Tuesday, 29 November 1983 THE PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is presently overseas and will be returning to Australia tomorrow. In the Prime Minister's absence the Hon. Lionel Bowen is Acting Prime Minister. I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) left Australia on 20 November for discussions in the United States of America and Europe concerning nuclear waste management and renewable energy generation. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is Acting Minister for Resources and Energy until Senator Walsh returns. Any questions which normally would be directed to Senator Walsh in relation to his portfolio or those which he represents should be directed to me. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 44 citizens), Chaney (from 64 citizens), Crichton-Browne (from 105 citizens), Durack (from 386 citizens), Jack Evans (from 26 citizens), Lewis (from 131 citizens), Mason (from 60 citizens), Robertson (from 35 citizens) and Sibraa (from 463 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 15 citizens) and Sibraa (from 15 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 Senators Peter Baume (from 71 citizens), Boswell (from 20 citizens), Elstob ( from 21 citizens) and Messner (from 144 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. by Senators Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 22 citizens), Martin (from 10 citizens ), Scott (from 13 citizens) and Teague (from five citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 161 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, sheweth 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 on 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 reinstate 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 83 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. That the Church of Mary Queen of Peace Klaipeda, Lithuania was the only church permitted (by the Soviet authorities) to be built in post-war Lithuania. That the church was built by the Catholic parishioners from their own resources and with support from overseas Christians. That upon completion of the church building in 1960, the church was not allowed to be consecrated and, in 1961 was resumed by the State for purposes other than religious. That this resumption of the church and the subsequent persecution and arrests of the local clergy and other christians is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Human Rights. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled request the Australian Government to communicate most strongly to the Government of the USSR the sympathy of the petitioners for the plight of the Lithuanian Christians and ask that the Church of Mary Queen of Peace be restored to the Catholics of Klaipeda for the practice of their religion without interference. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 41 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 748 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 132 citizens), Mason (from 25 citizens) and Sibraa (from 25 citizens). The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectively showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 25 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 program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Button (from 44 citizens), Gietzelt (from 153 citizens), Robertson ( from 144 citizens) and Zakharov (from 112 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We the undersigned citizens of Australia believe that there is no justification for increasing the size of the Parliament, and therefore humbly petition the Senate to reject the proposed Representation Act 1983 which provides for 36 more federal politicians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Martin (from 78 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That they strenuously object to the proposal to license a Casino in Canberra, because of the clearly established connections between Casinos and organized crime. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Reject any legislation which authorises the operation of a Casino in Canberra. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 874 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 Members of the Senate 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 UN 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 UN 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 67 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth- That currently discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and/or sexual preference; and That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals-in particular, against married women. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi- governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Primmer (from 33 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MESSNER —I ask the Minister for Social Security whether his attention has been drawn to the statements by the New South Wales Premier and Federal Australian Labor Party President concerning the assets test, and, in particular, his statement: There are too many inequities and anomalies in the assets test . . . I think they've got to start all over again, frankly. Does the Minister recognise the similarity between the approach advocated by Mr Wran and that advocated by the Opposition? In view of the widespread concern expressed by the Opposition, by Mr Wran, by the Government back bench, by pensioner organisations and, yesterday, by the Australian Council of Social Service, has the Minister finally seen the light and will the Government now agree to allow the legislation to lie on the table at least until Parliament resumes at the end of February so that further consideration can be given to the proposals? Senator GRIMES —No, my attention was not drawn to Mr Wran's statement; I picked it up in the newspapers over the weekend. Yes, I did read what Mr Wran had to say on a couple of occasions. I disagreed with what Mr Wran said. Mr Wran was basing his statements on what he saw and on what he had been informed were inequities in the proposed assets test in the treatment of New South Wales people as against others. As I pointed out outside this place, I think it can be easily demonstrated that Mr Wran has been misled and is wrong in this area. This is Federal legislation. It is legislation dealt with by the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party and the Federal Parliament. I am surprised at the second half of Senator Messner's question in view of the fact that his Party, the National Party of Australia, the Australian Democrats and, I understand, Senator Harradine have said that they will move to defer until February 1984 consideration of this legislation in the Senate. That being so, I can count how many votes will favour deferral. I am aware that that will mean that the legislation will be deferred. I believe that is a pity but I am not at all concerned, nor is the Government concerned, that we will, over that time, be in the position where we in the Parliament and the people outside the Parliament can see exactly what the proposal is, and debate the exact details of the proposal rather than the supposed details which have been debated in the last few days by Mr Peacock. I have no reason to leave the legislation lying on the table. I would prefer not to. But, as the Opposition parties and Senator Harradine combined apparently are determined to do that, there is not much I or the Government can do about it. We accept that. We believe that, after it is laid on the table and after this issue has been debated, people will realise, as do many pensioner organisations and other organisations concerned with the aged, that the introduction of an assets test is desirable. If any anomalies that they have claimed they have seen but which we believe are not there come to the fore, we are not rigid enough not to make changes under those circumstances. But we believe that the only way to get fairness, not only for the low income pensioners but also for the taxpayers of this country, is to consider, in any means test, the assets holdings of individuals in the community. Senator ELSTOB —Can the Minister for Social Security advise whether the Government will soon undertake a publicity campaign regarding the proposed pensions assets test? If so, what form will the campaign take and for what period will it run? Does the Minister anticipate that there will be on-going community liaison at least until the assets test legislation is passed? Senator GRIMES —I believe that there will be plenty of publicity about the assets test, as there has been. I am not concerned about that. Certainly in the period between when the legislation is passed and when such a test would be introduced, we would of course conduct a publicity campaign to explain to the pensioners of this country how they would be affected, probably also how they would not be affected and how the assets test is to be introduced. That is standard procedure on the introduction of any new legislation. I assure honourable senators, and Senator Elstob in particular, that any such campaign will be effective, will be economical and will not be the party political campaign which was run by the previous Government after the Budget last year. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I ask the Minister for Social Security whether he recalls writing in Labor Essays: . . . to be consistent, those who argue for a pensions assets test should also argue for the personal income tax to be supplemented by a substantial tax on personal assets-in other words, a wealth tax. Will the Minister now inform the Senate when the Government intends to follow the introduction of an assets test by the implementation of a wealth tax, be it in the form of a capital gains tax so strongly advocated by Senator Button or the gains tax and national death duties combination demanded by the Caucus Industry Committee Chairman, Dr Theophanous? If the Government does not intend to introduce a general wealth tax, does the Minister agree that the proposal for an assets test alone amounts to a selective capital gains tax on the aged? Senator GRIMES —I am indeed flattered that Senator Bjelke-Petersen has read my contribution to Labor Essays even if she has read only the bits she quoted. I am also flattered that she believes that anything she interprets from what I have written in Labor Essays will be automatically translated into government policy or Australian Labor Party policy. I point out to the good senator that I am no stranger to selective quoting in this place; I have occasionally been guilty of that. That is what Senator Bjelke -Petersen is guilty of, if indeed she has read any more of the essays than the small section she quoted, which I note was exactly the section which was quoted by Senator Messner in a speech to the Voice of the Elderly last week. What that essay is about is the myths and the reality of social security and social welfare expenditure in the community. It talks about the inequities of the system which existed whereby people could take lump sum superannuation and be taxed on only 5 per cent. It talks about the various aspects of social welfare expenditure and the revenue forgone in other areas of taxation expenditure in this community. It talks about the need for reform. The section to which the good senator referred talks of course about those people who suggest-I am not one of them-that all one has to do to solve the inequities in our system is to introduce an assets test and nothing else. The Government does not believe that either. That is why the Government has a series of reforms in this area which will result in a higher base rate pension, which will result in better benefits for the pensioners in particular and for other disadvantaged people in our community. So the answer is in fact no, it does not mean that the Labor Government is about to introduce a wealth tax. Nor does the article suggest that that is the way we should proceed. That article is a description of the system as it existed and the system as it may exist in the future. We do not shut off any options, but there is certainly no intention on the part of the present Government to introduce a general wealth tax in the community. To describe an assets test as a selective wealth tax on the aged is nonsense. I believe that Senator Bjelke- Petersen, if she thinks about it, will realise that it is nonsense. Senator COATES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. It concerns the advertising by one of the statutory authorities under the Minister's control-the Health Insurance Commission-and its selling of the service provided by Medibank Private. I was appalled to hear on radio an advertisement which tells people that they will be dealt with by a 'friendly girl with a computer'. How can we expect private advertisers to eliminate sexist advertisements if a government instrumentality keeps using them? Is it really true that the HIC employs only women to operate computers? If so, why? Even if it is so, why must the Commission perpetuate the offensive use of the diminutive 'girl', which is offensive even when what is meant is young women, and, even more so, when the women concerned are no longer young? Will the Minister ask the Minister for Health to ensure that the advertisement with that wording is withdrawn? Senator GRIMES —I have not heard the advertisement referred to by Senator Coates, nor have I had my attention drawn to any similar advertisement. Like him, I would be concerned that a statutory authority of that type indulged in the sort of sexist advertising to which he referred. But I am aware also that the advertising for Medicare is, as I understand it, contracted out to private organisations, and sexist advertising of that type in our community is extremely common, as was demonstrated last week, I believe, by the Family Planning Association on Family Planning Day. I shall certainly draw the attention of the Minister for Health, who I am sure will be as appalled as is Senator Coates, to that sexist advertising and the use of the diminutive 'girl' in those circumstances and see whether statutory authorities of this type can show a better example in the future. Senator CHIPP —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the welcome and proper criticism by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, of the Goa Declaration of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting because it did not deal adequately with the spread of nuclear weapons beyond those countries that presently have them. Does not the provision of nuclear technology to Third World nations include the know-how, the materials and the 'innocent' cover that enables them to build nuclear bombs, as was the case with India and Pakistan? Is the Minister aware that past Australian governments have sought to export our uranium to nations which have the most notoriously immoral leaders in the world, such as Iran and the Philippines, and that this Government is seeking to continue this lunatic practice with its negotiations with leaderships such as that of South Korea? How does the Government reconcile Mr Hawke's concern at an international forum for nuclear proliferation in Third World nations with his domestic zeal for exporting Australian uranium to such dubious customers? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not at all sure that this is a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs but I shall certainly draw it to his attention and to the attention of the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Resources and Energy, who I think also comes into this matter but who is away at present. No doubt the Prime Minister himself would relish the opportunity to respond to some of Senator Chipp's suggestions. I simply make the point that the terms and conditions of any continuing exports of Australian uranium are very much the centrepiece of the proposed inquiry to be conducted by Professor Slatyer over the next few months because of the concern that the Government shares, along with Senator Chipp, for a number of the matters that Senator Chipp has mentioned . Pending the outcome of that inquiry, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further, although the other Ministers I have mentioned may well wish to do so. Senator BOLKUS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I refer the Minister to allegations made by Raelene Boyle in her book Rage Raelene Run to the effect that the former Liberal Government paid off Australian athletes so that they would not participate in the Moscow Olympics. Did the then Government attempt to assume a high moral position on the boycott of the Moscow Olympics and do these allegations indicate that this position was both fraudulent and corrupt? Was there any truth in these allegations- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I draw your attention to the use of the word 'corrupt'. I would say that it is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. It was referred to in the generality. I call Senator Bolkus. Senator BOLKUS —With Senator Chaney's leave, I further ask the Minister whether there is any truth in these allegations. Has any young Australian athlete had his or her amateur status compromised by these bribes? Finally, will the Australian Government investigate the conduct and the alleged illegality of the conduct entered into by the then Government to see whether any charges can be laid? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, John Brown, has provided me with some information on this. The Government is aware that payments were made to sporting bodies and individuals who withdrew from participation in the Moscow Olympics. Such payments were allowed for in the Fraser Budget of 1980 -81. Although both the then Treasurer and the present Leader of the Opposition have recently commented in the media that they cannot recall the payments, a record of their having been made is available. However, the honourable member for Grayndler, as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, yesterday highlighted some strangeness in relation to the payments made to various athletes. For the information of honourable senators I list the payments: Equestrian, $125,000; yachting, $52,840; men's hockey, $90,375; boxing , $13,784; women's hockey, $45,740; volleyball, $120,000; shooting, $41,000; and then a series of payments of $6,000 to individual athletes; totalling $524,738. The facts speak for themselves and are an obvious indictment of the discredited Fraser Government which, while appearing to take a high minded moral attitude at the time, in fact has embarrassed these young athletes and brought the whole matter of amateur status in sport into some question. It is indeed unfortunate that, like so many other areas in our society, sport has had to suffer such undignified behaviour on the part of the previous Government. It is the case that some sporting commentators have noted that the Fraser Government may have placed the amateur status in jeopardy by paying money to individual sports men and women instead of paying it through their respective sporting organisations. The Australian sporting community can rest assured, however, that this Government will not use sport as a political football and that it is committed, as is evidenced by the record levels of funding in the first Hawke Budget, to support Australian sports men and women in a real and above-board fashion. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that one of the main justifications used by the Minister in introducing an assets test was to stop avoidance of the existing income test in order to direct a greater proportion of resources to those in need? Is it true that in a certain essay the Minister said of the previous assets test-similar to the one sought by his Government: 'It allowed considerable scope for manipulation of affairs'? How can the Minister therefore assure the Senate that such avoidance will cease under the assets test now proposed and that the needy will correspondingly benefit? Senator GRIMES —When the previous assets test was abolished the Government at the time claimed that it was in fact a no cost option. In fact the cost in the first year, from memory, was in excess of $100m. I cannot be held to it but I think it was $140m. Since then there has been an increasing and expanding industry of organisations which have established property trusts and other forms of circumvention of the income test. That industry has burgeoned in recent years so that one cannot help but see all the advertisements in the financial Press, in such newspapers as the National Times and all the newspapers in the country, aimed at retired people. As a result of that, clearly a considerable number of people quite legally have circumvented the income test so that the cost to the taxpayer at the moment is considerably higher than it was when that assets test was first removed in 1976. Unless one introduces an assets test which incorporates every form of asset there will be an opening for some people in a very limited way to put money in certain directions and avoid that test. We believe that in the assets test we are proposing that is minimised. We are not saying it is a perfect system any more than any other system is perfect. We know that as a result of the assets test a considerable amount of money will be available. That money will be redistributed to those pensioners and beneficiaries who for the last seven years have seen their benefits eroded because of the inability and the failure of the previous Government to maintain the base rate of pension and benefit. They have seen their benefits eroded in such areas as extra pensions for children where, again, the level of that pension has been eroded by inflation and the failure of the previous Government to raise it. One of the reasons that the previous Government could not raise the level of pension was that never at any stage was it willing to do anything about the circumvention of which it was perfectly aware. We are willing to do so. We know that we will therefore be able to redistribute those funds to the benefit of those who really need them. We know that there will be general community acceptance of this. Senator REYNOLDS —Can the Attorney-General indicate whether there are any legal implications in an Australian Premier declaring his State a country? I refer to an article in yesterday's Daily Sun, in which the Queensland Premier said of people transferring from interstate: We cannot keep them out of our country. They are coming up here by the thousands. Does the Attorney-General consider that such a statement challenges the Constitution and the right of all Australians to move freely from one State to another? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not sure that there are any legal implications but there would appear to me to be some medical ones in that assertion made by the Premier. It is of course, not the case that Australia is anything other than a single country and it is the case that freedom of movement between the States is expressly guaranteed by the notorious-indeed, in this respect it deserves to be less notorious or less ill-favoured-section 92 of the Constitution which provides that not only trade and commerce between the States should be free but so too should intercourse between the States. There is a wartime legal precedent establishing very clearly that any constraints at all imposed at the border in respect of free movement are quite unconstitutional. So the answer to Senator Reynolds's question without notice is yes, it is quite a silly statement for the Queensland Premier to be making for all those reasons. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to reports that the Government's uranium decision has blocked negotiations on contracts to supply uranium worth more than $500m to three United States power utilities, which reports are based on information provided by Mr Gerry Hand, MP, to the special Victorian conference of the Australian Labor Party last Sunday. I ask the Leader of the Government whether it is a fact that three such contracts were blocked by that decision? I ask him on what basis was the content of a Cabinet submission, from which the information was obtained , made available to Mr Hand? Was Mr Hand authorised to reveal that information to the ALP conference and was confidential commercial information made available to Mr Hand? Senator BUTTON —The Government's decision in relation to uranium mining is quite clear and has been stated on several occasions. Two contracts have been approved in respect of the Ranger project. There are existing contracts in respect of both Ranger and Nabarlek and the Commonwealth Government has granted permission for the Roxby Downs, or Olympic Dam, mine to proceed. That means, in terms of the Commonwealth's powers, permission for the Roxby Downs partners to negotiate export contracts. Further, the Government has indicated that no further mines shall be opened and that no further contracts will be let pending at least the report of the Slatyer inquiry. That position is quite clear and there can be no doubt about that answer in terms of the specifics which Senator Chaney addressed to me. I do not know whether three United States contracts, as a result of that statement- Senator Chaney —Don't you read your Cabinet submissions? Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator asks me whether I read the Cabinet submissions. I do not recall reading that one. The fact of the matter is that I am unable to say with authority that three such contracts have been aborted as a result of that policy. I am quite unable to say whether the information allegedly revealed by Mr Gerry Hand at the Victorian ALP conference- Senator Teague —He did reveal it, didn't he? Senator BUTTON —Just let me finish the sentence. I am quite unable to reveal from what source the information made available by Mr Gerry Hand at the Victorian conference came. I am not able to say that. Certainly no member of the Parliament was authorised to make a statement and reveal information based on a Cabinet submission which was confidential. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I thank the Leader of the Government for his partial answer. I ask him whether he could perhaps read the Cabinet submission and, in particular, answer the part of the question left unanswered, namely, whether confidential commercial information was made available to Mr Hand. Could he check the facts to find out the source of the information which was given by Mr Hand and which was reported to be from the confidential Cabinet submission which was supposedly available only to members of the Government? Senator BUTTON —The question whether confidential commercial information was available to Mr Hand is one which implies that there is some knowledge of the source. If Mr Hand had confidential commercial information, as far as I understand, it was certainly not provided by any member of the Government. Senator Chaney —Will you check that? Senator BUTTON —I am then asked, as a second part of the question, whether I will check the source of Mr Hand's information. I am quite prepared to do that; and I will ask Mr Hand myself. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General seen the article headed 'Mock Tourist Map Angers Blacks', incorporating a racist map of the Ayers Rock area, which appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser on 18 November? What can be done through legislation or by other means to restrict the publication of such material? Are any remedies presently available for the victims of this type of publication? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the newspaper reports and descriptions of the mock tourist map in question and, indeed, the graphic representation of it in the newspaper article in question. I say straight away that I find it contemptible and disgusting, as I believe any honourable senator would. As to the question of what can be done about it, there is no prohibition on the dissemination of race hatred propaganda of this kind-it can only be so described -under the law as it now stands. An attempt was made by the previous Labor Government to introduce such a clause in the Racial Discrimination Bill, as it then was in 1974, but it was felt, after debate in this place, that competing considerations of free speech militated against that. I think that is a debate that we will have to have again in the near future, in the context of the revision of the Racial Discrimination Act which is now proceeding. As I have previously announced, a task force is working on this legislation. The debate will be much assisted by the report which has just arrived on my desk from the Human Rights Commission on the whole question of race hatred propaganda. I hope that the report will be printed and tabled in this place if not next week, certainly before we get up. The matters in issue here are ones which have been canvassed briefly before. I do so only in one sentence again now, namely, whether or not we have some form of criminal prohibition on this kind of activity or whether we create some civil remedy lying by way of redress and an injunction or some right of correction or apology by way of some extension of the law of defamation in the context of group defamation. The third alternative is, of course, as always, to do nothing at all. I simply indicate to honourable senators that these are difficult questions which we will need to be addressing and debating early next year. There could be very few more graphic demonstrations of the need for some kind of remedial action to be available in this area than the particular map, so described, to which Senator Maguire referred. Senator KILGARIFF —Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree with the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory, Mr Collins, that members of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party are 'ratbags and mindless political thugs' in their attitude towards uranium policy? If he does not share that view, does he believe that he and other members of Caucus who voted for the Government's Cabinet recommendation on uranium ratted on Labor policy, as claimed by Mrs Joan Coxsedge at Sunday's special State conference on uranium? Senator BUTTON —Of course I would not agree with the description used by my very good friend Bob Collins, the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory, that people who take a different view from the view which he takes about uranium mining in the Northern Territory are ratbags and mindless political thugs. Bob Collins is an earthy type of chap. I am much more urbane and I would not use that sort of terminology about any of my Party colleagues in the way in which he did. Insofar as I am asked to comment on the suggestion from Mrs Joan Coxsedge, a member of the Labor Party in the State of Victoria, that members of the Parliamentary Party ratted on that policy, namely, the Labor Party platform in relation to uranium, I do not agree with that view at all. In fact, I seldom find myself in agreement with any views expressed by Mrs Coxsedge. That is one of the great benefits of belonging to a pluralist and versatile party such as the Labor Party. I believe that the platform of the Labor Party, as adopted at the 1982 Conference, had one substantial weakness in it, and that is that various sections of the Party left the 1982 Conference with the belief that the platform adopted there supported their particular position. There is no doubt that the South Australian Government, as it now is, thought that the-- Senator Withers —Tweedledum and Tweedledee? Senator BUTTON —That is right, Senator. That is why the issue has been resolved. I would not agree with the view expressed by Mrs Coxsedge that members of the Parliamentary Labor Party, voting in support of the Government decision, ratted on that policy. Senator CROWLEY —I ask the Attorney-General whether he has seen an item in the National Times headed 'Spare the rod' which reads: Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen had some down-to-earth advice recently for the husbands of the women demonstrating at Pine Gap. She told a meeting of the Kirra -Currumbin Rotary Club on the Gold Coast that the women 'are most unbecoming in the way they are behaving and their husbands should give them a good strapping'. Can the Attorney-General comment on whether this remark is, one, unbecoming and, two, a direct inducement to men to practise domestic violence? Can he indicate the size of the problem of domestic violence and its cost both to the community and to the women concerned? What steps have been taken to cope with the problems of domestic violence, in particular under the recent family law amendments? Senator GARETH EVANS —The remarks attributed to Senator Bjelke-Petersen do, as Senator Grimes was suggesting sotto voce, summon up a fascinating picture of life at Kingaroy. My picture is that of the Premier shuffling in and out of the family cave with a club in one hand and Senator Bjelke-Petersen's perm in the other. No wonder the dog bit him. Senator Colston —The dog died. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to Senator Colston for that gloss. I do not have readily to hand figures on the size of the problem of domestic violence in this country and the cost of it. I hope that those figures will not be expanded by the example of leadership that has been given to us. I can, however, say that the Government, of course, does deplore this phenomenon no matter who the perpetrators or victims of it are, and has been trying to do something about it. In particular, I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that an amendment contained in the Family Law Amendment Act, which became effective last Friday, does increase the protection provided to children and spouses who are subjected to or threatened with physical violence in the domestic environment. The new law, honourable senators may recall-they spent some considerable time debating it if not this section-will permit a power of arrest to be attached to an injunction granted for the personal protection of a child or spouse. We believe that the court should be able to attach a power of arrest order to an injunction not only where violence has already been committed but also where violence has been threatened. The legislation now so provides. This will require a continued co-operative effort between the Commonwealth and the States to resolve it properly. But to the extent that it is within the Commonwealth's capacity to do so, we have amended the law. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Is the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Resources and Energy aware that the Aboriginal traditional owners of Koongarra and Jabiluka uranium deposits have rejected the Government's uranium decision and want mining to proceed? Is he further aware of a reported assurance given by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the Koongarra and Gagudju people that, if Roxby Downs went ahead, Koongarra and Jabiluka would automatically follow suit? Can he say whether Mr Holding's statement at Sunday's special Victorian Australian Labor Party Conference that 'Pancontinental is gone, Koongarra is gone' is an accurate statement of the present state of Government policy? If so, is Mr Holding guilty of misleading Aboriginal people whose interests he is supposed to support? Senator BUTTON —Senator Crichton-Browne has erected an extraordinary intellectual edifice which I propose to topple, if I may. First of all, I am aware that Aboriginals have rejected the Government's policy in relation to Jabiluka and Koongarra. Secondly, I am not aware of any statement by Mr Holding made to the Aboriginal people that if Roxby Downs went ahead Jabiluka and Koongarra would also go ahead. I must say I think it unlikely that the Minister made any such statement. The date and authority for the suggestion that the Minister made that statement were not, of course, included in the question. Senator Teague —Only just unlikely? Senator BUTTON —Yes, just unlikely. I am not going to put my foot on Senator Teague's silly little block. The third part of the question is, of course, dependent on the second part; that is to say, if the Minister did say that to the Aboriginal people, how does that relate to the statements which Mr Holding is reported to have made at the special conference of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party last Sunday? I do not know what Mr Holding said at that conference but I think it is quite likely that he said the things that Senator Crichton-Browne quoted him as saying because they are consistent with the policy announcement which has been made by the Government in relation to mines such as Koongarra and Jabiluka. Senator JONES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the Queensland Government's decision to misrepresent deliberately the level of Medicare funding to Queensland? Will the Minister clarify the true level of Medicare payments to Queensland and reassure Queenslanders that they are not being short-changed by this unfair comparison with other States? Senator GRIMES —It seems that Mr Bjelke-Petersen and his colleagues are treating the truth in the way that Senator Evans implied that Mr Bjelke-Petersen may be treating his wife. He is, as usual, selectively quoting figures to present a case which is just not true. He claims that the Queensland Government and therefore the Queensland people are being robbed but he does not mention, of course, any of the advantages to Queensland of Medicare, particularly the advantages to individual Queenslanders. Only 42 per cent of Queenslanders have insurance to cover them for doctors' services compared with 65 per cent of people in the other States. Senator Boswell —They get it for nothing. Senator GRIMES —I am amazed to hear someone like Senator Boswell say that anything costs nothing in this community. He and his colleagues are usually making speeches about how people do not get anything for nothing. The Medicare program, in fact, will spend an extra $150m on medical benefits in Queensland to provide cover for every Queenslander. This means that they will be able to see their local doctors or specialists rather than queue for hours in the out- patient clinics of local hospitals. On the question of funding of Queensland's public hospitals, in a full year, under Medicare, Queensland will receive $173m, which is an 86 per cent increase on the funding provided in the last Fraser Budget. All other States have been compensated only for the revenue they lose by removing charges in public hospitals. So they are not in an overall better financial position. Queensland is the only State which receives a special grant-in this case it is $35m- actually to improve its health funding situation. This grant ensures that Queenslanders receive more in increased medical benefits, increased grants to private and public hospitals and increased funds for community health than they pay into Medicare through the one per cent levy on income and reduced reinsurance subsidies to private funds. Queensland pays $212m in a full year and receives $220m in increased benefits. A more serious matter to Queenslanders, however, is that if the Queensland Government is threatening to use the $35m special health grant to fund other election promises and not to improve health services, quite clearly the Federal Government will have to look at making the $35m a specific purpose grant to ensure that it is used properly. The absolute hypocrisy of the Bjelke-Petersen Government's position is shown by the fact that the Fraser Government cut Queensland's health funding from $194m in 1980-81 to $93m in 1982-83. There were no High Court of Australia actions, no television advertising and no newspaper advertising at that time. The Fraser Government and the Bjelke-Petersen Government came to an agreement at the 1981 Premiers Conference to ensure that Queensland received a fair deal. Mr Bjelke-Petersen knows that Commonwealth- State financial agreements are complex. He ensured that if Queensland missed out on identified health grants it would more than pick those up in an increased share of the tax revenue. The Medicare grants will benefit Queens- landers considerably. They will benefit not only financially but also by having access to a better health system and an improved system of public hospitals. Mr Bjelke-Petersen and most members of his Government know this. All the advertisements and the propaganda referred to by Senator Jones are simply lies. Senator WALTERS —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that an increasing number of Labor Party members are looking to the Australian Labor Party national conference next year to decide finally whether or not the Caucus decision on uranium has any real standing? Does he share the view of the Minister for Territories and Local Government who, in a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald last week, said that the anti-uranium movement 'will not come to a standstill because of some temporary setback'? Given the disagreement of the Victorian Branch and the Western Australian Branch and the likely disagreement of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party with the uranium decision , what confidence can Australians have that the caucus policy favouring the Roxby Downs development will hold? Senator BUTTON —I have great confidence that the decisions of this Government in respect of all matters will hold. It is a confidence shared by a number of prominent businessmen, including Mr Brian Kelman, who said to United States businessmen at a lunch in New York on Friday that this has been a very successful government, even from a businessman's point of view. I think that most of those involved in the resource-based industries are businessmen. I was asked whether I was aware that people in the Australian Labor Party are looking towards the next national conference for some reason or another. Senator Walters —Businesses particularly. Senator BUTTON —I do not think that many business people in the Labor Party are looking towards the national conference for any particular reason. The only reason would be for better legislation in the areas of consumer affairs and trade practices. I do not believe there are any strongly held anticipations about the next national conference. I suppose the purpose of the honourable senator's question was to try to undermine confidence in the Government's decisions. I fully understand that. Senator Walters suggested that the Minister for Territories and Local Government wrote a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald last week on this topic in certain terms. I am quite unaware of what the Minister said in his letter, but let me say this: In the context of the Australian Labor Party's discussion on this matter, the Minister for Territories and Local Government voted for a proposition which would have ensured the continuation of the Ranger mine and the Nabarlek mine. In those circumstances, I think it is unlikely that anybody ought to be concerned in the way in which Senator Walters suggests. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Attorney-General aware that on 19 November in the Four Corners program suggestions were made that Australian intelligence had played a significant role in the overthrow of the Allende Government in Chile in 1973? What, if any, information is the Government able to give about the truth or otherwise of these allegations? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that, on the Four Corners program which went to air on 19 November, in an interview with a former Minister for Labor and Immigration, Clyde Cameron, the clear impression was conveyed that Australian intelligence had played a role in the overthrow of the Allende Government in 1973, with particular reference being made to the alleged role of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation officers operating overseas as part of the establishment of the Department of Labor and Immigration. There are obvious constraints, which I have expressed in this chamber on previous occasions, on the extent to which one can or should ever depart from the principle of 'no comment' in these matters. I believe the circumstances of this case are exceptional, involving as they do, public statements by a former Minister of the Crown with apparent personal knowledge of the events in question. Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate to make the following short statement, which I will not further amplify inside or outside this Parliament. I hope this statement will do something to clarify the situation. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. It is quite clear that there has been notice of this question. The Minister is using Question Time to make a statement on this matter. I pick up his own words. I would suggest that if the Minister wants to make a statement on this very sensitive subject it should be done in the form of a statement which would be open for debate. I also raise the point of order to give the Attorney-General a chance to stop and think before he puts his foot on the slippery slope again. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not a statement in the sense of being anything other than two sentences, which I propose to read into the record. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is answering the question. As I understand it , he does not wish to make the statement in the full form of a ministerial statement. In that respect I will allow him to proceed. Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no foundation whatever for any suggestion that any Australian intelligence agency was engaged in any activity whatever in Chile at or around the time of the coup against President Allende. To the extent that some intelligence co-operation activity may have occurred at an earlier time, there is no foundation for any suggestion that Australia in any way assisted any other country in any alleged operations or activity directed against the Allende Government. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the discussions at the seminar on the draft defamation Bill which was held in Sydney on Saturday by the Media Law Association and the views of the seminar which were summarised by Mr McHugh, the President of the Media Law Association, who stated: There is hardly a line in the Bill which has not been criticised and which cannot be justifiably criticised. I ask the Attorney: Firstly, will he redraft the Bill in the light of the professional comment made at the seminar, as well as raising, as he undertook to do, various policy issues at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General? Secondly, will he invite the Standing Committee to consider the view of Mr Justice Hunt that it would be preferable not to attempt to codify the defamation law but rather to seek to achieve uniform modification of the common law? Senator GARETH EVANS —Certainly, as I indicated at the seminar, I remain fully receptive to suggestions not only about the policy content of this draft legislation which is, as Senator Durack will well know, the product of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in an evolutionary exercise over the last four years to which he was a far more substantial contributor than I was. I have indicated my willingness to look, not just at the policy issues in relation to that legislation, but also at particular matters of drafting which may arise in relation to it. I indicated to both Mr McHugh and the former Attorney-General , Mr Hughes, who were present at the seminar and who also had all sorts of things to say publicly about the Bill, that I was willing to meet with them or with any group of senior practitioners in this area that might be put together under the auspices of the Media Law Association or perhaps the Law Council to look at the particular question of the practical operation of the legislation. The policy matters which, at least before the seminar, I was disposed to raise with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General will be raised at the meeting to be held in Melbourne on 16 December. It may be that, when I get a full report of what happened in the rest of the seminar when I was not there, there will be some other matters as well as those which I publicly announced which I will raise with the Attorneys. As to the final question, namely, whether it may not be appropriate to engage in some modification of the common law rather than a complete codification, I simply say that the proposed uniform model legislation is not a complete codification-it does not purport to be-of the present law of defamation. It leaves plenty of room for operation of the rules of tort law generally and some aspects of defamation law in particular. I believe, as a result, that this aspect has been somewhat overstated by Mr Justice Hunt, although his comments and criticisms have been very helpful indeed in other respects and will certainly be taken very much into account as this rather difficult exercise continues and, I hope, is drawn to some sort of satisfactory conclusion next year. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Resources and Energy. On 14 September last, replying to a question concerning Wind Energy Tasmania Incorporated, the Minister for Resources and Energy stated that he had authorised the Department of Resources and Energy to seek discussions with the Hydro-Electric Commission on the collection of technical data on wind velocities and possible future co-operation, probably 12 months hence, in a technical study for wind-generated electricity in northern Tasmania. Have these discussions commenced? Has the Minister made any further decisions relating to the tentative plans to study the commercial production of wind-generated electricity in Denmark? Senator BUTTON —I have no knowledge of what discussions have taken place with the Hydro-Electric Commission or any other bodies relating to data for wind power research. I will direct that question to the Department of Resources and Energy and obtain an early answer. Senator LEWIS —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health a question about Medicare. Is it true that the number of Medicare enrolment forms needed has been underestimated by about 600,000 and that, despite the advice on the form that additional forms are available at post offices, forms are not currently available? Further, is it true that a Department of Health paper advocates an increase in the health care levy to 4 per cent? Is this not evidence that Medicare is already in a bureaucratic and financial mess? Senator GRIMES —As to the first part of the question about the number of forms allegedly under-ordered, I have no idea whether that is true but I will certainly find that out for the honourable senator. As to the second part of the question, I do not know of any Department of Health paper advocating a 4 per cent levy. I am sure there is no such paper, but I will check with the Minister. Senator PRIMMER —Did the Minister representing the Minister for Defence see last weekend's Four Corners program which contained allegations that Parliament had been unwittingly misled by three senior Liberal Party Ministers in relation to the use of dangerous herbicides in Vietnam? Is any action contemplated against those officials who lied to a succession of Ministers and who must bear a share of the responsibility for damaging the lives of thousands of children and adults in both Australia and Vietnam? Can the Minister assure the Parliament that none of the officials involved is in a position to influence the policies of this Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Primmer's question deserves a detailed reply. I will draw it to the attention of the Minister for Defence and ensure that he gets one. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister . Further to Australia last year issuing a letter of intent to participate in the Louisiana Exhibition in the United States of America from 12 May to 11 November 1984, can the Minister advise how it is intended to utilise this most valuable opportunity to promote Australia, its people and its products? Can the Minister indicate the present stage of development of the project? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the last part of the question is no. It follows from that that I will have to seek from the Prime Minister the answers to the first two parts. Senator COOK —Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen the front page of the Melbourne Age where it is headed 'The Good News-On Four Fronts'? Does the Minister have any comment on the present state of the Australian economy under the Hawke Australian Labor Party Government? Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —There are a lot of interjections about what is now dignified with the description 'the EPAC study'. There was no such study. A forecast was prepared in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in September for the Economic Planning Advisory Council. Even the authors of that so-called forecast in September expressed the view at the time that it was a very conservative estimate of the likely state of the economy and, in their own words , that they could have been much more sanguine than they were. Of course, everything which has happened since has justified the view of the authors of that report that they could have been more sanguine. For example, since that document was written there has been a totally revised estimate of farm production. Surveys have suggested a vast improvement in consumer confidence and-- Senator Chaney —Lower capital investment. Senator BUTTON —No, not lower capital investment. That is incorrect. The only forecast has been one of low capital investment, not lower capital investment. I shall come to that in a minute. That was a problem throughout the 1970s, when private capital investment was at a level, on average, of about one per cent of fixed assets. But Senator Cook specifically directed my attention to the front page of the Melbourne Age. That records a very strong improvement of the manufacturing sector, with 21 out of 27 seasonally adjusted items showing increases as compared with the previous month, which was a month which showed increases as compared with the month before that. Production of raw steel was up by 9 per cent; production of cement was up by 10 per cent; production of bricks was up by 4 per cent; production of refrigerators was up by 15.8 per cent; and there were other substantial increases in the white goods area. Those increases in manufacturing production reflect a number of things. They reflect the rise and potential rise in farm income. They reflect the Government's stimulus to the housing industry. They reflect the general improvement in confidence. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —The wage pause. Senator BUTTON —Any advance on the wage pause? Senator Chaney —There is nothing but retreat from the wage pause. Senator BUTTON —I do not retreat from that. Of course the wage pause would have had some influence on these events. But the increases in production reflected in those figures show particularly the impact of the Government's policies in a number of areas. The figures for private capital investment are also heartening. They show that, after adjustment for inflation and seasonal factors, business expects to invest about the same in the December quarter as it did in the September quarter of 1983. The figures suggest that private capital investment is likely to be much better than was forecast in the Budget. The figures on average weekly earnings for all employees showed an increase of 5.5 per cent in the year to September, which in part reflects, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle pointed out, the wage pause. The share market is in a buoyant mood. The rural recovery is predicted to have a significant impact on the economy very soon and there will be substantial sums of money flowing to farmers by early next year. All of these figures, as I and other Ministers in this chamber have said on a number of occasions, should be treated with the necessary caution. But they are in marked contrast to the gloom and doom predicted by some members of the Opposition-buoyant with gloom, as I said the other day, in the prospect that these figures are incorrect. What we have is a batch of good economic news indicating that the Government's economic policies are on track. I should also mention Melbourne University's Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research survey which recently found the biggest recovery in consumer optimism in the survey's 10-year history. That in itself is a very significant finding. As I said, the Government welcomes the figures. We welcome the front page of the Melbourne Age and particularly the rising fortunes of the steel industry, as reflected in the headline of the Melbourne Age, which are very important. I commend to all senators a close study of these figures, because it is very important that they be aware of what is happening in the economy, while treating the figures with caution, as I suggest, because this country has many problems ahead of it, although I think that we are justified in being satisfied with the current level of economic performance. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. ACT TAB-Annual Report 1979-80 2. ACT TAB-Annual Report 1980-81 3. ACT Gaming and Liquor Authority-Annual Report 1981-82 4. Poker Machine Licensing Board of the Capital Territory-Annual Report 1980-81 5. Remuneration Tribunal-Reports and Determinations-November 1983-Pursuant to Sections 6 and 7 of the Remuneration Tribunals Act. 6. Canning Fruit-IAC Report 7. The Australian Tobacco Industry-IAC Report 8. Certain Sealed Motor Type Compressors-Temporary Assistance Authority Report 9. Australian Atomic Energy Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953 10. Uranium Advisory Council-Annual Report 1982-83 Annual Report 1979-80 Annual Report 1980-81 Annual Report 1981-82 Annual Report 1980-81 Senator COATES(Tasmania)(3.09) —by leave-I move: That the ACT TAB annual report 1979-80, the ACT TAB annual report 1980-81, the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority annual report 1981-82 and the Poker Machine Licensing Board of the Capital Territory annual report 1980-81 be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. The Senate has not in this Parliament continued the practice of referring automatically late annual reports to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. The Committee has preferred to check them first and then, in occasional cases where there is reason to investigate the lateness of annual reports, to follow the matter up. But the lateness of these four reports, and in particular the first one which is a 1979-80 annual report only now being tabled, makes it clear that they must not be ignored on this occasion and that the Committee ought to investigate the matter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I would just like to make one or two comments about the report on canning fruit at this stage. The Industries Assistance Commission, having put down its report dated 30 September 1982, reminds us of the fact that the canning fruit industry has been in considerable difficulty for many years. We have to take only a short look at the history of it to see the way that it has been under government scrutiny and government attention for a long time. The industry was established in only 1914 but it did grow through to the 1920s when at one stage there were actually 22 canneries competing for the market which was available. By 1979 these 22 canneries had decreased to six. Virtually ever since 1920 the industry has been in the hands of some form of government assistance or intervention. The industry is in a difficult state and it has been for most of its life. There have been many inquiries and many problems have been identified but very few have been solved. The IAC's recommendations are virtually that the easiest way to solve the problems is to let the industry die a natural death, and the sooner the better. I do not think that is acceptable to Australia in any way. We need to remember that this is an industry which is comprised of small growers. These operations were established mainly by individual operators when costs were relatively low. The growers themselves have done absolutely nothing to change the cost structure and the international situation in any way, but the costs of government and other industries have kept on growing. I believe this needs to be taken into account. Over the last five years there has been a 33 per cent contraction in the industry and it is expected that by 1989 of the industry's own accord there will be another 20 per cent contraction. I believe that the industry needs at least another five years of a similar sort of arrangement that it has at present and that that should be taken into account. There are about 1,000 growers in Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales. This in turn amounts to about 10, 000 jobs in those areas that are hanging on the viability of this small but vital industry. If the industry is to be seen to be of value it needs a bit more guidance and continuing assistance over the next few years. Mr Deputy President, if there are no other speakers now I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Those who have had a look at this Industries Assistance Commission report on the tobacco industry will note that on at least two pages it pays lip service to the decision of the previous Government to recognise the adverse health effects of smoking and to lay down some policy positions on what governments should be doing in relation to these effects. In relation to this report I rise to respond particularly to those two pages and to remind honourable senators that with tobacco we are dealing with the single greatest preventable health hazard facing Australian society today. My colleague, Senator Grimes, who was a member of a committee of this Senate which had the pleasure of examining this matter, and Senator Elstob, who shares my views with passionate concern in relation to smoking- Government senators-Oh! Senator PETER BAUME —Well, he says he does not. The previous Government laid down some positions which I hope will be endorsed by the present Government, namely, that there should be a national goal towards a diminished level of tobacco use in Australia, and that there should be a number of actions taken which are set out in this report, I think at page 39. The previous Government identified certain things in relation to consumer information and other matters which might reduce the incidence of smoking. What prompts me to rise is that if one goes to the recommendations on this industry of the IAC one sees that the first recommendation is that from 1 October 1983 there be no controls on the growing and sale of tobacco. Some controls on the sale of tobacco are related to perceived health issues. For example, some statements are made throughout this report by tobacco companies giving evidence which can be challenged. They are that consumers are, in fact, in the best position to make decisions about smoking, but the fact is that many of the consumers of this product are, to use a word that John Stuart Mill might have used, infants. They are people of 9, 10 and 11 years old who might not be in a position to make a mature judgment for themselves. They are people for whom it is proper, if they are below the age at which they can make an independent decision of choice, for governments to make those decisions for them. Senator Chipp —Or even 13, 14 or 15. Senator PETER BAUME —Whatever the age might be. I am trying to avoid identifying a particular age, but there is an age at which smoking is a significant activity . These people are certainly below the age at which they can make their own choice. In Mill's terms, people of that age are infants and the right of making their own decisions for their own welfare is not appropriate. He is talking about people of mature decision-making capacity. So there are issues in relation to the tobacco industry which go to our conceptions of liberty, citizenship and society. They are issues which, while raised briefly by the IAC, have not really been addressed. I remind the Senate that section 22 (1) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act requires the IAC to have regard to a number of things. One such regard is recognition of the interests of consumers. I place on record my concern that the whole exercise, while it may be admirable in an econometric or economic sense in terms of what the IAC is proposing for the industry from industry considerations, leaves something to be desired in terms of the adequacy of its consideration of other matters which are known to be government policy and which relate to the use of tobacco. I conclude by saying that I have no argument with people who grow tobacco. They have been carrying out a legal activity and I have no argument with them or what they are doing. But if society has a view that it wants to do something about the health risk which is posed-- Senator Georges —What if they were growing marihuana? Senator PETER BAUME —I will not be drawn out by the interjection. But if society wishes to tax the activity to cover health effects or if it wishes to tax the activity for other social reasons, those reasons should be kept in mind when the Government comes to take its economic decisions on this report. I hope that the responses of the previous Government will not be put to one side. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.19) —I rise to speak very briefly on this report to underline something that I have said in the Senate before on debates on the tobacco industry. I hope that the Government, when looking at this report and deciding what it is going to do in relation to the tobacco industry, does not allow itself to be tempted to run away with the thought that it will stop Australians smoking by sending the Australian tobacco industry broke. That was a point of view put in a number of submissions to the Industries Assistance Commission in argument against assistance to the tobacco industry. The argument was that smoking is bad for people and therefore the tobacco industry should not receive any economic consideration. They are two separate issues. Tobacco smoking is legal in Australia and over the decades people were encouraged to go into the tobacco industry as farmers, and that particular industry has grown up. If a government wants to decide that there should be no more tobacco industry in Australia, that is within its province. It can make that decision. But, if it is going to make that decision, it ought to face the consequences, and not make such a decision on the spurious or even emotive grounds that it is doing something for the health of the country. Some people who have farmed tobacco have farms that will grow other crops. Senator Peter Baume —Not always. Senator MARTIN —No, not always. It is not fair to send broke those people who have no other-- Senator Georges —They might be better off growing pot. Senator MARTIN —Why don't you make a speech, Senator. In some cases the soil will not grow other crops but in a number of cases the soil does have the potential to grow other crops, such as rice. That is sometimes advanced as an argument for phasing out assistance to the tobacco industry. I just say to the Senate that tobacco farming requires very particular equipment for planting, harvesting and care. It is very expensive equipment and it is not equipment that can be used for other crops. So if farmers are to turn to other crops as a result of a government decision-a decision which would send them broke-I think there is a responsibility on government to assist them into another form of farming. I said that when we were in Government and I reiterate it now that we are in opposition. Senator Chipp —Why can't they be compensated? Senator MARTIN —Senator Chipp says: 'Why can't they be compensated?' That is an alternative. The point of what I am saying is that I fear that this Government, as the previous Government did, will come under pressure to take certain action in relation to the tobacco industry with regard to tariffs, assistance and so forth that will simply have the effect of sending Australian farmers broke. It will not stop Australian smoking. If tobacco is not grown in Australia, it will be imported from the Philippines or somewhere else. Persuading people that smoking is a health hazard and that they should not do it is a quite separate exercise from making the decisions that are suggested in the report on the tobacco industry. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.23) —Mr Deputy President, as Senator Peter Rae is away on other business today, I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.24) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. As the list shows, this report was not available prior to tabling and hence I and other senators have not yet had a chance to look at it. However, I wish to make just a couple of comments at this stage before seeking leave to continue my remarks. It is important to note that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission represents one part of Australia's constructive role in the world nuclear industry. The Commission meets a variety of functions. It has been operating for many years in this country and has made a very useful contribution. The point I want to touch on today goes to one of the two significant areas of concern about the nuclear industry-areas of concern which have been mentioned very often in this place over recent months. One major area for concern is the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Nobody would regard that concern as being out of place. Obviously all of us should be concerned to reduce that proliferation to a minimum and to see a move towards nuclear disarmament. But it is the second area which perhaps is particularly relevant to the Commission-the area of waste disposal. I think it is quite appropriate again for there to be concern about effective methods of waste disposal. Clearly the peaceful use of nuclear energy to generate electricity gives rise to by-products which are in a dangerous state and which remain in a dangerous state for a very long time. I think it would be fair to say that the current state of the art of waste disposal is one which is essentially in transition, with countries gradually developing more and more sophisticated methods of waste management and disposal. I want to acknowledge the very valuable work which is being done in Australia by the Australian National University through the Research School of Earth Sciences in collaboration with the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. I believe it would be a useful contribution to the sometimes very divisive debates on uranium which take place in this chamber and elsewhere if we occasionally focused our attention on the very positive scientific work which is being supported now by the new Government. I acknowledge that fact. I believe it is very sensible that it should continue to support work which I think is of as high a quality as that undertaken anywhere in the world. I express the hope that we might ensure at some later time-I suspect the amount of General Business time available to us from now on will be very small-that all senators who have an interest in these problems are given an opportunity to debate the waste management and disposal problem in the context of this report as well as other matters which are dealt with in the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.27) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The schedule which has been circulated shows that copies of this report were not available prior to tabling. I still do not have a copy of the report and therefore I am absolutely unable to find out what the content of the report is. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Senator Chipp —I take a point of order. I have had about one minute in which to look at the reports of the Uranium Advisory Council and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. These reports are not unimportant. The Uranium Advisory Council is a very important body which was set up after the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. If the debate is adjourned, which I concede is the only course open, there is no way that these reports will be available for debate between now and the end of this year. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If the debate is adjourned and made an order of the day for the next day of sitting these matters can be brought forward under General Business on Thursdays. Senator Chipp —A motion is listed in the Notice Paper that Government Business take precedence of General Business for the rest of the year other than this Thursday. I know that I am treading on your indulgence in regard to this point of order, Mr Deputy President, but I believe it is important to raise this matter. Can we get some sort of assurance from the Government that at least these reports will be made available for debate before the Senate rises? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —This matter does not involve a point of order. Can anyone from the Government give such an assurance? Senator Ryan —I understand that time can be made available for debate of these reports during General Business on Thursday. Motion (by Senator Reid) agreed to: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for Thursday, 1 December. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In answer to your question, Senator Chipp, now that this matter has been listed for General Business on Thursday, it is up to the Senate to decide whether it wishes this matter to be dealt with then. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(3.30) — by leave-I wish to report to the Senate that the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare is currently advertising its inquiry into Australia's retirement income systems in the national Press and is calling for written submissions from interested individuals and organisations to assist in the conduct of the inquiry. The closing date for submissions is 31 January 1984. Honourable senators will recall that on 6 September 1983 the Senate referred the matter of Australia's retirement income systems to the Committee for inquiry and report on, or before, the first sitting day in August 1984. In particular, the Committee is required to report on any changes which may be necessary to ensure equitable and comprehensive income security for Australians of retirement age. The Committee has formulated detailed terms of reference to clarify the main objectives of the inquiry and to assist those preparing written submissions. These terms of reference also indicate those issues which the Committee believes warrant examination, without excluding other issues which may be brought to its attention in the course of the inquiry. The terms of reference for the inquiry are as follows: 1. The present and future financial needs and expectations of people of retirement age taking account of demographic trends, and changing social and economic conditions; 2. The adequacy of existing income systems such as age pensions and occupational superannuation schemes; and 3. Options for the future, with particular reference to- (a) proposals for the modification of existing income systems, (b) taxation and social welfare policies which provide for the equitable financing and distribution of social security benefits to people of retirement age (e.g. the appropriateness of income-testing, assets-testing and taxation of capital gains), (c) the financial and economic implications of alternative national income systems for persons of retirement age, including a national superannuation scheme, and (d) the need for subsidised services for aged persons (e.g. health, housing and transportation), and access to such services. The Committee will also be considering the recommendations and proposals of earlier reports which addressed various matters within the scope of this inquiry , for example, the reports of the Asprey Taxation Review Committee, the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, the Hancock National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry and the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System as they relate to the provision of income security for Australians of retirement age. As part of the inquiry, the Committee intends to consider the retirement income needs of all people, including part time workers, the non-employed, the disabled, early retirees and women. It will also take account of such factors as changing work patterns and changing labour force participation rates and their effect on various retirement income systems. I believe the inquiry is not only timely, in view of recent Government decisions affecting age pensions and occupational superannuation schemes, but also of vital importance to the present and future development of policy affecting the provision of equitable and comprehensive income security for people of retirement age. I further believe that it is appropriate for a committee of the Parliament, particularly a Senate committee, to be conducting an inquiry of this nature as such a committee will bring a bipartisan approach towards the inquiry. The recent increase in the membership of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare from six to eight senators also means that all major political parties in the Senate are now represented on the Committee. The Committee will be holding a series of public hearings in Canberra and interstate early next year. These meetings will provide a forum for individuals and organisations to express their views on issues raised in the inquiry's terms of reference. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 I present the report relating to the following proposed work: Construction of a chancery complex and staff housing at Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-One of the recommendations of the Public Works Committee is that the Department of Administrative Services should review the accommodation standards as they are applied to the Riyadh housing. The current provisions are not adequate for housing at Riyadh. Family rooms and en suites should be provided in all houses. Servants' accommodation should also be improved. The Committee recommends to the Department of Administrative Services that it should specify that recreational facilities be provided for Australian staff and families when it issues the standards that should apply at Riyadh. As far as practicable, the head of the mission should place no restrictions on families using the facilities. The Committee also recommended that priority should be given to Australian firms in the design, construction and equipping of the chancery complex and residence. Wherever possible, Australian materials should be used to provide distinctively Australian furnishings. Carpets, curtains, furniture and accessories should be of Australian origin. Motion (by Senator Ryan for Senator Button) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders- (1) (a) The Senate meet on Friday, 2 December 1983, Friday, 9 December 1983 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 1983 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. Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1983 International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill 1983 International Monetary Fund (Quota Increase) Bill 1983 Asian Development Bank (Additional Subscription) Bill 1983 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1983 Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill 1983 Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill 1983 Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill 1983 Transfer of Prisoners Bill 1983 Transfer of Prisoners (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 1983 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Customs and Excise Amendment Bill 1983 States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1983 Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1983 Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1983 Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Amendment Bill 1983 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(3.41) —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- This Bill is designed to implement the Australian Labor Party's platform as it relates to postal services. The ALP Platform contains commitments to: the development of an efficient postal system on the basis of a publicly owned national utility with exclusive rights to carry letters for reward; the postal system to be available to Australians who reasonably require the services; electronic mail to be handled by Australia Post; and Australia Post to be empowered to competitively market a variety of services including high speed and door to door pick up and delivery services. The Bill gives effect to these commitments by restoring the courier service, giving Post power to operate electronic mail services, by retaining and clarifying the monopoly provisions and allowing Post to enter a wider range of agency arrangements. The Bill gives effect to Government decisions following consideration of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission, the Bradley Committee, which were announced on 9 August 1983. The major provisions in the Bill are those which give powers to the Australian Postal Commission to operate courier services and to establish electronic mail services in its own right. Honourable senators may recall that until 1980, Australia Post was successfully managing courier services in competition with the private sector; but under the short-sighted policy of the former Government its power to operate courier services was removed. This action was taken following the Review of Commonwealth Functions in the apparent belief that operation of courier services was a function which should only be undertaken by the private sector. The previous Government's decision was short sighted in that it did not take account of Australia Post's need to provide the full range of postal and related services including the kind of fast, personalised postal service which the community demands for items needing reliable special delivery treatment. The power for Australia Post to operate electronic mail services in its own right is necessary to ensure the Commission can remain at the forefront of providing modern day communications services utilising the latest technological development. In general, electronic mail services provide for the transmission of documents by both electronic and physical means. The simplest example is the transmission of documents by facsimile, combined with physical pick up or delivery of the hard copy by the courier service. Other types of service are under study by Australia Post such as a bulk mail service using linked computers and mail preparation and delivery facilities. It is difficult to forecast how electronic mail services will develop in the future or the degree to which thay may replace traditional services, but it is clear that Australia Post must be able to participate. There is a number of consequential amendments in the Bill which flow from the provision of power to establish courier and electronic mail services. The Bill also provides for Australia Post to enter into agency arrangements with private sector principals. This is an extension of the existing power which enables Australia Post to enter agency arrangements with public sector principals. This measure will enable Australia Post to utilise its national network of post offices to provide supplementary services which should particularly benefit people in country areas. It also appears inequitable that private sector principals should be precluded from access to this network which is available to their public sector competitors. Extension of agency services in this way should lead to increased revenue to Australia Post thus benefitting all postal users. Turning to the monopoly provisions for Australia Post, it needs to be borne in mind that these apply only in relation to carriage of letters. A good deal of Post's business such as the parcel post and carriage of non-letter articles is subject to competition. That competition comes from transport firms, courier services and the growing private delivery services. The Bradley Committee reaffirmed the necessity for Post's basic monopoly on letters to continue if Australia was to have a uniform nationwide postal service. The Government strongly endorsed that view as being consistent with the ALP platform. The Government considered a number of the exemptions to the monopoly proposed by Bradley. It decided to accept the recommendation that letters subject to a premium fee not be subject to the monopoly. Mostly such premium fees are charged by private courier services for speed pick up and delivery of letters. The amendment in the Bill will regularise this situation without putting Post's essential basic monopoly in jeopardy. The Government has decided that the minimum premium fee should be ten times the basic domestic letter rate, currently 30c. This will mean, for example, that private courier services will be able to carry letters for reward exempt from the Commission's monopoly if they charge a minimum of $3.00. Similar provision has been made for private sector carriage of letters to overseas destinations. The Bill also proposes a number of amendments of a technical nature such as allowing meetings to be held and decisions taken without all Commissioners being physically present. It extends the power to lease or sell any land vested in the Commission and increases the amount payable for rewards for information. A further amendment allows for officers of the Commission to retire at the age of 55 years rather than at 60 years. This gives effect to another election undertaking of the Government and is complementary to a provision in another Bill before the Parliament which provides for a similar condition for officers of Telecom Australia. The opportunity has also been taken to clarify and restate the powers of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Commission to make by-laws. This has become desirable because some doubts have been raised about the effect of the procedures of notification adopted by the Commissions to this time. Because of significance of the by-laws to Telecom and Australia Post it has been decided to adopt the prudent approach of putting the validity of by-laws beyond doubt. I believe the proposals in the Bill before the Senate will mark a significant milestone in Australia Post's operations. The powers encompassed in the Bill will enable Australia Post to offer new and dynamic services, make more efficient use of its extensive network of post offices, better meet the needs of the public and tap potential new technological developments which are both challenging and exciting. Altogether, Australia Post will be placed in the position of providing fast reliable and comprehensive postal servives for the benefit of all Australians. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(3.42) —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 provide legislative authority for a system that may be used uniformly throughout Australia for the service by post of summonses in respect of taxation offences that, on summary conviction, are punishable by a fine. The Australian Taxation Office issues more than 100,000 summonses annually throughout Australia for non-indictable offences against the various taxation laws. Most of these relate to failure to lodge income tax returns or to provide requested information. In some states-notably Victoria, South Australia and Queensland-taxations summonses are already served by post under relevant state laws. However, in Western Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales they are served personally by police officers, taxation officers or private process servers. Of the large number of taxation summonses issued in Australia each year a significant proportion is issued in New South Wales. Until now, service in that State has, by arrangement, been undertaken by the State police. The New South Wales Government and the police association in that State have, for some time, been expressing the opinion that the use of police resources on this work is a waste of valuable manpower which, if released from this function, could be better deployed on law enforcement activities. With this general proposition the Government is in agreement, but we have been concerned to ensure that any system implemented to replace personal service should incorporate adequate safeguards. Mr President, the proposed system contains essential safeguards to protect people from the consequences of non-receipt or late receipt of a summons or notice of conviction sent by post. A person convicted in his or her absence of an offence in respect of which a summons has been postally served and without entering a plea to the charge will be advised, by a notice which may be served by post, of details of the conviction, of any fine imposed and of the time allowed by the court for payment of the fine. This notice will also advise the convicted person of rights available under the system to apply for the conviction to be set aside and the charge reheard. Where the court hearing an application for setting aside a conviction is satisfied that the postally served summons was not received either at all or in sufficient time to enable attendance at the hearing of the charge, or where the court considers it desirable in the interests of justice to do so, the conviction is to be set aside and the matter reheard. The system will also provide that, if any fine is not paid within the longer of the time allowed by the court or 21 days, a warning notice must be personally served on a convicted person and a further period of 21 days allowed to elapse before he or she can be imprisoned for non-payment. Following personal service of this warning notice, there will be a further opportunity to seek a setting aside of the conviction and to obtain a rehearing of the charge. The court would , however, need to be satisfied that the summons and notice of conviction were not received or were not received in sufficient time to enable the person to appear at the original hearing or to have earlier exercised the right to have the conviction set aside and the matter reheard. In the event of non-receipt or late receipt of a summons there will therefore be at least two opportunities to have a conviction set aside and to obtain a re-hearing before a warrant of commitment to prison may be issued. The system will in general provide safeguards greater than those contained in the laws of States and territories which now provide for the service of summonses by post. In no case will the proposed Commonwealth system provide fewer safeguards. The system will be implemented initially in States in which personal service of summonses is at present carried out, namely, New South Wales , Western Australia and Tasmania. I also mention that in States and territories where persons may, under State or Tterritory law, enter a plea by post to a charge of having committed an offence, that procedure will also apply in relation to summonses for taxation offences served by post under the new Commonwealth system. Mr President, the introduction of the system provided for by this Bill will not result in any cost to the revenue. There will, however, be savings for State police forces in the States in which police officers now personally serve taxation summonses. Some savings in Commonwealth expenditure and resources will also result in States in which summonses are now served by taxation officers or process servers. A memorandum explaining the technical features of the Bill is, as is usual with taxation bills, being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Ryan)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Richardson be granted leave of absence for three weeks on account of ill health. Postponement of Notice of Motion Motion (by Senator Reid) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2, standing in my name for the disallowance of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance be postponed till Wednesday, 7 December 1983. Motion (by Senator Ryan)-by leave-agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the discrimination on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy or involving sexual harassment. Bill presented by Senator Ryan, and read a first time. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay. Second Reading Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women)(3.45) —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- On 2 June 1983 I introduced in this chamber, a Sex Discrimination Bill 1983. On 20 October 1983 Senator Evans announced a series of amendments to the Bill-53 in fact-which had been decided following comments received from interested parties about the impact of the Bill in particular areas and comments about the conciliation and inquiry process. This Bill incorporates those amendments as well as some other changes I will discuss later. Let me say that I do not apologise for the fact that there are numerous amendments to the original draft. In my press release about the introduction of the Bill on 2 June 1983, I invited constructive comments. We received a lot of comments and they were all considered. Many of those who commented came up with ill-founded comments about the Bill, that is that it was a bad Bill because it addressed only some problems in our society instead of fixing all problems such as unemployment and poverty, in one miraculous swoop; or that it was a bad Bill because people who did not wish to have equality would be forced to be equal; and so on. It was not possible to change the Bill to deal with these comments but they were considered. There were other comments made-some by the Opposition, Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine, some by State anti-discrimination counsellors and tribunal members, some by industry bodies or groups in the community-which pointed out practical difficulties with the Bill. I find it surprising that the Government should be criticised for making changes based on those comments. After all, the reason for introducing the Bill in June and leaving it on the table was to enable discussion and debate. There would be no point in consultation if there were no possibility of making changes following that consultation. There is no need to take up the Senate's time by what is set out in my second reading speech of 2 June 1983 about what the Bill does or why it is needed. The description of the Bill and the need for national legislation are already in the Hansard and do not need to be repeated. The major amendments incorporated in the Bill were described by Senator Evans on 20 October 1983. One thing is clear. Despite the changes made, the fundamental principle of the Bill remains unchanged; that discrimination based on sex, marital status and pregnancy and discrimination involving sexual harassment cannot be tolerated in our society; and that in public life-work, education, accommodation, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs-any such discrimination should be unlawful and there should be a means of redressing discrimination where it occurs. As I have said, this fundamental principle which is widely endorsed throughout the community is not changed at all. I will now describe briefly the final changes that have been made to the Bill. These fall into two categories, alterations dealing with exemptions and alterations dealing with procedural matters. One of the most controversial amendments already announced has been the provision relating to educational institutions established for religious purposes. It has been argued that non- government schools should be free to discriminate on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy in respect of the employment of staff and the admission and teaching of students: That would mean that such schools would be free to act quite without regard to the basic principles of equality on which the Bill is based. The Government does not accept that this should be so. The major fear appeared to be that a school which taught its students that marriage was sacred, might be forced to employ teachers whose lives were a denial of this view, because they lived in a de facto relationship-and that schools may even be forced to accept teachers living in de facto relationships with students at the school. I should point out that any teacher who engaged in sexual activity with a student, whether it was a de facto relationship or not, would be disciplined and that this would not constitute discrimination on the ground of marital status. As honourable senators know the Government treated the concerns of these schools seriously and first considered a two year partial exemption to enable the Human Rights Commission to report on the nature of the exemption that should be granted. As this did not meet the concerns of some spokespersons for non-government schools a further exemption was announced on 20 October 1983. It was also criticised because religious schools do not regard themselves as established to provide education in accordance with the doctrines of a religion or creed and asserted that the doctrines of the religion would not require dismissal of teachers in de facto relationships. With these comments in mind we have in this Bill included a revised exemption- at clause 38-which covers discrimination on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy in the hiring and firing of staff at schools conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed where the discrimination is done in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed. Sub-clause 38 (3) contains a similar exemption dealing with discrimination on the grounds of marital status and pregnancy in relation to the educational practices of such schools. The revised provision should allow schools to act in accordance with the religious teachings on the basis of which their schools are conducted, while still endorsing the basic principles of equality. I should point out that schools cannot treat teachers or staff differently on the basis of their sex, marital status or pregnancy while they are employed, or deny educational benefits to students on the basis of their sex. There are also alterations in clause 37 dealing with religious bodies to extend it to the selection and appointment of acolytes, deacons and so on and in the language of the final paragraph which has been broadened. As honourable senators will know the Government had announced an amendment to what is now clause 22 to make clear what was already implicit in the Bill-that it did not apply to the provision of services the nature of which is such that they can be provided only to people of one sex. I should comment here that the Bill is concerned only with discrimination between people because of their sex, marital status or pregnancy in services that are provided, and not with forcing people to provide particular services. Similarly the Bill does not force employers to take on more staff-only that when staff are employed they should be selected on merit and without discrimination. To avoid the real concern that people feel about the effects of what is now clause 22 the Government, as I have said, announced the amendment to clarify the situation. We have now moved the amending provision to clause 32 and it provides that nothing in Divisions 1 and 2-all the provisions dealing with discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy-applies to services the nature of which is such that they can only be provided to people of one sex. I hope this put the matter beyond doubt. Defence force employment of women is now covered in clause 43 and the provision has been altered slightly to allow more flexibility in the drafting of regulations. These will now cover combat duties, combat related duties and can include circumstances relating to those duties. Clause 106 deals with the vicarious liability of employers and principals. The Bill had already provided for employer and principal liability where the employee or agent does an act that would be discrimination on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy if done by the employer or principal. The new provision makes it clear that this is so whether or not it would be unlawful for the employee or agent to do the act. Clause 106 also covers employer and principal liability for acts of employees and agents that constitute sexual harassment-these must be acts in connection with employment or duties as an agent. The practice of sexual harassment can be eliminated only when employers take positive steps to eliminate it from the workplace and make clear to their staff that it cannot be tolerated. Clause 106 makes it clear that an employer or principal who has taken reasonable steps to prevent employees and agents from engaging in any form of discrimination will not be liable. The other amendments to the Bill are procedural. Clause 65, dealing with legal representation, now enables parties to have legal representation without the leave of the Commission where the Commission has made arrangements for counsel to assist it. This change has been made because such inquiries can be expected to be very formal. In other cases representation will be by leave of the Commission. Clause 60 is a new provision to enable the Commission to have a quorum of three for an inquiry-the Chairman or another legally qualified member will preside. Sub-clause 82 enables a complainant or the Commission to bring an action in the Federal Court to enforce a determination of the Commission. Sub-clause (2) of corresponding clause 74 in the original Bill provided that where the Commission had stated findings of fact, those findings were prima facie evidence of the matters contained in those findings. It was never intended that this should force a respondent to prove that those findings were wrong-only that the complainant should not have to prove a case for the third time in circumstances where the facts were not in dispute. We believe that there would be nothing to prevent the parties from agreeing on statements of facts in the absence of this provision, and for this reason it is not repeated in clause 82. The provisions in the Bill relating to self-incrimination are now contained in clause 91. This differs from clause 82 in the original Bill in that the privilege against self-incrimination is only removed in proceedings before the Commissioner and not before the Commission-the prohibition on using information obtained or documents produced before the Commissioner, in evidence in a court, remains. Under clause 90 of the Bill, refusing to answer a question or produce a document to the Commission is an offence unless the person has a reasonable excuse. Sub-clause 91 (2) makes it clear that refusal on the ground that to do so might incriminate the person is a reasonable excuse. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Martin) adjourned. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-I congratulate the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) on the Government's decision, finally, to have the Bill reprinted and for her acknowledgment of the need to rethink such an important Bill. I also congratulate her for her acknowledgment of the slipshod drafting of the Bill. There have been 53 amendments to the Bill before we have actually got round to finishing the debate on it. I hope that the Government will also acknowledge the input from the Opposition on many of the amendments that the Government has accepted. As I said, I am pleased to see this Bill finally reprinted so that it will be possible for us to deal with it in the Senate in a sensible fashion. Motion for Disallowance Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.48) —I move: That the Casino Control Ordinance 1983 contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 53 of 1983 and made under the Seat of Government ( Administration) Act 1910 be disallowed. There are two aspects to this matter and I wish to deal with each of them. The first, in particular, relates to the rejection by the Government of a proposal to develop a hotel and convention centre and office complex. In place it wishes to put up a building which incorporates a casino. Some questions need to be answered about the casino. Why do we need a casino? Who wants it? Who benefits from the Government's decision to place a casino in Canberra? On 18 October 1983 the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) put out a Press statement which sounded, at the beginning at least, as though the Government was confirming a decision which had been made previously in favour of the complex. This statement read: . . . Mr Tom Uren, today announced Government go-ahead for a complex involving an international convention centre, hotel and office accommodation in the ACT. As I said, that sounds like a reaffirmation of the project which had been approved previously. For six days prior to that statement there had been gossip in Canberra that there was to be a casino. In fact, the casino was referred to in the next paragraph of the Minister's statement which read: Mr Uren said the complex would also incorporate a casino. 'Negotiations for this proposal- that is the previous one- have now been called-off although I have invited White Industries to tender for the new proposal.' The Minister referred in his statement to employment opportunities but made no mention of employment opportunities additional to the ones previously available under the White Industries Ltd proposition. Presumably, the additional employment prospects come from the casino itself. I shall refer to them in due course. He referred also to urgently needed office space. Of course, that could have been just about built by now if the Government had gone ahead with the project in March of this year and had not fooled around with the idea for so long. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, who is in the chamber, knows how badly Canberra needs office accommodation. His Department had difficulty in finding a quite small area of accommodation for an office of the Department of Veterans' Affairs in Canberra, as he admitted in the Senate only recently. There has been a delay of nine months already. The Department of Administrative Services referred to this matter quite recently. The site was to be developed by White Industries Ltd. It was to be held in one ownership and no charge was to be made for the land. There was to be a 99-year lease and rates were to be abated for five years. The Commonwealth wanted to lease the office space available, subject to reasonable terms-of course, the Commonwealth knew that it needed the space-the Government was to give an undertaking to make maximum use of the convention centre and the National Capital Development Commission was to give all possible assistance. Those terms made it appropriate and possible for a hotel-convention centre to be built in Canberra, which is something we need. It has been stated on many occasions that the development of tourism and projects associated with the development of tourism are necessary in Canberra. The Canberra Association for Regional Development has said it; the Canberra Development Board has said it; and the Government has said it, but they do not do much about it. Perhaps the real tragedy of the decision is the disincentive to private investment which has been caused by the treatment of White Industries. It is quite contrary to the expectations that the people of the Australian Capital Territory had of this Government from the rhetoric which they had heard previously. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) was reported in the Canberra Times of 18 February 1983 as follows: . . . the ALP was committed to a convention centre for Canberra, without the requirement for a casino. It supported the White Industries proposal which provides for a five-star hotel and convention centre. That statement was reported on 18 February 1983. Of course, it was not until after the election that the rumours about the abandonment of that proposal started to float about this community. Everybody knew that it was local Australian Labor Party policy to oppose a casino. What other expectations did we quite reasonably have? The House of Assembly in the Australian Capital Territory was to be consulted about any significant decisions. The Canberra Times of 20 February 1983, under a headline 'Labor launches its ACT campaign', referred to the then shadow Minister for the Australian Capital Territory in this way: He said after the campaign launch that a Labor government would 'introduce directives that the Assembly has to be consulted on all ordinances affecting Canberra'. This casino ordinance affects Canberra. Up until the time of this ordinance, which is No. 53 of 1983, there had been, obviously, 52 ordinances. Two of those were referred to the House of Assembly after gazettal. Which two were they? They were the Casino Control Ordinance and the Canberra Commercial Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance, in relation to which I have also moved for disallowance. It is pretty obvious what consultation really means. There is consultation if it suits. If the Government thinks there will be any opposition from the community there is no consultation; the ordinance is brought into effect and it is then left for us in the Senate to move for disallowance. Who wants this casino? Who will benefit from it? Apparently, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that the people of Canberra will benefit from it. If that is the case, why does he not give the details of the benefit? Why will he not consult with the people? On 7 September 1983 the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) made a statement regarding financial impact statements. I concede that he related them to second reading speeches and not to ordinances, but I would say to the Government: Why not relate them to ordinances? Mr Dawkins said: In future all second reading speeches of Ministers will include a statement of a 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. If the Prime Minister is so certain that this casino will be of great financial benefit to Canberra why did he not provide us with a financial impact statement giving details of the costs, revenue and savings arising from this legislation, including the cost of the compensation that may need to be paid to White Industries as a result of the way in which the company has been treated? In the same statement the Minister for Finance said: Ministers will also attempt to assess the impact on industry and other sections of the community when formulating legislation. Obviously the Australian Capital Territory is not important enough for the Government to bother assessing the impact on this community of a casino or the community's views about whether it wants it. I wonder whether these words are as hollow as far as other legislation is concerned, or whether it is only the Australian Capital Territory which gets treated in this manner. I return to the questions I have already asked, to which we have no answers: Why do we need a casino, who will benefit from it and why was it necessary to bring in this legislation with what has been referred to as indecent haste? The legislation comprises some 30 pages with 10 pages of explanatory notes. After seven months of fiddling around with the White Industries proposal, the legislation was announced, as I have said, on 18 October 1983; consented to by the Governor-General on 28 October 1983; gazetted on 31 October 1983 and tabled in the Senate on 1 November 1983. The speed of events was absolutely breathtaking. It is worth pausing just for a moment to consider the speed with which some other legislation is dealt within the Australian Capital Territory. I refer to taxi fare increases. In March a proposition was put up to the Minister for an overdue increase in taxi fares and other allowances. On 25 August the Minister issued a statement saying that the new fares, which he had agreed to, would come into effect when necessary amendments were made to the Motor Traffic Ordinance. One would have thought that that would have been a matter of high priority if one had any regard whatever for that sector of the business community. But no, the new schedule of the actual increase in fares was introduced on 24 October 1983. In round figures it took two months. What about legislation as a result of the inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation into hazardous chemicals, air and water pollution, dangerous goods, the disposal of pesticides and veterinary chemicals? One would think that all of those issues were very important to this community. The initial report of the Committee was made on 29 April 1982. The second report was made in December 1982. There is still no Government response to most of the matters raised in those reports and no legislation either. On 26 May 1983 the Minister for Territories and Local Government informed me in a letter in relation to amending legislation about the operation of multicabs in Canberra: I have asked that the necessary amendments be given a high priority. What is the date now? We still do not have the legislation. So much for high priority of things that are important to this community. We are still awaiting legislation regarding noise control. So the list goes on. I could go through other areas, but there are more important matters to talk about. What has been the community response to the proposal that the White Industries development be abandoned and that the casino be developed? It has been suggested that there be a referendum. That suggestion has been rejected by the Prime Minister, out of hand it would seem, although the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) seems to think that it would be possible to hold one. Who knows. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) has been involved in this matter also. He talked about the creation of jobs. We know that the number of jobs, other than those involved in the casino, is roughly the same for this project as the previous Government's project, the project which should be proceeding right now. From the beginning of the arrangement there is very little difference in the number of jobs involved. The Minister referred to those who oppose the casino as 'academic wowsers'. That expression is contained in his Press statement of 19 October 1983. I suggest to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that that is a totally inappropriate way for a Minister to express himself about people who have a different view on something from that which he holds. It is a pretty poor state of affairs in this country when people with an opposing view on a matter such as this are called academic wowsers by the Minister for Housing and Construction. The only reference which we have regarding extra jobs is that provided by the Prime Minister in answer to a question in the House of Representatives on 16 November 1983. He said: No section of the Australian people is suffering more from unemployment than young women. It is without question and beyond the possibility of argument that if a casino were established in the Australian Capital Territory it would provide, in its construction, employment for a considerable number of people- that is certainly true- and, in its operation, large levels of employment for people and particularly for young women who otherwise would not be able to get employment. He did not elaborate on what he meant but in view of some of the reports and royal commissions on organised crime and vice one is terrified to think about what he might have had in mind. Let us go back to the people to whom the Minister for Housing and Construction referred as academic wowsers. On 22 October, the Canberra Times reported: ACT Labour Council opposes casino. The article continued: The ACT branch council of the Australian Labor Party has endorsed its opposition to Canberra's proposed casino. 'We decided after extensive debate that we still opposed the building of a casino in Canberra', . . . Mr Fred Daly is well known in this Parliament, well known in this community and is well respected. He now lives in Canberra. He has criticised the Government's decision to force self-government and a casino on Canberra without obtaining the people's opinion. In a letter to the editor of the Canberra Times, he wrote: . . . eventually, most governments get around to deciding that they know what is best for the people'. 'The Hawke Government, however, on a crest of a wave, have reached this point more rapidly-a little over seven months', . . . His letter continues: . . . 'Then the casino-another we-know-what's-good-for-you decision. 'It's not a question of whether you gamble or not, but whether this type of social activity to be established in the national capital. Personally, I do not think it is. His letter continues with more of the same. Other people in the community have commented on the proposal. I have received many letters and many letters have been published in the Canberra Times. Concern has been expressed about the impact a casino would have on the clubs in Canberra. A decision was made by the House of Assembly, as I said. The ordinance was not referred to it before it was made law, but it has examined it since. By a very convincing majority of 10 votes to 8 the House of Assembly rejected it. Of the ten only five were Liberals, so one can hardly say that it was a vote along party lines. It is very interesting to note that, of the six Australian Labor Party members who voted against the Assembly motion, six do not support a casino . A Press statement was put out by the leader of the Labor Party in the House of Assembly dated 22 November 1983 in which she complained about the way the media reported the Assembly decision and the ALP's position with regard to it. On page 2 of that statement she said: The ALP-view not to support any proposal for the construction of a Casino-was established on Sunday- which was 20 November- and at no subsequent stage was this position changed. The ALP did not vote for a casino. It certainly voted against a motion which related to this topic and the White Industries proposal together, but she was very clear when she said: The A.L.P. did not vote for a casino. In reality, the vote of the House of Assembly on a casino is 16 to 2. If the Government is not prepared to take notice of that, I cannot think how it can stand up and talk about self-government. There is another letter to which I wish to refer. In relation to the setting up of a gambling casino in Canberra, the author says: I believe this is a matter best decided by the majority of people living in the area, and that the views of the community should be ascertained before steps are taken to incorporate such a controversial establishment in the local scene. That was signed by Bob Hawke, President, Australian Council of Trade Unions and was dated 31 May 1977. We are entitled to ask him why he has changed his mind. He has not told us why he has changed his mind. The effect of this decision would be a major disincentive to the private development of Canberra. White Industries and the $130m which was to be used for the construction of the project have been left up in the air for seven months. It would be an irresponsible decision if it had been made in March; it is highly irresponsible made at this time. I cannot think who would argue with the proposition that we need to diversify our economy; we need to expand the range of job opportunities; and we need to encourage private investors to come to Canberra with projects that encourage tourism, with industry and with business. The real debate, I guess, is about jobs. What has happened? The project has been abandoned. It is consistent, of course, with the Government's attitude to the private sector. Tourism, as I said, is important. It is apparent from the Federal Budget in one part that the Government regards it as important, but not here. An amount of $ 500,000 was granted for the promotion of tourism in 1983, the same figure exactly as was granted in 1982 without any increased amount to cover the cost of inflation. There has been an average increase of 68 per cent in grants by State governments for tourism promotion this year. The amount granted to the Canberra Visitor and Convention Bureau on a dollar for dollar basis was the same as that granted for 1982, that is, $30,000. In fact, it spent considerably more than the $30,000; it spent $50,000. The Canberra Development Board has been downgraded. No new executive director has yet been appointed. If the ordinance is not disallowed, a new shopping complex is to be built by a statutory authority competing with the private sector. The Government has rejected the proposal for land servicing being done by the private sector except for one small proposal which the Minister said is a one-off deal. The attitude of this Government to the private sector, in spite of what the Minister for Territories and Local Government said at the National Economic Summit Conference shows that the Government does not care about it. Who wants the casino? Mr Alan Ramsey in the National Times on 31 October, in a quite long article, made it pretty plain. He said: The real initiator of the casino proposal is the Prime Minister. Hawke raised it with Uren personally after Cabinet in May had considered the so-called Tivoli Gardens project which the Fraser Government approved just a few weeks before it lost office. There is very good reason to think that that is probably true when one reads the letter that the Prime Minister wrote to the Speaker of the House of Assembly on 14 November 1983. In the two-page letter he spoke about the substantial benefits which will accrue to the citizens of Canberra, but he does not spell them out, and the employment opportunities-we know about them-short term and long term. He referred to the acute shortage of office accommodation. If he had gone ahead with the project in March that should have been proceeded with and that I ask him still to proceed with, he would be well on the way to having office accommodation by now. In a letter which he wrote to Senator Chipp on the matter, he said that he had 'informed the Assembly'. That expression in itself is noteworthy. He referred to the benefits but again did not spell them out. Interestingly enough he said that governments are elected to govern. I say to him: Get on with it and stop building shopping centres and interfering in that area as well. He said: There would in any event be a difficulty in following the course . . . suggested- as far as the referendum is concerned- . . . to be held on 25 February next. Although the Attorney-General, on television, did not seem to have the same worries about the prospects of a referndum on the matter. Other references indicate that the Prime Minister is very committed to this project. Perhaps worst of all is the threat to this community that if the Senate does not support the casino Canberra will get nothing; he will pick up his bat and ball and go home. Mr Barry Reid, the Deputy Leader of the ALP in the House of Assembly, prior to the Assembly considering the report-it is reported in the Canberra Times of 18 November-said: Plans for a hotel-convention centre and office buildings in Civic would be abandoned if the ACT House of Assembly failed to support the Government's proposal for a Canberra casino . . . Government source confirmed yesterday that if the casino proposal was not endorsed by the Assembly . . . and passed by the Senate . . . it was most probable that the entire project would be abandoned. Why is that? How could any government be so vindictive as to say: 'You will have a casino or you will get nothing'? That proposition was also confirmed by the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) in a television interview. That in itself needs to be thought about. Let us go through what we are really talking about. The Government will not hold a referendum and will not consult with the people of Canberra. It brings in subordinate legislation in the form of an ordinance which cannot be amended; not a Commonwealth statute, which one would think would be appropriate for a matter like this and which could be amended. There is a part of the Ordinance which ought to be amended but which we do not have the opportunity to amend. It was not referred to the House of Assembly in spite of a commitment to do so. It has caused great delay in going ahead with the project which was to have been ready for the World Athletics Cup in 1985, which would have provided jobs during this year and which would provide office accommodation. The Government has a total disregard for the needs of this community and the people in the Boulevard area who are very interested indeed in seeing this development go ahead. There have been many reports which this Parliament has heard about and which have dealt with other aspects of why a casino is not regarded by many people as a desirable asset in the community. Reports of royal commissions have been discussed. They have referred to organised crime. They have referred to the involvement of gambling interests in casinos. If in fact this is not correct, is the Government able to assure us that there is no connection between organised crime and casinos? Can the Minister set people's minds at rest on this issue and explain to us why it is that so many people feel that there is a risk of organised crime being involved with a casino? The authorities in the United States of America and Britain have not been able to curb criminal involvement in casino operations and they, of course, have had a great deal more experience in this area. There was discussion about this matter at the Congress of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science held in Perth only this year. Mr Douglas Meagher, in one of his papers, said: One of the oldest businesses of organised crime in Australia has been the conduct of casino type operations. He referred to the extensive report of Mr Justice Moffit in the early 1970s. He referred to casino type operations often being combined with vice operations. The most recent report that bears study is that of Mr Xavier Connor who reported for the Victorian Government earlier this year after an 11-month inquiry. Mr Connor is a respected member of this community. The Prime Minister could have asked him to look at the position in regard to the Australian Capital Territory. What did Mr Connor decide for Victoria? He said of casinos: They would be likely to stimulate casino gambling to an unacceptable degree; there is no substantial demonstrable demand for them. That was in Victoria. The only person who has been very vocal in demanding a casino in Canberra seems to be the Prime Minister. Mr Connor said: there would be a substantial risk that in one way or another they would be infiltrated by organised crime elements; they are likely to be accompanied by an unacceptable level of street crime; they are not, by comparison with certain other forms of gambling, likely to be efficient procedures of revenue for the State of Victoria. Nothing has been produced to us to show that a casino in Canberra would be likely to be an efficient producer of revenue for the Australian Capital Territory. A casino is being inflicted upon us. The White Industries proposal is being abandoned because of it. The private sector is being treated harshly and unjustifiably. I say to the Government that it should go ahead immediately with the White Industries hotel, convention centre and office complex. The question still lingers: Who needs the casino; who wants the casino? Why does this community need a casino? There really are a number of uncertainties and unanswered questions which this community is entitled to have answered by the Government. Great harm has been done to the development of Canberra by the delay in going ahead with the project and by the way the developer has been treated by being asked to hang around for some eight months. We need the jobs; the project should proceed forthwith. The $130m involved is available. If it does not go ahead, I wonder how much compensation will have to be paid to White Industries. Has that matter really been thought about? Of course, the other outstanding question that I hope the Minister will answer is: Who is to get the casino licence? That is something we are entitled to know. Who is being brought into this community with that casino licence? I hope the Minister can assure us that, if the Senate rejects this Ordinance, the Government will go ahead with the project that we all know about and understand, and that it will go ahead with it immediately; that the threat and the blackmail to this community about this matter are not typical of the real behaviour of this Government. Of course, if it is, the rest of the country ought to be told more about the way the Government behaves to a small community involving not only Federal Government but State and local government. Others should know the sorts of standover tactics that are used when dealing with a small community. I urge the Senate to support the motion to disallow the Ordinance. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(4.15) —As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I am not entering into the policy question of the casino, but I wish to report briefly that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee examined the Casino Control Ordinance and decided not to give notice to disallow the Ordinance as, from the Committee's point of view, there are no provisions which offend the established principles of the Committee and which would justify disallowance. I also add that the Committee, on one minor point, agreed to write to the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) seeking his views on the desirability of qualifying one particular provision in section 49 (4) under which an inspector can be authorised by warrant to use force in search, entry and seizure operations. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.16) —I support the motion for disallowance of the Casino Control Ordinance which has been raised by my colleague Senator Margaret Reid. This original Ordinance would enable the construction of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. That I have to speak on this matter through a motion for the disallowance of an ordinance is an incredible indictment of a Prime Minister who came to power trumpeting that his Government would be a government of consultation and consensus. Electors were not given to expect that important decisions would be taken secretly in an attempt to bypass the forums of Parliament. Of course, we in Tasmania have learned to look very carefully at regulations, following our experience with the particular issue of the South West Tasmanian dams. I understand that the Australian Labor Party platform stated that it would investigate the feasibility of establishing a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. We have had no investigation, certainly not to the public's knowledge, but just a blunt announcement that the Tivoli Gardens concept was frozen and that there would be a casino accompanying a convention centre. The Canberra Branch of the ALP was not consulted. The House of Assembly was not consulted, nor were the people of Canberra. Yet the Government cannot really hide behind the defence that it was surprised by the local, and possibly national, opposition to this scheme. Three times in the last six years a casino has been suggested. Each time, following opposition, the proposal has been dropped. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) have failed to give a single reason why the development should now go ahead. It is incredible how the Federal Government is prepared to give with such speed a go-ahead to a project which will cost at least $150m and which will change the character of the national capital. The Government announcement hoped that tenders could even be called before Christmas. This is in direct contrast to the cautious way in which ALP governments in South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia have acted. Victoria set up an inquiry headed by Mr Xavier Connor, QC, which sat for 101 days of public inquiry. The South Australian Government legislated for a casino but selected a site and a licensee which were subject to the most vigorous public scrutiny by a three-man authority which was headed by a judge. Western Australia initiated a public inquiry into the whole question of casinos. Just what justification has been given for the urgency of this proposal? I suggest that it is merely two hackneyed 'apple-pie' phrases-employment and tourist potential. No evidence has been offered to show the extent of these benefits, as my colleague Senator Reid has just outlined. By cancelling approval of the White Industries Tivoli convention centre and offices, the Government has delayed employment in the construction industry. Discussion of a new casino cannot ignore the findings of Mr Xavier Connor following his thorough inquiry in Victoria last year. His report, the report of the Board of Inquiry into Casinos, found that casinos should not be established in Victoria for the following reasons: They would be likely to stimulate casino gambling to an unacceptable degree; there is no substantial demonstrable demand for them; there would be a substantial risk that in one way or another they would be infiltrated by organised crime elements; they are likely to be accompanied by an unacceptable level of street crime; they are not, by comparison with other forms of gambling, likely to be efficient producers of revenue for the State of Victoria. Mr Connor concluded: I consider that the above considerations outweigh any likely benefits such as increased economic activity, increased State revenue and social enjoyment. I am not aware of any important factors which would make Mr Connor's findings irrelevant within the Australian Capital Territory. In fact, its geographical location within New South Wales and the presence of the Federal Government could make the findings even more pertinent to the Australian Capital Territory. On 24 May this year the Victorian Premier, John Cain, an Australian Labor Party man, announced his Government's decision not to proceed with a casino. He said: This Government is not prepared to expose this State and its citizens to the avoidable risk of introducing a facility upon which organised crime could prosper. Mr Cain went on: We do not propose to test the capacity of the police force or any regulatory body which the Government might establish to supervise casinos and therefore we have come firmly to the view that no casino of whatever variety should be set up in this State. What are the perceived benefits of a casino for the Australian Capital Territory ? There is great difficulty in predicting the effect of a casino on employment as such. Certainly there would be benefits during the construction stage, and I think that everyone would recognise that; but after that, it is largely unknown. The gambling dollar is not infinitely stretchable, as Tasmania is now discovering. As Mr Connor pointed out: It must also be conceded that there could be some significant rearrangement of the gambling dollar and perhaps a more significant drop in TAB revenue. Current employment levels arising from other forms of gambling could be reduced. Tasmanian horse racing illustrates this effect. Increased government sponsorship has been necessary for the continued prosperity of the industry. In that State the industry is currently being reconstructed. From a revenue point of view, a casino is not necessarily a gold-mine. Mr Connor recommended that, if revenue were the principal consideration, lotteries and the racing industry were better bets-using gambling terminology. The Government has held out revenue to be used for the social benefit of the people of Canberra as the carrot for this project. If that is so, the local people should ensure that they get the very best carrot that is available. Mr Connor said: They are not, by comparison with certain other forms of gambling, likely to be efficient producers of revenue for the State of Victoria. I believe that the same criterion, the same reasoning, would apply in the Australian Capital Territory. Many contradictory figures are trotted out to prove that a casino enhances tourism. Certainly Tasmanian tourism increased with the opening of the Hobart casino. But the evidence now points to a resumption of the normal tourist curve. It must also be remembered that there is a vast difference between the tourism potential of Australia's first casino, which was established in Hobart, and a future one in Canberra competing with four existing casinos and with proposed casinos in Queensland and South Australia. It is also the dream of a supreme optimist that a casino-convention centre will attract a vast horde of international conferences to Australia, and to Canberra in particular. Improved facilities for national conferences would be advantageous, but many international conferences would be deterred from coming to Australia, not by lack of a casino but because of distance, travelling times and high fares, particularly when other countries offer far more incentives than Australia offers. The point of most concern to me is the potential crime risk attendant with a casino, the risk both of organised crime and of street crime. Again, Mr Connor said: There would be a substantial risk that in one way or another they- that is, casinos- would be infiltrated by organised crime elements . . . Casinos are likely to be accompanied by an unacceptable level of street crime. There has been sufficient publicity this year of alleged organised crime in New South Wales, of reports of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and of the Special Prosecutor Mr Redlich to alert Australia to the reality of organised crime which is already taking place in Australia. Therefore, there seems little sense in increasing the risk and, in particular, in bringing organised crime into closer proximity with the law makers and the public servants. As John Cain pointed out, casinos are an avoidable risk which is not necessary. The people of Canberra are entitled to feel cheated and badly treated by the Hawke Government, even those who relish the idea of a casino. They were not consulted about this latest casino project; they were presented with almost a fait accompli. They are the ones who will have to live with the increased risk, not we the politicians who only come and go in the Territory. I support the motion of my colleague Senator Reid for the disallowance of the Ordinance. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.28) —The Australian Democrats believe that it is impertinent for a group of politicians, such as Senator Watson from Tasmania, such as me, from Victoria, and such as certain other people, to make a decision for the people of Canberra, without consulting them, and say: 'You will have a casino' or 'You will not have a casino'. The Democrats very strongly believe that such a significant decision as this ought to be made by the people of the Australian Capital Territory. They ought to be given an opportunity of registering their idea of the impact that such a significant decision would have on their way of life. As Senator Watson says, we who come from other States and other cities are in this city of Canberra for about 90 or 100 days and nights a year; that is all. The rest of the residents have to live here all the year, and they would have to suffer or enjoy the benefits that a casino might bring to them. It is a significant decision. The Government has said that from the profits of the casino money will be made available for social welfare, and that it will not be money that subtitutes for present hypothecations of revenue to social welfare . It will be a topping up of what is already there. That is very commendable. One would commend the Government for that sort of high purpose, but I ask: Has any sort of economic viability study been done to ensure that there will be profits of this magnitude that will materially assist social welfare in Canberra ? I am told, and Senator Watson and the Tasmanian senators would know better than I, that the casino division of the Wrest Point Federal casino and the Launceston Federal casino are now not as lucrative as they used to be. In fact, I have heard some suggestions that the profits in some cases have turned into losses. I am also told that the profits of the casino part of the Alice Springs Federal Hotel are not as were expected. Do we have any economic viability statement for the proposal in the Australian Capital Territory? Has any survey been done on the effect or the impact of a casino on the clubs in Canberra? What will it do to them? As Senator Watson said , the discretionary dollar that is spent on gambling in most cases, except in the case of compulsive gamblers, is not elastic. I think that was the term he used. There is only a certain amount in discretionary dollars that can be earmarked for gambling. What impact would the casino have on the social and ethnic clubs of Canberra which, in my judgment and experience, perform a very valuable social function in this city? What effect would it have on the racing clubs of Canberra and Queanbeyan? I do know that the casinos have had a catastrophic effect on the horse racing clubs of Hobart and Launceston. What impact would a casino have on the charities that are run and organised in the Australian Capital Territory? Then comes perhaps the most serious problem of all: What would it do to organised crime? I have never been too concerned about the effects of organised crime on casinos located well away from high density populations. But good heavens, in the Australian Capital Territory we are only three or four hours drive from the most densely populated place in Australia, Sydney, and within striking distance of Melbourne. One needs only to read the report of Xavier Connor, QC, to have some chilling fears about a casino erected and run in such close proximity to large centres of population. Arguments have been put to me that it is inappropriate for a capital city to have a casino. I must confess that I am not quite grasped with the strength of that argument, but it has been put to me and I must say that of the hundreds of letters I have received about a casino, almost every one has been against it. That does not necessarily test public opinion but it certainly gives an indication of its flavour. The Australian Democrats' view is that if ever there was a classic case for reference to the people to register a view, it would be on the question of whether the Australian Capital Territory should have a casino . There are no great scientific equations for ordinary people to contemplate or to understand. It is not a complicated debate in the sense that the debate on the fluoridation of water could become complicated. It is a simple and straight forward question: 'Do you believe that the benefits a casino might bring to the Australian Capital Territory would outweigh the possible detriment?' I believe that we Federal politicians who do not live here owe the people of the Australian Capital Territory the chance to say what they want. One might well say that the members of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, the democratically elected representatives of the people, have already made a decision. When one looks at the vote closely, that issue becomes a little clouded. What was voted on on 21 November was the following matter: In a debate lasting two hours the leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Assembly, Mr Jim Leedman, put a motion outrightly opposing a casino. It was quite stark. It just said: 'notes Message No. 115 and rejects the proposal that a casino should be built in the A.C.T.'-it has some addendum but that was the thrust of it-to which there was a quite complicated amendment moved by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Maureen Horder. In effect, it favoured the casino but said: 'Let us wait and make further evaluation'. There was a tied vote on the Horder amendment, nine-all. I would hardly say that that was a thunderously decisive vote of the democratically elected people of the House of Assembly. The amendment was negatived because the vote was nine-all. Then the Leedman proposal, that the Assembly was against the casino, was carried on the slightest of margins, 10 to eight. Now those in favour of the Horder amendment were eight Labor Party members and one Democrat. Senator Peter Baume —A 1-1-1-landslide, as a famous parliamentarian would have stuttered. Senator CHIPP —Yes, I wish the stutter could be put into Hansard. It would lift my speech considerably. Against the Horder amendment were five Liberal members, two Family Team members, one Independent and one Australian Democrat. The Leedman motion was carried by a vote of 10 to eight. Those in favour of the motion were five Liberals, two Family Team members, one Democrat and two Labor Party members. Against it were six Labor Party members, one Independent and one Democrat. I do not know whether that is a representative view of what the people of the Australian Capital Territory believe, whether ten-eighteenths of the population of Canberra do not want a casino. I do not know because sometimes the members of major parties vote as the party machine dictates. The Labor vote was more complicated than usual because as I understand it local Labor Party policy in the Australian Capital Territory is against a casino whereas the Federal Labor Party wants a casino impacted on the people of Canberra. It must have really put the Labor members of the House of Assembly in some sort of dilemma. With the greatest of respect to the members of the House of Assembly I am not going to take this as a truly representative vote of the people of Canberra. If this Ordinance, which is now law and which will remain law until either repealed or disallowed by this chamber, is disallowed by this chamber-namely if Senator Reid's motion is carried-it will be another six months before the Government can introduce a similar ordinance. Although I have a personal view about whether Canberra should have a casino, which I believe can be judged by the contents of my speech, I do not want to deny the people of Canberra a casino if the majority of them want it. Clearly if the project is going to get off the ground in the soonest possible time, simply to throw out this Ordinance this afternoon would inevitably set back any contemplation of a casino for at least another six months. I do not want that. I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) suggesting that a referendum might be held on the matter and that to save costs it might be held on the same day as the referendum of 25 February. I have no worries about quoting from the Prime Minister's letter to me because he seems to have the quaint idea that if you write to him your letter is from you to him only but his reply is put in the Press boxes. That is what his staff did with his reply to me. He said: With respect to your suggestion that there should be a referendum on the subject, my firm and long held view is that Governments are elected to govern and to make the decisions which need to be made. To resort to referendums, unless required by the Constitution or on a matter of the greatest national importance, would rightly be seen as abdication by a Government of its responsibilities. I do not see the casino issue as one which could possibly justify such a drastic step. I marvel at the idea that to go to the people to ask their opinion on something is such a drastic step. The Prime Minister goes on: If the Commonwealth-or, for that matter, the House of Assembly-makes a decision in this matter that is widely considered to be wrong, the electors will have their chance to pass judgment at the appropriate time. One wonders from where the Prime Minister believes that he or his Party got a mandate to introduce this measure. One wonders whether, if a casino is established in Canberra it could, as the Prime Minister suggests, be removed by a subsequent government. I very much doubt that once such a thing is established in a society it can be removed. The Prime Minister properly suggested that there were some difficulties under the Commonwealth Electoral Act which includes a provision that on a day when a national election or referendum is held a State election or referendum will not be held. I do not know whether that applies to the Territory. Even if it did, I cannot see any difficulty in having even an unofficial referendum on the day of the Federal referendum on 25 February which would, at least, give the people of Canberra an opportunity to cast a straw vote on whether they needed a referendum. It would be a far better indicator than that which we now have. I have asked the Government to reconsider the question of a referendum. As I understand it, it is prepared to reconsider the question without any undertakings being given. Therefore, I believe it would be in the interests of the people of the Australian Capital Territory if this debate today was adjourned until next Tuesday. There would still be plenty of time to disallow the ordinance if it be our wish. I give notice now that the Australian Democrats would vote with the Opposition to disallow this ordinance next Tuesday unless the Government agrees to a referendum. As I understand it, the machinery for doing so could be as follows: At its Cabinet meeting on Monday, the Government could agree to a referendum; if it is supported by Caucus the Government could repeal this ordinance, have the referendum, and then reintroduce another ordinance or some other arrangement, as it sees fit. With that in mind, and after paying the Government and the Opposition the courtesy of suggesting this course of action and, as I understand it, having received agreement from both sides that this is an appropriate course of action, I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt for Senator Ryan)-by leave-proposed: That Government Business, Order of the Day No. 3 (Sex Discrimination Bill 1983) be discharged from the Notice Paper. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.45) —In giving leave for the Sex Discrimination Bill to be discharged from the Notice Paper, I suppose I have indicated that the Opposition will not object to this motion. Indeed, we welcome the removal of the Bill from the Notice Paper. But I wish to say a couple of things about the matter. On 9 November 1983 I addressed a question to Senator Ryan about the Sex Discrimination Bill. In the course of that question, I asked: . . . does she agree that it would speed up consideration of the Bill if it were withdrawn and redrafted, incorporating the many amendments which the Government has now found it must make to make the Bill a reasonable piece of legislation, in the Government's view? I received what I can only regard as a rather churlish and abusive response from Senator Ryan. She suggested, for example, that I had accused the Government of ineptness and incompetence for continuing with the legislation in a form which would require a number of amendments. I think that any reading of my question would make it quite clear that I was not accusing the Government of ineptness and incompetence. Senator Ryan was setting up a straw man to knock down. The honourable senator also accused me of insincerity in my comments in wishing to facilitate the passage of the Bill. She went on to say: We have considered the possibility of withdrawing the Bill and redrafting it to incorporate the amendments but after lengthy discussion with Parliamentary Counsel officers and other relevant experts we decided it would not facilitate debate and discussion. Honourable senators will wish to discuss particular amendments, and are entitled to do so. I believe the form in which the Bill has been presented, with the amendments incorporated into the text, clearly set out in different type faces and so on- There was then an interjection from Senator Tate, which destroyed Senator Ryan's flow of language, but she went on to say: It is a clear presentation of the Government's intentions and a useful indication of the amendments we have made as a result of the consultation process. I also asked as a supplementary question at that time whether the Minister expected to introduce any further amendments. She said that whilst it was not set in concrete, she did not expect there to be any substantive amendments. In fact, the suggestion that the Bill be withdrawn and represented in a whole form incorporating the many Government amendments was first made privately to the Government in a meeting which I, along with the Honourable Ian Macphee, who is the shadow Minister responsible for these areas, had with the Minister. I raise the matter again because I believe that the Minister showed very great discourtesy in responding to what I had to say. She made a number of accusations and statements which now clearly are no longer representative of the view of the Government. I think that the prospect of dealing with what would now be probably some 60 or more amendments to that Bill would not be one that would lead to a good consideration of that legislation in the Committee stage. I believe that the Government has decided to follow a more sensible course. I regret that when the matter was raised both privately and in this chamber the Minister saw fit to respond in the way that she did. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 18 November 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Upon which Senator Lewis had moved by way of amendment: 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'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-As requested, I make a statement-on the basis of the information available to the Government at this time-on the financial implications of the Representation Bill 1983. As the Government has already said in presenting this Bill to Parliament, an increase in the size of Parliament is not only long overdue but is something which must eventually come about. We have said that the time is appropriate to make these changes now-now that we are updating and consolidating our electoral legislation and now that we are preparing to move into the new Parliament House. There is, in fact, a point to be made about the new Parliament House. It has been designed in such a way that the needs of the next 200 years can be met, albeit at some additional cost. Even though the proposed increase of 12 senators and 23 members will entail additional costs-which have not yet been finally calculated-I am sure that all senators will appreciate that to proceed with alterations at this stage would be far less costly, and certainly more conveniently arranged, than if the inevitable decision to increase the size of the Parliament were made in, say 10 years time, five years after the building has been completed. Estimated ongoing costs per annum for an additional 12 senators and 23 members are as follows: $m 1. Salaries and electorate allowances 1.93 2. Travel (fares, allowances, transport) 1.45 3. Office costs, including accommodation and equipment, postage and telephones, but excluding Joint House Department costs, which have not been able to be estimated in the time available 1.08 4. Staff salaries, allowances and travel 1.72 6.18 The estimated annual cost to the proposed Australian Electoral Commission of maintaining an additional 23 divisional offices is $3.17m. The total estimated annual cost is therefore $9.35m. Alternatives advanced by the Opposition are not free nor are they cost effective; we have considered all the alternatives and we believe our proposals are the most democratic and efficient. It has been suggested that an alternative to an increase in the size of Parliament is to provide each senator and member with an additional staff member. The estimated annual cost of this alternative is $6.2m, but this expenditure would not provide the same representation benefits to electors as would the slightly higher investment envisaged by this Bill. In addition some senators have suggested that members of Parliament and senators require vastly improved facilities, such as computers, word processors, vocadexes and new telephone systems; these items are of course extremely costly to provide and preliminary estimates from the Department of the Special Minister of State show that the provision of even a modest package of word processor, vocadex, telex and commander telephone system, would be in the proximity of $4m. The Opposition has continually advanced the proposition that the nexus between the House of Representatives and the Senate should be broken before any increase in the size of the Lower House is contemplated. But even if such a referendum were to be carried-which will be very difficult in view of the likely opposition from the smaller States-this would not really result in any significant cost reductions. The proposed increase in the size of the Senate would reduce the estimates outlined above-that is, the figure of $6.18m-by less than one-third and of course would not influence the $3.17m figure which is for the 23 divisional offices that are required. The further difficulty that the 'nexus' referendum proposal faces is that-as I said at more length in my reply to the debate on the Constitution Bills in the Senate on 13 October-the running of this question as a sixth question next February 25 will impossibly complicate the task of securing the passage of the other proposals. It may be appropriate for this proposal to go forward at some future time-at a referendum which, incidentally, if held by itself would cost some $20m-but that time is not now. The Government believes that the cost of increasing the size of Parliament as proposed in the Representation Bill presently before the Senate is a small price to pay for an improvement in the quality of our democracy-for more adequate and realistic representation for all Australians and for a more effective Parliament . Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I seek leave to make a short statement in response to the statement made by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —You are already in continuation, Senator Lewis. Senator LEWIS —Yes, I have about seven minutes left. Senator Gareth Evans —That is ample for you; you are pretty good. Senator LEWIS —I recognise that I am much better than the honourable senator but I need more than seven minutes to have a go at this statement. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Lewis, do you still seek leave to make a statement? Senator LEWIS —Yes. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. Senator Gareth Evans —My statement was to shorten the debate, not lengthen it. Senator LEWIS —I will be just a few minutes. I draw attention to the need for the Government to carry out its undertaking to provide us with information such as that contained in the Attorney's statement at the time of second reading speeches because the whole purpose of providing such information is to give the Parliament the opportunity to consider the cost to the country of the Government 's proposals. The Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, made great play about what his Government was doing in adopting the proposal for financial impact statements. Now, as the Representation Bill is about to come on for debate, we are provided with information which, on the face of it, is clearly dicky-let us say rubbery, to use a term which is well known. Senator Gareth Evans —What do you mean 'dicky'? Senator LEWIS —It certainly is. There is proposed here an estimated annual cost of $9.35m to provide all of these additional senators and members and their staffs and then further down we see that it is estimated to cost almost $6.2m just to provide staff. The Attorney-General cannot tell me that those figures are not rubbery in some way. All I want to say at this stage is how terribly wrong it is for the Government, having grand-standed about intending to provide the Parliament with information that would enable us properly to debate these matters, to provide us with this sort of crappy information just a few minutes before the debate is to continue. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Lewis, although you have made a statement you are still at the top of the speakers' list, in continuation, for the Representation Bill. Senator Lewis —I am aware of that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You may continue. Senator Lewis —I take it, then, Madam Acting Deputy President, that other senators do not wish to debate this statement? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Put it this way, Senator: No other honourable senators leapt to their feet with any enthusiasm. So I call Senator Lewis. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.57) —It now appears as though the reason for my motion before the Senate has been overcome. While the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, was going through his statement I tried to assess the provisions contained in it. I draw attention to the fact that apparently the Joint House Department costs have been excluded from the statement. The estimated annual cost of the operation of the Representation Bill is $9.35m; but, if we add the costs of the Joint House Department, we are talking about $10m per annum. Senator Withers —There is no superannuation in this, either. Senator LEWIS —Senator Withers has found another matter in the few minutes that this statement has been before us. No superannuation is included. The point is that I estimate that it was worth at least $5m per annum, and I might tell the Senate that when I made that estimate Senator Robert Ray, from Victoria, laughed and pooh-poohed it. However, I believe the estimate is near enough to $10m, on the Government's own figures, if we take into account the Joint House Department . That is the annual cost. What I seek to know, what I asked last Friday week when we were debating this matter, is what other costs are involved. Does the Government intend to expand this building in order to cope with the 36 additional members of Parliament. Senator Gareth Evans —No, we don't. Senator LEWIS —The Attorney-General says no. I do not know where people will be placed. Has the Government taken into account the cost of additional staff? Senator Hill —Is the Attorney going to share his office? Senator LEWIS —We will ask in the Committee stages with whom he is going to share his office. The other answer I want to know is what will be the cost of that new parliament building up on the hill, because 36 additional suites will be built into that building and in addition it may very well be that dining rooms, for example, will have to be expanded. Senator Gareth Evans —No, nonsense. Senator LEWIS —The Attorney-General interjects and says that no, there will be no need to expand the dining room. That would surprise me; but of course he knows more about the building than we do, having had something to do with it in the initial stages. It may very well be that he can tell us, when at some stage he responds, what he thinks the capital cost of the additional extensions will be to the nation. Senator Withers —Perhaps they can take it off the age pensioners. Senator LEWIS —Yes, as Senator Withers says, perhaps the Government could take it off the age pensioners or someone. In any event, I think the Parliament is entitled to know what will be the whole cost of this project. We do not want just the estimated annual cost. We knew that it would be an insignificant sum- the Government apparently thinks it is insignificant-of $10m per annum. We want to know what it really will cost. Senator Gareth Evans —Democracy is involved; cheap at twice the price. Senator LEWIS —I am interested to hear that the Attorney-General thinks that democracy would be cheap at twice the price. He thinks it would be worth while having $20m per annum spent on additional parliamentarians and that somehow or other an addition of 36 parliamentarians would bring about democracy in this nation. That is a lot of rot because this Government is not interested in democracy. We seek this information. I shall certainly be asking questions during the Committee stage. I alert the Attorney-General now that I will be seeking information on the estimated cost of other things which are floating around and which are not included in the financial impact statement which the Government has now brought down. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.01) —Almost all of the arguments for and against the Representation Bill 1983 have been elaborated upon at length by honourable senators who have taken part in this debate and consequently I do not intend to speak for more than a couple of minutes. I believe that one is either for or against a Bill of this type. One is either set in one's views on the arguments for or against such legislation. I can understand some of the arguments that have been advanced for the Bill. I can understand some of the pressures that may be building up in the States which, as a result of a habitation review and the resultant electoral redistribution, are likely to lose one or two seats in the House of Representatives. We should bear in mind that although the purpose of this Bill is to increase the size of this chamber, in reality the Bill will enable an increase to take place in the size of the House of Representatives. We all know that this would happen because of the constitutional nexus between the numbers in the House of Representatives and the numbers in the Senate. If it came to a decision between breaking the nexus or voting for this proposition, I would vote for this proposition. Senator Georges —Why? Senator HARRADINE —I make that perfectly clear. Senator Georges has asked why. All of the arguments that have been advanced against that proposition have in fact been put to the people by referendum and the people in no uncertain terms voted against the breaking of the nexus. I put it to the Senate this way: Whilst I can understand some of the arguments, I do not agree with them. I particularly do not agree with those arguments that have suggested that the volume of work has developed to such a stage that more members of the House of Representatives and more senators are required. Our affairs can be ordered in such a way as to ensure that parliamentarians can cope with the volume of work. Except in some committee areas, there is no way known that the volume of work will decline as a result of an increase in the number of members of Parliament. I acknowledge that exception. It has been suggested that a considerable volume of work has been generated in electoral offices since 1949 when the last major increase in the membership of the Parliament took place. That is true. However, a number of other factors have had an influence since 1949. I refer to the work of the Ombudsman, various administrative appeals provisions and better departmental facilities in regional areas in terms of social security, housing, immigration and so on. Senator Archer —Communications. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Archer mentions communications. I recognise that for more than one reason it must be a drag for Senator Withers to have to travel from Western Australia to Canberra. However, let us take ourselves back to 1949. I do not know how long it took to travel from Western Australia to Canberra in those days. Senator Withers —Two days, by air. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, it would have been about two days. I can get from Hobart to Canberra in a matter of three hours or thereabouts, perhaps 3 1/2 hours. Senator Robert Ray —You obviously don't travel by TAA. Senator HARRADINE —I do, frequently, because Trans Australia Airlines has a direct flight to Melbourne on Tuesdays. Leaving that aside, look at the advances that have taken place in technology. The advance in information retrieval technology is just one example. All of the Commonwealth legislation is on the SCALE system, the Statutes and Cases-Automated Legal Enquiry system, in the Parliamentary Library. One can walk into the Library off King's Hall, punch a few words into the computer and get the answer in ten seconds flat. The other day I wanted to find out whether the words 'de facto spouse' that are used in the sex discrimination legislation are contained in any other Act of the Commonwealth Parliament. The people in the Library simply punched the words in and seven seconds later out came the reply, no. Imagine how long it would have taken in 1949 for that piece of information to have been obtained. Senator Withers —Five seconds, because they didn't have such nonsense. Senator HARRADINE —That gets to the point. I think Senator Withers has hit the nail on the head. Will an increase in the number of parliamentarians mean that there will be any more wisdom around this place? I do not think it will. I do not want to canvass all the arguments that have been advanced. However, bearing in mind both sides of the argument, on balance I believe that this Bill should not be adopted. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.09) —I also wish to speak briefly. As a Tasmanian I want to make my remarks in the context of how this legislation affects the Tasmanian situation. I start by asking: However could any Tasmanian support this Bill? Are parliamentarians the best judges of what is best for their electorates ? I do not think that that is necessarily the case. Far too often we are inclined to look at things in terms of whether they will be comfortable to us rather than what will be best for the people we are supposed to represent. Do we take enough notice of what the electorate thinks is best and how many members it thinks we should have in the Parliament? Are parliamentarians too involved with their own comfort and convenience? Are we trying to avoid the real point of the legislation, which of course is simply a matter of how the Government goes about increasing its numbers? The primary cost, as has been suggested by the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) will be about $9.35m, or $10m in round figures. It amazes me that the Government intends to spend $10m in this way. Of that amount, $5m has been misappropriated by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) from the schools- Senator Georges —I raise a point of order. Senator Archer cannot use a word such as 'misappropriated'. I ask for that word to be withdrawn. Senator ARCHER —I withdraw that term. The amount of $5m that would have gone to the schools has now been- Senator Withers —Siphoned off for the pollies. Senator ARCHER —It has been siphoned off and put into the fund to pay more politicians. I am sure that that will not be greatly appreciated. The other $5m could have paid for the Wynyard Airport development in Tasmania. Although that project was actually under way and an election undertaking had been given that it would continue, the money allocated was perhaps not misappropriated but redirected into the area covered by this legislation. This Government decided that this money would be better spent on having more members of parliament. I do not know whether any of the other Tasmanian members of parliament are likely to go into various parts of the State and try to convince the people that the money that would have gone towards the development of Tasmania is better spent on having more members in the Federal Parliament. How could any Tasmanian support this legislation? The Tasmanian State Government has, very sensibly, been talking about a reduction in the number of parliamentarians. Two gallup polls have shown that 84 per cent and 87 per cent of people do not want any more members of parliament. We do not listen to those people because the fountain of all wisdom in this place says that we need more members of parliament. What a classic case of electoral expediency ahead of the clear views of the voters which have been totally expressed and clearly understood. Any change made to the current situation will weaken Tasmania's position relative to the rest of the States. It is not so many years ago that Tasmania had five members out of 75 members in the House of Representatives. What the Government is proposing now would give Tasmania five members out of 150 members, which actually halves Tasmania's representation. That may be all very well for the centralists. Any of the centralists would welcome such a thought but I do not think that any of the Tasmanian people would welcome the fact that a centralist Government was trying to edge them out more and more. We have had evidence of how the centralist Government would like to edge out Tasmania. This is purely and simply just another example. Not one single Tasmanian representative or Tasmanian could justify there being 12 senators from Tasmania. The Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) in his second reading speech dealt at length with the expectations of the electorate. He said that the volume of work and the volume of legislation had increased, as if that were a reason for increasing the number of members. Although the Minister talked about the people' s expectations and what they wanted from their members of parliament, he did not go so far as to say what their expectations were about the number of parliamentarians they felt was required. I do not know why he so coyly omitted that point. Clearly what is required by the electorate is more work and better representation, not more members. We will achieve a lot more by having better members, not more members. Mr Beazley-incidentally he is the Minister who was overseeing the cancellation of the funding for the Wynyard Airport-is the man who decided to put up this legislation to have more members of parliament. In his second reading speech he said: Today the Parliament through the ordinary back bencher is expected to be conversant with these new policy trends . . . I cannot see that more members will make the ordinary back bencher any more conversant with these trends. He states further: . . . with the flood of constituent problems . . . The flood of constituent problems could be better dealt with by more staff in the electorate office than by a member of parliament here in Canberra. The Minister went on to say: . . . the position of not being able to serve their constituents . . . These sorts of phrases appear throughout the Minister's second reading speech. More members will do nothing towards alleviating the problems mentioned in the Minister's speech. I mention that point in the Senate because I believe it is very valid. All these objectives can be achieved by allowing members to service their electorates better. The Minister also mentioned the fact that the New Zealand Parliament has only 92 members and that each constituency averages only 22,117 electors. I resent the fact that the Minister has referred to the New Zealand situation because he did not go on to say that we should bear in mind the fact that New Zealand does not have State parliaments and has only one chamber in the national Parliament. The figure of 22,117 would be similar in many respects to the number of electors who are represented by each member of parliament in Australia. I think that to include that sort of reference without qualifying it in some way is being a little less than totally honest. The Minister-I like this point-went on to say: It will permit the improving committee system to become more effective in improving the legislature's oversight of the Executive. I do not think the Minister was here during the last sitting week when we were endeavouring to get a better oversight of the National Crime Authority Bill. If Mr Beazley is going to talk about having a better oversight he ought to clear it with Senator Gareth Evans before he goes on in the way he did about the National Crime Authority Bill. I gained the distinct impression during that week that Mr Beazley may find that the increased scrutiny of some of the Executive and its Bills might be a bit hard to sell. I come back to a factual note. There is absolutely no way at present that we can produce the resources to provide adequately for 35 extra memebers and senators. We all know that. There is not the physical capacity in this building and in the areas around it to do that at this stage. I do not accept the statement put down by Senator Gareth Evans a few minutes ago which purported to be representative of the costs. The statement is a piece of paper that tries to prevent us from getting at the costs. Such figures could be produced by almost any of us in two or three minutes. The real costs are shielded. I believe that Senator Gareth Evans should send the figures back to where they came from and say: 'We asked for a complete set of figures and we still expect to get it'. The figures contained in the statement do not have anything to do with the real costs involved. It does not show any estimates which related to how we will suddenly produce all the extra offices required. It does not show how many extra staff will be needed for Hansard or the dining room . It does not give an estimate of how many additional attendants or drivers will be needed. It does not include the cost of extra cars that would be involved or the extra cost of furniture and typewriters. Capital costs such as these are not included. I think that the capital cost of providing these services for a member of parliament would be $100,000 or more. No reference was made to that in the statement. I would certainly like to know at what cost, why and how it will be done. I feel we are a long way short of having heard any justification for this Bill. Speaking as a Tasmanian, I think it is significant that no Tasmanian has yet tried to support the Bill. Frankly, there is no way any Tasmanian could possibly support it. I hope that representatives of the other States, particularly the smaller ones, will see the Bill for what it is and help to see that it is soundly defeated. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(5.20) — Before I commence my speech I make the point that I had originally put my name on the speakers' list to take part in the debate on the Representation Bill but when I was told on the last Friday on which the Senate sat that agreement had been reached between the Whips that debate on the Bill would be completed on that day I took my name off the list. We saw on that Friday, obviously at Senator Chaney's instigation, an increase in the number of speakers on the list every time it looked as though debate on the Bill would be completed on that day. The last speaker, Senator Lewis-we have just heard him complete his speech-made a disgraceful speech in which he was clearly filibustering until 4.15 p.m. I do not blame Senator Lewis personally. It was clear that he had been instructed to keep talking until the Senate adjourned. We all saw the notes that were passed to him and the geeing up that occurred so that that would happen. Senator Robert Ray put the Labor Party's position on this legislation quite thoroughly in an excellent speech but I wish to make a few extra points. Before I discuss the arguments raised against this Bill I will quickly run through the changes proposed and the reasons why they are considered so necessary by the Government and, incidentally, by the National Party. The Representation Bill proposes that the number of senators in each State increase from 10 to 12 and the number of House of Representative members increase from 125 to 148. The number of Federal parliamentarians has remained the same since 1949 whereas Australia's population has practically doubled in the same period. Presently, there is an average of 75,000 electors per electorate compared with about 40,000 per electorate in 1949. The new legislation will bring the figure to 65,000 electors per electorate, a figure which still does not compare favourably with the situation in the United Kingdom, where there are just over 40,000 electors per constituency, or in the Canadian lower House where the average number of electors per electorate is about 56,000. I have heard some criticism of this Bill by people who say that the increase in the House of Representatives seats will be in the outer suburbs of the large cities of Sydney and Melbourne. That is just not true. New South Wales, for example, will get eight additional seats if this legislation is passed. I spent last weekend at the Cowper Federal electorate council on the north coast of New South Wales. In that area there are three seats which at present are all held by the National Party-Richmond, which is held by Mr Anthony, Cowper and Lyne. Those three seats between them at present have 67,000 voters over quota. So, if this legislation goes through and each seat has 65,000 voters, the National Party stronghold on the north coast of New South Wales will gain at least one new seat on the present figures with an additional 2,000 over quota. With the redistribution which is likely to occur in that area there is a certainty of one additional seat and perhaps two. There will certainly be an additional seat in the surrounds of the city of Newcastle and at least one additional seat on the central coast of New South Wales. So, in New South Wales, at least four of the seats will be in areas well away from the outer western suburbs of Sydney and the number may be as high as five. As Senator Ray pointed out earlier in the debate, the various State parliaments have increased the number of their elected representatives since 1949. The increases range from 14 per cent in the Western Australian lower House to 25 per cent in Queensland and the lower House in Victoria. The proposed change in the Federal Parliament in this Bill represents a modest increase of 16 per cent. Members of the National Party, who are supporting this Bill are realists, even if their main concern is to increase their representation. They are legitimately entitled to do so, particularly as in recent years they have been squeezed out of Senate representation in a number of States by the Liberals. Victoria is a State that comes to mind. There always used to be a National Party senator from that State. From New South Wales there is only one National Party senator at the moment. The National Party in New South Wales has the same number of seats as the Liberal Party and on any reckoning the National Party should be entitled to an additional senator. It has only one out of five senators at the moment. Most of the massive electorates are held equally between the Government and the National Party. With the redistribution due soon there is the possibility of an electorate such as Grey, which already covers 90 per cent of South Australia, being increased in size to about 92 per cent to 94 per cent of the State just to take in the necessary voters to bring it back to quota. I believe there is a need for more Federal parliamentarians. Since 1949 the areas of Federal Government responsibility have grown enormously and constituents' expectations and needs have risen accordingly. Consequently, it has become increasingly difficult for a senator or member to fulfil his or her obligations in the electorate as well as in the Parliament, particularly in the Senate, bearing in mind the increased demands of the Senate committee system. I now wish to examine some of the opposition to the legislation that we have heard in this debate. The main argument against the legislation is the issue of cost. Honourable senators opposite argue that in these times of economic difficulties such a proposal is too expensive. I ask all honourable senators opposite: 'How can they put a price on democracy? Let me give one example. India is probably one of the poorest countries in the world but it is the world's largest democracy. It runs elections and a parliamentary democracy at horrendous costs compared with the average income of its citizens. Would any Opposition senator not support the idea of elections taking place in India or of having a parliamentary democracy in that country? I believe the cost of running the Parliament is not an argument at all. Of course, the cost of implementing this legislation will be significant but the benefits greatly outweigh the cost. The paper brought down by the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, this afternoon indicated that the proposal will cost $9.35m per annum. I will get back to that figure later. To many people it is never the right time to increase the size of the Parliament. Senator Archer —You ask the people in the electorate; they will tell you. Senator SIBRAA —It is interesting to hear the interjection from Senator Archer. Some Tasmanian senators who opposed this Bill on the grounds of cost also opposed the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill-the referendum proposal which, if accepted, would mean that House of Representatives and Senate elections would be held simultaneously. A half Senate election costs the Australian taxpayer between $17m and $20m which makes nonsense of the argument about cost. When the simultaneous elections referendum proposal was brought up in the Senate quite recently, Senator Archer, Senator Townley and Senator Walters all voted against it. I do not know where Senator Watson was. Yet those honourable senators now argue about the cost of increased representation. By voting against the simultaneous elections proposal, they voted for the retention of half Senate elections which cost an additional $17m to $20m every time they are held. There is as much weight in the argument on the cost of half Senate elections as there is in pointing out the nonsense of the argument about the cost of increasing the size of the Senate and the House of Representatives as put forward in this Bill. Senator Walters —That is absolute rubbish and you know it. Senator SIBRAA —It is not absolute rubbish. If Senator Walters had been in the chamber she would have heard one of her colleagues from Tasmania talking at length about the Opposition opposing the proposal because it would cost $9.35m per annum. That is exactly the argument that he was using. Another argument put forward by the Opposition and by Senator Lewis, which in my mind trivialises the issue, is the concern that there will not be enough accommodation to house the new parliamentarians either in the present Parliament House or in the new Parliament House. That is a ridiculous notion. Offices in the present Parliament House are being transformed, renovated, divided and enlarged constantly. A number of us quite recently got double offices. If necessary we would have to go back to occupying single offices. Surely the argument is nonsensical. Finding space should not be a problem. Certainly it can be overcome. Of course, the new Parliament House has made provision for an increase in the number of parliamentarians. It would be ludicrous to believe that the architects involved did not take into account the fact that an increase in senators and members was likely to occur in the not too distant future. If the architects had not taken account of that we should have sacked them. Senator Gareth Evans —And the jury. Senator SIBRAA —As Senator Evans was a member of that jury, I will accept his point. He might recall that I am also a member of the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House. The architects took into account what they thought would be the needs of the Australian Parliament for the next 200 years. Even if they had not, they would have had to take them into account some time in the future. If there are alterations-I believe alterations could be required-it will certainly be a lot cheaper to do them now than at some time in the future. Further claims were made in the debate that additional staff members and better facilities are required in preference to more members of parliament. It was argued that this would be cheaper and would also solve the present difficulties of coping with extra constituency and parliamentary work. Whilst I am sure that all honourable senators would welcome another staff member and updated facilities, it is not necessarily the answer to the issue at hand. I think that Senator Missen spoke of United States senators with staffs of up to 100 people. Gratefully, most honourable senators in the debate did not think this situation was very satisfactory. Constituents do not always want to see a staff member about their problems. They insist, and rightfully demand, to see their elected representatives. Their elected member is expected to be visible, available and active in the electorate. That role is becoming more and more difficult to achieve. As Senator Evans said this afternoon, if there were an increase of one staff member per person we would be looking at a cost of $6.2m per annum. Most members of the House of Representatives, particularly those who represent the far flung areas of Australia, would say that they need an increase of at least two staff members per person. If that were agreed to by the Government, not looking at the cost of telexes, vocadex and other implements which I believe are extremely necessary-- Senator Peter Baume —You know it is a grossly inflated cost. Senator SIBRAA —I am talking about an increase of two. Everybody will get a chance, at the Committee stage, to state how he works out his own figure. Whilst members of the Opposition attack the figures put down by the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, in one way, they have to accept the figures in the other way. What I am saying is that if they use one figure in their argument they should look at the other figure which would show that an increase of two staff for every MP would amount to at least $12.4m a year. As I said, this does not include telexes and the other equipment that people who represent north Queensland and Western Australia require. Some honourable senators opposite have played up on the fact that public opinion is very heavily opposed to this legislation. Senator Archer —Just give us the right figures. Senator SIBRAA —When did Senator Archer's Government ever provide any estimate of the legislation which it brought before us? It never did. As I said, some honourable senators opposite have played upon the fact that public opinion, they say, is heavily opposed to this legislation. I wonder how many people who have been interviewed or polled really understand the issues at stake or the facts about why these changes are so necessary and important. I wonder how many people who were polled have studied the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform before they recorded their opinion. I think the answer would be none. If a public opinion poll asks people whether they want more politicians, I think that everyone here knows what the answer will always be. Honourable senators opposite also expressed some concern about the possibility of the Senate being deadlocked because of the even number of senators-that is, six-to be elected in a half Senate election. Senator Missen was concerned that the Government would be in the hands of one or two individuals. He rested his opposition to the Bill on this point, even while he acknowledged the worth of increasing the number of MPs at this time. However, I believe this argument is groundless. The position is unlikely to change from the present position which is in effect a deadlocked Senate. Furthermore, the Senate has been deadlocked more often than not in recent times. Yet, on the other hand some of Senator Missen's colleagues argued that the new system would wipe out minority parties because if the two major parties receive 43 per cent of the vote the split would be three senators each. I think that we on the Government side are entitled to ask: What is the Opposition's position as far as this argument goes? It was rather ironic to hear Senator Baume claim how tragic it would be if minority parties were no longer in the Senate. He stated that governments have been able to function well with minority parties in the past. I bet that is not what he thought this time last year when his Government was struggling to get through its legislative program before Christmas, in exactly the same way as we are struggling to get our legislation through this year. This argument is fallacious anyway, as another Liberal senator, Senator Teague, kindly pointed out for us. He stated that on 1980 and 1983 figures a minority candidate who was elected in the No. 5 vacancy situation would also have been elected in a No. 6 vacancy situation. Senator Macklin from the Australian Democrats was in opposition to the Bill. I think his main concern, which should be the concern of all the Democrats, was that in this legislation they would lose out. If one looks at the figures- Senator Macklin —No, I did not mention it in my speech. Senator SIBRAA —If I were a member of the Australian Democrats I would be wondering whether this legislation would wipe out the Democrats. I am sure that that was in Senator Macklin's mind when he looked at the Bill. Senator Teague pointed out-this is supported by Senator Robert Ray's figures which were incorporated in Hansard-that the person who was elected in the No.5 vacancy in both the 1980 and 1983 election would have been elected in a six-vacancy situation. As Senator Ray rightly stated last week when discussing this legislation the most likely result from a half-Senate election on the 1983 figures would be that the Government would get three senators, the Opposition two and the Democrats one. It is quite incorrect to claim that there will always be a 3-3 split in each state at a half Senate election. However, the point has been made that no party will ever get a majority of four senators out of six at a half-Senate election because 57 per cent of the vote is required and this is rarely achieved. I would agree with that, but let us fact the facts on this issue. With the exception of a short period, the presiding government has not had a majority for years. More often than not the government has needed the support of a minority party to help carry through its legislation. Some of the arguments which have been put forward are barely worthy of reply. Both Senator Lewis and Senator Watson consider the legislation to be a devious plot by the Australian Labor Party so that it can remain in office for a long time while at the same time destroying the powers of the Senate. It is rather pointed that those two honourable senators were the final speakers for the Opposition when the Bill was debated a week last Friday. As I stated at the beginning of my speech, it was a pathetic time wasting exercise. Clearly, those two honourable senators ran out of legitimate arguments so we heard them sink again to anti-Labor party hysteria, which is typical of the type of speech on this legislation made by Mr Hodgman in the House of Representatives. Of course, no debate is complete without a contribution from Senator Walters. One of the more inconsequential points she made was about her concern that the States of Victoria and New South Wales would still have more seats between them under the new legislation than the smaller States combined. Senator Walters —Get it right; I said Victoria and New South Wales. Senator SIBRAA —Victoria and New South Wales. I thought I said that her concern was that the States of Victoria and New South Wales would still have more seats between them under the new legislation than the smaller States. This situation exists now and it is hardly surprising, considering the populations involved. Unfortunately, that is one of the prices we have to pay for living in a democracy. Obviously, Senator Walters was short of legitimate argument on the subject. She could not resist the opportunity to assist in filling up the speakers' list for the Opposition. What we have heard from Senator Archer today, Senator Watson the other day and Senator Walters and some others like her is that they just oppose change for change's sake. This legislation should be passed as quickly as possible. I wish it a speedy passage through the Senate. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. Just in case anyone should believe what Senator Sibraa said in his interpretation of the point I made, I repeat that the record will show that it was the priority of the Government in the expenditure of that amount of money that I was querying. I made the point that the money would have been far better spent at a time like this on education or the Wynyard airport than on trying to improve our own luxury, comfort and convenience here. The second matter about which he was wrong was that I was making the point that this shambles of a paper that we have been given pretending to set out the cost is still totally unacceptable. He purported that I had asked for it and had received it. The point is that it does not cover at all the matters about which we were talking and we will still insist on that information being provided. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. Senator Sibraa seems to take delight in misquoting the Opposition. Indeed, he told the Senate a few minutes ago that simultaneous elections would cost a lot more and claimed that my speech in which I said that the additional members of Parliament would increase the cost was at variance with my speech on the simultaneous elections legislation which would also cost more. In my speech on the simultaneous elections legislation, I maintained, and still do-it is accurate to say so-that there would be no need to have a referendum for simultaneous elections. The Government can, at any time it wants, hold simultaneous elections. No additional cost is needed. It can hold House of Representatives elections when Senate elections fall due. It is fallacious to say that, without a referendum agreeing to simultaneous elections, the cost for elections would be greater. Indeed, the situation is anything but. It would create additional elections because the Prime Minister of the day, whoever he may be, may call elections of both Houses whenever he so chooses. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.43) —I shall also be brief because I think all the arguments from both sides in relation to the Representation Bill have been effectively and carefully canvassed. There are valid arguments for and against the proposition. In my view, it is a question of subjectivity as to whether there ought to be more members of the House of Representatives and more senators servicing the community. I suppose, in many respects, it very much depends upon the perception that one has as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives as to what one's functions ought to be and also what the community might expect of their members of parliament. I am fairly relaxed about increasing the size of the House of Representatives. I do not make any secret about drawing the conclusion that this legislation is clearly a cynical exercise by the Australian Labor Party which has made a judgment that the new boundaries are likely to advantage it. Frankly, if I were in its position and could see an alteration in boundaries advantaging me, I would look carefully at the same sort of exercise. I do not think anybody could question that, in the practical sense, if we had more members and senators we would all be more effective in our work. We would be able to service our electorates more effectively. I am sure the committee system would be much more effective and the individual party committee system would be much more effective . I think there is no question in the mind of any senator that, in the event that there were more of us, we would have more time to concentrate on debates in the chamber and upon the fine details of legislation. We would be able to examine and scrutinise it before it came before us. The size of the Parliament has not been increased since 1949. At that time there was a population in Australia of about eight million; there is about 15.5 million people in Australia now. There has not been an increase in the size of Parliament since that time. One could assume that there were too many members then or too few now. I think the observation has been made by others that there have been significant increases in the size of every State parliament. I have not detected any great revulsion at those increases. The real difficulty for me is the effect that the increase in the size of the House of Representatives would have on the Senate because, of course, we all know that section 24 of the Constitution requires that the number of members of the House of Representatives should be, as near as practicable, twice the number of senators. Therefore, each State would return 12 senators and in each half Senate election six senators would returned. It is my judgment-and I have looked at this matter very carefully and I think it is generally conceded-that, on the quotas we will find on the people becoming educated, on each occasion three Labor senators and three coalition senators will be returned and we will perpetually have a hung Senate with, perhaps, one Australian Democrat being elected from Victoria and one independent being elected from Tasmania. This will, in my view, bring the Senate into very considerable disrepute. The Senate will be in a permanent deadlock position with one or two people controlling the fate of the Government. The problem could be solved by further increasing the size of the Senate by 24 senators and by increasing the size of the House of Representatives by 48 members. That is not a position that I suspect anybody really supports. The proposition has been put that that problem could be overcome by breaking the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives. I am totally opposed to that. Section 24 of the Constitution was a fundamental tenet of the Constitution at the time of its construction at the Sydney convention of 1897. The less populous States made it abundantly clear in their overwhelming vote in favour of that section that if there were to be no nexus and if there were to be no section 24 there would be no Constitution as we know it. On the other hand, if the Senate were to remain stagnant as a result of the breaking of the nexus and if the House of Representatives were to grow significantly in size, it is without question that the influence of the Senate would diminish. There would be inevitable pressure, as the House of Representatives grew, for the Senate to take a less aggressive and constructive role in respect of legislation that comes before it. It will be argued, of course, why 64 senators should be able to hold up legislation which had been passed by a house which has anything up to 200 members. Of course, the breaking of the nexus would be devastating to the smaller States . As has been observed already, New South Wales and Victoria combined have more members of the House of Representatives than all the other States combined. In fact, there are more House of Representatives seats in outer metropolitan Sydney and Melbourne than there are in all of the smaller States combined. Such a proposal could, of course, only assist and be advantageous to the larger States at the expense of the smaller States. We would have a situation, of course, where, in the coalition parties room where we all have an equal voice, the smaller States would lose their influence. Of course, section 57 is intrinsically tied to section 24 of the Constitution. That was the second leg of the great debate. If we removed the nexus in respect of the implementation of section 57, of course, we would very signficantly diminish the capacity of the Senate to have a very real voice in breaking the deadlock. The Senate is the chamber in which the smaller States have an equal voice. If the value and strength of that voice were reduced or diminished so would the influence of the smaller States suffer. There would be no bulwark against the dominance of the larger States. We know that all governments spend money where there are votes. As there are more votes in New South Wales and Victoria, the smaller States would suffer more and more. Of course, as the influence of the Senate diminishes and the influence of the smaller States diminishes, the move will be on more and more to reduce the power of the Senate. I am sure that Senator Gareth Evans and his Government have made no secret about their ambition to reduce the capacity and the power of the Senate and the capacity and the power of the smaller States . Senator Gareth Evans —Would that we could. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is what Senator Gareth Evans said before. I am very pleased to be able to quote that every time I am involved in a debate such as this. One has only to look at the recent diabolical prostitution of the external affairs powers to get the slightest idea of the long term ambitions that Senator Evans has to centralise all power in Canberra at the expense of the smaller States and to trample underfoot their capacity-- Senator Robert Ray —We will give you permission to incorporate your paranoia. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Coming from Victoria, of course, the honourable senator does not have paranoia. He is 55 minutes away from home by aeroplane. People who live in Sydney are 35 minutes away from home by aeroplane. Those of us who live in Western Australia can find themselves in the sort of situation I was in last night when I went to my federal executive meeting, got on an aeroplane at 11.45 p.m. and got here this morning at 9.45 in time for a party meeting. Honourable senators can understand why West Australians are opposed to centralism. Honourable senators can understand why the people in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne have not the slightest idea of what the people in Western Australia are thinking; West Australians are very happy to be insulated. Honourable senators opposite are very glad to make all the diabolical decisions made here irrespective of the attitudes, views, wishes, ambitions and aspirations of the people in the smaller States. Senator Robert Ray —It has not impaired your performance. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It has not impaired my performance? If one were to reduce the capacity of the Senate, one would certainly reduce the capacity of those who represent the smaller States. For the reasons that I have outlined, I am opposed to this legislation and I will vote against it. I make just one further observation. I am inspired by the interjections by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). There has become a convention of wisdom and a view put in the Parliament that this legislation flows from the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I quote the point made by Mr Young who was Special Minister of State that that exercise would have been better undertaken in isolation from the work that was being done by the Committee. It was never his intention or the intention of the Committee that this legislation or similar legislation, or consideration of such legislation, should flow from that inquiry . Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(5.52) —I did not intend to speak in this debate because I felt that the case of the National Party of Australia had been covered very well by Senators Scott and Collard, but I read in one of our local newspapers during the past week that I was leading the fight for the new members of parliament so I thought that perhaps I should place on record my situation in this regard. The National Party decided at a meeting some weeks ago that there was a need for more members in the House of Representatives in particular. It has been pointed out on many occasions in this debate that the population is now twice the size that it was in 1949, 34 years ago, the last occasion that there was an increase in the number of members of parliament. Lots of people say that we do not need any more members of parliament now. I wonder what people said 34 years ago when there was an increase in the representation in the Senate from 36 to 60 and the House of Representatives from 75 to 121. Looking back now, they must have thought that everybody was doing nothing. Now we have twice the population, twice the number of people to serve in Australia; yet people say that we do not now need any more members of parliament. In 1966 it was agreed that there should be more members of Parliament. The referendum Bill was passed but, because the nexus could not be broken, the referendum did not pass. Many people say that there is a need for more members in the House of Representatives but that there is no need for more senators. At the rate that legislation is being put away to Senate committees these days, I am beginning to think that we do need more senators. I feel that soon there will not be enough senators to serve on all these committees. In fact sometimes it crosses my mind to ask what the Senate is here for, whether its purpose is to make decisions on legislation that comes to it or whether it is to put legislation away to Senate committees. I think we ought to do our job and try to make decisions in the Senate. We should be legislators and make up our minds in the Senate rather than always be putting legislation away to committees. That is one of the thoughts that come to me regarding this legislation. If the Australian people feel that we do not need as many new members and senators as proposed, there is not much they can do about it at present because, when the proposal was put to them to break the nexus, they decided that they did not want to do so. In 1967 they had that opportunity. In order to get more members in the House of Representatives, it is necessary to increase the number of senators. Many people say to me: 'Why do you need more members of parliament? ' It is a constant cry and I presume that most honourable senators have the same amount of mail on this subject as I have. It is quite obvious that we do need a redistribution in some shape or form. If there are no new members in the House of Representatives, the big electorates will get bigger. There is no doubt about that. I look at my State of Queensland where the seat of Kennedy, represented by Bob Katter Senior, is three times the size of Victoria. Victoria has 32 members to look after it, I think. Senator Robert Ray —Thirty-three. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Thank you very much, Senator Ray. Honourable senators may say to me: 'Well, there are more people in Victoria'. I love to say that Victoria fits into Queensland seven times. Nevertheless, imagine one man trying to represent an area that is three times the size of Victoria. Senator Harradine —But he does it well. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —He certainly does it very well and so does Ian Cameron, the member for Maranoa, whose electorate is 2 1/2 times the size of Victoria. He uses a two-way radio to talk to his constituents. Many people say that there should be one vote one value. It comes up quite often. I do not agree with that philosophy and I never have. I know that it is Australian Labor Party policy. Some years ago the 20 per cent tolerance for country areas was reduced to 10 per cent. I feel that consideration needs to be given to the people of the country parts of Australia who live so far out and who help to bring in our export earnings. That is one reason why I do not want to see the large electorates get larger. It makes it very much harder for people who live in rural outback parts of Australia to see their member. If one lives in a city electorate one can catch a bus-one cannot catch a tram in Brisbane any more, unfortunately-or one can phone one's member for the price of a local phone call. Those who live in the outback have to make a trunk call. If they want to see their member, it could possibly take them two days to travel by car. Maybe if one was a long distance runner like Ron Grant, the Caboolture baker, one might be able to run to get there. Certainly I agree that the decision which is being made in the Senate and which has been made in the House of Representatives, to increase the number of members of parliament, is not a very popular one. It never will be. Whenever one mentions more members of parliament it is like a red rag to a bull. People do not like to think about the need for more members of parliament. I feel that over the last number of redistributions, without any more seats, the quality of country representation has diminished. There is no doubt about that. If we do not have more members of parliament now, in 1988 when we go into a larger and bigger Parliament House, will that be the right time? I must admit that it might be a bit hard to fit everybody in the present Parliament House. When will be the right time? It never will be the right time to have more members of parliament. I am sure that is what people say. I wonder why people hate members of parliament so much. Do they think that we do not do any work? I do not know why they think we do not do any work. I have been very busy from the time I left here the week before last until I came back. We are always busy in here. Do people get a bad impression of members of parliament when they listen to the radio? I do not know how many times I have made speeches in different areas of Queensland and asked people whether they had heard me make speeches on the radio. On one occasion I thought that I was making a fine speech in here and that everybody was listening with bated breath to what I had to say on the radio . I spoke at half a dozen meetings and not one person had been listening to the broadcasting of parliament on the radio. They would rather listen to sweet music . Maybe that is why people do not like members of parliament. Maybe they say: ' They will cost too much'. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has told us today how the cost of the extra members has been estimated. There was also a proposition that, instead of having more members of parliament , perhaps we should have more staff. To me there is not much difference in cost, although I suppose that it is in millions of dollars and it is a lot of money. But there is not much difference between the cost of staff and the cost of members of parliament. However, my attitude is that the people one represents want to see their member of parliament, rather than one of the staff. That is another important point that should be considered. Another aspect is that, if we increase members' staff or increase public servants, such people do not go to the electors. At least the electors have a chance to say whether or not they want a particular politician, and all members of parliament hope that they are wanted and will not be put out of a job at the next election. I feel that if we give good service, so that people feel that we earn our salaries and respect us, perhaps they might not complain so much about the cost. Those are just some of the points that I wanted to raise. As a National Party member, I shall be supporting this legislation. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.01) —I wish to speak briefly to the amendment and to indicate that last week Senator Lewis moved an amendment seeking the provision of a financial impact statement, in words which are in the Notice Paper, and that we now have a financial impact statement. It is open to senators now to criticise the statement as to its content or quality. Some people have attempted to do that. For example, if one looks at the costing of the alternatives, one finds that the Government says that for 189 parliamentarians each to have an extra staff member it would cost $6.2m. By simple arithmetic, that works out at about $33,000 per person. It gives the impression that some of the costs are at least liable to critical examination. I understand that, in view of the provision of this statement, my colleague Senator Lewis will be seeking the leave of the Senate to withdraw his amendment at an appropriate time, Mr Deputy President. I thought it proper to make that known to you. I must comment briefly on Senator Sibraa's criticism of the number of speakers. Senator Gareth Evans —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. With all the indulgence in the world, Senator Peter Baume is not entitled to speak to anything other than the amendment, having already contributed to the debate. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Sibraa, in his address, Mr Deputy President, spoke to things including the amendment. I just want to answer the point. I will do that in the Committee stage, if you wish, but it may be neater to do it now. Senator Gareth Evans —If you promise not to talk in Committee, of course. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Baume, you are entitled to speak only to the amendment. If there is any protest, I shall have to uphold the protest. You may speak until there is a protest. Senator PETER BAUME —I shall speak until I am picked up. Senator Sibraa asserted that there was an attempt to stack the speakers list and to filibuster the Bill. I remind honourable senators that during the last sitting week the Opposition proposed no matters of public importance and that almost all of that week was spent dealing with Government business. We are not prepared to set aside the rights of senators. A Bill concerning the size of the Parliament and the processes of Parliament is a matter on which a number of senators have quite strong feelings. Senator Chaney has advised me that what he indicated to the Party was that, while he would not invite people to join the speakers list, those who approached him with a strongly held view would not be prevented from so doing. Every speaker who joined the speakers list last week indicated that he held a strong view and wished to have his view known. There has been no attempt to filibuster the Bill. As far as I am concerned, we can now get to the end of the second reading debate. We are perfectly happy to take the vote. Senator Harradine —You do not have to make excuses for people wanting to speak. Senator PETER BAUME —We were attacked for it. Senator Lewis —Perhaps it might be appropriate at this stage, Mr Deputy President, for me to seek leave to withdraw the amendment. Leave granted. Senator Lewis —I formally withdraw the amendment in my name. Amendment withdrawn. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.04) —I move the following amendment circulated in the name of the Australian Democrats: Leave out all words after ''That'', insert ''this Bill be not further proceeded with until such time as the Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill 1983, which was passed by an absolute majority of the Senate on 18 October 1983, is submitted to the people pursuant to section 128 of the Constitution''. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.05) —I wish to speak to the amendment moved by Senator Jack Evans to insert the following words: this Bill be not further proceeded with until such time as the Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill 1983, which was passed by an absolute majority of the Senate on 18 October 1983, is submitted to the people pursuant to section 128 of the Constitution. The debate in the community and in this place has revolved around a number of matters, one of which is the appropriateness of breaking the nexus to enable the House of Representatives to be increased at appropriate times by the amounts which seem appropriate at those times without affecting numbers in the Senate. A Bill that went through the Senate to break the nexus would allow the House of Representatives to be increased at this time. It would also allow for the fact that at some appropriate time in the future the Senate would be able to be increased by four members for each State, as would be appropriate to maintain the situation of uneven numbers at half Senate elections. The National Party of Australia, in its justification for its stance in supporting this Bill, has said that it would prefer that the nexus be broken. Its preferred position would be that this Bill be put to the people first by way of a referendum, so that the people could say whether the nexus should be broken . I therefore would imagine that the National Party would support this amendment to enable that precise operation to happen. The electorate is already faced with a number of referendum questions to be put on 25 February next year. This amendment would give the people an opportunity of saying first whether they wished that nexus to be broken so that no longer would we need absurd increases when an increase was desirable. As I said at the second reading stage, the Australian Democrats support a modest increase in the House of Representatives at present-a modest increase, nowhere near the increase currently projected. The facts of the matter are that the minimum number for an increase in the Senate is two for each State or 12 in all, which means an increase of 24 in the House of Representatives. Our amendment would enable us to see whether the people wished, first, to break the nexus. Interestingly enough, breaking the nexus has the support of every political party in this country. Mr Anthony, as Leader of the National Party, has made no bones about the fact that this is his preferred position. He is not here, but the representatives of the National Party are here and I would imagine that they would support their leader on this matter, so that the people can say whether they want the nexus broken. If the National Party votes against this, the situation is not what it has been stating in the electorate by way of Press releases. It is very clear that the reason why National Party senators are voting for this Bill in the Senate is precisely that people in the House of Representatives have asked them to do so. If our amendment were accepted, it would delay the Bill. It would not defeat the Bill. When the House of Representatives and the Senate assembled in the autumn session, if the people had decided not to break the nexus, the National Party and the Australian Labor Party would be able to support the Bill and to have it passed. It is a delaying mechanism. It is not a defeat for the Bill. Regardless of whether or not senators believe that the nexus should be broken, I am sure that all senators believe that the nexus question should be put to the people for their deliberation. It will, in fact, be the only vote of any kind by which the people can express their views about the increase in the size of the Parliament. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.10) —Last minute rhetorical flurries by Ministers in reply rarely have much relevance or utility so far as changing anybody's mind is concerned, even given the abundance of free floating spirits in this place. But a Minister's reply seems to have less relevance than ever in the context of a debate like this, given the intense interest and scrutiny which the Representation Bill 1983 has generated and received by all parties from their respective points of view; so I will confine myself to a bald and exceedingly brief recitation of the basic planks in the Government's argument. First, the Bill will reduce the ludicrous situation whereby the population of the nation has doubled since 1949 but the composition of the Federal parliamentary representatives remains the same, placing an impossible burden on the servicing of constituencies. The second point is that the Bill and the increase achieved by it will enable the parliamentary committee system to be serviced properly in a way that has become really quite impossible with the multiplicity of tasks Parliament is now performing, such as legislative review, policy development, Executive oversight and Executive monitoring, most of which were not tasks regarded as appropriate for parliamentarians in times gone past. The argument is equally strong in relation to the Senate, even though there has been some resistance to that concept; the best demonstration of that being the debate we had in the last week we were here about the servicing or membership of the proposed select committee on animal welfare. There was sympathy all round the chamber, and particularly on the Government side, for the notion that there should be greater representation than four members on that committee but there was agreement around the chamber that it was simply impossible for that target to be met given the shortage of senators and the other competing burdens. The third argument is that the change will restore a healthier relationship between the Executive and the legislature. With a growth in the size of the Ministry, particularly if assistant Ministers are to be appointed, there is an imbalance between Government and back benchers, whichever party is in power, and the health of the system will be substantially improved were that balance to be reshaped in the way now proposed. The fourth point is that the Bill will in fact increase the talent pool from which Ministers can be appointed or chosen, again whichever party is in power. I do not concede of course that there have been any deficiencies in the particular fish which have been plucked from the present Caucus pool to constitute the present Ministry, but it is nonetheless an argument of reasonable weight and substance. The final point, and one that has been made by numerous honourable senators, is that there is never a right time to increase the number of politicians, but this is as close to it as we are ever going to get. We are in the process of updating and consolidating the electoral legislation and we are of course preparing to move into a new Parliament House at a point now in the building program where this increase and the resultant extensions can be accommodated with minimum additional cost. I turn to the Australian Democrats' amendment. The point about the nexus has been made on numerous occasions and it does not need to be treated at length. The cost saving that would be involved in having the proposed additional number of House of Representatives members, but not the senators on this occasion, would in fact be minimal. If honourable senators do the arithmetic that people will apparently be wanting to do in the Committee of the Whole, they will see that we will still have to pay out two-thirds of the cost of $6.18m. That is the recurring annual costs for members and senators. We will of course still have to pay out the whole of the $3.17m, that is the payout associated with the 23 divisional officers. So instead of paying $9m a year we will be paying only $7m- a huge saving! On the cost side, the nexus argument demonstrates its inconsequentiality rather rapidly. The other argument of course is the one made on numerous occasions about the difficulty at this stage of running a sixth question with the 25 February referendums. Whatever the intrinsic merits of the breaking of the nexus proposal might be for the longer term-and I have indicated that the Government certainly has not abandoned the idea of running a referendum on that issue at some appropriate time in the future, perhaps at the time of the next election-it is extremely inappropriate to do so in the context of the 25 February referendums adding as it would another very divisive question to the paper and making very much more complex the process of both explaining to voters what it is about and attracting their support. So for those reasons the nexus referendum proposal, as a precondition of an increase of the kind here, is not accepted. Mr Deputy President, the case for an increase in the size of the Parliament is very strong indeed. It has been amply articulated by speakers from various parts of the House and I commend the Bill to the Senate. Amendment negatived. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Giles, P. J. Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Maguire, G. R. Collard, S. J. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Scott, D. B. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Lajovic, M. E. Chaney, F. M. Lewis, A. W. R. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Critchton-Browne, N. A. Martin, K. J. Durack, P. D. Messner, A. J. Evans, Jack Missen, A. J. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Harradine, B. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Coleman, R. N. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Rae, PeterRichardson, G. F. Reid, M. E. Walsh, P. A. Townley, M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.22) — The major provisions in the Representation Bill relate to the transition clauses and in particular to the method of dealing with the next half-Senate election. Also in the Bill are transition clauses relating to a double dissolution. In debate on the second reading of the Bill, Senator Teague, in particular, raised matters dealing with the transition clauses. It was an interesting speech, mainly because Senator Teague seemed to be unaware that there are two sets of transition clauses. The main thrust of his argument related to the Australian Democrats. The argument went basically that overall the Democrats would get more members elected under the new proposals, but we should be worried about the transition clauses, and that this was our real reason for opposing the Bill. It is actually very difficult to tie those two arguments together because I am totally unsure as to why we should be worried about these transition clauses if we are to get more members elected. However, the tortuous logic of Senator Teague's contribution came finally to that situation. If one looks at the second set of transition clauses, those which relate to a double dissolution, one sees that we have the prospect at the next Senate election of there being 12 senators from each State. That situation, however, was not addressed by Senator Teague. I say very briefly that it is very difficult to go from a Senate which has 10 senators from a State to a Senate which has 12 senators from a State without some transition clauses. The clauses in this Bill seem to us to be fair and adequate transition clauses to take us from where we are now to where the Senate resolves we should be. I point out that the current situation in the Senate in terms of the percentage support in the community is as follows: The Australian Labor Party, as of the last Senate election, represents in this chamber 47.39 per cent of the electorate; the Liberals represent 33.69 per cent; the National Party represents 8.21 per cent; the Australian Democrats represent 10.42 per cent; and Senator Harradine, the Independent, represents 0.29 per cent. Senator Harradine —I got about 20 per cent of the vote. Senator MACKLIN —This is the Australian electorate. I am talking about 1983. In the vote just recorded in the last division of the Senate, representatives of 55 .6 per cent of the electorate voted in the affirmative. It has been the case with every Bill that has gone through this chamber that it has been supported by representatives of the majority of the electorate. I register the fact that after the third reading and after the next election that will not be the case. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.27) —As I anticipate that the sitting will be suspended for dinner at 6.30 p.m. I will just give the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) notice of some of the matters which cause me concern as I look through the figures in his financial impact statement on the Representation Bill . I draw his attention to the assessment of staff salaries, allowances and travel in the estimate on page 2 of $1.72m. This is in connection with an additional 12 senators and 23 members of the House of Representatives, a total of 35 people, working out at $47,777 per-- Senator Gareth Evans —Two staff for each, divide by two. Senator LEWIS —I recognise that the Attorney-General is a lawyer and not a mathematician, so I hope that he refers these matters to someone on his staff who will be able to apply a mathematical, instead of a legal, mind to them. That figure is $47,777 for each member and senator; in other words, the total is divided by 35. If we look at the second last paragraph of his statement we see an estimate on that same page of $6.2m for additional staff for each member. That works out at $32,804 for the 189 senators and members. I would have thought that the maximum current salary of a senator's secretary is less than $20,000 and that of a senator's research officer is less than $17,000. If one were to estimate that the additional staff member were being paid even at the rate of $ 20,000 per annum, the amount would come only to $3.78m not $6.2m. These estimates allow something like at least $12,000 or $13,000 a person for, I take it, overtime and some sort of travel and other allowances. I would like the Government or whoever made these calculations to tell us how it can be that a person can raise his or her income from less than $20,000 to over $32,000. If we turn to the top of page 3 we see an estimate of some $4m to put in a vocadex, telex and commander telephone system together with a word processor. I do not want to hand out ads to anyone, but currently a very good word processor can be bought for about $2,000 to $2,500. We already have electric typewriters provided, so there is no need to provide them. It is only a matter of having a compatible electric typwriter. The commander telephone system, I understand, costs about $270. We are already having those installed, so with my calculations the figure gets up to about $2,800. Let us say, in round figures, an amount of $ 3,000 could be allocated for all of those systems. Apparently, there is some sort of telex and vocadex system which will cost, on my calculation, around about $18,000 or $19,000. I draw the Attorney-General's attention to those figures which I suggest are dicky, not just rubbery. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Senator MISSEN(Victoria) 8.01)-Mr Chairman, Senator Lewis has asked the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, a question in regard to the cost figures that he has raised. Perhaps, from a different point of view, I will raise a couple of other matters which the Attorney might also consider. I think the information is somewhat scanty and I have no doubt that there are additional costs not covered by the estimates the Attorney gave in his statement. On the other hand, I put it to him that, if the size of the Parliament is increased and we have another 30 or so members, economies of scale may arise. If this building is not to be extended-which therefore would mean that before we move into the other building there would be closing up and people would be living in perhaps somewhat more uncomfortable situations for a year or two-I assume there will be nothing like the same average cost in the provision of accommodation for the additional members. Senator Macklin —It might mean sharing offices. Senator MISSEN —Sharing offices is awkward but it does not cost the same as providing completely additional accommodation for members outside the building. On the other hand, take the position in regard to some of the State offices. For example, the Old Customs House in Melbourne has many empty rooms and empty suites. Presumably some members could use that accommodation and the facilities there and so not all that additional accommodation would be required. It would not cost anything like the amount that accommodation would average out at over the whole of the membership of the Parliament. So, although Senator Lewis pointed to additional items that should be included, I suggest it may well be that, if costs are taken at an average, the figures have been exaggerated in some respects particularly in regard to office costs including accommodation and the additional cost of divisional offices, at $3.17m. Perhaps the Attorney might take those factors into consideration when looking at his estimates. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.03) —At this stage there is only one other matter I wish to raise with the Attorney-General, (Senator Gareth Evans) and that is that his statement made earlier this afternoon, setting out these estimates, contained, as far as I can work out, no estimate of what the additional cost to the new building would be. I would appreciate some information whether the Government has taken this cost into consideration and whether he can tell the Committee just how much it would be. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(8.04) —During the second reading debate on the Representation Bill, both Senator Robert Ray and I incorporated tables setting out what would be the result from earlier voting patterns in the States at various elections had there been at that time a six-vacancy half Senate election or a seven-vacancy half Senate election. I believe that those figures have not subsequently been criticised by anybody, but rather have been taken up, confirmed and quoted by others in the debate. I note that prior to incorporating the table I did make one slip. On page 2838 of Hansard, with regard to the 1983 South Australian half Senate election, I unintentionally reversed the figures for the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party. That mistake is obvious to someone who is alert but I now make it clear for the record. With regard to the tables of Senator Robert Ray, I am happy to endorse them as a clear and helpful set of tables. The only point on which I give a second view is his analysis of the 1977 Federal election, in which he drew out what would happen had half the Senate retired, with six vacancies to be filled. In the case of Tasmania, he drew the result that there would have been four Liberal and two Labor Senators elected. I would have liked that to be the case but I used a different method of calculation, complementary to Senator Robert Ray's. He used primary votes but my calculation traced out the preferences to the point of certainty, from the Australian Electoral Office's figures. For the record, I would have given in that case the Australian Labor Party 87,896 votes, the Liberal Party 115, 509, the Australian Democrats 14,732 and the independents 17, 079, and there were 211 undistributed votes at the penultimate point of distribution. Senator Harradine —There was no Harradine candidate. Senator TEAGUE —No, there was not a Harradine candidate in this election. The number of votes totalled 235,274. Briefly, this would have given 2.613 quotas to the ALP, 3.434 to the Liberals, 0.438 to the Democrats and 0.508 to the independents-that is, Townley and his running mate, Rudge-and 0.006 of the votes were undistributed, giving a total of 6.999 quotas. Looking at that set of quotas, it would appear that the Liberal Party would have gained three rather than four seats, the ALP would have gained two and Rudge Townley as an independent would have been elected. So that explanation clarifies the sets of tables, all of which demonstrate a matter which is still in contention in the debate on the Committee stage of this Bill, and that is that the Democrats and some others still allege that the Democrats would find it harder because of the so-called magic number of 43 per cent that can be, they claim, easily gained by the two major parties so denying them the same chance to find a member of their party elected in any State as is the case now. Senator Gareth Evans —I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. While this may be of some considerable fascination and relevant to the continuing debate somewhere, it does not appear to me to have an enormous amount of relevance to the debate on the Committee stage of this particular Bill and the particular provisions in it. I ask you, Mr Chairman, to draw the honourable senator's attention to that small consideration. The CHAIRMAN —I have been considering what Senator Teague has been saying. We are taking the Bill as a whole and some of what Senator Teague says is relevant to the implications and effects of it, but I ask that as far as possible he confine himself more specifically to items in the Bill. Senator TEAGUE —I am being quite specific and I am being quite brief. I have just a couple more minutes to go. As I say, that argument with regard to minority parties, which was the contention of my speech and of Senator Robert Ray and Senator Sibraa, in their remarks this afternoon, I believe can be eminently demonstrated from the two sets of tables to which I have referred. The other matter I wish to raise, to which Senator Macklin referred in his Committee stage speech, is that I still maintain, despite his claim that there was tortuous logic in what I had to say, that the minority parties will be peculiarly, uniquely, disadvantaged relative to the normal five-vacancy half Senate election by the transition arrangements in this Bill. I do not argue that alternative transition arrangements are needed in this legislation. If we are to have an increase in the size of the Senate we need to have the transitional arrangements that are in the Bill. I am drawing that fact out only because the Australian Democrats in particular will be uniquely and peculiarly disadvantaged by the transition arrangements. Therefore they have a vested interest in opposing the Bill. Finally, given the Attorney's patience, I acknowledge what the main contention of the Opposition is that this Bill will deny any party the opportunity to gain a majority in a State except in the most unusual circumstances. I acknowledge that in the case of a double dissolution and a 12-vacancy Senate election there is an easier chance for a majority to be gained. In that case a majority party would need to gain 53.85 per cent rather than the goal of 57.14 per cent in the six-vacancy half-senate election. I also acknowledge that at the next election, in which the transitional arrangements apply, it would be remotely possible for a majority to be gained by one of the two major parties. If the Labor Party were to gain four out of seven seats in five out of six of the States it would have a majority in the Senate. If the Liberal and National parties were to gain four out of seven seats in all six States at the next election, it would have a majority in the Senate. Therefore I acknowledge that with respect to these two exceptions-that is, the transition case and the double dissolution case-it is a little easier for a majority to be won in the Senate. They are the only cases. The normal situation is the one that has been maintained by Opposition speakers, and that is that it is virtually impossible, given the voting trends of the last 40 years, to expect any party to have a majority in the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.13) —I wish to refer briefly to the statement of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in relation to the financial impact of the Representation Bill 1983. I take the point made in the previous debate by way of interjection from Senator Ray that the Liberal-National parties had never managed to put out a financial impact statement on their legislation. I believe the Australian Labor Party should not argue that it should not have to make financial impact statements simply because the previous Government did not do so . I want to make the point that the Labor Party has made a poor attempt first up in regard to such a statement. I trust that this Bill will not be a model for financial impact statements that will hopefully be made in regard to future Bills. I certainly do not want it to be seen that the Australian Democrats accept this as a model of what impact statements should look like. I would like to refer simply to two items about which doubt might be raised. I draw the attention of the Committee to item No. 4 of the estimated ongoing cost- staff salaries, allowances and travel-which is calculated at $1.72m. The current salaries for a research assistant and a secretary are $17,350 and $19,440 respectively. On that basis we would be looking at salaries of $1,324,440. That falls short of $1.72m. Presumably the additional amount relates to travel and overtime. However, when one does the same calculation for 189 members, taking first of all the research assistant salary level, which presumably would be the salary for additional staff, one comes up with a factor of $3,279,000 which falls so far short of $6.2m as to suggest that a different basis was used. Possibly the basis of $19,000 might have been used, but that still does not work . Indeed, the motion of lumping in travel as though travel were calculated at the same rate is to suggest something that has not been suggested, and that is that travel entitlements would also be expanded. The point I wish to make is not so much one in relation to the costs in the Bill but rather the way that the statement has been put together, the lack of detail in the statement and the lack of precision in the statement so that it is possible for senators actually to know the assumptions that have been made when various calculations are presented. For example, I believe it would have been far better under item 4, which relates to staff salaries, allowances and travel, simply to detail what might have been the assumptions, whether the calculations were based on an amount of $17,000 and $19,000, whether or not the allowances or overtime were calculated at 20 per cent of the normal salary rate and whether or not travel was calculated on some other basis. If this were done I think we would be able to have confidence that we were comparing like with like and that would promote a reasonable debate in the community. I think the fact that these figures have been presented in such a bald way, in a way which does not go into this type of detail, merely adds to the confusion of the debate in the community . I admit that it is better for the Government to give as few details as possible , thereby not provoking any more disquiet in the community. I note that the total estimated amount miraculously was managed to be kept below $10m, which is a useful figure. I admit those things. Nevertheless, in the long term I believe it is important that any financial impact statement should spell out those details and the assumptions that are made by governments in what must admittedly be an area of assumptions. One cannot be firm about many of these things because they are simply estimates. However, it would be useful to have the assumptions upon which those estimates were made. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(8.17) —I wish to respond to one or two points made during the Committee stage of this debate. First, let me take up Senator Macklin 's point. The honourable senator argued that it would be possible for a party with less than 50 per cent of the vote to push things through this House. That is possible at the moment, of course. I do not know whether Senator Macklin wants to change the double dissolution system. However, the point is that at the last election it would have been possible for a party to get half the number of seats here, as Senator Macklin argues, with about 45.5 per cent of the vote Australia-wide. Senator Macklin —It has never occurred. Senator ROBERT RAY —It has never occurred and what the honourable senator postulates will probably never occur either. All that one can say is that one can disprove every assertion that has been made in this place by looking at past figures. The one thing one cannot do is predict what the future will be. It is just impossible to do that. We have already had that same theoretical possibility in the double dissolutions of 1974, 1975 and 1983 when 10 senators from each State were elected. The second point I wish to raise relates to the financial impact statement made by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Have any calculations been done in regard to the claw-back value to the Government, especially in terms of the rate of tax that politicians pay? How much does the Government get back? I think that this is a relevant consideration to the end-up cost. The third point I wish to make is in reply to Senator Teague. I will say this only once because I do not think it would help proceedings here if we got into a protracted argument. He is possibly right. However, as I look at the Tasmanian result in 1977 the Liberal Party got 3.5 quotas, the Labor Party 2.6, the Australian Democrats 0.4 and others 0.5. I would have imagined that what would have happened in the normal course of events was that the Democrats were eliminated and maybe 0.2 of a quota would have gone to both the major parties; leaving the Liberals with 2.7 and Labor with 2.8, with the remaining 0.5 to be distributed at a far greater rate to the Liberal Party than the Labor Party. So I still maintain that a 4:2 result is possible. People talk about this magical figure of 57 1/2 per cent in terms of one party having to reach this percentage in primaries and in a one-off shot. We do not. We can build possibly from 51 per cent, 52 per cent or 53 per cent. It is possible. I make a final point about majorities in this place. We seem to be trapped between two arguments from the other side. One of the arguments says that all the minority groups will be rubbed out and the other side tells us that no one can ever get a majority in the future. The reality of this chamber into the foreseeable future is that a Government majority will be achieved only via a double dissolution. I think the Senate has to come to terms with that. Half senate elections, whether they be for five or six senators from each State, will not produce a majority in this chamber. Senator Missen —You can do it by fiddling the territorial representation. Senator ROBERT RAY —If Senator Misssen read the House of Representatives debate on this subject he would find that it was put by Mr Wilson that in fact this Government should look at that question through the continuing inquiry of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The Government will do that. What the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) could not have known was that we discussed this on the Committee. We unanimously agreed that no one wants the territorial representation fiddled and that legislation should be introduced. It is probably not an urgent matter. If we are not intending to do it in the next six months we can bring in that Bill some time next year when we have investigated it. I do not think territorial representation will be fiddled. No one really knows. One could start fiddling the territorial representation but no one knows what the final position would be. I will not go much further. Senator Teague has made projections about what the past results mean and so have I. They are remarkly common in fact. We may differ over one or two States. The basic thrust of the matter is that it is unlikely that in a half Senate election, no matter whether for six senators or five senators, one party will be the majority party. If one repeats the 1975-77 results one will get a governing party in this chamber with a majority. If one repeats the 1980 results or any other results there will probably not be a majority party. It is as simple as that. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.22) —This might be an appropriate stage to ask the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to clarify a couple of points about clause 5 of the Bill. It is a brief Bill. Clause 5 is the main clause on the second page. Clause 5 is to try to cope with the election of seven senators, six of whom will be long term senators and one of whom, I take it, will be a short term senator. That is the problem. Under clause 5 (4) the senator last elected is to be a short term senator in effect. In clause 5 (3) special arrangements are made for the two non-sitting senators. There must be at least two non-sitting senators out of seven candidates. Those two non-sitting senators are designated as long term senators. Their time of retirement is shown. Clause 5 (3) states that it is subject to sub-section (4). The problem is, of course, that the same senator could simultaneously be a non-sitting senator qualifying under clause 5 (3) as a long term senator and under clause 5 (4), as the last one elected, as a short term senator. If the Attorney says to me that the words 'subject to sub-section (4)' mean that the person would in fact be a short term senator and that only one non-sitting senator would be long term, that is fine; but then the question arises: Why was it necessary to put in the second part of clause 5 (3)? It really serves no useful purpose. In fact, the only purpose that clause 5 (3) seems to serve is to say that the newly elected senators will have six-year terms, but they would have that anyway. I cannot really see the purpose of clause 5 (3). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.24) —As to the point raised by Senator Peter Baume, I am told that this is essentially a matter of drafting style that was chosen in order to reflect the drafting approach adopted in 1949, when this situation-- Senator Peter Baume —It looks clumsy. Senator GARETH EVANS —It may look clumsy but because of the way in which sub- clause (3) is expressed to be subject to sub-clause (4) there will not in practice be any technical difficulties that arise. Senator Peter Baume may not like the way in which it is put together. It does not seem to me to be the finest flourishing of the draftsperson's art in the form in which it presently appears but it was done that way in order simply to represent the minimal amount of variation, as I understand it, from the kind of formula and language that were adopted in 1949 in the hope that it would appeal to the conservatives in this chamber who- Senator Peter Baume —Is my interpretation correct? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I understand the point Senator Peter Baume made, I think his interpretation is correct. Were it not for the way in which sub-clause (3) is expressed to be subject to sub-section (4) there would indeed be some difficulties in the interrelationship of those two sub-clauses. But given that they are interlinked with each other in that way, the problems, as I understand it, disappear. Two other groups of matters were raised by honourable senators in contributions to the Committee debate. One group of matters related to discussions about the arithmetic of the Bill and projections as to who would benefit and who would not . These contributions largely took the form of either swapping intuitions or waging private warfare, or both. I am referring in particular to the first speech of Senator Macklin. Senator Teague at one point was also waging war, I think, on his contribution to the debate on the second reading. I point out to Senator Robert Ray that I do not think there is anything really useful I can contribute to that debate, which has been a long one within the party room so far and which will no doubt continue to be a long debate because it is simply a matter of best guessing, I think. It does not affect, in any event, the drafting of this legislation. The other group of matters that were raised dealt with the cost projections involved in the financial impact statement. As to the costs concerning the new Parliament House, I simply am not in a position to advise the Committee what the cost of the extensions to the building as presently designed would be because it has not yet been calculated. It will be something in excess of $10m. We know that. How much in excess and what precisely that will be we are not able to say. If we had been able to indicate the cost we would have done so in the statement. It is premature to say at this stage. The architects and the quantity surveyors are still working and the cost estimates are still being done. As to the detail of the statement, most of the fuss seemed to concentrate on claims, pressed with varying degrees of vigour, about the implausibility of the figures shown at page 2 of the statement. I indicate the assumptions on which those figures were based in order, I hope, to satisfy Senator Macklin and, indeed, Senator Lewis. The estimated $1.72m for staff salaries, allowances and travel as a component of the cost of the additional 35 members and senators is made up as follows: Staff salaries, 35 multiplied by two multiplied by an average of $20,000 comes to a total of $1.4m. It may be that that average of $20 ,000 is pitching things a little high in terms of what the salary rates are at the moment, but there is not a massive variation created by that particular difference. That comes to $1.4m. Relief, at a ratio currently applicable all through the Public Service, calculated at 1 : 7, comes to $0.1m. Overtime is calculated at $0.1m, and travel at $0.12m. That makes a total of $1.72m for salaries, relief, overtime and travel. The estimated $6.2m for providing an additional staff member for the existing 189 members and senators is made up as follows: 189 times $18,500. If anything, the assumptions are down. If we wanted to really beef up the rhetorical point that was being made we would have made that $20,000 to match the earlier figure. The idea essentially is that the third member of staff may well be a junior steno-typist and the salary rate basically could be expected to average out at a lower per head cost than for making up the quota of staff for the new appointees. For salaries the figure of 189 is multiplied by $18,500, which comes to $3.5m. Relief, at the same 1 : 7 ratio, is $0.5m. Overtime is $0.5m. Travel is $1.4m, based on essentially the same assumptions as the $0.12m figure in the first table. Office requisites, including telephones, stationery and so on, were not, of course, in the first table because they were part of sub-item 3 rather than having to be built in in this way. The telephone costs of the different new staff members do add up, particularly if they have access to subscriber trunk dialling and so on. An amount of $0.3m is allocated for that, making a total of $6.2m. Honourable senators could quibble about each one of those items but the end result would be a variation of not much more than about half a million dollars either way on the figures as they have been given. With all due respect to Senator Macklin, I do not believe that the debate either in the community or in this Parliament will be radically affected by differences of that order of magnitude. These figures were constructed on a quick rule of thumb basis but by reference to honestly applied criteria of the kind I have just articulated. It may be that, were a more detailed exercise to be done, we would get taken into account clawback factors of the kind that were mentioned by Senator Robert Ray. It may be that we would be able to take into account some reduced accommodation costs of the kind mentioned, for example, by Senator Missen. That will not help us much with the House of Representatives members but it certainly may be a great utility to be able to rely on existing vacant space in the Customs House in Melbourne and elsewhere for honourable senators. These are other factors which, in a really detailed exercise, will undoubtedly go into the equation. I repeat that I do not believe any of these variations is likely to affect the basic substance of the argument. I hope honourable senators will regard these figures accordingly as having been given in good faith in order to meet a perfectly understandable and legitimate demand for information. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.30) —I say to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that I accept the figures in the way that he has given them to us. I am delighted to accept his assessment that half a million dollars one way or the other would probably be fair enough. I must say that the travel item of $1.4m for an additional staff member is of great concern to me but I understand the problem. I draw the Attorney-General's attention to my question in relation to the estimate of $4m on page 3 of the statement about the cost of word processors , vocadex, telex and Commander telephone systems. If he could supply the Committee with similar information to that which he has provided on page 2, I would be delighted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.31) —I will quickly respond to that question. As I understand it, again there has been a rule of thumb projection based on stand-alone word processors and printers coming out at $17, 500. Multiplied by 189 that equals $3.31m. That figure of $17,500 seems a lot to me. Whether it represents the word processors and printers or whether it includes vocadexes, telexes and all the rest, nobody-- Senator Archer —And the room it goes in. Senator GARETH EVANS —Maybe it includes the building as well. I repeat that the figure of $17,500, when multiplied by 189 is $3.31m. Again, it may be that on closer scrutiny that figure will need some adjustment but that is the best I can do with the raw material available and the best guess that can be generated from those around me at the moment. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.33) —The reason we started probing into these figures was that we received an undertaking from the Minister for Finance ( Senator Walsh) early in September that cost impact statements would be provided. I do not know whether what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) refers to as a rough rule of thumb can be considered in here or in other circumstances to be a cost impact statement. If the Minister for Finance is to be taken seriously on these matters, and given the time that he has had to look at this legislation , I would have thought that we might have had something better than what can be scratched out on the back of a cigarette packet. I would like some sort of undertaking that it is not too late to get a proper figure that has had some consideration. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.34) —I will draw Senator Archer's remarks to the attention of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), who bears immediate managerial responsibility for this area, in the hope that they will be duly chastened by the force of Senator Archer's indignation. I think probably at this stage we will not be able to produce any further and better figures. Senator Archer will have a splendid opportunity to pursue this matter further when he comes to the next round of Estimates committee hearings. I am sure this is a problem of about the right size for Senator Archer to get his teeth into. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.35) —As my last contribution to this debate I say that I hope the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is not so chastened over this Bill that he goes back on his undertaking because I shall be looking forward to getting financial impact statements during the second reading debate on all legislation introduced into the Parliament. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.36) —I speak on the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2) simply because it is a new Bill that has been introduced today by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) to replace the one that she first introduced on 22 June this year which has been the subject of considerable debate already in the Senate and certainly in the community. When the second reading debate on that Bill was brought on in the Senate on 21 October I spoke at length on the principles that the Opposition saw were at stake. I indicated a number of criticisms which the Opposition had of the measure and that it was intended to move a general amendment to the second reading to state the principles which the opposition felt were important. The Opposition then indicated that it intended to move a number of detailed amendments as well. Even earlier than that the Opposition had been calling on the Government to take the Bill away and redraft it because of the number of major problems that had emerged, not only in the drafting of the Bill but also in the number of considerable objections which people had on very well founded grounds. The Government foreshadowed about 53 amendments it proposed to move-I think the Minister was away at the time-in the Committee stage. Of course, they would have greatly cluttered the second reading debate. The need for a redrafted Bill became even more important after those amendments were foreshadowed by the Government. Therefore, the Opposition is pleased that at long last the Government has seen the wisdom of withdrawing and redrafting the Bill which Senator Ryan first introduced on 2 June this year. The Government has incorporated into the redrafted Bill not only the 53 amendments which it foreshadowed it would move but also it has included a number of other amendments with which the Opposition is pleased. It has improved, I think, even on some of the 53 amendments which it foreshadowed and of which we were given details in October. All in all the Government has, as I said, at long last taken a more positive and understanding step towards the problems which the Parliament and large sections of the community had with the original Bill. However, be that as it may, the Opposition is still concerned about a number of aspects of the Bill that has been reintroduced, despite the improvements that the Government has made to it. Some of the new and major amendments which are included in the Bill which has been introduced today deal with a number of proposals which the Opposition had made regarding the civil liberties aspects of the original Bill. The original 53 proposals contained no amendments in those areas. As I said, the Bill that has been introduced today does have some substantial amendments to provisions which were, I think, in serious disregard of basic civil liberties. For instance, one clause in the previous Bill provided that when enforcement proceedings were brought in the Federal Court the findings of the Human Rights Commission were to be prima facie evidence in that Court. That provision had a serious effect on the onus of proof, particularly in proceedings in a court for the enforcement of remedies which may have amounted to substantial damages. It was a most undesirable provision. The Opposition had intended to move to delete it. I am pleased to see that the Government has now deleted it. The Bill that has been brought in today has corrected substantially provisions in the former Bill regarding the right of self-incrimination. The provision had been removed in proceedings before both the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission and has now been amended to apply to conciliation proceedings before the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. In proceedings before the Human Rights Commission it will be a lawful excuse not to answer questions on the grounds that they might incriminate the witness. That is another major improvement to the Bill. The Opposition was critical of the fact that in proceedings before the Human Rights Commission a person did not have a right to legal representation, except with the leave of the Commission. The new Bill provides that there will be a right to legal representation before the Commission when the Commission is being assisted by counsel. As I said, the Opposition is pleased to note that there has been a number of improvements in that area. At this stage we have not had sufficient time to fully consider whether we propose to make any further amendments in regard to that area, but we certainly recognise that in the areas to which I have referred there have been some major changes for the better. There is also an improved amendment in relation to educational institutions which are conducted by a particular religion and in accordance with the doctrines or teachings of that religion. The amendment is certainly a great improvement on the original Bill. It is also an improvement on the proposed amendment which was unveiled by the Government among its 53 amendments to the Bill. However, the Opposition believes these amendments do not go far enough in that they apply only to schools conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion. The provisions of the Bill do not exclude schools which may be conducted in accordance with stated moral principles which are not, in fact, dictated by the teachings or beliefs of a particular religion. The Opposition has always maintained that there ought to be an exclusion for all schools which are non-denominational but which are conducted in accordance with stated principles and whose decisions are made in accordance with those principles. Although the Opposition is pleased to see the Government moving in the direction in which it has, it is not satisfied that it has gone far enough. There are a number of other areas in the Bill which give the Opposition great concern. I refer in particular to the reliance on the external affairs powers. The Opposition will maintain its view that that provision should be excluded from the Bill. The Opposition believes also that there ought to be a general test of reasonableness in regard to the basic definitions of discrimination on the ground of sex and marital status, the same as there has been in the provision regarding the definition of discrimination on the ground of pregnancy. We propose some amendments in that regard. I now take the opportunity of moving an amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a second time. I move: At end of motion, add: ', but the Senate, whilst welcoming the intention of the Bill to remove discrimination against people on the basis of their sex, marital status or pregnancy, is of the opinion that: (a) the Bill should not rely on the external affairs power as a head of power; (b) Australia's signature to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women should not be used to extend the powers of the Commonwealth. (c) the removal of discrimination against people on the basis of sex should be recognised as not obliging anyone to enter the paid workforce or alter their view of their responsibilities towards their spouses or children; (d) no decision or action by any educational or child care or other body established for the education of students or the care of children in accordance with the doctrines of a religion or creed or in accordance with stated principles should be affected where that decision or action has been taken in good faith to enable the body to conform with those doctrines or principles; (e) nothing in the Bill should be taken as approving those articles of the Convention which are not implemented by the Bill; and (f) the clause of the Bill should be re-drafted accordingly'. That amendment does not negate the second reading of the Bill. It sets down the general principles which the Opposition believes ought to be either incorporated in the Bill itself or recognised by the Senate in giving the Bill a second reading. For instance, we recognise that paragraph (c) of the amendment-which states that the removal of discrimination against people on the basis of sex should be recognised as not obliging anyone to enter the paid work force or alter their view of their responsibilities towards their spouses or children-is a general principle which may not require particular amendment to the legislation. The Opposition believes there has been so much concern in the community that the Bill will achieve that principle or intends, in the long term , to achieve it. The Senate should make it quite clear in giving the Bill a second reading that it does not countenance that view of the Bill, that the Bill ought to be used to achieve that purpose or that there ought to be any extension of the legislation or any other legislation which may achieve that purpose. The other principle proposed is that 'nothing in the Bill should be taken as approving those articles of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women which are not implemented by the Bill' ought to be recognised by the Senate, but certainly it does not require incorporation in the Bill itself. Again, the Opposition believes there has been a great deal of concern about the aspects of the Convention, particularly the affirmative action, the provisions in the Convention and some of the statements in the Convention which seems to support the change of roles of men and women in society. Certainly, the Opposition believes these should not be given any support by the Senate when it gives a second reading to this Bill. The statements incorporated in the speech on the second reading indicate, as I said, the grounds, in the broad sense, on which the Opposition is prepared to give this Bill a second reading. When we move into Committee, a number of detailed amendments will be proposed by the Opposition. At this stage the Opposition is pleased that the Government has gone a long way to meeting a number of major criticisms made of the legislation particularly in relation to a lot of the drafting of the original Bill. The Opposition is particularly pleased that the Government has gone so far in meeting its criticisms of the civil liberties aspects of proceedings before the Human Rights Commission and the Federal Court of Australia. I do not propose to go over the general views which I expressed on behalf of the Opposition when I opened the debate on the previous Bill. I refer honourable senators to what I said then. We incorporate those views in general in this debate on this new Bill. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(8.52) —It is not my intention to make a second reading speech of any length on the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2). I spoke for half an hour on 21 October on the original Sex Discrimination Bill which the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) introduced into this place. Anybody who has any interest in finding out how I and the Party which I represent feel about the principles behind this Bill can go back to the Hansard record of the debate of 21 October to find out. I simply take this opportunity to do as Senator Durack has done and that is to commend the Government for being prepared to take note of the concerns that were expressed, not only by the Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats but also, I dare say, by some members of the Minister's party and by members of the community generally. It is good to see a government which is prepared to do that sort of thing on a Bill which is of such tremendous importance to so many people in this country. Attitudes, of course, in themselves, are not necessarily changed by legislation . But, without legislation, attitudes take a lot longer to change as lack of legislation in a particular area is frequently seen as some sort of good- housekeeping seal of approval by the parliaments for the status quo. So, we certainly need this legislation. I am sorry that Senator Grimes has gone out of the chamber because I think he probably exemplified tonight a lot of what some of us are trying to do with this legislation. For those honourable senators who were not in here when he walked in here a little while ago and for those to whom he had his back turned, he was wearing, as near as I could see, a bright red tee -shirt that had across the front, I think in black print 'I am a born again feminist'. A rather large born again feminist I would suggest in the case of Senator Grimes! Senator Ryan —It is all quality. Senator HAINES —It may well be all quality but it is certainly all there. Senator Grimes, I think, was probably proclaiming what a feminist really is. For the benefit of those who sometimes wonder, I suggest that there is a distinct difference between somebody who is a sexist and somebody who is a feminist. The basic difference is that a sexist maintains that there are rigid sex stereotypes and sex roles for the two different sexes, whereas a feminist believes that there are non-rigid sex roles and that sex stereotyping is something that should be removed for all time. This Bill, therefore, attempts to extend to the 50 per cent of the community which is female, the opportunities, privileges and rights which have always been extended to that 50 per cent of the community which is male. In fact, it sets out to extend the horizons and to expand the opportunities, not only in the work force, but elsewhere, for something in excess of 50 per cent of the population. For that reason, all I had to say on this Bill on 21 October still stands. I repeat my closing remarks then which were that the Bill is to be commended. I wish it a speedy passage. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.56) —So much has occurred since 8 November when I had still to complete my speech on the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983. At that time I was referring to Senator Ryan's comments regarding the statistical evidence she brought forward. There were further comments by Senator Ryan in this area reported in the Australian today that I would like to quote. The heading states: Pay anomalies show need for sex bill-Ryan. The article states: . . . Senator Ryan . . . urged support for the Government's Sex Discrimination Bill after official figures showed average weekly earnings for all women were over $120 a week lower than for men. She continued: . . . the September quarter figures again demonstrated the 'glaring differences' in rates of pay for men and women. We have been told many times that anything can be done with figures. Certainly, Senator Ryan has done something which I believe is quite irresponsible with the figures which she has quoted in the Australian today. Her bald facts are, no doubt, absolutely correct. She did not try to indicate why those figures are as they were stated. She did not attempt to throw any light on them. Indeed, after reading the article, the average person would be left with the impression that women get paid less for equal work. That is quite incorrect. Women do not get paid less in Australia for equal work and equal time. Senator Ryan has deliberately-I believe it is quite deliberate-left out that women choose different careers from men. That is very clearly indicated if honourable senators have a look at the facts. The facts show that women choose to have babies. Ninety-six point one per cent of married women choose to have babies. Senator Haines —Some of them choose to have babies. Senator WALTERS —There are very modern methods today for women who do not choose to have babies to avoid having them. I presume that 96.1 per cent of married women choose to have babies. Obviously they make it a greater priority than a career. If we look at the figures of what women choose to do as jobs, we find that 31.4 per cent of women are in the part time work force compared with 5.2 per cent of men. That again indicates that women choose a job which fits in with their family commitments. To ignore these very important and vital facts I think is completely irresponsible of the Minister. It is irresponsible for her to attempt that sort of hoodwinking of the Australian people. Women make choices. The facts prove that they choose to have a family. Statistics prove that. We then ask: 'Right, what do women want apart from having their children, looking after their children and bringing their children up the way they want'? A considerable number, indeed the figure is 31.4 per cent, of the 45.3 per cent of women who are in the work force choose to do part time work . They make this choice because it fits in with their family commitments. That is a woman's choice. Of course that does not fit in with Senator Ryan's concept or indeed Senator Giles's or Senator Haines's concept of what women should want to do. They say that it is a terrible shame that women are disadvantaged to the extent that they are earning $120 a week less than men. It seems to me a pity that women who make this choice are being labelled by these senators as not accomplishing anything. I believe they accomplish a tremendous amount. Let us look at a few more statistics. The Bureau of Statistics brought out some very interesting figures recently and I certainly have not found Senator Ryan quoting those anywhere. The surprising thing is that young women are doing pretty well compared with young men. In fact average incomes for two groups of females, those between the ages of 20 and 24 years, with degrees or non-trade certificates or diplomas were higher than those for comparable groups of males. In 1981-82 women in the 20 to 24-year age group with degrees earned $15,002 a year, while men in that group earned $13,787 a year. The article from which I am reading in the Australian Financial Review states: What these figures suggest is that, while the evidence of past social attitudes and sex discrimination is plain to see, the progress in getting rid of such discrimination has been very rapid in recent years, and in effect the discrimination may be in the process of being reversed. Women, particularly young women, are very keen and very reliable. Employers take them on when they have the choice. We also have other evidence that discrimination is certainly on the wane. I have a news release put out by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) on 25 September this year. It states: Figures released today by the Department of Aviation show that there are now 23 fully qualified female air traffic controllers working at government airports around Australia. Five years ago there were only two. There are also 45 fully qualified women flight service officers working for the Department of Aviation. In 1978 there were none. In this year's Departmental training intake there were: 16 female and 60 male air traffic controller trainees; 31 female and 100 male flight service trainees. So the list goes on, proving that discrimination is certainly overcome in the majority of cases and that women are going into these areas of choice. Their horizons have broadened. There is no discrimination forbidding them to go into such areas. They are now choosing these areas. To say on the basis of figures that women now earn $120 a week less than men is not stating the facts as they should be stated. Many statements come from the Government that really do make nonsense of the true meaning of this Sex Discrimination Bill. Senator Giles has claimed publicly her opposition to the dependent spouse's rebate. Her theory, along with Senator Ryan's, is that women really do not do much good anywhere else but in the work force. For a woman to oppose the dependent spouse's rebate, I believe, is to denigrate a woman who believes that she is doing a great job in the home. I certainly believe that is the most important job that any woman can do. The new Bill is quite an eye opener. We really have come a long way, with the pressure that the Opposition has put on the Government. Senator Haines congratulated the Government tonight on the amendments. In reading Senator Haines's previous speech, she certainly did not have any problems with the Bill. My mind goes back to the very beginning when we were told by Senator Ryan- Senator Haines and Senator Giles will remember-that we were all being hysterical because we were objecting to some parts of the Bill. Senator Haines said much the same. My goodness, it really makes one wonder how hysterical one has to be before the Government will see reason and bring in the 70-odd amendments. I think that is the number; I have not counted them since the original 53 were brought in, but there must have been a considerable number of additional amendments. Senator Ryan, in her second reading speech, said: Let me say that I do not apologise for the fact that there are numerous amendments to the original draft. She proceeded to say that she really did expect all these. She then underlined that one thing was clear: Despite the changes made, the fundamental principle of the Bill remained unchanged; that discrimination based on sex, marital status and pregnancy and discrimination involving sexual harassment cannot be tolerated in our society. That is what the Opposition has been saying ever since the introduction of this Bill. We have been saying that that is the basis for what the Bill should have been about. The Bill should never have been about interfering with religious freedoms, as it did. The Bill should never have been about interfering with our normal methods of justice, as it did. Interference with both religious freedoms and our judicial system has been acknowledged by the Government at long last and the amendments have been implemented. Senator Ryan, in her second reading speech, over and over again said that the principle of the Bill remains. She said it on page 2, and on page 3 she said: As I have said, this fundamental principle which is widely endorsed throughout the community is not changed at all. She seems to take up her second reading speech by saying that the Government has amended the Bill a bit but that really the fundamental principles have not changed. That is no way to go about it. We know that the Government was dragged screaming to these amendments. Indeed, when we first broached our concerns about the interference with religious beliefs, a Press release was put out by Senator Ryan on 16 September, quite some time ago, in which she said: It is not the Government's intention to damage the special character of non- government schools or to interfere with the conscientious beliefs and ethical standards of parents and educational authorities. She said that it was not the Government's intention and that if that were in the Bill it was all a great misunderstanding and that the Government did not mean that. She went on: However, the Government has a general commitment to ensuring that men and women should not be discriminated against in employment because of their sex, marital status or pregnancy. So, very magnanimously, she said that a two-year exemption would be allowed, and that that would allow a detailed examination of this matter with a view to the formulation of a provision acceptable to both the government and the non- government school sector. So the first try, when we pointed out that her Bill was interfering with religious freedom, was to give us a two-year period in which she would educate us all to come up with something that was acceptable to the government and non-government schools. As I have said, the Government has been dragged screaming to the proper amendments. It has gone further than that; but yet, it has not gone quite far enough. I should like to explain how far we have come. As I have said, to begin with the Government, quite openly and blatantly, interfered with our religious freedoms in this country. As I indicated when I spoke last, Senator Giles said that she did not worry too much about this because in her opinion some of the non-government schools had great bias in their religions. I believe that that indicated the real approach of the Government. I am not quite sure what right the Government or Senator Giles has to say that non-government schools are biased because they have a particular religious belief, but Senator Giles has taken it upon herself to say that, because she does not believe that way and because it is not her religious belief, it is biased. We have come a long way from that, but it has been at quite an expense. We now have Senator Ryan saying, 'We do not really want to interfere with religion', so she has made certain amendments. But further to that, let me explain how the procedure went if a woman considered that she was, say, being sexually harassed. She complained to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. The Commissioner then called a compulsory conference and tried to conciliate between the parties. If that was not successful, the matter went to the Human Rights Commission. The Commission could have its own legal representative and could deny the person who had been accused any legal representation. So the Human Rights Commission could have a lawyer interrogating the accused, an accused who had no experience in law , and that lawyer could demand all self-incriminating evidence. Having established what it considered were the facts, the Human Rights Commission would send the matter up to the Federal Court of Australia as a prima facie case. Once the matter reached the Federal Court, because the facts were considered at that stage to consitute a prima facie case, the person who had been accused then had to prove his innocence. It was the first time that he was entitled, on his own, to legal representation, but at this stage he had to prove his innocence. There was a reversal of the onus of proof to which we have become very accustomed, in this country at least-the duty of the prosecution to prove him guilty, rather than the onus being on him to prove his innocence. We have come a long way since then, but this was brought to the Government's attention a long time ago when we were debating the matter and appealing to Senator Gareth Evans, while Senator Ryan was overseas, to alter this and fit in amendments, because we really could not bring this sort of legislation into Australia. He refused and said that it would not be altered. However, enough pressure has been brought to bear to force the Government to alter the legislation, so now we have amendments that have been introduced in the new Bill . It has at last been rewritten. I think that I called for the rewriting of it at least a couple of months ago, and I am pleased to say that at last we have got it. There is no way that Senator Ryan can say, as she did in her second reading speech: . . . I do not apologise for the fact that there are numerous amendments to the original draft. In my Press release about the introduction of the Bill on 2 June 1983, I invited constructive comments. We received a lot of comments and they were all considered. That is her excuse for the sloppy drafting-there was a lot of sloppy drafting- but also deliberate drafting of certain pieces of this legislation which have really created all the problems and concerns in the community. As I said originally, 80,000 people have petitioned the Senate alone. It is more than 80,000, because I spoke last on 8 November and the petitions have been rolling in ever since. I do not know how many there are now; I have not made inquiries. But over 80,000 people have petitioned the Senate showing concern about the Bill. We do not know how many petitioned the House of Representatives, because Senator Ryan has not been concerned enough to find out that figure. She does not have any idea of how many people have petitioned the House of Representatives, but by normal standards there would be many more petitioners sending their signatures to the House of Representatives than there would be sending them to the Senate. There has been no decision by Senator Ryan, in her office-she gets all those signatures-to count them and to let us know how many people have been showing concern about the Bill. Reading Newsheet No. 15 from the Office of the Status of Women, for September-October, we find very little talk about all the amendments. It says: The Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 is currently being debated in the Senate. This paper describing the Bill incorporates amendments to be proposed by the Government as a result of suggestions and comments made by interested parties and organisations following the introduction of the Bill on 2 June 1983. That was the September-October Newsheet. The original Bill was introduced on 2 June 1983. One would have thought that if amendments were to be made to the judicial side of it-to the provisions relating to a prima facie case and to the reversal of the onus of proof-it would have been mentioned in that Newsheet. There is no mention of it. The earlier amendments were mentioned, but there was no mention of those amendments. So it is obviously a very recent decision by the Government to succumb, at last, to the pressure that we have been placing upon it. There are another couple of areas about which I should like to speak. As I have already said, Senator Haines congratulated the Government tonight, but she did not seem to have any problems with the Bill when she spoke on 21 October. Indeed , quite a number of things surprised me in her speech. She seems to think that all mothering is concerned about is having children fed and clean. Nothing else seems to matter, because she said: Providing the children are being well looked after and fed- she was talking about child care services- as they usually are in well organised child care centres, and providing everybody at home eats well, I can see no particular harm- She could see no harm in women just leaving their children in child care centres all the time and going into the work force. Senator Tate rather amazes me, too, because he is a lawyer and in his speech he ignored completely the areas that the Government has now seen fit to amend by these very latest amendments. In his speech on the same date, on 21 October, he said: It is jurisprudentially sound in that it makes unlawful only certain defined practices. He said it is perfectly all right and that there is nothing much wrong with it. The Government now seems to agree with us that there is quite a considerable amount wrong with it. In the remaining moments that I have, Mr Deputy President, I foreshadow that I will move private amendments. The Opposition is not putting them forward. Two of them are machinery amendments. My main amendment removes the discrimination against non-working spouses which forbids them from sharing their husbands' incomes particularly in the eyes of the Government, for income tax purposes. I believe that the Bill as it stands discriminates against non- working spouses purely because they happen to be married. As honourable senators would know, the Bill states that there shall be no discrimination on marital grounds and it is in this area that I will be putting forward my amendments. I will be speaking to the amendments in the Committee stage of the Bill and will therefore leave the rest of my comments until then. As I said, the Opposition has from the beginning agreed with the Government that the intention of non-discrimination is terribly important. We have followed that principle from the beginning and we have never deviated from it. We have complained and sought and now received amendments to various sections of the Bill which were imperative. I believe that we still have several amendments that should be made but I am pleased with the general outcome of the Bill. I am looking forward to the Committee stage and to debating those few amendments we have left. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(9.22) — I support the Liberal principle that men and women ought to enjoy the same fundamental human rights and freedoms. If a man, because he is male, or a woman, because she is female, is denied a fundamental human freedom, I am offended by such an injustice. If a man or a woman is discriminated against in a manner which denies a fundamental human right such as equality before the law or freedom of speech, I am offended by this injustice. In order to prevent such an injustice and to provide a remedy I support the principle of there being legislation to overcome this offence of sex discrimination. In the same way I have supported legislation to overcome the offence of racial discrimination. However, I do acknowledge that the law cannot create attitudes of the heart and mind. One cannot legislate for morality but we can by law seek to prevent offensive actions and seek a remedy for those actions in the same way as there are laws regarding theft and assault. However, it is not sufficient just to be in broad agreement with the goal of achieving a sound statement or an effective law to eliminate sex discrimination. It is not enough to agree only with the general concept. Rather it is necessary I believe to achieve this goal and to ensure that the details of any statement are wisely drawn and the particular provisions of any proposed law are those which will be effective in practice and will not be misapplied to allow other even unintended wrongs or disadvantages. Now in Australia, in 1983, and in the debate currently before the Senate, we have the need not only to express broad support for the general principle of anti-discrimination legislation but also to apply ourselves in detail to two important current measures-measures that are actually before us. One is the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a convention which was signed by the previous Government in 1979, which was ratified by the present Government a few months ago and which is proposed as a schedule attached to the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2) now before us. The second measure is the Bill itself and the particular details of the 116 clauses set out in it. For my own part I have examined in some detail both the Convention and the Bill and I support both. I support the Bill subject to the several amendments which we in the Opposition have determined to put forward. I support our second reading amendment and I support the series of particular amendments we will move at the Committee stage of the Bill. Having participated in the drafting of the words of these several Opposition amendments I look to subsequent discussion of them in due course, but among other things by these amendments we seek to do several things. We reject in principle the use of the external affairs power; that is, we reject the Commonwealth usurping the responsibilities of the States. We have sought also to exempt single sex schools from provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act. This is an amendment which I am glad the Government has now agreed to accept. We will seek also to ensure that any group, an independent school or otherwise, having the care of children will not be prevented from explicitly advertising employment for a married couple or choosing persons who will conscientiously support the beliefs, values and principles of the group concerned. At a large public meeting in Cleve in South Australia late in July I expressed this view and undertook to seek this amendment. We will also seek to amend the Bill to ensure protection of civil liberties and in particular a provision for safeguards against self-incrimination. By a comprehensive second reading amendment we seek, contrary to the scurrilous misinformation spread about the Opposition, to affirm that we do not see this Bill as weakening the fundamental importance and strength of the family as the basic unit of society, nor do we see any obligation in this Bill for anyone to go from the family and home to enter the work force. Madam Acting Deputy President, I am a South Australian and I am proud of the fact that South Australia over the past century has led the world in gaining universal adult franchise. The vote for responsible government was extended in 1856 from a small privileged group of male property owners to persons of all kinds, even those without any property. Especially, South Australia took a leading role when the vote was extended to all women, but that was only in 1894, and South Australia led the world. It may seem incomprehensible to young Australians that women were once denied the vote. In the same way it may now seem incomprehensible to think that slavery was once protected by law-but not in Australia-and was finally abolished only in the 1880s, which is in the lifetime of some living Australians. It is of interest to recall that in respect of these newly won freedoms, both in the case of the abolition of slavery and in the case of women being allowed to vote, there was an uproar from a conservative and self -righteous minority shouting a lot of nonsense about the breakdown of society and the undermining of all that it, even some well intentioned people, felt to be sound and true. It is much easier now with the view and values of hindsight to affirm that these extensions of fundamental human rights and freedoms were very positive gains. South Australia has also taken a leading role in being the first Australian State to enact anti-discrimination legislation both in regard to racial discrimination and sex discrimination. My friend and Liberal parliamentary colleague, David Tonkin, when a back bencher in 1973, initiated the sex discrimination legislation which became law only in the period of the Dunstan Government in 1976. At that time in his debate on the South Australian Bill, which is a foundation for the Bill we have before us in this debate, David Tonkin said: We have come a long way since the days when woman was considered by Aristotle to be an inferior being incapable of thought or anything else. There is still a long way to go, and this legislation is but a small part. I hope it will be the first step in the long run home to final equality not only in legislation but also in actual community attitudes. I, as another South Australian Liberal, share the same hope about the legislation now before us. The legislative step is necessary, but more than that , I hope we will go on to see community attitudes in Australia come to a more generous and unforced maturity where women are not left out, their abilities undervalued, their benefits inferior, their participation less than fully welcomed. I hope we may see in Australia, in every place, a new and full appreciation of the enormous worth, ability and contribution of our mothers, our wives, our sisters, our daughters; that there will be a new and full appreciation of men and women alike and their equal access to every fundamental human right and freedom. At this point I take the opportunity of affirming the statements concerning women and the family which are set out in the current Federal platform of the Liberal Party of Australia. I helped to formulate these statements when a member of the policy and platform review committee of my Party prior to their endorsement by the Liberal Party's Federal Council. I seek leave to incorporate these statements. Leave granted. The statements read as follows- THE INDIVIDUAL IN SOCIETY The Family The family is the fundamental and most important social and cohesive force in society and should be encouraged to take the primary responsibility for the care and development of children and providing for its members a source of personal happiness, economic security and social and psychological support. Liberals acknowledge the vital contribution of the family in the development of the individual. Liberals will continue to ensure that the family has the support necessary to sustain it. Society's investment in the family is an investment in the future. Liberals seek: A social environment where individual families are self-reliant and free to determine and pursue their own chosen opportunities for family development and fulfilment. A physical environment where adequate housing education and health services are available to all. A financial environment where a family as a group is not penalised in comparison with other members of the community, in particular by any inequitable effect of the taxation or social security systems. Recognition of the value of full time care by a parent during the early years of childhood wherever possible. An opportunity for each member of the family to share the responsibilities, duties, pleasures and problems which are part of family life; and an equal opportunity to pursue occupations, activities and interests, paid or unpaid, which may contribute to their personal development and satisfaction, to the development and well being of their families and to the community in general. Recognition of the importance of older citizens and the contribution they make to our society so as to encourage tolerance and respect between the generations. Recognising that families may pass through periods of adversity. Liberals advocate by consultation and co-operation among the Commonwealth, State and local governments and voluntary agencies the following means of assisting the family: Education for marriage and family relationships, guidance on family planning and the fostering of community organisations which assist people to prepare for and understand the complexities and responsibilities of married life. Encouragement of families to care for their own children but assistance in the provision of childhood services to supplement family care where needed. Assistance to overcome the special difficulties of one-parent families, handicapped parents, parents of handicapped children and isolated families. Encouragement of families to care for their aged and invalid relatives within their own environment. Women The Liberal Party believes that while this Platform applies to both men and women certain matters specifically relating to women identify themselves and call for continued action. These include: Women to have equality of opportunity and freedom of choice to engage in political, civil and community activities, employment and education. Removal of remaining areas of discrimination against women. Recognition of the vital role of women in the stability and development of the family. Opportunity and choice for mothers to fulfil their family role and also, if they wish to engage in other satisfying activities including further educational achievement, remunerative employment or voluntary social activities. Encouragement of training and re-training schemes for women wishing to re-enter the workforce, in order that they and the nation may further benefit from the economic and social value of their skills and capabilities. Awareness that child care facilities are essential and require co-ordinated action by governments and private organisations. The realignment of working hours to accord with family responsibilities and the encouragement of arrangements for part-time work in the public and private sectors. Senator TEAGUE —I thank the Senate. I turn now to the Convention attached to the Bill, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Since April this year I have received far more mail on the Convention than on any other matter. It is also true that the Senate has received the greatest volume of petitions on this subject. I have considered most carefully these many letters and petitions, phone calls and conversations. First of all, I am conscious that the objectives of the Convention, and of this Bill for that matter, are supported by all political parties and by the majority of Australians. The Bill and the Convention are supported also by the National Council of Women, the National Women's Advisory Committee, the Young Women's Christian Association and by women's groups throughout Australia. They are supported very strongly by the State Council and by the Women's Council of the Liberal Party in my State of South Australia. The Women's Council of my Party on 17 June this year reaffirmed the resolution already adopted by it on 14 March 1980. That resolution was in these terms: That this Women's Council asks the Federal Government to ratify the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. That is the full resolution. There were no riders, no reservations, and no amendments suggested. However, despite the clear majority support for the Convention and the Bill throughout Australia, at the same time hundreds of the letters I received were critical of the Convention and the Bill. Most of these letters were from Liberal and National Party supporters. Nevertheless, and as it happens, almost all expressed to me that they were Christians. Perhaps they know that I, as one senator, do try to think about legislation not only as a senator with liberal political principles but also as a Christian. I believe in the teaching of Jesus and in the Bible's teaching about our relationships and in the relationships we have in the community, about love and truth and justice. I believe in the importance of the family and in the loving relationships expressed in the family, in marriage and in the care of parents for their children. In response to the concerns expressed in the many letters I received I put in this debate eight straightforward propositions, all of which I support. The first, which I believe and which is simply put, is that men and women are fundamentally different. Men and women just cannot be made into so-called unisex persons. Second, the privacy of any individual and any family is important and should be protected. Third, a mother and father's care for children should not be secondary to their otherwise important commitment to their employment. Rather , the parents' employment should enhance the higher priority of their care for their children. Fourth, the family is the basic unit of society and children are best cared for by their parents rather than by state institutions. Fifth, the care for children by parents and by others should seek to avoid the causes of serious emotional problems and any psychiatric disorders. Sixth, sound and happy family relationships should be fostered so as to avoid marriage insecurity and marriage breakdown. Seventh-this I also firmly believe-Australia is a Federal Commonwealth of States and is a sovereign country; that is, Australia is not subject to foreign control. Eighth, and last, the cost of any government decisions and programs should not over-burden the taxpayers. These are eight clear and widely held propositions that I happen to support strongly. I would not want to be haphazard or in any way uncaring about them. But it is on these exact eight matters, all eight of them in turn, that there has come the shock, the concern, the dismay from hundreds of people in South Australia and elsewhere that these were the very matters being undermined, being set aside by both the Convention and the Sex Discrimination Bill. What had happened was this: These hundreds of shocked South Australians and others all over the country had received the same propaganda, a propaganda sheet setting out very directly and crudely these eight direct accusations. All of the accusations, I believe, are clearly false and can be shown to be clearly false. I ask leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard this propaganda sheet. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Last Monday, March 28th, it was reported in the press by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, that the Federal Government will move quickly to ratify the United Nations Convention on: THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID THAT SUCH LEGISLATION WOULD OPERATE NATIONWIDE SOME OF THE IMPLICATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS; 1. The changing and wiping out of our traditional ''gender'' roles of man and woman. In order to bring about this change of thinking among the young people there would be revision of school textbooks so as to eliminate male and female roles. This would be done in the books from kindergarten level upwards. Changes are already being made to the Bible so as to obliterate differences between the roles of masculine and feminine. 2. If such changes were controlled by law it would involve an intrusion into the privacy of private individuals and families. 3. The above Treaty or convention expresses strong incentives for mothers to join the workforce. Mothering would, by implication, become a second class calling or profession. 4. A network nationwide of baby creches and childcare centres is already planned, so that the mothers can be freed to go out to work from the early weeks of the child's life. In the long term the result would be that the State would have the care and control of the child from infancy to maturity with the opportunity and power to mould its emotional life and its thinking. 5. One of the results would be the likely development of emotional problems among the children and young people as a result of early separation from both parents. Such deprivation can be a serious cause of childhood psychiatric illness. 6. The exchange of sex roles, or ''gender'' roles, within a marriage, with the woman becoming the main breadwinner and the man doing household work which is the traditional sphere of the woman, is likely to cause further increase of marriage insecurity and even further marriage breakdown. 7. One serious and far reaching implication is that Australia's RATIFICATION of this international treaty places her under the control of foreign powers; she is no longer free; she has to submit to laws and regulations imposed by International Courts and powers. 8. The COST of such legislation would be exceedingly great. The tax payer-the rank and file of the nation-is the one who pays the Bill. The next sitting of parliament in Canberra will be in May. Petitions are being sent to both houses and to the Governor-General asking that the Australian Government will refrain from ratifying this United Nations convention because of its profound, long lasting and widespread effects on the family life of our Nation. For further information telephone- 07-201 6244 07-396 9472 Dr A. Rendle-Short Mrs Jackie Butler 07-286 2498Mrs Robyn Sully Senator TEAGUE —This false propaganda attacking the Convention was distributed early in April over the names of Dr Rendle-Short, Mrs Butler and Mrs Sully, all of Queensland. As I understand it, partly from their subsequent letters and telephone calls to me, they were moved to make these wild and extreme accusations by their quite conscientious opposition to humanism, materialism, socialism and communism. In my remarks I am not attacking their conscientious beliefs; what I am saying is that even with good intentions they made their own aunt sally. They distorted the Convention to appear as a monster and then set out to cut down the monster. History is full of such over-anxious, self- defeating campaigns. This campaign was self-defeating because the accusations were false and they were seen subsequently to be false by those who actually read the Convention and who sought to understand it without the distortions that had been created. All the political parties in Australia represented in this Parliament have referred to that nonsense about the Convention and the Bill. But the propaganda had its effect, nevertheless. Of the many individual letters I received, I refer to two which I have extracted at random. Both of these are from constituents of mine in South Australia. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter to me from Mrs Denise Kitto of 7 July and the letter to me from David and Helen Wallace of 22 September. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- 3 Poplar Avenue, Keith 5267, South Australia July 7th 1983. Senator B. C. Teague, Westfield Shopping Town Clarion, 297 Diagonal Road, Oaklands Park 5046, S.A. Dear Sir, I write out of deep Christian concern regarding the Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, which was signed by the previous Government on July the seventeenth 1980. I believe that this convention will effectively eliminate the traditional Judaeo-Christian concept of the family as the basic unit of society. I believe that it opens doors to deny mothers the freedom of choice to stay at home and rear their children. I believe that parental guidance will at least be greatly reduced by the provision of networks of state run child care centres. I believe that the Bible will be regarded as ''sexist'' and become a banned book, especially in education, but also in many other areas. I believe that by ratifying the convention, Australia will be yielding her sovereignty to foreign powers through international courts, and thereby the fundamental concept of Western Democracy will quickly disappear. This matter is being brought to your notice because I feel very deeply about the erosion of the family which will inevitably result should Ratification of this Convention take place. I would therefore urge you to take all action in your power to see this Ratification of the United Nations Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against women does not take place. Yours sincerely, D. A. Kitto Mrs Denise Kitto, 3 Poplar Avenue, Keith 5267 Bosdell Avenue, Paradise 5075 22.9.83 Senator Baden Teague, Parliament House, Canberra 2600 Dear Senator, I wish to register a strong protest against the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 and the underhand way in which it was ratified. It discriminates against those women who choose to remain at home and nurture their children. I see it as a serious threat to the values of family life, leading to a totalitarian and socialistic society. Why should we join ourselves with the communist countries in this way, when the U.S.A. and the U.K. have failed to do so. The Bill is so broad in its phrasing that it could mean almost anything and leaves the way open for serious infringements of our religious liberties, an issue profoundly affecting large numbers of Australians. I also object to the Federal Government being able to overrule the State Government. I urge you to vote against this Bill. Yours faithfully, David and Helen Wallace Senator TEAGUE —I thank the Senate. These letters include phrases such as the ' the traditional Judaeo-Christian concept of the family', 'the fundamental concept of Western democracy', 'the threat . . . of a totalitarian and socialistic society' and 'serious infringements of our religious liberties'. Again, I say that I am entirely sympathetic to the genuine personal commitments expressed in these letters, that is to the family, to freedom, to democracy, to the Bible, to Australian sovereignty and so on, but in my view none of these are put in danger, none are put in jeopardy, by the Convention nor by the Bill as sought to be amended by my colleagues in the Opposition. When I say that it is my view that none of these supposed dangers is to be found in the Convention or in the Bill, this has not been a view worked out in the isolation of Parliament House but rather following weeks of open dialogue at public meetings at which I spoke, in the city and in the country, and after long , careful discussions with people such as Mrs Robyn Sully and Dr David Phillips, who have been at the forefront of attacking the Convention and the Bill. These and others were invited by me to try to sustain their arguments, but I believe that they failed to sustain them. Their accusations do not lead to the actual words and provisions of the Convention or of the Bill. So, what I understand to have happened over the past six months is this: Those hundreds of South Australians who read the false propaganda, but read it in good faith, accepted these accusations and became alarmed-many irretrievably alarmed. But they had not read a copy of the Convention itself and, when some did so in the months that followed, the original distorting prejudice was, for some, already too unconsciously retained. They also had not read the legislation because it was only later, on 2 June, that the Bill itself in its original form was introduced here in the Senate. The damage was already done. In the scattered groups about the city and the country the seeds of alarm spread by the distorting propaganda took root and started to grow. It was easy also to surmise that the Convention must be bad, because is not the United Nations dominated by communists-that is not true but it often appears so-and the Sex Discrimination Bill must be bad because is not the newly victorious Labor Government dominated by radical feminists? This may or may not be true but it has appeared so to some . I have considerable sympathy for the very many ordinary Australians who were led astray by the mischief of this false propaganda. They were being told that their dearly held values were in danger and now was the time to act. Hundreds of them-thousands when all the States are taken into account-signed the petitions they were asked to sign, which accompanied the propaganda sheet and which were often presented to them for support even at the church door. In signing these petitions the people were wanting to say: 'Look we do not want the family undermined; we do not want marriage undermined, we do not want children taken away to a network of child care centres; we do not want mothers who are caring for young children to be forced to go into the work force; we do not want foreign intervention in Australia's affairs; we do not want the differences between men and women to be submerged in some unisex existence, which is impossible anyway; we do not want censorship of the Bible, but the text of the Bible is not subject to the fickle fashions of change, anyway; we do not want our education institutions prevented from employing only persons who share the values, beliefs and principles of those institutions; and we do not want a new usurping interference from a feminist mafia whose motives we distrust and whose values we reject'. I believe that this is what the petitions they signed and the letters they sent to me were all saying, and, given the limited bits they were told, and which alarmed them, I am not surprised that they responded by putting pen to paper in the way they did. I have a lot of sympathy for those Australians but I have no sympathy at all for the perpetrators of the false propaganda. The propaganda was not only exaggerated and outrageous in its distortion of the Convention and of the Bill but also, in very much of what was circulated, was downright dishonest. I have no sympathy for the authors of this campaign. One of the persistent misinterpretations of the Convention concerns article 2 ( b), which states: To adopt appropriate legislative and other measures, including sanctions where appropriate, prohibiting all discrimination against women. The preamble of Article 2 states: State Parties condemn discrimination against women in all its forms. These extracts from Article 2 were quoted by the propagandists as if they had no limitation, as if they allowed every extreme of interpretation and as if they implied some sort of unisex outcome. But what these misinterpretations overlook is Article 1 of the same Convention-the fundamental article-which gives the definition of the term 'discrimination' and which restricts its meaning to the foundation concept of 'human rights and fundamental freedoms'. In the light of Article 1's actual definition, all the fanciful and mindless extremes are reduced to nothing. The misinterpretations of Article 2 become baseless when this and the other articles are read properly in the context of the Convention as a whole-that is, when they are read as I believe they are intended to be read. Let me quote this definition, Article 1, in full: For the purposes of the present Convention, the term 'discrimination against women' shall mean any distinction exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. Here, then, is the first article of the Convention which governs all that follows it. Discrimination is restricted by this definition to the matter of ' human rights and fundamental freedoms', not petty things like unisex public lavatories or habits of dress, or even distorting things like equivalent outcomes in every area of our lifestyles and livelihoods or even distractions about some endorsement of affirmative action or some right to claim abortion on demand. These extreme interpretations are nonsense and mischief in the light of Article 1. For the record, may I add that I am opposed to affirmative action and no one is still alleging that there is anything of this concept in the Bill. Also for the record, as honourable senators may know from our earlier debates, I am opposed to abortion on demand. I also note that, when the Hawke Government in July ratified the UN Convention on Australia's behalf, it did so with two provisos-firstly, that ratification did not mean Australia's endorsement of paid maternity leave nor, secondly, did it mean Australia's acceptance that women would have combat roles in the defence forces, which is not our practice in Australia. I welcome these two provisos but in any event I sincerely do not believe the Convention actually espouses these outcomes. At worst, the Convention is very indirect on these points and at best neither offers nor requires any prescription for them. Given the restriction of half an hour on our individual contributions on this second reading debate, I will defer my views on more particular topics to the Committee stage, if necessary, when such matters may be raised-matters such as marital status, access to accommodation, superannuation and life insurance, employment, freedom of religious belief and expression, ownership of land, the activities of clubs, sexual harrassment in the work place, the powers of the Human Rights Commission, the interface of Commonwealth and State laws and the provision for conscientious objection. Other matters may be raised which are even more particular but which have made for anxiety for some. The case of the New York Fire Department seemed to be quoted all over the place , often wrongly and with bias. That led to false statements being made about it. Likewise, that was the case regarding the employment of women in the United States Army. I refer also to the membership of the United Nations committee relating to the Convention and the scandalous, incorrect, advertisements in our papers; the censorship of books in Australian school libraries and the case of Winnaleah High School; the freedom of association in golf and bowling clubs all over Australia; and the special safeguards to be guaranteed to protect independent schools and freedom of religious belief generally. If any of these or other matters becomes an issue in the Senate let us debate it at the Committee stage in whatever full degree of detail may be necessary. I am not embarrassed by the detailed findings in any area. I conclude by indicating my support for the principle of the Bill, the Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion and the Opposition's foreshadowed amendments which will be moved at the Committee stage. When I say I support the Bill, I do so subject to the acceptance of the Opposition's second reading amendment and the Opposition's foreshadowed Committee amendments. The Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion is as follows: At end of motion, add: ', but the Senate, whilst welcoming the intention of the Bill to remove discrimination against people on the basis of their sex, marital status or pregnancy, is of the opinion that: (a) the Bill should not rely on the external affairs power as a head of power; (b) Australia's signature to the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women should not be used to extend the powers of the Commonwealth; (c) the removal of discrimination against people on the basis of sex should be recognised as not obliging anyone to enter the paid work force or alter their view of their responsibilities towards their spouses or children; (d) no decision or action by any educational or child care or other body established for the education of students or the care of children in accordance with the doctrines of a religion or creed or in accordance with stated principles should be affected where that decision or action has been taken in good faith to enable the body to conform with those doctrines or principles; (e) nothing in the Bill should be taken as approving those articles of the Convention which are not implemented by the Bill; and (f) the clauses of the Bill should be re-drafted accordingly'. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(9.52) —I think everyone, or almost everyone in this Parliament, would be in favour of the elimination of discrimination in employment and other discrimination on the grounds of sex to allow men and women -and this legislation cuts both ways; discrimination against men as well as women-if they so choose to compete with each other on merit without regard to sex. If they are good enough they should get the job. The trouble for the Opposition is that the Sex Discrimination Bill is still not drafted the way we would have chosen. The extraordinary flood of amendments now incorporated by the Government in the new Bill, amendments incorporated as a result of sustained Opposition pressure, is evidence either of very sloppy original drafting or of very muddled instructions, or both. Although the Bill is now a great improvement , we shall be proposing some more essential amendments at the Committee stage. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) should hang her head in shame. She has made an awful mess of a basically good idea and has done a lot to discredit the whole concept of sexual equality legislation. I believe that we do need a properly drafted Bill in this area. Some of the opponents of the Bill imply that such a Bill is quite unnecessary, that they never had any problems doing what they wanted to do. For many of them this may well have been true. It is not always true for others in harder, more cut-throat economic circumstances. As an example, it is worth looking at the situation a few years ago with the Melbourne trams. Then all the drivers of trams, sitting up in comfort in the front, were men. Women were permitted only to be conductors , shouldering their way through the rush hour crowds. It takes no strength to be a tram driver nor, as one woman pointed out, does it require a peculiarly male appendage, though she used a blunter expression. The men had the perk of driving the tram and they fought very hard and effectively to prevent this being open to women. Eventually, after a long political struggle, this discrimination was broken down. This is only one example of many less dramatic cases of discrimination against women which are still continuing and this Bill very properly tackles this problem. The resistance comes from entrenched groups- usually, but not always, unions-protecting their perks and management is usually reluctant to stir up trouble for itself by trying to give the outsiders a fair go. Opinions in the community are deeply divided on this Bill. I should like to point out, though, that not all the opponents of the Bill can necessarily justify the high moral line they are taking. Some of them claim to be defending the institution of the family against attack by raving feminists. However, I should remind the Senate that the policy of the Nazi Party for women was expressed in the slogan 'children, church and kitchen'-'kinder, kirche, kuche'- and one of the reasons the Germans lost the Second World War was that Hitler adamantly refused to permit a thorough mobilisation of women for the war effort, as other countries were doing, because he thought women's proper place was in the home looking after their families. Hitler called the emancipation of women a symptom of depravity on a par with parliamentary democracy. Goebbels said: 'Our displacement of women from public life occurs solely in order to restore their essential dignity to them'. I am not for a moment suggesting that all opponents of this Bill are Nazis; I am merely pointing out that those who claim to be defending the family are not automatically of high philosophical principle. Some of them, of course, are quite clearly crazy. The views of women who want to be doormats, or whatever they call themselves-or anyway, the views of their Victorian leaders-seem more appropriate for a psychiatrist's couch or the pages of a kinky sex magazine than for consideration in this Senate. A colleague tells me that members of this organisation in other States are not quite so bizarre, being actually quite pleasant and sensible women who wish to get over the point that the role of wife and home maker is socially valuable and personally satisfying. No one can possibly quarrel with such sentiments provided, of course, that such women accept that other women can quite properly have different values. There are also some rather curious legal objections. One really odd opinion, which I think was sent to all honourable senators, argued that by adopting the Bill women would lose their common law rights, as if they had any. If the common law had not been overridden by a succession of Acts of Parliament, of which this Bill is the culmination of a long series, women would still be legally very disadvantaged. The other legal argument related to the inquiry system embodied in the Bill. The British legal system and tradition are largely, but not exclusively, based on the adversary system, with a legal representative on one side declaring everything black, and one on the other side declaring everything white; and the truth is supposed to emerge. There is an equally respectable tradition which favours the inquisitorial system, with the judge or commissioner asking the questions. I think this is much more suitable for the early inquiries into the problems likely to arise under this Bill. It is certainly ridiculous to suggest that adopting such a system would automatically deprive people of their reasonable legal rights, though whichever system is used it would be necessary to ensure that the rules result in natural justice being done. There were valid legal criticisms of the way the earlier Bill was drafted, that it made self-incrimination possible and reversed the onus of proof. The new Bill has corrected these problems and that is, of course, a very great improvement. I want to see the report of the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills to see whether there are still any defects in the new Bill. If one wants to see how a system such as the inquisitorial system can work swiftly, fairly and economically I commend a study of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Board. The appointment of the Commissioner will be vital when this Bill becomes law. If the Act is to be credible and effective, the Commissioner must be a carefully chosen , sensitive and suitable individual. There is one group which is opposed to the Bill and which should be disposed of at once. They are what might be called the thin-end-of-the-wedgers. They do not see anything they can really object to but they are worried about where it might lead. For instance, they are worried that women may be forced out of the home and their mothering role. There is, of course, nothing in the present Bill which does anything like that. The time to fight such things is when they are actually proposed. I am reminded of a time when I was walking across the floor of the House of Representatives to support a motion for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the Australian Capital Territory. As we walked across, Bert Kelly, the former modest member and now 'The Modest Farmer', who was beside me, said in that country drawl he affected to conceal a pretty acute intelligence: ' Well, I reckon I can support this motion but I'll have to vote against it if they make it compulsory'. That is the approach we must take. We must look at each Bill on its merits. We must deal with subsequent Bills when and if they arise. Any good principle can be carried too far but to refuse to take a fair and necessary step because a subsequent move might be made in the wrong direction would be to paralyse all action. Another group I think can be disposed of very quickly. This matter was dealt with at some length by Senator Teague. I refer to the victims of an extraordinary campaign of totally dishonest misrepresentation by a group of people, extremists in their views, mainly based in Queensland although they had groups elsewhere. It was an unscrupulous and totally dishonest campaign which misled many innocent people. The thousands of representations that have been received by honourable senators and other members of parliament are based on a total misconception of the nature of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and this Bill. They can be disposed of quickly. They are based on a total misunderstanding of the Bill. We should deplore the dishonesty and unscrupulous nature of the people who initiated this campaign. There are some deeply sincere groups opposed to this Bill. Their doubts must be taken seriously, particularly in view of the many amendments the Government has found it necessary to introduce. The first group comprises those who have spotted a defect in some area they are concerned about and, although an amendment may have been made to deal with that particular problem, they wonder whether there might be other defects they have not spotted. I have a great deal of sympathy with these people. The Bill was appallingly badly drafted, as the Minister has tacitly admitted by the extraordinary number of amendments she has made to her own Bill. We must check very carefully to see whether there are other unresolved problems and also that amendments that have been made or amendments which the Minister will be proposing do not create new problems in other areas. I do not think it is really possible to do that at the Committee stage when amendments are coming in droves from all directions. We have eight legislative and general purpose committees set up to deal with just such problems. At the moment there is not a single piece of legislation before seven of those eight committees. I should like to have seen this Bill referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I understand that the Australian Democrats would not support such a move so this proposition will not be put forward. We will have to handle this with our ordinary procedures, defective though they may be. Even if all the loopholes are closed, some of the sincere objectors will still have fundamental objections to the whole concept and necessity of the Bill . Their opposition is based on two grounds. The first is the assumption-it is wrong in fact-that the Bill contains provision for affirmative action. It is true that Senator Ryan's original Bill, presented when she was in Opposition, did contain provision for affirmative action but it is not in the present Bill. I am totally opposed to the use of affirmative action-the idea that if there is a certain percentage of a particular group in the community that group should be proportionately represented in all activities to which they aspire at the expense of other more qualified people, if necessary. This I regard as a very indesirable process. It has caused great problems wherever it has been tried. I would resist any attempt to introduce this pernicious practice into Australian society. However, those who resist affirmative action on the grounds that the cure is worse than the disease must surely encourage prevention of the disease itself. This Bill before us is such a measure of prevention. Its aim is the good Australian rule of a fair go. The second worry of people sincerely opposed to this Bill is that somehow it will weaken the institution of the family. The proportion of families, households, which fit the traditional family model-that is, husband and wife with dependent children, with the husband being the breadwinner and the wife the homemaker-now comprises less than a quarter of Australian households. Yet, despite this low proportion, these households make a major contribution to our social and moral standards and to the stability of our society. It worries me that our taxation and social welfare policies disadvantage such households and that there are strong financial inducements, particularly if one is prepared to cheat the system, to pursue alternative lifestyles. There is no easy solution to this problem. There are many people in genuine need who are outside the traditional family model. We must carefully examine the effects of all our taxation and social welfare benefits. We should examine both their individual and their cumulative effects to see that they are not accidentally and avoidably having unfortunate effects on our society. But this is not a worry with this Bill. This Bill does not force or encourage any particular lifestyle. The only possible worry is its acceptance of alternative lifestyles. This is right in line with the platform of the Liberal Party, which specifically states that we respect and defend the right of individuals to choose their own lifestyles. I do not believe for a moment that this tolerance will damage the family. The institution of the family is much stronger than the worriers seem to believe and will certainly resist anything contained in this Bill. I think the problem comes from what might be called a 'mercantilist' approach to human rights. The mercantilists were a group of seventeenth century and eighteenth century economists who believed that the world economy was fixed in size and, if one group got more, it meant that other groups necessarily got less . This concept was exploded by Adam Smith but the same idea seems to be creeping into this debate. People opposed to this Bill seem to believe that the total of human rights is fixed and if one group gets more it must mean that others get less. This is utter nonsense. The sum of human rights in a society is not fixed. It can grow and all can benefit from others having increased rights. A properly drafted sex discrimination Bill-this Bill as it stands is most emphatically not a properly drafted Bill-could further that worthy aim. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.08) —I rise tonight to speak to the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2). I wish to state that my Party does acknowledge that there is discrimination in the work place. But what my Party says and what I feel is right is that this Bill will not help the situation one little bit. This Bill will create more problems than it will cure. This sort of legislation will end up getting this Government into deep trouble. I state categorically that some honourable senators on the other side of the chamber-the more sensible ones-probably wish they had never seen this legislation. It is causing them heaps of trouble. There have been 80,000 signatures on petitions saying that people do not want any part of this legislation. There is a lot of feeling about this legislation in the community. In the last week I have experienced some heat about the proposal to increase the size of the Parliament. That is nothing compared with the heat that is generated by this Bill. As I said, I believe that the people of Australia do not want this Bill. Before I go further I would like to take Senator Teague to task. I do this with a great deal of regret because I have a very high regard for Senator Teague and I acknowledge that he has Christian principles. Tonight he mentioned Dr Rendle- Short, Robyn Sully and Mrs Jackie Butler. Those people have firm beliefs. They are standing up for a principle and fighting as no one else has ever had to fight. They are certainly going out and spreading what they believe is right. I do not believe we should take them to task in this place. As I have mentioned, I believe that they have stood up for what they believe in the same way as Senator Teague stands up in the Senate for what he believes in. We will face problems with this Bill. I will give the Senate examples of what will happen once the Governor-General's assent is gained. I pose a problem to the Government. There are many men in the 60 to 65 age group who are unemployed. If the early retirement notion of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is introduced they, like women, should be able to get the pension at the age of 60. Will there be equality on this issue? Will women be eligible for the pension at 55? Furthermore, will all clubs have to be non-sexist? Those are the sorts of problems the Government will have to face. I do not think the Government has gone down the track far enough. The main reason I oppose this Bill, as a senator from Queensland, is that it depends on a United Nations treaty, the same treaty that was used to stop the dam being built in Tasmania. Senator Giles —It was not. Senator BOSWELL —It is not the same United Nations treaty but the principle is the same. The Government is using a United Nations treaty to come in right over the top of the States. It is taking sovereignty away from the States of Australia. The right of my State is one of the things I have come here to defend . If that were the only reason why I should fight this Bill it would be sufficient to fight it and take it right up to the barriers. I am sorry if I am boring Senator Gareth Evans who is yawning, but many people are interested in this subject. Even Dr Klugman, the ALP member for Prospect, is terrified at the prospect of using United Nations treaties. As I said, that is one of the reasons I oppose this Bill. Let us look at some of the places where such legislation has been tried. Let us see what actually happens. I think it is relevant to point out to the Senate tonight what has happened in the case of the English Sex Discrimination Act of 1975. It seems to have got off the ground without relying on any convention but it has been singularly unsuccessful. It has been reported that the Equal Opportunities Commission set up under the legislation has been an agency for radical feminists to put their programs on the national agenda. About $5m is spent under the Act. It gives grants to groups, one such grant being given to a group working on the proposition of an authoritative framework for the introduction of non-sexist words, phrases and conventions in the English language. That is absolutely fundamental to the 500,000 people who are waiting for jobs. That $5m will not produce one job. I now come to the bureaucracy that this legislation will set up. People are obviously worried about increasing the size of the Parliament. I would say that the bureaucracy that will be set up under this legislation will cost about the same as increasing the size of the Parliament. Ultimately, the taxpayer will bear the burden of administering the measures in the legislation, including the adviser to the Prime Minister on women's affairs who will earn $52,000 a year, increasing the present Office of Women's Affairs from 23 members to 35, two assistant secretaries earning $44,450 a year, eight senior advisers earning $35, 130 each and the increased research program to $376,300 from $233,890. Senator Giles —They are worth every cent of it. Senator BOSWELL —They may be but we have put this matter in its perspective. What sort of employment will that expenditure create? Certainly it will give jobs to 20 or 30 people. It will increase taxation. Senator Giles —You have a very narrow approach to this. Senator BOSWELL —I am not narrow minded. I have tried to look at the broad issues. The honourable senator should let me have my go. She has had hers. I did not interject on her; I listened to her speech because I thought she made some good points. I ask her to listen to me. That is the sort of bureaucracy that will be set up. I remind honourable senators of the old adage that if we give a public servant a piece of paper and a pencil he will build an empire. That is the start. That is the sort of thing we should be opposed to. I want to bring up another issue, affirmative action. Senator Teague said that it was not in the Bill, but it is implied. Senator Ryan has said in the Senate on a number of occasions that affirmative action will be introduced in two years time. I do not know why Senator Ryan would not introduce it in the Bill. She is probably frightened of the shock that would run through the electorate. She is probably trying to water down the legislation and bring it in in stages to get people to become acclimatised to the proposition. People do not want this legislation. As I look around the chamber I see Senator Reynolds. She did not need any equal opportunity legislation to get into the Senate. I see the Assistant Clerk who is a lady. She did not need any equal opportunity legislation. Surely, if a woman is good enough she will get there. She does not have to get there by being propped up artificially. My colleague, Senator Bjelke -Petersen, did not need any such legislation. She still does not need it. She is the most popular woman in Queensland. Honourable senators have to acknowledge that. She did not need any propping up to get here. Senator Giles —Where are the ordinary women from Queensland? Senator BOSWELL —The ordinary women will get there if they are good enough. We cannot prop them up. Senator Giles —Where are they all? Why are there not 32 women in here? Senator BOSWELL —Many women do not want to get into politics or into the Senate. Sometimes we would not doubt why. I will run through a couple of other items. In the 1983 Budget $20m was devoted to child care centres. Ironically, there was no help for mothers who prefer to look after their children. About 5,000 children who are below school age have nobody to look after them. They have no child welfare places to go to. I now turn to the anti-rural bias that the Australian Labor Party has displayed in this legislation. I do not know whether the Country Women's Association has ever put in any information on this legislation. It is a very big organisation and it represents many people. It is totally opposed to this Bill. Senator Giles —That is not so. Senator BOSWELL —That is so. The Government has every church group off-side and many small business people are very worried, particularly about the affirmative action that will be coming in. It is all right for Senator Giles to shake her head and say that it will not happen for two years. It will happen. The Government has said it will happen and people are worried about it. Senator Giles —Women's organisations are supporting it. Senator BOSWELL —The women's organisation that I am referring to is not supporting it. It is timely to ask: From where did the clamour for equality originate? It began in the Eastern Soviet bloc countries which, while speaking loudly for equality, were not particularly renowned for their practice of human rights. I am sure that Australian women do not want the same rights as women in Iran and India. Senator Missen —Iran? Senator BOSWELL —Yes, Senator, Iran. That country is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. There are 23 representatives- Senator Giles —So are Austria, France, Norway and Sweden. Senator BOSWELL —I ask Senator Giles to give me a go. I listened to her speech. She keeps interjecting. The United Nations Committee against Discrimination has 23 representatives. There are none from Australia. The members are from countries such as Bulgaria, Cuba, Mexico, Mongolia and the Philippines. It seems that there are people handling this Bill who have a misplaced missionary zeal. Surely they should be on a committee to overcome oppression and discrimination in the countries of the Committee members. The women of Australia do not want legislation that is drafted by the public servants of Mongolia. How do they know what the people of Australia want? That is what these people-- Senator Georges —Are you talking about Outer Mongolia? Senator BOSWELL —No, Inner Mongolia. In the light of the legislation, it is timely to look at the origins of the movement towards a unisex society. I wish to quote where it started. In 1884 Friedrich Engels in The Origin of the Family wrote: The emancipation of women will be possible only whey they take part in production on a large scale. The first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry. The core and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all the children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. Senator Lewis —That is where it started. Senator BOSWELL —That is where it started, Senator. The honourable senator wonders why the women of Australia are worried. They are worried because the legislation is endorsed by the United Nations Committee which comprises 23 countries. I have run through the countries. Senator Gareth Evans —And you did not recognise any of them. Senator BOSWELL —I always thought that Senator Evans was a very highly educated person and that he was very familiar with geography, but I have my doubts now. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! There are too many interjections. I suggest that the honourable senator address the Chair. Senator BOSWELL —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President; I need some protection. As I said, I am opposed to the Bill because although its intentions may be honourable and wish to eliminate discrimination, I do not believe it will work. I believe the Government cannot legislate for a personal worth. A change of attitude, education, persuasion, conciliation and example would be worth a try before compulsion. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.24) —Tonight the Senate is debating the Government's third go at the Sex Discrimination Bill. I say 'third go' because originally we were confronted with a Bill which I think even the Government now admits was an unbelievable disgrace in drafting legislation. Notwithstanding the open support right throughout the nation, indeed in this Parliament and in this chamber by a number of people who apparently supported it on principle, without any consideration of its terminology, who put themselves out on a limb in open and complete support for that Bill, the Governmment then brought down an amended version of the Bill with 53 of its own amendments. I think that at that stage the Opposition parties had some 28 or so amendments to move. I think that Senator Harradine had about 20 or 30 amendments to move and the Australian Democrats had a similar number of amendments to move. The Government, having brought down that amended Bill, introduced today, as I said, the third go at it. Again, the Government has introduced a large number of additional amendments which deal in particular with some of the civil rights matters which were of grave concern to so many of us. In particular I refer to the reversal of the onus of proof and the self-incrimination provisions. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government has now had three goes at this Bill, the Government must acknowledge that out in the community there is a deep concern about the Bill, an abstract concern about the principles of the Bill and the motives of those who have actively promoted it, notwithstanding all of its defects. I believe, quite rightly, that there should be this abstract deep concern about the Bill. I say that for many reasons. I draw the Senate's attention to a statement made by a member of the Human Rights Commission, apparently at an address to a women's electoral lobby seminar held in Canberra. The seminar must have been held on the weekend preceding 31 October. The report was in the newspaper on Monday, 31 October. This women, Norma Ford, is a member of the Human Rights Commission. A newspaper quotes her as saying-- Senator Missen —A splendid woman. Senator LEWIS —Senator Missen says that she is a splendid woman. It is interesting to hear what this splendid woman had to say about what she will do with regard to this legislation. She said: . . . perhaps I can give some reassurance- I interpose by saying that apparently some people had expressed disappointment at what they alleged were the weaknesses in the legislation. She said: . . . perhaps I can give some reassurance as to the way this legislation will be implemented. She is the one who knows because she will implement the legislation. She went on : Just as Al Grassby, the former Commissioner for Community Relations, took the Racial Discrimination Act and applied it fully and vigorously- I reiterate those words- fully and vigorously . . . so we too can apply this legislation to its fullest extent . . . It is only by applying legislation vigorously that one can determine whether an Act is an effective or ineffective piece of legislation. I have every confidence that the Sex Discrimination Bill can be used as the basis to develop policy in Australia in this area. This is the future administrator of the Bill talking about what she and the Human Rights Commission will do with this legislation when it is passed. Regardless of what the legislation says and regardless of what the Parliament says, she intends to use this legislation vigorously in order to achieve a result which will be satisfactory to this women's electoral lobby group which criticised the Bill's weaknesses. She said: I have every confidence that the Sex Discrimination Bill can be used as the basis to develop policy in Australia in this area. This legislation will enable the commission to firmly oppose power groups- I do not know what she is talking about. I would like her to explain it to me-- Senator Primmer —I do. Senator LEWIS —She continued: . . . to firmly oppose power groups and structures which discriminate against people on the basis of sex. Senator Primmer said he knows what it means. I take it it has something to do with the trade union movement. When I read this newspaper article the words ' Sieg Heil' came to mind: Freedom will be enforced; freedom will be vigorously enforced; we will absolutely insist on freedom; we will drive freedom right through; we must have freedom! She was saying that this legislation will be vigorously applied. Is it any wonder that there are people out there in the community who are deeply and gravely concerned about the principles of this Bill , about the motives of this Bill and about the motives of the people who will be implementing this legislation. The people of Australia seek equal opportunity. Of course they do, but they seek to live in a country in which we have the right to do as we wish and not have people such as this vigorously enforcing freedom upon us. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following Papers were presented: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals 1983-No. 12-Survey of Migrant Status. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 272. Defence Act-Determinations 1983- No. 24-Overseas Ration Allowance. No. 25-Allowance Payable for Travel on Termination of Service. Family Law Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 273. Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 279. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 275, 276, 277, 278. Public Service Act-Appointment-Department of Industry and Commerce-Mr D. M. Bockman. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Notice of Variation of Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs (81st Series), dated 17 November 1983. Ordinances 1983- No. 55-Crimes (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 56-Police Offences (Amendment). States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, dated 12 November 1983. Statutory Rules Publication Act-Statement by the Minister for Administrative Services under Sub-Section 5 (3B) of the Act regarding printing error in Electoral and Referendum Regulations (Statutory Rules 1983 No. 235). The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 50 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) What monies have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's area of responsibility and what monies are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software, and (b) repairs and servicing of computers? (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories? (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years? Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) With respect to my area of responsibility I am able to advise you that since the Aviation portfolio was established on 7 May 1982, my Department has expended, and as at April 1983 planned to expend, money on computing services as follows: (a) computer hardware and software FINANCIAL YEAR Actual Forecast 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $1,093,174 517,000 1,378,000 464,000 358,000 (b) repairs and servicing of computers FINANCIAL YEAR Actual Forecast 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $35,267 257,000 393,000 415,000 434,000 (2) Expenditure in 1981-82 was incurred as indicated in the above table. (3) The Department's ICL 2960 and a number of small micro-computers are expected to become obsolete within the next five years. (This answer corrects the answer previously given in Hansard of 23 August 1983, page No. 72) Question No. 83 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Is the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow able to produce military weapons for export purposes if those arms are manufactured under licence from foreign countries, if so, under what circumstances and conditions. (2) Does the Small Arms Factory manufacture any weapons for non-military purposes, or any other non-military products. (3) Does the Minister for Defence Support consider that the establishment of a product design facility at the Small Arms Factory would increase opportunities for design, manufacture and export of new, high-quality Australian weaponry, increase employment opportunities and apprenticeship training, raise the level of Australian military self-sufficiency and provide technological 'spin-off' assistance to industries in the private sector. (4) Will the Minister investigate the viability of setting up such a product design and research department at the Small Arms Factory to utilise and develop Australian expertise in weapons design and centralise that expertise at the point of manufacture. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence Support has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Small Arms Factory, Lithgow, from 1958 until 1982 produced a 7.62mm military rifle under licence to Fabrique Nationale of Belgium. The licence expired in 1982, production of the rifle is continuing at the factory on a reduced scale and overseas sales are no longer constrained by licence conditions . During the term of the licence agreement rifles were exported to many countries including New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, West Indies, West African countries and Pacific Island countries. Total exports have been about equal to the quantities made for the Australian forces. New small arms requirements currently under consideration by Defence will most likely result in licenced production of an overseas design. Opportunities for export of new weapons will be a factor in weapon selection. (2) The Small Arms Factory does not make any non-military small arms apart from rifle barrels and barrel blanks for some small specialised gun makers. Sporting rifles and shot guns were made some years ago, but competition from imports made production of these products no longer viable. Non-military work other than small arms has been undertaken by the factory since the 1930s and currently includes such items as outboard marine engine components, agricultural farm equipment components, handcuffs and stainless steel valve spindles. This commercial work which includes overseas sales accounts for about 30 per cent of the factory's workload. (3 and 4) The Government is committed to a program of industrial regeneration with respect to the Australian manufacturing industry generally and the Austalian defence industry in particular. The Government attaches considerable importance to the development of a strong competitive industry and benefits will undoubtedly flow from the close association of the country's design and production capability in a number of areas including the manufacture of small arms. The department of Defence Support, in consultation with the Department of Defence, is studying how best to provide the appropriate product design facility to match the needs of the next generation of small arms weapons. Question No. 269 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Has the Government any knowledge of a connection between Maryvale Forest Pty Ltd and Iwasaki Sangyo (Aust) Pty Ltd or associated companies; if so, what is this connection. (2) Does the Government possess any evidence of a breach of the previous Government's foreign investment policy decision requiring Federal Government approval before Iwasaki Sangyo (Aust) Pty Ltd 'makes any arrangements' with regard to further land acquisition in the Yeppoon area of Queensland; if so, what is the evidence. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) The previous Treasurer in his Press release No. 8 of 23 February 1980 stated, inter alia, that the Iwasaki company had been denied foreign investment approval to acquire additional land, including two parcels of land in respect of which contracts had been entered into in order to enlarge the area of its proposed tourist resort near Yeppoon, Queensland. The Government has no evidence of any other arrangements by the Iwasaki company to acquire additional land in Australia. Question No. 284 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Did the United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries (LDC) in 1981 decide that developed countries should provide 0.15 per cent of their national product to the LDCs. (2) Did Australia support such a target. (3) Was Bangladesh the only country to be an LDC of the ten top recipient countries of Australian bilateral aid. (4) Of a total of 56 countries which receive such aid from Australia are only 12 LDCs and do they receive altogether less than 11 per cent of the total bilateral project aid budget. (5) Does Indonesia, which is a country with fewer poor and generally in better economic conditions than India, receive 33 per cent of Australia's bilateral project aid whilst India receives 2 percent. (6) Was Pakistan the second largest recipient of Australian food aid in 1980-81 , even though they exported 1.1 million tonnes of milled rice in that year, thus being the third largest exporter in the world behind Thailand and USA. (7) What action does the Government intend to take to redress the situation. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) The United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries adopted by consensus a resolution entitled 'The Substantial New Program of Action for the 1980's for the Least Developed Countries' which stated that 'most donors of official development assistance (ODA) will devote in the coming years 0.15 per cent of their gross national product to the least developed countries (LDCs). Others will double their ODA to the LDCs in the same period. Taken together, these efforts are likely to achieve, by 1985, a doubling of official development assistance to the LDCs, compared to the transfers to them during the last five years'. (2) Australia supported the consensus resolution. The Australian delegation said that 'Australia intends to maintain the flow of its development resources within the context of its regional priorities and was concerned to direct its development assistance to those believed to have the greatest need. This has already resulted in more than a doubling of our assistance to LDCs over the period 1978-81'. (3) Among the first ten recipients of Australian bilateral aid in 1981-82, Bangladesh and Tanzania are classified as least developed countries. (4) In 1981-82 Australian bilateral aid totalling $A64.4m was given to 16 least developed countries. These countries received 10.4 per cent of total bilateral project aid in that year. (5) In 1981-82 Indonesia received 6.7 per cent of Australia's total aid program , a very large proportion of which was provided as project aid. Indonesia's share of Australia's bilateral project aid in that year was accordingly 30.3 per cent. The corresponding figures for India, which is not classified by the United Nations as a least developed country, were 0.3 and 0.9 per cent respectively. (6) Pakistan received 26,150 tonnes of wheat in 1980-81 and was the second largest recipient of Australian food aid (wheat) in that year. Almost 50 per cent of Australian food aid supplied through bilateral and multilateral channels to Pakistan in that year was earmarked for use on emergency relief for Afghan refugees. Commodities supplied to the emergency relief effort consisted of wheat , high protein biscuits, milk powder, sugar and vegetable oil. No rice was supplied. In 1980-81 Pakistan was a net importer of wheat (300,000 tons). (7) A high level committee, chaired by Sir Gordon Jackson, has been commissioned to undertake a major review of Australia's official aid program. The committee will enquire into all aspects of Australia's aid program, including such matters as equity, effectiveness, geographic distribution and forms and terms of aid. The committee's report is expected to be published in early 1984. Question No. 326 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) Is a Corporal A. J. Kingdom who was wounded by a landmine in Vietnam in 1970 and who now has to wear calipers on both legs, not being granted the Defence Force Retirement Benefits invalidity pension to which he is entitled, if so, when will Corporal Kingdom receive the benefits to which he is entitled. (2) Will the Government make an ex-gratia payment for the tax penalty he will suffer because of the mistakes and delays of the bureaucracy. (3) Why has there been an unreasonable delay in correcting this obvious mistake . (4) Will the Minister for Defence take appropriate action towards the authorities involved so that such delays do not occur in the future. (5) Can the Minister give an assurance that the case of Mr Barry Roe, another Vietnam veteran in almost identical circumstances who was recently referred to the RDFWA, will not suffer the same bureaucratic shuffling and delay. (6) Will the Minister investigate a system of proper legal advice and assistance for servicemen upon discharge so that such situations do not arise in future. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: (1) Mr Kingdom was discharged on 31 August 1971 having completed his period of National Service. Under the Defence Force Retirement Benefits legislation and Death Benefits legislation no invalidity benefit can be paid unless the member is medically discharged. Mr Kingdom brought his situation to the attention of Army Office in February 1983. Army Office has now informed the DFRDB Authority that at the time Mr Kingdom was discharged, grounds existed on which he could have been retired on the grounds of invalidity. This opens the way for the Authority to now consider the grant of an invalidity benefit and the level of benefit. The matter will be considered by the Authority as quickly as possible. (2) Should Mr Kingdom qualify for an invalidity pension benefit with considerable retrospectivity, my Department will examine the case of some form of compensation in recognition of any increase in the amount of tax payable by Mr Kingdom. (3) The Army had no cause to review the ex-member's reason for discharge and the error remained dormant until brought to attention in Feburary this year. Investigation involved several Directorates in the Army and the office of the DFRDB Authority. Regrettably, the cumulative effect of their actions has contributed to the delay in processing Mr Kingdom's enquiry. (4) Revised procedures have been implemented to ensure that such delays do not recur. (5) Mr Barry Edward Roe was discharged from the Army on 21 April 1972, the reason supplied to the Office of the DFRDB Authority being 'AMR 176 (1) (A) having requested his discharge', and was advised on 23 May 1972 that he was entitled to a refund of contributions and a gratuity. These entitlements were authorised for payment to him on the same date. No further correspondence or representations from or in relation to Mr Roe have been received. (6) No. Discharge procedures are designed to ensure that the rights and interests of members are protected. The procedures include a review by a senior medical officer of the final medical board findings. No change to discharge procedures is considered necessary. Question No. 337 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: (1) Is there a Tasmanian on the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). (2) Has each State traditionally been represented on the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. (3) Is the fact that no Tasmanian is on the Board of the ABC another measure of the Government's discrimination against Tasmania. (4) Will the Government amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act to ensure each State is represented on the Board of the ABC. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. (1) No. (2) Residential criteria requiring the appointment of one Commissioner from each State were not inserted into the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 until 1976, although I understand that the practice of drawing commissioners from all States commenced in 1956. (3) No. Both this Government and its predecessor agreed with the Dix Committee recommendation that the Commission should be replaced by an organisation comprising two elements: a Board of Directors, which would be a small body with responsibility for overall policy direction of the organisation's affairs; and a national advisory council representing various community interests and responsible for providing advice on programming matters. This agreement extended to the selection criteria for appointees to the Board ( as recommended by Dix), which are based on expertise and other qualifications and not on State of origin. The ABC Board has established an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council and separate advisory councils for each State and Territory. These bodies will be important channels of information for the Board on regional and community views about the Corporation's programming. (4) See answer to 3 above. Question No. 348 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: (1) Was a Royal Australian Air Force Caribou used for feeding cattle isolated by flood waters in the Walgett area and did this cease on 4 August 1983. (2) Did the Minister for Defence refuse a request by the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Fund for Animals to use the aircraft to feed starving wildlife isolated by flood waters on the grounds that it was claimed to be waste of taxpayers' money and would weaken Australia's defences. (3) Was an RAAF Caribou flown into Walgett so members of the Air Force involved in the feeding programme could attend a rodeo and farewell party on 20-21 August 1983; if so, does the Minister consider this to be proper use of taxpayers' money and a weakening of our defences and will the Minister reconsider his decision regarding the use of the Caribou for feeding the starving wildlife in the Walgett area. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) An RAAF Caribou was used to drop feed to cattle isolated by flood waters in the Walgett area and ceased operations on 4 August 1983. More than 600 hours were flown on this task and the State of New South Wales was required to make a substantial contribution to the cost of the operation. (2) Requests for Commonwealth assistance following a natural disaster are a State Government responsibility. Furthermore, before State Government authorities request Commonwealth assistance, they are required to investigate other means of fulfilling a request. These 'other means' include commercially available assets. In the case of the recent floods in New South Wales and Queensland, the Defence Force provided air dropping assistance at the specific request of those States and in accordance with tasks and priorities recommended by them. The request for fodder dropping to stranded wildlife was made independently by 'IFAW Australia' directly to the Minister for Defence without any consultation with the State Government. The request came at a time when the emergency had largely passed and State authorities had indicated their ability to meet any further emergency needs from their own resources. As the request from IFAW Australia was properly a matter of State responsibility, and since the State had agreed that further support by the Defence Force in the form of RAAF Caribou flights was unnecessary, the aircraft were withdrawn to meet other Defence tasks. IFAW Australia was advised that RAAF aircraft could not be further diverted without serious disruption to current defence tasks. As an alternative, the possibility of investigating assistance from commercial aviation sources was suggested. (3) A RAAF Caribou training flight arrived in Walgett on Friday 19 August 1983 and departed on Sunday 21 August 1983. The tactical training flight was undertaken as part of a normal tactical training program, with the flying hours involved coming from the associated training hours allocation. As such, the flight was an entirely proper use of Defence resources. The opportunity of this flight was taken to allow the citizens of Walgett to express their appreciation of the work done by the RAAF crews in helping to ensure the survival of valuable stock in the area in the preceding weeks. As to reconsideration of the request from IFAW, the arrangements for provision of assistance by the Commonwealth in natural disaster situations require that a request must first be made by the relevant State government(s). Where it has the necessary resources available, the Commonwealth would normally comply with such a request, subject to cost recovery arrangements being agreed with the State government(s) concerned. In the absence of such a request, however, the Commonwealth may not, except in the Australian Capital Territory, intervene in the situation. The Commonwealth did not at any time during or after the recent floods in New South Wales and Queensland, receive a request from either state government for assistance in dropping fodder to stranded wildlife. Given that IFAW indicated at the time of its request that it would strive to meet the full cost of its proposal to drop fodder to stranded wildlife, it is not clear why the organisation did not approach a commercial operator to undertake the task. Indeed, commercial aviation operators have made vigorous representations on this and other occasions, claiming that they have the capacity to undertake work associated with natural disasters and that by providing RAAF resources, the Commonwealth is undermining their opportunities to earn a livelihood. Question No. 369 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: (1) How are costs apportioned in an establishment with nursing home and hostel facilities, between the two facilities for the purposes of deficit financing arrangements for the nursing home. (2) Is the vacant accommodation taken into account for the apportioning of costs when an establishment of this nature cannot fill its hostel facilities. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In cases where an organisation operates a hostel in conjunction with an approved nursing home under the deficit financing arrangements, separate financial records are required to be maintained allowing for appropriate apportionment of costs between the two facilities. Regarding the apportionment of common areas of cost, the actual method of apportionment is established in consultation between my Department and the organisation concerned. Once a basis of apportionment is agreed upon the percentages determined continue to be used in future unless there is a change in circumstances making such apportionment inappropriate. The most common methods of apportionment are on the basis of per capita (for example, food), area (for example, rates) or usage (for example, laundry). If necessary an arbitrary apportionment may be agreed upon for cost items for which an obvious apportionment cannot be readily calculated. (2) Any vacant accommodation in an associated hostel is in effect taken into account when apportioning those costs which vary according to the number of patients in the nursing home and residents in the hostel. Vacant accommodation is not taken into account when apportioning costs which do not vary according to the occupancy levels in the nursing home and hostel. Question No. 371 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 September 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Transport aware of the incident involving a tanker, the Oceanic Grandeur, that struck a reef in the Torres Strait in March 1970, resulting in an oil slick that threatened the Great Barrier Reef, and the less serious instance of the Ampol Sarel carrying about 85,000 tonnes of crude oil, that touched bottom in the Prince of Wales Channel on 4 October 1982; and is the Minister also aware of other incidents involving the Ampol Sarel, such as when the main engine failed for a period of about two minutes while loaded with about 85 000 tonnes of crude oil in the Gannet Passage, a complicated passage in the Great Barrier Reef, with little room to manoeuvre or another occasion between October 1981 and July 1982, when the ship lost one of its anchors and considerable length of chain weighing about 14 tonnes, and the resultant fear that it may run over the anchor, gashing the hull; if so, why are there no special regulations governing the Prince of Wales Channel if such incidents have occurred. (2) Is the Government concerned about such incidents and is there a danger that further more serious accidents will occur which may cause irreparable damage to the Great Barrier Reef. (3) Will the Government investigate alternative safer routes for those tankers which regularly use the Great Barrier Reef passage. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Minister for Transport is aware of the incidents to which the question refers. Although there are no special regulations for the Prince of Wales Channel, there are many international conventions and rules governing the operations of ships generally which apply to the Torres Strait and Great Barrier Reef. In addition, masters who are unfamiliar with these waters are advised to take a pilot and there are special rules governing the conduct of pilotage operations in the area. (2) The Government is fully aware of its responsibility for safe navigation in these waters, and is engaged in a continuous process of improving the navigational aids. I am advised that the safety record of shipping in the Great Barrier Reef is good, and that the risk of irreparable damage to the Great Barrier Reef is slight. (3) Alternative routes for tankers have been investigated, but none have been considered to offer safer transit than the current route. Question No. 375 Senator Mason asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1983; (1) Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware of the United States Vision Quest program for young people who break the law, as shown on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program Our World on Tuesday 21 June, 1983. (2) Will the Minister consider an evaluation of this scheme for use in Australia in light of the scheme's outstanding success rate in the United States . Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the United States Vision Quest program for young people who break the law, and understand that it offers an interesting alternative to traditional responses to young offenders. (2) The development of programs for young people who break the law is a matter for State governments. I understand that some States are operating innovative programs for such young people. However, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare is currently conducting an Inquiry into Children and Youth Under Institutional and other Forms of Care. The terms of reference of the inquiry include the alternatives to institutional care. I have therefore asked my Department to seek details of the Vision Quest program and to submit them to the Senate Standing Committee for consideration. This will allow the Vision Quest program to be examined together with other alternatives for young people who have broken the law, or who, for other reasons are placed in institutional care. Question No. 395 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 5 October 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Aviation aware that foreign companies are currently attempting to increase their share of the Australian duty-free goods market. (2) Is the Minister also aware that one means by which foreign operators can undercut Australian duty-free companies is through transfer pricing arrangements based on deals made with international suppliers related to their activities. (3) Is the Government currently considering the tenders for the duty-free concessions at Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne international airports; if so, will the Minister give an assurance that these tenders will be awarded to Australian operators to ensure that profits derived from these tenders cannot be repatriated overseas, but will be available for re-investment in Australia. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) My Department's only involvement with the Australian duty-free industry is in respect of its operation on Commonwealth airports. As you would be aware the Government's policy on foreign ownership is the responsibility of the Treasurer, who has the advice of the Foreign Investment Review Board. (2) The Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport duty-free concession is the only Australian airport duty-free shop operated by a foreign owned company. My Department can find no evidence to suggest that the operator of that concession has engaged in any detrimental pricing practices. (3) Following widely advertised public tender action I have recently approved the award of rights to operate airport duty-free concessions at Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. The Brisbane and Melbourne concessions were awarded to an Australian owned company James Richardson Pty Ltd of 35 Lithgow Street, Abbotsford, Victoria. Allders International Pty Ltd, the Australian subsidiary of a United Kingdom company has been awarded the rights to operate the Sydney ( Kingsford-Smith) Airport concession. I approved this concession having full regard to the Government's foreign investment policy, and based on the financial return to the Commonwealth offerred by the company in its tender, and the company's demonstrated record of satisfactory service to the travelling public. Question No. 398 Senator Jones asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: Will the Minister for Social Security consider the possibility of establishing an age pensioner advisory service within his Department in the form of a toll- free telephone response centre in each major city office of the Department of Social Security to explain in simple detail any legislative changes to pensioner entitlements or eligibility, and answer any other queries that may be causing worry and confusion, due to the natural faculty deterioration that afflicts many elderly people. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Age pensioners are entitled to make reverse charge telephone calls to offices of my Department to clarify aspects of their pension entitlement. This facility is available throughout the year, not just when there are legislative changes to pension entitlements or eligibility. My Department also operates 'hotline' telephone answering systems where there are particularly significant legislative charges affecting its clients. For example, a hotline system operated during the introduction of the disadvantaged persons' health scheme. In addition, my Department proposes to operate a ' hotline' to explain the new pension assets testing arrangements when the finer details of the test have been worked out in consultation with pensioner organisations. Question No. 402 Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 October 1983: (1) Is it a fact that an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation representative made allegations before the Hope Royal Commission that the film Allies was being funded from Moscow; if so, has ASIO in any way resiled from this position and in what manner. (2) Is there any evidence available to support this position; if not will the Government on behalf of ASIO make a public apology to persons involved with Allies in respect of this allegation. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I refer the honourable senator to the answers I gave to similar questions, without notice, on 11 October 1983 (Senate Hansard, page 1294). Question No. 404 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 6 October 1983: (1) Has the Minister for Industry and Commerce received correspondence dated 8 September 1983 from the Vehicle Builders Employees' Federation of Australia ( South Australian Branch) with respect to the importation of 'knock down kits' of imported buses. (2) Are such kits being imported and assembled in Western Australia and Victoria. (3) Could such kits be manufactured in Australia at at least the same or at a comparable cost. (4) Has the Minister considered the disallowance of the importation of such buses in view of the high level of unemployment in Australia. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) To my Department's knowledge over recent times only one bus kit form has been imported into Western Australia while five 49-seat school/route buses have been imported into Victoria in kit form. The school buses are currently being assembled by a Victorian bus body builder. (3) The Department has been advised that final costs of the buses assembled from the kits imported into Victoria will not be known until assembly is completed. The importer expects the cost to be comparable with that of locally produced buses. The Department understands that the importer in Western Australia has concluded that assembly of that particular kit is not commercially viable in Australia. (4) The question of assistance to the production of buses in Australia is currently being considered by the Industries Assistance Commission in its inquiry into long term assistance for heavy commercial vehicles, parts and accessories. The Commission is due to report by 29 February 1984. Question No. 409 Senator Maguire asked the Minister for Social Security, on notice, on 5 October , 1983: (1) What have been the total numbers of staff employed in the Department of Social Security offices in each year from 1975-76 to 1982-83 inclusive. (2) Do staff ceilings apply in respect of the Department of Social Security; if so, does the Government intend to relax the ceilings and by how much. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) the number of staff employed in the Department of Social Security at 30 June in each of the years in question was as follows: 30 June 1976 - 8,845 30 June 1977 - 9,280 30 June 1978 - 9,991 30 June 1979 - 11,638 30 June 1980 - 11,550 30 June 1981 - 11,554 30 June 1982 - 12,447 30 June 1983 - 15,696 (2) The controls of staffing levels in Commonwealth departments and some authorities, including the Department of Social Security, have been varied from 'old' staff ceiling arrangements under which departments were required to be within a pre-determined staffing level at 30 June each year. The Government has decided that until a new system of human resource budgeting has been developed, departments are required to operate within an approved average staffing level which is calculated as the average of the 12 end-of-month operative staffing figures from July 1983 to June 1984 inclusive. Insofar as the Department of Social Security is concerned staff numbers are expected to rise throughout the year due to increased workloads in pensions, benefits and family allowances it is expected that there will be over 1,200 more staff employed at 30 June 1984 than there were at 30 June 1983. Additional staff will be required to implement the proposed assets test on pensions.