers and who wins elections and, regardless of who wins elections, who controls the Senate. Senator Missen was charitable towards the end of his speech. He said that the Government by not thinking through this proposal will get a result that is bad for the Senate. Senator Missen is too charitable. Senator Missen, I think, was trying to cushion the blow for the Labor Party in what he was saying. The Government has thought through the proposal very well. It will get a result that is bad for the Senate and that is a result that is good for the Labor Party. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(2.45) — We are debating the Representation Bill 1983. This legislation, when passed, will have the effect of increasing the number of senators and consequently, as a result of constitutional requirements, the number of members in the House of Representatives. I think it is necessary when considering this legislation to set the stage by putting forward a few facts. The number of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives was last increased in 1948 and 1949. Since that time, among other things, the population has increased, or doubled, from 7.5 million to something over 15 million. The average enrolments in each electorate have increased from 39,948 to 74,989. Nobody would deny that Commonwealth Government activity has increased dramatically. In addition, more legislation is being passed and more committee work is being carried out. The story is endless. I guess that if we do not accept the need for an increase now in the membership of the Parliament we are in effect saying that those who have gone before us have not had much work to do. I think that would be a reflection on all those who have served this country well in both this chamber and the House of Representatives. We have all known people who have served in both chambers and none of us would say that they were bludgers on the community or on the taxpayer . Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that the work load has increased over that period. More people have to be represented; more legislation has to be passed; more committee work has to be undertaken; and so it goes on. Senator Robert Ray has already alluded to the fact that the membership of the Press gallery has increased fourfold. Since 1949, the Press Gallery has increased fourfold to report an increased volume of news from the same number of senators and members. In the intervening period, Australia, for better or for worse, has come nearer to the welfare state. Honourable senators can relate many stories of people who have come to their offices in connection with benefits that they have or to which they are entitled. They have spoken to us about things that have gone wrong, about cheques that have been lost in the mail and decisions that have been taken against them. The story is endless. In addition, the electorate now has a far greater expectation about what it should receive by way of representation from its elected representatives. We are often told that we have more politicians per head of population than any other country. If we want to make that sort of comparison we need to take into consideration the work load that is expected of politicians in this country. In many countries responsibility for schools and housing is taken at the local council or county council level. Therefore, it is pretty hard to draw an analogy between what happens in other countries and what happens in Australia. I understand that there are more electors in the electorates of members of the House of Representatives than there are in most electorates in the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, to name three countries that come to mind. Also, the work load on our elected representatives in Australia is not less than just about any country that one can look at, and is probably far greater. Of course, mention has been made of the public opinion polls that have been taken. If any person or any party does not take notice of public opinion in either the long term or the short term they will be in trouble. Opinion polls have shown that the people think that we do not need more parliamentarians. I would like to see the result of a poll which asked whether politicians should be paid or whether they should have an increase in pay and whether the taxpayers should pay tax or should have to pay increased tax. We all know what the results of such polls would be. There are times in this Parliament when we have to take decisions which might be contrary to public opinion. I pose this question: Do the people who answer these opinion polls really know what the life of a politician is all about? I think that very few of them know what it is like. I have found as I have moved around that the few people who do understand our situation have a great deal of sympathy for members of all political parties and the life- style they lead. Can any honourable senators say that we lead a normal lifestyle? Can any honourable senators say that we spend time with our families as people in ordinary jobs do? Whichever criteria we look at we have a different lifestyle and a different work load from other people in the community. I think we all acknowledge that our families suffer considerably when we come into this chamber or into the other place to serve as elected representatives. If we oppose this legislation, are we saying that the numbers currently in the House of Representatives and the Senate should be entrenched and that there should never be an increase? If we are not saying that, why cannot we accept an increase now when all parties in this Parliament agreed in 1966 that there should be an increase in the number of members? I take it a little further down the track: That proposal did not go ahead because the nexus could not be broken. At that stage agreement had been reached that the number of members in both Houses could and should be increased if the nexus could be broken. Has the work load decreased? Were those people who took that decision in 1966-some of them are still here now; many are known to us-saying that they were not working to their full extent and that we are just reaching our peak? Of course not. The work load and all that is expected of an elected representative in this country has increased. Of course, with shifts and increases in population, changes have been made to electoral boundaries. Some electorates have become much larger and, consequently, are far harder to serve. I will mention some of the electorates in my own State without examining those in other States. The electorate of Kennedy comprises 663,153 square kilometres which is nine times the size of Tasmania or twice the size of Victoria. The electorate of Leichhardt , in the far north, comprises 406,650 square kilometres which is five times the size of Tasmania and almost twice the size of Victoria. The electorate of Maranoa comprises 517,400 square kilometres which is seven times the size of Tasmania or more than twice the size of Victoria. There have been changes in the work load of members of parliament and in the expectations of the electorate. Many electorates have had increases in population. The size of others has increased dramatically. What is representation all about? Unfortunately, in some people's minds, representation means that they go into the polling booth on election day and cast their votes and that is all there is to it. I suggest that representation means far more than that. As well as being able to cast a vote representation means the right to be properly and fully served by one's member of parliament and to be able to converse and consult with him. He must be able to offer and be receptive to ideas and see at first hand community and industry problems. In short, representation is the principle of the visibility of the legislator. In recent times, as the work load of members of Parliament has increased and electorates have got larger, it has become harder for people to be properly and adequately represented. In other words, the principle of the visibility of the legislator is getting harder to uphold. A person who does not have access to a telephone is discriminated against. Other people cannot hear regular news broadcasts or read newspapers regularly. Others may have inadequate transport. The votes of those people are being devalued while that situation exists and when other people have all those things available to them. They cannot converse and consult with their elected representatives as well as the majority of people can. While electorates are getting larger people's votes are being devalued all the time. I notice that a notice of motion has been given about the economic impact of this legislation. I suggest that once we have a parliament we are committed to expenditure. If we do not like that line let us forget about a parliament and put in a benevolent or other kind of dictator. Look at all the money we would save! Once we are committed to a parliament we are committed to expending X amount of dollars. If we want parliament to work properly and people to be adequately and fully represented, all of them, not just those who live within two blocks of their elected representatives' offices, we are committed to spending X amount of dollars, come what may. I believe people in this country accept the fact that we should have an elected parliament and that they should be able to consult and converse with their elected representatives. Those representatives should be fully knowledgeable about their areas and the industries in them. On that basis we are obviously committed to spending X amount of dollars. When people realise that that is the situation obviously they will accept it. Senator Peter Baume —Do you have a view about the particular effects upon the Senate as opposed to the lower House? Senator COLLARD —I will come to that very shortly. Yes, I have. It is unfortunate that the nexus was not broken in 1966. Senator Peter Baume —That is where the problem is. Senator COLLARD —That is correct. I hope that the people who are listening to this debate-- Senator Watson —You are a Queenslander. You should be the last one to want the nexus broken. You ask Senator Bjelke-Petersen. Senator COLLARD —Senator Watson should keep his cool. He will have his chance. Senator Walters spoke on behalf of Tasmania and said that the Senate would be swamped if we broke the nexus. She has a complete misunderstanding of the powers of the Senate as defined in the Constitution. The Senate stands on the powers of the Constitution. It will not be swamped by the House of Representatives or anything else. If we cannot stand on our own against no matter how many people are put in the House of Representatives, we might as well pack up and go home. The powers of the Senate are in the Constitution. I believe the people of Australia look to the Senate and to its committee system more than they do to the House of Representatives, such is the standing of the Senate and its committee system in the community today. The Tasmanians are worried about being swamped. How Tasmania, as an original State, can worry about being swamped by the House of Representatives when, because of its population, it can muster only five members of the House of Representatives, yet it has 10 senators and, ultimately, 12, beats me. I say to Senator Watson that 'populate or perish' is still in good standing. I return to the point that I believe ultimately the nexus should and will be broken. I hope that the people of Australia who happen to be listening to the debate today will accept the fact that at some future time that question must be put to the people. It is something to which they must address their minds very shortly if this Parliament is to function and if they are to be adequately represented. That said, we are in the situation that the nexus has not been broken and we must go down the track of increasing the size of both Houses in line with the Constitution-in the case of the Senate to 12 representatives per State. I believe that the work load needed to justify such action does exist. The committee system alone demands that we have more senators . The question of manning not only the standing committees but also any select committees that might come up has already arisen. Since the nexus has not been broken, we can certainly adequately use the services of additional senators. Mention has been made of the fact that we could end up with a hung Senate because an even number of senators will come from each State following every half-Senate election. As I see it, we could have a hung Senate as the Senate is constituted now. All that is needed is for three States to vote, as to six senators, for the Government and, as to four senators for the Opposition, and the other three States to vote, as to four senators, for the Government and, as to six senators, for the Opposition, with an equal number of territorial representatives voting for each side. That would produce a hung Senate. I repeat , it could happen now, so let us forget all this rot about there being more likelihood of having a hung Senate if six senators from each State are elected at every half-Senate election and 12 in the case of a double dissolution. I pay tribute to the statistics section of the Parliamentary Library for its response to the burden that has been placed on it in the last couple of weeks since these Bills have been brought down. It has done a fantastic job in such a short time. None of the projections that it has made-having looked at Senate elections from 1949 to 1983 in relation to there being 12 senators from each State, or six following a half-Senate election-show that we would have hung Senates, any more than we would have now. Indeed, if we look at the double dissolution figures, which are basically the same-we have even numbers, either 10 or six being elected from each State-we find that in no case have these resulted in a hung Senate. In 1951, when there were six senators from each State -the situation that we are discussing now-the results were: Australian Labor Party 28, Liberal Party 26, National Party six-or 32 for the Liberal-National Party coalition, or Liberal-Country Party coalition, as it was then known, as against 28 for the Labor Party. How does the hung Senate theory stand in the face of those figures? Senator Peter Baume —Sorry, the figure must have been 10 per State; they add up to 60. Senator COLLARD —I stand corrected. There was an even number of 10 for each State. Never, when there have been 10 senators from each State, also representatives of the Territories, as I see the figures, has a majority been held by the Labor Party. For 1951 its representation was 28, for 1974 it was 29, for 1975 it was 27 and for 1983 it is 30. Here we had double dissolutions as a result of which even numbers of senators in each State were elected by the people, yet a hung Senate did not result. Thus, actual figures as well as projections arrived at by the Library confirm what I have said. The National Party supports the Bill for these reasons. Our Party, above all others, has always been concerned that everyone should have adequate representation. We are probably as conscious as any, and more conscious than most, of the inadequate representation because of the large rural electorates, the inadequate transport, telephone and mail services and all the rest. We are as conscious as anybody, and maybe more conscious than others, of the work load that is involved. I have put forward the position of the National Party and given reasons for why we support this Bill. I thank the chamber for its indulgence. Our position is now on the record. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(3.06) —I think there is a strong element of cynicism both in this debate and in the Bill we are debating, the Representation Bill 1983. There has been a great deal of talk about high principles but in reality various political parties are attempting to preserve what they have and, if possible, grab a little more by manipulating the political system to that end. I would like to tell those who look at the matter this way a cautionary tale. The same coalition increased the number of members of the Victorian State Parliament from 81 to 88. But I think that the Australian Labor Party is now very distressed at the results of the boundary redistribution. The result has not achieved the very obvious political objectives it had. So although one can be cynical in what one is trying to do, cynicism does not always triumph, which is a very good moral principle, I suppose. Nevertheless, there are a number of arguments for an increase in the size of the House of Representatives and somewhat different arguments for an increase in the size of the Senate. As others on this side of the House and I are opposed to this Bill, we have to look at those arguments and explain why we do not accept them. The first argument is that there has been a substantial increase in population since the Parliament was fixed in size in 1949. Since 1949 there has been a 95 per cent increase in population, or, looking at it another way, there has been a 91.5 per cent increase in the number of voters. The reason that the increase in voters is less than the increase in general population is partly demographic and partly because many more people in the community are not naturalised and are therefore not entitled to vote than was the case in 1949. By any standards, an almost doubling of the population is a significant increase and one which, on its face, seems to justify an increase in the number of members of parliament. The second argument that has been advanced is that there has been a vast increase in the amount of electoral work. The number of people who make approaches to their members of parliament has increased. I think that is undeniable. Even in my time in parliament I have seen a steady increase in the amount of electoral work. The question arises, though, whether the best way to deal with this is to increase the number of members of parliament or to increase the number of members of their staff so that parliamentarians can do their duties more effectively. Nevertheless, it is a fact that we have a great deal of work to do-much more than in most other parliaments. The other day I was reading the autobiography of the young life of a prominent former British Conservative Minister, Mr Julian Amery. He recalled when he was first preselected for the electorate of Preston in the north west of England. He visited the electorate for the first time to receive the formal acceptance. He was about 22 at the time. He spoke to the electorate chairman-he had not previously visited the town of Preston-and said to him: 'Would you expect me to live here?' The electorate committee chairman said: 'Good God, no! You are a young man. You want to sow some wild oats. You must sow those in London. Do not do anything like that up here'. Mr Amery asked: 'Well, how often do you expect me to visit the electorate?' The chairman answered: 'Once a month. If you come more often it will cease to be news. If you come less often they will think that you are neglecting them. Once a month would be just right.' I would hate to see any member of this Parliament endeavour to get away with that. People have a far greater expectation of what they are entitled to from their members of parliament in Australia. That expectation is undoubtedly increasing. Nevertheless, I make the point whether the right way of handling this problem is to increase the staff available to the members rather than increase the number of members. Another argument that has been advanced is that there has been a growth in the number of Ministers since 1949. Obviously this decreases the number of back benchers in the Government party, and the same thing happens with shadow Ministers and back benchers in the Opposition. Therefore, there is an imbalance between the Ministry and the back bench. I think this is true, but I do not know that we would solve it by the method proposed. I think the 26 or 27-person Ministry is absurd. Looked at on any rational, organisational principle, 20 departments would be plenty. The reasons why there are more than 20 departments are essentially political, but they are related also to the number of members of the party. If we increase the number of members of parliament we will undoubtedly increase the size of the Ministry. The British House of Commons has about 600 members, with over 100 members in the Ministry. I do not think, by increasing the number of members of Parliament, we will improve the balance between back benchers and Ministers. All we will do is retain the same balance and increase the number of Ministers, I think to the degradation of our standard of administration and to the very great expense of the community. Every Minister has to have a department with a permanent secretary, a deputy secretary, a first assistant secretary, and so on. It is an enormously expensive thing to establish more ministries. In my view that would be the inevitable consequence of increasing the number of members. Senator Peter Baume —Should you not have more Executive members, even if you do not have more departments, to ease the pressure on Ministers? Senator HAMER —I think we should but we should do it in a different way. That is a rather different issue. Rather than increasing the number of Ministers, a more appropriate way would be to involve more of the party through the device of parliamentary secretaries, who do not have to be paid. That is a different issue . I am merely saying that I am quite sure the consequences of increaseing the number of members of parliament would be, for inevitable, perhaps irresistible, political reasons, to increase the number of Ministers. Let us look now at the argument for more senators. No one seems to have advanced much in this area. The main argument is a rather negative one, that is, that we are compelled to do so by the nexus. If we want to increase the number of members of the House of Representatives we have to increase the number of senators because the Constitution requires the number of members of the House of Representatives to be twice the number of senators. An attempt in 1967 to break this nexus failed in I think the most humiliating defeat of any single referendum proposal ever put. Although we have passed a Bill in this House to put the referendum to the people again on this subject, I doubt whether the Government will ever bring that on, nor, I am afraid, if it were put would it pass. Senator Missen is the only person who has really argued for more senators. He argued that the Senate as it stands, with 64 members, is overworked and that our committee system is working less effectively than it should. I agree with him, but not for the reason he gave. In my view, the reason our committee system is not working as well as it should, although it has advanced greatly in the last two decades, is primarily because of the way in which we operate; our method of duplicating the role of the House of Representatives rather than looking at the complementary role and using our committees to fullest advantage as committees of review of what the Executive is doing and distancing this Senate from the Executive. That is a different method of operation of the Senate, but if we want our system to work effectively, as I do, I do not think the right answer is a totally unnecessary increase in the number of senators. Rather we should use existing senators more effectively and more creatively. I should like briefly to look at some of the other arguments that have been advanced. I have touched briefly on the increase in electoral work. We have one more staff member now than members of parliament had in 1949. There is approval in principle of a recommendation that we should have a third staff member. The current argument used against that is not whether the extra staff member is needed-clearly there is need-but where the staff member would go. Most people want to have their extra staff member in Parliament House. Frankly, there is not room in this Parliament House for every member and senator to have an extra staff member. That is the crunch-the physical limitations of this Parliament House. When that problem is solved with the construction of the new Parliament House certainly members should have an additional staff member. I mentioned earlier the increase in population since 1949, but is that a justification for more members of Parliament? There are two factors in deciding how many members of Parliament we need. The first factor is the geographical size of the country. We have a country which is slightly smaller that the United States of America; nevertheless it is a very large country. The second factor is the number of electors each member represents. Since 1949 the size of the country has not changed. If one looks at the problems of dealing with a large electorate one sees that many things have improved since 1949. We have much better roads, much better cars, aircraft and charter flights are available to members who have large electorates. As I mentioned earlier, our staff has been doubled-it will soon be trebled-since 1949. Telephones have been greatly improved since 1949 and matters that would have required a visit or a letter can now be dealt with promptly by telephone. That leg of the argument for increasing the number of members has no substance; changes such as I have mentioned have reduced the argument for an increase in the number of members of the House of Representatives. With regard to the number of voters, or the population-it makes little difference which one we use as the criterion for an increase-we must accept that as the population increases the ratio of people to members of parliament must go down. In the draft Constitution of 1891 it was proposed that there should be one member of the House of Representatives for every 30,000 people. If that had been the Constitution we adopted and approved at the 1891 convention, there would now be 513 members of the House of Representatives. I think even the National Party of Australia would agree that that would be too big. The United States House of Representatives now has 435 members and they have an average of 540,000 people to represent. Honourable senators should remember that the United States is a country very much the same size as ours, although the size does not come into it as it is just population we are talking about now. If we used the United States criteria for our House of Representatives we would have a House of Representatives consisting of 29 members. I think we would all agree that that would be too small. On the other hand if the United States used our present population criteria for its House of Representatives it would consist of 2,750 members as compared with their actual 435. Looking at those sorts of figures I do not think any case has been made as to why we need more members of parliament because the population has gone up. We certainly do not need more members because the country has got larger; it has not. Communication has become easier. The population has gone up but that is counterbalanced by improvements in communications. I can see no strong case for an increase in the number of members of parliament looking at international examples in other federations. But even if there were a case I cannot see any possible justification for making the change before 1988. Where will these extra 36 members go in this Parliament? Where will they be accommodated? What arrangements have been made for them? That is a physical problem. If we were to accommodate them there would have to be very substantial structural alterations made to this building in the last few years of its life in its present role and that would be absurd. It would be an expensive and absurd thing to do. There is not only the physical problem with this Parliament House. What about the cost? How much is this change going to cost the community? I would like to read a brief extract from a statement made on 7 September this year by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). This is what he said: In the future all-- I repeat the word 'all'-- second reading speeches of Ministers will include a statement of the financial impact of the legislation. These statements will include estimates of any significant costs, revenues and savings arising directly from that legislation where such estimates can be calculated readily and reliably. Where that information is not available, Ministers will include a brief explanation of the circumstances in their second reading speeches and outline in broad terms the expected financial impact of the legislation. We have had no detailed or broad estimate of the cost of this legislation. Thirty-six additional members! How much are they to cost? What about the facilities for them-the staff, the offices, including the offices in Parliament House, their travel and their allowances? What is the cost of this proposal by the Government? Where is the promised financial impact statement? I believe that no real case has been made for the need for these additional members of parliament; no case has been made on grounds of practicality and costs. This increase, which may ultimately be justified when the case can be made, certainly should not be done at least until the new Parliament House is available in 1988. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.22) —This afternoon the Senate is debating the Representation Bill to increase the number of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. This Bill to increase the size of parliament is but another demonstration of politicians' attitudes being out of step with those prevailing in the community. Looking closer at the tactics, they can be seen rather cynically, I believe, to improve marginally the electoral support of not only the Australian Labor Party but also the National Party of Australia in the House of Representatives to the detriment and to the cost of all taxpayers, since it is the taxpayers who have to meet these bills in the end. It is not only the direct costs; there is also a whole host of indirect costs which far exceed the direct costs of paying and employing a politician. Another view could be that this is a further demonstration of the Australian Labor Party's desire to promote its philosophy of centralisation to the detriment of the rights of the States and to the detriment of the Federation. What we should be doing is trying to confine the powers of this Federal Parliament and transfer powers back to the States where they belong. I think we are tending to move away from our Constitution and the intentions of our founding fathers on this matter. All the speeches we have heard this afternoon from the other side are just following the Parkinson theory: The more people you have, the more work there is to do, and so on. I think the tragedy-particularly from the Senate's point of view-is that increasing the number of senators from each of the States from 10 to 12 will mean that at each half Senate election with half the senators retiring there will be a greater opportunity for the major parties to secure three senators each, since only 43 per cent of the total vote for the major parties would bring about that situation. If there was an odd number to be returned at each half Senate election-three, five or seven-there is more likely to be a clear cut mandate, but at the same time it does provide an opportunity for minor parties to get some representation. I think one of the problems that we have to face realistically in the long run is that a continual deadlock of the Senate is more likely to reduce the power of the Senate in the long run. An even number of seats would tend to ensure that voters' preferences would be more adequately reflected. I think this is a very important point, particularly for the smaller parties. It is such an important point that the Australian Democrats have realised it and, I think, Senator Harradine has realised it. They realise that an odd number of senators being returned from each State is more likely to reflect voters' preferences. If the National Party will listen it will find that this is true. I find it quite strange that as a national party-a minor party-it has overlooked this fundamental principle because its return is very dependent on preferences. From my own State's point of view, all Tasmanian senators and members of the House of Representatives-those members are Kevin Newman, Bruce Goodluck, Ray Groom, Michael Hodgman and Max Burr-are against an increase in the number of members of parliament. The Tasmanian Executive of the Liberal Party is very much against any increase in the number of members of parliament. Tasmania would be disadvantaged by an increase in numbers, particularly in the House of Representatives, where its numbers would not increase. These are the plain facts . Tasmania will continue to have only five members in the House of Representatives, the minimum provided by our Constitution. Therefore Tasmania's proportion of the total number in the House of Representatives will be smaller than it is now. As members of the Senate, we believe we represent our States as much as we represent our own parties. Therefore, people from Tasmania are expected to vote against this sort of proposition. The proposal to increase the Senate by two representatives from each State is a ploy by the ALP to eliminate the minor parties and thereby strengthen its own position. I think it is quite incredible that our National Party colleagues in this chamber will not support the need to put a brake on increasing the number of members of parliament. I think it must be extremely difficult for some senators, two of whom, my colleagues Senator Bjelke-Petersen and Senator Boswell, I know have been under extreme pressure. I know they have pangs of conscience about this matter, but the pressure from the local party machine has been so intense that they have to follow what was said in the House of Representatives and not what Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen might think. Joh is right. I have a great deal of pity for these two colleagues who are under intense pressure. I only hope that there could be some delay in the passage of this Bill because with the passage of time reason will be seen to prevail in that quarter. Some honourable senators spoke of the need for senators to have extra staff. Although such a move would make life very much more comfortable for members of parliament it would remove them further from their electorates. In fact, members of parliament need to be far closer to their electorates and not separated from them by a plethora of sheltering staff. In many cases extra staff-that is, the unscrupulous or less scrupulous ones-would be merely ensuring working towards the re-election of their member or senator rather than helping the electorate. In so doing they would be entrenching the position of the parliamentarian and making it very much more difficult for outsiders to challenge his position and to succeed. I acknowledge that our work load is indeed heavy, but we must destroy the myth that this job in Canberra is an easy and lucrative one. It has been well recognised that Australia has a high ratio of politicians to electors. I submit that we do not need an increase in the size of this Parliament. Let us, in preference, reform some of our procedures and practices to ensure that, for example, the archaic voting system in the Senate is changed and brought up to date and that modern equipment is used to expedite debates. I believe this is a better approach than increasing the number of parliamentarians. Let us improve the productivity and effectiveness of parliamentarians. For heaven's sake, let us not increase the number of members of parliament. The people do not want an increase and it is not necessary. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.29) -I rise to speak briefly in this debate. The National Party of Australia and I propose to support the Government on this issue. I do not want it to be assumed that I have suddenly become beholden to the socialist political philosophy. Senator Primmer —Shame! Senator SCOTT —I am sure Senator Primmer understands that very well. The issue that the Government has introduced through this proposed legislation echoes an attitude that has been held by the leadership and the organisation of my Party for a considerable number of years. In fact, it was first promoted something like 17 years ago when, regrettably, an attempt to break the nexus failed. I believe that there would be no emotion to speak of in a debate such as this if there were an opportunity to break the nexus on this occasion and merely increase in some measure the numbers in the House of Representatives. There is an excellent argument to establish that as being a proper and responsible policy . However, I understand that the Government is not inclined, at least at this time, to consider enabling a decision to be made on the breaking of the nexus. I believe that the question of increasing the numbers in the Commonwealth Parliament is in the final resort a matter of judgment. There can be no doubt that statistics and a whole range of other arguments-they have been flying to and fro across this chamber for several hours already-indicate the logic, indeed the necessity, for true representation in this Parliament to be achieved by a modest increase in the size of the House of Representatives so that the constant enlargement of electorates in this massive country ceases and there can be a real closing of the gap in personal contact between the elected representative and those who put him in the parliament to develop, promote and implement the sort of legislation that they believe to be proper. Effective representation, surely, is the very essence of the democracy that we all support. Without effective representation we will slowly become the victims of executives and bureaucracies. We cannot allow that sort of thing to happen. Effective representation is not identified purely by a statistic. Effective representation surely relates to the real communication, the personal communication, between the representative and those people whom he represents. That is what I believe to be effective representation. It is the quality of representation that is important. It is not something that can be simplified into a mere statistic or ratio. There is also a need to recall the obvious. In any case, a Federal redistribution is due. There will be a redistribution. We have to be aware that ultimately, be it this year, next year or in five or 10 years, an increase in the number of representatives in this Parliament is inevitable. I believe everyone is of that view. If indeed it is inevitable, when is the right time? Clearly, it is never the right time. That has been said several times. It is common to read in the paragraphs of the news media and it is common to hear in the street, in the club or in the pub that it is always the wrong time to increase, of all things, the number of members of parliament in this country. So we have to start somewhat behind scratch, because it would appear that it is never the right time. However, the Government proposes in this legislation that the right time is now. Having looked at both sides of the argument, I believe that this is probably as good a time as any. If this chance goes by and redistribution takes place next year, it may well be ten years before the next responsible redistribution occurs and before the Parliament can once again look at how many members should be in this institution. As I have said, we will wait for perhaps ten years for that sort of investigation and determination to happen again. In ten years time, I suggest that the average number of electors in an electorate may be in the vicinity of 100,000. Already, it is almost double what it was 34 years ago. In another ten years it may well be edging towards the 100,000 mark. I believe that most reasonable people would agree that it is rather ridiculous to assume that one member of parliament is capable of properly representing that number of people. It seems to me that on balance a moderate increase in members is justified now, and if it occurs now there is every probability that it will see us through to the early decades of the twenty-first century. If implementation of this proposal is delayed for another ten years or whatever, it would bring us to a point about five years after the opening of the new Parliament House. The new Parliament House would be found to be already incapable of handling the work load which was proposed, a mere five years after its first occupation. I have already mentioned in my opening remarks that it is a great pity, in my view, that we could not have seen fit to enable the nexus to be broken. This would have meant that we could have increased the membership of the legislature without at this time altering the numbers in the Senate. There is a strong case, as I said, for a modest increase in the number of members in the House of Representatives. I will mention a few of the reasons for it in a moment or two. There is also a case for an increase in the number of senators in this chamber, because, as many people have indicated in the context of this debate, the responsibilities and the avenues of operation of members of the Senate have increased enormously both in width and in depth in the last 10 to 15 years in particular. The time of the Senate is taken up very significantly with the work of the committee system. The committee system has been making, is making and, I believe, will make a direct and positive contribution to the working of this Parliament. It is indeed probably one of the best braking forces that the electorate has on any government of any political persuasion and the fact that in depth investigation of various matters-legislative matters in the main-but a lot of other matters too, can and does occur is of very great significance. However, in the few minutes that remain for me to speak this afternoon, I draw attention to the circumstances that have existed in the Senate over a number of years. The concept of a Senate where the government does not have an absolute majority has been the circumstance for most of the last 30 years. Indeed, I think that except for the latter half of the 1970s no government of either persuasion has actually commanded an absolute majority in the Senate. As a purely political entity, I would far prefer that a government of which I happen to be a member had control of the Senate. It would be a simpler operation. I am sure that the Australian Labor Party would obviously sooner control the Senate. However, it is worth considering whether that is as enormously important as we, on the surface, think it is. I say that for a couple of reasons. There is the widespread allegation in the community that the Senate is not really worth a bumper because it is only a mirror of the House of Representatives anyway. There seems to me to be one way of ensuring that it is always only a mirror image and that is to make it exactly the same composition, majority-wise if not in actual numbers, of the House of Representatives. That would tend to make it something of a mirror image. It would tend to lend credence to the assertion that it is a rubber stamp. That takes me to the second reason. I believe that we underestimate, certainly in this Parliament and, I believe, in the electorate, the power of the Senate and the responsibility that that power imposes. I do not believe that this Senate, controlled by any particular group of people, an opposition or a small party can act irresponsibly. It cannot afford to act in a frivolous manner. Consequently, that power, that measure of responsibility, is a very real restraint on frivolous and irresponsible behaviour because ultimately, if whichever party controls this chamber uses its power and its control in a frivolous and irresponsible manner, its masters who are the electors of this country will very quickly, dramatically and emphatically exhibit to the party that it has done totally the wrong thing and has misused the power and the responsibility it has been given. I do not think we should forget that. I have heard a couple of arguments that are matters of interest. I have a great deal of concern for what was said. The view was expressed by, I think, Senator Jessop earlier today that the real answer lay in a greater number of staff being provided. I believe that a greater number of staff could certainly be used very profitably. But I think, from the point of view of the electorate at large, it needs to have closer contact with its own representatives. The electorate is not really interested in having X plus Y numbers of public servants to talk to. It likes to talk to the Senator Evanses or Senator Lewises and the various members of this Parliament. That is what the electorate is chiefly concerned with. I do not think an increase in staff would really get around the problem of having a few more members to represent the people of this country. It was my determination to exhibit some of the extraordinary difficulties of the vast electorates of Australia. I do not really have time to go into that matter in depth on this occasion. There are circumstances whereby in my own State of New South Wales two extra metropolitan seats have been lost in the last few years. There is the case of the electorate of Gwydir, which is now three times the physical size that it was 15 years ago. There are many electorates in which members of parliament, in travel lines from A to B, travel a distance greater than from London to Edinburgh. I know that my time has run out. I want to make the point that we do believe this is a serious and worthwhile contribution to representation in this country, and I would urge its support. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.46) —I move: Leave out all words after 'That', insert 'the Bill be not further proceeded with until the Government has provided a Financial Impact Statement in accordance with the undertaking given by the Minister for Finance in a Ministerial Statement made to the House of Representatives on 7 September 1983, and tabled in the Senate on 8 September 1983'. I understand that the Government wishes to intervene some other business at this time. If that is so I ask the Leader of the Government (Senator Button), whenever he is ready, to indicate that fact to me. Perhaps he could stand on his hands, blink his eyes, wave his hat in the air or give some such signal, but I shall go on until such time as I get a signal from him. The Senate is debating the Representation Bill 1983, the purpose of which is to increase the number of senators for each State from 10 to 12, thereby increasing the size of the Senate by 12 altogether-six States by two senators. That gives the House of Representatives an opportunity to be increased in size by up to 24. In fact I think under the Constitution the House of Representatives can be increased by about 27 with that alteration. That would mean an addition of 36 to 39 members of the Federal Parliament. The Bill has been debated practically all day. Arguments on both sides have been put. I think there have been many excellent points put on both sides. So I do not intend to go over those arguments, other than to say that in my view the arguments against this legislation at this time and in this way are overwhelming . I am cynical enough to believe that this legislation is in fact a devious ploy , a ploy organised and orchestrated very cleverly by a couple of astute people in the Australian Labor Party, the purpose of which will be to alter the situation so that the ALP can remain in office for much longer than it would have anticipated; and a further ploy to make the Senate unworkable, with the long term aim of having some constitutional change which will destroy the Senate . No doubt some people would like me to give some explanation why I should believe that, and I can do that quite easily by turning to the Australian Labor Party's Platform, Constitution and Rules adopted in 1982, the one with the Australian flag hypocritically shown on the front cover. I say 'hypocritically' because one of Labor's proposals is to alter the Australian flag, which ALP members wave as a banner at all of their meetings. However, that is not the subject of the debate. I turn to paragraph 4, which deals with constitutional and legal affairs. I shall read out the proposal. The Labor Party says: The support of the Australian people will be sought for amendments to the Australian Constitution . . . To ensure that the Senate has no power to reject, defer or otherwise block money bills . . . Also: To provide that the Senate may delay for up to six months, but not reject, any other proposed law. That is the long term aim of the Labor Party. As I have said, I am cynical enough to believe that it has that long term aim in mind with this legislation. Why should I believe that? I believe it because I have been lucky enough to obtain a copy of 'Labor Forum', Volume 1, No. 1, of autumn 1978, in which a fellow by the name of Dr Blewett, who is now the Minister for Health, in the House of Representatives, wrote an article in which he told the Labor Party the methods that it should use to change the Constitution for Labor's benefit in Australia. He wrote: Federal Labor must seize any opportunity that will serve the long term goal. I understand that the Government is now ready to proceed with its intervening business, Mr Acting Deputy President, so I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 17 November. Remainder of Bill. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.52) —In the course of the debate yesterday on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84, further information was sought. I have information in response to questions asked by Senator Peter Rae relating to the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation report and in relation to the review of Australian coastal surveillance. I have information for Senator Walters relating to running costs of lighthouses and for Senator Messner in relation to institutional arrangements in the wine industry. Copies of these answers have already been distributed to the senators whose names I have mentioned. I ask that those answers be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answers read as follows- Minister for Transport Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 My Dear Minister, I note that on 15 November, while the Senate was discussing, in Committee, the proposed 1983-84 expenditures by my Department, several questions were asked by Senators Rae and Walters which you took on notice. I would appreciate your passing on to the Senators in question the following responses. Senator Rae asked about the current status of a Bureau of Air Safety Investigation report into the loss of an Aero Commander aircraft in Bass Strait on 1 July this year. This report has not yet been finalised and therefore has not yet been made available to my Department. Seenator Rae also asked for information about the review being undertaken by the Minister for Aviation into Australian coastal surveillance. The Minister for Aviation, is carrying out this review in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. However, the review has not yet been completed. Senator Walters asked for details of the running costs of those lighthouses which are still manually controlled. My Department currently operates 41 manned lightstations. The indicative direct annual operating costs of each of these stations ranges between $38,000 and $267 ,000. Information on each of these stations was provided in the Department's submission in July 1983 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure for its Inquiry into Lightstations. A copy of Attachment 8 of this submission, which includes this information, is appended. Yours sincerely, PETER MORRIS Senator The Hon. Peter Walsh, Minister for Resources and Energy, Parliament House, CANBERRA, ACT 2600 . . . . Attachment 8 INDICATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MANNED LIGHTSTATIONS Capital and major repair and maintenance Annual Annual Cost of expenditure over operating operating conversion next 5 years Number of cost as cost as to unmanned which would be light- manned unmanned operation avoided if Lightstation keepers station station (a) station unmanned $ $ $ $ Booby Island 3 164,000 45,000 180,000 81,000 Low Isles 2 118,000 40, 000 160,000 12,000 Fitzroy Island 2 107,000 42,000 155,000 34,000 Cape Cleveland 2 118,000 40,000 160,000 23,000 Dent Island 2 128,000 11,000 44,000 (b) 100,000 Pine Islet 3 166,000 12,000 (c) 90,000 (c) 34,000 Cape Capricorn 2 111,000 40,000 160,000 40,000 Bustard Head 2 139,000 14,000 70,000 31,000 Lady Elliot Island 2 105,000 40,000 . . (b) 46,000 Sandy Cape 2 112,000 40,000 160, 000 32,000 Double Island Point 2 98,000 40,000 160,000 8,000 Cape Moreton 2 121,000 40,000 160,000 22,000 Cape Byron 2 80,000 9,000 40,000 72,000 Smoky Cape 2 80,000 9,000 44,000 71,000 Sugarloaf Point 2 81,000 9,000 44,000 92,000 Norah Head 2 78,000 9,000 40,000 78,000 Point Perpendicular 2 95,000 14,000 70 ,000 30,000 Montagu Island 2 137,000 13,000 200,000 135,000 Green Cape 2 101, 000 14,000 70,000 161,000 Gabo Island 2 196,000 45,000 160,000 41,000 Point Hicks 2 109,000 14,000 70,000 122,000 Deal Island 2 177,000 10,000 (d) 155,000 (d) 75,000 Swan Island 2 138,000 13,000 200,000 520,000 Eddystone Point 2 95, 000 9,000 20,000 (b) 81,000 Cape Bruny 2 94,000 14,000 70,000 294,000 Maatsuyker Island 2 267,000 30,000 175,000 142,000 Low Head 1 74,000 9,000 115 ,000 (b) 41,000 Wilsons Promontory 2 195,000 35,000 165,000 40,000 Cape Schanck 2 92,000 11,000 35,000 38,000 Currie Harbour 1 74,000 11,000 85,000 (b) (e) 21 ,000 Cape Otway 2 95,000 11,000 35,000 90,000 Cape Nelson 2 81,000 9,000 44, 000 34,000 Cape Willoughby 2 74,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 Cape Borda 2 79,000 11,000 35,000 26,000 Althorpe Island 2 130,000 14,000 120,000 231,000 South Neptune Island 2 149,000 17,000 205,000 124,000 Cape Leeuwin 3 115,000 11,000 20,000 (b) 85,000 Cape Naturaliste 1 55,000 9,000 22,000 (b) 60,000 Rottnest Island 1 55,000 8,000 40,000 30,000 Moore Point 1 38,000 9,000 44,000 35,000 Cape Leveque 2 188,000 23,000 245,000 150,000 Notes- (a) These indicative costs relate to specific automation equipment at each lightstation, although for some locations there are various equipment options which may be examined. (b) Lightstation already converted to automatic operation. (c) It is planned to convert Pine Islet light (presently kerosene powered) to automatic operation irrespective of whether it is to be unmanned or not. (d) Deal Island conversion costs are those required to remove the optical apparatus from Deal Island lightstation, and establish minor solar powered lights on North East Island and South West Island. Annual operating cost as an unmanned station is the combined annual operating costs of both North East and South West Island lights. (e) Currie Harbour conversion cost includes cost to convert Cape Wickham light to fully automatic operation. Department of Primary Industry Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 18 November 1983 Mr W. D. Salter Office of the Minister for Primary Industry Parliament House Wine Industry Attached, as requested, are notes on steps being taken by the Minister for Primary Industry to address problems in the wine and winegrape growing industry to which Senator Walsh referred in response to Senator Messner's remarks in debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) on 9 November. K. E. JONES Acting Assistant Secretary Forestry and Horticultural Crops Division . . . . Institutional Arrangements in Wine Industry and Adjustment Needs in Winegrape Industry Very shortly after assuming office, Minister for Primary Industry commenced consultations with grapegrowing and winemaking sectors of the industry to clearly identify factors contributing to industry's problems as first step towards developing a more effectively organised and structured industry evident that there were differing viewpoints on future role of Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation (AWBC) with suggested reforms ranging from abolishment to modification of its activities. Minister announced on 26 July 1983 that he intended to continue with a statutory authority for the wine industry (Press Release at Attachment 1). and was prepared to consider amending AWBC legislation to ensure Corporation was cost effective and structured and funded in an equitable way foreshadowed meeting with a broadly representative industry group to discuss changes which may need to be made and to seek industry views on means of achieving adjustment in industry to overcome grape surprises and other problems. Minister met with industry group on 19 September. First objective is to establish appropriate administrative and institutional arrangements for the industry, based on recognition of the mutual interdependence of grapegrowers and winemakers, to facilitate development, implementation and administration of industry policies, including those relating to adjustment needs, e.g. appropriate role and functions of AWBC and effective industry arrangements for the purpose of formulation of co- ordinated policies on matters affecting both winemakers and grapegrowers and liason with Government on policy issues. Following 19 September meeting Minister has circulated for comment by industry a discussion paper on possible institutional arrangements. and will be continuing close consultations with industry on development of specific proposals for reform before putting these to the Government. Minister has also initiated consultations with his State counterparts on means of addressing chronic low income problem in the winegrape growing sector and a tendency for recurrent production surpluses in some varieties. with view to facilitating desirable adjustment at farm level. Direct assistance for this purpose may be provided through the Rural Adjustment Scheme. IAC is currently examining inter alia, the suitability of its provisions for individual horticultural industries. Immediate objective of consultations with States and industry is to consider what direct action can be taken by Governments to remove impediments to adjustments. . . . . Primary Industry Media Release 26 July 1983 Wine Statutory Authority to Continue The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin, today announced his intention to continue with a statutory authority for the wine industry. The Minister said there were a range of issues which could only be tackled successfully on a collective industry basis. These included research, consumer information, forecasting grape supply and demand, and preservation and enhancement of the industry's image in domestic and export markets. There was a particular problem to be tackled in trying to get grape plantings by variety into better balance with demand, Mr Kerin said. An authority such as the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation (AWBC), funded by industry, was needed to ensure these issues were adequately addressed. A properly co-ordinated approach served both winemaker and grapegrower interests. Recent controversy within industry about the role and functions of the AWBC had received a good deal of publicity. Some large wine companies had suggested that the Corporation was unnecessary, but many other winemakers and independent winegrape growers saw a continuing need for a statutory authority funded by a statutory levy on industry. Mr Kerin said it appeared that the differences of opinion were more concerned with the means of achieving objectives rather than about the objectives themselves. He said he was prepared to consider amending the AWBC legislation to ensure that the industry's statutory authority was cost effective and was structured and funded in an equitable way. The Minister proposes to call an early meeting with a broadly representative group to discuss the changes which may need to be made. He said he attaches prime importance to this meeting in helping the Government to find solutions to the industry's problems. Mr Kerin will also be seeking industry views on means of achieving adjustment in the industry to overcome grape surpluses and other problems. Mr Kerin said diversity and strong individualism were essential characteristics of the image and mystique of wine. 'Those characteristics need to be retained but not to an extent which precludes a collective approach to industry-wide issues and problems. The industry needs to pull together in tackling those issues', he added. . . . . Senator BUTTON —I thank the Senate. I understand that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) has also had discussions with the Leader of the Opposition relating to the answers to some questions which had been sought by him. As I indicated yesterday in the course of debate, other answers are being sought and will be obtained for senators who have raised matters as of yesterday to which they desire answers. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.53) —I do not wish to cover all the ground which I covered yesterday when the Appropriation Bills were brought on for further consideration by the Committee. However, I want to express the dissatisfaction of the Opposition at the fact that the Government has not answered some of the questions which were put to it. I readily concede that there could be detailed questions which could not necessarily be answered today. I accept that that could be possible. But I must say that in discussions with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) this morning, before he went away, it was not just a case of impossibility. He made it clear to me that he was not prepared to provide certain information. Senator Button —You had better say why. Senator CHANEY —Yes. I referred yesterday to the request made by Senator Sir John Carrick on 9 November for information on which the Government had based its view that the world market for uranium is limited in the way which has been outlined by Senator Walsh. In the Senate on 9 November, as recorded on page 2411 of Hansard, we find Senator Walsh confirming that there was an interdepartmental committee report on the likely commercial global demand for yellowcake from Australian sources. He referred to various other sources open to the Government. As I indicated in the debate in Committee yesterday, the fact is that the market for uranium is peculiarly open to assessment because of the relationship between that market and the capacity of nuclear power stations either in operation or currently in the course of being built. One can make assessments of future demand. In any event, the situation now is that the Government wants the Appropriation Bills passed and the Opposition wants some information. That could be seen as an impasse, but I think that we, the Opposition, have a problem. The Opposition has a problem in that to maintain the view that we will not further consider the Bills until further information is provided would produce a situation which is beyond that which the Opposition would wish to produce. I understand from the Government that Supply has very nearly run out. Therefore, the Government needs the Appropiation Bills to be passed to continue the ordinary operation of government. It would not be the intention of the Opposition to prevent that. I do not think that at this stage of my career I want 18 November 1983 to become as famous as 11 November 1975. I say to the Government with very great seriousness that I think some criticism could be made that some more detailed questions could have been put at the Estmates committees. I think we all agree that trying to get detailed information out via Estimates committees with public servants present and so on and then to have the broader debate on the Appropriation Bills in the Committee of the Whole is the pattern we should aim to achieve. Perhaps the Opposition could have asked some questions earlier, but I note that quite specific questions raised by you, Mr Chairman, and by my colleague, Senator Walters, have not been answered. I particularly draw attention to the fact that in what was, I think, a very appropriate Committee of the Whole debate about matters relating to uranium, there was a clear confirmation from Senator Walsh that information was available. Now, the Government is saying: 'Well, we are sorry but we are simply not prepared to expose that information to the Opposition and to the Australian people'. I think that is a serious matter. I think it would be a case of using not a sledge-hammer but a dragline to crack not a nut but perhaps a pomegranate if we were to prolong consideration of the Appropriation Bills beyond this point. But there is a serious principle involved. We are asked to vote on many billions of dollars worth of appropriations for the services of government. We have a responsibility for ensuring that those appropriations are in order. We have the responsibility of scrutinising the role of the Government. The Government, in this case, is flying in the face of the sorts of principles that were endlessly preached at us when the now Government was in opposition. Senator Robertson —It's a wonder you don't choke on it. Senator CHANEY —I am sorry that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is not here because he was the greatest exponent of open government. He has steadily retreated from that position since he became Attorney-General. I say very seriously that the Opposition does not regard it as satisfactory that this information about the future global demand for uranium is not available. I do not believe that is the private information of the Government. It has been put together using taxpayers' money. It is the taxpayers' information and I believe it is wrong that it should be withheld. The Opposition will examine what other means are open to it through the Parliament to obtain access to what is publicly -owned information. I note the intervention of the Government Whip who said that it is a joke. Senator Robertson —I didn't say it was a joke. I said that it's a wonder it didn 't choke you-that is, your halo slipping down around your neck. Senator CHANEY —That is about the standard of contribution we have come to expect from the Government-a nice abusive intervention in every debate. It is quite a simple proposition: Where factual information is gathered together using the taxpayer-funded resources of the Public Service that factual information ought to be made available to the Senate and to the people of Australia. I think I might keep going, just to cheer up the Government Whip. We have already had confirmation from the Leader of the Government in the Senate ( Senator Button) that questions-other than the uranium question, which has been isolated by Senator Walsh as one which he does not believe he will answer-such as those raised by you, Mr Chairman, and by Senator Walters will be answered at the earliest possible time. On the basis of that undertaking, I do not intend to prolong the debate further. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.01) —The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, indicated earlier that I had had one reply. That one reply was quite incredible. I will quote to the Committee what I asked: I wonder whether I could be given the breakdown of the running costs of each lighthouse? The answer I received referred to the annual operating costs of manned stations, and each one was listed; the annual operating costs of those stations if they were unmanned; the costs of conversion to unmanned operation; and the capital and major repair and maintenance expenditure for those lighthouses. That was not an answer to my question. It was totally unrelated to any question I have put. All I can say to the Minister is that all of the questions I asked during the debate on the Appropriation Bills remain unanswered. They were not questions that could have been answered at Estimates Committees; I did not receive answers to them in the Estimates Committees. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without requests, but with a recommendation; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.03) —When the debate on the Representation Bill was interrupted to enable the Government to get another one of its Bills through- with the consent and approval of the Opposition, I might just mention to those who do not understand that we do our best to assist the Government to govern this nation-I had just moved an amendment that the Bill be not further proceeded with until the Governnment has provided a financial impact statement. There may be some people listening who do not understand what a financial impact statement is. Most honourable senators, though, would have heard me in the last Parliament urging my Government to adopt this proposal, which it partly adopted at that stage, and then earlier this year complimenting this Government on the adoption of my proposal in full. I quote from the ministerial statement made by the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, on 7 September 1983 in the House of Representatives, in which he said: Another major reform involves the presentation of financial impact statements. In future all second reading speeches of Ministers will include a statement of the financial impact of the legislation. These statements will include estimates of any significant costs, revenue and savings arising directly from that legislation where such estimates can be calculated readily and reliably. Where that information is not available, Ministers will include a brief explanation of the circumstances in their second reading speeches and outline in broad terms the expected financial impact of the legislation. I thoroughly admire and approve of that paragraph and urge Government backbenchers to insist on their Ministers providing us with this information. A parliament is able to operate because it has the material before it to consider. I go further and suggest to Government back benchers that they ask not only for a financial impact statement but also, where appropriate, that they ask for a social impact statement or an environment impact statement but that at least the information be provided to the Parliament so that the Parliament and the people of the nation know what is the background to the legislation. I have been disappointed to note that, notwithstanding that statement by Mr Dawkins, in fact the Government has not so far brought down any legislation with financial impact statements of which I am aware. It seemed to me that, as this was a matter in relation to which I was giving the Government some opportunity to get its act in order, I would not raise it. But when we have a look at this legislation I say that surely this is a case where the buck must stop, where a financial impact statement must be made. Why do I say that? I say that because the Parliament ought to know what is going to be the cost to the nation of this legislation. Some people might think that the simple answer is that we will have 36 new members of parliament. They will have to be provided with new offices in their electorates. They will have two staff members together and so we will have 36 members of parliament with their salaries, their entitlements, their travel arrangements-- Senator Walters —Their air fares. Senator LEWIS —Their air fares, as Senator Walters says, and all the other things which go with having members of parliament. There would have to be 72 additional staff. There would be the equipping of the offices and the rental for the offices. I am able to make that calculation roughly. I would guess that that would cost about $5m a year. I see Senator Robert Ray shaking his head. I think that if Senator Ray looked into this matter he would find that a member of parliament costs the nation about $150,000 annually for all of those things that I mentioned. If we multiply $150,000 by 36, in Australian terms I think we would come up with something over $5m. That would be the annual cost. The point I am trying to make and the reason that I am seeking a financial impact statement is that I can make that calculation, and no doubt most members of the public who apply their minds to this subject can make that calculation. But that is only the start. The information that I want and that I do not have access to-there is no way I can see that I can find it-relates to the other things. Take, for example, this Parliament in this building. We will need more Clerks and Assistant Clerks for both the Senate and the House of Representatives . More librarians will be needed. We will need more attendants around the place to service the parliamentarians. No doubt in the dining room we will need more waiters and more cooks. Senator Crichton-Browne —More tennis courts. Senator LEWIS —Senator Crichton-Browne says to those who play tennis that we might need more tennis courts. I do not play tennis but there are some who do. More cleaners will be needed, there will be more printing staff needed, perhaps more Hansard writers. That is what a financial impact statement should start to look at. I hope that the Government will bring down a financial impact statement and give us this information. How much will these things cost? The people are entitled to know; honourable senators are entitled to know. Let us have a look at another cost which the Australian taxpayers will have to front if this Bill is passed. I refer to this building. Where will we fit 36 additional senators and members of the House of Representatives? It is not only those 36 members of parliament. What about the additional people to whom I have referred-the waiters, the cooks, the cleaners, the printers and so on? Where are we going to fit those people in this building? I want the Government to tell the Parliament and the nation whether it is intended to alter this building. What alterations is the Government going to make? Are we going to put on another floor or another wing? Where are we going to fit all these people? What about the kitchens? Will the kitchens be able to cope with the additional staff that will be required? What about the dining rooms? Will they be large enough? I see that Senator Zakharov thinks that it is funny. Senator Zakharov would know that on the opening day of Parliament earlier this year, one could not get into the dining room for all the people. Senator Robert Ray —You could not get into the grand final either, and that is only once a year. Senator LEWIS —For those who are listening but could not hear, Senator Ray said: 'You could not get into the grand final either, and that is only once a year'. Nevertheless, this place gets very crowded when senators and members bring their guests to Canberra. Frankly, already the dining room just cannot cope with the situation. What is going to happen? Senator Grimes —Dear, oh dear! Senator LEWIS —Senator Grimes sneers and says that this is irrelevant. The people of Australia are entitled to know whether the number of dining rooms in this place will be increased. I very rarely go down to the non-members dining room but the facilities there are pathetic. What about that? Will the size of that dining room be increased in order to provide food for the additional staff? Senator Martin —It is about to be increased. Senator LEWIS —I am advised by Senator Martin that it is about to be increased. I would like to know-- Senator Peter Baume —For the present number. Senator LEWIS —Yes, but what about for the additional numbers? I think the Government ought to be telling us this. Time for the debate is running out, but I must say that I expect the Government to provide this information when this Bill comes on for debate next Tuesday week when the Senate resumes. That is about nine days away. That should be plenty of time for the Government to apply its mind to these questions and to bring down a financial impact statement. As a matter of fact, I would have thought that about 48 hours would be enough time for people to make a proper assessment. Further, what will be the cost to the nation of the additional extensions that are now being proposed for the new Parliament House? I know that Senator Missen said that the new building will be able to cope. I accept what he says, that it will be able to cope. Senator Archer —At a price. Senator LEWIS —It will be at a price. An additional 36 suites would have to be constructed. I understand that the plans for the new Parliament House would enable that extension to be made. But what will those 36 new suites cost the nation? What about the necessary alterations? Has the contract been revised? Surely the Government is now applying its mind to these questions. These are matters which the people of the nation are entitled to know and which senators are entitled to know. What about the new building? Will the dining room in the new building have to be increased in size in order to cope with the increased number of members? What about the library? Will it be a bigger library as a result of this proposal? What about the offices for the additional staff? What about toilet facilities? Will they have to be increased to cope with another hundred or so people? This could cost the nation $150m or more. Senator Elstob —How much? Senator LEWIS —I do not know what it will cost, but I say that the people of the nation are entitled to know what it will cost before we pass this measure and I am sure that the Senate is entitled to know what it will cost before we pass the legislation. The Government said that it would bring down a financial impact statement in which it would give us this information. Why has it no done so? Is the Government ashamed of it? Does it not want the public to know? Does the Government think that there will be such a row over this legislation that it will not be able to get the legislation passed? Debate interrupted. Prisoners of Conscience in China-Central Aboriginal Australian Legal Aid Service The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 4.15 p.m., pursuant to order of the Senate, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.15) —This is the first time I have spoken in the adjournment debate for many years. I rise to speak briefly because there is in Australia a delegation which is led by the President of the Shanghai Friendship Society and includes two journalists, a professor of gynaecology and a professor of history. These people are here as guests of the Australia-China Council. They will be in Canberra from Sunday until Tuesday. I wondered whether this would be an appropriate time to raise in a diplomatic fashion with the persons concerned the situation of some people who are prisoners of conscience in China, though not necessarily in Shanghai. I realise that some of the people who are on the delegation may not even know about them. In particular, I refer to the imprisonment of Bishop Ignatius Gong, the former Catholic Bishop of Shanghai, who is now 82 years of age. He was in fact arrested as far back as 8 September 1955. I also refer to Father Vincent Zhu, who is 68. Father Fu Hezou, who was Procurator of the Diocese of Shanghai under Bishop Gong , is also believed to be in gaol. Father Joseph Chen, who is aged 75, was sentenced in March 1983 for 11 years for 'colluding with foreigners'. Father Stephen Chen, who is aged 66, is in gaol as well. Father Stanislaus Shen, who is aged 80 years and was sentenced for 10 years, is now believed to be in hospital. He was charged with 'hampering production and modernisation'. The charge of hampering production was laid against him because he organised a pilgrimage to a celebrated shrine of the Virgin Mary. About 3,000 people took part, most of them fishermen; hence he was charged with hampering production. He suffers from a heart condition. There are two others to whom I wish to refer-Father Francis Zhu and Fu Shengi. The latter was born in 1954 in a workers' family in Shanghai. He was a member of the Communist Youth League. In 1979 he helped to found Voice of Democracy. The magazine expressed support of the Polish Solidarity paper and was declared 'anti -Party and anti-socialist'. He was Editor of Responsibility. In 1980 he stood as a candidate in the election of local People's Representatives in a southern district in Shanghai. According to Amnesty International, elections were rigged. The factory officials threatened that those who voted for Fu would not receive a wage rise. I am aware of the time, but I believe that it would be opportune to raise these matters with our visitors from Shanghai, although they may not even know about the people I have mentioned. I seek leave to table Amnesty International documents relating to a number of these prisoners. Leave granted. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.19) —I will be brief. This morning I did not have the opportunity of asking a particular question which I would like to have registered. The question is addressed to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Has the Attorney-General been contacted by the Police Association of the Northern Territory about actions of solicitors employed by the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service in advising demonstrators who have been arrested at Pine Gap? Is the Attorney-General aware whether solicitors, other than Pam Ditton, employed by CAALAS have been involved? If so, can he confirm that they are on leave and that funds appropriated to assist Aborigines are not being used to assist non-Aboriginal protesters? Is the Attorney-General in a position to confirm or otherwise, firstly, that CAALAS vehicles were utilised to attend the demonstration and, secondly, a CAALAS vehicle was not available to take an Aboriginal youth to court yesterday? There are many things I would like to say about the matter but I will say them at some future time. The question I have asked today was prompted by a telegram I received yesterday, 17 November, from Mr Carter, President of the Northern Territory Police Association and Mr Plumb, President of the Northern Territory Commissioned Officers Police Association. The telegram that I received commences : 'The following telegram has this day been forwarded to the Attorney-General'. It reads: Thank you for your response to our telegram regarding the incidents at Pine Gap stop To ensure that you are under no misunderstanding we point out that of the 129 women arrested at Pine Gap 128 were arrested by the Australian Federal Police stop The roll of Northern Territory Police was merely one of crowd management and containment at the base and later processing and detention of Federal Police prisoners at the Alice Springs watchhouse stop It is still our assertion that there has been a misuse of funds by Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service in that a number of solicitors from that service have been directly and indirectly involved in defending and advising arrested demonstrators stop The duty solicitor mentioned in your reply to Senator Crowley has been constantly accompanied by Mrs Pam Ditton of CAALAS stop Mrs Pam Ditton is one of the organisers and co-ordinators of the demonstration and has been on paid and unpaid leave since 10th November 1983 stop It is our information that yesterday (16 November) the CAALAS did not have a vehicle available to convey an Aboriginal youth to court at Alice Springs because their vehicles were being utilized to attend to the demonstrators stop As I said, the telegram was signed by the presidents of both the Northern Territory Police Association and the Northern Territory Commissioned Officers Police Association. At a later date I will have more to say regarding the matter but I ask the Government to look into it and advise the Senate. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.22) —I was in the chamber when Senator Harradine spoke and I will briefly reply to him. First of all, I will refer the matters he raised to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Briefly, the Government and the Department are conscious of Amnesty International's concern about civil rights in China, particularly as the last annual report of Amnesty International referred to the imprisonment of people such as Father Zhu and the archbishop who has been imprisoned in Shanghai. It also referred to the detention of prisoners generally, the anti-crimes campaign, as it is called in China, and the widespread use of the death penalty in that country. The Department has been monitoring the situation and the Government has been kept fully informed. The case of Father Vincent Zhu is one that I remember coming up. It was brought up particularly by Amnesty, which I think wrote a letter about it. The Australian Embassy in Peking has already been asked to seek specific information on this case and to raise it on suitable occasions with the authorities in China . I would have thought that it was appropriate to raise such a matter with the visiting group. I will certainly inform the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senator Harradine's views. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.24) —In response to the matter raised by Senator Kilgariff, I indicate that I have received the telegram , which he very kindly read into the record, from the Northern Territory Police Association and the Northern Territory Commissioned Officers Police Association. I note the points that are made therein and I will refer the use of Central Aboriginal Australian Legal Aid Service resources to my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), whose responsibility the matter comes under . I make the point, however, that it seems to me that the complaints that are made about the role played by Mrs Pam Ditton in this matter are utterly ill conceived to the extent that it seems to be acknowledged in the telegram that Mrs Ditton has been on leave during these events. If the suggestion is made that it is somehow inappropriate for an employee of a legal service in her own time to engage in activities involving the exercise of free speech and the right to protest, that is not a perspective that I share or, I would hope that any Australians with a fair minded respect of civil liberties would share. To the extent that that is an apparent ground for criticism, I reject it wholly. To the extent that the allegation is that Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service resources are being employed in ways that are inappropriate for such resources to be employed there may be two views on the matter and I will ensure that a reply is received by the honourable senator in that respect. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday, 29 November at 2 p.m. Senate adjourned at 4.26 p.m. The following answer to a question was circulated: Question No. 438 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 October 1983: (1) Is a Royal Navy battle group, led by HMS Invincible, currently on its way to our region, or are there plans for a visit in the near future; if so, what is the nature of the visit and why was it scheduled for this particular time. (2) Is the Minister for Defence aware of the type of weapons carried by the battle group; if so, can the Minister supply details of what they are. (3) Are nuclear weapons included in the battle group's arsenal. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) As announced by the Acting Minister for Defence on 15 July 1983, a Royal Navy task group is to visit Australian ports between November and the beginning of January, as part of a deployment to the Indian and Pacific Oceans, New Zealand and the Far East. (2) and (3) It has been the practice of successive Australian governments not to comment on the weapons systems of allied ships or aircraft, and to accept the policies of our allies of neither confirming nor denying the carriage of nuclear weapons.