Thursday, 1 December 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Medicare 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 utilising 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 Bolkus (from 20 citizens) and Haines (from 60 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 215 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of local governments in Australia shows that: General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g., Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Lewis (from 13 citizens) and Withers (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and requests the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That Australia's meat exports are being placed in an uncompetitive position by the imposition of substantial export meat inspection charges whilst Australia 's competitors receive free inspection plus considerable subsidies. 2. These charges are causing substantial loss of business for export abattoir operators and loss of jobs for their employees due to the disparity in inspection costs of export and non-export works arising from a 200 per cent increase in Federal Government charges at export works. 3. That immediate steps should be taken to end serious injury being done by these charges to export abattoir operators, their employees, livestock producers and all others dependent on the Australian meat and livestock industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will Act to immediately suspend all export inspection charges for a period of three years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hearn (from 96 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 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 programs and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 4. 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 Hearn (from 15 citizens) and Walters (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We deplore the unprincipled and self-interested attacks being orchestrated by minority sects and groups against the policies and person of the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Senator Susan Ryan. 2. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government, however, to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own special programmes and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State-Territory Governments, to ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 150 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1) We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: 1. Undue cost to the nation at this time. 2. 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. 3. The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. 4. The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: - Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; - Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action Hospitals, Doctors and Nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; - Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including moral development, of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc., for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 534 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 15 citizens) and Withers (from 603 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 Parliament assembled should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine: (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Convenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 24 citizens). Petitions received. 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. Australian Meat Research Committee-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960 2. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese Tuna Long-Line Fishing-pursuant to section 9 (c) of the Fisheries Act 1952 3. Aussat Pty Ltd-Annual Report 1983 4. Industrial Overalls-(Interim Report)-IAC Report 5. National Advisory Committee on Computers in Schools-Report 6. Implementation of the Supplementary Licence Scheme-Text of a statement by the Minister for Communications made in the House of Representatives 30 November 1983 Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.04) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I believe it is very important that the public at large should understand that, by having a look at this report, they may see a whole range of projects that the industry itself is undertaking to try to improve profitability, for the benefit of the whole nation. The summary of projects covers some 650 items, all States and a whole range of departmental pursuits, university projects and so on. There is an enormous range of projects which, hopefully, will be pursued to the benefit of the nation as a whole and will be paid for by the industry as a whole . I call upon anybody who believes that the livestock industries are asking for handouts to see what those industries are doing for themselves in a whole variety of ways. The report covers what is being done in the areas of breeding, feeding, pest control, pasture development, marketing and presentation. As I say , it covers not only the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation but also the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, universities and other pursuits. I commend the report to everybody who has an interest in seeing where the livestock industry is going and what it is doing. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.06) —I also wish to commend the Australian Meat Research Committee upon the publication of its annual report, which is extremely well written. I wish to congratulate those who were responsible for the description of the various projects because they are lucidly explained for lay readers-I use that term in a non-sacred sense, of course-such as I. As I say, the description of the various projects is very illuminating. The fact is, though, that the whole question of the levies in relation to the meat industry needs very careful consideration. Grants totalling over $10m were allocated from the Meat Research Trust Account for 1982-83. Almost $6m went to cattle and beef research, almost $4m to sheep and lamb research and further amounts to post-graduate studentship and study awards. Matching grants paid for by the taxpayer supplement the levy on cattle, sheep and lamb slaughtering paid for by the industry. Even with all that money being available on a matching basis, it is quite clear, according to the general introductory remarks in the report, that there will be a need to reduce expenditure in 1984-85 by 25 per cent. This requirement will have a very drastic effect on the research programs which are so necessary for this very important Australian industry. That decision, with all the dire consequences and severe impact it will have, is a direct result of the recent drought and its effect on anticipated livestock slaughterings. When one combines the decline in the number of cattle available for slaughtering in the abattoirs with the additional levies that are being faced by the industry one has a very difficult prospect which has already led to the putting off of many hundreds of workers right around Australia and the closing, probably permanently, of many abattoirs. The following levies apply to the slaughtering of cattle: Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation administration $1.20; AMRC research 35c; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation research 3c; brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication $4; and export inspection fee $5.40. The total charge is something like $11 per head. One has an overall situation where obviously, whilst no individual levy can be said to be the straw that breaks the camel's or cattle's back, the impact of the levies combined with the declining number of cattle available for slaughter is leading to a situation where, as I say, workers are being put off and abattoirs are being closed. It is quite apparent, therefore, that there needs to be a total review of all the levies and charges. Whilst at the moment there is a plea from livestock and meat exporters for a three-year moratorium on the recently announced meat inspection levy increase which brings up the contribution of the industry to 50 per cent of the meat inspection costs, I think in isolation that proposal is perhaps going further than a government could concede. The very real impact of the cumulative effect of these levy charges has to be conceded, and I think Senator Archer is nodding in agreement, in conjunction with the fact that with the breaking of the drought and the need to build up cattle herds, there is a real need to give some breathing space. Perhaps a 12-month breathing space would be more sensible and could find more ready agreement. The fact is, and I know that Senator Robert Ray is particularly interested in this, that there has been a very dramatic fall in the number of cattle available . Slaughtered in Australia in 1982-83 were about 9.6 million cattle and calves and 29.3 million sheep and lambs. These figures are expected to fall to about 7. 6 million cattle and calves and 26.6 million sheep and lambs in 1983-84. Obviously, farmers are restocking and building up the herds so essential to Australia's future and our future export income. In that situation, I think the Government and the industry need to look very carefully at the whole question of the various levies imposed on the industry. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Around Australia there is always a certain amount of apprehension about entering into agreements with foreign countries for the use or dispersal of our natural resources. This is very much the case with the new Australian-Japanese Tuna Long -Line Fishing Agreement. I do not believe that there is any need for apprehension, but I believe that there is a need to make sure that people in Australia, particularly those with fishing interests, are better informed as to what it actually implies. The Agreement provides up to 290 Japanese vessels to pay $2,275,000 for fishing in Australian territorial waters, within the 200-mile limit. It enables them to use the ports of Brisbane, Sydney, Hobart, Fremantle, Albany and Port Hedland. This Agreement is an improvement on other international agreements, and this is something that I would certainly urge the Government and the Department of Primary Industry to take note of, in that article 5 permits bulk applications for licences. Other joint fishing ventures do not allow for this. I believe it is important that there should be heads of agreement so that things can be done in the easiest form and these international arrangements can be made to work. The preliminary Agreement provides that all the little details can be organised after the main Agreement is put into force. I think that is important because it needs to be shown that things can work and will work if they are done in that manner. As a result of discussions, it was suggested that the Australian fishing industry should have more access to Japan. The subject of whether the entry of best quality Australian tuna into the Japanese sashimi market would be difficult was discussed. The Japanese delegation informed us that there would be no particular restrictions against the Australians being able to export tuna and that market access is and will be available for such Australian fish and fish products under the Japanese import system. They would attract a tariff of 5 per cent, but apart from that they would be acceptable. I hope it will be possible to modify the Agreement in the years ahead as, I hope, more and more Australian fishermen see the possibilities of fishing in these waters which the Japanese have traditionally used but which have not been normally used by the Australian fishermen. I believe that if we follow the lead and the development that has gone on in the years past by the traditional fishermen of the area, there is still an avenue open to Australia to provide food for a world which needs it more than ever. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.15) —The paper which is before the Senate at the moment concerns, basically, the agreement between Japan and Australia on the catching of tuna. I point out to the Senate and the Government that this is one area in which the Government can fulfil its promise to create 500,000 new jobs by putting something into this industry. In Queensland at the moment there are 2 ,600 registered trawlers. There is a complete overcapacity to service the fishing ground. If the Government gave some assistance to the people of the fishing industry, to remove them from the in-shore fishing area and to help them establish a tuna industry in the outer areas, I believe it would solve two problems. Firstly, it would enable Australia to form a competitive industry to service the Japanese sashimi tuna market. Secondly, it would develop a very great export market. It would also relieve the prawning industry of Queensland whose grounds are overserviced. If the Government gave some thought and help to the fishing industry in this direction by offering fishermen grants to service their boats or tune up their boats for catching tuna and to undertake long-line fishing, I believe it would help relieve unemployment. Such assistance would establish an export fishing industry that would be of tremendous benefit to this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1983 Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I point out how interested I have been in the development of the concept of Australia having its own satellite, particularly because of the value this will be to people living in the remote areas of Australia. I notice that it is planned to introduce earth stations to enable remote areas to receive television . Up to the time of the introduction of the satellite, that was not possible. At the moment we share a satellite system which is assisting quite a good deal. For example, areas in South Australia are now able to receive television services from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, but these are restricted to news broadcasts from Sydney. Some people are very interested in some aspects of Sydney or New South Wales news and they do receive the major elements of national news, but they still miss out on the local element which is of great interest to the smaller communities of Australia. I know that Senator Kilgariff is very interested in the proposition. We hope that ultimately, when Aussat is in place-I understand it is due to be in place by about 1985-there will be an opportunity for commercial television to participate in a very substantial way so that not only will ABC television programs be able to be viewed in country areas but also the people in these areas will have the additional benefit of commercial services. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.20) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is an important document which will help to provide a framework in which the development of computer education can occur. On behalf of the Opposition, I congratulate the National Advisory Committee on Computers in Schools, which put so much effort into this report. It draws attention to the financial implications, the extent of the need for computer education, the number of activities it has to cover and the extent of those activities. At page 43 of the report, it states: It is unrealistic to expect that the amount of funding available initially for the Computer Education Program will enable all schools to make dramatic improvements in use of information technology in general and computing in particular. One of the problems that has come up is that the program is one which has great aspirations and, indeed, is an appropriate program. But the funding provided for it by the Government in the guidelines is inadequate. It is certainly less than the Government promised before the election and will not carry out the task. I remind honourable senators that before the election, both major political parties-I cannot speak for the Australian Democrats because I do not remember that part of their policy-went to the people with programs that included a program on computer education. I remind the Senate also that the Commonwealth Schools Commission, before that time, had indicated, in its report, that a program was needed and indicated the amount of money that was necessary. The amount of money it identified was a need for $125m spent over five years. The program, by process of simple deduction, would require about $25m a year. The then Government went to the people with a program which added up to $100m or $20m a year over five years. The then Opposition-the now Government-offered a smaller program. That smaller program would clearly not have enabled the Australian Labor Party to achieve what the Schools Commission identified was necessary and what the Committee, in its report, still identified as necessary. After the election and in the first set of guidelines, the Government further reduced what was available and has failed to keep what it promised before the election. It is quite clear from this report and from a statement of what is needed that the funding provided by this Government will not allow these computer education procedures to be carried out satisfactorily. I appeal to the Government that, if it is going to take any notice of this report and take seriously the commitment to computer education for young Australians, it recognise the inadequacy of the provision it has made to support the program, that it look carefully at what the Committee is saying, that it draw heavily on the expertise of the Commonwealth Schools Commission and that it think again about the funding which it has provided. It is not enough. The kinds of activities that need to be covered include the provision of machines and hardware, the development and provision of computer software of which there is very little, the provision of coursewear, the assistance to educators, both by means of pre-service and in-service training, and the development of computer awareness for the enhancement of people's feeling of comfort when dealing with computers so that they do not feel computers are hostile or foreign. The amount of money which the Government has put up through the guidelines will not be enough for those activities to be carried out. Senator Primmer —It is more than you put up in seven years, though. Senator PETER BAUME —I will go back and remind Senator Primmer, who is chattering away in the background, that we put up a much larger amount by way of promise in the election. That amount of money was of the magnitude which accorded with what the Commonwealth Schools Commission had asked should be provided. Finally, I draw attention to the two dissenting reports which make up part of the document before us. I suggest to the Government that there is serious need to resolve the total rejection by New South Wales of the hardware recommendations in the report. Under the State system, the New South Wales Government does not accept the basis on which the hardware recommendations are predicated. Without New South Wales supporting the program, a serious difficulty will exist with its implementation. I also ask that the Government give careful consideration to the other dissenting report, by my old school colleague Paul Jeremy, in which he draws attention to the same problem, and to a failure adequately to address the need for courseware development in computing. Again, this is a very important report. I hope that the Government will give it a considered response. When it is given, I hope that the response can be discussed in the Senate. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.25) —This report by the National Advisory Committee on Computers in Schools is long overdue. The fact that it is overdue is responsible, partly at least, for some of the comments in the two dissenting reports. I think we all agree with the comment in chapter 3 of the report that in Australian society schools should provide students with knowledge of the electronic information technologies and with skills in their use, and that this should be a very broad spectrum knowledge, not limited to the science and mathematics faculties but developing into all faculties. That is because the new literacy in the 1990s and the next century will be computer literacy, and it should not be limited only to the two faculties which seem to see some sort of proprietorial aspect to computerisation. The two dissenting reports concentrate predominantly, as Senator Baume has said , on the four pieces of hardware which have been selected. The Committee went into considerable detail and went to considerable effort to look at what was being done in the individual States in Australia before it made any recommendation. From contacts that I have in schools in various States, I know that there was concern that this would not happen and that the most populous State, New South Wales, would have an unnecessary amount of say in the Committee 's final recommendation about the hardware that it approved for school use. That has not happened. The Committee has taken note of the decisions that have been made, in particular, by the South Australian, Western Australian and Tasmanian governments to recommend the BBC computer system for government school use. The non-government schools in those States have had a tendency to follow suit. That action was made necessary by lack of attention to the need for a national program for computer technology by the previous Government. There is no question about that. Each was forced into investigating the best sort of hardware for that State simply because the previous Federal Government had closed its eyes to the need for an assessment of computer technology at a national level. As a consequence, we got a plethora of recommendations from State to State. Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania adopted the BBC, which, interestingly enough, is one of the few computer systems that were specifically designed for teaching purposes. Perhaps my own bias in that line is enhanced by the fact that I believe Australian schools probably have more cultural connections with something that emanates from Britain, with the appropriate software to match, than with some American software, with the peculiarities of language that Americans use. The Microbee 16 and the Apple II were the computers that were accepted by the New South Wales Government. To the best of my knowledge, the Victorian Governmment was still playing around with its investigations at that stage. One of the dissenting reports complains about the fact that 16K models of computers have been excluded. They have been excluded for a fairly good reason. Basically, the Committee's report has come down in favour of the BBC Acorn, with or without a couple of component support systems, the Microbee 64 and the Apple II and Apple IIe. Given the problems that the Committee had of combining the already determined recommendations of the different States for computer systems in their States, I think it did all that was possible under the circumstances. Of course, it has added a rider that support should also be provided for professional development and consultancy activities directed at other machines recommended by participating systems and that the list of recommended microcomputers should be regularly reviewed in the light of changes in technology and school needs. As I have said, given the problems facing the Committee, it is to be commended on its recommendations and the detail in this report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ministerial Statement Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.31) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is a very interesting development. The Senate will remember that last December we debated at some length in a first class debate the proposals of the then Minister for Communications, Mr Neil Brown, for supplementary licences. As I understand it, it was a brainchild of Mr Tony Staley. It was a brilliant idea to give country provincial towns another service by granting a supplementary licence, essentially, to the holders of existing licences. This was a way in which country towns could quickly receive another television channel or radio outlet. Controversy raged about giving a supplementary licence to a company that held an existing licence. Concentration of ownership in a country town was a quite proper concern for people to raise at that time. Senator Button raised it in a responsible way when he was in opposition. The reason for Mr Staley's original thinking was that very few country towns in Australia could support two television stations. Very few country towns could support another independent radio station. Yet there is a need in those towns for another station. I have a great deal of admiration for the local television station here in Canberra. It does a magnificent job, particularly running a one-hour news service, half of which is devoted to local news. Those of us who sometimes spend an evening here with nothing to do are not terribly enamoured-- Senator Ryan —We like it. Senator CHIPP —If Senator Ryan likes Cop Shop, followed by Prisoner- Senator Ryan —No, we like the local news. Senator CHIPP —Indeed. I am not critical of its running Prisoner, Cop Shop and others-- Senator Missen —And the other rubbish. Senator CHIPP —I was being more kind than that. They are popular programs. I do not blame the commercial station. Apparently the majority of people in Canberra think those programs are marvellous. They add to the revenue. But the fact is that a great number of the people of Canberra want another television station. It is extremely doubtful whether it would be economically viable if all the infrastructure for a new television channel were established. That was the motivation behind Mr Staley's brilliant idea. The original Bill was passed, as I understand it, not implemented or proclaimed. The present Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, is to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act in a different way so as to make concentration of ownership a major issue. Without trying to be mischievous, I just give Mr Duffy and the Government a warning that the Australian Democrats and I am sure the Liberal Party-and the National Party, indeed, as it has a vested interest in this matter because it represents country areas-will be looking very closely at the terms of that Bill because if on the first criterion, that there is concentration of ownership, the licence cannot be given to that existing station, that would virtually disqualify every holder of every country television licence at the moment. That would be ridiculous; it would be absurd. Mr Duffy, however, has inserted some criteria: A supplementary licence will not be granted . . . if a thorough investigation by the ABT determines that an extra independent commercial service, the first and preferred option, is commercially viable and in the public interest. I do not think anybody would object to that but it will depend on the way in which it is worded in the Act. Finally, I am very concerned at the development of Aussat Pty Ltd. A significant paragraph in this morning's Australian Financial Review states: The supplementary scheme dovetails with the intended use of the satellite by the major Sydney and Melbourne broadcasting networks. That is ominous and I will be keeping a very close eye on that to make sure that country towns throughout Australia will not be the prisoners of the three major networks via the satellite. Some protection has to be given to those areas so that people in outback areas are not fed only those kinds of programs. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report, Documents and Transcript Senator COATES —by leave-I present the report, documents and transcript of proceedings of the Second Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation, held in Ottawa in April 1983. Ordered that the report, documents and transcript be printed. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(10.38) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I will speak briefly to this motion, which I have moved mainly to allow honourable senators who were associated with the Conference to speak. In April this year the Regulations and Ordinances Committee sent a delegation, consisting of Senators Lewis, Missen and Tate, to the Second Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation, which was held in Ottawa, with the Canadian counterpart of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee as the host. The first conference was held in October 1980 in Canberra, and was arranged by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee at the request of a number of equivalent Commonwealth committees, whose members felt they would benefit from an exchange of experiences and ideas. It was fitting that Australia should have been the host for the first conference, because we have at the federal level the oldest and one of the most advanced systems for the parliamentary control of delegated legislation, through the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. It was the first such committee to be established in the Commonwealth, in 1932, and through the statutory provisions for the disallowance of delegated legislation which have been built up over the years. One has only to look at some other countries, where delegated legislation is subject to little or no parliamentary control and has got completely out of hand, to realise how fortunate Australia has been. The Ottawa conference was pronounced by those who participated in it as an outstanding success in continuing and extending the exchange of information and co-operation between the various committees throughout the Commonwealth. The report, which has been produced by the Canadian committee, is a valuable statement of the determination of parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth to ensure proper parliamentary accountability of delegated law-making. Unfortunately, copies of the report and associated documents are in short supply, but limited numbers are available from the Senate Records and Table Office. By moving for the printing of the papers I have ensured that they will be reproduced in the parliamentary papers series and widely distributed, as was done with the papers of the first conference. I commend the report to the Senate . Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.40) —Mr Deputy President, I wish to speak briefly in support of the motion and to urge members of the Senate in particular to get hold of a copy of the report of the Second Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation, which is a fairly short document and which summarises the major matters which were raised at the conference. As you know, Mr Deputy President, and as has been said, we in Australia have taken the lead in getting such conferences under way. As one who chaired the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances between the last Conference and this one, it was not always easy to keep in complete contact with parliaments, especially as one member of the last conference was in a parliament which disappeared during the three years between meetings and he was not heard of again by us. But the continuation of this process of consultation among the parliaments, all of which are struggling with the problem of delegated legislation, its control and the relationship between government and parliament and the rights and abilities of the Parliament to scrutinise and to disallow, are matters of continual interest. It is a fact that in Australia, not only in the Commonwealth but also in the State spheres, there is a considerable power of disallowance which one can say is stronger than in any other parliament. Many of them look to us for a lead and hope to emulate the example in Australia which has continued for over 50 years now. I think there were some 16 parliaments represented at the first conference, including some state and provincial parliaments. In the conference held in April this year, 26 parliaments were represented and there was therefore a much wider range of exchange. The new committee which has been elected to continue this process covers all continents. Senator Austin Lewis is the representative for Australasia, and I am on it as past Chairman. It is a committee now which has in mind going ahead with the review and the study of the procedures, precedents and practices of the various parliaments dealing with delegated legislation. When one looks at the report one will see that many common and separate problems are discussed. The report is self-contained and I think gives a lot of information. There is also the publication 'Documents of the Conference Volume 2 ' which includes the excellent paper which Senator Michael Tate prepared and presented to the conference on the scrutiny of Bills operation which is a development analogous to but not quite the same, of course, as delegated legislation matters, as it deals with Bills rather than with delegated legislation. The third of the documents is the transcript of the proceedings in which honourable senators will see the discussion that took place-and it was quite controversial discussion-over the way in which Parliament ought to control the making of delegated legislation. It is clear that the same powers do not exist in Canada and the Canadians suffer very considerably from the inability to get their motions in regard to delegated legislation and criticism of it onto the agenda so that they can be debated by the Parliament. As honourable senators know by the use of notices of disallowance no such problem occurs in Australia. Once notice is given, the matter must be dealt with. Other problems which are covered in this report and which were discussed at this conference include government responses to reports and government responses to criticism of delegated legislation and the way it is handled in different countries. This includes the proposals in regard to notice of and comment on proposed delegated legislation. There is great public interest in what is often called 'deregulation' but what I think ought to be called 'regulatory reform', which is a field where no simple answers are to be found. But the giving of notice and allowing public comment before regulations come in is very popular in other countries and I hope that we will experiment with it in Australia to a much greater degree than we have in the past. The report discusses problems relating to international regulations-for example , Britain and the Common Market-and the way in which parliaments can have any control over those regulations. Another topic mentioned, which is probably more appropriate to Australia, is the problem in a federal system of dealing with uniformity of legislation, such as company legislation and for the individual regulatory committees really to have any control because it is a uniform matter. If one does not adopt it, there is trouble. I think a great problem will arise here when we try to bring uniformity into our system in that we may squash out the ability of committees of the Parliament to be able effectively to criticise the proposals. The important question of the assessability of delegated legislation is a problem here as it is elsewhere. One should not have to tell the people of the Australian Capital Territory about the regulations which affect them and which have not been brought up to date for many years. The problem of people knowing the law as it affects them is one that is common to a lot of countries. The Conference was an outstanding success, magnificently organised by the Canadian authorites. It was held in the Senate chamber in Ottawa and the delegation went to Montreal and Toronto and had discussions there with other members of the parliaments of Canada. I believe this type of getting together of parliamentarians, not just in a socialising way but in analysing the problems, enhances the opportunities of parliaments to reassert themselves as an important feature of government. The next Conference will probably be held in India in two or three years' time. I believe the development of such conferences is well worthwhile. Australia has given a lead by providing, among other things, the printing of the various journals of the conferences. The Senate has taken on that task and is continuing with it for the moment. It is a valuable exchange of information between all parliaments. It is a very worthwhile exercise. My colleagues who attended, Senator Lewis and Senator Michael Tate, and Mr Harry Evans from the staff of the Parliament all did splendid jobs during that Conference. I think Australia's standing in this area is in good shape. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.47) —I support the remarks of my colleague Senator Missen on the Second Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation. To carry on from where he left off, I agree that Australia was very well represented, not only by the three senators, but also by Mr Harry Evans of the Senate staff who, notwithstanding that he was most unwell for various days of the Conference, attended all of the sessions. He did very well despite his illness. Of course, he is very knowledgeable in this field and was of great assistance to those of us attending. Professor Dennis Pearce, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the Australian National University and counsel to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills also attended and made very worthwhile contributions. I also congratulate those who organised the Conference in Canada, the members of the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments and, in particular, Mr Graham Eglington, an Australian lawyer working in Canada who was the Conference Secretary and at some stage counsel to the Canadian Committee. Mr Eglington really worked very hard. He has very much at heart the interests of those parliamentarians who are concerned about the supervision of delegated legislation. Let me say also a sincere thank you to the Australian Government, because the proposal to visit this Conference was made under the former Government. As we know, there was than a change of government. This Conference was held in April of this year. The new Government approved the delegation's attendance at the Conference and all of us thank the Government for carrying out the previous Government's agreement. Let me turn now to the Conference. Twenty-seven jurisdictions from the the Commonwealth were represented at the Conference, and a total of 75 official delegates attended. Many official observers and academic observers were present. It is a pity that no Australian States were represented. I think that is a great pity because Australian States have very good delegated legislation and supervisory committees. It is a pity that no State felt that it could afford to send delegates to this Conference. The delegates represented, of course, not only bicameral parliaments such as ours but also unicameral and one-part parliaments. The difficulties associated with having a delegated legislation committee in a one-party parliament must be almost unbelievable. However, great strength for the protection of parliamentary rights was shown by all delegates and I hope that honourable senators will have an opportunity to read pages 9, 10 and 11 of the report in particular, if they do not get a chance to read the whole report. I would like to quote from the first paragraph of the report so that it will be in Hansard and so that I may draw it to the attention of this Government, of the shadow Executive, of all Executives and of the media. It seems to me a great pity that the Australian media do not understand what the disallowance of a regulation means. The passage I wish to quote is: . . . most Commonwealth governments are unwilling to countenance disallowance of a regulation by Parliament or the failure of an affirmative resolution on a regulation. The last sentence relates, of course, to the British system; it is not applicable to Australia. I quote further: Some governments are even unwilling to accept the adoption of a scrutiny committee's report critical of a regulation. Each government feels, or purports to believe, quite unnecessarily and erroneously that the governments life, or at least its standing, is at stake. It is important to note that delegates expressed their realisation that parliamentarians were being thwarted by a twisted representation of the doctrine of responsible government. The report adds: It is no part of that doctrine that a government must win every vote on every issue in both Houses. The loss of a vote on a motion in one House or even in a unicameral parliament, to disallow a regulation . . . can very, very rarely amount to a question of confidence in the Ministry. The paragraph ends by stating that delegates left the conference determined to free their parliaments and legislatures from the tyranny of this unwarranted extension of the doctrine of responsible government. I hope that honourable senators, and the media also, will note that observation in particular. Fortunately, in Australia, as a result of the activities of the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee, governments do not really take that to heart so much, although from time to time we have heard Ministers appear to argue that the disallowance of a regulation would mean the end of the Government , that the Government would have to fall. As has been indicated in the report, that is absolute nonsense. Of course a disallowance motion does not represent a vote of confidence or otherwise in the Government. I wish that journalists and media representatives would understand that these are Houses of a parliament, not Houses of an executive government; that Parliament must be able to retain powers to dissallow or amend legislation, even to throw it out, and to disallow regulations and ordinances in full or in part without a government being at risk , as if it were subject to a confidence vote. Senator Missen dealt with most of the report but I would like to mention one or two other aspects of it. The Conference did become involved in discussion about the scrutiny of delegated legislation on its merits, that is to say, on its policy content and its substantive effect on people, as well as on its form. That is perhaps a little technical to go into at this stage. The Conference was very impressed by the Australian experiment in the form of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the paper presented by Senator Tate was very well received. The comments made by Senators Tate and Missen and Dr Pearce were also very well put and received. Finally, let me mention another matter, in relation to which I will again quote from the report. I refer to the problem of quasi-law. I hope that honourable senators will take note of what I am about to read: The Conference was clearly put on notice of the need to be careful lest the issuing of guidelines, manuals and circulars- which they call quasi-law- . . . allow governments to undermine and circumvent the scrutiny and control measures in respect of delegated legislation won by parliaments with so much difficulty. Just as there has been a slide from legislating by statute to legislating by regulation, so there is the danger of a slide from the use of detailed regulations to governments achieving their policy ends by issuing directions as to how officials shall carry out their functions and exercise their directions granted by statute or by delegated legislation. Unless these directions are subject to parliamentary control and scrutiny, a large body of the rules actually applied to citizens will pass under the unfettered power of the executive. I know that Australia has had some experience in this regard and I am delighted to be able to remind the Parliament that when the uranium guidelines were brought down by the former Government they were brought down in such a manner that they could be disallowed and considered. I would hope that the Attorney- General, Senator Gareth Evans, who in the past has indicated that he believes in parliamentary control and scrutiny of all forms of legislation, would consider making this a matter of policy for the Government. I thank the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I present a report dated December 1983 on the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and Commissioner for Superannuation annual reports 1980-81, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This annual report was referred to the Standing Committee for investigation and report on the causes of the delay in its tabling, and matters raised by the Auditor-General. After examining the report and considering comments from the Commissioner for Superannuation, the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, the Auditor-General and the Department of Finance, the Committee held a one-day hearing earlier this year to take evidence. There are two reasons for the delay of some 16 months in the tabling of the report: The introduction of a new accounting policy for the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust during the financial year 1980-81, which meant that financial statements were not prepared until almost 12 months after the end of the financial year, and the time taken for completion of the Auditor-General's examination of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust financial statements. In chapter 2 we note that these two factors resulted in an inevitable but unacceptable delay in reporting to the Parliament. Three matters were the subject of comment by the Auditor-General in his report to the Minister: The incomplete reconciliation of control accounts maintained by the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office; overdrawing of the Superannuation Fund Account, and consolidation of accounts for certain property unit trusts in which the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust has an interest. The Committee discussed these matters and made its comments in chapter 3 of the report. As a final matter, having dealt with the 1980-81 report, the Committee notes with concern that the reports for 1981-82 and 1982-83 have still not been tabled -17 and five months respectively after the end of the financal year. Seventeen months is even later than the 1980-81 report was presented and such lateness ought to be unacceptable. The Committee has accordingly recommended that an interim report be tabled in accordance with the recommendations we have made in our fifth report. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I present the 213th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MAGUIRE —by leave-Report 213 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts documents the Committee's investigation of the administration of a wide range of income maintenance programs. In the study, income maintenance programs are taken to be those programs transferring cash to individuals or organisations for the purposes of social welfare. The Committee considered aspects of the administration of 127 programs as operated by 10 Commonwealth Government departments in 1981-82. The fact that the Commonwealth operated a total of 127 income maintenance programs is in itself striking. The cost was in excess of $14,000m annually. The programs considered included income replacement programs, for example, unemployment benefit; income supplement programs, for example, tertiary allowances; and programs subsidising expenditure, for example, free medical services. This report has two volumes. Volume 1 is a discussion paper. It presents, in a fairly compact form, information and comment on the many programs considered and also lists a number of reference sources to assist further investigation in the area. Volume 2 is a reference document which has extensive descriptive material on each program considered. The methodology of the Committee's inquiry involved seeking material from departments on how the particular income maintenance program was initiated; the direct and administrative costs of the program; the number of beneficiaries; and the extent of program evaluation. These submissions were supplemented by public hearings with officers of three departments surveyed -namely, the Departments of Social Security, Veterans' Affairs and Employment and Industrial Relations. The Committee also received information from four agencies whose activities span more than one functional area. These agencies were the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance , the Public Service Board and the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat. The Committee examined the information with three guiding principles in mind. These principles were: 'Mandate', 'management' and 'evaluation'. These three concepts capture the questions: 'What is the program's objective?'; 'how well is the objective being achieved?'; and, finally, 'when should the program be modified?'. The three concepts of 'mandate', 'management' and 'evaluation' provide the framework for Volume 1. They establish a structure for the presentation of information on departmental programs, provoke comment about specific aspects of a department's administration and influence the discussion of general issues. While the Committee has made a number of findings from its inquiry, and these are set out in the final chapter of Volume 1 of the report, the Committee emphasises that the findings should be addressed, appreciating the nature of the document. Volume 1 is a discussion paper, as I mentioned earlier, and the Committee's conclusions and findings are presented to stimulate further discussion and analysis of the issues. The Committee recommends that a task force be established to review current social welfare administrative practices. The Committee sees its proposed task force composed of representatives of the Department of Finance, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Public Service Board and the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat very much in the light of stimulating further dicussion and analysis of the issues. The Committee suggests that the task force consider improvements in current administrative practice, bearing in mind the Committee's findings in respect of 'mandate', ' management' and 'evaluation'. The Committee also finds that the task force should consider alternative approaches to social welfare administration, including that of a guaranteed minimum income. The Committee hopes that the two volumes of report 213 on the administration of income maintenance programs will provide a basis for further exploration of this area both within and outside government circles. Finally, let me comment briefly regarding responses by departments to the conclusions and findings in this report 213. As my colleagues would be aware, the Department of Finance minute procedures are designed to ensure that appropriate action is taken in response to comments contained in the Committee's reports. The Committee realises that the format of this report may require a somewhat different approach. While the Committee appreciates the challenge this discussion paper may present, it is reasonable to expect that the members of the proposed task force would address the tasks set out in Volume 1 and prepare the response to the Committee. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-The Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts undertook a massive task in regard to income maintenance programs. A tremendous amount of research was undertaken and I thank the staff of the Committee for their energy and dedication. In particular I must acknowledge the work of Mr Tom O'Brien who did much of the research on the discussion paper. We decided to produce a discussion paper because we realised fairly quickly that there was much to comment upon and we also appreciated the difficulty of making specific recommendations in this area. We came to the conclusion that what was needed was a discussion paper which would lead to further analysis of the problem of the massive income maintenance programs which have developed over the years. Some concern must be expressed that many programs do not have sufficient legislative support. We have heard people in this place talk about delegated legislation. I think that we now ought to accept that we should be prepared to look at delegated financial responsibility which is not supported by legislation . The Committee decided that it should produce a discussion paper rather than a report. We wanted to present the massive amount of material and information in a form that would lead to substantial further investigation of the problem. Having reduced the material to a readable form, we now expect that the responses of the various departments involved will lead to further investigation at some future date which may enable if not this Committee, perhaps another committee, to make some firm recommendations. The amount of moneys spent on income maintenance, as Senator Maguire pointed out, is massive. The cost of administration involved in applying these moneys is also massive and one gets the impression that administration is not properly co- ordinated and is expensive when compared with the total moneys which reach the recipient. There needs to be a considerable amount of administrative change in order to reduce these costs. We found that, where legislation gave the direction, the programs were much more effectively administered. One must give some credit to the Department of Social Security and to the Department of Veterans' Affairs in that they have a definite goal in mind. That goal has been defined by legislation which has been to their advantage. The problem arises in the areas where flexibility has been needed and where moneys have been applied by executive determination. Programs are set in motion, moneys are expended and no further evaluation of the need for and the level of that type of support has been made. I commend this document as a very important document. It is, I believe, the first attempt to make an assessment of the level and the cost of income maintenance. A suggestion has been made in this report that we ought to be looking at another means of supplying support to the needy and the underprivileged within the community and that we ought to give them a guaranteed minimum support, a minimum income. That is a problem which needs substantial investigation on the part of governments. In order for governments to investigate the problem substantially, I believe that committees of the Senate can do substantial work to assist whichever government may be in power. I further commend the report and I reiterate that much credit needs to be given to the staff and the secretariat of the Public Accounts Committee for the massive task which they engaged in and for the result which has been brought before the Senate today. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-I present, on behalf of the Minister for Aviation, Mr Beazley, whom I represent in this place, a progress statement on the report of the Senate Select Committee on Passenger Fares and Services to and from Tasmania. On 18 August 1981, the report of the Senate Select Committee which inquired into passenger fares and services to and from Tasmania was tabled. The Government is examining that report with a view to making a response to the Senate as soon as possible. Mr Deputy President , you will appreciate that the report raises many complex issues requiring careful study. It is a measure of the complexity of the matters raised in the report's recommendations that the previous Government had not responded to them prior to the dissolution of Parliament on 4 February of this year. Since 1981 a number of developments has occurred and important decisions were made in relation to matters covered in the report. These will be taken into consideration in the Government's response. I wish to assure honourable senators that the Government is aware of the significance of this report, particularly to the people of Tasmania, and I expect that it will be in a position to respond to the report's recommendations shortly. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I believe that it is necessary to keep this matter in front of the Senate and on the Notice Paper. As the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has said, this is a matter of considerable interest to everyone in my State. I have moved this motion in order to keep this matter before the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I make the point that last night from 5.30 p.m. until 11 p.m. the Senate was engaged in debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1983. I had assumed, obviously incorrectly, that this morning we would be proceeding with the Committee stage of the debate on that question. I understand that the Opposition, for some reason best known to itself, has sought to have consideration of that legislation postponed. Senator Kilgariff —No. That was from the Government side. Is the honourable senator talking about the electoral matters? Senator HARRADINE —Yes. Senator Kilgariff —I understand it is because the Attorney-General is not present. Senator HARRADINE —My understanding was based on a copy of the Whip's minutes. I simply raised this point because the matter which is coming on, namely, the Bank Account Debits Tax Legislation Amendment Bill, is one in which I have an interest. Because discussion on other measures this morning has proceeded a little longer than I anticipated, I am now in a position to make some comments on that aspect. But I have raised my point at this stage. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Mr Deputy President, I have not heard all that Senator Harradine had to say, but I understand that the Opposition Whip has already corrected the suggestion that a debate was adjourned at our request. It was our understanding that the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) would be away. That was the explanation given. I must say that, when I was told that, I thought that to re-arrange the program was the most reasonable course, because I think we would have objected very strongly had the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill been dealt with in a perfunctory way by a Minister who was not prepared. I would also like to say, with respect to the rearrangement of the program, that we have had very considerable co-operation from the Government. I make that point because I am quick to criticise it when we do not. I make no comment on any inconvenience which might be caused to Senator Harradine. He, of course, is entitled to seek reasonable treatment also. Today, for example, I made a specific request that certain Bills should not be run together because this would involve difficulties for the Opposition. I acknowledge that that request was treated in a very reasonable way. For the last month or so, I think a very genuine attempt has been made by the Government and indeed on the part of the Opposition to agree on the programming arrangements which will work for both sides. I can see the difficulty which will be occasioned for Senator Harradine who has to deal with all these matters by himself. He has a much more difficult task than that which faces either the Government or the Opposition. It would not be my wish for the Opposition to create difficulties for Senator Harradine. Quite frankly, I doubt that the Government would wish to do that either. Senator Harradine —It keeps me well informed. Senator CHANEY —I simply want to put on the record that the Opposition would not want to be party to any arrangements which would prevent the solitary Independent from having a chance to get a crack at things in a reasonable way. In turn, though, I would acknowledge that, as far as I am concerned, the Government has behaved very reasonably in its programming over recent weeks. I thank it for that. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-I think it has to be said in all fairness that there has been a measure of co- operation between the Opposition and the Government with respect to the Government's program. Often, particularly at the end of a session, arrangements have to be changed to accommodate the pressures that do exist and develop. Consequently, programs have to be re-arranged to meet the overall requirements of government. It is probably regrettable that Senator Harradine has been embarrassed by that change in the program. Today we expected that the second reading speeches of two Bills that are shown on the Notice Paper would have been available. At this point they are not available. So sometimes procedures which are beyond the Government's control intervene in such a way as to make it impossible for even the Government's wishes to be completely met. I agree that, overall, members of the Senate should be treated equally and have equal rights and obligations. I think there is an overriding problem when we come towards the end of the session in that sometimes the requirements of government in respect of its legislative program have to be met and, in those circumstances, certain disadvantages do exist. I apologise if Senator Harradine has been embarrassed to that extent. I am sure that he will appreciate it was not done with malice or any desire to disadvantage any member of the Senate. It is just part of the exigencies and the pressures with which both the Government and Opposition have to deal from time to time. I record the Government's appreciation of the co-operation that the Opposition has given us to get our program through. I realise that probably in the past the Liberal National parties, when in government, sought the co-operation of this side of the House. When it was humanly possible such requests were met. I think under those circumstances we have no recourse other than to regret the disadvantage that has been occasioned to the Independent senator. [COGNATE BILL: TAXATION ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 18 November 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Mr Deputy President , may I suggest that the Senate have a general debate covering the Bank Account Debits Tax Legislation Amendment Bill and the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate to have a general debate covering the two Bills? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(11.23) —The Opposition does not oppose the Bank Account Debits Tax Legislation Amendment Bill. It is necessary to amend the legislation in this way because of doubts that were expressed about the constitutional validity of giving the banks the right of recovery of this tax from account holders. The amendment has our support. We understand the reason for it, although it has not been subjected to litigation. We understand that the constitutional validity question has been raised. Therefore, we would not wish to hold up the amendment. I take this opportunity to make one or two comments about the operation of the bank debits tax. As I understand this tax, it is currently under review by the Government. I place before the Government that one of the problems it should consider in reviewing the operation of the tax is the interrelationship of this tax with the financial institutions' duties tax in the various States. New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia have levied a financial institutions' tax . It would seem to me that there ought to be some rationalisation between the States and the Commonwealth with regard to the operation of these similar taxes. I think it may be appropriate for the Commonwealth Government to investigate whether there ought to be the establishment of some uniform approach or at least some arrangements that would operate better for those who are required to pay tax on financial negotiations. I think this could improve the efficiency of the collection of the tax. It would certainly be a welcome relief to the users of cheque accounts and other financial instruments throughout Australia. That is just one area. I hope that in the current review which the Government is undertaking some attention can be given to this matter. Another problem that could be considered in this context is that the States' financial institutions duty attracts bank account debits tax as the States' charges appear as debits on cheque accounts. Often financial institutions' duty of only a few cents attracts bank account debits tax. That is one of the details which, I am sure, will be subjected to the review I mentioned. The other matter to which I draw attention, and which was mentioned by the shadow Treasurer in the other place, was the matter of exemptions that can be given or should be given to charitable and non-profit organisations. The former Treasurer conceded that when he introduced the original legislation he made an error in judgment. He had sought a method of exempting charitable and non-profit organisations. On the advice of the Commissioner of Taxation he relied upon the exemption precedent available in the stamp duty legislation of the Government of New South Wales. That has not brought all of the exemptions that we would have considered appropriate or that we expected would be covered by the clause that he had inserted in the original proposal. Again, as the operation of the bank debits tax is under review, I think it would be timely to look at the exemption of charitable and non-profit organisations to see that they do not suffer the imposition of the tax in a way that was certainly not intended when it was introduced. I am sure that a number of other matters will be subjected to the review. I hope that it will not be long before we see some reaction from the Government to the review of the tax that was introduced as one way of raising revenue. The former Treasurer acknowledged that it was not a perfect way of imposing tax, but it was a means of collecting further revenue for the Commonwealth. We have run into the fact that some of the States have used similar methods of raising revenue for their own purposes. With those brief comments, on behalf of the Opposition I wish the Bill a speedy passage. The Taxation Administration Amendment Bill is supported by the Opposition. We have noted the arrangements under the system which has been proposed by which summonses will be served by ordinary post and, after conviction, a procedure will be followed which will enable the defendant to be advised by ordinary post of conviction and the amount of the fine and 21 days will be allowed for payment of the fine. The other provisions within the Bill raise no objections in our minds. We believe that in the purpose of administration it is a useful amendment that can be introduced at this stage. It is one that has our support. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.29) — The original bank account debits tax legislation was introduced last year by the previous Government. At the time it was roundly criticised by those who are now in Government. The present Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, who represented the shadow Treasurer in this place at that time, described the tax as 'inequitable, discriminatory, inflationary and counter-productive'. Indeed, he moved a motion to that effect when the legislation was presented to this Parliament by the previous Government . I supported that motion. When this Government came to power I reminded Senator Walsh, during the first week of the parliamentary sitting, what he had said about this legislation. I asked whether a review of the legislation in certain respects could take place. I followed that up with a question on 18 May 1983 specifically zeroing in on the problems affecting supporting bodies associated with non-profit schools. My question on 18 May was directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, the Minister for Energy and Resources. It stated: Is it not a fact that the Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Act exempts debits made to accounts in the name of non-profit schools but this exemption does not extend to support bodies associated with the schools? Is this not a tax on the efforts of such organizations as parents and friends organizations which are designed to provide educational aids for the schools which are exempt under the Act? If so, what does the Government intend to do about it? Senator Walsh replied to that question in the following manner: The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Legislation governing the bank account debits tax provides exemptions for debits to accounts of certain organizations, including non-profit schools, colleges and universities. A debit to a cheque account operated by these bodies is exempt from the tax provided the debit relates to a transaction carried out wholly and exclusively in furtherance of the objects of the body. Debits made to a cheque account operated in the name of a support body of a school or college, such as a parents and citizens association or other parent body, do not come within the ambit of the exemption which the law currently provides. The Government has undertaken to review the operation of this tax, including the appropriateness or otherwise of the exemptions contained in the law, after it has been in operation for approximately 6 months. Many representations have been received from school support organizations and other non-profit bodies in the community seeking exemption from the tax and these will be carefully considered in the course of the review. In the second reading speech by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) on the Bank Accounts Debit Tax Legislation Amendment Bill, he said: The legislation was enacted in 1982 and the former Government announced before the election last March that 1 April 1983 would be proclaimed as the date of commencement of the tax. Following the election, the necessary formal proclamation was made, but we, as the new Government, announced that the operation of the tax, including the appropriateness or otherwise of exemptions, would be reviewed after approximately six months. That review is now in course and an announcement will be made after the review has been completed and the Government has taken decisions arising out of it. Of course, you realise, Mr Deputy President, that six months has elapsed since 1 April and still the review apparently has not been completed as promised. I would have liked to see this legislation come before us together with the results of the review and the Government's decisions. A number of organisations are experiencing a burden and should not be experiencing a burden. I have mentioned supporting bodies such as parents and friends organisations of schools . But there are other organisations such as the Girl Guides Association and the boy scouts organisations. To exemplify the situation in which those organisations find themselves, may I read a letter I received from the Girl Guides Association of Tasmania which expresses very succinctly, the problems that it is experiencing. The letter, in part, states: The Girl Guides Association, soon to celebrate its 75th year of voluntary service to the youth of Australia, is, by the very nature of its membership structure, severely disadvantaged by the Act. The Association has always encouraged all units and divisional bodies to use cheque accounts as a method of security for the public monies that they handle. Some idea of the considerable number of cheques written daily by all sections of the Association, and on all of which this Debits Tax is currently paid, can be gauged from the fact that in Tasmania alone there are 210 Guide units operating throughout the State and with 73 Districts, 17 Divisions, 9 Trefoil Guilds, 76 Local Associations (parent support groups), not to mention the State Executive and its associated committees. Senator Button —How do you know all that? Senator HARRADINE —I am reading a letter from the State Secretary of the Girl Guides Association, Mrs Ann Breeze. The letter continues: Cheque accounts are operated at all these levels. Since Guide units meet each week, there is a considerable flow of public monies both upwards and downwards within the Guiding Movement (e.g. unit quota payments to higher bodies, executive payments to units for specially needed assistance); and also payments of monies outside the movement (e.g. hall rentals, equipment purchases, donations to charitable organisations). The letter finally states: The Girl Guide Association is a voluntarily run, public, non-profit organisation, primarily serving the youth of this State, and of course Australia . We are sure that, at least in spirit, organisations such as ours would have been excluded from this unique tax in the minds of its legislators. I am sure that is true. As was indicated by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle this morning, it appears it was a mistaken impression on the part of the previous Treasurer, who acted on advice, that these sorts of organisations have been caught. The sooner we release them from the burden the better. If that is the experience of organisations in Tasmania we can multiply that 10 times for the rest of Australia. Another organisation that is committed by its charter to service to the community-in fact, its motto is 'Service above self-he profits most who serves best'-is the Rotary organisation. That organisation has been caught by the bank account debits tax. I have copies of letters sent to various Rotary Clubs by the Australian Taxation Office-the Rotary Clubs of Glenorchy, Devonport, South Launceston, Launceston, Hobart, New Norfolk, Georgetown, Longford, Kangaroo Bay, Rosetta, Lindisfarne and Newnham. I have a letter from the past governor of Rotary, Jock Geeves, who expresses the issue quite succinctly. Having forwarded a copy of the program of Rotary, to which all clubs must subscribe in their constitution, he points out the following: You will note that the Ideal of Service is the foundation of the organisation, and this Ideal of Service is invariably translated by Rotary clubs into charitable and educational projects, with millions of dollars being raised and spent throughout the world annually by Rotary clubs. I am aware of the work that Rotary does in the various fields of charitable activity in Tasmania. I am sure that the Taxation Office is somewhat circumscribed in what it can do, having regard to the tight guidelines which qualify, in its view, a public benefit institution. So I believe that some legislative action needs to be taken quickly so as to relieve these bodies of the burden that is now recognised to be unjustly falling on their shoulders. I am disappointed that the review which was promised to take place within about six months of the date of operation of this legislation-namely, 1 April 1983-has not been concluded. I hope that it will be concluded rapidly and that legislation will be brought down. In the meantime, I propose to support any amendments that would relieve organisations, which are likely to receive majority support in the Parliament. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.43) —I am indebted to honourable senators for their general support of the legislation. The thrust and purport of the legislation was summarised by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle in her remarks on behalf of the Opposition. She very carefully drew attention to a number of considerations about inconsistencies and anomalies which have arisen in relation to State taxes of a similar kind and the situation of the Federal legislation. She confined her remarks to the legislation in question, although she could have made a very long speech, has she wished to do that, illustrating all the analogous situations which exist in terms of State charges, Commonwealth charges, and so on, which I agree will have to be addressed by governments in the future. Other than that, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle really drew attention to the fact that this Bill is designed to redress the possibility of a technical defect in the earlier legislation regarding the imposition of the burden of this legislation on banks or their customers. The effect of the legislation is to provide for joint and several liability of the banks and the customers-that is all that it does-to overcome a situation of possible constitutional invalidity, although that is no by no means certain. Other honourable senators have used the presence of this Bill in the Parliament to draw attention to a number of situations which have arisen in respect of various groups and to a number of representations that they have received from various groups, such as Girl Guides and Rotary, as mentioned by Senator Harradine, which feel aggrieved by the imposition of this tax. All I would say about that is that the review which has been foreshadowed, both earlier this year and in a series of responses to questions asked by people such as Senator Harradine, is well advanced, and that these matters are all appropriately matters for consideration within the scope of that review. I am advised that the Government is likely to be able to bring forward a response to that review early next year. At that time, the adequacy of the review and its recommendations or lack of recommendations will be a subject of discussion in the Parliament. That will be an appropriate time to move amendments if any particular group feels aggrieved as a result of perceived inadequacies in that review. If at this stage amendments were proceeded with to satisfy a particular group, all that would be happening would be that additional ad hockeries would be introduced into the legislation. This legislation is not doing anything but attempting to grapple with the technical problem, as I said earlier, and it is not the appropriate vehicle for honourable senators to use as an opportunity to advance the cause of particular interested groups in an ad hoc way. Senator Harradine was, I think, recognising that when he said that he was advocating the cause of particular groups but that those groups could be multiplied probably across the Commonwealth and that there may be a wide variety of others. The Government approaches the question in that way. The review is well under way. The appropriate time to deal with that question is at the time of the Government 's response to the review. Otherwise, in respect of the Taxation Administration Amendment Bill, I thank honourable senators for their support or acquiescence. This is a very practical and sensible measure. One of the most attractive things about it is that it alleviates what I regard as a very onerous burden on police forces. That is important, because they have the gravest difficulties as it is in carrying out a very unpalatable job on many occasions, and to have police forces involved in the serving of tax summonses and so on seems to be totally outmoded and to be bad from the point of view of bodies such as that. The Taxation Office will now only be availing itself of a facility of which many other organisations and groups throughout the community have availed themselves at a much earlier stage of history. I thank the Senate for its general support of the Bill. The Government will certainly note the comments made. They have, of course, already been made in the context of the review which is taking place of this the first major piece of legislation subjected to an amendment here today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.51) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I move: Page 2, clause 4, before paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: '(aa) by inserting after ''university'' in sub-paragraph (a) (vi) (C) of the definition of ''excluded debit'' in sub-section (1) '', or a voluntary school support organization,'';'. I do so despite the fervent plea by the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) because I believe there is a very serious anomaly which has been recognised by all political parties, by the previous Treasurer, by the present Treasurer (Mr Keating) and by honourable senators who have spoken today, and which is currently quite seriously affecting the voluntary school support organisations. I do not wish to drag out the debate on this matter. Honourable senators have indicated that a number of organisations deserve the same sort of reprieve as this amendment would give to the voluntary school support organisations. But I simply believe that this is a group which is in jeopardy at present in many areas of Australia and which needs every bit of relief which can be given to it to allow it to continue and to provide under extremely difficult conditions the services to the children in our community. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.52) —The Government opposes the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats. It does so, firstly, because this is not the appropriate mechanism for making a change of the kind sought by the Australian Democrats. This Bill is one to overcome a technical problem in the legislation. As was said in the second reading speech, the Bill is not intended to pre-empt the promised general review of the tax. That general review of the tax is under way. What I am in a sense appealing to Senator Jack Evans to understand is this: He is concerned about this little constituent group-a very important constituent group-but Parliament would look silly if, on the basis of his subjective judgment, it were to seek to amend the legislation in the way sought. I am certainly not prepared to make the judgment in this chamber, and I hope nobody else is, that parents and citizens associations are more aggrieved or more damaged by this legislation than Meals on Wheels, the Boy Scouts Association which Senator Harradine mentioned, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, or any other-- Senator Georges —Credit unions. Senator BUTTON —Credit unions, as Senator Georges says, or any other organisation which is aggrieved or may be aggrieved by the application of this tax. The Government has said that those matters will all be reviewed. That review involves making a series of relative value judgments. When the review is completed, the response will come back to the Parliament and then people such as the Australian Democrats will have an opportunity to say that the value judgments of the review are in their opinion wrong and that they would like to substitute their view for the view adopted by the comprehensive review which will take into account the views and opinions of all the groups concerned about and affected by the tax. That is the appropriate opportunity to do that. I do not dissent from the view that the voluntary associations associated with schools are very important. But, in the absence of the report of the comprehensive review, I am not in a position to say, and I honestly do not believe that other senators are in a position to say, that the burden imposed on those associations is of a qualitatively different nature from the burden imposed on others by this tax. Hundreds of representations have been made to honourable senators on behalf of various organisations, and of course made to the review. To amend this legislation to exempt one particular group of organisations from the tax without considering the claims of many others according to the same set of criteria is to reduce this Parliament to a piecemeal populist institution which, on the basis of off the cuff value judgments, determines that one group is more aggrieved qualitatively and is more adversely affected than another group. As I have said before, the review is under way and it will report early next year. Then is the time to deal with these matters, not in a technical Bill. There is a further reason for opposing the Australian Democrats' amendment. It is not clear what the expression 'voluntary school support organisation' means. For example, it does not appear to cover support organisations connected with colleges, universities or other educational bodies. Nor does it seem to cover organisations not connected with a particular school but only those concerned with promoting the interests, improvement and advancement of particular forms of education. It does not cover those. I mention these examples simply to bring home the point that was mentioned earlier that it is a piecemeal ad hoc amendment and these things often create more problems than they solve. I repeat that the Government will examine all these matters and will report to the Parliament in the course of its response to the review. For those reasons, I urge the Senate to oppose this amendment. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 29 November 1983, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 17 November 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.59) —The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 is a major Bill. It proposes 43 amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, some of which are of very considerable importance. The Senate may wonder why so many amendments, many of them perhaps of not such an important character, have been proposed to this legislation at a time when a major review, known as the tripartite review, is being undertaken of the Act. Indeed, I will be suggesting that some of the amendments to which the Opposition is opposed would be better left until that review has considered the problem and reported. I think the Parliament could then better consider some of these matters. However, the Opposition, despite the fact that there is this tripartite review, does support most of the amendments contained in this Bill. In fact, I believe the major amendments are ones that were the subject of initiatives by the present Opposition when in government last year. One major proposal was put forward in a Bill introduced by Mr Viner, when he was Minister, in March of last year, and another by Mr Macphee, when he was Minister, in October last year. These proposals are certainly supported by the Opposition although we do have an amendment in one respect. The first proposal provides for joint sittings of federal and State industrial tribunals, and the exercise in certain cases of federal jurisdiction by State tribunals and vice versa. It is designed to, and undoubtedly will, improve greatly the much required co-ordination among Australia's industrial tribunals. As I said, the proposal was introduced into Parliament last year, but its passage was not completed before the election. The second major proposal is for the rationalisation of the Public Service Arbitration Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and for the vesting of the Public Service Arbitrator's jurisdiction in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That amendment was introduced by Mr Macphee in October last year. That principle certainly has the strong support of the Opposition. I think it has been our policy for some time when in government that that should be achieved, and so the Opposition certainly welcomes that proposal. I believe they are the major purposes of this legislation. Although as I have said there is a total of 43 amendments, many of them are rather minor in nature and I do not propose to go through them. What I do propose is to mention some of the problems that the Opposition has with this legislation and on which we will be moving amendments. The first deals with the vesting of the Public Service Arbitrator's jurisdiction in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Opposition is concerned that this Bill will confer a greater power on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission than is presently exercised by the Public Service Arbitrator. That relates to the area of appointment and promotion in the Public Service. The existing provisions did put a brake on Public Service jurisdiction concerning these matters and by removing it, of course, there will be duality between the Public Service Board and the Commission in relation to Public Service recruitment and promotion. Ultimately it will take out of the hands of the Parliament, which has laid that responsibility on the Public Service Board, the control of Public Service staffing practices. The Opposition believes these matters should still remain with the Public Service Board, and that principle should not be modified in any way simply because the Public Service Arbitrator's jurisdiction is now incorporated in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. So we will be proposing an amendment to deal with that matter. We also believe the provisions in the Public Service Arbitration Act concerning powers in relation to stand-downs and the result of stand-down orders, which are spelt out in some detail in the Public Service Arbitration Act and which were incorporated in the legislation that Mr Macphee introduced, were carried over into the proposal that, when in government, we made for this rationalisation. Those provisions set out quite clearly that where an employee has been stood down he is not entitled to salary or allowances, long service leave, recreation leave and so on. I think this does accord with the principles which we debated in the Senate several weeks ago. We believe there are certain conditions relating to Public Service employment which are not necessarily the same as those in private employment. The Public Service does have certain special duties and obligations to the community. It has, as a result, certain privileges and protections such as tenure, very adequate superannuation and so on and there should be a corresponding higher obligation by members of the Public Service than would be expected from people in private employment. So the Opposition believes those provisions which emphasise that should also be included in the transfer of jurisdictions. The Opposition is also concerned about some provisions in the legislation concerning the registration of organisations and the effect that this will have on the position particularly of owner-drivers. When in government we, subject to some qualification regarding the extended definition of 'employee' in certain State Acts, implemented legislation in 1977 to seek to prevent the coercion of owner-drivers into membership of the federal union, the Transport Workers Union. In fact, it has transpired that as a result of that legislation a number of members of the federal union are not eligible to be members but in fact have continued to retain membership. Certain problems have arisen from that, admittedly; nevertheless, they remain members in defiance of the will of this Parliament and that legislation. This Bill proposes to validate the continuation of those memberships. It does not reverse the policy of the 1977 legislation as such, but it does validate the continuation of membership of those people who have remained on the books and have voted in elections and so on. So this is a proposal which does change that situation, and the Opposition believes it is wrong in principle. The situation in respect of owner-drivers generally is certainly a very vexed one. We do not believe there should be any extension of the provisions which enable owner-drivers to be members of the Transport Workers Union, be it a State or federal branch. The nature of the amendments contained in the Bill seems to be contrary to that policy. In New South Wales there is special provision for the registration of separate associations of owner-drivers and that would seem to be a much better approach than the previous one of extended definitions of ' employees' and thereby giving opportunities for recruitment and pressures and coercion to be placed upon owner-drivers to join unions of which they do not wish to be members. The result of that in the past has been that numbers of these people have, by the same methods, become members of the Federal union, even though that Federal union cannot give them service because they cannot be covered by Federal awards. The Opposition is very concerned about the extent to which coercion has been brought to bear on these people over the years, and we do not agree with any further extensions of a situation which may facilitate that sort of coercion being brought to bear. The Industrial Relations Bureau in its last report drew attention to the very great problem that this has created and the lack of success that the Bureau had in being able to solve it. In fact, it did not seem to be able to do much about it at all. The inadequacies of the existing legislation in relation to these matters-to prevent coercion, to provide for conscientious objections by these people-are most unsatisfactory. We believe that this is the proper area for consideration by the tripartite committee and that these matters would be better discussed in this Parliament after that committee has reported. We are opposed to any of the provisions in this legislation which seem to perpetuate or even enhance those problems. Another matter which concerns the Opposition is that this legislation amends the provisions for disqualification from office for offences that have been committed by officials or people who seek to become officials of unions. These provisions were introduced last year by Mr Macphee on behalf of the then Government. The Opposition believes that, except in one respect, the provisions should not be altered at this stage. Again it is a matter which the tripartite committee can look at, and perhaps it can make some further recommendations on it. To the Opposition, the piecemeal way in which the proposed changes are made in this Bill does not appear to be justified. The principle is certainly retained in these changes. They do not seek to remove the notion of offences disqualifying people from becoming officials of unions, but they seek to remove a number of offences from that category. It is difficult to see what justification there is for that except in regard to recklessness in conduct which leads to a conviction for violence. The Opposition accepts that that is justified because the circumstances in such a case do not necessarily relate to obligations that are relevant to the exercise of responsibilities as a union official. Some of the other offences that are sought to be amended, such as failure to comply with an order of the Federal Court or direction by the Federal Court to observe rules of the union, or failure to lodge with the Industrial Registrar details of moneys held by an organisation, or failure to lodge details of loans or donations, all seem to be matters which are highly relevant to the responsibilities of a union official and we believe that they should not be removed as disqualifications from the holding of union office. As I said, these few matters will be the subject of specific amendments which have been circulated, but apart from them the Opposition supports this Bill. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(12.15) —I support the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983. As with some of the previous industrial relations legislation introduced by this Government, this Bill represents a move to streamline the operation of trade unions and constitutes an important element of our prices and incomes accord. Before I go on to deal with some of the major components of the Bill I take this opportunity of pointing out to the Senate some of the aims and logic behind the accord. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) pointed out in the other place on 16 November, the accord provides the basis upon which this country can have a sustained economic recovery, a recovery which will give us growth in employment and a chance of getting unemployment down. In criticising the accord the Opposition is clearly out of touch with most business leaders. Recently the Director of the Confederation of Australian Industry, Mr Bryan Noakes, said that a tremendous amount of good work had been done in putting together the prices and incomes accord. The policies outlined in the accord quite rightly seek to maintain the living standards of wage and salary earners while at the same time creating a stable industrial relations environment which will form the basis for any lasting economic recovery. The accord details a whole range of policy matters, including of course the amendments we are now debating, and matters relating to industrial development, technological change, occupational health and safety and education. It would not be a bad idea if Opposition senators took a close look at the Government's report on its initiatives in the area of the prices and incomes policy, which lists no fewer than 65 decisions or announcements relating to areas dealt with in the accord. I now turn to some of the individual components of the Bill we are debating. As a former Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia I am pleased that these changes will finally be put into practice, because some of the existing legislation in this area has been a source of frustration for the trade union movement for a number of years. There are basically six major elements of this Bill and I will mainly deal with those relating to Commonwealth -State co-ordination, terms of office, common rules provision and casual vacancies. It needs to be said, of course, that part of this legislation consists of measures which were introduced by the former Government but which were interrupted by the double dissolution. I refer to the proposals for greater co-ordination between Commonwealth and State industrial systems and incorporation of the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator within the jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. As the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech, the measures contained in this Bill have all been thoroughly examined by the National Labor Consultative Council and have its complete support. The proposal for greater co- ordination between Commonwealth and State systems will remove some of the inflexible arrangements which presently exist. These measures are essentially those contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration (Complementary Industrial Relations System) Amendment Bill 1982. The changes will enable the two industrial systems to work in harmony to resolve industrial disputes, and will result in a much more highly effective operation. I turn now to the proposal concerning the term of office of union officials. Under the existing rules if a union official's term of office expires before the proposed date of his retirement, he must either stand for re-election and serve only part of that term, or retire early. This problem of unions running two elections one after the other and forcing many older officials into what is often a distressing situation for them has been a source of concern within the trade union movement for many years. This legislation allows for union officials who are due to retire within 12 months of the end of the scheduled term to remain in office until their retirement. The common rules provisions contained in this Bill will also be welcomed by the trade union movement in that they will remove certain anomalies that have also been a constant source of frustration. Under the existing provisions workers doing certain tasks within a particular territory do not receive changes in conditions or benefits at the same time as other workers doing similar tasks. These changes will end these delays and simplify the procedures in relation to award variations. I refer now to the amendment concerning the filling of casual vacancies. As the legislation now stands, casual vacancies must be filled by an election, irrespective of the remaining term of office. Naturally, this results in a lot of unnecessary expense for unions and has been a cause of concern within the trade union movement for many years. Under the amendment set out in this Bill, a casual vacancy can be filled without an election for the full term of the previous officer's term if that period does not exceed 12 months. Where the period does exceed 12 months, the vacancy may still be filled casually for a period not exceeding three-quarters of the original period. It seems to me that this is a very sensible and realistic provision and it will most certainly be welcomed by the trade union movement. Another example of the Government's desire to simplify and rationalise procedures in the industrial relations area is the section of this Bill which repeals the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920. The proposals contained in the Bill give the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission jurisdiction over employment matters within the Public Service or Commonwealth authorities. One important area of difference between this and previous legislation is in the area of stand-down provisions. This Bill does not contain provisions relating to the types of orders that may be made by the Commission in relation to the stand- down of employees. However, it needs to be stressed that this does not stop Public Service employers from obtaining stand-down orders. This is certainly consistent with the Government's general approach to industrial relations management. One final area I mention briefly concerns clause 23, which amends section 132F of the principal Act by reducing the range of offences under which people can be barred from holding office. Under these amendments, people can be barred only if their offences relate to matters specifically involved with union elections or to serious offences of violence or robbery, which seems to me to be fairer and more realistic. These amendments are long overdue. They will result in a streamlining of the industrial relations processes and will contribute greatly to the creation of a stable industrial environment. This is yet another fine example of the Government's consensus approach at work . It is certainly no coincidence that in our first nine months of office the level of industrial disputation in Australia has fallen dramatically. The latest figures on strikes released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics have shown that the level of industrial disputation is now at its lowest level for something like 12 years. Working days lost during strikes in August were the lowest since surveys began in 1970. As the report pointed out, the fall in active worker unrest has occurred across all major industry sectors. This Bill represents another step by this Government towards the creation of an efficient and fairer industrial relations system. It is a credit to the Government that it has acted so quickly in bringing in this legislation. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill and commend it to honourable senators. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.25) — This afternoon we are debating the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2). It is an omnibus Bill with 43 amendments dealing with various sections of industrial relations. As Senator Durack has already said, the previous Government had drafted many of the amendments in this proposed legislation. The legislation was not passed prior to the election, and we had no disagreement with it. However, there are areas of the current legislation to which we are in complete opposition. Senator Foreman said, I think, that all the amendments were supported by the National Labour Consultative Committee. That statement is not accurate. Perhaps it supported the majority of the amendments, but it did not support the repeal of the offences for which people can be debarred from holding office. Senator Georges —Well, it should have. Senator WALTERS —Senator Georges is not a member of the NLCC and it has other views. As an Opposition, we certainly share its views. Senator Georges —It has led to all sorts of harassment in the industry. Senator WALTERS —We will come to that matter at a later stage and Senator Georges can interject then if he so desires. Although the Opposition is happy about handing over to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the Public Service Arbitrator's jurisdiction, I believe that the Government has gone too far. It has handed over to the Arbitration Commission sections of administration dealing with appointments of officers, employment, reappointments and promotions. Indeed, it has taken out of the hands of management of the Public Service all those things with which management rightly deals. I do not believe that the Public of Australia feels that the government of the day or a private employer has not the right to make the promotions and appointments that it thinks fit. To take these matters out of the hands of the Public Service is quite ludicrous. We have recently debated those sections of the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Act dealing with the provisions of no work as directed no pay and the stand-down clauses that were repealed during that debate. The Government now seeks to repeal section 70J of the Public Service Arbitration Act, which section makes it clear that Commonwealth public servants who are stood down during strike action are not entitled to salary, wages or allowances during that stand- down period and that the stand-down period was not to be counted for purposes of recreation leave, sick leave or long service leave. I repeat the comment that I made at the time of that debate, namely, that public servants are in a very special area. They are very protected employees and I believe they bear a responsibility to the taxpayer who pays their wages. I believe they should not go on strike. They create tremendous problems in the servicing of the public when they go on strike. They create great disabilities when they go on strike. I refer, for example, to the strike by staff of the Department of Social Security which put pensioners and their financial positions at risk. However, I suppose now that the Government has already repealed those sections, this proposed change is in line with its thinking. We also object to those stand-down clauses being taken out on the ground of continuity. In regard to clause 22 (1), which seeks to amend section 132 of the principal Act, the intention of the Liberal Government's measure of 1977 was to legislate in two areas: First, to ensure that owner-drivers, who are self-employed people, where possible should not be forced to join the Transport Workers Union of Australia; secondly, to bring the legislation into line with that of the various States in regard to employee eligibility for union membership. The position in every State is different-the position in New South Wales is different from that in Queensland, South Australia or Western Australia. The position in Tasmania is quite different from that in all of the other States. The New South Wales legislation was amended in 1979 and this has created a problem for the Transport Workers Union-no one else. The New South Wales legislation enabled owner-drivers to join their own association. It allowed for the registration of associations of contract drivers, carriers and employing contractors. I believe that this was a very good thing but also owner-drivers were no longer deemed to be employees. As such, they were no longer deemed to be eligible for membership of the Transport Workers Union, but they have stayed on in that capacity. Clause 22 perpetuates a problem that we have had ever since the 1977 legislation was passed. The owner-drivers have been coerced and, in my State, actively intimidated, to become members of a union that cannot service them. At the moment the union is having a dispute with owner-drivers who are carting oil. The owner-drivers who belong to the union are facing a situation in which their union is having a dispute with other owner-drivers. They go to their union and say: 'Come on, what can you do for us?' and are told: 'There is nothing we can do for you'. Of course it cannot do anything for them. The dispute underlines the impossibility of owner-drivers ever belonging to the Transport Workers Union . I believe that the New South Wales legislation also made it possible for the Transport Workers Union to set up an association of contract drivers. As I understand it, because of the situation that I have just described, there is a terrible mess. It cannot fail to be so when one side of the union is fighting the other. Therefore, there is no way in which the Opposition could support clause 22 (1). Clause 22 (2) seeks to validate the union membership of those who, before the 1977 legislation, were eligible for membership of the Transport Workers Union and may have continued in a so-called voluntary capacity as members. There is no way in which anyone would be silly enough to pay union dues when he could not be serviced by a union. Membership is not undertaken voluntarily but rather as the result of intimidation on the part of the union. Indeed, in Tasmania a situation arose in which employees, owner-drivers, came to me and said 'what can we do about this? We are being coerced to join the Transport Workers Union'. I gave them a copy of the legislation and told them that they were not eligible for membership, that the union could not service them in any way and they should just go to it and say: 'There is the legislation; it is not legal for you to seek our membership'. When that occurred, the intimidation that went on was quite appalling. It is of no use for such people to go to the police and tell them what has occurred. The union will deny it. It is one man's word against another. The intimidation means that, because people are concerned for the welfare of their families, they will join the Transport Workers Union. By supporting clause 22 (2), we would be perpetuating that sort of action. Senator Cook —What if they wanted to join? Would you deny them the right to join ? Senator WALTERS —They have their own union or association, which they can join. Senator Cook —What if they want to join the Transport Workers Union and not some bogus organisation? Senator WALTERS —As I have just tried to explain to the Senate, Senator Cook, there is no point in joining a union that cannot give them any service or legally look after them. They must pay $85 in Tasmania to join a union that cannot do anything for them. When a dispute occurs, they say, 'You are my union; I am paying $85; what can you do for me?' and the union says: 'Nothing; we are in dispute with you'. Those exact words were used to the owner-drivers in Tasmania last week: 'There is nothing we can do for you; we are indeed in dispute with you'. Why on earth would anyone want to pay $85 a year for that sort of service? If Senator Cook has any questions at all about the matter he should go down to Tasmania and find out the situation; it is quite appalling. When I discussed this in front of Senator Harradine in committee-with industrial relations officers of the Transport Workers Union present-the statement was made: 'That cannot happen in Tasmania; we would not do that'. I asked whether they would investigate and report back to me and they said that they would not. Of course they would not. They know very well what goes on. Senator Gietzelt —Who are you? Senator WALTERS —I am a representative of the Tasmanian constituents who are being intimidated. I asked whether they would investigate my allegations. They said that they would not. They know that it goes on but have no intention of doing anything about it. Senator Harradine —What about those who desire to join the union? Senator WALTERS —I have already answered that. There would be no one who would pay $85 a year for something that could not provide them with any legal service- none at all. The union cannot look after them. They have their first dispute and the union says: 'We cannot help them'. Senator Harradine —There are more ways of representing the membership than that of getting an award. Senator WALTERS —Fine, then why is Senator Harradine, why is every union representative saying: 'If we allow voluntary membership of unions, people who are not union members should not get the award'? They never talk about anything else-'They should not get the award increases that the union worked so hard to get'. They know that that has priority. I come now to the question of repealing disqualification from holding office, something with which the NLCC does not agree. It is interesting to see what an array of offences is to be taken out of the legislation. I will be interested to hear from the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) at the Committee stage how the removal of the word 'reckless' is to be applied to behaviour in picket lines. While I acknowledge that there may be occasions on which such behaviour could occur unintentionally, I would be interested to know how, if the word 'reckless' is to be removed, we are to cope with certain behaviour in the picket lines. A number of serious, prescribed offences which debar people from holding office are to be removed. To mention a few, I refer to failure to comply with an order of the Federal Court under the prescribed offences section, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of $500, and failure to comply with the order of the Federal Court on the observance of organisation rules in respect of secret ballots. Other offences include the failure to comply with a direction of the Federal Court on the observance of rules of the organisation, failure to lodge with the Industrial Registrar details of money held by an organisation, failure to lodge with the Industrial Registrar details of loans or donations over $1,000 and so on. I believe the offences in regard to the unauthorised collection of moneys and the failure to keep audited financial accounts are very serious. Perhaps the most serious offence is that of falsely representing oneself in an application under the Act as a member of an organisation. This offence, indeed, entails a period of imprisonment. Those offences are to be taken out of the Act. Senator Foreman said that consensus had been reached on this matter. To me the Government seems to be supporting deceit within the union movement. I believe the removal of provisions that previously debarred people from holding office will create great problems for the honest union member. I am greatly concerned that the Government is willing to allow officers who have already refused to comply with court orders, who have made false representations and so on to become executive members of unions. Senator Foreman spoke about the lowest strike record under the present Government. He failed to mention, of course, that that lowest strike record is accompanied by the highest unemployment record . I believe that in many instances these two things go hand in glove. I will speak further on this Bill during the Committee stage. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(12.42) —In many respects the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 is a remarkable piece of industrial relation legislation, remarkable because its introduction has not been accompanied by loud banner headlines and because it has not been roundly condemned or supported by one group or another. There have been no newspaper advertisements, stoppages or complaints about it. In fact, the legislation before us is remarkable in that it is widely supported. Some of the provisions of the legislation are, of course, supported by the provisions of the prices and incomes accord and by the decisions of the National Economic Summit Conference. Most of the provisions are supported by the National Labour Consultative Council , that tripartite body of government, unions and employers. The legislation includes, of course, items introduced by the previous Government and supported by the Australian Labor Party which were not able to be carried through the last Parliament. Nearly all of the propositions in this legislation have been thoroughly canvassed. A remarkable degree of consensus has been achieved. In those areas where consensus has not been reached there has been a willingness to accept the compromise proposal that has been put by the Australian Government in this legislation. I suppose one can remark wryly that although bodies have been able to maintain their policy positions in NLCC discussions their preparedness to accept the legislation as it has been presented to the Parliament is perhaps an indication that they are not at all disatisfied with its contents. I think it is appropriate to say, therefore, that this legislation again demonstrates, as Senator Foreman rightly said, that the Government's course of pursuing consultation instead of confrontation is the right course. This once again demonstrates that the Labor Party is better at industrial relations than the Opposition. It demonstrates that the Labor Party has the ear of the unions, the respect of employers, and that because of its own philosophical background it knows this field and that it is a better industrial relations Government than the Liberal-National Party. As the time is now 12.45 p.m., I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 17 November 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a first time. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(12.45) —I wish to take the occasion of this first reading debate to pay a tribute to a great Australian novelist, playwright and essayist, Katharine Susannah Prichard, the centenary of whose birth falls on 4 December this year. There has been a resurgence of interest in literature and the arts of the 1930's, and one name emerges with special relevance in 1983. I refer to that of the author most read and best known of Australian novelists, Katharine Susannah Prichard, who in private life was Mrs Hugo Throssell, wife of Western Australia's first Victoria Cross recipient in World War I. Her son, Ric Throssell, is returning to Australia from London where he has been Director of the Commonwealth Foundation at Marlborough House. As literary heir of Katharine Susannah Prichard he has been invited to attend the centenary arrangements made by the Fellowship of Australian Writers under the presidency of Mr Brian Dibble, head of the School of English at the Western Australian Institute of Technology. The Western Australian branch of the Fellowship of Australian Writers has commissioned Australia Post to produce a special post marker to be used at the Claremont Post Office in Western Australia on 5 December only. In addition, a commemorative envelope has been produced. This is printed with a new 30c stamp with the coat of arms of Western Australia and a design incorporating a portrait of Katharine Susannah Prichard. A quality philatelic collectors item, this envelope is available from the Fellowship of Australian Writers in Western Australia. Murdoch University has prepared an exhibition of letters, books and memorabilia to be opened on 4 December in the foyer of its main library. The exhibition will be there for a long period, culminating in Open Day 1984. A program of events to mark the centenary of Katharine's birth includes fixing of a bronze plaque on the Throssell home at No. 11 Old York Road, Greemount, where almost all of the writings of the author were completed and where she died in 1969. Translated into hundreds of copies in very many languages, including Byelo-Russian, Rumanian, Latvian, Chinese, Italian, German and Hungarian, her trilogy of the gold fields, the Roaring Nineties, is probably the best known of her works among international readers. Novels, poems, short stories, plays, an autobiography and biographies by known contemporaries number hundreds when counted with articles in current journals and items of reportage from the journalist-before-the-novelist. A noted radical writer, she drew commentaries from far and wide beyond the boundaries of her own country as well as within it. In a work published in Australia in 1975 by Angus and Robertson, written by her son, Ric Throssell, a complete list of such bibliography appears as appendices and is invaluable. The title, derived from one of her poems, is Wild Weeds and Wind Flowers. Katharine, all her long life, wrote to her son regularly when he was serving abroad with the Department of Foreign Affairs, when he was living in Canberra or when he was on service in Papua New Guinea. Those letters are invaluable evidence of the strong tie between mother and son and furnish the fabric of his biography. Katharine Susannah guarded jealously her son's rare visits to their home in Greenmount. The book that he wrote flows over the years of the life of this precious and revered author, and reveals more of her personality than have all her volumes of writing. She ordered all unpublished manuscripts to be destroyed on her death, wanting to be known only by those standards or authorship which she set herself. The centenary of her birth will honour the woman, the activist, the author and the member of intimates who set standards for Australian literature in its own right, divorced from the trammels of British colonialism. Katharine Susannah Prichard was a true Australian and proud to claim the title of an Australian realist author. Late last year I had the honour and the privilege of launching a collection of Katharine Susannah Prichard's previously unpublished essays and speeches collected by her son and published by Wild and Wolley. Having read this book, I found myself for days wondering constantly how this or that current event would affect her. During her lifetime, I had the honour of meeting Katharine Susannah on several occasions. I know that, as an activist and a feminist, she would have been inevitably distressed by the ascendance of libertarian economism in Australia over recent years, its regressiveness, its naked, crass social Darwinism and its lack of humanity and compassion. I know that she would have written, spoken and agonised against the threat of nuclear war and against the growing impoverishment of poor nations and peoples while the rich get richer. I think, like me, she would have been delighted with some progressive aspects of late twentieth century politics and perhaps diverted to read, as I did recently in a newspaper, an account of a by-election in England in which it was stated that one candidate had perhaps an unfair advantage of a blooming six-month pregnancy! There have been changes-some good, some bad, some catostrophic-to the society that she so aptly described in the course of her long life. Australians, women particularly, must take heart and courage from her writing, but more importantly from the radiance, the sincerity, the passion and compassion which permeate all of her works. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-In recent weeks considerable attention has been paid to the fact that Cruise missiles have been placed in Western Europe. I think it is useful, since world attention is now focused on this new and dangerous weapon, to raise this issue here in the Senate as a matter not only of information but also of analysis. Cruise missiles are basically small unmanned aircraft armed with both nuclear and conventional explosive warheads. They are able to be launched from planes, submarines, ships or ground vehicles. They are undoubtedly very accurate missiles. In fact, it is estimated that they are able to hit a target within 100 to 300 feet after a 1,500 mile flight, which is extraordinarily accurate. They are relatively inexpensive, costing something of the order of $2m each. Undoubtedly, these missiles bring a new dimension to the arms race which may be such as to threaten an end to any effective arms control in the future. I think it should be understood that these weapons are unique to the United States. No other nation in the world has comparable weapons. I have no doubt that the Soviets are developing similar weapons, but they do not have them at the moment. That they are probably developing them could be drawn from the institutional insanity of the cycle of escalation which afflicts this world. The United States in its current plans, and with the agreement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries, will within the next three years encircle the Soviet Union with some 5,000 Cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads. Another 4,000 conventionally armed Cruise missiles are being planned. These will be identical in appearance to their nuclear counterparts. This is where problems will undoubtedly arise in the future. Verification, which is essential to any arms control, will no longer be possible through the established satellite monitors. Close physical inspection will be required in order to distinguish a conventionally armed Cruise missile from a nuclear armed Cruise missile. Cruise missiles are seen by the Soviet Union as first-strike weapons. Their ablity to fly at less than 200 feet, hugging the terrain, makes them elusive targets that probably can easily evade current Soviet defences. The Cruise missiles which are currently being deployed in Europe are only one of three types of Cruise missiles, the other types being the sea-launched Cruise missile and the air-launched Cruise missile. The air-launched Cruise missiles are already abundant in the United States Air Force and the placement in B52 bombers of some 1,700 more Cruise missiles will soon be completed. Once the installation is completed, the original programs will be replaced and the advanced Cruise missile which is currently undergoing trials will be introduced. Of course, the advanced Cruise missile incorporates new stealth technology which will render its operation almost invisible to radar. The United States Navy has plans to acquire some 4,000 sea-launched Cruise missiles by 1990. These will be deployed on surface ships and submarines. The danger with the surface-launched missiles is that they are only 20 feet long and can easily be deployed on merchant vessels or on fishing trawlers. Such deception will undoubtedly promote additional fears and will feed the Soviet paranoia in relation to the West. The ground-launched missiles, those which are now being deployed in Europe, have a destructive power of 10 to 50 kilotons. This is equivalent to one to five Hiroshima-sized bombs on each missile. These weapons which are currently being deployed in Europe-the current target for the ensuing year is 464 ground-launched Cruise missiles and 108 Pershing 2 missiles-are, I believe, being deployed on false premises. As Senator Chipp said yesterday, these missiles are not needed as a response to the Soviet SS-20 missile-as is now the accepted conventional wisdom. The United States deployment of Cruise and Pershing 2 missiles began before the SS-20 appeared on the scene. These missiles were not a response to the SS-20. The Soviets have now grasped the excuse to escalate again the deployment of their own missiles in Eastern Europe. It is a fact that since 1959 the Soviet Union has had the capacity to devastate the whole of Western Europe with nuclear weapons. The SS-20 missile is part of a modernisation program that replaces old missiles with the original intent of not increasing the total number of weapons. The original operation in which the Soviets were engaged would not have changed the military situation in Europe. The Kremlin has now moved from that position and has used the Cruise missile as an excuse for its own escalation in Western Europe. The extra 570 new nuclear warheads which are currently being deployed will certainly upset the parity of nuclear arsenals that exist in Europe at the moment. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw Pact have some 6, 000 nuclear warheads each. That includes the SS-20 in the Warsaw Pact total, but it does not include the new placements of the United States and NATO forces. The 6,000 nuclear warheads on each side certainly explain very clearly the concern and fears in Europe that a third world war and any nuclear engagement would lead to the destruction and total devastation of Europe. The Soviet walkout from the intermediate range nuclear missile talks in Geneva was extremely serious. I believe it was an unacceptable act on the part of the Soviet Union. I believe it is an illustration of the intent on both sides to escalate further the nuclear arms race. For the sake of the world an agreement must be reached. The inflexibility of the United States and Soviet Russia in relation to this holds the rest of the world to ransom. Large scale Cruise missile deployments have probably extinguished for the first time the rather faint hopes that people had of successfully controlling at this stage the current nuclear arms race. The problem was foreseen very early on. At some stage it was forseen that the problem would escalate out of all proportion. I think that time is now. Basically, the way out has been known for a long time. In addition to the now stalled INF negotiations there should be an attempt to combine those negotiations with the ensuing strategic arms reduction talks which , luckily, are still in progress. I believe the concentration which has been placed on the super-powers' intercontinental missiles is certainly useful from the point of view of the United States and the Soviet Union, but in no way allays the fears of Europe. I think that the combination of those talks could provide a larger and much more workable framework for negotiation and agreement. I think that by keeping the talks separate both countries are contributing in many ways to the continuation and escalation of the nuclear arms race. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has appointed an Ambassador for Disarmament. I think that all Australians support that initiative and would support the work that the Ambassador is doing. I believe that in many ways we need to go beyond that. That could very well be seen merely as a token gesture as to where Australia stands in relation to disarmament. I believe that without some bold initiatives from countries such as ours future generations, if there are future generations, will be able to blame us. It is at this point basically that any turning point, any attempt to limit nuclear weapons, must be made. Essentially I believe the deployment of the Cruise has done two things: Firstly, it has put into the whole proposition an extremely dangerous and new weapon. Secondly it has put in a weapon which has the potential of not being able at any stage in the future to be incorporated into a general agreement or arms limitation. That seems to be an advance beyond anything that we have had up to now. As many people have expressed to me in recent weeks, it seems as if we as a race are on a slide into inevitable destruction. I believe this problem really reduces all other problems that we face to mere insignificance. Without initiatives and constant effort on the part of our Government I believe we are not playing our role as an important nation in the world to prevent the ultimate catastrophe. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 1.07 to 2 p.m. Senator MESSNER —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that the employment of 100 additional taxation valuers has been approved as part of the implementation of the proposed assets test? Is it a fact that these positions are to be full time because the Australian Taxation Office argued that there would be additional work to justify them in the future? In view of Senator Grimes's acknowledgment in Labor Essays that, to be consistent, those who argue for an assets test could also promote a wealth tax-- Senator Chipp —Have you read my book, too? Senator MESSNER —It does not read quite as well as his, actually. Does the employment of these full time valuers indicate that a wealth tax, such as the capital gains tax so strongly advocated by Senator Button, is in the pipeline? Senator BUTTON —It does not indicate anything of the sort. It is a ridiculous chain of logic on which Senator Messner has embarked. I do not propose to answer the question beyond saying no. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I would like to know, therefore, what the additional valuers will be doing in the Taxation Office? The PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a supplementary question. Senator MESSNER —It is part of my original question. The PRESIDENT —Order! I regard a supplementary question as one which seeks additional information. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. In yesterday's House of Representatives debate on the pensions assets test, Mr Peacock cited an example of an age pensioner with $60,000 in cash from the sale of her home who he says, would be severely disadvantaged by the pensions assets test. This cash would, he said, reduce her weekly pension from $85.90 to approximately $43. Will the Minister comment on the accuracy of these allegations? Senator GRIMES —Mr Peacock, as usual, betrays flaws in logic and mathematics in his statement during the debate which I noted in reading Hansard today. Under the proposed assets test, the lady in question would receive $44.65 a week in pension plus $10 a week in supplementary rent assistance, a total of $54.65 a week. If the proceeds of the sale of her home were invested in, say, Australian Savings Bonds at 11.75 per cent, her investment income would be $7,500 a year or $135.60 a week bringing her total weekly income to $190.25 a week. Mr Peacock's calculations appear to assume that she would earn no income whatsoever from the substantial sum of money she had to invest. I hope that, in assuming that, Mr Peacock is not advocating that we actually maintain the situation where people put large sums of money in interest free deposits. Senator Chipp —There would be tax involved, though. Senator GRIMES —By contrast, Senator Chipp, under the current pensions income test, that investment income which she would receive would reduce her pension to $33.10 a week and entirely wipe out her supplementary rental assistance. She would be $21.55 a week worse off than under the proposed assets test. I now turn Mr Peacock's question on himself. I ask: Is he prepared to face the fact that this lady will be $21.55 a week worse off under his Party's policy of repealing the proposed assets test than she will be under the proposed assets test. I think in this sort of situation and in others Mr Peacock may believe he is scoring political points but, in fact, he is adding unnecessarily to the anxiety of people in the community such as the lady he mentions. Senator LAJOVIC —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the income deprivation elements of the proposed assets test. Are all pensioners to be subject to the five-year retrospective review of the disposal of income and assets which is to take place in 1988? What is the expected cost of such a review? How many additional staff would be expected to be required to undertake it? Senator GRIMES —I am not clear about the exact point of Senator Lajovic's question. Certainly, in order to have an income deprivation provision one must have a provision which accounts for the fact that people cannot deprive themselves of income before reaching a pensionable age and therefore artificially manipulate the system. We cannot do that retrospectively nor do we intend to do it retrospectively. It would mean that, in 1988, provided the pensions assets test had been in for that length of time, there would be such a review of new applicants. I cannot tell Senator Lajovic at the moment exactly how many extra people that exercise would require. One would think that it would not require any more than the people who have been employed to administer the assets test until 1988. However, I will look at the details of Senator Lajovic's question in Hansard and make sure that I give him a more detailed reply. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Have any decisions been made that would improve the financial viability of the Australian National Line, particularly in relation to the shipping of cargo to Europe? Senator GIETZELT —A month or two ago I read a report with respect to proposals to give the Australian National Line greater access to the European market. I am advised that negotiations have been underway for some time between the European shipping conference and the Australian National Line with a view to Australia getting a more equitable share of the trade that flows between that part of the world and Australia. I understand that those negotiations have led to an agreed decision being made that the ANL will be able to participate more in that process of increased trade than hitherto. Senator Childs asked about the financial viability of ANL. Naturally, of course, if ANL gets increased trade between Europe and Australia, its financial viability will be considerably enhanced. That is a very desirable position from the point of view of the Australian Government and Australia's exporters because, if we do have a more viable shipping organisation, and if we are able to place it on a better financial basis, clearly, it will require less subsidisation from the Australian taxpayer as well as improving and making a success of an important public facility. Senator HAINES —Has the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs received a submission from a group of South Australian women pointing out the problems facing mature age women engaging in part time study? Does she agree that these women face problems additional to those faced by other students, particularly as far as finance is concerned? Does she agree that it is very difficult for these women to cover the costs of their education relating to such things as books, travel, child care and so on when they do not qualify for the tertiary education assistance scheme and when they are not able to claim education expenses as a tax deduction for the simple reason that they do not earn any money themselves, being solely dependent on their husbands? Does the Minister see any need to amend the present system to remove existing anomalies such as those affecting married women returning to part time study, by, for example, extending TEAS to cover part time mature age students or altering the taxation system so that one spouse can claim a deduction for the education costs of a non-working partner? Senator RYAN —I have received the submission to which Senator Haines referred, from a group of mature age women students in South Australia. I shall ensure that it is directed to the Tertiary Education Commission, and to the Office of Status of Women for consideration of the proposals that the women make in it. The Government is very well aware of the difficulties experienced by mature age women, without adequate financial resources, in attempting to undertake study. The guidelines for money that we made available for extra participation in tertiary institutions this year specifically stated that women were one of the groups we hoped that institutions would respond to and assist in whatever way they needed to have increased access. The question of child care is a very difficult one for women in this situation. I have directed the Tertiary Education Commission to review its previously announced policy of not making tertiary funds available for child care, because in our Government's view access to campus based child care is often essential if women are to be able to undertake further studies. I am awaiting a reply from the Commission on the child care issue. With regard to the specific proposals, such as extending the tertiary education assistance scheme to women who are part time students or, indeed more generally, to part time students, the whole question of TEAS is being reviewed within my Department. There are very many anomalies in the application of TEAS, as I am sure every honourable senator will realise. The only problem, I suppose, for the Government is that any removal of those anomalies will result in more Budget outlays. In our first Budget we had an extremely difficult situation with which to come to terms and thus were unable to increase very significantly the amount of money available for expenditure on TEAS. However, I believe that the needs of these women will be examined by the TEAS review. Similarly, the Economic Planning Advisory Council is currently considering anomalies in the taxation system, and I believe that that would be an appropriate area to which to direct the question of increasing or changing eligibility for tax rebates in a way that might assist these women. The Government wishes to support the efforts of women who are trying to get themselves more training and qualifications, and it is looking across the range of policies by which it might be able to do that. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Attorney-General to the Keystone Cops activities of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service in its exercise at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne last night. Is it a fact that ASIS is a body which is not regulated in any way by a legislative charter? Is it also a fact that ASIS is accountable neither at law for its actions nor in its financing? Did Royal Commissioner Hope , in the report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security, find that ASIS had from time to time acted illegally, but did not recommend procedures to stop such activities? Despite the inadequacy of Mr Justice Hope's then response, and in the interests of accountability of security organisations, will the Minister and the Government urgently consider the establishment of a legislative framework to control the activities of ASIS? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think the best way in which I can answer at least the preface to Senator Bolkus's question is by reading into the Senate record the substance of an answer that has just been given in the House of Representatives by Mr Hayden, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whose ministerial responsibility this mercifully is. When I use the expression 'I', I am to be taken to be referring in this concept to Mr Hayden, but at the same time I make it clear that I fully endorse Mr Hayden's sentiments in this respect, because the Government, while it will strongly defend legitimate security activity, is not in the business of defending the indefensible. The statement is as follows: Honourable members will be aware that last night a particularly nasty and, as far as I am concerned, intolerable incident occurred at the Sheraton Hotel, Melbourne. That incident arose from an Australian Secret Intelligence Service training exercise. I should make clear from the start that that incident took place without my knowledge, without my authority, and certainly without my consent. This applies to all other members of the Government. I have promptly put in train action to have a high-level investigation conducted into all aspects of this matter. I will come back to this point in a few seconds. The scenario for the exercise I refer to entailed the lodging at the Sheraton Hotel of a 'hostage' under guard by two supposed strong armed men. The trainees in question had been instructed to rescue the supposed agent and take him to safe custody, meanwhile neutralising the two supposed guards. The emphasis of the exercise was the use of deception and subterfuge to gain control of the supposed hostage. Instead the trainees chose a violent attack on the room of the hotel in which the supposed hostage was held under guard. There followed involvement of the trainees with the hotel management and guests at the hotel including use of force on the part of the trainees. It is clear to me that the exercise was either poorly conceived, poorly put into operation, or both. The trainees were not authorised to use and should not have used force or pretended force against hotel property, members of the public or hotel staff. The explanation provided by the Director-General of ASIS shows that no prior arrangements were made with the Victoria Police or the hotel management. I believe that the exercise should not have been conducted without such arrangements being in place with the approval and full knowledge of those two authorities. I have expressed in the clearest terms imaginable- I believe this bit- to the Director-General of ASIS my extreme condemnation of the exercise. I make no excuses for-in fact I have only the sternest condemnation of-the conduct of the exercise to the point of the hotel manager's intervention. Nonetheless, at that point of intervention this unjustifiable behaviour should have ceased. Certainly the hotel management staff or bystanders should not have become involved in the exercise and the trainees should have desisted from further participation and asked for the police to be called. The Victoria Police were called to the scene of the incident last night and subsequently arrested several of the trainees, who were later released after questioning. I have been in contact with the Victorian Premier, Mr John Cain, and have apologised about this incident. I continue to maintain contact with him on this matter. I have been in contact with the New South Wales Premier, Mr Neville Wran , to seek approval for an immediate and full investigation to be conducted into this matter by Mr Justice Hope, who is currently conducting the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. The New South Wales Government has given its approval for Mr Justice Hope to conduct that inquiry. Mr Justice Hope has been contacted and has undertaken to commence investigation into this matter promptly, and tomorrow the first initiatives of that investigation will be under way. I hope for an early report on the matter, and of course, bearing in mind any obligations about classified security matters which might come up, the report will be made available to the Parliament. Justice Hope has been asked to explore all aspects of this exercise including the way in which it was prepared and developed, the manner in which it was put into operation, the general conduct of all people associated with it, and whether any person exceeded his proper authority in relation to this matter. It is my understanding that the current terms of reference for the Royal Commission which Mr Justice Hope is conducting are sufficient to allow him to conduct this inquiry. Justice Hope has ensured that this inquiry will be dealt with with the greatest dispatch. In a more general way I have instructed that the whole question of ASIS training be reviewed without delay. Quite clearly specific guidelines need to be drawn up laying down firm rules including a requirement for prior consultation with other authorities or other people likely to become involved in or have some proper concern about particular training projects. The matter of firearms, which the trainees were carrying during last night's exercise but without live ammunition, will also be attended to. On a more substantial level Mr Justice Hope has also been asked as part of the more extensive inquiry he is conducting into ASIS to consider also these matters. Let me conclude by saying that the Government regards last night's incident as thoroughly inexcusable, in no way seeks to excuse it, and certainly will not condone it. Naturally I have been in close contact with the Prime Minister on this matter and will continue to report to him on developments. As a matter of courtesy I will ensure that the Opposition Leader is also advised of any relevant developments in this matter. I was further asked by Senator Bolkus: Is it a fact that ASIS is not regulated by any legislative charter? That is so. I was further asked by Senator Bolkus: Is ASIS not accountable at law for any of its actions? That is not so, and for anything that it does within this country it is accountable to the law in the same way as is any other organisation or citizen. That is a matter that is being considered now by the Victorian authorities, with whom the capacity for launching prosecutions, if appropriate, lies. I was further asked by Senator Bolkus about financing and whether ASIS is not accountable for its financing. In that respect, the ASIS budget is part of the larger budget for the Department of Foreign Affairs, and there may be no direct accountability in the way that there is for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, which is a separately established statutory organisation. Whether or not ASIS should have some legislative charter of its own is clearly one of the matters that will be addressed by Mr Justice Hope in the second part of his inquiry already in train, as well as, no doubt, these quite deplorable events that I have retailed today. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the fact that, under the income deprivation provisions of the proposed assets test, non-pensioner spouses of pensioners will be treated, in fact, as pensioners. Does the Sex Discrimination Bill presently before the Parliament set out to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the grounds of sex or marital status in the area of the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs? Does the Minister agree that the classifying of non-pensioner spouses in this way is discrimination on the grounds of marital status, and how is this action justifiable in the light of the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Bill? Senator GRIMES —The answer to the first part of Senator Walters's question is that if she reads the Sex Discrimination Bill she will find that the application of the Social Servies Act is excluded from the Bill. Secondly, I do not believe that the matter she has raised is an example of sex discrimination at all. It is a matter of limiting as much as possible people's capacity to circumvent either the income test at the moment or the assets test in the future, should that assets test pass into legislation. Senator WALTERS —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I did not say sex discrimination; I was referring particularly to discrimination on the ground of marital status. While the Minister said it is all right to discriminate on the ground of marital status in the social security legislation, he said he did not believe the matter I raised was discrimination on the basis of sex. I am talking about marital status. Senator GRIMES —Dear me, it must be pedantics day today. I said it is my understanding that the Sex Discrimination Bill presently before the Senate excludes that Bill from applying to the Social Services Act, whether the discrimination is on the ground of the sex or marital status. I am sorry if I used the shorthand 'sex'; that is the shorthand reference in this place to the Bill. I correct that in a pedantic way and say that on the grounds of sex or marital status the Act is excluded. Therefore, to the first part of Senator Walters's question, whether this is contrary to the Sex Discrimination Bill, my answer is no, because the Social Services Act is excluded from such application. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. What is the Government's reaction to the result of the recent bond tender, reported in today's Press, which confirmed further falls in interest rates? Senator Chaney —It is appalled by the money supply figures. Senator MAGUIRE —This is obviously a very sensitive subject. Is the Government now looking to reductions in home mortgage interest rates charged by the private banks, particularly in view of the fact that the private banks did not match the recent half per cent reduction in home loan interest rates recently made by the Commonwealth Savings Bank? Senator BUTTON —The Government is pleased with the interest rates situation resulting from the bond tender of 29 November. Senator Chaney —How is the money supply? Senator BUTTON —I might say, for Senator Chaney's edification, that the question I have just been asked was not a dorothy dixer; I was not aware of it coming. However, I am grateful to Senator Maguire for making the opportunity available, by his question, to provide a very limited reaction and say that the Government is content with the response to the bond tender of 29 November. The results are very satisfactory and confirm the general decline in interest rates which has been taking place. I simply make the additional point that many interest rates have already been lowered. Prime overdraft interest rates have gone down 2 1/2 per cent since the end of March and home loan rates have been reduced by 0.5 per cent, I am not sure when but within the last few weeks. Of course, the Government would be pleased to see these rates come down further and we are hopeful that that process will continue to take place. Insofar as any further ramifications of the honourable senator's question are concerned, I will obtain a more detailed answer from the Treasurer and advise him. Senator KILGARIFF —Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree with the Prime Minister's view, reported in today's Australian newspaper, that uranium is unimportant as an issue in the Northern Territory? Is this extraordinary opinion a reflection of Mr Hawke's disregard for the very real concerns of Territorians, who are faced with the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of job creating investment in uranium mines, and Aboriginal traditional owners in particular, who have been robbed of millions in expected royalty payments and who must now continue to exist on government handouts? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of the statement made by the Prime Minister but I assume that it was made in the particular context of saying that a number of things are important to Territorians in the course of the election campaign which is now taking place and having regard to their general view of the future of the Northern Territory. Senator Kilgariff has taken it upon himself to take a very subjective view of what the feelings, as he puts it, of Northern Territorians are on these matters. I do not think he is necessarily the most astute judge. Senator Kilgariff came into this Parliament representing the National Country Party, representing the feelings of that party, and once he got in this Parliament he changed from the Country Party to the Liberal Party. Whose feelings was he representing then? Senator Withers —You are wrong. Senator BUTTON —Senator Withers says I am wrong. He has come to life, after seven years of silence in the Senate, to tell me I am wrong, I suppose on a point of detail. The point is that Senator Kilgariff came into this Parliament under one set of colours and changed to another. Whose feelings was he representing then? I do not know whether his subjective judgment about this matter is right or wrong. It is probably no better than the Prime Minister's. I would have thought that a whole range of issues would be relevant to the people in the Northern Territory in the coming election. I cannot make the same sort of value judgments about that which Senator Kilgariff purports to make. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. It has recently been brought to the attention of the community at large that there is a connection between the past use of a drug, which was a synthetic oestrogen known as diethylstilboestrol, or DES and genital tract abnormalities and cancer. Has the Minister taken any steps to publicise this matter or to provide special diagnostic centres? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Hearn says, the drug diethylstilboestrol, or DES has long been known to be associated with the development of adenosis of the vagina or adenocarcinoma of the vagina in the offspring of women who have taken it during pregnancy. In the 1940s, largely, this substance was used for all sorts of things including, incorrectly, for the prevention of miscarriages, the suppression of lactation and a couple of other uses not associated with pregnancy. So this association has been known for some time and the drug is no longer used for these purposes. For years there has been considerable publicity about this connection. As far back as 1972 the Drug Evaluation Committee in Australia made this known to doctors, and I can remember that in 1975 and several times since there has been considerable information on it in medical literature. I doubt that there is a doctor in Australia who is not aware of this association. In Victoria, largely as a result of the activities of an organisation called DES Action, a conjoint program organised by the Victorian Government in co-operation with the Royal Australasian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has established a referral clinic at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne. An excellent booklet has been produced for doctors in Victoria which has had an distribution even beyond Victoria. In New South Wales a similar clinic operates at the King George V Memorial Hospital in Sydney. In the other States, largely because of lower population, less comprehensive action has been taken. The establishment of central referral clinics such as this is always a difficult thing in the medical profession, as anyone knows who is associated with them, and it is a particularly sensitive issue, I can assure honourable senators, amongst gynaecologists. The problem of the association of these diseases with the use of this drug is primarily one of detection, diagnosis and treatment. The drugs are not used in this way any more. Although it is an important problem from the point of view of all those individuals who may be affected and from the point of view of receiving early treatment, it is worthwhile remembering that, from memory, only seven cases of this form of adenocarcinoma have been reported to the Drug Evaluation Board. That does not mean they are the only cases but they would be a large proportion of the cases. There are also a few cases of adenosis of the vagina. So although it is a very important condition I would not like to give the impression that it is a very widespread condition or the incidence was large in our community. I repeat that that does not put down the importance of what DES Action, the Victorian Government, the New South Wales Government and the College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are doing. Since the early 1970s there has been any amount of publicity given to this subject both directly by governments and through the medical literature; so, as I say, I doubt that there is a doctor in this country who is not aware of this potential problem. Senator SCOTT —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it is a fact that the review of the Australian system of tariff preferences, which commenced in December last year and which the Minister promised would be completed by June this year, is now completed. Is it also a fact that the submission from the Department of Industry and Commerce on the review is meeting opposition in Cabinet from the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs? Will the Minister now inform the Senate when the Government's long awaited decision on this very important issue will finally be announced? Senator BUTTON —It is true that the system was the subject of a review which commenced in December last year. I am asked whether I promised it would be completed by June. I am not sure that I was as precise as that, senator, but I certainly gave some indication that it would be finished as quickly as possible, and I thought by the middle of this year. The review is now completed. It is true that there is opposition to the findings of the review. I am not able to say precisely when the results of the examination of the review report will be complete and a decision announced. I think in part it is likely to be dependent on overseas visits made by certain Ministers in the near future. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters seen a report in the Canberra Times headed: 'P.S. Compo Bill over $100 million'? This article is based on the annual report of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation tabled yesterday, which points to a 33.1 per cent increase in payout in the last year. Can the Minister say whether this report is troubling to the Government and what steps will be taken to reduce this figure? In particular, will there be promotion of occupational health and safety measures to reduce accidental, injury and ill health in the Public Service? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen the report to which Senator Crowley refers but the contents of it have been drawn to my attention, and particularly the fact that the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation has estimated an increase of 33 per cent in payments under the scheme. I do not at this moment know the reason for this. That would require an examination of the report, I take it, and I will try to obtain a more detailed answer for Senator Crowley on the reasons for that very substantial increase in payments. Senator Crowley further asked if the Government was concerned about this. I speak only for myself, but I am sure I can say that of course the Government has to be concerned about this. I am also asked whether there are any steps being taken by the Government to try to redress the cost and damage which has been done by these increases in payments. Specifically I was asked whether the occupational health and safety proposals of the Government will assist in reducing the burden of compensation payments. Let me say that it is the Government's hope and belief that greater attention to occupational health and safety will assist with the reduction of compensation burdens not only under the Commonwealth legislation but also under the legislation of the various States. This is an issue which has been neglected by governments-I am not making a political point when I say this-for far too long in the face of enormous evidence of rising costs, industrial accidents and industrial illnesses in respect of which little has been done. The proposals of this Government in respect of occupational health and safety, and particularly the proposals to establish a national occupational health and safety commission, are a very important step forward in trying to tackle this issue. That commission, of course, will work in conjunction with State authorities. As I say, whilst no overnight or magical solution can be found to these vast expenditures in relation to industrial accidents and work associated illnesses, it is a first and very positive step which we believe will bring results for the benefit of the Australian community in the future. Senator BOSWELL —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Communications seen a Press release in the Sydney Daily Tele- graph of Saturday, 15 October which is headed: 'ABC Chief calls for school sex training'? Mrs Wendy McCarthy, the Deputy Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation said: 'Schools should introduce masturbation training programs for teenagers'. She also said: ' It would help them to become better sexually adjusted'. Senator Chipp —Are you against that? Senator BOSWELL —Yes, I am. She also said: 'It was time that masturbation was treated sensibly and taught by special teachers in schools'. Can the Minister inform the Senate if this is the official policy of the ABC? Does the Government endorse Mrs McCarthy's views? If the Government does not endorse the views of Mrs McCarthy will the Minister reprimand her for making these statements, as he did with her predecessor Professor Leonie Kramer? If the Government does not support these views and finds them offensive will the Minister give the Senate a categorical commitment that Mrs McCarthy's name will not be put forward as the commissioner for sex discrimination? Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I am fascinated by the honourable senator's interest and concern about this topic. I must say that while he was asking the question I was wondering what his own view was, but as it comes in the form of a question of course it is my responsibility to say what the Government's position is in relation to this matter. First of all let me say it is not the Government' s position to interfere in the program content of the ABC. It is not our function-- Senator Walters —When did you change your view on that one? Senator BUTTON —I changed my view on that one after I was chastised by Senator Walters. It was only after Senator Walters said a few words in the Senate about it that I changed my view. Senator Peter Baume —You really left yourself open. Senator BUTTON —Are you talking about the last incident or today? The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to answer Senator Boswell's question. Senator BUTTON —For the enlightenment of Senator Boswell, Miss McCarthy has denied that she said any such thing and said that the allegation to which the honourable senator referred is nonsense. That is my understanding of the matter. But, irrespective of whether she said that, it is not the Government's business to interfere in ABC program making. That is the position adopted by the Government. Senator COOK —Has the Minister for Industry and Commerce seen newspaper reports of statements made by Mr Arthur Dunkel, the Director-General of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, during his visit to Australia? In particular, has the Minister seen reports of references by Mr Dunkel to the level of Australian tariff protection, his warnings about anti-dumping legislation and his support for unilateral Australian action to lower protection? In view of these and other comments attributed to Mr Dunkel, can the Minister assure the Senate that any anti-dumping measures that this Government contemplates would not be surrogates for general protection? Is it true that the question of protection cannot be addressed by concentrating only on tariffs and ignoring non -tariff provisions? Should Australia unilaterally lower its protection levels? Senator BUTTON —I am asked about remarks attributed to the Director-General of GATT, Mr Dunkel, as reported in the newspapers following a speech he gave to the Australian Chamber of Commerce in Melbourne. I had the opportunity of meeting with Mr Dunkel last night for an hour and a half. One of the first observations which he made was that some of the Press reports of what he allegedly said were somewhat inaccurate. He went on to make the point that he will address the National Press Club next week. In the course of his address to the National Press Club he will distribute a written copy of what he has to say on these particular issues. That will be the text to which people can refer. Senator Cook asked me first about Australia's anti-dumping legislation. As the honourable senator will be aware, a number of proposed changes to that legislation were announced a few weeks ago. Senator Watson —It is too slow. Senator BUTTON —I inform Senator Watson that one of the changes announced was to speed up the process of dumping complaints. The Government does not see dumping as a matter associated with the protection debate generally. Dumping is a process for dealing with unfair trading practices and it is recognised by GATT anti-dumping legislation. The Australian legislation is consistent with its obligations under the GATT. I was asked also whether I have any comments about non-tariff barriers which are imposed by various countries. The Department of Trade, as I understand it, has compiled a very comprehensive list of various non-trade barriers which are operated by countries other than Australia. Australian tariff and the system of protection operating in this country are relatively open. However desirable it might be considered to be one way or another, it is relatively open compared with many of the measures adopted by other countries. The Director-General of GATT is quite aware of that fact and is very much aware of the non-tariff barriers which are applied by other countries. Finally I was asked whether Australia will adopt any unilateral reductions in tariffs or protection measures . That is a question which I cannot answer and which for very obvious reasons I would prefer not to answer. It is subject to a variety of negotiations, both international and local. It depends on a wide variety of factors, and whether a decision would be made to do that at any particular time is something which I certainly cannot prejudge. Of course, it is a question to which the Government constantly has to give consideration. Senator PETER BAUME —My question to the Minister for Education relates to the overflow meeting of parents in Sydney on 7 November protesting against the education policy changes of the Labor Government. Senator Zakharov —Boring. Senator Gareth Evans —Boring. Senator PETER BAUME —I am interested in the interjections opposite. In view of the release in the last 48 hours of a detailed analysis of schools represented by parents at the meeting, I ask the Minister: Why did she deride those attending the meeting as being just an elitist group representing the narrow interests of some group 1 schools? Will she now acknowledge that among the 280 different schools represented by parents at the meeting, were parents from 130 group 3 Catholic schools? Will she now accept that the meeting represented the widest group of parents from the widest group of schools ever to come together in Sydney to protest about the education of their children? Senator RYAN —I am not quite sure what Senator Peter Baume wants by way of reward or accolade for his efforts in-- Government senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Peter Baume was heard in silence and I ask for the Minister to be heard in silence. Senator RYAN —Obviously, Senator Peter Baume regards his participation in that meeting as the zenith of his parliamentary career and wants to keep drawing attention to it. He has not had such a big crowd before or since. If there were indeed representatives of 280 schools there, and some of them from category 3 schools, I presume that they were the ones who were cheering Mr Mulock because Mr Mulock and I are both responsible for increased funding to those schools. I just do not know how long I have to say what I have said almost daily in this chamber and to the media. The funding policies of this Government are more generous to the non-government sector than were the funding policies of any previous government. The increase which was achieved for the vast majority of schools in the non-government sector was substantial. The security and forward planning capacity that was given to the non-government sector by such matters as the increase in capital, the special allowance for new places in new schools in the non-government sector, the capacity to forward commit up to 70 per cent of capital funds, and the decision of this Government to give supplementation for wage and salary increases put the non-government sector on a much firmer footing in respect of Commonwealth funding than ever before. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact that there existed a strong household relationship between the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Sir Peter Henderson, and the previous South African Ambassador, Mr John Oxley? Is the Minister aware of allegations by senior Foreign Affairs staff that this friendship led Sir Peter Henderson to breach the Fraser Government's South African policy? Did Sir Peter Henderson conceal these breaches from the Fraser Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no idea whether there is any substance in the suggestions made by Senator Primmer. I will refer them to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to see what answer he may wish to make. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and refers to proposed Medicare advertising. I understand that country and non-daily newspapers are not to be used in the advertising schedule. Is the Minister aware of the significance of the country and non-daily newspapers to the smaller towns in the dissemination of information? Would the Minister take up the issue with the Minister for Health with a view to ensuring that country newspapers are included in the advertising campaign for Medicare? Senator GRIMES —Being a country boy myself, I am well aware of the importance of country people and country newspapers. I will make inquiries as to whether the Medicare advertisements will be carried in country newspapers and if they are not why they are not. When I have that information I will make sure that Senator Bjelke-Petersen gets it soon after. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations been drawn to the problems facing the Longreach Shire Council in relation to the forced lay-off of 50 per cent of the Shire's work force? Following the beginning of an early wet season in western Queensland work has been halted on the construction of two weirs that were being financed by money saved under the wage pause. Seventeen workers have been stood down because of the early wet season. Will the Minister consider urgently a submission put forward by the Longreach Shire Council under the Commonwealth Employment Program to upgrade roads and gutters in the main shopping centre in the town of Longreach and take any steps necessary to allow the Shire to re- employ those 17 workers laid off because of the early wet season? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of the specific problem that Senator Jones raised with me. In the terms in which the question is couched, the proposition that is advanced sounds eminently reasonable. I will certainly make urgent representations to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and ask him to give early consideration to the representation of the Longreach Shire Council. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Is it the Government's intention to reduce further the assistance available to university residential colleges, following the recent reduction of 25 per cent, from $1 to 75c, per day per student? Will the Government give consideration at some future time to offsetting this disadvantage, particularly to non-metropolitan students, by increasing the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance? Senator RYAN —It is certainly the policy of this Government to increase the TEAS allowance as rapidly and as generously as economic circumstances permit. As I said in reply to an earlier question, the whole area of TEAS is under review with a view to removing some, at least, of the anomalies. I recognise that students who have to travel to universities, who do not have universities within their areas, are in a particular situation of need with regard to TEAS. That situation is not very satisfactorily accommodated by the present regulations. With regard to the reduction in the subsidy of I think $9 a week to residential colleges within universities, the Government is aware that students who live in colleges are at this stage the only students who have their accommodation needs subsidised by the Commonwealth. There are enormous areas of need for assistance in accommodation for students who do not have access to colleges, who cannot afford to be in them. So the Tertiary Education Commission is reviewing the whole area of accommodation needs of students. We expect in the next Budget to make some sort of subsidy arrangements which will give an equitable share of available Commonwealth funds for this purpose to students, whatever their accommodation circumstances are. Senator WATSON —I ask a supplementary question. Why does not the Government initiate its review before acting in such cases, which would cause hardship to non-metropolitan students? Senator RYAN —The decision to which Senator Watson's question referred was a Budget decision. As he will be aware, the timetable that the early election allowed the new Government to develop a Budget in simply was not enough for it to institute major reviews and obtain results. The decision is, I believe, defensible, although we are always willing to listen to cases of hardship and to bring those considerations to the attention of the Tertiary Education Commission . Senator SIBRAA —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of the recent visit to New Caledonia of the French Secretary of State for Overseas Territories? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether any new proposals for independence in the territory were made during the visit? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has noted the announcement last week in New Caledonia by the French Secretary of State for Overseas Territories, Monsieur Georges Lemoine, of proposals for a new statute for New Caledonia which he made during that visit. The proposals envisage a period of five years during which a substantial degree of internal autonomy will be exercised within the territory, followed by an act of self-determination, the details of which have yet to be worked out. It is envisaged that the new statute will be enacted by the French National Assembly in the first half of 1984. The Australian Government will continue to watch developments in New Caledonia closely. As is well known, Australia is committed to the independence of New Caledonia, determined according to the wishes of its inhabitants. Our main concern is that independence, which we see as inevitable, should be achieved peacefully. The Government has noted Press reports that Monsieur Lemoine had, following his visit to New Caledonia, commented that Australia should not interfere in New Caledonia. Monsieur Lemoine told a senior official of the Department of Foreign Affairs, during a stop-over in Sydney, that he wished to thank the Government for Australia's moderating role at the South Pacific Forum, which he had found to be helpful to France's efforts in New Caledonia. So there is no question of any bilateral difficulties arising over this rather sensitive issue at the moment. Senator CHANEY —Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of the article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 28 November on the subject of limiting the number of imported light commercial vehicles and four-wheel drive vehicles? Will he confirm the accuracy of the report that the Federal Government is expected to move early next year to limit imports of light commercial vehicles and four- wheel drive vehicles? I ask that in light of the apparent confirmation of that view by the Deputy Prime Minister in the House of Representatives yesterday. Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of the article in the Sydney Morning Herald. If it says that the Government will limit the import of light commercial vehicles early in the new year, or something of that kind, it is not an accurate report because the Government has made no decision about that matter. Of course, the Government is not in a position to make a decision about it. We have referred that question to the Industries Assistance Commission. The report of the Commission will not be available until 14 December. We have also referred that matter to the Car Industry Council for consideration. It has been asked to give a view on the question on 14 December also. There is a departmental commissioned consultancy investigation into this matter. When we get the findings of that consultation we will be in a better position to make decisions about the issue raised in Senator Chaney's question and referred to in the Sydney Morning Herald . Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer, which reflects the facts as they have been published by him before. Has he had a chance to see the answer given by Mr Lionel Bowen in the House of Representatives yesterday? Does he agree that it seems to suggest that the matter is one on which the Government already has a clear view? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen the answer and I certainly could not, between the time of Senator Chaney's original question and that of his asking the supplementary one, form an opinion on what Mr Bowen said. I have not seen Mr Bowen's answer, but my answer is that, irrespective of what Mr Bowen said, the Government has not deliberated and made a decision on the matter. Senator COATES —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Social Security, refers to my question and his answer yesterday about Mr Bruce Bond and his use of Australian Broadcasting Corporation and other stations to broadcast his opposition to the assets test. Has the Minister seen Mr Bond's reported response in today's Sydney Morning Herald, accusing the Minister of being the gutless junior Senator from Tasmania? Has Mr Bond any grounds for his agitation? Has he actually denied what he has been accused of? Is it not true that Mr Bond does run a service as an investment adviser and that he conducts meetings, sometimes with the assistance of the ABC, for which people attending pay fees and at which he gives what may be called investment advice, yet he purports to deny this accusation by saying that he has a strict rule about not giving private financial advice? Senator GRIMES —Yes, my attention was drawn to the remarks by Mr Bond, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning. Being a sensitive soul, I was touched to the quick by them. I can understand his calling me the junior senator from Tasmania because of my youthful appearance. Senator Ryan —You're spunky, too. Senator GRIMES —Thank you, senator. That interjection is now recorded in Hansard . I do not quite understand the word 'gutless'. I have been on a diet for months trying to reduce that section of my anatomy. If he is referring to my courage or lack of it, all I can say is that I am sure the two other ex-Ministers for Social Security in this place can say that one thing that Ministers for Social Security in this country are not is gutless. They have to face all sorts of people in all sorts of circumstances. Senator Chaney —You have the Order of the Sydney Town Hall. Senator GRIMES —Senator Chaney and I have faced massess in the Sydney Town Hall and come out unscathed. However, as Senator Coates points out, when people use colorful language and unfortunate personal expressions such as this it usually means that they are trying to avoid the things that have been put to them. I said of Mr Bond: First of all, he appears on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as an investment counsellor; secondly, he is paid a considerable fee for doing so; thirdly, he uses his position on the ABC to oppose Government policy, and again I have no objection to him doing that provided that when he enters the political arena he does not get upset when one of the people in the political arena bites back at him, as happened yesterday; fourthly, I said that I believed that he was unnecessarily worrying the people who rang him by his remarks about the assets test and in urging them to ring their members of parliament. Since yesterday I have made a check on the sorts of things Mr Bond has been saying, and in fact any reasonable person could only say that he is deliberately feeding the anxiety of the people who ring him. My only remark is this: Mr Bond is in fact an investment counsellor. He does in fact benefit considerably by the inequities which exist in the social security system and the taxation system. He takes advantage of his highly paid position on the ABC to put his political views over. If he insists on doing that and what I call abusing his position, he must expect a response from people in the same political arena. I have no intention of allowing Mr Bond's unkind words about me from stopping me pointing out what he is up to, and I will continue to do so in the future. Senator MARTIN —My question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health follows the answer he gave Senator Hearn earlier in Question Time today on the subject of diethylstilboestrol. Is the Minister aware of recent publicity on the incidence of cancer in the children of women to whom DES was administered during pregnancy, notably the television current affairs program 60 Minutes, which indicates that a large number of Australian children, particularly girls, have become cancer victims as a result of this drug? Does the Minister agree that the figure of seven cases he quoted as being notified to the Drug Evaluation Committee is therefore clearly a hopelessly unreliable figure to depend on as a means of measuring the incidence of cancer in DES children and that the program of publicity he outlined by governments and through the medical literature must be concluded to be an abysmal and tragic failure? In view of the importance of early diagnosis of cancer if there is to be successful treatment, will he undertake to urge the Government to undertake an extensive program of open publicity to educate the children of women who were prescribed DES during pregnancy to have early health checks, a program similar to advertising programs in the United States of America? Senator GRIMES —I would not like to give the impression, and I believe I tried not to give the impression in answering the question from Senator Hearn, that I treated this subject with anything less than seriousness. I agree with Senator Martin that early diagnosis is important and that early treatment is also important. I am very much aware of the fact that children of mothers who were given DES and who were therefore exposed to DES in utero or during lactation are in fact more prone to the adenocarcinoma of the vagina and adenosis of the vagina to which she refers. I made the point that in fact considerable publicity has been directed to the medical profession and to the general populous in Victoria and, to a lesser extent, in New South Wales in recent years through the very good work of DES Action. In saying that seven cases were reported to the Drug Evaluation Committee I made the point that that may be an underestimate. I still think it is wrong to give the impression, as I believe the impression was given in certainly one program I saw-I am not sure whether it was 60 Minutes- that there is a sort of raging epidemic of this condition. In fact, not all children exposed to DES in utero or during lactation will develop the condition. I think what we need to do, as Senator Martin says, is make the potential condition known not only to doctors but also to potential victims of the condition. I answered a question on this subject from Senator Haines a couple of months ago and sought from the Minister for Health just what was considered likely to be developed in this area in the future. I will do so again. I cannot recall just what action was announced by the Minister then. I wish to emphasise again that I do not think that this is an unimportant condition. I do not believe one should play down this at all. By the same token, I do not think we should give the impression that every daughter of every women who was pregnant in the 1940s and the early 1950s should believe she is likely to get one of these conditions. It is just not so. Annual Report 1982-83 Debate resumed from 29 November 1983, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.09) —Unless some other honourable senator is anxious to speak on this matter I propose again to seek leave to continue my remarks and to adjourn the debate. This matter would then become and order of the day and we could discuss the report at some later time. There is no wish on the part of the Opposition to prolong General Business unnecessarily. There are matters I wish to address on the next item that is listed for discussion, namely the annual report of the Uranium Advisory Council. At the same time I would be reluctant to see this matter slip away without honourable senators being given the opportunity to debate it further because very important matters are dealt with in the report. Since no one else seems to be poised on the edge of his chair, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Debate resumed from 29 November 1983, on motion by Senator Martin: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.10) —By arrangement with Senator Martin, I have received the call to speak on the report of the Uranium Advisory Council. I speak on this report in the context of the Uranium Advisory Council having ceased to exist since none of the members were reappointed when their commissions expired at the end of June. I think that in a formal sense the Chairman still holds office. It is important that the Senate note that this body which was set up following a recommendation of the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry is no longer available to the Australian Government. It is no longer available to the Parliament or to the Australian people to advise us on the highly contentious areas which do take up a great deal of debating time in this place and in the House of Representatives. Mr Deputy President, it is important to note that the Council was set up as a multi-disciplinary body which would be available to deal with these matters. Its composition is of interest, I believe. The Chairman, Sir Richard Kingsland, is a retired public servant. The Alternate Chairman was the Chairman of the National Energy Advisory Committee and the Council comprised a senior lecturer in economics, a couple of conservationists, a professor of moral theology, an Aboriginal who is the director of the Bureau of the Northern Land Council and who is, I think, currently an Australian Labor Party candidate in the forthcoming Northern Territory election. I refer to Mr Wesley Lanhupuy. The Council also included Dr Letts, who is the Director of the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory and who is, I think, campaigning in an independent capacity in the same election; Professor Parsons, who is President of the Academic Board of the University of Queensland; a mining consultant and a former dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. I suggest to the Senate that this group brought very great experience and a great range of disciplines and skills to bear on the problems on which it was asked to advise. The function of the Council was: . . . to advise the Minister for Trade and Resources with regard to the export and use of Australian uranium, having in mind in particular the possible hazards , dangers and problems of and associated with the production of nuclear energy- The Council was charged with the duty to prepare and furnish a report to this Parliament. I think it is a matter of very great regret that we have now lost the services of this Council, which was recommended by the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. I think it is not hard to see why the Council has been disbanded by this Government. If we look at the range of papers presented in this report, we find that the Council directed itself to concerns about Aboriginal land rights and uranium. It directed itself to the possible problems involved in in situ leaching as a method of mining uranium, something which was proposed in two of the prospects in South Australia. It concerned itself with environmental evaluation methods and the environmental effects of fossil fuels, and so on. We are left in the dark as to what will replace the services of this body. If one were to look at the advice given by the Council, it is quite clear why the Government would not welcome some of it, because it makes very disparate reading in the light of the decisions which this Government has taken in the short time it has been in power. In regard to sequential development, the Council said: The Council has reviewed the issue of sequential development from time to time, coming to the view that it seemed unnecessary for the Government to intervene by imposing further controls over the uranium industry. Members noted that, particularly in the Northern Territory, the combined effect of the environmental regulatory requirements and the need to obtain Aboriginal agreement before development takes place, has produced de facto sequential development. In another part of its report the Council stated: Australia's possesses around 18 per cent of the world's identified low-cost uranium reserves and the Council accepts that there will be market opportunities to enable more Australian mines to develop in the 1980s. The Council suggested that the mineral potential of Kakadu National Park be assessed before the final declaration of the second stage of the National Park. So we had this multi-disciplined group of people, with a lot of expertise, putting forward views which really raise significant queries about a number of decisions taken by the present Government. I do not believe that it is in Australia's interests that this Council should have ceased to exist, as it has done this year. I welcome the fact that we will have an opportunity to debate this report further and in more detail at some later time. I assume the debate will be adjourned this afternoon. I think my speaking time has now expired, so I can say nothing further, but I wish to pay tribute to the very useful work which has been performed by this Council. I hope that the Government might reconsider what I think is a decision against the dissemination of publicly useful information and against the provision of material to the public which would enhance the quality of public debate in Australia on this important subject. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.16) —As far as the Uranium Advisory Council went and could go, because of its constitution and charter, it did a useful job. The Australian Democrats expressed concerns from time to time that it could no prevent diversion of uranium into use for nuclear weapons, it could only detect such a diversion or any lack of safety and report on it. What good is that? Once a diversion is detected, it is too late. Sometimes I wonder what good it is to know that uranium is already on its way to being used to make a nuclear bomb. There is very little comfort in being told that. Because of what Senator Chaney has so adequately said, I wish to confine my remarks to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The UAC urged the previous Government to provide a new legislative framework for the AEC's research establishment. Such a review needs to be wider than the UAC recommended. The Atomic Energy Act as a whole is a draconian piece of legislation which needs to be substantially redrafted. In fact, the kinds of provisions in this Act are mind boggling. For example, as honourable senators know, the Act renders people liable to a heavy fine or a prison sentence of up to 20 years in the event of hindering or obstructing uranium mining. Search and arrest are permissible without warrant. The burden of proof is on the defence. The accused can be convicted on the basis of conduct or charter which suggests disloyalty, even if the offence cannot be proven. Evidence of the defendant's past and guilt by association are all admissible, contrary to all the principles of justice. I will read into Hansard the infamous section 47 (a), which states: On a prosecution of a person under paragraph (a) of section 44, section 45 or section 46- (a) It is not necessary to show that he was guilty of a particular act tending to show an intent to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth and, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that he acted with intent to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth- I do not know of any more draconian provision in any Act on the statute books of this country. I do not know of any greater invasion of civil liberties than this . The Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry recommended that the Atomic Energy Act not be used as the legislative basis for uranium mining, but the Fraser Government ignored that advice. In 1977 it introduced the repressive amendment I have just read. Since 1980, again as part of the Fraser Government's manic desire to develop uranium mining and the nuclear industry, an interdepartmental committee has been examining the legislation required to regulate and control any nuclear industry. Senator Sir John Carrick, the predecessor of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), announced on 5 June 1982 that the Fraser Government 'foreshadowed far reaching changes to Commonwealth legislation on nuclear matters'. No such changes eventuated before 5 March of this year. We believe that this Government should make the Parliament aware of its intentions concerning the changes which have been recommended to the Atomic Energy Act. The Democrats believe that this Act needs to be reshaped drastically to remove its repressive elements and to remove the substantial conflict which exists between the promotion of uranium mining and the regulation of uranium mining. It is wholly inappropriate for legislation to defend the interests of mining companies conducting profitable operations at the expense of civil liberties. We implore the Government to have an urgent look at this weakness in the legislation, which even the Fraser Government acknowledged when it was in office. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.21) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Some brief comment about the report of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation was alluded to in Question Time today. I wish to make some comments on the paper because of the quite horrific evidence that is contained in it. I do not find it quite so horrifying that compensation payouts have increased by 33 per cent, although I think that is a very large percentage increase. But that represents dollars spent. The facts in this report that quite stagger me are the figures listing the number of people who are injured, totally incapacitated or killed while working for the departments or authorities under Commonwealth jurisdiction. On page 26 of the report it is listed that, in 1982-83, 106 new deaths were reported in total among the 544,000 employees covered by the Compensation ( Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. Three hundred and seventy-five deaths are listed as being in continuation, which means that the compensation considerations are in continuation. A total of 481 people died during their employment. Most of those deaths occurred while the people were on duty. If we look to a breakdown of the figures, we find that 316 of those deaths-that is, those that happened last year-and were in continuation, happened to employees within Commonwealth departments and 160 to employees in Commonwealth authorities . I guess Senator Kilgariff would be pleased to know that only five people died in the Northern Territory departments. Apart from noting those deaths, I think the other significant reportage here is that some $70m is paid out by way of compensation to people who are judged to be totally incapacitated. Again, I think that such an entry in a report can be passed over quite lightly. What it means is that those people will never work again. I think that is a matter of great seriousness. Not only do we need to look at it in terms of how we can reduce enormous costs-$100m plus in payout of compensation-but also we must be careful not to overlook the measure of human misery associated with the many people who die or become totally incapacitated in the course of their employment in the Commonwealth Public Service and authorities. I know that the report uses the term 'total incapacity' to describe not only those who are medically judged as unable to work, but also those who are able to work only in an area in which there are no jobs. I presume it means that some people could lose an expertise and there would be no other comparable area of employment for them. But, by and large, I think the report is referring to people who are judged totally unable to work. I wish to draw attention to some comments in the report which appear under the heading 'Training and inspections'. Many words in the report are devoted to an analysis of the training and inspection which the departments provided to look at the whole problem. Essentially, the report addressed the lack of facilities and administrative procedures within the departments. Seminars were conducted, which are very important, I argue, for delegates and persons located outside the Commissioner's office who are actively involved in processing claims. The principal reason for the training and upgrading of people in this area is the enormous delay in processing claims. Over the last year an average of two-thirds of claims were processed within 12 weeks. However, a large number of claims had not been processed within 12 months. As well as the delays there were other administrative weaknesses, including incorrect determinations of claims leading to incorrect payments. It was reported: . . . frequently claims were approached with something less than a complete impartiality; the system does not lend itself to automatic processing; adequate statistics in the important field of occupational injury and disease are not easily obtainable. I believe that is the only time the words 'occupational injury and disease' are mentioned. Much of this report is devoted to upgrading the facilities and the personnel who could then go through the business of processing compensation claims. That is very important. I would not want to be understood to be denigrating that part of the work, but the emphasis is devoted to fixing the problem after the accidents, the deaths and the injuries have occurred. The line in this report that I think needs to be expanded in the next while is the important business of proper collection of data about occupational injury and disease and a further emphasis on prevention and the planning of job and work situations so that occupational injury and disease do not even happen. If I had $100m to spend, I would much rather spend it on preventive processes in the departments than on paying people who are injured or dead. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(3.26) —Like Senator Crowley, I wish to comment on the 1982-83 annual report of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. It is unfortunate, as I think Senator Crowley has very adequately pointed out, that the attention that this report has received in the media has concentrated on money costs-the cost to the Commonwealth of workers' compensation payouts. That is a major aspect. It costs the Commonwealth $100m to meet compensation payments for employees who have suffered accident or injury in its employ. However, Senator Crowley pointed to the real heartbreaking story that never made the headlines, that is, the human misery, the cost of human accident, sickness, disease and disablement. That is a cost that is not measured in dollar terms, but it is a very serious cost. It is a cost which I believe the Commonwealth, like any employer, has a basic and fundamental responsibility to address. The Commonwealth has over half a million employees. If we take the compensation bill of $1,600,000, the obvious question is: How can the Commonwealth, as an employer , reduce that, save money and thus be able to allocate more expenditure to well meaning, important and necessary programs? One of the things that can be said straight off, as Senator Crowley has pointed to, is that by making a bold investment in accident prevention and occupational health the Government can save itself the cost of compensating for failures because of accidents and/or work circumstances that cause ill-health. I do not know that it is possible to eradicate all of the $1m, but it is certainly possible to reduce a lot of that amount. The only way I believe that can be done is by diverting funds to accident prevention and safety. The pity about workers' compensation debates is that they do tend to concentrate on money costs. The knee-jerk response is that because costs are high we must reduce benefits. As I have said, prevention is the way forward. It is unfortunate that the Commissioner does not have the wider responsibility that I think is necessary for any compensation body. There are three areas of concern, not one. The first is prevention; the second is compensation-where prevention has failed-and the third is rehabilitation of workers so they can return to the work force where they are able to be rehabilitated. It is important, I think, to look at all three areas and not concentrate on just one. If we start at the beginning and look at prevention, the costs can be severely reduced. If we also contribute to rehabilitation, people who are now thrown on the scrap heap of industrial life can return to a meaningful role in the work place. It is unfortunate that public debates in Australia tend to rail against the number of man days lost to industrial disputes. That takes the headlines, that takes the debate in this chamber and that takes a huge legislative effort by the Government. If we look at the man days lost and damage done to the national productivity because of accidents, we find thay are invariably higher, the damage is much deeper and the loss of productivity greater. Yet this field attracts little attention. It is not a field attended to much in debate. It passes almost unremarked on in the media. We have got our priorities wrong. Our priority must be directed towards lowering the accident level, saving lives, preventing injury and disablement and encouraging people to be safe in the work place. This report makes a number of quite important points in the tables, but we have to dig deeply for them. In 1973-74, 441,000 people were employed by the Commonwealth Government. The number of accidents was 31,000, which meant about 7 .09 per cent of employees suffered accidents. Last financial year 9.51 per cent of employees suffered accidents, so the incidence of accidents is on the increase. If we look at the costs in money terms, something I am loath to do but nonetheless the report makes the point, in 1973-74 it cost $27 per accident. According to the report it now costs $184 per accident, which is an increase in money costs much higher than the level of inflation. There are a number of recommendations in the report for change, mainly dealing with delays and the correction of a number of identifiable weaknesses. I think those changes should be made and supported. I also think the whole trinity, prevention, compensation and rehabilitation, should be attended to in one authority. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator SCOTT(New South Wales)(3.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Very briefly, I refer to one or two matters in this report. The Repatriation Review Tribunal was established by the Liberal-National Party Government in 1979 . The Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act came into force on 28 October 1982. The significant thing that I believe needs to be observed is that at least two important recommendations in that legislation have had success in their early stages, in the first year of operation under those provisions. Constantly the appeals and application area in this field has been very slow in being attended to. Two of the provisions to which I refer and which need to be observed are that, in the first place, the Tribunal was given the discretion to give oral reasons for its decisions; and, secondly, the Tribunal was to await instruction that the applicant was ready to proceed before calling on a case. As a result, cases have been heard much more promptly than was the situation in the past. Consequently it is of importance to note that in 1982-83 there has occurred the first occasion on which the number of applications has been fewer than the number of solutions or approvals by the Tribunal. This certainly is a step in the right direction because there has built up, over the years, a great deal of frustration over a continuing pile of applications and unheard or delayed appeals. The objective of the amendments in 1982 was in some way to overcome this delay and in some way to reduce the continuing pile of unheard appeals. It is interesting and I think important to note that on this occasion the report reveals that the solution to part of that problem has been found. This Tribunal provides an independent review of decisions made by the Repatriation Board, the Seamen's Pensions and Allowances Committee and the Repatriation Commission. It comprises, of course, a panel of three. It has power to observe, naturally, the evidence of past circumstances and any new evidence that may be brought before it. There is also the power of appeal to the Federal Court of Australia on matters relevant to law. Incidentally, the Tribunal is somewhat more informal in its manner of hearing and is not bound by the technicalities, legal forms and rules that so strictly applied formerly. These changes have been seen to be moves in the right direction and, together with the admission of oral reasons, which are given of course forthwith, and written reasons which are given within two weeks of the hearing's conclusion, the whole program has been significantly quickened. I make these few observations on the working of this Tribunal under its latest form and suggest that the provisions that have been put in place are working and that, for the first time in many years, some progress is being made in the resolution of these appeals. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 26 May 1983, on motion by Senator Teague: That the Senate oppose any aid from Australia to Vietnam so long as Vietnamese military forces are occupying Kampuchea and Laos. Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.37) —I gave the first half of my speech on this subject in May. Those who are unfamiliar with the practices of this Parliament might think that somewhat strange. The debate is on a motion by Senator Teague: That the Senate oppose any aid from Australia to Vietnam so long as the Vietnamese military forces are occupying Kampuchea and Laos. I remind the Senate of what I said at that time. In the first half of my contribution I said that the debate was about economic development aid; for a number of reasons, I supported such aid to Third World developing countries; I was not too concerned by the political colour of the relevant regimes; the Liberal Government was giving such aid to communist Vietnam, but the aid program was cancelled on 21 January 1979 upon Vietnam's invasion of Kampuchea; it was cancelled as part of a strong response by Australia and other Western nations to the invasion-Japan, Denmark and Britain cancelled, I believed, at that time; by mid-1979, as I understood it, all but Sweden had cut off foreign economic aid. Circumstances since the time of the invasion do not appear to have changed a great deal. Vietnam, despite experiencing such withdrawal of economic assistance and the continual diplomatic efforts of many countries, remains in occupation and maintains the Heng Samrin Government which it installed. My Party's position has been that the aid which was cancelled as a protest upon invasion should not be re-instituted whilst the occupation continues. In summary, I believe the reasons for that to be: Such aid can only encourage Vietnam's intransigence; security fears are held by certain countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, particularly Thailand, which shares a common boundary with occupied Kampuchea; there is a fear that the occupation of Kampuchea by a pro-Soviet force is threatening to China and, therefore, contrary to the stability of the region-I speak of the encirclement theory, China being concerned by possible encirclement by Soviet or Soviet-backed regimes; and the expansion of Soviet influence by the concessions that must be given by Vietnam regarding Soviet military bases for nuclear submarines and long range aircraft in return for military aid in Kampuchea is against not only the regional security interests but also East-West security interests. I know that it is possible to take-and, in some ways, to take legitimately-a contrary position on this matter. It can be said that aid by the West will lessen the dependence of Vietnam on the Soviets and that that is in the West's best interests. It can be said that Thailand is not militarily threatened by Vietnam, and that in fact, if there is a military threat-and we have witnessed border incursions-it arises from the support of and supply of Cambodian resistance groups in the border region. It can be said that the Cambodian people , although clearly not liking the presence of traditional enemies, would rather that presence remain than a return of the murderous Khmer Rouge regime. It can be said that China's supply of arms to the Khmer Rouge and its militaristic stance on Vietnam's northern border give Vietnam reason to believe that withdrawal from Kampuchea and its replacement with a pro-China government would threaten its security. I appreciate that all these positions can be maintained, and with some credibility, and I think that indicates the complexity of the position. Those who seek peace for humanitarian reasons, for reasons of regional security, and for even wider security reasons therefore have a very difficult task. Not only are we looking at a region of historical enemies; we are also now looking at a centre of great power rivalry. Kampuchea is now, regrettably, where East meets West, certainly as far as fighting between communist forces and the non- communist forces of Son Sann and Prince Sihanouk is concerned, such forces being supplied in part by the West. It is also an area now where Sino-Soviet interests clash-Chinese supported and supplied Khmer Rouge forces against Soviet supported and supplied Vietnamese. This again tends to indicate the great difficulties faced by those who wish to influence change in the region for the better. In relation to the specific question which is the subject of this motion, what a government must consider, in this case a responsible Australian government, is whether a change of policy to renew aid, whilst the position of the occupation remains basically unchanged, will help or hinder resolution of the difficulties that I have outlined. The approach of Foreign Minister Hayden appears to have been to attempt to obtain greater credibility with Vietnam and then, I think, to give him some credit, to act in the role of an honest broker. He may well have wanted to do this by resuming aid, which is in accordance with Labor Party policy, but this was found too internationally difficult to be carried out unilaterally; so, alternatively, he adopted a different approach to indicate a change of stance. He approached the matter from a diplomatic point of view. That change of position was indicated in ways which to some not familiar with the foreign affairs world might appear somewhat subtle but which to those who are so familiar, are obvious-by, for example, changing Australia's position with regard to sponsoring the annual United Nations motion condemning the occupation of Kampuchea and by failing to condemn the invasion in speeches in which such condemnation is traditionally included. So by diplomatic means he attempted to achieve the same object as would have been achieved by unilaterally renewing economic and development aid to Vietnam. The effect has been twofold. First, it has been to disappoint ASEAN which, although it may have different internal views as to the future dangers from Vietnam and China, is certainly united when Western regional countries take an overtly more favourable stand towards Vietnam and its occupation. Secondly, the effect has been to disappoint China, for reasons of its perception that Vietnam is a threat, as I have previously outlined. The overall effect is that Australia has now a greater credibility with Vietnam-I think. I hesitate because I think that credibility was building under the previous Government through different methods. I reflect upon the family reunion agreements which had been negotiated and concluded before the former Government lost office. On the one hand, the Government may have gained this greater credibility with Vietnam; but, on the other hand, it has done so at a considerable cost, that of losing credibility with our allies; in other words, giving the Government and Mr Hayden the benefit of good motives, it has shown bad judgment, and exactly the same thing would have happened if we had resumed aid to Vietnam. The sum of aid would have been so insignificant as not to affect Vietnam's reliance on the Soviets, and we would have similarly lost credibility with ASEAN and China. What do we want? Clearly, without dispute, I think we want Vietnamese troops withdrawn from Kampuchea and Cambodians to be given an opportunity freely to determine their own destiny. That is the ASEAN position and an ASEAN goal, and that is what we should be pursuing. The ASEAN policy so far has failed. As credible friends, behind closed doors and not on the world stage, we could have been urging some changes of direction in that policy. For example, Vietnam clearly will not withdraw whilst there is a likelihood of a pro-China Khmer Rouge victory. It will clearly not be bled white, as has been previously suggested. Therefore, it will not withdraw whilst the Khmer Rouge is being supplied by or through ASEAN. I am not convinced that that part of the unofficial policy of ASEAN is desirable. If that is the Government's view, within the club or the friendship it could have been urging change. But it is no good now. Not surprisingly, ASEAN no longer wants our views. We want to see a lessening of tension between China and Vietnam. We may have been able to assume a role, but certainly that is not the case now because in this area we have, as I have indicated, lost the confidence of China. We want to see less dependence by Vietnam on the Soviets but any package aimed at obtaining that goal had to be multinational and clearly heavily involve ASEAN and China. One suspects that if we cannot maintain the confidence of ASEAN in this area we will be regarded more cautiously by the major Western nations, and therefore there appears to be little role for us now in the development of such a package. Therefore, Mr Deputy President, the Labor Government in this difficult area sought to become a major player. It chose to treat diplomacy as if it had become a card game and it chose a difficult card game. The Foreign Minister chose to do diplomatically that which he could have done by renewing unilaterally development aid, but the effect was the same. The effect was that he was blundered out of the game. What that indicates is that the policy of the former Government not to resume aid while the occupation continued was correct. Regrettably, as a result of the Government's bad judgment, it will now be more difficult for us to contribute to a change for the better in the future in a region that honourable senators must agree has suffered for far too long. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.51) —in reply-Some eight senators have participated in this debate, which began on 5 May when I moved: That the Senate opposes any aid from Australia to Vietnam so long as Vietnamese military forces are occupying Kampuchea and Laos. I believe just as strongly today as I did when this motion was first moved that the Senate should adopt it. Although, besides myself, only Senator Lajovic and Senator Sir John Carrick from New South Wales, Senator Kilgariff from the Northern Territory, Senator Hill, my Liberal colleague from South Australia, Senator Georges from Queensland, Senator Elstob, also from South Australia and Senator McIntosh from Western Australia have spoken to the motion, there has been wide interest in this matter of Australia's relations with Vietnam and the problems of Indo-China. They have been expressed not only in this debate but also, of course, by the way in which all of us have taken an interest in the foreign policy statements of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and in the toings and froings with the Association of South East Asian Nations. Some of the time ASEAN has mistaken the intentions of the present Labor Government with regard to Indo-China and all of us have tried to seek a solution to the vexed problems of Indo-China. In this debate, as in Australia at large, we all have the view that Vietnam's troops in Kampuchea and Laos should withdraw. It is still the case, six months after this debate began, that there are 180,000 Vietnamese troops or thereabouts , in Kampuchea and 45,000 Vietnamese troops in Laos. All sides of this chamber agree that, firstly, we should work towards those troops leaving Kampuchea and Laos and, secondly, that the people of Kampuchea and Laos should be able to be free to determine their own government, free of the constraints of force of an occupying power-or, indeed, free of such a minority insurrectionist revolutionary and hateful power as the Khmer Rouge. These views are commonly held in this chamber and about the country. But more than that, as has been expressed in this debate, all of us are looking to the time when Australia will contribute humanitarian aid to Vietnam. No one disputes that Vietnam is a poor country. It happens, I think misguidedly, to spend the great bulk of its national product on military armaments. The Government of Vietnam is gripped with a security phobia, a security anxiety, which has been the result of a whole generation of its leaders being preoccupied with security and war. We should take every practical step to try to broaden the concerns of the Vietnamese Government and try to gain, by its own decision, a more usual, smaller spending of the resources of its people on armaments- especially armaments that are being directed against the neighbouring countries it is occupying. I think there has also been reflected in this debate, from all sides, a preference that Vietnam not be so dependent upon the Soviet Union. A number of honourable senators have referred to the enormous dependence that Vietnam now has on the Soviet bloc and on the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, or COMECON, generally. The area of difference in the debate is that Government senators have placed such an emphasis on wooing Vietnam away from total dependence on the Soviet Union that they have urged a renewal of humanitarian aid to Vietnam by Australia. So we are starting to see some further access by Australia, some credibility for Australia's dialogue with Vietnam, in these other concerns. I repeat that all of us would like to see the situation return whereby it is possible for us to offer some humanitarian assistance to a country which has complex difficulties and considerable poverty. Where members of the Opposition differ from the remarks of Senator Georges, Senator McIntosh and to some extent Senator Elstob is that we believe, as this motion requires, that aid to Vietnam from Australia should be available only after Vietnamese troops are withdrawn from Kampuchea and Laos. There was also a difference of opinion in the debate in regard to the extent to which Government members are prepared to listen to and give full account to the views of our neighbours in ASEAN, China, Japan and the United States. It is the Opposition members who have emphasised the importance of listening to our neighbours and taking account of their views in accordance with the support that we have urged for this motion. The Government has been much less conscious of the views of our neighbours and has been prepared to go to on extravagant missions, attempting to initiate a new way, at the expense of Australia's relations with ASEAN, in particular, but also at the expense of Australia's relations with the United States, China and Japan. Whilst the Opposition speakers in this debate have deplored the extent of the military occupation of Kampuchea and Laos, there has been little reference to this by Government speakers. Rather, they have emphasised the hateful regime of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and the millions of Kampuchean people who were massacred during their period of government. They have so emphasised this point- a point which again all of us agree with as none of us in Australia wishes to see such a hateful, extreme and murderous communist regime come to power again in Kampuchea-that it would almost excuse the Vietnamese occupation. Senator McIntosh went very close to saying that he noted that the Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea and Laos prevented a resurgence of the Pol Pot regime, and he implied that the Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge force would bring more sorrow and more suffering to the people than the occupation of Vietnam. In this respect, I think he is probably right, but they are not the only two options. So I reiterate, as a Liberal senator, that there ought to be some middle path which excludes both an occupying force from Vietnam and any ease for the Khmer Rouge to reassert itself in Kampuchea. I conclude this summary of the debate by referring to the aid that the Whitlam Government began to Vietnam, with public support in Australia, and which was continued and increased by the Fraser Government. The Australian people wish to respond to the humanitarian needs of their neighbours and seek to have a major Australian development assistance program in South East Asia and in the Pacific region. At the present time, we are rather critical and wanting to assist, whether we are achieving our objectives in development assistance programs in our region. But, certainly, the Australian people supported the Whitlam Government and the Fraser Government initiatives to give such humanitarian assistance to Vietnam. All of us alike, I repeat, look to the day when that may continue because there is undoubted poverty and undoubted need to which we may offer assistance to help to solve. Senator Hill rightly referred not only to the poverty of Vietnam, as Senator Elstob did, and the call that that leads to in the Australian community in considering how we can help that poverty, but also to the trade that is generated by an assistance that we may give that develops a capacity for trade in Vietnam. He also rightly referred to Australia having access to Vietnam and to Vietnam not being isolated in its dependence upon the Soviet Union. These sentiments and arguments which I now repeat only reinforce the view that all of us in the chamber, as expressed in this debate, look to the time when we may see Australian aid resumed responsibly in humanitarian aid programs to Vietnam. But the essential judgment-and it is a vexed question-is: When is the time? I repeat that the Fraser Government's aid program ceased in January 1979, on the day when the Vietnamese armies occupied Kampuchea. I believe that the Senate should now support this motion by affirming that, as long as those troops remain in Vietnam , we will not see that development aid program returned. We look to the time when Vietnam will withdraw all of its troops which are now occupying Kampuchea and Laos. Immediately upon such withdrawal we look to the Senate reinforcing the view that the Australian Government will then renew development aid assistance to Vietnam. I call upon all honourable senators to support the motion. Question put: That the motion (Senator Teague's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne. N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Childs, B. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColston, M. A. Macklin, M. J. Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. Coleman, R. N. Collard, S. J. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Rae, PeterWalsh, P. A. Townley, M. Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, (1) Unless otherwise ordered, General Business, order of the day No. 64 (Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983), Government Business, order of the day No. 3 (Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 and Government Business, orders of the day Nos 4 to 6 (Education Package) be postponed till the next day of sitting. (2) Government Business take precedence of General Business for the remainder of this day. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to reform and modernise the law relating to certain contracts of insurance so that a fair balance is struck between the interests of insurers, insureds and other members of the public and so that the provisions included in such contracts, and the practices of insurers in relation to such contracts, operate fairly, and for related purposes. Bill presented and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Bill I am introducing today is to reform and modernise, on a national basis, the law relating to contracts of insurance. These measures were foreshadowed in a joint Press statement that I issued with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 17 October 1983 in which we announced the Government's intention to introduce legislation to implement the major recommendations of the Law Reform Commission's report on insurance contracts. I will outline, for the benefit of honourable senators, the background to the need for reform in this area and some of the principal reforms proposed. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable senators for information. The need for reform In September 1976, the Australian Law Reform Commission-ALRC-was given a reference by the then Attorney-General which required the Commission to report upon the adequacy of the law governing contracts of insurance. This reference resulted in two related, but self contained, reports from the Commission. The Law Reform Commission, in its first report on insurance agents and brokers , ALRC 16, dealt with the rules applicable to the conduct of insurance intermediaries. That report was completed in 1980. The former Government failed to implement the recommendations in ALRC 16, notwithstanding the clearly demonstrated case for the regulatory control of insurance brokers. The Australian Labor Party has, however, long recognised the need for these reforms and, as shadow Attorney-General, I introduced the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1981. This Bill, based squarely on the draft Bill appended to ALRC 16, was subsequently passed by the Senate though not by the House of Representatives. The recent spate of broker insolvencies has further underlined the urgent need for controls and the Government is now working towards the early introduction, by the Treasurer, of legislation that will build on the private member's Bill that I introduced when in opposition. The second report of the Law Reform Commission on Insurance Contracts, ALRC 20, was completed at the end of 1982. A commitment to give immediate priority to the consideration of this report, with a view to the early implementation of its major recommendations, was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the Labor Party policy speech on 16 February 1983 and by me in launching the Party's business regulation policy on 24 February 1983. The Law Reform Commission reported that reform of the law relating to insurance contracts was long overdue . The case for reform was stated succinctly in paragraph 16 of ALRC 20: Insurance contracts are subject to a bewildering variety of laws. First there are principles and rules developed by the judges. Superimposed on these rules are statutes of the Imperial, State and Commonwealth parliaments. The Imperial Acts are expressed in archaic and obscure language. Many of the problems they were destined to remedy were different from those of today. State intervention has generally been piecemeal and sporadic. In some cases, it has been limited to particular types of transaction and has been enacted on a uniform basis. In others, individual States have passed legislation applying generally to deal with particular insurance problems. In many of these cases, the legislation dealing with insurance contracts has been restricted to the field of life insurance. It, too, has given rise to anomalies and uncertainties which need to be corrected. The Law Reform Commission recommended the making of a national law regulating insurance contracts that would be superimposed on, and effect reform of, existing laws. The Government has accepted this recommendation for the following reasons: Insurance, other than State insurance within the boundaries of the State concerned, is a specific Commonwealth power. This industry is now organised on a national basis. The Government accepts the Law Reform Commission finding that insurance contracts are subject to a bewildering variety of laws which have given rise to anomalies and uncertainties. These existing laws have not kept pace with social and economic developments in the community. The level of complaints from dissatisfied policy holders shows that there is a need for change. Public consultation The insurance industry and other interested groups and individuals were extensively consulted by the Law Reform Commission in preparing its report. The Government proposes, however, to let the Bill lie on the table to enable public submissions to be made on its detailed provisions. It also proposes to hold consultations with the insurance industry and consumer and other relevant groups before passage of the Bill. Public submissions should be sent to the Business Affairs Division of my Department by no later than 3 February 1984. State insurance Because of limitations on the Commonwealth's constitutional powers with respect to insurance, the Law Reform Commission recommended that the legislation should not extend at the outset to State insurers or to co-insurance involving a State insurer except to the extent that the insurance extends beyond the limits of the relevant State and, further, that the Commonwealth should consult with the States about the application of the legislation to intra-State insurance activities. The Government has decided that it would be undesirable to apply the legislation at the outset to only part of the activities of the State Government insurance offices. Instead, I have written to the Attorneys-General in each State and the Northern Territory seeking to gain their agreement to the application of the Commonwealth legislation to both intra and extra-State insurance activities. Content of Bill The basic purpose of the Bill is: to improve the flow of information from the insurer to the insured so that the insured can make an informed choice as to the contract of insurance he enters into and is fully aware of the terms and limitations of the policy; and to provide a uniform and fair set of rules to govern the relationship between the insurer and the insured. As recommended by the Law Reform Commission, the Bill will not apply to: reinsurance; medical and hospital insurance written by any organisation registered under the National Health Act 1953; workers' compensation and compulsory third party insurance; and insurance to which the Marine Insurance Act applies. Some of the more important reforms in the Bill are set out below. Standard cover contracts Existing law does not regulate the terms of insurance contracts and so does not provide for minimum cover. Clause 35 of the Bill provides that regulations may prescribe the standard cover to be given by certain classes of contract. The Law Reform Commission recommended that those classes should include motor vehicle, houseowner's, householder's, sickness and accident, consumer credit and travel insurance. Should the insurer seek to provide less than the minimum cover provided by the standard cover, for example, by excluding liability for loss caused by earthquake, he will be required under Clause 36 of the Bill to prove first that he gave notice to the insured, or that the insured knew, that he would be entitled to a lesser cover. Notification of unusual terms The present law is based on an assumption that the insured and the insurer are on an equal footing. Consequently, the insurer is not required to advise the insured of any particular terms in the contract. Clause 38 of the Bill recognises that the insured is often less well-informed than the insurer and accordingly requires the insurer to give the insured a written statement of the effect of any terms not usually found in contracts of insurance providing similar cover. Should the insurer fail to do so, he will be unable to rely on that unusual term. If he has not already done so, the insurer, upon receiving a written request from the insured, must give the insured a written statement setting out all the provisions of the contract. The insurer will be subject to a penalty of $5,000 should he fail to give the statement. Reasons for cancellation to be given Under present law, an insurer may cancel a contract or refuse to renew it without giving reasons to the insured. This can give rise to great hardship when the insured tries to arrange alternative cover. Clause 75 of the Bill requires the insurer to give the insured a written statement of his reasons should he cancel a contract or refuse to renew it. Non-disclosure and misrepresentation Contracts of insurance require that both the insurer and the insured display the utmost good faith. The Bill recognises this but mitigates the common law rule that an insurer may avoid a contract whenever the insured fails to disclose , whether innocently or fraudulently, every material circumstance which he knew an insurer would regard as relevant in assessing the risk. This rule imposes too strict a duty on the insured and, accordingly, clause 22 of the Bill provides that the insured's duty is only to disclose those facts which he knew, or which a reasonable person in his position would have known, to be relevant to the insurer's assessment of the risk. Only fraudulent misrepresentations by the insured will entitle an insurer to avoid the contract, clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. A court will be empowered under clause 32 of the Bill to diregard that avoidance if it would be harsh and unfair not to do so. Should the insurer choose not to avoid the contract or should the misrepresentation or breach of the duty to disclose be innocent rather than fraudulent, the insurer's liability will be reduced by an amount which represents the loss suffered by the insurer by reason of the misrepresentation or breach of duty. Furthermore, clause 60 of the Bill will enable the insured in these circumstances to cancel the contract as regards future liability. Insurable interest As the law now stands, an insured must, under most contracts of insurance, hold an insurable interest at the time of the execution of the contract. In the case of contracts of general insurance, he must also hold an insurable interest at the time when loss occurs. The Law Reform Commission took the view that in most cases of general insurance these rules were based on historical accident rather than on any clear legislative policy. Clause 18 of the Bill therefore provides in effect that an insured may enter into a contract of general insurance even when he does not have an insurable interest in the subject matter and that he may recover under the contract provided he has suffered economic loss by damage to, or destruction of, the subject matter. Under clause 19 of the Bill an insured will still be required to have an insurable interest at the time he enters into a contract of life insurance or a contract providing for the payment of money on the death of a person by sickness or accident. Privity of contract At common law, the doctrine of privity of contract will generally mean that a third party who is not the insured but who it is intended should be covered by the insurance contract, is in fact unable to claim. In State jurisdictions, the common law has been modified so that third parties can recover at least as far as compulsory third party insurance is concerned. Clause 48 will further modify the law. It will permit a third party, who is specified or referred to in a contract of general insurance as the person to whom the cover extends, to recover his loss from the insurer. Clause 48 will also make a similar modification to the doctrine of privity of contract in relation to a contract of life insurance. To a certain extent this modification has already been in operation by virtue of section 94 of the Life Insurance Act 1945. Section 94, however, is much more cumbersome, difficult to interpret and limited in its operation. Subrogation Unless expressly excluded by the terms of a general contract of insurance an insurer is subrogated, that is, substituted, to any rights the insured has against a third party in respect of loss or damage to the subject matter of the insurance contract. The right of subrogation does not exist in relation to contracts of life insurance or to the usual forms of personal accident insurance . The Law Reform Commission considered that the insurer's right of subrogation was not appropriate where the issue of double indemnity is not likely to arise. Consequently, clause 65 of the Bill provides that the insurer is not entitled to be subrogated to the insured's rights against a third party who: has a family or other personal relationship with the insured or, in the case of a motor vehicle insurance, had his consent to use the vehicle concerned; and is not himself insured. As recommended by the Commission, the insurer will have no such right of subrogation where the insured's rights were against his employee, clause 66. The Commission concluded that such a right can damage industrial relations and thus runs counter to the reasonable expectation of both employers and employees that the employer and his insurer will bear the risks attendant upon employment. Proposals in Law Reform Commission Report not taken up in Bill The Law Reform Commission recommended that an insurer should not be able to cancel a group of general insurance policies without the approval of the Insurance Commissioner who would have to have regard to the insurer's financial position and its risk exposure if the group of policies was not cancelled. Furthermore, it recommended that the Insurance Commissioner and the Life Insurance Commissioner should have wide powers to compel the withdrawal of misleading insurance documents. These will not be provided for in the Bill which is to be self-regulating. The Treasurer will consider both these proposals separately. A number of other recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, which do not relate to the law governing terms and conditions of contract, will also be dealt with separately. I will briefly outline the more important of these recommendations: Reviewing insured's complaintsInsurers and industry associations should be encouraged to develop more effective procedures for reviewing complaints made by insureds and to investigate the possibility of introducing an industry-based system of review, such as those developed in the United Kingdom, recommendation 66; Insured's priorityIn the case of an insurer who becomes insolvent, consideration should be given to whether insureds should be given priority over other unsecured creditors, recommendation 71; Investment controlsThe Insurance Commissioner should have the power to require an insurer to reduce its level of investment in any category of investments where that level of investment puts at serious risk the insurer's ability to meet actual and potential claims under existing or future contracts, recommendation 72; Guarantee schemeA guarantee scheme should be established providing protection up to 75 per cent of claims not exceeding $200,000 per property or $1m per liability claim, recommendation 75; Role of Insurance CommissionersThe Life Insurance Commissioner and the Insurance Commissioner should have power to order an insurer not to appoint or replace a manager who has been found guilty of an offence against the Life Insurance Act 1945, the Insurance Act 1973 or any other law in respect of conduct relating to insurance or dishonest conduct, provided that the offence is one which, in the opinion of the relevant Commissioner, renders the person unfit to be a manager or director of an insurer, recommendation 74; Consideration should be given to empowering either the Life Insurance Commissioner or the Trade Practices Commission to enforce legislation prescribing the manner in which life insurance policies should be replaced and information concerning their replacement provided to the insured, recommendation 14; DiscriminationPending an overall review of discrimination in areas of Commonwealth responsibility, the Human Rights Commission should have jurisdiction to receive and investigate complaints in respect of discrimination in insurance on the grounds of sex or marital status, physical or mental handicap, recommendation 77. This recommendation will be further considered in the course of the Government's review of human rights and anti-discrimination law and machinery. Jurisdictional issues The draft Bill attached to the Law Reform Commission's report does not contain any provision relating to jurisdiction. However, the Commission recommended that State and Territory courts should continue to exercise original jurisdiction to determine cases concerning the rights and duties of parties to a contract of insurance. The Government has accepted this recom- mendation. The Law Reform Commission made no recommendation regarding appellate jurisdiction. The Government has decided that, due to the fact that the Bill does not create new causes of action but will modify rights and liabilities under the general law of contract as applied to some contracts of insurance, appellate jurisdiction will vest in State Supreme Courts. Appeals from Territory Supreme Courts will be to the Federal Court consistently with appeals in other matters. Financial impact statement The Bill is concerned with the law applicable to terms and conditions of contract and will be self-regulating. It will not provide for any additional powers and controls to be vested in any public official such as the Insurance Commissioner. The Bill will therefore have no impact on Government revenues. I commend the Insurance Contracts Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1983 is necessary to allow the Attorney-General to consider any request from the New South Wales Special Commissions of Inquiry for information relating to the Commission, or intended commission, of a serious criminal offence which has been obtained by the lawful interception of telecommunications. Honourable senators will be aware that three separate inquiries are being conducted in New South Wales, under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act of New South Wales 1983 and constituted by Mr Justice Cross. In particular, he is required to report whether there is evidence warranting the prosecution of any person for any offence arising out of the matters referred for inquiry. The Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, which empowers a judge to approve telephone interception by the Australian Federal Police where relevant to a narcotics investigation, places stringent restrictions on the communication of information so obtained. Where information relates, or appears to relate, to the Commission, or intended commission, of an offence against the law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, being an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than three years, the Commissioner of the Australien Federal Police may communicate it to a member of the Australian Federal Police for the purposes of investigations into the offence, or to an officer of the police force of a State or Territory, as the case may be. The Act also provides that such information may be given in evidence in specified prosecutions and certain proceedings under the Customs Act 1901. The Act does not, therefore, authorise the communication of information obtained by an intercept to Mr Justice Cross, either by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police or by an officer of the New South Wales Police Force to whom any such information had been communicated. The Government is of the view that, in circumstances such as these, the public interest in proper law enforcement and co-operation with the States in law enforcement matters outweighs the concerns of privacy involved in the enlargement of the circumstances in which such information can be communicated, but that proper safeguards must be observed. It therefore proposes this amendment to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to allow the Attorney-General in certain circumstances to communicate information obtained by the lawful interception of telecommunications to the Cross Inquiry. First, there must be a request for specific information. The Attorney-General must then consider, if any relevant information exists, whether it is relevant to the purposes of the inquiry, and whether it relates, or appears to relate, to the commission or intended commission of an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period of at least three years. If these requirements are satisfied, and if the Attorney-General is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, he may then communicate the information to Mr Justice Cross. The Attorney-General may, when communicating any such information , impose conditions as to the use that may be made of it. It is envisaged that conditions would generally relate to preserving the confidentiality of the information for reasons such as the protection of current Australian Federal Police investigations. Finally, the Government thinks it proper that whenever the Attorney-General communicates information to an inquiry, he should, subject to the need to preserve the confidentiality of the information and the need to avoid prejudice to reputations, report to Parliament that he has done so, and advise Parliament of any conditions imposed by him on the use of the information . I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.20) —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 enact legislation to validate the payment and collection of amounts under the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1979 and the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1979. The Charge Act was amended by Part VXII of the Export Control (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1982 with effect from 1 January 1983. The title of the first Act and the definition of 'abattoir' in section 4 of that Act were amended to reflect the repeal of the Exports (Meat) Regulations by the Export Control ( General) Regulations made under the Export Control Act 1982 also with effect from 1 January 1983. The new definition of an abattoir in the Charge Act requires that premises used for the carrying on of operations in connection with the slaughter and dressing of animals from which meat intended for export is obtained be prescribed. In the event such premises were not prescribed. Fees within the maximum rates of charge set under section 6 of the Charge Act and prescribed by regulation have continued to be collected since 1 January 1983 notwithstanding the failure to prescribe premises. Those maximums and the operative rates of charge prescribed in regulation 3 of the charge regulations were increased in the context of the Budget with effect from 1 October 1983. The charge regulations have been amended to prescribe premises that are registered premises within the meaning of the Export Control Act 1982 for the purposes of the definition of 'abattoir' in section 4 of the Charge Act. The Bill will overcome a technical deficiency in the legislation which has become apparent. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) 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 Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.22) —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 major purpose of the Bill is to amend the Insurance Act 1973 to strengthen the minimum financial standards to be observed by insurance companies authorised under the Act and thereby contribute to improving the financial position of the industry. It will also seek to effect certain other improvements in the existing system of supervision of those companies. This Bill represents, in the main, a consolidation of the Insurance Amendment Bill 1982, introduced into Parliament on 29 April 1982, and amendments to that Bill which were introduced into Parliament on 9 December 1982. I think it will be appreciated by all concerned with the industry that the amendments proposed in this Bill are both urgent and necessary and I would not dispute with those who might argue that a strengthening of the supervisory arrangements is long overdue. In very large part the provisions of the Bill are of a bipartisan nature and they are clearly in the interests of industry stability and the insuring public. They have been strongly supported by successive insurance commissioners and have the support of insurance industry organisations representing general insurance companies. The main strengthening of the Act will arise from the provisions in the Bill concerned with increasing the minimum paid up capital and solvency requirements to be met by general insurance companies. These increases will be subject to appropriate phasing-in arrangements as provided for in Part III of the Bill. The Bill also contains amendments to improve the existing supervisory machinery. Some of the more important changes within this latter category are concerned with increasing various monetary amounts in the Act, including financial penalties, to bring them into line with present day conditions; provision for improved requirements relating to accounts; more comprehensive quarterly returns ; and measures to facilitate the revocation of authorisation under the Act where a company is withdrawing from the industry. In view of the Government's decision to retain the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation the provisions concerning the sale of the Corporation that were incorporated in the 1982 Bill, introduced by the previous Government, are no longer necessary and have been omitted from the current Bill. The Government has carefully considered the provisions of paragraph 15 (1) (d) of the 1982 Bill which would limit the extent to which premiums held by insurance intermediaries would be treated as assets of an insurer for solvency purposes. Following decisions taken by the Government and announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 17 October 1983 to introduce legislation to regulate insurance brokers and agents, the Government has decided not to proceed in this Insurance Amendment Bill with the provisions reflected in paragraph 15 (1) (d) of the 1982 Bill. I should add, however, that it is the Government's intention to seek to incorporate provisions dealing with the practice of extended credit in the proposed legislation for regulation of insurance brokers and agents. It is the Government's intention that that legislation be introduced later this year and that it will lie on the table until the Autumn sittings 1984 to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on the legislation. I would also like to draw to the attention of the Senate the prospect of further amendments to the Insurance Act, which, for certain reasons, have not been incorporated in this Insurance Amendment Bill. Work has been continuing on the formulation of possible proposals to amend the Insurance Act 1973 in relation to the activities of mortgage insurers. The issues involved are complex and likely to take some time to resolve. Accordingly the Government has decided not to delay introduction of the amendments contained in this Bill until those issues are resolved. The Government is aware of, and shares the concerns resulting from, the failure of Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Limited. It is also conscious of the proposals that have emerged from various quarters for amendments to the Insurance Act and improvements in the supervisory arrangements with a view to minimising the risk of future occurrences of this type. In considering such proposals it is important to appreciate that the primary purpose of the Act is the establishment of a system for the prudential oversight of authorised insurance companies with a view to ensuring that the industry operates on a sound financial basis and is one in which the public can have confidence. The system requires compliance with certain minimum standards, and is directed at ensuring a company's ability to meet its liabilities. However, no matter how well devised any system might be it cannot wholly prevent fraudulent practices, although the Insurance Act and other areas of legislation dealing with business standards and practices, such as the companies code, should of course seek to minimise as far as is practicable, the opportunities for fraud. The circumstances surrounding the failure of Bishopsgate are being closely studied by the Government. This examination is taking into account the efficacy of possible new measures, their practicability in administration and associated costs and bearing in mind the need to balance the community benefits deriving from any new legislation with the interests of maintaining an efficient industry. It will be our intention to consult with the States, industry and other interested groups in the near future on this and other insurance matters. Following those processes it would be our intention to bring forward appropriate amendments at the earliest opportunity. My comments dealing with processes following on the Bishopsgate collapse in no way detract from the urgency of the amendments now proposed in this Bill. Indeed, recent developments in the industry point to the need to strengthen the provisions of the Act. These amendments do that and I commend the Insurance Amendment Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages wihtout delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.23) —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 main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Life Insurance Act 1945 to strengthen and improve the existing supervisory machinery of the Act and to overcome certain difficulties experienced by the Life Insurance Commissioner with its administration. The more significant provisions of the Bill are those which would amend the Act to allow for the imposition, by either the Treasurer or the Commissioner of conditions on registration, and to empower the Commissioner to exercise specified controls over certain forms of investments made by life offices. The Act currently does not provide scope for the Commissioner to register a company subject to conditions. It does however, contain a number of provisions relating to investigations of life companies and empowers the Commissioner to issue such directions to a company in respect of its life insurance business as he thinks necessary in the light of an investigation. In effect this is a power to impose conditions on the continued registration of a company which has been the subject of an investigation. The processes concerned with undertaking an investigation can be very time consuming and in some circumstances it may not be in the best interests of policyholders to defer action pending the outcome of an investigation. To overcome this problem the amendments will allow for conditions to be imposed, either at the time of initial registration of a company, or on a previously registered life company without prior resort to formal investigation procedures. Comparable provisions are contained in the Insurance Act 1973. The conditions to be imposed will be subject to appropriate appeals provisions and must be consistent with the Act's basic thrust of supervising life offices with a view to ensuring their ability to discharge their liablities to policyholders. The amendments relating to control over investments will empower the Commissioner to exercise control over certain forms of investments made by life offices in related companies and in trust schemes. In addition, there will be a requirement for the provision of data on such investment activities to facilitate the process of supervision. In developing these controls, the Government has sought to preserve a balance between allowing companies adequate freedom in their investment decision-making and in maintaining industry stability in the interests of the insuring public. The controls envisaged in the Bill involve some changes to certain unproclaimed amendments to section 39 of the Act contained in the Life Insurance Amendment Act 1977 introduced by the former Government. The amendments take account of earlier problems raised by the industry and they do not envisage any restrictions on investment in subsidiaries and in other life companies. However, restrictions on investments in parent or holding companies and investments in companies with the same parent or holding company are considered essential by the consumer for the protection of policyholders. The restrictions on investments in trust schemes, without the prior approval of the Commissioner, to 5 per cent of the assets of a statutory fund of a life company represents his concern that life offices should avoid situations where a significant part of a company's assets are given to some other institution to manage or invest. In addition to the important changes I have described, the Bill will provide for the inclusion of a minimum paid-up capital requirement of $2m in respect of companies seeking registration under the Act. The purpose of this amendment is to give legislative backing to a requirement now set by the Life Insurance Commissioner under his registration guidelines. It is relevant that a legislative requirement of this nature is contained in the insurance Act 1973. The Bill will also effect a number of administrative changes to the Life Insurance Act including a provision to extend the effective period for furnishing of the Commissioner's annual report to Parliament from three months to five months. Both the present Commissioner and his predecessor have found the current period to be unrealistic and the longer period will allow more reasonable time for the preparation of relevant statistical material. Other administrative changes are concerned with improving the Commissioner's access to the information and documents needed in carrying out his supervisory responsibilities and with including provisions designed to encourage people wishing to carry out the functions of an actuary under the Act to seek qualification through the Institute of Actuaries of Australia rather than an overseas body. Finally, the opportunity has been taken to seek inclusion in the Act of rights of appeal against various discretionary actions and decisions available to the Commissioner under the Act; changes to the appeals mechanism to bring it into line with other Commonwealth legislation and to effect a number of formal amendments to take account of current legislative drafting practice. Taken together, the thrust of the proposed changes is to overcome difficulties faced by the Commissioner in carrying out his task of prudential supervision of the life insurance industry. I would also like to take this opportunity to foreshadow the possible introduction next year of further amendments to the Life Insurance Act. The Government has under consideration a number of other suggestions by the Commissioner for administrative improvements to the Act which have not been sufficiently developed for inclusion in this Bill. In addition, a working group, comprising officials and representatives of the life insurance industry, has recently completed a comprehensive review of the Act. It is expected that the examination of the recommendations of this working group and the Commissioner's further proposals will form the basis for a further Bill which it is intended be put before the Parliament at the earliest opportunity. We will also be considering whether any changes to the Insurance Act developed in the light of the failure of Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Limited might also be reflected in the Life Insurance Act. I commend the Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1983 to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Clause 23 (Persons entitled to enrolment and to vote). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.24) — When the debate concluded yesterday I was raising the issue presented by sub-clause (6) (a), which states- by reason of being of unsound mind, is incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting; We may well here have perpetrated criteria in relation to one group of citizens that are different from those applying to other groups. It is not terribly difficult to suggest that when the wording in the original Act simply read 'of unsound mind' the level of understanding of mental illness was such as to lead to the lumping together of all such categories under that term. I believe that we have come a long way in the last 60 or 70 years, but here we may be perpetrating something of that understanding. Later on in the legislation we actually read the questions that are put to a person who appears at a polling booth. Essentially, the test that is put to an elector in the polling booth is: 'What is your name? Where do you live? Have you voted before in this election?'. I believe that test does not go anywhere near the test that is suggested here- that a person be capable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting. We never ask a person who turns up at a polling booth whether he or she understands the nature and significance of the action being undertaken. What we may very well be doing here is continuing to impose a more stringent test. Presumably that test will be applied to people in institutions. That is the crux of the point that I am making. My worry is that we will single out a group of people, that group which is in mental institutions or in hospitals for a similar reason, and apply to it a test of quite a significant nature, yet not at the same time apply a similar test to ordinary citizens who appear at a polling booth. I admit that I am unable to suggest ways around it but I believe that the matter is still worthy of study. I will be interested in the Government's response concerning whether it could look again at the matter so that, at some time in the future, we may be able to go beyond what we have here- which is an advance on the old legislation-to language that will bring us closer to a situation in which the two groups of people concerned, those who are in mental institutions and those who are outside of them, will not be subjected to significantly different tests in relationship to their rights as citizens in casting a vote. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.28) —In response to the comments made by Senator Macklin, may I simply indicate that the expression used in sub-clause 6 (a)-'by reason of being of unsound mind, is incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting'-is one which finds its way into the measure as a result of a number of legal opinions and interpretations given over the years as to the proper meaning of the simple expression 'unsound mind' which appeared in the former Act. The real substances of the clause is in the gloss, namely, the reference to being incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting. It may be that the drafting could have proceeded in such a way as to use just that language, without reference to the phrase which I take it Senator Macklin finds unattractive, but one really needs both legs of the double in order to have a whole legal concept. The best advice of the draftsmen is that, taking into account the way in which this phrase has been interpreted over the years, in such case law as there has been, this compendious expression is the best available to communicate, in a way which makes it clear that it is not intended to be offensive, the concept that needs to be communicated in legislation. So while we take to heart what Senator Macklin is saying about the importance of linguistic description in these respects, we do not think that in this context we can do any better. We will try harder next time. Clause agreed to. Clause 24. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.30) —by leave-I move: (2) Page 55, clause 24, line 17, leave out ''or''. (3) Page 55, clause 24, after proposed paragraph 39C (1) (e) insert the following word and paragraph: ''; or (ea) in a case in which there is no Subdivision for enrolment for which the person can apply in pursuance of paragraph (c), (d) or (e)-the Subdivision with which the person has the closest connection,''. These amendments arise from the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. This legislation attempts for the first time to come to grips with the issue of the itinerant voter. I think that again this represents a significant reform because basically for the first time we have attempted to come to grips with the fact that Australia has a very large number of people who are itinerants and who have been deprived of the right to have their names placed on the electoral roll. I congratulate the Government for picking up this anomaly. Proposed new section 39C (1) (c), (d) and (e) set out the subdivisions in which such persons will enroll. However, some genuine itinerants may still not come within the scope of this provision. I refer to a person who was not born in Australia and who has never had an entitlement to enrol in as much as he does not have a residential qualification or a next of kin. I think that there would be a significant number of people in Australia such as Vietnamese who do not have a next of kin. The purpose of my third amendment is to ensure that people who do not fall within the categories listed in the legislation can apply to enroll in the subdivision with which they have the closest connection. I have designed my amendment in that way so that we do not, for example, get a situation in which 500 university students decide to enrol in a particular electorate. They would not be able to do so under paragraphs (c), (d) or (e). I believe the situation would be left open for abuse if we eliminated paragraphs ( c), (d) or (e). I imagine that only a small number of people will not satisfy the criteria laid down in th elegislation. However, I think they are entitled to be on the roll. I believe that my third amendment would prevent any significant abuse by people moving in and out of the electorate for certain purposes. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(4.33) —I just indicate that we on the Government side see the merit of Senator Macklin's amendments and I think we will be accepting them. Amendments agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.34) —It might save the time of the Committee if I move amendments Nos. 4 to 15 together. Although they refer to different clauses this course of action might be permissible on the basis that those clauses all relate to matters that were raised by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I am happy to move them separately when each clause comes before the Committee. The CHAIRMAN —I think it would be better if we handled them clause by clause. The honourable senator may seek leave to speak to those amendments. Senator MACKLIN —I seek leave to speak to the amendments. Leave granted. Senator MACKLIN —Basically the amendments are the result of the recommendations of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in relation to the review of decisions made by a returning officer or an Australian Electoral Officer on matters such as enrolment or whether or not a person has his address removed from the roll. What the amendments seek to do is in line with what is now established practice-that is, to make the Administrative Appeals Tribunal the effective area to which appeals against decisions can be made. I would not expect that this arrangement would be availed of very often. Nevertheless, I believe it is useful to have this provision in the legislation. A number of witnesses who appeared before the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform pointed out that there needed to be a facility other than the high level judicial type which could take care of most of the problems. From what I have seen in terms of the operation of the Electoral Office I would think there would be very little trouble if such appeals were instituted. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment in line with moves by this Parliament to ensure that people who feel they have been unfairly treated as a result of decisoins made by various officers and various departments should be able to appeal against such decisions. I move: (4) Page 56, clause 24, after proposed sub-section 39C (5) insert the following sub-section: '' '(5A) Where an Australian Electoral Officer notifies a person under sub- section (5) of a decision to refuse an application made under sub-section (1), the notice shall include a statement to the effect that a person whose interests are affected by the decision may, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, if he is dissatisfied with the decision, make an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision.''. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.37) —Senator Macklin's suggestions ring melliferously in our ears. We accept the amendments accordingly . Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 25 to 26-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 27 (Claims for provisional enrolment). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.38) —Speaking to clause 27 might I very briefly and without undue rancour say that the sudden change in the program and the sudden bringing on of the Bill caught a number of us by surprise. I just want to place on record that there had not been adequate communication of the fact that it was intended to change the order of business of the Senate and bring this matter on for debate. This arrangements has not made the matter easy for us. Senator Gareth Evans —Regard it as a surgical emergency. Senator PETER BAUME —If the Attorney thinks it is an emergency it would have been better if we had been advised. I just place that on record. I move: (6) Page 58, clause 27, proposed new sub-section 41A (1), lines 11 to 14, leave out the proposed sub-section, insert the following sub-section: '' '(1) Any person who- (a) is 17 years of age; (b) if he were 18 years of age would be entitled to have his name placed on the Roll for a Sub-division in which an election is to be held; and (c) will attain the age of 18 years after the time specified in sub-section 43 (4) for the cessation of alterations to the Rolls and prior to the date of the election, may send or deliver a claim to have his name placed on the Roll for that Sub-division to any Divisional Returning Officer.'.''. Honourable senators will be aware that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform addressed this problem briefly on page 110 of its report. It recommended that a system of provisional enrolment be introduced. The Opposition accepts completely the desirability of people who are of an appropriate age and who wish to vote being able to vote. If certain people turn 18 years of age and qualify to vote during the run up to an election, the Opposition has no objection at all to their being able to enrol and to vote. This amendment merely seeks to institute this arrangement by a slightly different process. It seeks to enable certain 17 year olds to enrol. We think the way to do that is the way set out in the amendment which is to provide that those who are going to turn 18 before polling day but after the date of the close of the rolls should be able to make provisional enrolment beforehand. Senator Missen —How will they know? Senator PETER BAUME —The rolls will be required to be left open for a certain amount of time after the election has been announced. That is my understanding of the legislation. During that time we think it is entirely appropriate that those who are 17 but almost 18 years of age should be able to make provisional registration so that they will be able to vote in that election. We see no merit in the opening up of rolls for the general provisional registration of a number of 17 year olds. We think it can be done. Provided that the rolls are open for a period, those 17-year olds who are almost 18 will be able to enrol under the provisions which we have now set out. We have provided that any person who is 17 , who if 18 would be able to have his name placed on the roll, and who will attain the age of 18 years after the time specified in section 43 (4) of the Principal Act for the cessation of alteration to the rolls, may send or deliver a claim. Senator Missen —I suppose you have a mind that someone who will be 18 in six or eight months may change his address and the records may be therefore fairly well out of date. Senator PETER BAUME —Because many young people are fairly itinerate, that is correct. We understand what the Government is seeking to achieve. We believe that this amendment will achieve it. We believe, because of the interest which was shown before the last election, that the compaction of times, which led to the unfortunate early closing of the rolls then, should not be able to disenfranchise people. We commend this amendment as achieving what we think the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform was seeking to do, but it does not open up the rolls to general provisional registration. We really cannot see that a case can be made out for recommending that as a superior course of action. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(4.41) — The Government will not support this amendment. I can understand what is troubling Senator Peter Baume, because I heard the shadow Minister of State, Mr Steele Hall, speak at more length on this problem. I must say that he appeared to be a little more paranoid about the question than does Senator Peter Baume. To encapsulate the Liberal Party amendment, I point out that its acceptance would mean that people who were 17, but were to turn 18 before an election day, would have something like a week to get on the roll. Under the current proposal, the moment they turn 17 they can apply to be on the roll. They would then be put on the roll and that roll would be printed. But they will not appear on the certified roll unless they have attained 18 on the election day. One of the problems to which Mr Steele Hall alluded was that people already on the roll would therefore claim a vote even though they had not turned 18. But they will not appear on the certified roll. I think that is an important point. Why put them on the roll at all? Why not just hold their cards at the Australian Electoral Office? I think Senator Peter Baume answered that in effect when he said that people move. It is best to put them on the roll, then they have to change their address when they move. My main reason for opposing the Liberal amendment is that there will be a fair bit of pressure on the staff in electoral offices in the five working days before the roll is closed. The roll is closed seven days after the issue of the writs, but that is really five working days. Many other people will rush in to change their address because they have moved. This will put an additional work load on the staff in that period, which I regard as unnecessary. We are living in the age of computerisation where it is very simple to print a roll which will indicate when persons will turn 18 and when they will officially come on the roll. I think that is a much more civilised way of doing it. I oppose the amendment moved by Senator Peter Baume. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 28 to 29-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 30 (Request for addresses not to be shown on roll). Motion (by Senator Macklin) proposed: (5) Page 61, clause 30, after proposed sub-section 46A (4) insert the following sub-section: '' '(4A) Where a Divisional Returning Office grants or refuses a request made by a person under sub-section (1) or (2), the Divisional Returning Officer shall notify the person in writing of the decision.''. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.45) —The Government accepts the amendment moved by Senator Macklin. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 31 to 41-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 42. Motion (by Senator Macklin)-by leave- proposed: (6) Page 66, clause 42, after proposed sub-section 58 (2) insert the following sub-section: '' '(2A) Where a Divisional Returning Officer for a Division- (a) notifies a person under sub-section 39B (5) that an application made by the person under sub-section 39B (1) has been refused; (b) notifies a person under sub-section 46A (4A) that a request made by the person under sub-section 46A (1) or (2) has been refused; (c) notifies a person under sub-section 86 (9) that the person is not enrolled for a Division; or (d) notifies a person under sub-section 86 (10) that the person is not a prescribed elector within the meaning of section 86, the person may, before the expiration of the period of 28 days commencing on the day on which he is so notified, request the Divisional Returning Officer, in writing, to refer- (e) the application made by the person under sub-section 39B (1); (f) the request made by the person under sub-section 46A (1) or (2); or (g) the application made by the person under sub-section 86 (2), as the case may be, to the Australian Electoral Officer for the State that includes that Division for review.''. (7) Page 66, clause 42, line 14, leave out ''or (2)'', insert '', (2) or (2A)'' . (8) Page 66, clause 42, before proposed paragraph 58 (3) (a) insert the following paragraph: ''(aa) any relevant application made under sub-section 39B (1);''. (9) Page 66, clause 42, after proposed paragraph 58 (3) (b) insert the following paragraph: ''(ba) any relevant request made under sub-section 46A (1) or (2);''. (10) Page 66, clause 42, line 21, omit ''and''. (11) Page 66, clause 42, after proposed paragraph 58 (3) (f) insert the following paragraph: ''(fa) any relevant application made under section 86; and''. (12) Page 66, clause 42, line 25, leave out ''or objection'', insert '', objection, application or request''. (13) Page 66, clause 42, line 27, leave out ''or objection'', insert '', objection, application or request''. (14) Page 66, clause 42, line 36, leave out ''or (2)'', insert '', (2) or (2A)' '. (15) page 67, clause 42, lines 12 to 14, leave out proposed sub-section 58AA (1 ), insert the following sub-section: '' '58AA. (1) Application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of- (a) a decision made by an Australian Electoral Officer refusing an application made under sub-section 39C (1); or (b) a decision made by an Australian Electoral Officer under sub-section 58 (5) .''. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.47) —The amendments are acceptable to the Government. Amendments agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.48) —I move: (16) Page 73, clause 42, at the end of proposed section 58N add the following sub-section: '' '(3) Where a political party is de-registered under sub-section (1), that party, or a party that has a name that so nearly resembles the name of the de- registered party that it is likely to be confused with or mistaken for that name , is ineligible for registration under this Part until after the general election next following the re-registration.''. The problem that arises here is one in relation to registration and deregistration of a political party. If one were to look at proposed new section 58N of the Bill, one would find voluntary deregistration provisions to cover a political party which has been registered then seeks to deregister on a voluntary basis. Proposed new 58P contains compulsory provisions in relation to deregistration which would come about, within a period of four years a party has not endorsed one candidate at an election. If one were to look at those two clauses, one would see that a conflict could arise. The scenario could be that a political party-I will take a name which might be useful in the electorate-has registered the name 'Social Democrats' because a party overseas has done rather well under that name. If this party had not in fact endorsed any candidate and did not intend to endorse candidates and was running out of time, presumably, if it were smart, it would simply voluntarily deregister and within the same day register again under the same name. Providing it could fulfil all of the criteria, it would be able to do that. I suggest that would effectively frustrate the compulsory provisions outlined in proposed new section 58P. The amendment that I have moved will simply reiterate in a proposed new section 58N (3) what appears in proposed new section 58P (2), so the provisions there remain identical. If one were to look at proposed new section 58P (2) one would find that it states that where a political party is deregistered, a party which has that name or one which nearly resembles that name and it is likely to cause confusion, that party cannot reregister until after the general election next following the deregistration. I think that that would then put voluntary deregistration on a par with compulsory deregistration and will mean that an Act will not be passed the provisions of which could easily be subverted and got around. I think it is important that we do not put Bills through this Parliament whose provisions can be so easily manipulated, because I think they bring the legislative process into disrepute. I have therefore moved the amendment circulated in my name which would bring the voluntary deregistration and the compulsory deregistration clauses together so that they would operate in unison. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.48) —The propopsed amendment seems to close effectively the loophole which Senator Macklin has identified. Accordingly, the Government supports it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.49) —Of course, that will force me to stand candidates in every half-Senate election. I may not wish to do that. I did not wish to do it and I have not done it until now. I did not do it in-- Senator Robert Ray —You are still in the Parliament, so you continue on. It only affects those not in parliament. Senator HARRADINE —No. I would have to register as a political party. I might register as the Damn All Party, or whatever. For the purpose of getting a group one has to go through the exercise of registration. If Senator Macklin's proposal goes through it will effectively force me to stand candidates at a half Senate election. In the normal course of events I will be a senator until 1988. Senator Peter Baume —At least, Senator. Senator HARRADINE —If the referendum goes through I will be here until 1990. Senator Gareth Evans —God help us! Is that why you will campaign for a No vote? It is the best argument I have heard so far. Senator HARRADINE —I acknowledge that. Can the Minister see the point that is raised? I thought that the formers of the legislation probably had that in mind. Obviously one would have to register within the next three months just in case anything happened next year. I would have to do that. If Senator Macklin's proposal goes through, it will force my hand at the next half Senate election. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.51) —I intervene briefly to say that when we have completed dealing with all the amendments I will be indicating that we are opposed to the whole concept of registration of parties. I do not know whether that is of any assistance to Senator Harradine. It goes beyond the question of this amendment. I thought I should indicate that later we will be opposing the whole concept of registration of parties. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.52) —I think the problem raised by Senator Harradine is important. As I understand it, Senator Harradine will be caught by proposed paragraph 58P if, in fact, he does not stand a candidate. If he does not stand a candidate for the Damn All Party, which he says he will register, within the period of four years immediately following its registration, he will be compulsorily deregistered and will not be able to re-register that very interesting party's name until after the next general election. He will be caught up, not by my amendment, but by the Act itself. All I am suggesting is that where a party wishes to dissolve and get rid of its name, so that that name is released back into the general field so somebody else can use it-there are strict provisions to avoid confusion and so on, as there should be-that party ought not to be able to use that quite legitimate deregistration process to subvert the compulsory process of people getting hold of names and tying them up for ever more so that nobody else can use them. If one looks back over the history of politics in Australia one discovers some very interesting elements that may have arisen in relation to the Australian Labor Party, for example, in Victoria in the 1950s and the ownership of the name there. It seems to me that we need both the voluntary and the compulsory elements, but they ought to be compatible and one ought not to be able to subvert the other. Amendment agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.54) —by leave-I move: (17) Page 81, clause 42, lines 37 and 38, leave out proposed paragraph 58Z (4) (c), insert the following paragraph: '(c) the Commission is satisfied, after making such enquiries as it thinks appropriate of the registered officer of that party or otherwise, that the candidate is so endorsed.'. (18) Page 81, clause 42, at the end of proposed section 58Z add the following sub-section: '(6) A reference in sub-section (4) to the registered officer of a political party shall be read as including a reference to any person nominated by the registered officer of that party to be a deputy registered officer of that party for the purposes of that sub-section by notice in writing, specifying the name and address of the person and signed by the registered officer, lodged with the Commission, not being a nomination that has been cancelled by notice in writing, signed by the registered officer, lodged with the Commission.'. Amendment No. (17) relates to the problem concerning the registered officer. If one looks at the Act, one sees that a registered party has a registered officer. Under the Act this person becomes a very previous commodity. From what I can understand, there seems to be only one registered officer in the whole of the country. I think that person should not be allowed out of doors, because if anything happens to that person in the run-up to an election there will be an enormous problem. The reason is that if the registered officer changes and one cannot get the signature of the person who is currently registered one has to go through a series of technical details and one has to do so within a period of seven days and in writing. I believe those technicalities need to remain in the Act. The reason for that is fairly obvious. If there is a problem within a political party we do not want somebody waltzing in off the street and suggesting that he is now the registered officer of that political party. There has to be a mechanism for due process in the changeover from one registered officer to another. The crucial problem that I see arising, and it is one which could afflict any political party at any time, could occur during the period when an election has been called and we are getting our candidates. This registered officer has to sign the candidates' forms or the electoral commissioner has to satisfy himself by way of discussions with the registered officer that the candidate who is purporting to be a Liberal, Labor or Democratic candidate is indeed such a candidate. My worry really concerns emergency situations such as death, illness or where, for example, the officer has gone on an overseas trip and is unobtainable or not able to be contacted if a sudden election is called. In essence, this could really destroy a political party's chance of winning an election, because it could not have any candidates registered as candidates of that political party. It seems to me that to put so much of our democratic process into the hands of one person is slightly frightening. My amendment No. (18), I think, will avoid the problem by the part which reads: A reference . . . to the registered officer of a political party shall be read as including a reference to any person nominated by the registered officer of that party to be a deputy registered officer of that party for the purposes of that sub-section by notice in writing . . . What I would imagine would occur in this context would be that the registered officer of the Australian Democrats in Australia would nominate in writing a deputy registered officer of the Party in each State. I think that would probably bring this part of the Act in line with a later section of the Act where the registration, for the purposes of funding, is at a State level. I looked, first of all, at going down that track with this amendment, of making there be registration in each State, but I think that would disadvantage new parties which had just got off the ground and which could not generate 500 members in more than one State; it would not be able to get over that magic number. I believe this may be the optimum way out of the problem. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.58) —I indicate that the amendments are acceptable to the Government. Amendments agreed to. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.58) —I indicate that the Opposition opposes clause 42 dealing, as it does, with the registration of political parties. We believe the registration of political parties is the keystone of the Government's intention to introduce public funding of political parties. It represents the first time that there has been an intrusion of government and public administration into political parties with the assistance of taxpayers' money. The Government says that registration is necessary because of public funding and the list system of voting. I understand that is a logical statement, but it is evident from polls which have been taken publicly that the Australian public does not want public funding of political parties. It is also apparent that anyone who possesses registration of a party will enjoy very clear advantages and that registration of itself will confer an asset upon a party. Quite clearly, if this Bill is passed, those parties wishing to have their candidates listed on the ballot paper will have to register. We understand that, but we think it is not correct. We think it is a retrograde step. I indicate that we oppose the clause in its entirety. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.00) —I am indebted to Senator Baume for continuing the ritual in this respect. I think it was very much a ritualistic response at this point. The Government's contributions to this ritual have been made on so many occasions that it is hardly necessary to repeat them, except to say that the registration of political parties is not sought only in the context of public funding but also, of course, in the context of showing party affiliations on ballot papers, a worthwhile reform in its own right, quite apart from the public funding issue. Maybe Senator Baume can bring himself to contemplate supporting clause 42 on that basis if not otherwise. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.01) — In view of the circumstances that have arisen today and in view of other aspects of this legislation, I now oppose the clause. Question put: That the clause, as amended, be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColston, M. A. Macklin, M. J. Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Townley, M. Richardson, G. F. Rae, P. E. Coleman, R. N. Collard, S. J. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 43 to 51-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 52 (Mode of nominations). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.08) —I move: Page 87, clause 52, lines 15 and 16, leave out ''by adding at the end thereof the following sub-sections:'', insert ''- (a) by omitting paragraph (b) and substituting the following new paragraphs: '(b) be signed by not less than 100 persons entitled to vote at the election for which the candidate is nominated; or (c) (i) be signed by not less than 6 persons entitled to vote at the election for which the candidate is nominated; and (ii) be accompanied by a deposit, made by the person nominated or by some person on his behalf, of the sum of- (A) in the case of a person nominated as a Senator-$500; or (B) in the case of a person nominated as a Member of the House of Representatives-$250, in legal tender or in a banker's cheque'; (b) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-sections:''. This amendment refers to the amounts to be deposited for the nomination of a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. The rationale for raising the amounts of money is, of course, to attempt to stop frivolous candidates from running. However, I think it has been quite clearly said that it solves the problems of the frivolous poor but is not too effective against the frivolous rich. I disagree with the increasing of the amounts of money, as does my party. The situation really ought to be rectified in some other way. The proposal that I put forward presents an alternative for a person nominating for election: He may seek the signatures of not fewer than 100 persons who are entitled to vote at the election for which he has nominated as a candidate. Effectively, what that would do is to say that instead of a monetary nomination, it is a representation from the electorate that this person has support within the electorate. After all, that seems to me to be more appropriate than the payment of an amount of money. It means that the person could be expected to have some degree of support within the electorate. I take as an example a person from, say , the Unemployed Workers Union who may find that the amount of money upon which he is required to call here would be some months payment of the unemployment benefit, if he could accumulate that. If that person could gain the signatures of 100 people in the electorate, he ought also to be able to nominate. I understand that if I move directly against the $500 and the $250 provision, it would be a useless activity. I am also aware of the discussions that took place in the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform about this matter. It was a very interesting debate. But I still press the point I raised at that time . That is that some alternative ought to be offered to those who are unable to find the increasing amounts of money that it seems will be imposed for nomination, and that we should eliminate once and for all that final element in the democratic process, dating back to the last century, of property being a prerequisite for parliamentary nomination and selection. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.11) —More in sorrow than in anger, I have to say that the Government will oppose this gambit by the Australian Democrats which, for all its good intentions, would drive a coach and horses through the object of this provision, which is to keep to manageable proportions the ballot papers with which people have to contend by excluding, so far as it is possible to do so, non-serious candidates who do not have a measure of support. The way in which that measure of support is tested at present is by putting a financial disincentive on those who cannot command at the polls themselves a significant measure of support-4 per cent. What Senator Macklin's amendment would do is to remove that completely. It would entitle anyone who could raise 100 signatures to get on the ballot paper without any subsequent deterrent and run in the event even though the person received no support at all in the poll itself, perhaps not even from his 100 signatories. It has to be acknowledged, as we realise at petition time every day of the week, that getting 100 signatures is not one of the world's more difficult exercises, particularly when the claim that could well be made by someone seeking such signatures is not a commitment of support for him or his ideas but simply a commitment of support which would allow him to get on to the ballot paper. There are enough fuzzy- minded populists around the community to support someone in that aspiration without any difficulty. Senator Haines —How about people of high principle? Senator GARETH EVANS —Indeed, and enough people of high principle-but with insufficient regard to the real world that they inhabit with those high principles to again make it possible for those 100 signatures to be so readily obtained that it would quite undermine the policy of this provision, which has had bipartisan support. For those reasons, we reject the amendment. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.13) —The Opposition does not support the amendment. Amendment negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.14) —by leave-I move: (19) Page 87, clause 52, line 19, insert ''or'' after ''enrolled;''. (20) Page 87, clause 52, line 22, leave out ''enrolled; or'', insert ''enrolled .''. (21) Page 87, clause 52, lines 23 to 28, leave out proposed paragraph 71 (2) (c ). The effect of these amendments would be to delete paragraph (c) of proposed new section 71 (2) of the Principal Act. Paragraph (c) states: in a case where a candidate is or has been a married woman and paragraph (b) does not apply-the names referred to in paragraph (a) or those names with a maiden or married name of the candidate that does not appear on the Roll . . . if we simply added the word 'or' after paragraph (a) and added that in with paragraph (b), there would be no reason to make any special provisions for married women other than those that are made for men. This is the last remnant of something that we are trying to do away with in another Bill. In order to avoid controversy, I shall not enter into that matter. But certainly with the proposed section here, it is probably an oversight on the part of the drafters that it should have been left in because, as I say, there is no reason for it. All eventualities are covered, inasmuch as a person is entitled to enrol under a name or given names and to stand under a name under which he is entitled to enroll. That simply covers every possibility. There is no need to make any special provisions for maiden name or otherwise. In some States the changing of names is required to go through a process of law . I understand that is the case in Western Australia. But it is not the case in Queensland, for example, where one can change one's name not necessarily by deed poll but by dint of practice and custom, and there are no laws governing those names. So the name basically in my State is the name by which one is known in use. So in that sense a woman who wishes to retain her original name, or her maiden name as it is normally called, or a man who upon marriage wishes to change his name, or a couple who wish to hyphenate their name-all of these are varieties of name changes that occur now on marriage fairly frequently-are also accommodated under paragraphs (a) and (b). So I move those amendments, which will in effect eliminate paragraph (c). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.17) —The Government accepts the Australian Democrats' amendments. Amendments agreed to. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.18) —I wanted to get it clarified from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) whether section 71 (2) (a) means, for example, that if my name happened to be Richard William Fortescue Beaufort Brian Harradine, I could retain my name 'Brian Harradine' on the roll. That is one of the Christian names. Two of those are, of course, fictitious. The sub-section states: A nomination may name a candidate only by specifying the surname and the Christian or given name, or one or more of the Christian or given names, under which the candidate is enrolled. I now see that that explains my problem. It is now cleared up. Senator GARETH EVANS —(Victoria-Attorney-General) (5.19)-Senator Harradine has answered his own question to everyone's satisfaction. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 53 to 54-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 55 (Requisites for nomination). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.19) —I think Senator Macklin' s amendments to this clause were consequential upon the defeat of material on sheet 11 and as such lapse with it. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.20) —I seek leave to withdraw amendments Nos. 2 and 3 since they were consequential on an amendment which has been lost. Amendments-by leave-withdrawn. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.21) — Mr Chairman, I am opposed to sub-clause (c) and sub-clause (d) of clause 55. Obviously they increase the amount for nomination from $250 to $500 in the case of a Senate candidate and from $100 to $250 in the case of a House of Representatives candidate. I think some of the problem that has been envisaged will have been overcome by other provisions in this legislation. Though I am not in support of the list system of voting, I think the list system will substantially reduce the number of candidates nominating for the sake of nominating, or being nominated deliberately to create a problem on the ballot paper. It has been suggested that this measure is in some way to deal with the frivolous person. I suppose if I were to renominate in 1989 that might be taken by some to be frivolous. But I would not see it as frivolous and $500 is a fair whack so far as an individual is concerned. Senator Gareth Evans —It won't be in 1989. Senator HARRADINE —I almost feel like sitting down after that comment. I am quite serious about this. It is a problem, particularly when a candidate is trying to gear up for an election and needs the $500 at that time. People tend to look at independents and want the money first, before they print material, for example, or at least if they do not want the money first they want some sort of understanding that it will come forward. I suppose the major political parties are not in that position. I simply mention the matter-although as Senator Gareth Evans has said, maybe $500 in 1989 will not be a problem-because I think it should be raised in this debate. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.23) —I just make one contribution to the debate: Some people would see this as a large increase but equally one can look at it as a large decrease because when the Commonwealth Electoral Act was last amended, in 1965, the cost of nomination for the House of Representatives was three or four times average weekly earnings, whereas today it is about two-thirds of average weekly earnings. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform was very conscious not to put it up too much, although I must say one of the National Party people did suggest $1,000 for the House of Representatives and $2,000 for the Senate. As well as putting the amount of the deposit up, though not to the same extent as inflation, we have reduced the amount of vote a candidate needs to 4 per cent, which will also help. Senator Harradine —That doesn't worry me; you can put it up to 20 per cent, if you want. Senator ROBERT RAY —It might not worry Senator Harradine, but four or five years is a long time in politics so you never know. He might be looking forward to the cheque coming back one day. We have lowered the required vote and have made it far more rational. The increase in the deposit is not massive if we put it in the historical perspective of when the Act was last altered. Clause agreed to. Clauses 56 to 61-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 62. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.25) —I move: (7) Page 92, clause 62, proposed sub-paragraph 86 (1) (b) (i), lines 10 and 11, leave out ''(not being a hospital that is a polling place or a special hospital) ''. Clause 62 seeks to cover the question of registration of general postal voters and the proposed section 86 (1) (b) (i) in the principal Act will seek to deprive certain people in certain hospitals of the capacity to cast a postal vote. The purpose of this Opposition amendment is to ensure that those people shall continue to have a capacity, if it is their wish, to apply for and to vote by way of postal vote. The words in the Bill at line 10 of page 29 are: . . . not being a hospital that is a polling place or special hospital. They are the words that would deprive people in those institutions from exercising the alternative route of applying for and obtaining a postal vote. The amendment would allow persons resident in a special hospital to retain their right to obtain a postal vote when it is their wish. It is a belief we hold that we should make it easier, that we should increase the options, for people to vote. I can see no reason for wanting to take away from people the right to exercise a postal vote in these circumstances. I looked at the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and could not see-someone may correct me-a recommendation which would lead to this provision being put in the Bill. So it is not a provision which enjoyed the support of those senators and members who wrote the report of the Joint Select Committee. It is a simple straightforward amendment. Taking out those words would simply enable people who are patients in hospitals to have the right to apply for and exercise a postal vote. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.27) —I suggest to the Government the reasonableness of what we are seeking to do. To say that a person in a hospital or special hospital that is a mobile polling place can vote only at the time when the mobile polling place is functioning is to overlook the fact that many people in hospitals, for a variety of reasons, may not be able to do so at that particular time due to their frailty, their particular state of illness- Senator Missen —Due to operation. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Due to operation or due to a whole range of situations . It is not within the ordinary course of reason to suggest that the only way in such a place that a person can vote is if that person happens to be fully conscious and available at that point of time. In any case, why should not people in hospital over that period be able to have that freedom? They are the frail; they are the people who have bad days and good days, days on which they get particular treatment and feel absolutely bad. For example, they are the people who are receiving chemotherapy or who may be getting all sorts of treatments. Why should we force upon them the requirement to vote on that particular day instead of saying that they can have the freedom of a postal vote so that any time over the fortnight leading up to the election they can vote. In any case, why should a person be denied a postal vote if for all other reasons- that is, if they are suffering only from frailty or of ill health-they conform. The only reason is that they happen to be in hospital or a special hospital that is a mobile polling place. That seems to have no reason to it at all when I say that the other limitation on it is they have to be available and well enough to cast a vote when the mobile booth is working instead of having the freedom and opportunity to vote a fortnight before. I believe it would be reasonable for the Government to accept this amendment. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.29) —I think we have to go back to the reason why people apply for a vote by post. The reason is that they have no other method of voting. If we take Senator Peter Baume's point to its logical conclusion, everyone should be able to have a postal vote if they so desire. That seems to be the logical philosophical extension of what he said. Senator Peter Baume —And why not be logical? Senator ROBERT RAY —I would have thought that we declare an election day and people have to vote on that day. At the moment there are restrictions on the manner in which people are eligible to get a postal vote. The criterion is basically that one may not be able to vote on the day, for whatever reason. One may be interstate or ill. There may be maternity or religious reasons or whatever else. All those people who are in a prescribed hospital or nursing home that comes within the ambit of this Act have the opportunity to vote when the mobile polling booth comes around. I know that some people say that those people may be out playing cricket when the mobile polling booth comes around. In that case they can easily get to the normal polling booth. To explain why mobile polling booths have been proposed, I have to go back to the basic reason: If there is one area of the electoral system in this country that can be rorted, it is the area of postal votes. I have previously expressed some examples of that and made the point in the Senate that that is probably the area that is most likely to affect an election result. I must say that not everyone in the Australian Labor Party may be happy with the particular clause that has been put in because traditionally the Liberal Party has been best at getting postal votes. In recent years in nearly every State, and notably in New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria, the Labor Party has continued to pick up and has caught up with the Liberal Party. If one wants to draw a graph one will see that we are on the way up and unfortunately the old Liberal Party postal vote machine, based on the blue rinse set, is on its way down. So in many ways maybe the Labor Party machine would be happier to have the old system of an open go on postal votes. In reality we have been complaining for so long that the Government had to fix up the electoral system and remove any potential rorts out of the system. This legislation does it. It gives every person in those nursing homes or hospitals an opportunity to vote and vote fairly with an independent person there when the mobile booth comes around. What it does prevent is a matron or other person from using undue influence to force people who cannot resist that pressure to vote in the particular direction that the matron or whoever else wants and in the way that such a person brings that undue influence to bear. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.32) —I ask Senator Robert Ray or someone in the Government to answer the point made specifically by Senator Sir John Carrick that people will be prevented from voting because, being in hospital, they are more likely to be ill on particular days or certain events are likely to occur, someone suggested a person may be under an anaesthetic. Some people will not be able to vote on the day that the mobile polling booth comes. Without the capacity to have a postal vote they are going to be disenfranchised. I want Senator Sir John Carrick's point responded to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.33) —It will be. If Senator Baume looks to page 90 of the Bill, clause 61, proposed new section 85, sub- paragraph (cc) he will see that it is squarely directed to this situation. It states: Throughout the hours of polling on polling day- Senator Peter Baume —That permits them to apply, but if you want to know who can - Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the point the honourable senator is making. If someone is in a special hospital and for some reason unable to take advantage of the mobile polling booth facility at that hospital he or she is still entitled to apply for a postal vote. We cannot foresee all contingencies. That is the situation now. Senator Sir John Carrick —How does one know one will be unable? Senator GARETH EVANS —The people who do not know they are going to be unable will not be able to vote anyway. The honourable senator is trying to cope with the contingency of someone who has a car accident on the day. Senator Sir John Carrick —But they have good days and bad days. That is the very nature of people in nursing homes and these hospitals. They know that and you know that. Senator GARETH EVANS —I can understand the honourable senator's passionate defence of the system that he has been rorting so effectively in his Party. Senator Sir John Carrick —Mr Chairman, I ask that that remark be withdrawn. The CHAIRMAN —The Attorney-General will withdraw that remark as it is a reflection on Senator Sir John Carrick. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will withdraw the remark if Senator Sir John Carrick finds it offensive. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It must be withdrawn in any case as the Chair finds it offensive. Senator GARETH EVANS —I withdraw the remark but make the point that what this whole exercise is about in relation to mobile booths, and indeed the reduction in the facility of postal voting, is to void some of the misuse of the postal voting system that has operated in the past. There is no doubt that that occurred in a number of different situations, and there is no doubt that is needed to be addressed. As Senator Ray has quite precisely indicated, it is addressed. The only point that is left for the Opposition benches is the argument about anomalies that would be created if particular individuals are deprived of a vote if they are in effect unable to use the mobile polling facility in the hospital in question. I have addressed the answer in the terms that clearly and starkly emerge from the Bill. There is a facility. Senator Sir John Carrick —How will they know days beforehand that on polling day they will be incapable? Senator GARETH EVANS —It may be that there will be some people in that category, but equally there are some people now who do not know that they will be the recipients of an accident or something and as such will be out of action on the day. That is a problem built into the postal voting system at the moment. I cannot honestly add anything more than that. It may be that there will be a handful of cases around the place that might satisfy Senator Sir John Carrick's objection, but basically it is perfectly likely to be the case that anyone who does wax and wane, and as such might be open to the description that he has given, would apply for a postal vote. I believe, on a proper application of the Act, that person would be entitled to get a postal vote. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.36) —I regret very much that Senator Ray has put forward the idea that we are trying to do this because it is spoiling some kind of vigorous activity of ours. I would not want to toss the ball back into the Australian Labor Party's court to remind it of its fervour, its undue activities, in chasing votes in many other ways; I think that is entirely out of court. Let us put Senator Ray back into his court. He is perfectly willing to accept that persons who are sick or incapacitated and are in their homes or, to put it another way, are not in hospitals or special hospitals, are entitled to postal votes and are entitled to receive whatever influence there may be from the community. According to the Government, influence is only naughty if it is in a hospital. This is the ultimate of the ridiculous, and I put it to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that that is so. If the test is that a disabled person, in his home or in his in-law' s home or elsewhere than in a hospital, is unable under this Act to be advised or to be influenced in any way by anyone-he can get a postal vote-what is wrong with the same circumstances happening in a hospital or a special hospital? That one remains unanswered. The second situation is that by their very nature, persons, who are in hospitals as chronically ill or chronically infirm, will from day to day vary in their ability to be able to cast a vote. There is no way in which those people can predict ahead of time that they will be off colour. There is nothing in this Bill, I invite the Attorney-General to state if there is, to allow a person who is frail and has good days and bad days, to say: 'Because I cannot predict how well I feel, how competent I will be, when the mobile booths comes around, I am eligible to apply for a postal vote'. If that provision exists in the Bill I invite him to let me know as I am eager to know. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.39) —I think the attitude being taken by the Government is quite outrageous. It is clear from what Senator Ray said that the clause is introduced on the basis that the Government objected in the past to the provision of postal votes because its opponents were using the system more effectively. Now that the Government is doing very much better in that regard it is grinning like a cheshire cat. It is not a grin; it is a scowl. The Government still fears that it will not do well as it hopes, so it wants to take away from people what should be their normal right of a postal vote. Why should not people be entitled to that? The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) tried to bring in this red herring that clause 61 was going to cover the situation, but of course it does not. It enables people to apply for a postal vote when they are in a place other than a hospital which cares for a person who is seriously ill. Senator Gareth Evans —Look at (cc). Senator MISSEN —Yes. Clause 61 (b) (cc) states: (cc) will- (i) throughout the hours of polling on polling day be a patient in a special hospital; and (ii) be unable to have his vote taken at that hospital in accordance with section 113C;''; How can people be sure that that will be so? How can they make a declaration that they will be unable to vote? Senator Gareth Evans —If they have an operation booked, they are sure. Senator MISSEN —Yes, but they cannot know whether, in the course of their stay in the hospital, they will he to have a further operation and be under sedation that day. They will not know whether they will be able to attend the booth. I put it to the Committee that it is outrageous not to allow people, perhaps frail people, who want to make a postal vote and take their time over it to do so. They should not be forced to totter down to a booth somewhere or even perhaps be taken out of the hospital for the day to go to a booth. Senator Gareth Evans —Why take them out of the hospital? You are just misunderstanding the clause. Senator MISSEN —I do not think that I am misunderstanding the clause. Senator Gareth Evans —We are talking about a booth in the hospital. That is a precondition of the operation. Senator Jack Evans —But the person has to be capable. Senator MISSEN —Yes, but if people are not capable of voting at a booth they could be capable of filling in the postal ballot before the event. They may fear that they may not be recovered by voting day. Senator Gareth Evans —We are talking about mobile booths going from bed to bed. A person would not even have to totter 10 feet. Senator MISSEN —I know about that, but I am saying that people may not be in a position on that day actually to lodge the vote. If they have a fear in regard to this, why should they not be able to put in the vote beforehand? It is not only a matter of what they are being denied by this proposed change. Many people , particularly old people, have a very serious concern about the possibility of their not being able to vote. This legislation only adds to the fears and worries of people in this situation. They are being refused the opportunity to exercise a normal democratic right. I suggest that the attitude of the Government in this is quite outrageous. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.43) — The Liberal amendment is a major health measure. It will have the effect of ensuring that everyone will have a good day- the day the postal vote arrives. That is the guts of the argument. Senator Sir John Carrick said that people have good or bad days. I concede that they have good or bad days, but there is nothing in life that would enable us to know whether they filled in their postal votes on a good or a bad day. I have been to plenty of nursing homes-occasionally I have even been beaten into them by the Liberal organiser-and upon looking around have found that 50 per cent of the people are ga-ga. If three days after the close of the poll one checks on who has in fact applied for postal votes and who the witnesses are, one finds that it is the same witness for all 40 of them. That witness is the Liberal organiser in the area. They have all voted; they all had a good day. Yet it is suggested that on polling day 20 out of 40 may not be having a good day. I must say that some of these Liberal organisers are very good for the people in nursing homes. On the day they visit, they all have a good day. Senator Sir John Carrick rightly objected to what Senator Jack Evans said about postal votes. But I know people in Victoria-Mrs Stanley of East Malvern and Gladys Grant of Toorak-who go out and do 80 to 100 postal votes. They go right through the nursing homes. They are welcomed with open arms. Everyone else is barred. They go in and collect the application forms and arrive back two days later to help fill them out. We all know it goes on. The Opposition knows it goes on. Senator Lajovic —What is wrong with that? Senator ROBERT RAY —People are not given the opportunity to cast their vote. They are in special care. They are in a position where undue influence can be brought to bear on them. That is why they are in those institutions to begin with. A mobile polling booth will go from bed to bed with independent electoral officers. Party scrutineers by all means may observe the proceedings. That is provided for in the Bill. In those circumstances, people can cast their vote. I suggest that it will be a lot easier, even on a bad day, to cast a vote through a mobile polling booth-a person will only have to give his name and address and fill out the ballot paper-than it would be to go through all the application forms and so forth for a postal vote. If we accept Senator Baume's amendment, the institutions that were previously doing it fairly will have a mobile booth and those which were conducting it in a crooked fashion will do it by postal votes. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.44) — The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform looked at the proposal for mobile polling booths. The debate we are now having was actually rehearsed fairly extensively during the proceedings of that Committee in the preparation of its report. Indeed, the recommendation for the mobile polling booths came precisely from consideration of the problems which undoubtedly have arisen in nursing homes and other special hospitals. I do not want to make accusations of one kind or another, as I have no evidence that undue influence occurs in Commonwealth elections in hospitals and the like. I believe that such evidence is pretty hard to obtain. However, I do have evidence in relation to a Queensland state election. A booth is situated in a particular hospital, thus enabling one to find the figures as they are isolated in the statistics. The situation in that particular hospital is that only one party is allowed in by the matron. That particular hospital registers something in excess of 85 per cent of votes for one particular political party. Undoubtedly, it would be possible for that to occur. If that were on the application to get into the hospital, I suppose it would be possible to establish whether that was the case. But I do not think that anybody in the Senate would suggest that a percentage as high as that could arise from a situation that was dealt with fairly by all concerned with that election. I think everybody has to accept that there are problems in this area and that there have been problems in the past. In recommending the mobile polling booths, the Committee sought to give additional assistance to people in those hospitals; it did not seek to take anything away. If honourable senators look through the Bill and the Committee's report, they will see the care with which the mobile polling booth issue has been handled. It is designed positively to assist people in hospitals to cast a valid vote. I think that should be seen as a major advance. In the debate we are having now it looks as though that advance has been cast as something which is taking something away from the citizen. It is not. It is adding something quite significant. It is my hope in supporting that recommendation of the Committee and in supporting the current clause in the Bill that we will obtain more valid votes from those hospitals than we have in the past. Senator Withers —What do you mean by valid votes? Senator MACKLIN —I mean formal votes. Certainly if one looks at the statistics one finds very many informal votes. Again, I cannot get evidence for Federal elections because statistics are not provided on a hospital basis. There may be some, but I do not know of any. I am going only on what happens in my own State, where we have very similar laws in relation to hospitals. The fact is that the hospital I mentioned earlier is able to provide statistics which show a very large number of informal votes. My hope is that this combination of mobile polling booths and the ability of parties to have scrutineers with those going around with them will assist in the fairness and effectiveness of the new procedures proposed in this Bill. I believe that we ought to give this a fair and reasonable chance and see what occurs. The Senate and the House of Representatives have kept in session the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform so that it can look at the results. I believe this will be one of the very areas that that Committee will be very interested in analysing after the next Federal election. It will be able to see precisely what has occurred and compare that with what occurred in previous elections. It can then make recommendations as to what changes ought to be made to the Act in the light of experience. I urge this chamber to support the clause in the Bill in the hope-I hope not misplaced-that we will be giving greater assistance to people in hospitals than has ever been given to them in the past. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.49) —Senator Macklin, Senator Robert Ray and, I think, Senator Jack Evans have made some quite extraordinary assertions. Senator Macklin has suggested that whatever a vote of 85 per cent for one party is obtained it is prima facie evidence of some kind of wrongdoing. I can identify subdivisions of Sydney where the Australian Labor Party gets well over 85 per cent of the vote. Is anyone suggesting that that is prima facie evidence of any kind of wrongdoing? I can identify postal voting mechanisms in certain Aboriginal communities which return to the Labor Party votes well in excess of 90 per cent. Is anyone suggesting that that is prima facie evidence? Senator Macklin —Yes. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Macklin believes it is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing. That is an interesting proposition. Senator Gareth Evans —Nobody in his right mind would vote for you lot. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Macklin is asserting something else. I just think that that is at least a testable proposition. I do not think it is easy to sustain. Secondly, one goes to the report of the Joint Select Committee and looks at the chapter on postal voting to see what it had to say about all the rorts that people are talking about. It now comes out that this is some kind of mechanism prompted by a background of a paranoid belief on the part of the Australian Labor Party. Where does that appear in the report of the Joint Select Committee? A chapter has been written on postal voting but I can find no reference to, no suggestion of, any of the rorts about which honourable senators are talking. Are they telling me that they sat down all winter, examined these matters, examined postal voting, and came up with a lot of suggestions; that they were so passionate about rorts but did not write a word about it in this report? I do not believe that is credible. There is some hidden agenda which is political, which they did not want to go into the report. They could not sustain it, could not make out a case that would wash with the public, so they did not put it in the report where it would be criticised. Instead, they bring it out now in the Parliament. We are going on what is stated in the report, which we believe expresses bipartisan views. If one goes to page 109 of the report and looks at the way in which the mobile polling booths are to operate one sees that they will not necessarily go around on polling day at all, of course. They can go around on any of the five days preceding polling day, on polling day, or on a day subsequent if polling has been adjourned. If they go around on polling day and a person is unable then to use a booth such a person will not have available the other opportunity, that of obtaining a postal vote. It is predictible that there will be occasions when people will be unable on polling day to use the mobile booth. The obvious case is that of the person who might have some kind of surgical procedure. Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned chemotherapy, where a person knows that he or she is to have it and, for many, it will knock them out for a day or so. If such a person cannot vote then that person will be unable-unless he or she knows for certain in advance of that inability to vote-to obtain a postal vote. We are not objecting to the use of mobile polling booths; we have made no objection to them at all. We accept that they will represent an advance. However, we have asked that the extra option, that of casting a postal vote, if one should so desire, should be available to people. I cannot understand the reasoning put forward by Senator Macklin. It is deficient in logic and I wonder at the hidden agenda that people have in their minds when they make the assertions that they have made in this Committee debate. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.53) —I want to address myself to the statements made by the Australian Democrats, who say that they welcome the provision of an additional facility for people in hospitals and special hospitals, but in fact there will be the loss of a facility, the loss of a postal vote. I put it to the Democrats that such a facility is available to all such people if they are in the same condition in their homes, with the benefit of their families around them. Nobody objects to their families or others then assisting them with their vote. The extraordinary argument that has been proposed-and I need some clarification on this-is that, somehow or other, Senator Macklin knows how people have voted when they have cast postal votes from institutions; that he believes it would be better to have a mobile polling booth. There is no way on God's earth that anyone could know how people who have used postal voting in hospitals and nursing homes have voted-no way of knowing that 85 per cent have voted one way or the other. In fact, the postal votes are secret, they are mixed up and they are not counted en bloc when they come from a hospital. I ask the Senate to reject any allegation that anyone here knows how a group of people in a particular institution have voted. That is completely wrong ; it cannot be so. The ballot papers of the people to whom Senator Macklin has referred to as voting federally by means of a postal vote have gone separately to the Electoral Office, have been opened separately, put into a ballot box and counted in that way; so no one could know these things. What we are saying is that we welcome the provision of the additional facility of a mobile polling booth but we believe that the postal vote should be maintained because, the very nature of registered or long term patients in hospitals or nursing homes is such that their state of well-being and health on a particular day is unpredictable. Therefore, they should have the facility of the postal vote to use when they are well, when they are not receiving treatment. After all, what is the very nature of the elderly? It is such that they go from illness to some kind of well-being. Think of the general geriatric who suffers from heart or other degenerative disease. Of course, such people will have good and bad days. Senator Missen —And this duty concerns them greatly. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Indeed, many of them take very seriously their right to vote. We will be creating a serious fear among them if we deny them the postal vote. The only reason anyone would take out of this Bill the right to render a postal vote would be a selfish, partisan, party reason; there can be no doubt about that. All logic suggests that if a frail person who, when well and in his or her own home can get a postal vote-nobody objects to that-the same facility should be provided to such a person if he or she is in a hospital or nursing home. Such people should have the right over a period of days to cast their votes when, in their judgment, they should, and not according to a random exercise governed by whether a mobile polling booth will turn up on a particular day I put it that there can be only one reason for rejecting an opportunity being given to render a postal vote-that somebody calculates that that will benefit the Australian Labor Party. That is a pretty poor reflection on one's intention in amending an electoral Act. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(5.57) —I wish to make a few brief remarks concerning clause 62. Senator Sir John Carrick has referred to mobile polling booths. I was in the Northern Territory last week and am not entirely happy about the way in which mobile polling booths are operating there. I will wait until the election is held to see what happens but there are serious doubts in my mind that some of the mobile polling booths that are to come by air will be at particular strips long enough for the mainly Aboriginal voters to come in and vote. In one electorate there are only three static polling booths. They are all , of course, in white communities. The remainder of the electorate will vote at mobile polling booths, which will be moved around by air. I hope that it works because I support the concept of mobile polling booths but perhaps I will have more to say about that next week. We are dealing with the real world. I have over the years worked in election campaigns throughout New South Wales. For a period it was, of course, my job to do that for the Australian Labor Party. We know what happens in some nursing homes, not all of course. I have been denied access to nursing homes during a by -election campaign. At times we waited until the visiting hour and then went in, seeking Labor Party votes, as visitors. We have been told that the man from the Electoral Office has been around. It was, of course, the Liberal Party organiser . You cannot demand access to these private nursing homes. All of us have had this experience in the past. I believe that over the years the New South Wales Liberal Party bent the rules-it did not break them-as far as postal voting was concerned. Let me explain what it was able to do. It had a very good organisation and a lot of funds. The organisers would have a list of all the people in the electorate who had sought a postal vote last time, and the reason why. The next time the person would receive an envelope with inside it an application for a postal vote, all filled in. That is where I reckon that the rules were bent and that it was a breach. There is some doubt about that. The reason for wanting the postal vote would be the same reason given by the person the last time. The form would be filled in in its entirety. All that was required was a signature from the voter. Of course, inside that envelope was the official envelope in which the form could be sent back to the returning officer. Inside also was a Liberal Party how to vote card which, of course, was posted from the regional office of the Liberal Party in North Sydney. People came to me and complained because this material had been sent to members of their family who had since died from the illness that caused them to apply for a postal vote in the first instance. I do not believe that postal voting was put into the Commonwealth Electoral Act for this purpose. I do not believe that any government intended that postal voting should be used in this fashion. I believe the Committee ought to agree with anything that can correct this situation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.01) —I just want to make one brief point in answer to Senator Sir John Carrick. If he is as concerned as he says he is about the inability of the clause to which I previously referred to cope with someone who has good and bad days, he ought to be equally concerned with the present postal vote rules as they apply under section 85 (1) (c) of the existing Act which would equally preclude any such person from now applying for a postal vote. The requirement is that a person be seriously ill or infirm and by reason of such illness or infirmity be precluded from attending at any polling booth to which he would otherwise be able to resort. One has to be able, under the rules as they now stand, if they are to be properly applied and not bent, to satisfy the returning officer in question that by virtue of that particular serious illness or infirmity one will not be able to make it to the poll. That is not an appropriate way of describing someone who has good and bad days under the existing rules. So it might be thought to be a debating point. It is a debating point of some significance when one understands the extent to which Senator Sir John Carrick builds his whole defensive edifice on the notion of the continued application of a facility now legally enjoyed by such people. It does not exist. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.03) —Earlier the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) said that people such as the frail and the geriatric to whom I referred as having good and bad days could under this Bill apply for a postal vote. I would like the position to be made clear because I think the very large community affected by this provision would like to know the position. Will the Attorney tell me specifically how those people can get a postal vote under this new Bill? It is very important that they know that they can get a postal vote and that there are no doubts about it. I reject the Attorney's statement that when I said 'good and bad days' I meant that on their good days these people were physically fully well. That is not what I meant at all. As I have said, I am talking about seriously ill people who may be under treatment for malignancies. These people may be fully conscious on some days and have chemotherapy on other days. I am talking about people receiving dialysis treatment. I am talking about the cardiac cases who are obviously seriously ill and on some days quite incapable of reacting. So let us put aside the statement made by the Attorney. The kind of people I am talking about are fully accepted as being entitled to a postal vote under the present Act. The Attorney has said quite clearly that provision will be made for those people under this Bill. Will he please spell out how people in hospital and nursing homes can, in the knowledge that they are frail or seriously ill and they have good and bad days, apply for a postal vote? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.05) —I will not unduly prolong this debate because it is now being steadily reduced to bathos. The main points have been made out. However, the short point can be made that if an application for a postal vote can be made under the present law by someone in the circumstances described in section 85 who anticipates that at the day of polling he will be unable to vote, equally that kind of reasoning is available in relation to the provision in proposed new section 85 (1) (cc). A person will be unable to have his vote taken. What I am saying is that if the sauce is there for the goose it is there for the gander. If one can construe the clause one way in the context of the exception to the mobile booth provision, equally, one can construe it that way in relation to the existing postal vote application provisions. Senator Sir John Carrick —Is that the advice from the Electoral Office to you now? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not saying what the advice from the Electoral Office is. It may be a matter for argument as a matter of law which interpretation applies-the liberal one, which the honourable senator applies, or the illiberal one. Senator Sir John Carrick —You are stating adamantly that there is no argument. Senator GARETH EVANS —The advice I am receiving is that, if one can anticipate or predict with a reasonable degree of precision that it is likely to be a fact that one is going to be unable to vote when the booth comes around, one would satisfy the description of not being able to vote. In other words, the same kinds of criteria would apply as are presently applied in terms of infirm people applying for a postal vote. If someone knows he is going to be seriously ill within the meaning of the present provision he will be granted a postal vote even if he is not seriously ill at the time. I do not think this debate is going to prove terribly productive if it is further prolonged. It is a matter of interpretation for construction. But the point that I have been making all along still holds; people in the kind of condition that Senator Sir John Carrick is referring to would be entitled to apply for a postal vote and to do so with about as much chance of success of getting it as they do, on my reading, under the existing law. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be omitted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Peterson, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Harradine, B. Chipp, D. L. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Colston, M. A. McClelland, DouglasCook, P. F. S. Macklin, M. J. Crowley, R. A. Maguire, G. R. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Townley, M. Richardson, G. F. Rae, PeterColeman, R. N. Jessop, D.S. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 63 (Duty of witness). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.13) —I move: (8) Page 95, paragraph 63 (d), proposed new paragraph 87 (3) (b), lines 14 to 17, leave out the paragraph. If one were to look again at the chapter on postal voting in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, one would see that the change proposed in paragraph (b) of clause 63 is recommended because of what has been done in Victoria. No real argument has been advanced in favour of this change, so I would be grateful if, to start off the argument, we could hear from the Government why it is proposing this change which will limit very much the capacity of people to witness postal vote applications. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(6.14) —I was waiting with interest to see why the shadow Minister, Senator Baume, would move only that amendment which appeared on the list of Liberal Party amendments. I thought his amendment might be more comprehensive. Senator Peter Baume —I do not understand. Senator ROBERT RAY —I would have thought the honourable senator would have had more objection to some other parts of clause 63, than to the actual part of the clause to which he objects, which is paragraph (b). The intention of clause 63 is to make it a little more difficult for people who try to garner postal votes and put pressure on others. I ask Senator Baume to note that at some other stage , we take out of the Commonwealth Electoral Act the old section which dealt with persuading and inducing people making postal votes-the Claytons section, the section one has when one does not want to have a section. We did this because it could never be enforced. In this proposed new section we are trying to make it a little more-- Senator Peter Baume —The Joint Select Committee recommended that that be taken out. Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes, the Committee recomended that it be taken out. May I say as an aside, and Senator Sir John Carrick may correct me if he wants, that I admit that the attention given by the Committee to postal votes was probably not as satisfactory as it should have been. That chapter on that subject was written in haste. I draw the attention of Senator Baume to the comments I made when the report was tabled in the Senate. I mentioned that some chapters in particular had not been given enough attention and depth due to the pressures of time. I think that is a fault of the Committee. It was caused by time constraints. The honourable senator is correct to draw that fact to the attention of the Committee of the Whole. The Liberal amendment does not seek to bar witnesses from going to a person's home. It does not seek to change that nor does it seek to charge the proposed new sub-section which calls for a written request in the case of the seriously ill or of those approaching maternity that a witness come to a person's house. The only part of clause 63 which the Liberal amendment seeks to change is paragraph (b). The effect of that paragraph is that those people who are not affected by illness or those who are not approaching maternity will actually have to go out and seek a witness rather than the witness seek them. That is the essence of the paragraph which the Liberal party seeks to delete. I think it should remain there. I think it should be incumbent on all people provided, firstly they are not infirm or, secondly, approaching maternity to go out and seek a witness. Paragraph (b) states that a person seeking a witness must do so at that witness's residence or normal place of business. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.16) —It seems to us that there is no good case for this change to be written in to the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill. I agree with Senator Ray that we are restricting our objection to a very particular matter. Paragraph (b) of clause 63 in the Bill will make it improper for a person to witness the signature of an elector making an application for a postal vote at any place other than the ordinary residence or place of business of the witness. We see no reason why that restriction should be necessary. If Senator Macklin cannot vote at his local polling booth and decides he wants a postal vote and picks up a postal vote application and at the airport seeks to have someone witness that application, that person will not be permitted to witness it because the airport is not his ordinary residence. It is not his place of business. Senator Robert Ray —If he is at an airport he will find someone working at the airport. Senator PETER BAUME —He might. I can see no reason why, if at the airport, Senator Macklin should not be able to ask me, for example, to witness his postal vote application. There is no impropriety to which the Government is trying to put a stop. We can see no logic whatsoever in that restriction. Senator Ray correctly said that we are not objecting to many of the principles in the clause . We cannot see why that restriction is either necessary or beneficial. Senator Missen —Will not that restriction lead to people accidentally breaking the law? They will not do it correctly because they are not in the right place. Senator PETER BAUME —That becomes a hazard. People may in fact inadvertently do this. We believe this paragraph in clause 63 could cause unnecessary inconvenience to people. They are able to make an oral application for a postal vote. They are unable to ask a neighbour in that neighbour's house to witness it , if they want to go next door and have it witnessed. The responsibility is in the hands of that person seeking the postal vote. It should be in their hands, but- Senator Gareth Evans —He can go to the neighbour's house. The neighbour does the witnessing in the neighbour's house. Senator PETER BAUME —It was a bad example, but it does not alter- Senator Gareth Evans —That was half of your objection. Senator PETER BAUME —No. It does not alter the main argument which I was putting . A person may be able to go to his neighbour's house, but I come back to the airport example. I can see no reason why this paragraph is necessary. Tearing it out will certainly not give rise to abuse. It is a small point which adds to the capacity of people to fill in their application forms incorrectly. Again I come back to Senator Ray's point that it is a very narrow compass which we are seeking to have looked at here. I hope it can be accepted by the Government. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.20) —I foreshadow an amendment regarding this question. I draw attention to the amendment because in it I have tried to pick up what I thought was the problem which the Opposition was looking at. It simply eliminates from 63 (4) the words 'in writing'. Obviously the clause was designed to prevent the canvassing of postal votes, by people going around the electorate . I assumed the Opposition was objecting to the restriction in paragraph (b), because if one reads (3) (b) in junction with (4) I believe there are some restrictions. People who need their postal vote witnessed can go next door or to any other house and get the vote witnessed. They can go to where anybody works and get it witnessed there. If they cannot do that, because of incapacitation or serious illness or approaching maternity, they may under sub-clause (4) request somebody to come to their home and witness it for them. So that really covers every place where a person could possibly want a vote witnessed. What I thought was restrictive was the fact that people have to make the request in writing. It seems to me to be very odd. Let us take the case of a mother who is living at home on her own. Her elder son normally does most of the work for her. She would have to ring up and say: 'Charles come over. I have some forms that I need witnessed so that I can lodge a postal vote'. It seems to me unduly restrictive to talk about the request being made in writing. A person could call out to a neighbour over the fence or through the window: 'Could you come over here?' That would be a request. But under the clause as it stands any request would have to be in writing. It seems to me that if we simply eliminated the words 'in writing' we would solve the problem which the Opposition is talking about. The restriction in (3) (b) would remain. I believe the restriction in (3) (b) is important because in that case the initiative is on the part of the person seeking a witness. The initiator has to go to where the witness is-say, that person's normal place of business. People picking up a postal ballot application form at a post office can get the form witnessed there . They can get it witnessed at the Australian Electoral Office. They can go to the local newsagency or chemist an get it done there. It seems to me that we are really putting the initiative back with the person who is seeking an application . I do not really believe (3) (b) is unduly restrictive, provided we can fix up the problem in (4). Senator Missen —For a person who is incapacitated or seriously ill. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, that is right. It relates to a person who is incapacitated , seriously ill or approaching maternity. Incapacity is a broad possibility. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) might be able to clarify what ' incapacity' actually means. To me, it seems that 'incapacity' may very well cover the situation of an elderly woman who is fearful of leaving her home. Indeed, because of a problem she may not leave home except on very rare occasions. That seems to me to be a reasonable definition of 'incapacity'. I seek clarification on that before I continue my remarks. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.24) —If Senator Peter Baume, the shadow Minister, is listening, I am about to give him some interesting and unexpected news. Just to demonstrate that this whole debate is not necessarily preordained, I point out that we have been thinking about the arguments as they have been put and they seem to us to be reasonably compelling. Senator Macklin, in foreshadowing his proposition, advanced reasons for the need to delete the expression 'in writing'. The basic reason was the unenforceability of the provision in its operation if the writing requirement is kept in. It would be very difficult to ensure that it was observed in practice. We accept the force of his argument in that context. Equally, I think the argument has to be put, in relation to sub-clause (3) (b), that whatever the justification for this prohibition-we would suggest there is a justification for it as being incidentally designed to assist the policy of this provision, which is to move against canvassing-it will in practice be extremely difficult to enforce. A law which, for practical purposes, is unenforceable is really not one that we ought to sanction on the books. One might say the same of sub-clause (3) (a). The policy thrust behind (3) (a), a direct prohibition on visiting, may be such as to act as a disincentive. But in (3) (b) we are talking about what will be perceived as very technical restrictions. When one contemplates the fact that fines of $1,000 are attached to it I think the argument is reasonably well made by the Opposition, and we will take the risk of wrath and indignation in the party room and accept it on the run. Amendment agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.27) —I move: Page 95, clause 63 (d), proposed new sub-section 87 (4), line 23, leave out 'in writing'. The amendment is simply an attempt to allow a person to make a request over the telephone, over the back fence or in some other way, rather than simply in writing. Insisting on a written application seems to me to be unduly restrictive . Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(6.28) —In my 17 years as a member of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria, and in campaigning, I have never known anyone to give written permission for a postal vote. I think the point which Senator Macklin made is right. This provision was only ever put in the legislation as the ultimate sanction if a really systematic attempt was made to canvass votes. The difficulty in putting that provision in this Act is that one cannot really go for the ultimate sanction when it applies to everyday affairs. Amendment agreed to Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 64 to 73-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 74 (Correction of errors). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.29) —On behalf of the Opposition I move: (9) Page 101, clause 74, proposed new section 96A, line 24, after ''error,'' insert ''other than an error (including an omission) by the elector,''. This may be a fairly minor amendment, but we think it is worth submitting it to the Committee. There is no definition of a formal defect or a formal error. We do not need to argue for hours about a definition at the moment. It seems to us that we should require the applicant for a postal vote to fill in his or her part of the form correctly. But if there is an error on the part of the electoral officer that should not be suficient to disqualify a vote. I understand that there is some case law in Western Australia in which that may have been at issue. Very recently, I think a judge said that it could not be said that an error by an electoral officer would make all the votes invalid. Our amendment seeks to add the words 'other than an error including an omission by the elector'. We think the elector should fill in his or her part of the application correctly. But if an error has been made-we think this is probably what is meant by a formal error-by the electoral officer we think that should not have an effect adverse to the elector. We think all that will require is that the elector fill in the central part of his or her application correctly. If the Government does not accept the amendment it has to worry about what is a formal error or what is a formal defect in the application of an elector. Might it mean that the application is not signed? Might it mean that a name has not been put in? Senator Missen —Leaving out a proper subdivision? Senator PETER BAUME —But there is no definition of what a formal defect or a formal error is. We think it not inappropriate to throw back on to the elector the task of filling in his or her part of the application-- Senator Macklin —Including the subdivision. Senator PETER BAUME —I will not argue about the subdivision. Senator Gareth Evans —That is what you are arguing about because that is a classic example of a formal error made by the elector. Senator PETER BAUME —I am sorry. If Senator Evans wants to define what is a formal defect or a formal error we will look at that, but at the moment it is totally undefined. It really is something which we cannot predict what it will mean in practice. I do not see how anybody can see what it will mean in practice . It simply has not been defined. We think that the amendment which we have proposed-it is a relatively minor amendment-at least makes it clear that we are trying to protect the elector against errors which might be made by the Electoral Office. We feel the elector should have that protection. In a sense we are trying to meet the Government part of the way along in what it is trying to achieve. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.33) —The Government resists this amendment. It is not something either side ought to go to the wall over because it does not involve anything other than proper practice of the Australian Electoral Office which, I think, all of us can be satisfied will be carried out in a bona fide way. Senator Peter Baume —We are not questioning the bona fides. Senator GARETH EVANS —If Senator Baume is not questioning the bona fides and he is not worried about rorts or anything like that, it is the Government's suggestion that he can leave it to the sense and common practice of the Electoral Office to ensure that this operates as it is meant to operate without the need for the very restrictive amendment which the Opposition is now proposing. The concept of what is formal and what is substantial is well established as a matter of law in a variety of contexts. Should it ever come in issue that the validity of some contested vote will be decisive for the elections, it will ultimately fall to be resolved by the court if the vote has been allowed in as a result of an application said by the officer to involve merely the formal errors on the part of the voter. So there is a mechanism for ensuring, if it really mattered, that the correct criteria were being employed by the Electoral Office. The sorts of things that the Electoral Office has in mind as constituting formal errors on the part of the elector are a failure to put in the correct subdivision or putting in an accurate subdivision, a misspelling in the name of the person's street perhaps, the omission of a street number but in circumstances where there is no ambiguity about identification of the person in question. What would clearly be a substantive error and not merely a formal error would be the absence of a signature on the application. That simply would not be an application but with some errors in it; it would not be an application at all. We can argue about things of this kind. We cannot anticipate every one of the kinds of errors, perhaps, of someone from the Middle East who is used to writing in Arabic and who has only, farily recently, acquired citizenship and become used to writing his or her name in ordinary letters. That person may, in fact, misspell his or her own name. Senator Peter Baume —Arabic or ordinary letters. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Baume knows what I mean. Actually, they are Roman letters and Arabic numerals. Let us be erudite about it. People can even misspell their own names, yet in the circumstances where it is utterly unambiguous and the application is otherwise totally sound. Under those circumstances we believe that the person ought not to be, in effect, disenfranchised through errors of that kind. The difficulties of writing in a more extensive definition of formality versus substantive error are such as to make the present clause appropriate as it stands. We urge the Opposition, on this occasion, to rethink the validity of the arguments it is putting. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.36) —Perhaps Senator Baume may be able to clarify my concern. I am worried about the fact that the normal thing that most electors have no idea about are the subdivisions. I am worried about that. On some forms the division is printed in and the subdivision is left blank. It seems to me that the subdivisions could very well be filled out by the Australian Electoral Office without anybody being terribly upset by reference to the electors address . However, if we accept the Opposition's amendment which I am not inclined to do because of that reason, presumably what would occur would be that that would not be a valid application. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.37) —It depends on whether that has to be filled in by the elector or whether Senator Macklin might regard that as being something to be filled in by the Commonwealth Electoral Office. I am trying to respond to the points made. The subdivision, in fact, could be filled in by the Electoral Office. I agree completely with the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) that the bona fides of the Australian Electoral Office are not, and never have been, in question in this issue. But the Government is leaving to the total discretion of the electoral officer which parts of the application he may fill in to complete the application. Senator Macklin mentioned the subdivision. We think that is something that the Electoral Office might be able to fill in. But we think that what we have proposed is a reasonable attempt to try to minimise the chance of the inadvertent ruining of an application and, at the same time, leaving an appropriate amount of onus on the elector. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 75 to 79-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 80. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.38) —by leave-I move: (22) Page 105, clause 80, lines 39 to 41, leave out proposed paragraph 106C (2) (c). (23) Page 105, clause 80, line 42, leave out ''where paragraph (c) does not apply-''. (24) Page 106, clause 80, line 1, leave out ''where paragraph (c) applies'', insert ''where only the name, or a name, of 1 party is so entered''. Basically, our concern refers to the Senate ballot paper. We have the possibility here, for the first time-I think that ought to be acknowledged-of giving great assistance to the voter by having the party affiliation of the candidate, if the candidate desires, placed on the ballot paper. I think this will help enormously. By way of an aside, I point out that, in the Northern Territory election on Saturday, for the first time in Australia, ballot papers will carry photographs of the candidates. That seems to be an extremely interesting innovation. It might be detrimental to some candidates but I think it is an interesting innovation. The problem I am alluding to is that, as the ballot paper was originally drawn up-if honourable senators wish to refer to it it is actually Form E in Schedule 1 attached to the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill-there arises two ways in which the teams could be indicated on the ballot paper. First, the name could be put beside each of the candidates; but, secondly, if all of those candidates were of the same team, the name would appear once only. I do not expect to get a great deal of support from the National Party or the Liberal Party on this subject, because basically it is not in their interests. But I think they would accept that it is a fair thing that, since the Australian Labor Party would be running a team, what would happen to the Labor Party would be that its name would appear only once whereas in those States in which the Liberals and the Nationals run a combined ticket there would be Liberal and Liberal, National and National, or Liberal and whatever the operation was. So the whole ballot paper would become unbalanced in terms of having a dominance of one party in relation to one team and lots of names next to another team. I am not quite sure why the Labor Party put this provision into the Bill. I hope that it will see that it is in Labor Party interests to take it out, because it tells against the Labor Party and, speaking from the Australian Democrats' point of view, I believe it tells against us. But in all fairness, the simplest way of dealing with the matter is that every candidate ought to have next to his name the party designation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.41) —The Government accepts the amendment. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.41) —I ask Senator Macklin what this proposal does to his final amendment which relates to taking out the number '5'; are they connected in any way? Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.42) — Yes, they are connected. The later amendment picks up the schedule in relation to numbering. Senator Peter Baume —Is it consequential? Senator MACKLIN —It is consequential on these amendments being passed, yes. Amendments agreed to. Clause 80, as amended, agreed to. Clause 81 agreed to. Clause 82 (Group voting tickets to be displayed). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.43) —The Opposition opposes clause 82. I draw the Committee's attention to page 122 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. As far as I know, there were no dissenting statements entered in relation to this page; so I can presume that what is written on it had the agreement of Senator Robert Ray, Senator Macklin and Senator Sir John Carrick. At paragraph 6.28, this question is discussed. The essence of the argument there is that, with the new provisions for the ballot paper, with the new listing of party affiliations, the Joint Select Committee actually recommended against suggestions that there should be a non-defaceable poster to be placed on display at polling booths indicating the political affiliation of candidates. It goes on to indicate that it recommended against the display of posters in polling booths. I understand that something slightly different is now being recommended here, but it was at not stage recommended by the Joint Select Committee. The only recommendation that we can find is a recommendation against the display in polling booths. A large number of questions would have to be answered, such as how those group voting tickets are to be displayed, what the technical requirements of the tickets themselves would be; who determines which one goes in which place; and whether they should be drawn by lot. A whole lot of questions, we think, might be the subject of more examination by the Joint Select Committee. But at present what we have is a recommendation by that Committee against almost the same recommendation, and we have a lot of unanswered questions about how one would move in a polling to see those recommendations put into effect with fairness, as between different groups standing for the election. Because of that, the Opposition opposes the clause as it presently stands. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.45) —I would need to stand corrected if my understanding of 'booth' as distinct from 'place' is a booth where the individual goes to cast his vote. We are not talking about a display within a polling place. We are talking about a facility for each elector, privately to be able to look and to see displayed the how to vote recommendations of the various candidates and teams. Senator Peter Baume —That is precisely what was recommended against. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Indeed, the Joint Select Committee looked at this matter and said that it was quite impracticable, upon reflection. Let us reflect upon it. In New South Wales, for example, one might have as many as 10 groups, as such, and one might have five or six independent candidates. So, technically, somehow or other inside the little booth one may have between a dozen and 15 or more individual how to vote cards all pinned up. If one believes that one should get fervent about donkey votes in this place, one at least ought to run a lottery as to how to pin up those cards, apart from the impracticability. A paper hanger would have a big job. Senator Macklin —This is not a polling compartment; it is a polling booth. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Have a look at the definition, Senator. Senator Macklin —A new definition has been put in. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Even so, let us take it both ways. As I understand it, a polling place is the actual facility to which one goes. When one goes through the gate, that is the polling place. Then one has a booth in which one casts one 's vote. Senator Macklin —No, that is the room. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Whether it is the one little dog-box compartment or whether it is somewhere in the polling place, the same situation applies. Somehow or other, we get a dozen or more different how to vote cards on display. Let me take it in two ways. Let us suppose that what is intended is that narrow little compartment with the narrow little shelf. It becomes ludicrous to imagine that one could have a series of pakapoo tickets all displayed there, with everyone getting wry-neck trying to put their head up or down. In any case, as some are keen to have a lottery for donkey votes, surely they must have a lottery for that. One would have to know where the prime place to be was. Probably at 10 o'clock on the left would be the prime place, I suppose; or would it be better to be down at the bottom? Let us suppose that the polling booth means somewhere in the vicinity of those funny little cubicles. Does each voter race over, have a look at this, and then race back to his or oher booth? The whole thing becomes the essence of the ridiculous. In any case, as I say, it is overcome by the fact that the Joint Select Committee recomended that names of parties and designations of candidates should be on the ballot paper. The Committee recommended that the handing out of how to vote cards outside should be continued. I stress that, on whatever interpretation the meaning of 'booth' is taken-whether it be the little cubicle or the bigger compartment altogether- in the view of the Joint Select Committee and certainly in my view, the thing is quite impracticable. If it were to be put in, let us put it aside for a while and work out a lottery, because there will be a lot of fun in deciding where the prime place is. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(6.48) —Senator Peter Baume is quite correct in saying that there was a unanimous view. But that unanimous view I believe was that how to vote cards should not be displayed inside each cubicle into which an individual goes to vote. Senator Peter Baume —Posters-I am quoting from the report. Senator ROBERT RAY —Well, posters or how to vote cards; I think that the terms are interchangable in this context. Here, in any event, we are really talking only about Senate and list voting. We are not talking about House of Representatives voting. The original concept of having how to vote cards in polling booths would have been to contain both the House of Representatives and the Senate cards. The very points that Senator Sir John Carrick has made are valid. I believe that it is impossible to fit such a poster fairly inside a booth, given the complexity of the federal system. I know that Senator Maguire can probably tell us that it works adequately in South Australia. I do not mean to infer that that is a backwater or a small place, Senator; but the details on the tickets are just not the same as are found at a Senate election. The definition of polling booth to be put into the Act is: . . . a building, structure, vehicle or enclosure, or a part of a building, structure, vehicle or enclosure, provided at a polling place, in pursuance of paragraph 98 (1) (b) . . . I interpret that to mean that the booth is basically the building; the polling place is the surrounds plus the building. It does not mean the cubicle. Why put this clause in? I just think it was felt that if there were registered how to vote cards somewhere in the booth for those who were anxious to see what the registered how to vote cards were, there should be a poster saying that the Australian Labor Party has registered its card and this is the direction in which its preferences go. The Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats would also have issued their split cards, and this is the direction in which their preferences go. I think that is the reason it is there. Senator Baume raised the point of who gets pole position, in effect. I would not have thought that was particularly relevant or advantageous in this situation, where there is only one poster on a wall somewhere in the booth. Obviously that poster would not be put right outside a cubicle; it would be put on a wall away from those cubicles, and those who are interested enough to chase it up will look at it there. I do not think it would matter much in those circumstances whether it was on the left hand side or the right hand side. It would be fairly similar, I imagine, to those old posters which used to be in electoral offices prior to a legal challenge and which used to give the names of all candidates and their party affiliations. I think it is a public service poster rather than a political poster meant to influence people. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.51) —I suggest that Senator Ray's view of this matter and his interpretation of the definition of polling booth are wrong. The definition in the amending Bill states: 'Polling booth' means a building, structure, vehicle or enclosure, or a part of a building, structure, vehicle or enclosure-- note the word 'enclosure'-- provided at a polling place, in pursuance of paragraph 98 (1) (b), for the purpose of taking votes during polling; Paragraph 98 (1) (b) in the principal Act, which I do not think is amended, provides-- Senator Gareth Evans —Don't take this too far, Senator, because I am about to chop your legs off. Senator MISSEN —I just want to say that the returning officer's duty is to provide and furnish proper polling booths and ballot boxes. What is meant by the ballot box is clear and I think what is meant by the polling booth is clear, too ; that is, the little enclosure one goes into. It is not the whole building. I think the polling place would be the whole building and its surrounds. I suggest , therefore, that it follows that these posters will have to be put up in every one of those little enclosures. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.52) —I am sorry to disappoint Senator Missen but I have to say that the formidable legal exegisis of Senator Ray is in fact well founded. His intuitions are well founded because if we look at all the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, it is clear that the sequence is this: There are places, there are booths and within booths there are compartments. We have talked about the definition of polling booth as it appears on page 3 of the amending Bill but, on page 2, a few lines down from the top there is a definition of compartment, which states: 'Compartment', in relation to a polling booth, means a compartment constructed in the polling booth in pursuance of section 101; If we go to section 101 of the parent Act, we find this: Polling booths shall have separate voting compartments, constructed so as to screen the voters from observation while they are marking their ballot-papers, and each voting compartment shall be furnished with a pencil for the use of voters. So the compartments are where we find the pencil; the booths are where everyone gathers. Senator Missen —I concede that. Senator GARETH EVANS —Okay. That takes us only half-way down the track, of course; we still have the argument of Senator Sir John Carrick. But as to that, I think Senator Ray's contrary explanation ought to be sufficient to carry the day. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.54) —I just make the point that if we accept Senator Ray's view that these posters are put there for the information of the electors, one has to assume that alongside them is a little ledge and a place for the elector to put down his ballot paper and copy the poster. Does anyone really believe that it is intended, under the secret ballot procedures, to have that happen? For people simply to stare at a mass of figures on a wall and not be able to copy them down is the essence of the ridiculous. I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Australian Electoral Office whether they really envisage that, alongside that display, there will be provision for an elector to make a copy. If there is, how many posters will there be because only one elector at a time can go up to the poster in the booth and make the copy? Apart from that, of course, it ceases to be a secret ballot because it is done in the open and not in the compartment. I am not in any way hexed as to whether it is a compartment or a polling booth; that does not matter . I am glad it has been clarified. Senator Gareth Evans —It was pretty important to your argument a few minutes ago . Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —No, it was not, because I said, if the Attorney had listened, that in fact I did not care what the meaning of a booth was. I made that abundantly clear. I did not care whether it was a compartment or a booth. Perhaps he will acknowledge that. What I am now asking the Attorney is this: Is he now saying to us that in a polling booth there will be one set of posters on the wall and some provision for an elector to copy those figures? Is it intended that the elector copy it on to his ballot paper there or does he have to copy it down on a bit of paper, then take it to the compartment and vote? Senator Robert Ray —If he wants to vote the list he has only to tick it, not copy it down. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —One of the great things that Senator Ray, with his democratic principle, recognised was the need to give everyone the right to fill in all of the 60 or 70 squares, and indeed that is why these posters are so complex. What is this poster really intended to be? Is it to be one from which electors can copy the figures on to their ballot papers? If it is we have an open vote going on; we do not have compartments at all. Is it simply for them somehow to look at the poster, memorise it and go away? Are they to copy the information on to a piece of paper and take it away? What are they to do? That is what needs to be answered before we get anywhere. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.57) —Senator Sir John Carrick would know that in the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform I argued for the poster to be put into the compartment, but I graciously gave up on that because I recognised the physical impossibilities of that occurring, particularly in relation to New South Wales, the honourable senator's home State. However, I take this display-I was quite pleased to see this provision in the Act when I saw it for the first time-to be basically a way of providing public information. I think probably we have the argument around the wrong way. Really, the first argument here is whether or not the list system will be on the ballot paper. If the list system is on the ballot paper the registered how to vote cards or the registered distributions of preferences that are crucial for the list system at the top to work, must be somewhere. Presumably the Commonwealth Electoral Act could simply say that these will be held by the Australian Electoral Commissioner, but I think the Act goes further, and quite rightly, and says that all of those registered distributions of preferences must actually be also in every polling booth for the information of every elector. Essentially the electors will be interested in those only if they wish to check precisely what a tick next to the Australian Democrats or the Liberal Party would mean in the list system. They do not actually have to copy it down. All a citizen has to do is put one tick on his ballot paper if he is making use of the poster on the wall. The next section along, of course, could be-this is the point that Senator Sir John Carrick raised-that they could also use that poster if they wished to do so for filling in all of the names at the bottom of the ballot paper in the normal distribution, shall we say the manual distribution, of preferences. I also know that the political parties still, unfortunately-it is something I have fought, as Senator Sir John Carrick would remember-will be handing out how to vote cards outside. They will be how to vote cards for the manual distribution of preferences at the bottom of the ballot paper. So I think that really, rather than castigate the Government on this, one should simply say that this ought to have been done if a list system is put in place. Surely every citizen has the right to view precisely what the parties have done in registering their how to vote cards. I discussed this matter with the Government before the Bill went through the House of Representatives and was instrumental in getting the definition of polling booth put in the legislation. There was not one in it. I could foresee a very interesting debate in the absence of such a definition. It makes it a little clearer. I was in fact keen that there be more than one, but as much as I could get from the Minister, who was eminently co-operative on this one, was an agreement to put in the word 'prominently'. That was an amendment made in the House of Representatives. We have this displayed prominently, as indeed it should be, somewhere in the polling booth, not in the polling place, and I do not see really that there is much more physically that can be done in terms of assisting and informing the voter if the list system is accepted by this place. So really this is predicated on the acceptance of the list system. If we accept the list system I believe that poster ought to be in the polling booth as a matter of course for the information of citizens. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(7.01) —I do not know whether this is the appropriate place to mention this but certainly this is the first clause which talks about two-group voting tickets. I appreciate that there is a substantive clause on that issue which comes up subsequently. I have a suggestion to make in relation to that subsequent clause, and if I am successful we can come back to this clause. I would like the Attorney-General to explain why two-group voting tickets are mentioned here. If he says it is mentioned here because it is relevant to the subsequent part of the legislation I would like to ask him why there are two and not three or four. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(7.02) —I ask the Minister, when he is replying, to answer one of my original questions. Assuming that this is proceeded with, in what order and by what method will the various registered tickets of the parties be displayed? If in fact it has been considered that there ought to be a lottery-and there are wonderful phrases such as 'double randomisation'-what system is to be used for the order in which these are displayed upon the poster? Senator Gareth Evans —I am sorry? Was that a question? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I simply said that assuming that this is carried, as it is likely to be with the Democrat support, what method will be used to determine the order of display of the particular registered how to vote cards in this situation? After all, it has been regarded as of great significance to have a random system in other things. What is going to happen here? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(7.03) —To answer Senator Sir John Carrick's question, the absence of agreement as between the parties as to the order in which they appear and in the absence of prescription in the terms of the statute, the appropriate technique would be to draw the order by ballot. I am sure that is how the courts would regard the matter as being best addressed , should anyone be minded to challenge some sequence established otherwise by the Australian Electoral Office. Senator Missen —Would that include also the order of the two preferences that the party used? Senator GARETH EVANS —I imagine it would be up to the party with a two-sequence ticket to determine the order in which it wanted those two successive sequences to be put. No doubt it would want half the posters printed one way and half printed the other way, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it. As to Senator Harradine's question as to why we have only two-group voting tickets rather than three, four of five, I suppose the simple fact is that we are adjusting this legislation to the realities of the world we inhabit, and so far within that world there seems to have been pressure to have only a two-group voting ticket. Should the real world throw up someone who wants more than that-I do not imagine it would be Senator Harradine because he would regard his electors as being far too intelligent to require this sort of open-ended direction from him-it could be considered at some later stage. But what we are trying to do is simply accommodate the demands of those parties existing in the system at the moment which have a view that their supporters and the peculiar idiosyncracies of their supporters ought to be accommodated in a particular way. I do not think one can honestly claim that there is any high principle behind the establishment of a two-group ticket system rather than some multiple ticket system, but it is just a reflection of the realities that presently prevail. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(7.05) —Since the Attorney-General says that he expects that the random system will be the appropriate one, will he therefore consider the Government adopting an addendum to the effect that the order of the ticket on the poster shall be determined by random ballot? Senator Gareth Evans —Yes, in an order determined by lot. We can add those words at the end. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Whatever words the Minister chooses. Senator Gareth Evans —There is no difficulty about that. I have consulted the technical committee scattered around the chamber, as it is, and we are in no difficulty in accommodating that suggestion. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.06) —I mention a matter of procedure. The indication that we have given to the Committee is that we will oppose the clause. I do not know in what order the Government wants to vote on the clauses, but if it is intended to accept an amendment a little time will be required to draft it and get it into the right form. Senator Harradine has suggested, I think correctly, that what is contained in this clause is consequential to what is contained in another part of the Bill. I take it that an appropriate course of action might be now to move for the postponement of the consideration of this clause to some appropriate stage. Perhaps the Attorney-General might care to so move. Senator Gareth Evans —Yes, that would appear to be sensible. I appreciate the Opposition's embarrassment in dividing on the location of posters. The CHAIRMAN —In any case, I could not put the question that this clause be printed until the amendment has been put. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That further consideration of this clause be postponed until a further hour this day. Clauses 83 to 85-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 86 (The polling). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.08) —The Opposition opposes clause 86. I declare a vested interest, being of the Jewish faith. The convenience and rights of electors and individuals need to be set against the convenience, rights and legitimate interests of parties and electoral officers. The Commonwealth Electoral Act provides for 8 o'clock closing of the polls. This is a valued time of closing for certain people. There are members of my religion who will vote after sundown and, although with daylight saving it is not always possible, at many elections it is possible for Orthodox Jews to vote in person after sundown during those hours, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., which it is now being proposed be removed from the hours of polling. It is possible for members of the Seventh Day Adventist religion to vote on many days between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. The extension to 8 p.m. provides an opportunity for small minorities in the community to exercise a vote in person, and it really is an important symbolic matter because the reduction of the polling hours to 6 p.m. will remove from some of these people the capacity to cast their votes in person at most times of the year unless sundown occurs before 6 p.m. That is the argument in terms of two religious minorities. They might ask why we do not move election day to Sunday. For the religious majority election day is not the day which happens to be the Sabbath for it. I accept that tradition has had it that elections are held on Saturdays. Let me remind the Senate that in many countries around the world election day is on neither Saturday nor Sunday. Such countries respect the sensibilities of people and have elections on mid-week days and make quite appropriate arrangements. I think that if we carry out this kind of major review of the Act a good case could be made for moving our polling day to a day which would give no offence to anyone. That would then enable us to look again at the question of 6 p.m. closing of the polls. But there are other groups of people for whom 8 p.m. closing is important. They include certain people in rural occupations who, if the election is held at or about harvest time when they are working from sun-up to sundown, value the opportunity to come in late. Senator Robert Ray —What about daylight saving? Senator PETER BAUME —I mentioned earlier that daylight saving on some polling days means that sundown will occur after 8 p.m., but that is on only some polling days in summer. People in some rural industries and others have to travel considerable distances. Again, Saturday is a major day for sporting activities and some sporting events. Cricket matches, for example, do not finish until 6 o'clock. For those people the extra two hours provide extra opportunities to vote in person. I freely acknowledge that for parties the convenience of having party workers free at 6 o'clock is an advantage. I freely concede that for the Electoral Office there are advantages in having the polls close at 6 p.m. but I put to honourable senators that they have to consider on the one hand the convenience of the Electoral Office and parties and on the other hand the convenience and opportunities for individual electors. Obviously, if I were putting here the interests of the Liberal Party or the National Party I would be endorsing 6 p.m. closing, but we see that it means a reduction in the opportunites for pesonal voting for a few Australian electors. The number does not have to be great. It is not great. If we reduce the opportunities for anyone it is very hard to call it a reform. It is an amendment of convenience for those in politics, in political parties, or in the bureaucracy responsible for the conducting of elections. Senator Gareth Evans —What about all the money it would save? Senator PETER BAUME —Again, we have to set on the one hand the savings and on the other the possible extra rights of electors. I certainly do not think that alters the argument one bit. The other argument I heard put is that 6 p.m. closing would enable us to get the results more quickly. I suppose it would. We could work out the mathematics and work out east coast, west coast and daylight saving in one State. I do not argue against the proposition that we would get the results more rapidly. Again, the issue is what advantages might flow to one elector or to a small group of electors. From the desire to get election results quickly, one might say that such a group is small enough not to matter. I have never belived that the rapidity with which results come through affects the democratic process one bit. It does not matter. I recall my election to the Senate. Senator Sibraa drew attention to that particular contest during the second reading debate. It took 35 days to get a result. I could not care less. The fact is that it is the process and the fairness in the process which is more important than the convenience-- Senator Gareth Evans —What is more democratic about physical voting than postal voting? Senator PETER BAUME —Many people prefer, and it is easier for them, to vote in person close to their homes. the process of applying for a postal vote is slightly more complicated. In any event, I am very much surprised to hear the Attorney-General, as it were talking down the opportunity which some people presently have to vote during those last two hours. I simply put to the Committee that it is the wish of the Opposition to preserve the rights of even small numbers of Australians to vote in person. It is for that reason, whether on the grounds of religion, occupation or sport, that we will oppose the clause. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(7.15) —I am sure that it would be more democratic if we kept the polls open till midnight because the natural corollary of what Senator Baume has said is that certain people, expecially for religious reasons, miss out on voting on certain occasions. Even with 8 o'clock closing during daylight saving it remains light until 9 o'clock and those people miss out. I would have thought that the natural extension of his argument was to keep the polls open until about 10 o'clock at night. Approximately 8 per cent of the electorate, when there is 8 o'clock closing, vote between 6 and 8 o'clock. The average one would expect is 18 per cent if people voted evenly in two-hour blocks. Therefore, I contend that fewer people vote between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. than in most other two-hour periods. The reasons for moving to this particular position relate back to why we originally had 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. voting. I suggest that the problems of communication and transport were great around 1900. Perhaps almost no one at that stage owned cars; today a majority of people own them. People today are more mobile; they get to booths more quickly. I suggest to Senator Baume that he has put up a theoretical case rather than a practical one, although he may be able to adduce evidence-- Senator Peter Baume —It depends whether you are Jewish. Senator ROBERT RAY —He may be able to adduce evidence that some people are upset by it. He has produced none today and I can relate other experiences. For a start, Queensland has had 6 o'clock closing since 1915. I am unaware that the conservative Government up there, which I am sure the honourable senator will concede is no less sensitive than himself, has ever moved to revoke 6 o'clock poll closing in the past 26 years it has been in office. I remind the Senate that it was a Liberal Government that introduced 6 o'clock closing in Victoria for the 1977 election. In my speech during the second reading debate I related that many people were worried that in the initial election people would be disadvantaged and that there would be complaints about it. I saw no complaints registered in any of the newspapers, including the Jewish News in Melbourne. I instructed all scrutineers throughout the State to report if people were unhappy with those particular voting procedures. In the end, we got no complaints at all . Senator Maguire informed me a few minutes ago that South Australia went to 6 o' clock closing in 1982. Again, there were no problems. I think Senator Baume is inventing the problems. New South Wales has had 6 o'clock for some years. Again, there have been no major problems. I believe it is an economical move but it is also more than just a matter of economics, more than a matter of saving several hundred thousand dollars by cutting out two hours. I do not care about the party workers in this regard. We roster people in two hour shifts and we always have too many people. Manning that number of shifts is not a party problem. The one thing that I agree with Senator Peter Baume about is that there is no political advantage in having either 6 o'clock or 8 o'clock closing. But there is a disadvantage to those people who are hired to work that day. They have to work from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. with perhaps an additional three hours counting. So it is a 15-hour day for individuals concerned with the electoral process. I know that they are paid to do it, but 15 hours is a fairly long day. Cutting two hours off it is a major advantage. The earlier results argument, I agree, is a fairly ephemeral one. It does not really matter whether one gets earlier results . It is probably a little nicer, a little easier, but it is not the absolute argument. Before we finally consider this, it is incumbent upon those opposite to come up with some evidence that a large or even a substantial majority of people are upset by this. As I say, when the changeover occurred in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria, there were to my knowledge no complaints made. People adapted to the system fairly well. Senator Baume makes out a case for the Orthodox Jewish community, but he conceded that in probably half the elections we have they are still unable to vote. In the elections of 2 December 1972, 13 December 1975 and again this year I think daylight saving came in a week or two later, so in three out of the last six elections they have not been able to vote in person. The logical corollary is either to extend voting to 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night or to give those people a postal vote. Senator Peter Baume —March 5th, this year's election? Senator ROBERT RAY —I think that we were then still operating under daylight saving. That no doubt can be checked. I am assured that I am correct. Certainly, from memory, in Queensland the results came in an hour behind those of other places. Polling places there closed an hour later than polling places on the rest of the east coast, so certainly daylight saving was in operation then. In conclusion, I say that it would be cheaper, and it would be easier on the workers inside the booths. It has not been brought forward out of concern for the workers outside the booths because usually they are not doing a 12-hour shift, unless they are very dedicated. It does not really affect them at all. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(7.22) —It has been suggested that our amendment concerns only a small number of voters. From the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, one notes that the Electoral Office stated that 8 per cent or more of voters vote between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. That is a little matter of three-quarters of a million voters-not exactly a small number. Given the opportunity, at least 8 per cent of the community find it convenient to vote between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. That is something that we ought to consider profoundly. What is our purpose if not to provide a polling day that is convenient. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why a government which is obviously opposed to extending postal voting wants to deny to a significant section of the community the right to an ordinary vote. Surely one should devise a polling day which will permit all sections of the community that are physically capable of voting to go and cast an ordinary vote. Yet what we are being told is, no, the Jewish community and the Adventist community can obtain a postal vote; sometimes it does not matter anyway because daylight saving applies . That is a convenient situation. Surely it is fundamental that we should not say: 'Look, we have adopted 6 o'clock in such and such a State and therefore to force that 8 per cent of the people to vote by that time is valid'. Why is it valid to say that the 8 per cent who in the past have chosen to vote between 6 p .m. and 8 p.m. should be forced now to vote earlier, against their normal practice; if we do so, everything will be all right? After all, there are many examples from around the world of government sanctions that have squeezed the population. Of course, there is no overt reaction: but ask the Jewish community one by one whether it is happy about having to fill in a postal vote, ask the Adventist community one by one and see whether it is happy about it; of course, they are not. Ask those who, because of work or recreation, will be forced into tighter hours whether they are happy. I repeat that the evidence before the Committee is that not a handful of people, but 8 per cent of the community-one in every 12 voters-if given the opportunity will vote between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. That must mean that they find it the most convenient time to vote. If that is so what we are saying to them is: 'We are not concerned about your convenience, about the convenience of one in 12 voters of Australia; you can now react to our convenience'. That, of course, is a summation of the argument of the Government. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(7.24) —What we are doing is bringing the federal laws into line with those of the rest of the country. As has been said today, only in Western Australia and Tasmania now do the polls close at 8 p.m. All of the other States, including the Northern Territory where the poll this weekend will be closing at 6 p.m., now close the poll at the earlier hour. In New South Wales, when 6 p.m. closing first came into operation at the State elections, we were terrified that the 8 per cent of whom Senator Sir John Carrick talks would be our supporters and would not vote. But when we looked at the statistics afterwards, at the number of people who got to the polls before 6 p.m., we found that there was no difference. The 94 or 95 per cent of people who vote voted anyway when the closing hour was brought back to 6 p.m. What is proposed is a reform. An argument has been put about cost. I will not put it because I do not think that a lot of money is involved when we consider the cost of running an election. What is proposed is a reform of working conditions. I do not think it is reasonable to expect the hard workers to be at the polling booths at 7 a.m. and to stay there until 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. Senator Peter Baume mentioned sporting events, such as cricket, but I do not think any sporting event today starts at 8 a.m. and goes through to 8 p.m. At the last elections, the first results from Queensland came in at 10 p.m., so daylight saving must have been in force. I recall that for that reason we did not get the first results from Western Australia until after 11 p.m., eastern summer time. Senator Peter Baume said that in 1974 it took 35 days to count the Senate vote and that in 1975 the election took place on 13 December and we did not get a result for the Senate in New South Wales until 6 February. In 1976 it did not really matter because the result of the election was clear cut. It mattered to only a few people, of whom I was one, but the other reforms that are effected by this Bill will not, I think, allow that situation to occur again. It was farcical but it would not have been funny if the control of this Senate had hung in the balance from 13 December 1975 to 6 February 1976. Senator Peter Baume —But it did in 1974; it did hang in the balance. Senator SIBRAA —I am aware of the situation in which Senator Peter Baume was placed in 1974, but I hope that that situation will not occur again. What we are suggesting is that federal laws should now be brought into line with those of the majority of the States. I am sure that Western Australia will soon go to 6 p .m. closing and that will leave only one State, Tasmania, which always seems to want to be different on many things, where it will not apply. We should pass this measure as soon as possible. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(7.27) —I wish to mention briefly a matter that may not have been given due consideration by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform or by this Committee. It is that whereas, when 8 o'clock closing was introduced, there was not the extent of commercial activity on Saturdays that there is currently. The argument has always been that shift workers would have shifts which finished at times which would be convenient for them to register a vote at the appropriate polling place in their subdivision. Now, with the unfortunate extension of Saturday afternoon trading, particularly in New South Wales where it appears that all-day Saturday trading will be in vogue, we will have thousands of workers on that day in shops, at the counters, between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. If we have, as we do in Sydney, a lot of city workers travelling considerable distances, for up to an hour and a half, to and from work, such people will not be able to register a vote in the subdivision. I wonder whether the Committee has considered that or whether, if this particular proposal goes through, the Joint Select Committee will keep its eye on that aspect. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.29) —I would like to respond to a couple of points that have been made. Just for the record, 5 March is close to the equinox; sunrise is at 6 a.m. and sunset at 6 p.m., more or less. Therefore, even allowing for daylight saving, people will be able to vote during the daylight hours on 5 March. Secondly, I have taken the trouble since the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform made its report to canvass the appropriate religious bodies. Although I did not receive universal concern about an 8 p.m. closing of the poll I received substantial majority concern. As a result of requests from the people I canvassed in the Seventh Day Adventist and Jewish communities, I seek to oppose the earlier closing of the poll, at 6 p.m. instead of 8 p.m. I am grateful to Senator Harradine who drew our attention to another group of people who may be quite unable to vote in person between 8 a.m. and 6 p .m. I ask honourable senators-- Senator Harradine —They are members of my union. Senator PETER BAUME —I suppose the Jews are members of my union too. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., pursuant to the order of the Senate I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- Censorship of Parliamentarians-Parliamentary Delegation Gifts-Professional Protestors against Uranium Mining-Human Rights Commission of Inquiry on the Northern Territory Police-Parliamentary Committee Sittings The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(7.31) — I want to make an important statement regarding the position of democratically elected senators speaking publicly on issues of concern to their constituents. On 3 November I responded in the Townsville Daily Bulletin to statements made by the Premier of Queensland in which he said a mining lease would be granted for the processing of uranium at Ben Lomond in north Queensland. To many in the community this appeared an irresponsible move as in 1981 Erich Landich, the mining warden at Charters Towers, recommended against the granting of a lease to Minatome Australia as he felt it could prejudicially affect the interest of the public. There was, in his opinion at that time, grave doubts concerning the safety of the mine in relation to the pollution of the water catchment area of the Burdekin system, and Minatome had not provided sufficient technical information to enable a proper assessment of the situation. In my statement I reminded the Premier that several years ago a radioactive uranium stockpile at Ben Lomond was found to be leaking into the local creeks feeding Keelbottom Creek and the Burdekin. If further seepage occurs in that creek system, the magnitude of the consequences could be formidable. Not only could the water supplies for the residents of Charters Towers and Townsville be affected but so too could the grazing and agricultural industries in the north. This response was based on evidence produced in the Mining Warden's Court in 1981 and from several well-discussed news reports of the aforementioned radiation leak. Yet on 21 November I received a letter from the Chairman of Total Mining Australia Pty Ltd, formerly Minatome, Mr Phillip De Boos-Smith, in which he wrote: I have seen somewhat belatedly, a report in the Townsville Bulletin of 3 November in which you make very serious allegations concerning operations at the Ben Lomond site by Total Mining Australia (formerly Minatome Australia). In particular you are quoted as saying '. . . several years ago a radio-active uranium stockpile at Ben Lomond was found to be leaking into the local creeks feeding Keelbottom Creek and the Burdekin'. He went on: This statement is not correct, and is of course very damaging to us, particularly in view of the fact that it was made on the eve of our publishing an environmental impact statement for the Ben Lomond project, which had been prepared at very significant cost and which involved three years of work. In fact we have been informed by our legal advisers that the statement is clearly defamatory and would give us grounds for legal action. I was somewhat surprised by the tone of this letter which was clearly designed to intimidate by reference to possible legal proceedings. My legal advisers have informed me that in any action for defamation under Queensland law, a defendant has recourse to the defence of truth and privilege when matters allegedly defamatory are published in the public interest. Furthermore, the question of the radiation leak was confirmed by the Queensland Water Quality Council, and in evidence submitted in the Charters Towers Mining Warden's Court in 1981. At this stage I seek leave to table two documents, one from the Queensland Water Quality Council and a report headed 'Creek Radiation Over the Limit'. Leave granted. Senator REYNOLDS —The basis of my concern has in fact been aired publicly by many people over a number of years. Therefore, any public expression of concern is clearly my responsible duty to the people of Queensland and I will not be silenced by veiled threats of legal proceedings. My concerns have been echoed by individuals and groups from very diverse backgrounds including the Queensland Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs, Bob Katter Jnr, the Townsville and District Regional Conservation Council and the Charters Towers Council. In Charters Towers the local councillors recently passed a motion opposing all heavy mining in the Burdekin catchment, including Ben Lomond. It is also reported that the Charters Towers Development Bureau and the Charters Towers Chamber of Commerce are deeply concerned about the Ben Lomond proposal. The trade union movement has also spoken out on the issue of potential environmental and health risks. Members of the James Cook University of North Queensland community with expertise in relevant disciplines are currently studying the implications of uranium mining at Ben Lomond. Yet the Total company dares to stifle genuine community debate by writing to me in this clearly intimidatory manner. I would like to know why this company feels so under threat from a mere back bench Government member who speaks of genuine community concerns which have been discussed publicly over a number of years. If the company's recently released environmental impact study satisifies the doubts expressed by the Mining Warden's Court in 1981, why is it so nervous about my comments? Why should a reputable company wish to silence me on such an important issue? The fact that the letter suggests legal action will not result if I am prepared to withdraw my statement is, I believe, an insult. Surely if the Total company is serious about alleged misinformation it certainly has the resources and the influence to argue its own case through the media. It can, if it has appropriate documentation and research, surely prove its own case without resorting to such bullying standover tactics. Its recently released environmental impact statement is a public document, which is open to scrutiny and comment. That scrutiny and comment, I would submit , cannot occur in an atmosphere of intimidation. How many similar letters have been sent to concerned members of the community who dared to question the proposal of Total Mining? How many more letters are planned for anybody who dares to speak out? Will the State Minister for Northern Development, Bob Katter Jnr, be similarly rebuked for his letter to the Premier on 7 December 1981? In that letter he said: Dear Mr Premier re BEN LOMOND This issue has sparked off an enormous public reponse in Charters Towers and the surrounding district, and a very strong public opinion has voiced itself through the 'Concerned About the Burdekin and Ben Lomond' (CABBL) Group. One of the major fears of our community, whether the individuals are pro-or anti-uranium mining, is that the decision to extend Minatome's lease will not be given back to the Warden's court. Although I have always thought the magistrate was an inappropriate person to make such decisions, in this case it is important that the case should go before an open court once again, rather than behind closed doors in a situation where the public are not able to put forward their case. You have previously said yourself-- this is referring to the Premier's statement in the Australian of 6 June 1981-- that the decision will have to go back to the Court. In this way justice will be seen to be done. This decision must be made in an open hearing or we will leave ourselves open to accusations of a 'snow-job'. I would plead with you not to take this case lightly. The untold damage that this issue could do to this town can already be seen. Enrolments in our largest industry, education institutions, already appear to be down to a significant degree as a direct result of the uranium situation. Awaiting your urgent reply. Yours sincerely, BOB KATTER JNR, MLA I believe a further incident should be reported to the Senate. On Wednesday, 23 November, just two days after receiving my letter from Total Mining, my office began inquiries to locate the report of the Queensland Department of Mines on which the Minister based his decision to grant the lease without reference back to the Mining Warden's Court, as called for so vehemently by Mr Katter. That report is shrouded in secrecy. Apparently, it is not to be made available for public scrutiny despite the comments in this letter of 1981. If officers of the Queensland Department of Mines are so confident that they can recommend the granting of mining leases, surely their report to the Minister should be a public document. At the same time as I was making fairly fruitless inquiries about this report, I received an anonymous STD phone call at my Townsville office, telling me simply to keep out of Ben Lomond. Whether this call was made deliberately by a person of some authority or was merely a coincidental call from an unknown antagonist is questionable. The issue I wish to highlight in this place is that democratically elected representatives have a clear responsibility to their constituents and should not expect to be thus intimidated. In the case of Ben Lomond, it is certainly not my intention to assume a dogmatic expertise on the complex issues involved. I welcome an ongoing rational debate about any issue of significance to the people of Queensland. Therefore I hope that, despite the unfortunate circumstances on which I have reported tonight, it will be possible to resume such debate to guarantee that all opinions and information are duly considered in decisions affecting Ben Lomond and the people of that area. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(7.43) — The matter that I want to raise tonight has caused some embarrassment to most if not all members of a parliamentary delegation of which I was a member. I know from talking to fellow members of parliament that something similar has caused members of other delegations some embarrassment. The matter I refer to involves the appalling quality and the often embarrassing inappropriateness of official gifts which parliamentary delegations offer to officials whom they meet on overseas visits. I cite, just as one example, something which happened on a delegation of which I was not a member, but which I heard about when I returned recently from overseas. Apparently the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a gift of an ashtray to somebody who was a non-smoker. It would seem to me that a little research on the part of whoever is responsible for allocating such gifts would overcome this sort of thing. The delegation I was on had a wonderful trip to Italy, Spain and Greece. While in Spain we were guests of the Spanish Government. It excelled itself in its hospitality and its generosity. I think that the fact that it put us through a fairly punishing routine from day to day and that we were all suffering from exhaustion by the end of the week, spoke more for the Government's enthusiasm than for its attempts to get rid of a few Australian parliamentarians. The Government paid for our accommodation, our meal expenses, and the cost of our travels throughout the country. It was exceptionally generous, as I have said, and most hospitable. The official functions which it invited us to were some of the best to which I have ever been. The Government also showered us with gifts both as a parliamentary group and as individuals. The gifts that it gave us ranged from a miniature leather-bound set of the Spanish Constitution for each of us to personal gifts-I received a most attractive gold shawl-through to a beautiful plaque which was a gift from the Spanish Senate to the Australian Senate. It was not a gift to the Australian Parliament but was from the Spanish Senate to the Australian Senate and was a most attractive plaque. I really do not know whether I have the strength to report what we gave in return. We were at the final dinner, hosted by the Spanish Cortes. Members from both Houses of the Spanish Parliament were present. We had an extremely elaborate four-course meal, with different wines provided at each course. The dinner was held in the Cortes, but the meal was provided by one of the best restaurants in Spain, so it was brought in from outside. The Government brought in minstrels from the law faculty of the university; in fact it feted us. At the end of the meal we exchanged gifts. Quite frankly, most of the members of the delegation died from embarrassment at what was handed over. The present that was given to the Spanish Cortes was a ceramic bowl. I do not think it is going too far to say that it looked like something which should belong under somebody's bed. The gift which we gave to the Spanish Senate was a polished blackwood bowl of about 8 inches in diameter. It was simply a nut bowl, and a very ordinary looking bowl. The silence in that room was deafening. Senator Chaney —But you do not even understand Spanish. How do you know? Senator HAINES —It looked, Senator Chaney, as if it had come from Woolworths. Although I am assured that it did not, that is nevertheless what it looked like. Senator Kilgariff —Coles, perhaps. Senator HAINES —Perhaps it was Coles. In addition to that gift, we gave to the President of the Cortes and the President of the Senate what in fact were attractive gifts. They were cigarette boxes. I do not know whether either of them smoke. I know the Spanish have a penchant for cigars. These cigarette boxes were made of wood and covered with leather. Sending leather to Spain is a little akin to sending coals to Newcastle. I suggest that when we are part of an official delegation and when we present official gifts to high ranking officials in another country, we are representing this country, a country of which every member of a delegation is proud, and we should offer gifts which we are equally proud to give them. I can see no reason why we can not offer a parliament of another country, particularly if it is hosting our visits, an Australian painting, for instance. This could be hung in a parliament as a permanent memento of our visit. I understand that the gifts which we gave the Spanish Parliament-and they were similar to the gifts which we handed over in Italy and Greece-were expensive. I would argue that that is not the point. The point is that we should be giving something appropriate as thanks for our visit. It should be appropriate as a gift from an Australian delegation to the Spanish Parliament, the Greek Parliament, the Italian Parliament or to any other Parliament. It should be something which says something about our country and which is unique but tasteful. It should not be kitsch, which, to all intents and purposes, is what our gifts were. I understand that fairly rigid protocol operates in Australia about what is given to whom and by whom. I will not argue about the cost of those gifts. All I say is that some research should be done about who we give them to and that some thought should be put into the gifts by somebody with a little more taste than, I daresay, the male bureaucrat who has gone around choosing these things and who seems to think that some level of protocol is what should operate rather than thought being given to the appropriateness of the gift. I am sorry to come back from a trip which, to all other intents and purposes, I very much enjoyed, from which I learned a great deal, at which there was a tremendous amount of rapport between our delegation and members of the various parliaments whom we met and at which a great deal of information of mutual benefit and interest was exchanged, with this sort of complaint. It spoilt the trip. That evening after the Spanish dinner we went back to the hotel in the company of Australia's Ambassador to Spain. His comment to me was that he did not think he would show his face around the Spanish Cortes for a while. We all felt acutely embarrassed. I do not like to keep repeating this. I do not know what can be done about it. I simply ask that some sort of shakeup be carried out in the department that organises the sorts of gifts and the level of appropriateness with which we give those gifts so that they are appropriate, of good quality, and say something specific and typical about Australia without being embarrassing. At present they are tawdry, perhaps kitschy-I do not know what the word is-but something has to be done about it. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(7.53) —I wish to speak briefly on the same subject that Senator Haines has raised. I think it would be appropriate in the circumstances for us to review this situation. I had the privilege of being on a parliamentary delegation which was invited to Japan by the House of Councillors. It has quite specifically devised a medal of the House of Councillors which is quite typically Japanese but also is quite typical of the Diet. It seems that we , in Australia, ought to revise the situation so that we discontinue illustrating what we in Australia have probably become known for-that we have a cultural cringe. We have a magnificent craft industry in Australia and we have magnificent artists. Top quality people who can produce works of art that are equal to anything anywhere in the world are available to the Government. I think it would not be terribly difficult to revise the situation which currently prevails so that we can make use of the enormous talents which exist in Australia and which have been exhibited in so many places overseas and yet which we seem to leave aside on these occasions. I too was upset by the gifts. I was not upset so much at the cost because I inquired and they were quite expensive gifts which were appropriate in the circumstances. I believe that all the correct protocol had been met. Nevertheless, I think the extra touch had not been met. The gifts did not display anything of Australia and, in a way, did not display anything of the Parliament. We were part of a parliamentary delegation. It seems that under those circumstances it would be most appropriate if, in fact, we could have something of the Parliament which could be used as gifts and be reminders to the recipients of the delegation's visit. Those delegations are of enormous benefit to Australia. They help to form reciprocal ties. I believe this extra touch which currently is missing would provide a long term and a beneficial effect for Australia. It is an area which may seem small and personal, but it is the small personal touches which probably end up improving relations between countries much more than the more dramatic and high-flown speeches which are made. I hope we can address ourselves to this problem. I hope the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) conveys these thoughts to the Government so that we can look at the situation and employ the enormous talents that we have in Australia to promote Australia and this Parliament overseas when our delegations visit other countries. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(7.56) —Before I commence speaking about the subject I wish to raise in this adjournment debate, I add my concern to the views expressed by Senator Macklin and Senator Haines. I have been a member of one or two parliamentary delegations. Some of the gifts that have been handed to other countries as representing Australia have been poor. Perhaps the word is junky. Whatever the word is, the gifts are certainly not up to the standard of gifts given that should come from Australia. Many lovely things which represent Australia could be given. I join with the two honourable senators in hoping that something can be done to improve the standard of these gifts which are given by Australia and by our Parliament. Tonight I want to talk about the controversial matter of Soviet funding of peace organisations in the Western world. Perhaps a more appropriate name would be surrender organisations. Before doing so, I table in the Senate various newspaper clippings numbered from No. 1 onwards to which I will be referring. They are mostly clippings from various Australian newspapers and are of considerable interest. Leave granted. Senator KILGARIFF —Just recently the Australian radical left protest circuit has made the important Australian United States defence installation at Pine Gap its target. During the 1970s and the 1980s, Australia's Marxist forces came to a consensus on the issues of stopping the mining of uranium, a vital fuel supply in a world so heavily dependent on unstable Middle East oil supplies and on having American forces frozen out of Australia and the Asian-Pacific region, thus removing the United States deterrent to the Soviet Union in the Pacific region. Australia's Marxist hard left forces are acting on behalf of the Societ Union to help stop United States rearmament in the face of the rapidly expanding forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. After a decade and perhaps millions of dollars of campaigning they have utterly failed. Now, with the Left of the Australian Labor Party an indistinguishable part of this movement, their immediate aim is to fragment the ALP, Hawke and the non-Left forces. To this end they have skilfully set out to manipulate the media . They use what never amounts to more than a couple of hundred professional demonstrators to attract continuous Press, radio and, particularly, television coverage. Mr Hawke and his supporters helped bring this situation upon themselves. When they supported the Franklin Dam protestors who have formed the core of the Roxby Downs and Pine Gap protests, they let these protestors believe that mob rule even on the wilderness and in the streets could mould the policy of a mainstream party. At least with the Roxby protest, the Press found that the hard Left movement against uranium mining and the Friends of the Earth were running training camps and using Victorian government school property for this purpose. I refer to Press cutting No. 1 which I tabled. The media also learned that the much advertised non-violent direct action was to be included. According to News Weekly-I refer honourable senators to the newspaper clipping No. 1A dated 7 September 1983-the term 'non-violent direct action' is, in itself , contradictory. Direct action involves the use of physical force and, to that extent at least, is violent. The tactic involved in 'non-violent direct action' is one of provocation-to provoke the police by obstructing police vehicles, intimidating police officers, shouting abuse, and chanting slogans containing demands. These actions are designed to create a situation in which the actual nature of events appears reversed to those in the media and their audiences. The police are depicted as violent, while the demonstrators who have provoked the police are depicted as non-violent victims. The media plays a special role in the direct action process. To publicise and promote 'the cause', violent scenes are orchestrated by provoking the police beyond endurance. The subsequent confrontation between direct actionists and police provides exciting viewing and reporting. The Roxby 'non-violent direct action' plan included occupation of the mining site's generator plant, writing graffiti on the runway at the mine and across the company's trucks, the use of video cameras trained on police to convince them that they were being constantly monitored, and a plan to tear down the fences at the mine as a last resort. When put into action, the violence that the plan was designed to provoke was achieved. The Press, to its credit, exposed the protest for the way that it provoked violence, so much so that one of our senators, Senator Don Chipp, decided not to fly in to lend his support. I think that he was very wise not to support the blockaders there. Spurred on by their success at getting Hawke and Australian Labor Party support for the Franklin protest and after the Roxby farce, this band of professional protesters set out for Pine Gap and the lawns of Parliament House as well. The Sydney Morning Herald, some months ago, carried an article telling of the move from Roxby to Pine Gap. But as the Communist Party of Australia's newspaper Tribune pointed out, there was to be one major difference. This protest was to be restricted to 'radical feminists'. The protest has been in the planning stage for months. Sarah Walls, in the Australian-I refer to the third clipping, of 10 June 1983-joined one of the Pine Gap protesters' main organising groups, the Women's Action Against Global Violence, the WAAGV, at a warm-up protest being held at the time outside the Australian Atomic Energy Commission research establishment at Lucas Heights. It was this 'mob' of 300 who protested earlier this year at the Canberra War Memorial, followed by a march on Parliament House, calling for more child care but, in the same breath, demanding the cessation of uranium mining and the ousting of United States defence bases from Australia. They also staged a 'die in', representing the effects of a nuclear war, in Martin Place, Sydney. This was repeated outside Lucas Heights. I say all this to show that the 'protest circuit' has become a professional operation, well planned, involving the co-ordination of many widely dispersed groups, especially staged to gain maximum media coverage; and behind it all is big money. Inquiries have revealed that about $40,000, perhaps, must have gone into just hiring the buses to take the protesters to Pine Gap. It is believed that four buses came from Sydney, and one from each of Melbourne and Brisbane. I ask: Where is all the money coming from? Overseas, the Soviet Union is known to be pouring huge amounts of funds into Western pacifist groups. An article entitled 'Pacifists Wary of Moscow's Influence' in the Wall Street Journal-I refer to cutting No. 4-dated 19 October 1983, revealed how millions were being poured into the West German pacifist groups. Friedrich Heuer, the Director of Domestic Security at the West German Interior Ministry, said that the DKP, West Germany's Communist party, was receiving about $US23m a year, much of which was being laundered through two unilateral disarmament-pacifist groups to run campaigns against the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The West German pacifist movement is financially dependent on the DKP. Hence, when Moscow says 'Protest against the deployment of Cruise and Pershing II missiles and ignore the Soviet SS20s'-which are being deployed at the rate of one a week-the West German pacifist movement falls into line, naturally. In Denmark last year, Ingmar Wagner, the Deputy Chairman of the National Association for Co-operation between Denmark and the USSR, and Danish representative on the World Peace Council, admitted that he was just a courier for Soviet money that he said was being used for 'international solidarity work' . This was after a young thief, arrested by the police, said how surprised he was to find 100,000 Deutschemarks hidden in Wagner's house. That is contained in clipping No. 5, from the Daily Telegraph, of London, of 24 August 1982. This year the Swiss Government closed the office of the Novosti Press Agency, threw out the chief of the agency and forced the withdrawal of a Soviet diplomat identified as an officer of the Komitet Gosudarstrennoi Bezopasnosti-the KGB- responsible for Novosti. The agency's officers were accused of political agitation, disinformation and interference in Swiss affairs. They had infiltrated the country's pacifist movement and organised numerous left-wing demonstrations. These are just a few examples of Soviet involvement in hard Left Marxist so-called 'peace' groups. Back in Australia, the Communist Party of Australia last week admitted in Tribune-that is No. 6 of the papers, of 3 November 1983-that: The National Council Meeting of Communist Party decided to make a demonation to the action-- That is, the Pine Gap protest- to provide cooking gear and to contribute to the bail fund. That fund was considerable. Where else is the money for this great 'media exercise' coming from? Note: It is just a media exercise, for without free media coverage, 450 protesters or more out from the back of Bourke would be written off in the same category as mad dogs and Englishmen. But the amount of money about which we are talking is by no means slight. On top of the estimated $30,000 to $40,000 spent on buses, as mentioned earlier, there were the day to day living costs and the women's fines to be considered. That sum in itself was considerable. I believe that 159 women were arrested during the protest, with the cost of fines totalling well over $11,000. If one assumes that it cost, conservatively, say, $100 to keep each protester in the field for a week, that is another $45,000 in costs. Conservatively, then, this protest has cost well over $100,000. This is just the beginning, because many of the protesters-and we saw them arrive for the other demonstrations-have arrived by air. Obviously, the air fares would have to be included and paid for by someone. I suggest that it would not be the organised demonstrators. So it is extraordinary that no one in the Press-no one that I have heard of, at least-has bothered to ask: 'Who is footing these enormous bills?' I seek leave, Mr President, to have incorporated in Hansard a list of organisations and individuals who have given their support to the Women for Survival protest camp at Pine Gap. The list is taken from a news sheet produced by Women's Action Against Global Violence, in October 1983. Leave granted. The document read as follows- WOMEN FOR SURVIVAL CAMP The following organisations support the aims of the Women for Survival Action: Australian Women's Education Coalition Tertiary Catholic Federation of Australia, NSW Executive-Anne Masden Tertiary Catholic Federation of Australia, National Chaplain, Robyn Johnson Tertiary Catholic Federation of Australia, Full time staff worker, Tric Darvall NSW Labour Women's Organisation Kirribilli Branch, Australia Peace Committee Newcastle Peace Forum Western Suburbs Peace and Disarmament Group Kath Walker Hal Lashwood, O.A.M. Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association (Federal) Miners Federation Waterside Workers Federation (Sydney Branch) South Coast Branch, Australia Peace Committee NSW Social Welfare Workers Union YWCA (Alice Springs) Workers employed at ANL Terminal, Port Botany Workers employed at CTAL Terminal, Port Botany Amalgamated Metals, Foundry & Shipwrights Union (NSW) Women's Electoral Lobby (Sydney) Women's Electoral Lobby (Perth) Feminist Anti-Nuclear Group (Adelaide) University of NSW Women for Peace Movement Against Uranium Mining Robyn Archer Spanish Speaking Peace Committee Union of Australian Women (Queensland) Union of Latin American Women Black, Third World and Immigrant Women's Alliance Women's Housing Cooperative Delvena Women's Refuge Rape Crisis Centre Single Women's Refuge Feminist Book Shop Elsie's Women's Refuge Marrickville Women's Refuge Lesbian Line Darling Street Woman's Health Clinic Union of Australian Women (Eastern Suburbs) United Nations Association of Australia, Disarmament Committee (NSW) Moruya Women's House U.N.S.W. Women for peace Women's Actions for Nuclear Disarmament (Perth) Women for Action (Nambour, Qld) Women's Liberation Collective Macquarie University Women's Collective Women's Section N.S.W.I.T. Students Representatives Sydney University Women's Collective N.S.W. University Student Union Council Greenpeace (Sydney/Adelaide) Northside Peace Group Tasmanian Wilderness Society (Sydney) Friends of the Earth (Sydney) Australian Peace Committee Greta Peace Group Nambucca Anti-Nuclear Association People for Peace and a Nuclear Free World (Cairns) Tableland People for Peace (Atherton) Tweed Valley People for Peace & Nuclear Disarmament Women for World Disarmament (England) Women From Greenham Common Women's International Democratic Federation Women for Peace (Amsterdam) Helen Caldicott and Women for Survival Party (USA) Burnham Burnham Mum Shirl Elizabeth Mattick Ann Symonds M.C. Seamen's Union of Australia (Sydney Branch) Firemen & Deckhands Union of NSW Teachers Federation (Canterbury/Bankstown Association) Building Workers Industrial Union (Federal) NSW Builders Labourers' Federation George Petersen, MP for Illawarra Australian Peace Committee (Waverley) Union of Australian Women (Manly/Warringah Branch) Blue Mountains Women's Centre Association for International Cooperation and Disarmament Iris Magazine (Feminist Newspaper Tasmania) Sydney Women Against Rape Collective People Against the Arms Race (Albury) Ballarat Anti-Nuclear Group Nurses Against Nuclear War Women for a Nuclear Free World Federated Furnishing Trades Society (Victoria) Crew of Peace Ship MV Springhtly Don Bowman, MP, Member for Swansea Dorothy McMahon (Uniting Church Minister Action for World Development) Australian Student, Christian Movement Women Margaret Newton, Brahma Kumaris World Spirituality University Movement to Protect Humanity from Nuclear Waste (North Wales) WOMEN'S ANTI-NUCLEAR GROUPS F.A.N.G. Brisbane (07) 371 1459 Mangoes Nth Queensland (070) 91 2385 F.A.N.G. A.C.T. (062) 583 482 F.A.N.G. Adelaide (08) 271 2450 W.A.N.O. Western Australia (09) 321 2269 Darwin Women Northern Territory (089) 52 1182 W.A.A.G.V. Sydney (02) 267 6162 Women for Survival Tasmania (002) 34 5566 Women for Survival Armidale (067) 722 587 Women's Action for Global Peace Nimbin (068) 89 1408 Women for Survival Alice Springs (089) 522 449 Clover Wade Mid North Coast (066) 558 605 Women's Centre Blue Mountains (047) 82 1216 W.A.A.G.V. Newcastle (049) 681 964 P.A.A.R. Albury (060) 21 8367 Senator KILGARIFF —I thank the Senate. Honourable senators will note that the list contains the names of idnividuals and organisations notorious for their connections with the Communist Party of Australia and other Soviet-oriented groups. Listed also-and this is of interest-is Lesbian Line. It is rather peculiar and it makes one wonder about the naivety of some people when three members of the Tertiary Catholic Federation of Australia, including its National Chaplain, a Uniting Church minister, one or two other Christian groups and two nuns are seen to be running not only in a campaign dominated by communist groups who are philosophically committed to the annihilation of Christianity but with a lesbian organisation. It is sad to see such people being used to legitimise this campaign and, therefore, making it 'respectable' to the media. Perhaps 'used' is not the correct term for, when one sees some of the people and considers the role that they have played and their background, one is very doubtful as to them having been 'used'. Other groups known to be supporting the protest include the Movement Against Uranium Mining and Friends of the Earth-both boasted of being the main groups behind the main groups behind the Roxby Downs attempted blockade-the Women's Housing Co-operative, of Sydney, Women Against Violent Exploitation, that is WAVE, Feminist Anti-Nuclear groups, that is, FANG, and various ALP groups. The Young Women's Christian Association in Alice Springs provided it facilities, including its telephone and its conference room, and appeared to be be the headquarters for the demonstration. This material provides strong evidence, and I invite people to read it, that the forces ultimately behind the network of the radicial Left feminist group at Pine Gap were the Australian communist parties and the front organisations serving the interests of the Soviet Union. It is part of a well-financed, co- ordinated and ongoing campaign orchestrated ultimately from outside Australia. That has been admitted by various people within the peace demonstration, who have said that its roots have come from overseas. This well financed, co- ordinated and ongoing campaign has been stepped up to force the Hawke Government to break with the United States, to deny the Americans bases on our soil and to deny access by their naval vessels to our ports. The Press and the Government have a responsibility, I believe, to make this information known to the Australian people. What I am saying is that it was not one of those casual demonstrations, it was very well organised. As I said once before, I suggest that interested people should see these cuttings in association with my remarks. They are most interesting. Just to clear up one or two matters very quickly; there are other things I wish to say, but not tonight. I was very interested to see an article in the Centralian Advocate of 23 November 1983 headed 'Aboriginal women ''talked into demo'' ', which stated: Aboriginal women who took part in the Pine Gap Demonstration were talked into it, according to a prominent Aranda woman, Betty Pearce. She is a most respected local Aboriginal person. The article continues: Ms Pearce said Aboriginal women who took part would not have had a deep enough understanding of the Pine Gap issue to make a decision on their own. She said the issues of world peace and nuclear disarmament were not fully explained to the women. Ms Pearce said: 'When the protestors leave there will be confusion among the Aboriginal women who went to the protest. One hundred Pitjantjatjara and Luritja women attended Pine Gap during the demonstrations.' It is believed the women were brought in from surrounding areas by bus, Ms Pearce said. That, in itself, is most interesting. I would like to see the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) look into this aspect of how and why it was that Aboriginal women were brought in, quite obviously not knowing what the game was all about. The article goes on: 'Most Aboriginal women have no concept of what the protest is about. Part of the Aboriginal culture is violence. Our culture is controlled by the payback system. Aboriginal culture has had to be violent to survive all these thousands of years. Peace as preached by the local and visiting Pine Gap protestors is not the Aboriginal way'. This is the word of a very well-known local Aboriginal person. The article concludes: 'It also seems farcical because I have been threatened in an underhand manner that if I don't keep my big mouth shut I will be beaten up,' Ms Pearce said. Very interesting. Knowing the person, I believe her. Before the Senate rose a week or so ago I asked the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) whether he would look into the possible misuse of funds and vehicles by the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service during the demonstration at Pine Gap. I have not received any answer from the Attorney and I ask again: Is the Attorney able to answer my queries and, in light of the complaints, has the matter been investigated? If not, is it the intention of the Government to review the matter ? That is not much to ask. Another matter on which I wish to speak very briefly also relates to the demonstration. I refer to the report of the Human Rights Commission inquiry into police treatment of women at the Women for Survival protest at Pine Gap. I believe the report casts a slur on members of the Northern Territory Police because it lists allegations against them, yet gives no indication as to whether or not these allegations have any foundation. The allegations are extremely serious. I believe the police have every right-surely they must have human rights too-to ask that the investigation be completed as a matter of urgency so that this slur on them can be lifted. Very many matters relating to the demonstration should be investigated, particularly to give the police the opportunity to be cleared of those serious charges. I draw the attention of authorities to the way directional microphones were used. I refer to the complaints made to the Human Rights Commission, and ask that the Attorney ensure that every complaint made is properly investigated. I believe, and I forecast, that when this report is placed in the hands of the Attorney-General, the Northern Territory Police will be completely cleared. That leaves one matter. Do people have the right to make complaints in the way in which these complaints have been made? I suggest that these complaints have been engineered. I leave them to the authorities to look at. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(8.16) —I listened with considerable interest to what Senator Kilgariff had to say. I am particularly able to speak in reply to some of the comments he made because I did visit Pine Gap. I am amazed at some of the things he said, and I am amazed because of the way he in fact used the very tactics about which he was complaining. For instance, in the very early part of his speech he used the word 'mob' many times in relation to the women. That is a very gentle way of speaking, if one likes, and is nicely inflammatory, but he was doing exactly what he protested that the women were doing. I would say Senator Kilgariff has a different understanding of what happened at Pine Gap than the understanding with which I came away. There were many more than 200 protestors. Some women came and went, even during the time I was there, for the eight days of the camp's life. While I was there there were 200 women that I could count. There may have been a few more, but I counted those women while we were attending a film. At that stage we were gathered in rows watching the film; so it was a fairly accurate assessment of the number of people there. Senator Kilgariff —There were about 550 to 600, and the genuine ones left very quickly. Senator CROWLEY —I prefer to make my assessment on what I saw. The women came and the women left, so many more than 200 would have been there over the time of the camp. I had the opportunity to meet with and speak with many of the women who were there. I can assure the Senate that they were not a mob of wild, radical leftist feminists. Many of them were what one could call grandmothers. Some of them claimed to be grandmothers; they were certainly of a grandmotherly age. There were young women, teenagers, women from alternative communes and women from academia. There were office workers and teachers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, housewives and the well-publicised nuns. Many of those women had made the free choice to come to Pine Gap because of the passion that they felt about the issue. They are terribly concerned, as many people in the world are, about the issue of peace. I think it is a matter of real interest that the public participation in peace demonstrations around the world has enormously increased in the last year or so. While there may be in any of those demonstrations a small group of people who are there for their own mischievous reasons, I cannot believe that one million people in a demonstration in Holland were all mischievous and were all stoolies in the pay of the Soviet Government. I do not accept that interpretation in regard to the people involved in peace and I do not accept that interpretation in regard to the majority of women who went to Pine Gap. I also wish to make some comment on a few of the other things Senator Kilgariff mentioned. The Young Women's Christian Association in Alice Springs did provide a room for the women as their town base. When asked why it provided the room, the YWCA said: 'We provide sanctuary for women'. I think that is a most appropriate answer. I can also tell the Senate that I have a brother and sister- in-law living in Alice Springs and those people are fairly actively involved with some of the community there. On the Saturday preceding my visit there they took part in and actively campaigned for a peace demonstration in Alice Springs because a number of men from Alice Springs were unable to go to Pine Gap by reason of their sex. Some 200 people went to the peace demonstration in Alice Springs. I think that this has probably not been reported, and certainly Senator Kilgariff did not allude to it. There was and still is wide concern about matters of peace and nuclear disarmament in the world. The Australian women, in establishing the camp at Pine Gap, were representative of the Australian people who feel very strongly about that. Certainly there were some radical feminists who went to that camp and certainly there were some very non-radical women. There were women from the whole spectrum of attitudes and values who were there principally because of their concern for peace and their legitimate fear about the possibility of nuclear war. I think that needs to be stressed. There is an increasing reportage in papers-if one likes, a real hyping up-on matters of nuclear war, nuclear arms and so on. I do not wish to criticise the reporters for the majority of the copy that they have put in newspapers over recent times. I think for a variety of reasons, particularly the change of balance of nulcear power in Europe, the matters of nuclear war and the increase in nuclear arms have made the prospect of nuclear war very much more real and more alive. I think these matters have been the subject of factual reportage in the majority of papers. Many people reading those reports can confuse those facts with fear-mongering. I think it is not a matter of fear-mongering but it is true that the facts can engender fear in many people. I think that is only right and proper. Nuclear war is a matter of terrible fear. It is also a problem that we have to address, and I think it is not constructive to put the argument as Senator Kilgariff has. I think the assertions he has made tonight are wild and I do not think they address the very real and very rational fears that people have in response to these facts. If we are going to look at the issues, I suggest we need to look at them in a calm way but also acknowledge that people really do have fear and that that is a proper and appropriate response to the prospect of nuclear holocaust. We need to address that fear too, but we do not do it by wild innuendo and assertions. I think the other important thing that the Pine Gap camp did was to bring home to the Australian people the importance and the power of women in this country who are concerned about matters of peace, who established that camp in solidarity with the women at Greenham Common and with the peace movement around the world. I think that they achieved a remarkable effect and they also achieved a remarkably effective camp-about that I can speak from first-hand knowledge. The women were somewhat delighted at the discovery they had made of their own strength. Certainly the camp was very effective and very neatly and efficiently run. There was fresh water and fresh fruit and vegetables and there were adequate facilities. For the eight days that the camp had been running before I arrived it had been running very effectively. I think we ought not to be distracted from the principal issue of that camp by the questions and some of the issues that Senator Kilgariff raised. The purpose of the camp was to make nuclear weapons and the prospect of nuclear war a matter of public debate in Australia. That is terribly important at a time when Cruise and Pershing missiles are being deployed in Europe to counter the previously deployed SS20s put in the Eastern sector by the Russians. While the Americans and the Russians talk of a reduction of nuclear arms, and while they talk of the need for peace, they have both increased their arsenals. I find that much more evocative of fear and I find it very hard to believe their claims in the face of the evidence of those increasing weapons. The women of Australia feel that it is very important to have made a statement about this increase of nuclear arms, and that is what they did when they went to Pine Gap. They went there too because they appreciate that Pine Gap is a possible nuclear target in a nuclear war. I think that is widely held to be true by a majority of people in Australia. There are many things that could be said but I cannot answer all of Senator Kilgariff's points. I am proud of the Australian women for what they achieved at the camp. I think they did take the debate to the public and I think they have made it an issue of public debate throughout Australia. While some people are antagonistic, I think the majority of people are thoughtful or quiet about it. Of course, some people are quiet because they wish to bury their fear, and other people are quiet because they feel impotent in the face of the evidence that, no matter how one protests, the Americans and the Russians increase their arsenals. But I think, no matter what, the Pine Gap camp caused nuclear arms and the prospect of nuclear war to be talked about throughout Australia. I think the ordinary community voice that has been raised around the world, to which the Pine Gap camp contributed, will continue for goodness knows how long, but I think most of those people committed to peace are aware that, until the military industrial complex from either side gets the message, they will continue their peace campaigning. Pine Gap was part of an historical process. I think it is a matter of pride for Australia and it certainly is a matter of pride for me. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia)(8.26) —More out of deference to the very heavy demands being made on the kitchen and dining room staff than for any other reason I will endeavour to be brief. I just want to touch on a couple of matters which were raised on the adjournment by Senator Reynolds. She is no longer here and because of that I will temper my remarks. Because some of the other things I wish to mention touch on the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and he is not here either, I will also temper my remarks in that area. Senator Reynolds raised her dealings with the Total company and complained about that company seeking to silence her and or threatening legal action against her. In the course of that she mentioned certain matters which had been raised in the Mining Warden's Court in, I think she said, 1979, and some criticisms which were made on the environmental aspects of that particular mining proposal. It just happens that the company made available to me, and indeed to the general public, a statement of 14 November on the Ben Lomond environment study. I seek leave to table the statement made by the company on that date which refers to the mining warden's comments and makes certain other comments about the work which has been done pursuant to those remarks and about the company's view of the environmental situation at present. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I do not intend to seek leave to table the rather massive full environmental impact study, which was reissued by the company at the same time it issued that statement which I have just tabled, merely because it seems to me we have an enormous pile of paper accumulating and I doubt whether it will be called upon. I simply say that it is available and it is, of course, a document on which public comment can be made. That is an important part of the quite detailed arrangements which exist throughout Australia to ensure that environmental and other matters are given full and public consideration before projects of this sort proceed. The other point I want to touch on really arose out of the nature of the complaint which Senator Reynolds made about the fact that she felt an attempt was being made to silence her. I think that does raise an important question of principle which probably needs to be canvassed in the Senate. I do not adopt Senator Reynold's view at all and I do not on the other hand seek to take the part of the company. I think that is a matter in which one would have to look at the material and see whether there was any justification for the complaint which the honourable senator made. But I remind the Senate of the very significant complaints which are being made, not just by the Opposition but also by the commentators who I think have some standing in the community, about the readiness of the present Government to seek to gag free speech where that is uncomfortable for them. In particular, I would like to refer to a couple of articles which, although written with some force, I think repay consideration. They are written by a man who I think is a lawyer; certainly, he has legal training. He is a journalist who has worked in Australia and overseas, Mr Robert Pullan. He published a couple of articles in the National Times of 25 November which caught my attention and which touch on the matter of principle Senator Reynolds has raised. The first article, which is headed 'The Gagging of Australia', relates to the proposed uniform defamation law. Again, because I do not wish to delay the Senate, I merely read from the first paragraph. Mr Pullan wrote: Australia's defamation laws now impose the most comprehensive gags on free speech in the common-law world. Attorney-General Senator Gareth Evans' new bill, which is intended to form the basis of a uniform defamation law, will substantially tighten them. He goes on to make a great deal of detailed comment on that. In a second article in the same publication the same writer comments on the attempts made by various members of the Government to prevent free speech by political opponents and others. I remind the Senate that it was the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who sought to censor Mr Andrew Peacock, the Leader of the Opposition, because he made some comments about what was happening in the Hope Royal Commission. There was a threat from the Prime Minister who said that what Mr Peacock had said was wrong and defamatory. He said that the Government's counsel would submit to Mr Justice Hope that Peacock's statement was in contempt of the Commission and ' needs to be dealt with'. We all know now, as is pointed out by Mr Pullan, that that resulted in several newspapers withdrawing items from publication. We all know that although there was a complaint before the Commission, no attempt was actually made to commit Mr Peacock, but I think all of us should stop and consider the actions of the Prime Minister. He sought to prevent debate on what I think is an important political issue. It is important not only in the view of the Opposition, but also in the view of some members of the Government, certainly Senator Bolkus. Other matters referred to by Mr Pullan include the fact that Mr Hawke had libel writs out against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Sydney Morning Herald and Time magazine for reports which allegedly ruined his reputation. Of course, as Mr Pullan points out, Mr Hawke is enjoying an astonishingly high approval rating from the public; so it is a bit hard to see that his reputation has actually been destroyed by these articles. Mr Pullan also points out: Finance Minister John Dawkins has referred to his solicitor a joke made by Deputy Opposition Leader John Howard during a recent division . . . The Minister for Communications, Michael Duffy, has begun a suit over a Brisbane report alleging interference in the ABC coverage of the Queensland election. Attorney-General Gareth Evans has recanted his observation while in Opposition that a Freedom of Information Act giving ministers the power to certify documents exempt from the act was not worth having. He told Parliament that he now believes that it would be 'premature' to amend the act to make it worth having. Other things are stated, but I think I have given enough of the background to say that when a Government senator raises this question, it raises a much broader question than the rights of senators to proceed in a way which they believe perhaps exempts them from the laws which apply to other citizens. I think it is important that we consider what are quite difficult questions, particularly now that the Attorney-General has produced a uniform defamation proposal that we address the question of principle which has been raised by Senator Reynolds. I have as thin a skin as the next man and perhaps thinner than most, but I have come to the reluctant conclusion that one has to suffer a lot of slings and arrows in the game of politics. I think that the matter raised by Senator Reynolds is one that should not be raised as an isolated instance which affects simply a company threatening senators' free speech. It is an issue in which politicians are all too ready to threaten the free speech of others. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.34) —I raise the question of holding of meetings of committees or parliamentary groups such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association during the time that the Parliament is sitting. I appreciate that the Parliament has problems at present because of the different hours that the House of Representatives sits from those when the Senate sits. I understand that problem and it will be even more awkward in the future to organise appropriate meetings. I found myself today committed to a meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Executive at 6 p.m. while debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendments Bill was proceeding in this chamber. Obviously, that Bill was of vital interest to me and to many other honourable senators. The Bill was at the Committee stage and, quite frankly, we needed not only to be present but also to be alert as to the particular clauses. I found myself in the situation of leaving the chamber for a couple of reasons, one of which was to register my apology to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association executive for not being able to attend. When I got back to my place in the chamber I was rather confused and found that an important clause, that regarding the registration of group tickets, had been carried. I latched on to another part of the Bill, clause 80. I had it in the back of my mind that I needed to speak on this matter because it is one which will substantially disadvantage me in any election that I might run in in Tasmania or any group which I might run in an election in Tasmania. I know that I cannot canvas the earlier debate. I am simply positing the suggestion that it will be discriminatory against me or my group and favourable to only two groups in the list system of voting. I am now in a position of having to seek leave tomorrow, or whenever we are to discuss the Bill, to have that clause re-submitted. When I stood in my place I was of the view that the substantive clause came later in the Bill. That is how confused I was. But I make the point that I believe I would not have been in that situation had I not felt I should, as a matter of courtesy, proceed to the meeting that was being held at the same time as the Bill was being considered in this place to apologise for my absence. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.38) —I reply first to Senator Harradine, while it is in my mind. I understand the difficulty and the controversy in this place about parliamentary committees meeting while the Parliament is sitting. I merely make the comment that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is a voluntary organisation of parliamentarians. I am not a member. What that voluntary organisation does and when it sits is really not up to this Parliament, not is it anything to do with this Parliament. It is up to that organisation. I think the honourable senator's redress in that situation is with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. But I accept the fact that at other times we have had problems with the Public Accounts Committee and with other committees meeting while the Parliament is sitting. That is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee, I believe. The second matter which comes to mind is the matter raised by Senator Haines and Senator Macklin. It is something that I have heard many times before in this place. In fact, I have been in the situation of being on a parliamentary delegation and being acutely embarrassed by the sorts of gifts which are provided by the Australian Parliament in those circumstances. I am particularly distressed by the situation Senator Haines mentioned, because Felipe Gonzalez happens to be a friend of mine and I have many friends in the Spanish Government . I make two points. First, it is my understanding and my memory that it is up to the secretary of a delegation and the president of a delegation to choose the gifts, although at certain times I understand that the choice as to what is available in this place is pretty limited. One is tempted to say that it in fact is, and should be, the responsibility of the members of the delegation to make sure that the gifts are adequate. But I add one proviso. I am afraid that I and many of my colleagues are probably the worst people in the world to make choices of that kind. Therefore I must say that I have sympathy with Senator Macklin's view that we should have some formal method of selecting such gifts to make sure that they are appropriate, coming from Australia, and are of appropriate value; and also to ensure that, if possible, they reflect proper taste-I suppose that is the expression to use. In fact, I thought that the previous Government had gone some way along the track in doing that. I was under the impression that it had made some arrangements to overhaul this system of providing gifts, but clearly it had not. Perhaps I could briefly inform the Senate that the worst episode of which I have heard concerned a delegation which, during a visit to a foreign country, had with it a person who was a combined interpreter, guide and bodyguard for 10 days and it was left to the Australian staff in the Embassy or High Commission to choose a gift for that person. To the horror of the members of the delegation , he was presented with a book on Australian venomous insects and a pair of Australian woollen socks. I agree with Senators Haines, Macklin and Kilgariff that something ought to be done about it and I will certainly pass their comments on to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I have very little comment to make on the speeches of Senators Reynolds and Chaney. I was not present for most of the time during which Senator Reynolds was speaking, so I do not know the details of what she said. The matters that Senator Chaney raises, concerning the laws of defamation and libel, are matters that I believe should be debated much more widely, by people who have had more preparation and expertise than I have been able to gain tonight. As for Senator Kilgariff's contribution, all I can say is that it is of the kind that we have heard in this country and in this place over the years. It indicates, I suppose, that in some ways nothing changes. He used what I consider to be an unfortunate tactic by first producing in this place and tabling a series of some 16 cuttings from newspapers. Those that were recognisable came largely from newspapers such as News Weekly and various propaganda publications of the Left and the Right. I believe that a couple came from the Australian but others were from papers which were not marked. We had no idea where they came from. They seemed to me to represent expressions of opinion. Secondly, the honourable senator went on to condemn everyone who had taken part in the Franklin River protest and the Pine Gap protest as Marxists, as communist stooges, in the pay of the communists. However, I notice, for instance, that the list he documented included such people as Mum Shirl, whom I have heard, in a most articulate, profound and devout manner, talk about her religious beliefs. There were organisations from various churches and other organisations which included the Young Women's Christian Association in Alice Springs. It is a silly tactic to claim, first of all, that all the people who were there were in fact marxists-part of the marxist circus, I think he called it. Secondly, for anyone to suggest that everyone who went there had his or her expenses paid by the Soviet Union or anyone else is as ludicrous as the utterances of those on the Left who consider that everything that happens that they do not like is paid for by the Central Intelligence Agency or the United States of America. I just remind Senator Kilgariff that that is the sort of thing that was said about those who, in the early days, were protesting about what was going on in Vietnam. It certainly could not have been said, with truth, about the vast majority of those people in this country who ended up agreeing with them, or of the large numbers who took part in the moratorium march. I do not think that it helps the debate in this place to apply that sort of label to everyone who, rightly or wrongly, whether one agrees with them or not, takes part in protests or demonstrations, any more than it is right to blame everyone in those demonstrations or protests for the actions of a few who may not have done the right thing or who may have acted in other than a proper or civilised manner; but I suppose that sort of debate will go on here for a long, long time. The remarks of Senator Crowley I have not mentioned because she quite effectively answered many of the comments that were made by Senator Kilgariff. In fact, she stated in a clearer, more concise and terse way some of the things that I said. I will refer the specific questions which Senator Kilgariff asked at the end of his speech, about the complaints against the police in Alice Springs, to the relevant Minister and hope to be able to get an answer concerning them in the near future. The PRESIDENT —In response to the matter raised by Senator Harradine, might I say that as one of the joint chairmen, along with Mr Speaker, of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I can inform him that it was absolutely essential that a meeting of the executive of the Association be held this year before this sessional period concluded. It was hoped that we might be able to hold the meeting either at lunchtime or during a dinner adjournment on one day or evening next week but, as it turned out, either Mr Speaker or myself, or both of us, will be caught up during the whole of next week. It was found to be absolutely impossible, it being expected of course that it would be the last week of the session for the House of Representatives. Because of party and parliamentary committee sittings it was felt that the most convenient time to call the meeting would be this evening. The meeting was due to commence at 6 p.m., but as it was just about to get under way, as Senator Harradine might recall, the Senate was sitting as the Committee of the Whole and a division was called. That meant that the start of the meeting was delayed for some time. In fact, the meeting did not get under way until just before 6.30 p.m., which was, of course, the time for the dinner adjournment of the House of Representatives. However, what Senator Harradine has said has been taken on board by me and I will draw it to the attention of the executive officers of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. So far as the remarks of Senators Haines and Macklin are concerned, I do not know whether the gifts that they took with them came from the hospitality section of the Prime Minister's Department, or from this Parliament, but so far as the Inter-Parliamentary Union is concerned-the vote for that organisation comes within the vote of the Senate-I have already asked the officers of the Australian IPU branch to provide me with a list of the gifts presently available so that it can be revised. It has now in fact been provided and if Senators Haines and Macklin have any suggestions as to other types of gifts that should be provided they might let the officers of the Inter-Parliamentary Union have such suggestions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 8.48 p.m. The following papers were presented: Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Directions issued by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations under sub-section 125 (5) of the Act- Published in Gazette No. S139, 4 July 1983. Navigation Act-Marine Orders 1983- No. 15-Part 23-(Equipment-Miscellaneous and Safety Measures) No. 16-Part 21-(Equipment-Navigational) No. 17-Part 31-(Ship Surveys and Certification) No. 18-Part 20-(Ship Machinery) No. 19-Part 25-(Equipment-Life-Saving) No. 20-Part 26-(Equipment-Communication) No. 21-Part 29-(Emergency Procedures and Safety of Navigation) No. 22-Part 33-(Cargo and Cargo Handling- Grain) No. 23-Part 13-(Ship Stability and Subdivision) No. 24-Part 15-(Ship Fire Protection, Fire Detection and Fire Extinction) Public Service Arbitration Act-Determination by the Arbitrator, accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law-1983- No. 347-Meat Inspectors' Association, Commonwealth Public Service. No. 348-Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association. Nos 349 and 350-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others. Nos 351 and 352-Association of Drafting, Supervisory and Technical Employees and others. Nos 353 to 359-Royal Australian Nursing Federation and another. No. 360-Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia.* No. 361-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). No. 362-Federated Furnishing Trade Society of Australasia.* No. 363-Australian Public Service Artisans' Association. No. 364-Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights' Union and others.* No. 365-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). No. 366-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Australian Government Employment and others. (* Not accompanied by a statement) Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations 1983-No. 6- Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Offices. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 116 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) What is the estimated cost of providing 'fringe benefits' to pensioners and beneficiaries by: (a) the Commonwealth Government; (b) State governments; (c) Local governments; and (d) private enterprise. for the 1981-82 financial years. (2) What is the estimated value of 'fringe benefits' to an eligible pensioner per year. (3) What is the estimated value of each 'fringe benefit' to pensioners. (4) How are the above estimates calculated. (5) What is the estimated cost of extending 'fringe benefits' to all pensioners . Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) to (4) Available data on these questions are being collected by the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat as part of a study it is undertaking on the value of fringe benefits to pensioners. The study will: identify fringe benefits currently available from Commonwealth and State governments; estimate the value of these fringe benefits to pensioners: - Veterans' Affairs has estimated a similar figure for the value of fringe benefits provided to Veterans' Affairs pensioners; estimate the cost to the Commonwealth and State governments of providing fringe benefits to pensioners. A copy of the final report will be provided to the honourable senator when it becomes available. Currently information is available only in respect of (1a) for 1981-82 and 1982 -83. The following table shows the estimated cost to the Commonwealth of providing fringe benefits to eligible DSS pensioners and beneficiaries and DVA service pensioners. Estimated cost to Commonwealth Fringe benefit 1981-82 1982-83 $m $m Commonwealth medical benefits 369.9 418.9 Commission to funds 3.3 2.7 Pharmaceutical benefits 239.9 272.7 Hearing aids 8.2 9.8 Funeral benefits 1.5 1.6 Telephone rental concessions 23.1 28.4 Mail redirection 0.4 0.5 ANR transport concessions* 1.9 2.4 *The Australian National Line also provides transport concession to pensioners. The Commonwealth funds ANL, and does not separately reimburse it for the cost of providing pensioner concessions. The cost to ANL of providing these concessions was $0.3m in 1980-81 and $0.4m in 1981-82. Source: The above figures are based on information provided by the departments of Health, Social Security, Veterans' Affairs and Transport. (5) The cost of extending Commonwealth fringe benefits to all pensioners is estimated to be some $116m in a full year, based on numbers of pensioners not eligible for fringe benefits at 30 June 1983. The cost includes the following components: (i) The cost of providing Commonwealth medical benefits-under, the current medical arrangements-pharmaceutical benefits and hearing aid benefits to all pensioners-including service pensioners and their wives-as estimated by the Department of Health. (ii) The cost of providing telephone rental concessions, funeral benefits, postal re-direction and transport concessions for Social Security pensioners. (iii) The estimated costs for service pensioners and their wives, provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs which include the cost of repatriation medical treatment, telephone rental concession funeral benefits. The repatriation medical costs are only rough estimates as there are many indeterminate factors involved in attempting to isolate treatment costs incurred by a particular group of eligible patients from the total treatment expenditure. Question No. 327 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: Will the Minister for Transport provide an answer to the specific question asked by Question on Notice No. 133, namely, 'by what means will the ''eventual sale'' be undertaken'; if not, why not (see answer to Question No. 133, Hansard, 6 September 1983). Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I indicated in my answer to Senator Rae's previous Question on Notice No. 133 that the Australian National Line (ANL) has only two vessels subject to leverage leasing under Australian taxation law. They are River Boyne and River Embley. These ships are owned by subsidiaries of a partnership of leading Australian financial institutions and chartered to the Australian Shipping Commission. I understand that responsibility for the means by which eventual sale of these ships will be undertaken rests with the owners. The sale is required to be at fair market value. I am advised by ANL that there are no arrangements, either written or implied, by which the Australian Shipping Commission would purchase the vessels. Question No. 405 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 5 October 1983: (1) What revenue was raised by Telecom for the years 1982-83, 1981-82 and 1980- 81 from charges for telephone connections to non-rural domestic residences. (2) What proportion of Telecom's total revenues from telephone services came from these connection fees. (3) Could telephone connection fees be abolished without there being an adverse effect on Telecom's operations. (4) If telephone connection fees were abolished, what would be the likely impact on telephone call charges and on other charges. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) and (2) The information sought by the honourable senator is only available on a metropolitan/country breakup. The following information is therefore provided for metropolitan areas. Percentage of Revenue total Revenue 1982-83 $30.2m 0.8 1981-82 $29.6m 1.0 1980-81 $29.5m 1.1 (3) No. There would be a loss of revenue and additional capital funds would be required to meet the increased demand for telephone services. This could lead to increased charges to help finance capital works programmes. (4) The effect on Telecom charges overall would not be great having regard to the fact that total revenues for 1982-83 amounted to some $3,635.8m. However, some charges would need to be increased to take into account factors such as those outlined in (3) above. Telecom considers it reasonable that subscribers pay a connection fee as a contribution to the high capital costs involved in providing telephone services-on average over $2,600. As far as is known, all overseas administrations charge connection fees. Question No. 436 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister Representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 October 1983: (1) Was Mr Stephen Charles, Q.C., appointed by Prime Minister Fraser in December 1977 to investigate the financial interests of the Phillip Lynch family . (2) How much did such an inquiry cost the Australian taxpayer and how much was Mr Stephen Charles paid. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I refer the honourable senator to a statement made by Mr Fraser on 16 December 1977 in which he said that he had taken independent advice from Mr Stephen Charles, Q.C., on certain documents and information provided by Mr Lynch 's firm of accountants and his solicitors concerning the financial interests of Mr Lynch and his family. (2) Inquiries made of relevant departments have not identified any payment having been made by the then Government to Mr Charles in relation to that advice . Question No. 471 Senator Kilgariff asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 3 November 1983: (1) Does the Government intend to resume talks with Indonesia concerning the delineation of maritime boundaries as more than two years have elapsed since the last round of negotiations; if so, when. (2) What are the outstanding issues needing clarification in these Australia/ Indonesia negotiations. (3) Will the Governments of Western Australia and the Northern Territory be invited to contribute to the next round of talks with Indonesia, due to the considerable interest which settlement of the outstanding issues will arouse. (4) Will the Government press for a treaty covering mineral exploration rights in the area of sea bed between East Timor and Australia known as the 'Timor Gap' which includes a highly prospective area for petroleum resources-the kelp structure, as well as law of the sea matters. (5) What is the present situation. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. We are ready to hold further rounds of discussions as soon as the Indonesian side is ready. No date has yet been fixed. (2) The outstanding issues are: (a) the delimitation of continental shelf jurisdiction in those areas not already covered by existing agreements; (b) the location of permanent sea boundaries for other jurisdictional purposes, such as existing and future exclusive economic zones. Sea bed boundary agreements with Indonesia were signed by Australia in 1971 and 1972. These agreements determined the boundary in the Arafura Sea and in the area south of West Timor. The boundary further west was left for later talks. A gap was also left in the boundary south of what was then Portuguese Timor. Between 1979 and 1981 four rounds of inconclusive discussions were held between Indonesian and Australian Officials to consider, amongst other things, drawing a sea bed boundary in the area of what has become known as the 'Timor Gap'. (3) The governments of Western Australia and the Northern Territory have been, and will continue to be, closely involved in the boundary discussions with Indonesia. (4) It can be expected that the next round of discussions will be concerned primarily with negotiating a sea bed boundary in the Timor Gap. Such a boundary would delimit control over the resources of the sea bed and subsoil. (5) The present situation is as I have described it above. Question No. 57 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys 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 Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Department of Communications and the bodies under the Minister's jurisdiction: AUSSAT (1) (a) 1981-82-1982-83 $135,249; (b) Nil (2)- Hardware and software Repairs and servicing Year Actual Estimated* Actual Estimated* 1981-82 85,162 . . . . . . 1982-83 50,087 . . . . . . * Organisation unable to provide information. (3) The items purchased are not obsolete and will not be so in the next five years. AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (1) (a) 1975-76-1982-83 $2,847,826; (b) 1975-76-1982-83 $543,244. (2)- Hardware and software Repairs and servicing Year Actual Estimated* Actual Estimated* 1975-76 149,228 . . 44,573 . . 1976-77 128,093 . . 47,207 . . 1977-78 163,053 . . 37,622 . . 1978-79 223,224 . . 35,100 . . 1979-80 428,627 . . 58,214 . . 1980-81 638,630 . . 66,295 . . 1981-82 465,965 . . 111,718 . . 1982-83 651, 006 . . 142,575 . . * Organisation unable to provide information. (3) All items purchased prior to 1980-81 are either now obsolete or expected to be so within five years. For the subsequent two financial years, approximately 50 per cent of 1981-82 purchases and approximately 25 per cent of 1982-83 purchases are expected to be obsolete within five years. AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL (1) (a) 1978-79-30.5.83 $123,100 1.6.83-1985-86 $60,000 (est); (b) 1978-79-30.5 .83 $2,000 1.6.83-1985-86 $6,600 (est). (2)- Hardware and software Repairs and servicing Actual Estimated Year Hardware Software Hardware Software Actual Estimated 1978-79 3,000 . . . . . . . . . . 1979-80 3,000 . . . . . . . . . . 1980-81 12 ,000 63,500 . . . . 300 . . 1981-82 7,700 13,400 . . . . 800 . . 1.7.82-30.5.83 6,700 13,800 . . . . 900 . . 1.6.83-30.6.83 . . . . . . 5,000 . . 400 1983-84 . . . . 5,000 15,000 . . 1,800 1984-85 . . . . 5,000 15,000 . . 2,200 1985-86 . . . . . . 15,000 . . 2,200 (3) A Southwest Technical Products mini computer/ word processor purchased in 1980-81 for $10,000 will become obsolete within the next five years. AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION (1) (a) 1.1.76-1982-83 $7,100,000 1983-84-1985-86 $5,200,000 (est); (b) 1.1.76- 1982-83 $1,300,000 1983-84-1985-86 $2,300,000 (est.) (2)- Hardware and software Repairs and servicing Year Actual Estimated Actual Estimated 1.1.76-30.6.76 54,000 . . 2,000 . . 1976-77 120,000 . . 6,000 . . 1977-78 134, 000 . . 6,000 . . 1978-79 692,000 . . 6,000 . . 1979-80 862,000 . . 52,000 . . 1980-81 2,418,000 . . 194,000 . . 1981-82 1,243,000 . . 402,000 . . 1982-83 1 ,571,000 . . 632,000 . . 1983-84 . . 3,519,000 . . 698,000 1984-85 . . 1,194, 000 . . 774,000 1985-86 . . 500,000 . . 834,000 (3) None of the items purchased up to the present time is obsolete and there are no plans to replace any of the existing items of equipment over the next five years. AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (1) (a) 1975-76-1982-83 $69,800,000 1983-84-1984-85 $74,300,000 (est); (b) 1975 -76-1982-83 $25,400,000 1983-84-1984-85 $16,200,000 (est). (2)- Hardware and software Repairs and servicing Year Actual Estimated Actual Estimated 1975-76 1,300,000 . . 500,000 . . 1976-77 3,600,000 . . 1,100,000 . . 1977-78 5,000,000 . . 1,700,000 . . 1978-79 4,800,000 . . 1,700,000 . . 1979-80 8,100, 000 . . 2,800,000 . . 1980-81 8,900,000 . . 4,000,000 . . 1981-82 12,500,000 . . 5,700,000 . . 1982-83 25,600,000 . . 7,900,000 . . 1983-84 . . 33,300,000 . . 7,500,000 1984-85 . . 41,000,000 . . 8,700,000 (3) The items purchased are not absolete and will not be so in the next five years. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS (1) (a) 1978-1983 $461,128 1984 $290,000 (est); (b) 1978-1983 $23,000 1984 $39, 000 (est). (2)- Hardware and software Repairs and servicing Actual Estimated Year Hardware Software Hardware Software Actual Estimated 1978 14,000 . . . . . . 2,500 . . 1979 14,000 . . . . . . 2,500 . . 1980 78, 586 1,200 . . . . 2,500 . . 1981 44,037 450 . . . . 4,000 . . 1982 117,135 620 . . . . 5,750 . . 1983 180,700 10,400 . . . . 5,750 . . 1984 . . . . 270,000 20,000 . . 39,000 (3) No items purchased have become obsolete to date. Some electromechanical devices e.g. printers, will become unserviceable because of wear within five years and will require replacing with new devices. OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (1) (a) 1976-1982 $6,704,000 1983-1986 $15,693,000 (est); (b) 1976-1982 $955, 000 1983-1986 $1,699,000 (est). (2)- Hardware and software Repairs and servicing Year Actual Estimated Actual Estimated* 1976 360,000 . . 70,000 . . 1977 520,000 . . 105,000 . . 1978 830,000 . . 130 ,000 . . 1979 920,000 . . 135,000 . . 1980 980,000 . . 135,000 . . 1981 1,270, 000 . . 164,000 . . 1982 1,824,000 . . 216,000 . . 1983 . . 3,393,000 . . 389, 000 1984 . . 3,700,000 . . 400,000 1985 . . 4,100,000 . . 440,000 1986 . . 4, 500,000 . . 470,000 (3) The only item purchased and now obsolete is a UNIVAC printer valued at $12, 000. SPECIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE (1) (a) 1980-81-1982-83 $268,000 1983-84-1985-86 $45,000 (est.), (b) 1980-81- 1982-83 $40,100 1983-84-1985-86 $63,000 (est.) (2)- Hardware and software Repairs and servicing Actual Estimated Year Hardware Software Hardware Software Actual Estimated 1980-81 112,000 58,000 . . . . 7,500 . . 1981-82 23,000 18,000 . . . . 14,600 . . 1982-83 26,000 31,000 . . . . 18,000 . . 1983-84 . . . . . . 15,000 . . 21 ,000 1984-85 . . . . . . 15,000 . . 21,000 1985-86 . . . . . . 15,000 . . 21, 000 (3) The items purchased and now obsolete will not be so in the next five years. Question No. 282 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 24 August: Will the Australian Government write to the United States Government expressing its deep concern at all expenditure on chemical weapons in view of a report in the Washington Post that the Reagan Government is seeking a total of $114m for binary chemical artillery shells and equipment and chemicals for Bigeye binary bombs. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The United States Administration's request for funds for the production of binary chemical weapons has been one of the most controversial aspects of its proposals for defence funding for FY 1984. In mid-September, Congress approved the 1984 Defence Authorisation Bill which provided $114.8m for the production of binary chemical munitions, including artillery shells and aerial bombs. In the final consideration of the 1984 Defence Appropriation Bill in mid November, however, this item was deleted, which means that the Administration will not be able to proceed with its plans for binary nerve gas production in FY 1984. United States spokesmen, including Defence Secretary Weinberger in his Fiscal Year 1984 Report to Congress, justified the Administration's wish to proceed with the production of binary weapons in terms of the need to reduce the Soviet Union's incentive to use chemical weapons against the United States or its allies by rebuilding and maintaining an adequate US chemical warfare capability. Secretary Weinberger's report states that the Soviet Union possesses a considerable advantage in chemical warfare capabilities and that notwithstanding a unilateral decision by the United States in 1969 to halt production of chemical weapons, efforts to achieve a bilateral agreement between 1977 and 1980 with the Soviet Union to ban chemical weapons were fruitless. It notes that current efforts to obtain a ban on chemical weapons are centred in the Committee on Disarmament and reiterates that a complete and verifiable ban on chemical weapons remains the United States goal. The Australian Government finds the concept of chemical warfare abhorrent and the use of chemical weapons repugnant. It is committed to the conclusion of a fully effective and verifiable convention that would outlaw the use of chemicals as weapons in armed conflict and would ensure the destruction of all existing stocks of chemical weapons. It is actively pursuing this objective in the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva. Australian views on chemical weapons have been made known to the United States and other governments on a number of occasion both bilaterally and in multilateral fora such as the Committee on Disarmament. Question No. 418 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 October 1983: (1) is the report published in the Tennant Times (Northern Territory) on 30 September 1983, in which it was stated that only $1.2m was now being allocated to the unsealed section of the Stuart Highway in northern South Austalia, instead of the $4.5m originally referred to in Parliament by Transport Minister Mr Morris, accurate. (2) How much will be allocated to the Stuart Highway this year. (3) What is the anticipated total expenditure on the Stuart Highway. (4) What is now the the anticipated completion date for the Stuart Highway. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. South Australia's allocation of funds for national roads under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Program in 1983-84 was increased by $4.5m to $16m to accelerate the sealing of the Stuart Highway and other high priority works on national highways in the State. The extra funds will enable the contract for the project between Marla and Mount Willoughby on the Stuart Highway to be called six months earlier than anticipated. An estimated $3.1m is to be spent on this project in 1983-84. (2) Total expenditure on the Highway in South Australia in 1983-84 is expected to be $28.1m, comprising $14.8m under the Roads Grants Act and $13.3m under the ABRD Program. (3) An estimated $150m on the Highway in South Australia comprising expenditure to date and estimates to completion in 1983-84 prices. (4) December 1986. Question No. 437 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 19 October 1983: (1) Are there specific regulations for the acceptance and wearing of foreign awards. (2) When were such regulations adopted. (3) When was a review of such regulations initiated and when is that review expected to be completed. (4) Do countries conferring awards to Australian citizens have to go through authorities in the United Kingdom; if so, what is the reason for this and will this particular aspect of the Regulations be altered. (5) Why are there regulations which prevent Australian citizens being entitled to awards conferred upon them by an overseas country without interference by Australian or any other authority. (6) Will the Government consider returning to a situation which applied before 1972, that is, no regulations in this area. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Australia has adopted the United Kingdom Regulations governing the acceptance and wearing of foreign awards. (2) In 1930 with revisions in 1954, 1958 and 1969. (3) The need for Australia to have separate regulations has been considered in the past. A review of the operation of the regulations is currently being undertaken. Completion of this will depend on various consultations. (4) A foreign government wishing to confer an award on an Australian citizen is required to forward a request for approval through official diplomatic channels. The Special Minister of State, as the Minister responsible for advising the Government on honours and awards, considers the request and forwards a recommendation through the Governor-General to The Queen, as the Head of State and Queen of Australia. There is no role for the United Kingdom Government or its authorities in this procedure. (5) In providing that Australian citizens should not accept a foreign award without the permission of Her Majesty as Queen of Australia, the regulations reflect the fundamental principle that the Head of State is the fount of honours for the citizens of that country. (6) As mentioned in (2), the regulations with revisions have applied in Australia since 1930. The Government will consider its position on the regulations on completion of the current review. Question No. 504 Senator Hearn asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 November 1983. (1) Have Australian P3C Orion ASW aircraft ever used the facilities at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. Since 1976 Royal Australian Air Force P3 Orion aircraft have occasionally staged through Diego Garcia while undertaking routine maritime surveillance operations and long range navigation training flights. Such transits currently take place about nine times a year. Question No. 511 Senator Hearn asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 November 1983: (1) How many civilians have been: (a) killed; and (b) injured in Granada due to the US invasion. (2) How many people are being held as prisoners in camps. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) According to United States figures, 45 Grenadian civilians were killed and 337 injured during the recent intervention in Grenada. (2) Cuban casualties included 25 killed and 57 wounded. (3) It is understood that about 50 persons continue to be held in detention in Grenada and that these people are to be charged. This information has not been confirmed with the Grenadian authorities but it is considered to be accurate.