Friday, 2 December 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Meat Export Inspection Charges 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% 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 dependant 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 Tate (from 123 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 1,016 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 from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 88 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 fullfilling 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 Senator Tate (from 60 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 fullfilling 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 Programs and thus frustrate its own stated educational, objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 54 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 450 citizens), Collard (from 265 citizens), Harradine (from 256 citizens) and Scott (from 216 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 minimun 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 Senator Collard (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: That the Australian Cadet Corps has great value in the development of youth in the schools of Australia, That the reorganisation of the Australian Cadet Corps will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved and in some cases, negate the efforts of many people over many years. Your petitioners therefore pray that the government will reconsider its decision , and that the Government will not reorganise the Australian Cadet Corps. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Boswell (from 221 citizens) and Collard (from 56 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information ex- change and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 54 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That every child in Australia is entitled to government financial support for their education whether they attend government schools or non-government schools . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision for the continuation of Federal Government per capita grants payable in respect of all children in non-government schools at a rate calculated as a percentage of Government standard costs at a level not less than that prevailing in 1983. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 31 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 House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine: (a) the implications of the United Nations Convenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountabiliy in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the United Nations 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 Harradine (from 27 citizens). Petitions received. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I present a report entitled 'Australian-United States Relations: The Extraterritorial Application of United States Law', together with the minutes of proceedings of the Committee and the transcript of evidence. I seek leave to move a motion relating to the report. Leave granted. Senator ELSTOB —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report which I have tabled is the second report of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee's inquiry into Australian-United States relations. It deals with the extraterritorial application of United States laws, an issue which has been of concern in recent years and which rose to prominence in what is known as the Westinghouse case. The question of the extraterritorial application of United States laws came before the Committee late in the last Parliament when it arose during the general reference on Australian-United States relations. On the commencement of the new Parliament the Committee decided to focus its full attention on this important and complex issue. The inquiry identified this issue as one which could affect the existing close relationship between Australia and the United States. This is not to suggest that the relationship is on the point of breakdown. Rather, Australia's relationship with the United States is basic to Australia's involvement in world affairs. However, the extraterritorial application of United States' laws has the potential to obscure the major issues in our relationship. To summarise this complex question it may be appropriate to quote Professor Kevin Ryan, Professor of Law at the University of Queensland when he stated in evidence before the Committee: The extraterritorial application of United States law is a matter of serious concern for two rather different reasons. The most obvious reason is its impact on our sovereignty and our capacity to make decisions on matters of national interest. But there is also the impact which it has on individual Australian residents and particularly individual Australian companies. One thing that is clear from the settlement of the Westinghouse litigation is that these two interests may not necessarily coincide . . . This is a very comprehensive report on what I believe is a very important subject. The report in part has chapters on potential threats by United States extraterritorial legislation, United States anti-trust laws, the Westinghouse case, the Australian-United States Bi-lateral Agreement and responses of foreign governments, thus covering the whole question of the extraterritorial application of the United States laws including anti-trust matters. The Committee, after consideration of the issues involved, has reached a number of conclusions and made five comprehensive recommendations. The Committee concluded that the extraterritorial application of United States laws has important potentially pre-judicial implications for the Australian Government and Australian business over a broad range of economic and political issues. The Committee also concluded that attempts by the United States to extend the extraterritorial reach of its laws are inconsistent with international law and international comity. International concern at the extraterritorial reach of the United States laws was in response to anti-trust suits against Australian uranium companies. However, as noted in the report, the issue is wider than anti-trust. In the report, the Committee has identified a number of Acts which could be of concern to Australia. The most immediate one is the Export Administration Act. However, there are also the Trading with the Enemy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It is appropriate to note that the Australian Oil and Gas Group, Santos Ltd, was seriously affected when the United States Administration used the Export Administration Act to attempt to block construction of the Siberian pipeline in 1982. The Committee was also informed that the United States Trading with the Enemy Act could have, and has had, direct implications for Australia's trade. It is a sign of the strength of the Australian-United States alliance that Australia has been able to achieve more in having the United States temper its application of laws extraterritorially than have other countries. In June 1982 the Australian United States Bilateral Agreement relating to co-operation on anti-trust matters was signed. The Committee has commented at length on this Agreement and has concluded that this 'is a significant step towards resolving numerous difficulties that have arisen between the Australian and United States Governments in the enforcement of United States anti-trust laws'. However, the Agreement relates only to anti-trust matters and, as the Committee has concluded , there are other United States laws which have not been affected by the agreement. Private anti-trust litigation is another concern for Australian businessmen. While that comes under article 6 of the Australian-United States Bilateral Agreement, it has only restricted application within that Agreement. In the submissions of the Department of the Attorney-General to the Committee, attachment C, it is stated: The obligation on the United States Government under Article 6 to report to the court on the substance and outcome of the consultations goes much further than did the letter Mr Shenefield sent to court in the Westinghouse proceedings. But Article 6 still falls short of an obligation to inform the court of the possible effect upon foreign relations if the court exercises jurisdiction and grants relief. Thus Australian businessmen still face the threat of private treble damage suits . Therefore private anti-trust litigation, plus the other Acts I have mentioned, could have the potential for future irritation in our relationship with the United States. Therefore the Committee has recommended the introduction of legislation to protect Australian residents or those doing business in Australia from the extraterritorial application of United States laws. Dissents have been lodged to these recommendations. However, the weight of evidence overwhelmingly supports the Committee's recommendation for the introduction of a complete range of legislative measures to protect Australian business and Australia's sovereign interests. With the exception of one witness, the introduction of such legislation was supported by all other witnesses who appeared before the Committee. The Department of Foreign Affairs noted that something like the British legislation, that is the United Kingdom Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 , is just a sensible piece in a country's defensive armoury. In fact, in evidence Mr Nicholson, representing the Foreign Affairs Department, stated quite clearly that the United States would understand legislation in the terms recommended by the Committee. It is best summarised by quoting one short piece from evidence where in part Senator Hill, when asking Mr Nicholson a question, said: Do you believe the Americans are under the impression that the Clawback Bill will not proceed pending that in practice the Agreement is found to work satisfactorily? Mr Nicholson replied: No, I do not think they are under any apprehension of that sort. All departmental witnesses supported the introduction of legislation. The Australian Industries Development Association noted that there were no simple solutions to the problem of extraterritoriality. The legislative measures which had been introduced by the previous Government were seen as useful means and the Bilateral Agreement was a welcome addition to the machinery available for Australia to deal with problems arising in this area. The Association recommended passage of the 1981 Bill as a further step in establishing a comprehensive range of options. These options would be available should the need arise in the future. I briefly comment on two aspects of the major dissenting report. The dissenting report relies heavily on a Press release by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, released on 29 June this year, which states in part: On behalf of the then Australian Government I assured the United States Government that we would not proceed with any future blocking legislation unless the Agreement proved less successful then we hoped. It seems odd that Senator Durack should say this now he is in Opposition as there was no public record, either statement, Press release or public comment, within or outside the Australian Parliament, to that effect when he was Attorney -General. On the contrary, Senator Durack at the signing of the Bilateral Agreement said: The important matter of United States Government participation in private suits is dealt with in the Agreement and the provision included is significant but it cannot provide a complete answer to the difficulties which may arise from those proceedings. I should say that in regard to those difficulties we remain concerned. The dissenting report comments: The Committee argued that the Bilateral Agreement will prove unsuccessful because previous attempts at such agreements, and the Committee particulary deals with the experience of Canada, have proven unsuccessful. That statement is wrong in fact. Taken in the context of the whole report, especially the comprehensive chapter on the Bilateral Agreement, it will become clear to honourable senators that the Committee does not argue that the Bilateral Agreement will prove unsuccessful per se and the dissenting report's statement is incorrect. Rather, as I have already stated, the Bilateral Agreement is a significant step forward. However, it does have limitations, and in preparing for the future it is only sensible to introduce legislation to complement the Agreement. That legislation is better introduced now considering we have a relatively calm atmosphere surrounding these matters. The Committee has also commented on the need for more effort to be made at the international level. We have concluded that the long term solutions to the problem of extraterritoriality will probably be achieved at the multilateral level and have suggested that the Government give high priority to representation at such negotiations. A further avenue would be a change in the United States laws themselves and, whilst such a change is unlikely, it should not be overlooked. The Committee has suggested that, wherever possible, diplomatic efforts should be maintained and Australia's concern ought to be brought to the attention of the American authorities. Businessmen can also play a role in this matter, and I would suggest that the Australian businessmen and their associations continue and strengthen their efforts to seek changes in United States attitudes. This is a very important and complex issue, and I believe the report now before the Senate will stimulate debate and assist in resolving irritations that may occur from time to time and any future problems that may arise in anti-trust matters and other related United States laws. I have great faith in the friendship that exists between Australia and the United States, and it is that relationship and goodwill that should overcome any potential difficulties. It is, I think, a tribute to the depth and maturity of Australia's relationship with the United States that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has devoted much of its effort over the past two years inquiring into Australian -United States relations. The Committee's first report in this inquiry, 'The ANZUS Alliance', was well received in the Parliament and created considerable public interest in both countries. This was in contrast with the initial negative attitude to the inquiry by certain members of Parliament, who appeared to take Australia's most important bilateral relationship for granted. As with the committee's first report, I expect this present report on extraterritoriality will make a significant contribution to the fuller appreciation of Australia's interests in her relations with the United States. In conclusion, I would like to thank members of the Sub-Committee who conducted the inquiry both in this Parliament and in the previous Parliament, particularly Mr Lusher, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the previous Parliament. I would be remiss if I did not also thank the former secretary of the Sub-Committee, Dr Andrea Edvi-Illes, for her dedicated work on behalf of the Sub-Committee. Finally, I say a special thank you to our present secretary, Mr Phil Bergin, for his tireless work, his assistant Mr Ian Booth, and our specialist adviser, Dr Gillian Triggs, whose assistance to the Committee throughout this complex inquiry was invaluable. Senator HILL(South Australia)(9.19) —I wish to put the position of those who dissented from this important report. As Senator Elstob has indicated, the report concerns the extraterritorial reach of United States anti-trust and other trade laws and the effect upon Australian companies and residents of such laws. The Senate should realise that United States anti-trust legislation, the Sherman and Clayton Acts, applies to non-nationals in relation to their activities taking place in foreign states, for example, Australia, where those activities have simply direct and substantial effect on the United States economy, the so- called effects doctrine. Furthermore, in relation to private suits, triple damages can be awarded against the defendant whose anti-competitive act is in breach of the legislation . The Senate should remember also that criminal sanctions are contained within the Sherman Act. The best known example which illustrates the reach of United States anti-trust laws in recent years concerning Australia is, of course, the Westinghouse uranium dispute. Very briefly, in relation to that case, which illustrates a lot of the matters that follow, the United States had a foreign uranium embargo to ensure that American producers were not faced with foreign competition. At the same time, in the late 1970s, the United States proposed to dispose of its 50,000 tonne stockpile on domestic and foreign markets which would, of course, have affected Australian producers. Australia, therefore, wanted uranium producers outside the United States to engage in discussions to stabilise prices and made clear that export licences would not be given unless prices were satisfactory. Together with increased demand, this resulted in escalation of price. Westinghouse, in the meantime, in order to encourage utilities to place with them contracts for construction of nuclear plants, had agreed to supply fuel for fixed periods at pre-embargo low prices. Westinghouse, therefore, faced substantial losses and brought action against foreign producers including four Australian companies alleging price fixing and boycott agreements in restraint of foreign commerce. The second series of legislation with which this report is concerned relates to application of orders under such laws as the United States Export Administration Act where jurisdiction is asserted over foreign companies controlled by a United States parent. That control can be asserted by a shareholding of no greater than 15 per cent to 25 per cent. As the committee noted, such acts have been employed to implement United States foreign policy objectives. The most well-known example in recent times is the Siberian pipeline case which prohibited exports to the Soviet Union of equipment made outside the United States under United States licence or by overseas subsidiaries of United States companies. It recently, as Senator Elstob mentioned, indirectly affected the Australian company, Santos Ltd. Santos contracted with Dresser France for the supply of gas compressors. Dresser France was unable to supply because it was caught in the sanctions and could not get blueprints from the United States which were necessary for the construction. The committee concluded, I agree, that attempts by the United States to apply its trading laws extraterritorially are inconsistent with international law and with international comity and are unacceptable. Certainly the view that was taken by the previous Government was that the attempt by the United States to assert and enforce anti-trust legislation extraterritorially on the basis of the effects doctrine, earlier mentioned, amounted to a violation of Australian sovereignty. That was the effect of the Westinghouse case. The former Attorney- General, Senator Durack, said: The proceedings, although privately instituted, represented a challenge to the Australian Government's sovereign authority to control and regulate the export of uranium from this country. Furthermore, although prosecutions did not eventuate, the Westinghouse case gave rise to the possibility that Australian uranium producing companies might be prosecuted for engaging in conduct, in effect, required by Australia's uranium policies. To minimise that risk, the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976 was passed which prohibited the giving of evidence and information concerning documents in Australia for the purpose of proceedings in the United States. Later, consistent with the same attitude that the proceedings were against Australia's national interest, the Government proceeded to ensure that legislative and executive action should be taken to leave no doubt that default judgments against Australian defendants would not be recognised or enforced in Australia. They did this by enacting the Foreign Anti-trust Judgements (Restriction of Enforcement) Act 1979 under which the then Attorney- General, Senator Durack, made orders prohibiting the enforcement in Australia of those judgments. Both Acts remain in force. I say in passing that with other dissenters from this report I agree with the majority that the Acts serve a useful purpose as part of a range of legal deterrents against unacceptable attempts to apply United States laws in Australia. The Australian Government then proceeded also with the drafting of a clawback Bill, modelled on the United Kingdom Protection of Trading Interests Act and introduced in the Parliament as the Foreign Anti-trust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Amendment Bill. The British Act enables a British national or co- operation, against whom multiple damages in private anti-trust proceedings have been recovered, to recover back in the United Kingdom courts so much of the damages as represents the non-compensatory element of the award. In the meantime , the Westinghouse case had been settled. The Australian Government could have proceeded to enact the clawback Bill which was before the Parliament but rather it chose to proceed in a different direction. The then Attorney-General said: In Australia's view, these conflicts over jurisdiction and sovereignty on the one hand, and over national interests on the other, can only be worked out by governments. With that I agree and those who dissented from the report believed the statement to be quite correct. Therefore, rather than enacting the clawback Bill the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, raised these concerns with President Reagan after which draftsmen were set to work to draw up an agreement that would provide the mechanism for a co-operative solution to these anti-trust difficulties. This culminated in the bilateral agreement of 28 June 1982. The recitals to that agreement mention specifically the need for conflicts to be resolved with mutual respect for each other's sovereignty and with due regard for considerations of comity. The emphasis was to be on consultation and it provided a mechanism hopefully to resolve the treble damages issue by means of clause 6 of that agreement. Both the majority and those who dissented from the report believe that the bilateral agreement is a significant step towards resolving numerous difficulties that have arisen between the Australian and United States governments in the enforcement of United States anti-trust laws but the majority now, however, recommend that, notwithstanding the bilateral agreement, the Government should again proceed to introduce clawback legislation. That is notwithstanding the Press release of Senator Durack on 29 June 1983 which was before the Committee and in which he stated: On behalf of the then Australian Government I assured the United States Government that we would not proceed with any further blocking legislation unless the agreement proved less successful than we hoped. I believe the correct procedure is not, therefore, to proceed with clawback legislation but to give the agreement, the new approach, a fair opportunity to work. It is a new approach which goes further than previous bilateral agreements with other countries. I was surprised to hear what Senator Elstob said on that point because the Attorney-General's Department told the Committee that it is uniquely an accommodation agreement, the notion being that either party will endeavour to accommodate the laws and policies of the other. It is the first time that any such bilateral agreement has gone this far. On its face it evidences a new spirit which is reinforced by what the United States Attorney- General said. He said: While neither of our countries has sacrificed any part of its sovereignty or rights under international law by this agreement, we have agreed upon an excellent mechanism for channelling and containing potential differences. The United States will work diligently to ensure the usefulness of that mechanism to both nations. As well as the clawback legislation, the majority of the Committee recommended legislation: . . . to prohibit compliance by Australian residents or those doing business in Australia with orders of a foreign country which might damage Australia's trading interests. This is, of course, to strike at such as orders issued by the United States for foreign policy reasons under the Export Administration Act. The majority did not make out a case for such blocking legislation. The Santos case is quoted but the Santos difficulty would not have been resolved by such legislation and we therefore dissented from that recommendation. Also, the majority recommended legislation to allow recovery in Australia of Australian defendants' costs in relation to United States litigation, whether or not the Australian defendant is successful. Whereas we agree that United States law is more heavily weighted against defendants than Australian law, in that there is potential in Australia for a successful defendant to get costs but in America it is not possible, the proposal of the Committee in this regard appeared to us to be totally unworkable and we therefore dissented from that recommendation. In conclusion, Mr President, I agree with the majority view that in the long term the most effective solution to these problems will lie in multilateral arrangements. We should, as the Committee says, therefore give high priority to ensuring active Australian participation in international attempts such as those by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development to reach broadly acceptable arrangements in order to avoid or resolve conflicts in the application of national trading laws. What the former Australian Government did was to recognise that stress arising from United States application of anti-trust laws has detrimentally affected the traditionally close relations between our countries, and that Government had moved to resolve such difficulties through a new co-operative approach-the bilateral agreement that is now in force. As we say in our dissenting report, to introduce additional blocking legislation and clawback legislation without further provocation is unnecessarily to move from that spirit of co-operation to legislative confrontation and therefore, to say the least, is premature. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.34) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AMENDMENT ACT 1983 Mr President, the purpose of this Bill is to extend the scope and to increase the effectiveness of the Australian Industrial Research and Development (IR&D) Incentives Scheme. There can be few who fail to recognise the significance of advanced technology. It is the key to the establishment of an internationaly competitive industrial sector. It is crucial to the maintenance and growth of real national wealth. Both directly and indirectly it provides the means to create new employment opportunities and to maintain activity in traditional industries. Since 1967 successive Commonwealth governments have sought to encourage Australian industry to reduce dependence on imported technology, to increase indigenous innovation, and to undertake associated IR&D. The provisions of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976 and the annual budgetary allocation made to the Incentives Scheme established by the Act, are central to that purpose. The Act provides for two distinct elements in its incentive grants. Manufacturing, mining and certain on-site construction companies with limited or no previous IR&D experience may obtain a legal entitlement to reimbursement of specified 'eligible expenditure'; that is a commencement grant. The Act also empowers a Board, whose members are chosen for their pre-eminence in technology and commerce, to enter agreements on behalf of the Commonwealth. They may authorise grants to companies to undertake IR&D projects, which might not otherwise proceed, or which could not proceed at a sufficient pace to maximise the market potential. The Board comprises 12 members, 6 of whom were appointed by this Government. Dr Kevin Foley was appointed Chairman of the Board on 21 October. It is a Board which the Government is confident will give full effect to the intention of using the IR&D Incentives Scheme as its primary instrument in directing investment to the development of 'sunrise' industries. The Government has further demonstrated its commitment to technology development in industry by increasing the budgetary allocation for 1983-84 to the IR&D Incentives Scheme by 15% in real terms, with an even greater proportionate increase to the amount available for new projects which the Board may support. Despite its importance, IR & D has little purpose unless achievements are realised through commercial gains. This Government has foreshadowed action to stimulate the venture capital market whose past inadequacies have frequently ended prospects of Australia benefiting from highly promising IR & D activities. Provisions of this Bill extend that concern to assure a commercial reality to grant supported IR & D projects. They enable the Incentives Board to provide advice to financial intermediaries and others from whom an applicant may be seeking venture capital, if the company in question wishes it. The Minister has also asked the Board to be alert to the possible shortcomings/difficulties in the prototype/development phase and steer applicants quickly in the direction of appropriate government or private sector assistance/expertise. Taken together, these actions could significantly increase the effectiveness of the IR & D Incentives Scheme at no cost to the Government. On 15 September it was announced that the policy would be relaxed which had, until then, restricted grant support to the computer software development industry to projects related directly to new products of, and new or improved processes employed in, manufacturing, mining, or eligible on-site buildings or construction activities. The Incentives Board may now enter agreements for software development in the important growth areas of computer systems development and in the provision of both tangible and 'information' sector services. Support is subject to the proposals meeting specified criteria that the Minister has directed the Board to employ. These criteria emphasise the need for a significant IR & D component to any proposal; a substantial advance over existing software in the field of application; and a demonstrable plan to exploit the software as a product. The Government has decided that it would not be appropriate to make similar extensions to entitlements under the Commencement grant element of the Incentives Scheme. To do so could raise false expectations that the Government was prepared to subsidise software development of a 'routine' or 'in-house' nature. Such work offers no significant national benefits. In many instances, the company would have no need of a publicly funded incentive to undertake the work. The provisions of this Bill, which relate to the definitions in the principal Act, are directed to clarify that Act in respect of software eligibility. In themselves they do not involve additional Budget costs. However, the demand for support consequent on extension to eligibility of software development companies is estimated to amount to about $5 million per year. This demand was anticipated in the 1983-84 budgetary allocations and no further amount will be sought this year on this account. Increasingly, IR & D has been undertaken by companies dedicated to that purpose . In many instances these entities are precluded from the Incentives Scheme because they are not, nor can they be deemed to be, 'eligible companies'. Yet many, including research associations, perform a valuable function as ' multiplier agencies' because they can provide the benefit of their effort to a number of companies. The Bill provides that this exclusion be removed. Companies proposing to undertake specific IR & D projects on behalf of two or more unrelated corporate clients, at least one of whom shall be an 'eligible company' will be able to seek a project grant. The discretionary nature of these grants will ensure that funding support is provided only where the applicant is acting as a multiplier agency. This provision will increase the effectiveness of the IR & D Incentives Scheme at no cost. The remaining changes proposed by this legislation relate to essentially technical matters. The Bill introduces provisions to empower the Incentives Board to specify limits to the field of expertise or activity for which IR & D work is supervised by an 'approved employee' within the applicant company or performed by an ' approved research organisation' on its behalf. The ability to limit approvals in this way is desirable because of the increasing specialisation in research and because the existing provisions only allow for revocation and then only if approvals have been misused or abused. There is no evidence that this has occurred to any significant extent to date. There will be no budgetary costs, nor are there any identified savings. The Incentives Scheme has been subject to a complex statutory provision governing forward commitment. This has conflicted at times with budgetary dictates. The provisions of the Bill will eliminate these difficulties and establish simple means to specify limits to expenditure and limits to the commitments into which the Incentives Board may bind the Commonwealth through Project grant agreements. Finally, the Bill provides that a cut off date for receipt of Commencement grant applications may be deferred by regulation beyond 30 September. This provision is necessary. There is, at present, no discretion available to allow for a deferral of the cut off date. The Canberra mail strike, which carried over from September to October this year, prevented many claims from reaching the Board before the due date. Without enactment of the provisions in this Bill, many would be denied their prospective entitlements. The Government believes that the implementation of the provisions of this Bill will be welcomed in industry. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate. AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1983 This Bill proposes to amend the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970 to implement the Government's election commitment to extend the role of the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) to enable it to allocate additional finance for the restructuring and revitalisation of industry and for high technology and other growth industries. This commitment was made in recognition of the need to take a more positive approach to industry policy and to create the most favourable environment possible for the growth and development of Australian industry. There is a need for a variety of measures to be adopted to strengthen and improve the competitiveness of industry if this country's natural wealth and the wide range of skills available in our workforce are to be utilized to their best advantage. Several major reports on industry policy, such as the Crawford, Myers and Espie reports, have noted the shortage of finance, particularly in the form of equity, for the development of industry. The changes proposed to be made to the functions and capital structure of the AIDC by this Bill will enable the corporation to increase very significantly its provision of both equity and loan finance for industry. The Government recognises that since its establishment in 1970, the AIDC has played an important role in providing industry development funds. It has become a significant provider of medium to long term finance, in particular it has been instrumental in the formation of lending consortia for industrial and resources development requiring loans too large for any other single lending institution. The government believes that still more needs to be done. It has therefore acted to increase the resources available to the AIDC with an additional $12.5m capital allocated to AIDC in the 1983/84 Budget. This Bill will allow for a $50m increase in AIDC's statutory capital to $150m. The AIDC will be able to call upon this additional capital in amounts of up to $12.5m per annum. To further expand AIDC's lending potential, it is proposed to increase its gearing ratio so that it will be able to borrow up to 15 times the level of its capital and reserves, compared with 8 times at present. Provision is made for the AIDC's borrowings to be guaranteed by the Commonwealth. This should improve the Corporation's access to funds on both domestic and overseas markets. AIDC's capacity to provide equity finance is proposed to be increased by relaxing restrictions on the investment of its capital. This investment restriction was originally imposed as a means of reassuring potential investors. The Government believes that this is now unnecessary because of the AIDC's established track record and Government guarantee of its borrowings. In the future it is proposed that the AIDC will be able to invest in any industry and will continue as a general supplier of development finance on commercial terms. Clause 3 of the Bill, however, proposes that priority is to be given to manufacturing and internationally tradeable services, including tourism and the development of new technology industry. These areas are the most in need of an improved source of finance to enhance their position in the economy. The legislation also requires the AIDC to place greater emphasis on the strengthening and restructuring of existing industry and promoting new industries with good growth prospects. These are of particular importance to the Government and to the development of a strong and viable industry. AIDC will usefully complement and supplement other sources of finances for high technology. In particular it will assist in the commercialisation of Government sponsored innovations, an area of considerable potential which the Government believes is worthy of greater attention. The AIDC's operations will continue to be largely independent. The Bill, however, introduces a procedure, similar to that applying to the Commonwealth Bank which will impose a modest degree of Government guidance and will enhance the corporation's accountability. The provisions of clause 7 of the Bill require the Corporation to report annually on its policies in relation to the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions. A consultative mechanism for resolving differences is also proposed. The Government considers that this is appropriate as the AIDC is established to serve national purposes. I reiterate, however, that the AIDC will retain the independence to make its own commercial judgments on projects. Because the AIDC Act has not been substantially revised since 1975, the Bill incorporates a number of administrative changes designed to improve the operation of the corporation. The most important change relates to the procedures which allow the Government to fund certain projects considered to be in the national interest. Clause 6 of the Bill, while preserving ultimate parliamentary control, simplifies these procedures by removing the requirement for a national interest committee and consolidating the reporting requirements. I commend the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure for its valuable contribution to the consideration of the AIDC's future role. The Bill gives effect to the thrust of the recommendations of the Committee's report on the AIDC in January 1980. The Committee recommended that the AIDC be allowed to invest in service industries, that it be guaranteed, that restrictions on its investment of capital be removed, that it be required to pay a dividend, that changes be made to the board structure, and that it no longer be required to locate its head office in Canberra. The Committee also recommended a freeing up of the AIDC's gearing and a clarification of the AIDC's operating guidelines. The Government has not implemented the Committee's recommendations that uncalled capital be counted for the purpose of gearing and that future capital calls be by way of subordinated loans. These recommendations have been largely overtaken by the decision to give the AIDC a substantial injection of capital to perform its new functions. The increase in the AIDC's capital will cost the Government $12.5m this financial year and up to $12.5m in successive financial years. The Government will, however, obtain revenue through the requirement for the AIDC to pay 50 per cent of its net profits as dividends. In this regard, the AIDC made a net profit of $15.3m in the 1982-83 financial year. The Government considers that the revised role of the AIDC, including the increased funds available for equity and loan finance, will be of considerable benefit to industry in increasing its overall efficiency and profitability. I commend the Bill to the Senate. MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT COMPANIES BILL 1983 Mr President, this Bill proposes to promote the establishment and development of a private sector venture capital market in Australia. The Bill provides for the establishment of Management and Investment Companies (MICs) which will be licenced by a Board. The Government will encourage investors to participate in these Management and Investment Companies by providing a 100 per cent tax deduction in the year in which the capital is subscribed. The Government's National Recovery and Reconstruction Plan noted the importance of improved access to equity finance for developing new industries. It also referred to the need for support for private sector investment, to encourage installation of new capacity which is likely to strengthen economic performance. The venture capital market which this Bill seeks to encourage will enable entrepreneurial companies to expand and take up new business opportunities. The need for Government incentives to assist the development of the venture capital market in Australia has been recognised in a number of reports from such bodies as ASTEC, the Small Business Advisory Council, the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia, the Institution of Engineers and the Bureau of Industry Economics. In developing the Management and Investment Companies Bill, the Government has had the benefit of the report ''Developing High Technology Enterprises for Australia'', prepared by the High Technology Financing Committee of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences, chaired by Sir Frank Espie. The Espie Report is the most detailed study yet undertaken in Australia of the development of high technology enterprises and their need for venture capital. The Committee spent two years analysing the experiences and performance of a broad range of young Australian high technology companies. The principal recommendation of the Committee forms the basis of the present Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Espie Committee for its work . Its members gave freely of their time and put many long hours into discussions with firms and in the preparation of the report. The overwhelming acceptance of the report by the business sector is a tribute to their efforts. The Espie Committee found that Australia is failing to generate new growth- oriented firms to replace those being lost in the older sectors of manufacturing . More seriously, Australia is failing to grasp the opportunities offered by high technology industries for wealth creation and employment growth. The Committee reported that it knew of no country which has succeeded in establishing a climate for investment in high technology enterprises without Government taking positive action. The Committee pointed to the current unavailability in Australia of venture capital which it defined as 'the provision of funds, unsupported by collateral, in an enterprise whose future is itself subject to a high degree of risk'. The approach adopted in the Bill has the advantage of enabling the Government to control the cost to revenue. The Bill seeks to establish a partnership between Government and the private sector in developing a venture capital market . It provides a mechanism for combining equity investment with management support for eligible businesses, thus overcoming the frequent lack of management skills in small Australian firms. It will encourage the formation of new business enterprises in Australia and the expansion of existing firms. Part II of the Bill establishes an independent Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board. The Licensing Board has the power to issue, suspend, revoke and renew licences of MICs. It will approve the amount of tax deductible capital which each MIC may raise. Further, the Licensing Board will closely monitor the MICs to prevent any possible abuse of the scheme. The Bill establishes the broad terms and conditions under which MICs may operate. It provides criteria by which the Licensing Board will assess applications for MIC licences. Every effort has been made to give the MICs flexibility and to enable them to take decisions quickly. The Board will certify the eligibility of those businesses in which the MICs are seeking to invest prior to any investment being made. This approach eliminates uncertainties regarding the eligibility of investors' funds to qualify for the tax incentive. The Bill contains a number of provisions to ensure that investments are directed towards those activities which are currently unable to attract adequate finance. This will ensure that funds which have attracted a tax concession are not used in place of other sources of finance already available in Australia. Although businesses which can be certified as eligible for investment under this scheme are not limited to technology-based enterprises, there is no doubt that the scheme will provide critically needed funds for Australia's sunrise industries. As the Prime Minister stated in his speech to the National Technology Conference: The effectiveness with which we apply new technology which we develop ourselves -will determine the efficiency of our industry, its competitive performance and its capacity to grow. The Government has decided that the cost to revenue for this scheme in 1983-84 will be $20 million. Investors will include corporate taxpayers paying 46 cents in the dollar and individuals paying 60 cents in the dollar. The average cost to revenue is therefore anticipated to be approximately 50 cents in the dollar. As a result, $20 million income forgone will result in $40 million in licenced venture capital being available for investment. The cost to revenue in future years will be determined in the budget context. Taking a longer term view of the scheme, these amounts represent income deferred rather than income forgone. There are some similarities between the provisions of this Bill and the United States Small Business Investment Companies Program. A 1981 study of the US program by the chartered accountants Deloitte, Haskins and Sells concluded that the increased tax revenue received as a result of the program greatly exceeded the cost to the Government. I wish to express my thanks to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for their efforts in preparing this complex piece of legislation so that it can pass all stages in 1983. This is an important innovation and signifies the Government's determination to promote not only our sunrise industries but to assist the revival of traditional industries by the use of appropriate new technologies. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 1 December 1983. Clause 86 (The polling). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.35) —We were discussing yesterday clause 86 which seeks to have the polls close at 6 p.m. instead of the traditional closing time of 8 p.m. I simply reiterate the point I made that this move will restrict and reduce the rights of a few Australians to cast their votes in person. I reiterate that I approached the leaders of the two religions involved and obtained from a number of them a request that we seek to prevent this happening. I reiterate that there is no logic in saying that because the polls close at 6 p.m. for State elections in some of the States, that that makes it right that it should be done in Commonwealth elections. We have been told during this debate by Senate Macklin, for example, in discussing the rights of prisoners, that we must move to extend people's rights in the electoral process. The proposed amendment, while it will suit the convenience of parties and electoral officers and while it will enable results to be delivered more quickly to the populace, will in fact reduce and remove the rights of some people to cast their vote in person. For that reason the Opposition opposes the clause and seeks to have 8 p.m. closing maintained. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.36) —The Australian Democrats will oppose the Liberal Party's amendment, basically because uniformity in relation to hours of polling will be to the overriding benefit of the electorate. I admit that in this circumstance the Commonwealth elector might not benefit. On the other hand, the reverse is true; that the State electors in the majority of States will benefit. I know that in my State, which has had 6 o'clock closing of the polls for 70-odd years, thousands of voters still turn up to vote in State elections after 6 o'clock. The situation is detrimental to Queensland, the Northern Territory, Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales. The vast majority of electors are now confronted by differing closing times. I hope that because the Commonwealth is seeking 6 o'clock closing, the remaining States will also alter closing times to 6 o'clock. That would enable what is now a very confusing situation to be resolved in the interests of the electors overall, both at State and Commonwealth level. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.38) —If this measure is passed, I ask that the Committee keep under surveillance the problem that I mentioned last night; that is, that those many people who now work between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays may not conveniently be able to vote in their subdivisions as a result of this measure. The other aspect which I believe the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) could well look into is that in those States in which 8 o'clock closing is the norm, it will be essential for the Australian Electoral Office, prior to the next election, to make a particular point about the fact that the closing time has been altered from 8 p.m. to 6 p.m. I raise that point now in the hope that the Electoral Office will make a significant point of that in any advertising that it does. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(9.40) —In answer to Senator Harradine's problem regarding shop assistants, we are seeking in a later part of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill to enable people to vote anywhere within their division, so they do have to go back to their subdivision. So in terms of the shop assistants, I think any employer would have to give those people half an hour off. I would think that if they are in a major centre they will be near a polling booth. They would also be able to vote anywhere, say within the divisions of Franklin or Denison, rather than their subdivision. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.41) —I simply indicate, in response to Senator Harradine in particular, that certainly the Australian Electoral Office will be making a substantial effort to communicate publicly the change in polling hours that will flow from the passage of this clause. It has indicated to me that there will be substantial advertising to that effect. As to the other possible problems that might be associated with reducing the polling period, we of course undertake to monitor closely the situation and see what response of an adverse kind does flow from the change. We rather anticipate, as Senator Robert Ray has said from experience elsewhere in the States where these changes have been made, that no such problems will arise notwithstanding the alarm bells that Senator Peter Baume has been endeavouring to ring. It is appreciated that there is some inconvenience involved for certain religious groups in the community, but I think those propositions have been sufficiently answered in the debate now not to require repetition at this stage. I urge that the Committee support this clause. Question put: That clause 86 stand as printed. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Bolkus N. Grimes, D. J. Button, J. N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Giles, P. J. Archer, B. R. Hill, RBaume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Walsh, P. A. Withers, R. G. McIntosh, G. D. Jessop, D. S. Richardson, G. F. MacGibbon, D. J. Colemen, R. N. Townley, MMcClelland, Douglas Rae, Peter Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause 87 agreed to. Clause 88 (Where electors may vote). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.48) —I seek the advice of the Committee. I understand that Senator Harradine may wish to recommit an earlier clause. At what stage would that be taken on? Senator Gareth Evans —We are not quite ready. Senator PETER BAUME —In that case I shall deal with clause 88. The effect of paragraph (b) of clause 88 is to allow people to cast an ordinary vote anywhere within their electoral division. At present a person is required to vote within the subdivision for which he or she is registered. I move: (10) Page 107, paragraph 88 (b), lines 26 and 27, leave out the paragraph. The Opposition is seeking to maintain the current situation whereby people can vote in subdivisions and need to vote absentee if they vote outside those subdivisions. We are not necessarily trying to force people to vote in any place . We are asking that if a person votes outside his subdivision it be recorded that he cast an absentee vote. The Opposition believes, and those who have been in the system for a while believe they have anecdotal evidence to support this. The Government's amendment to the Act would offer wider opportunities for electoral abuse. We believe anything that gives any kind of opportunity for electoral abuse should be examined very carefully. If someone wished to impersonate other people or go around different subdivisions and cast a vote on a number of occasions, to undertake multiple voting, that impersonator would be difficult to identify or recognise in a large electorate. Further, if people are allowed to cast an ordinary vote anywhere in a division that vote is placed in the ordinary count and cannot be identified. On the other hand the validity of an absentee vote, the same as postal votes or section votes, can be identified and is subject to scrutiny before it is added to the count. We do not believe that it would make it impossible for people to vote at any polling booth they wanted to attend. It would simply require them, if they were outside their own subdivision, to vote by way of absentee vote. The validity of their vote would then be checked. If there was any evidence of multiple voting the vote could be held out of the count. All that we are seeking to do is provide a mechanism whereby, if someone attempted multiple voting, it could be detected. Since absentee votes would require validation before they could be added to the count, such votes could be held out of it. We would not, in fact, be restricting where people could go. We would be merely identifying the kind of vote that they would have to cast. We believe that it would become more difficult for a particular abuse to occur. For that reason it is an amendment that is worthy of consideration. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(9.52) —Senator Baume yesterday, during a different debate, on postal voting, accused some of us on this side of paranoia. I really have to throw the charge back to the other side this morning. He mentioned that there may be anecdotal evidence as to the problem he has described but I must say that when we questioned the officers of the Australian Electoral Office as to whether there was a problem of reconciliation after elections under existing conditions, they indicated that there was not; that where a person appeared to have voted twice, for instance, almost inevitably someone of the same name, or of the same family, had not voted at all and it was just a clerical error. If someone desired to undertake multiple voting at the moment there would be a capacity to do so in those subdivisions where there was more than one booth. In the subdivision of Oakleigh, where I live, there are seven booths. There would be little to stop someone who had moved into the area very recently, and whom no one knew, from simply moving around and voting seven times, but there is no evidence that that has ever occurred. The Government has taken this action because the electoral process on election day becomes bogged down with people getting absentee votes within their own division. If they are not in their subdivision they have to get an absentee vote. To us, that is unnecessary and in the days of computerised electoral rolls it is very easy to have a roll right across a division. I must say that I think eventually-I believe it is not too far off-we will be in a position where, if we do not have electronic voting, the merit of which I do not quite grasp, we will at least be able to have a terminal hooked up to every booth, one that I imagine would be able to send back information when each person had voted. I do not see it as a problem at the moment. The situation will have to be monitored, and if it becomes a problem we will have to take action but I suggest that the amendment proposed by the Liberal Party would not prohibit a potential problem from arising. It could occur at the moment but it does not. I suggest that it is more likely to occur the longer we debate it here . Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.54) —The Democrats will not support the proposed amendment. The simplest reason that I can put is that it deals with only what one might call the honest criminal, the person who tries multiple voting in his own name. If a person tries multiple voting in someone's else's name there will be no problem at all. Obviously, if a person wanted to engage in multiple voting the sensible thing would be to do it in that way. The proposed amendment would simply pick up the person who attempted to do it in his own name. If one looks at the figures provided, it is remarkable how very few people seek to do that. We are informed that in most cases where it occurs it is done accidentally, so I do not really believe that we have a problem here. I feel that the additional latitude that is provided by being able to vote anywhere in a division will give the vast bulk of electors additional opportunities and fewer hassles than they have currently. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.55) —I rise only to correct what Senator Macklin said. Of course this amendment is not restricted only to persons voting in their own name. It is possible for persons to range widely outside their subdivision and represent themselves anywhere as somebody else and to vote in that person's name. Senator Macklin —They can do that at the moment. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —They can do that at the moment only inside their subdivision or they can do that by an absentee vote. If the Australian Electoral Office does its job properly, firstly, it marks off the roll all the people who have cast an ordinary vote at a polling booth within the subdivisions, as Senator Macklin should know. It does not admit an absentee vote until the names of those casting an ordinary vote have been marked off on a master roll. Senator Macklin —A person can vote in somebody else's name in somebody else's division. In that case it is a straight vote; there is no need for a postal vote . Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —We are talking about what Senator Macklin said. He said that at the moment our amendment would cover only persons voting in their own name. That is absolute nonsense. Let me inform honourable senators of the procedure at the moment. If the procedure is followed properly, before postal and absentee votes are admitted the record of ordinary votes is transferred from the subdivisional rolls to the master roll. Then the back of the envelope containing the absentee vote is checked to make sure that no vote has already occurred in that name. If a vote has occurred, that absentee vote is put aside for challenge. An inquiry is made. At the moment registering a duplicate vote in somebody else's name has a restriction on it. Senator Macklin —It does not. If the address a person gives is in the electorate where he is voting, he gets a straight vote and puts his ballot paper into the box. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —At the moment a person cannot put a straight vote into the box if he votes outside his subdivision. Senator Macklin —He is voting in another person's name in that person's subdivision. That is the point I made. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is not what Senator Macklin said; that is what in fact Senator Robert Ray said. Senator Ray said that at the moment, if there were a number of polling places within the subdivision, it would be possible for a person to move around from booth to booth. But a subdivision is small and the risk of detection great. We are talking about the difference between voting within a subdivision in Dubbo and the risk of detection there, which must be real, and voting in a subdivision in the division of Gwydir, where the area is enormous and the risk of detection quite different. Senator Macklin —Only if you use your own name. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It is not only if somebody uses his own name. In both cases he can represent himself as another person. At the moment, if he represents himself as somebody else inside that person's subdivision, the vote goes straight into the ballot box and is counted. But within the subdivision, because the area is small, the risk of detection is infinitely greater, particularly in country electorates. Today a person cannot put an ordinary vote into the ballot box outside his subdivision. It has to be an absentee vote. Therefore that vote is checked against the master roll and it runs the risk of rejection. That is the principle behind our amendment. I can only say that the logic of what is being said is imperative. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(9.59) —I believe that having to vote within one 's own subdivision within a division is a relic of the past, given today's transport system. What we are really trying to do is bring the Commonwealth Electoral Act up to date and into the twentieth century. In working in the polling booths over the years one of the big complaints I had about people having to vote within their own subdivision was that on many occasions people leaving the polling place would come up to me and tell me that they had just been told by the electoral staff inside the polling booth that they should vote in their own subdivisions. They had been encouraged to leave that polling place and go to their own subdivision. The reason for that is that there is usually such a hassle taking place inside the polling place as a result of the number of people being forced to cast an absentee vote. The people who are paid to work at the polling booths like to get these people to go to their own subdivisions because it saves all the hassle of filling out the forms for an absentee vote. The trouble is that often it is late when people are encouraged to leave and often the people are in a hurry to go somewhere else. In fact, I suggest that there would be evidence that a lot of people who are encouraged to go to their own subdivision do not vote. Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Baume spoke about multiple voting. If there is a large scale attempt to multiple vote the statistics will show it. As Senator Robert Ray said, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform would have been- Senator Robert Ray —They would go to a court of disputed returns. Senator SIBRAA —As Senator Ray said, they would go to a court of disputed returns, but if the statistics showed that the average for an electorate or the average around Australia in the past had been 94 per cent and suddenly it was shown as 97 per cent, and on checking the rolls it is quite obvious that there has been multiple voting, of course that would be a reason for upsetting the ballot and going to the Court of Disputed Returns. For years allegations were made that there was multiple voting for the Council of the City of Sydney. On a small scale what the Council has been able to do now is that when any person in the Sydney City Council area goes to vote there is a telephone hook-up. It immediately goes straight through to a returning officer, who has a master roll, and no multiple voting can take place. I suggest that in the future, with mechanical voting a possibility and computers, a system certainly could easily be devised to make sure that there is no multiple voting and that not even the mistakes that are made under the present system are made. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 89. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —(10.02)-I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) a question about part of clause 89, that is, proposed new section 113C (1 ), which appears at page 108 of the printed Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill and, provides for 'Mobile booths-certain other hospitals'. I applaud the idea of mobile booths being provided; I think it is a great idea. It seems to me that there is something vague and uncertain about proposed new clause 113C (1), which reads: The Electoral Commission may, by notice published in the Gazette, declare the whole or a specified part of a hospital, not being a hospital that is a polling place, to be a special hospital for the purposes of taking votes under this section in a specified election. I do not get much help on the details of that provision in paragraph 6.42 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. It is to be done by regulation. I do not particularly get much help from the explanatory notes either. What I want to know-no criteria are set out in the Bill-is on what basis a hospital which is not a polling booth will be so declared. There is a possibility of differentiation between one hospital and another. Where the facilities are available might in fact have some political implications. It might suit one party to have the facilities available in one hospital and not in another. Can the Attorney-General tell me what sorts of regulations are proposed ? What types of conditions does he have in mind that will be applied and used under this proposed new section? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.04) —I am not sure that I have fully mastered the complexities of this in the 20 seconds Senator Missen has been talking, but as I understand it proposed new section 113B deals with hospitals that in the ordinary course of events are polling places under the present regime. There is now provision for there to be mobile booths as part of the voting system within those hospitals to the extent that that has not been the case already. Proposed new section 113C is to deal with the situations of those hospitals which hitherto have not been routinely established as polling places and to make provision for their getting the special facility of mobile booths, with the option of the five-day period and so on that goes with it. So the smaller nursing homes and so on that until now have not had the facility of a full scale polling booth being established there will be able to share in the convenience of the mobile booth system. Does that answer the honourable senator' s question? Senator Missen —Yes. Clause agreed to. Clause 90 (Errors not to forfeit vote). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.06) —The amendment which the Opposition was proposing, amendment No. (11) circulated in our name, is in fact consequential upon a matter which has been resolved earlier. Section 116 of the principal Act requires that the words 'or occupation' remain. So the previous matter having been disposed of, we do not intend to proceed with that amendment. Clause agreed to. Clauses 91 to 97-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 98 (Marking of votes in a Senate election). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.07) —I move: (12) Page 117, paragraph 98 (b), proposed new sub-section 123 (1B), lines 33 to 36, leave out the proposed sub-section. This amendment seeks to leave out proposed new section 123 (1B), lines 33 to 36 on page 117. This clause introduces a new method of recording a vote by the use of a tick or a cross as opposed to writing a number. It is perhaps the first step down the road which could, in the end, take one to first past the post voting. One of our objections to what is proposed is that it suggests that for the Senate one can use a tick or a cross; for the House of Representatives we understand that numbers will still be required. We would not disagree with the aim of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform to reduce informality in voting. The argument here is an argument only as to the methods people will use. The words to which we are objecting which we are proposing should be omitted are words which permit the use of a tick or a cross rather than a number. We do not believe that a valid case has been made for using a tick or a cross; that is the first think. We believe that this will require electors when they vote to follow two different sets of criteria: A set for the paper they will have for the House of Representatives and a different set for the Senate where they will be able to put a tick or a cross. If it is the will of the Parliament that they should be able to vote for a list-we are opposed to that-we think they should do it by number. They should use a number on all occasions. We believe that the way to reduce informal voting is to give people some consistency in what they do. We do not believe that using that kind of mark will help electors in the long run. While we applaud the idea or reducing informality in voting, we do not think this is an appropriate way to go. The Opposition asks the Committee to support the amendment which I have moved. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.08) — There is a problem here. I understand the point that has been made by Senator Baume, but when people see a box they tend to tick it or cross it. That is a fact of life. Unfortunately, no amount of proposals would influence them to put a number in the box unless other numbers are there to follow. Senator Missen —Sometimes ticks and crosses mean the same thing. Senator HARRADINE —Exactly. As a matter of fact, in some union elections there is provision for the voting to take place by a cross. Senator Peter Baume —For 83 years we have been putting numbers. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, but when people put numbers they do so because they are signifying a first preference and then subsequent preferences, such as, '2, 3, 4 , 5, 6', et cetera. I agree, however, with Senator Baume that it would be unfortunate if this were the first step along the road to first past the post voting. I wonder whether his point could be catered for by our inserting somewhere in the Act-I disagree with regulations being made about electoral matters-a prohibition which would prevent candidates from urging electors to mark their list box with a tick or a cross. Senator Macklin —I have an amendment on that. I have an amendment which will do that. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry; I have not seen that. That answers the question. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.10) —I simply congratulate Senator Peter Baume on spinning out for nearly a minute what was so manifestly an implausible argument. If he is serious about reducing informal voting he ought to accept the provision that where an intention is as clearly demonstrated as it would be by the insertion of a tick or a cross in a box it ought to be registered as formal. Slippery slopes and floodgate sorts of arguments are never persuasive at the best of times and they are manifestly very unpersuasive in the context of this amendment. As to the honourable senator's claim that we are one foot down the path towards first past the post voting, I simply draw his attention to the language of the clause which states the requirement in terms of placing a figure one on the ballot paper. Consistent with that, electoral advertising, instructions to voters and so on would have to continue to be expressed in terms of an obligation of that kind. All that the clause does is make it clear that when someone nonetheless uses a tick or a cross instead of a figure one that vote will not be deemed to be invalid for that reason. That will be further reinforced by the amendment that Senator Macklin will propose in a moment I think to clause 103. With those various safeguards such shred of credibility as Senator Baume's argument had falls away. The Government urges that the clause stay in the form in which it appears in the Bill. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.12) —I do not think the note of asperity that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has brought into this argument is justified. I think there is a danger here of confusion, of coming to wrong conclusions if the tick and the cross are accepted. The Attorney-General says that a tick or a cross will demonstrate a voter's intention. It may well not do so. An elector who, for example, dislikes intensely the Communist Party may well place a cross in the relevant box to indicate that he does not want that Party to be elected. That may be confusing and he would thereby be found to be voting for the Communist Party. Senator Gareth Evans —He would put a tick in another box and therefore render the whole thing informal. Senator MISSEN —Yes, if he put ticks in other boxes that would render his vote informal. Of course, if he places only the figure one on the Senate ballot paper , as I understand it-this is the answer to Senator Macklin's question-and then goes wrong after that I think his vote will be counted. So we will have the votes of people who mark only one box successfully still being counted. Senator Robert Ray —This is list voting you are talking about. Senator MISSEN —Yes. That may be covered. To my mind, the acceptance of ticks and crosses will add further to the confusion of electors particularly when they are dealing with House of Representatives and Senate cards in joint elections. I think that quite often they will put their crosses down for, perhaps, all the Labor Party candidates and for no one else. I think the Government is only expanding the opportunity for confusion by permitting a tick or cross at all. I think the Opposition's argument is sound. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(10.14) —The Government is trying in this measure to make voting easier for a whole range of people who have come to Australia from other countries, particularly European countries, who are used to voting under a list system. Anybody who has scrutineered in a close count knows the arguments that we have had about whether a figure is a continental one-some people put a tail before the figure one-or whether it is a tick. We are making sure that this situation does not occur in the future. We are trying to cut down on what I believe is a farcical situation in that one in 10 people throughout Australia votes informal for the Senate. The evidence given to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform was that the vast majority of those people try to vote formal. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.15) —I ask the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) to respond to Senator Missen's point. Is Senator Missen correct in saying that, if a person in good faith puts a cross against five or six people in a party group, his vote, as the legislation is drafted, will then be invalid because it will not contain one cross, it will contain five or six crosses? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.16) — Just while the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is thinking about that, I indicate that that is correct. This clause is designed just to apply to boxes at the top of a list voting ballot paper. Senator Peter Baume —If they don't take that option? Senator ROBERT RAY —Well, if they do not take that option and they do not complete the ballot paper in accordance with the rest of the Act in terms of filling out 90 per cent of squares and indicating their first preference their vote will be informal. Therefore, if someone puts down six crosses, the vote will be informal. I also go on to say that if Senator Macklin's amendment were carried all that will happen will be that everyone in this chamber and in the parties will urge people to use numbers. If someone inadvertently puts a tick or a cross in the square-under the list system one registers one's vote in accordance with the instructions on a how to vote card-that person's vote will be valid provided there is only one tick or one cross in any one of the squares at the top of the ballot paper. The vote will be informal if there is more than one tick or cross in any one of the squares. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.17) —The answer to Senator Peter Baume's question is buried in the mysterious drafting of page 125 of the Bill. Subsequently what it all amounts to, I am advised by the advisers in whom I have considerable confidence in these matters, is that, if there is a row of boxes across the top of the list voting ticket, as there will be, and someone fills in a (1) in one of them and then crosses in the others, applying the Missen theory of transferred hostility, under those circumstances the vote would be invalid. However, if the person writes in the numbers (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) the vote would be valid because there is a clear preference. That is a minor anomaly to that extent. Obviously the situation that is going to recur in practice infinitely more often is that someone is going to be wanting to record a preference for one of those boxes and, instead of putting a figure '1', will do as Senator Harradine says is the normal natural thing or as Senator Sibraa says is the normal reflex thing for particular people of European origin and put a cross or perhaps a tick. It is that situation that this provision is overwhelming directed towards even though the force of Senator Missen's point at the margin is acknowledged. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 99 to 102-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 103. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.19) —Amendment No. (13) which has been circulated in the name of the Opposition covers the same matter that we have already disposed of. It seeks to take out the words 'a tick, a cross or'. I therefore do not intend to move this amendment which is really consequential to the one which has been disposed of. Amendment No. (14), which has been circulated by the Opposition, is one of two amendments which I understand the Committee will have before it in due course. This amendment seeks to clarify the means by which a vote can be deemed to be valid by the Senate and the extent to which the preferences which are expressed in that vote can be included in the count. I move: (14) Page 126, clause 103, proposed new paragraph 133B (1) (b), lines 8 to 13, leave out the paragraph, insert the following new paragraphs: '' '(b) has- (i) in a case where there are more than 9 candidates in the election-numbers, each being a number by which a preference is expressed, in not less than 90% of the squares opposite to the names of candidates; or (ii) in any other case-numbers, each being a number by which a preference is expressed, in all the squares opposite to the names of candidates or in all those squares except one square that is left blank;''. The proposed new section 133B is in two parts. The first part prescribes a series of conditions precedent to which an otherwise invalid ballot paper might be rendered valid. The second part provides that if the ballot paper complies with conditions precedent it may, at least to some extent, be taken to express a preference. We seek to amend the conditions precedent which are set out. We seek to make it a necessary requirement for the validity of ballot papers that the numbers stated thereon each be a number by which a preference is expressed. That is, we seek to have the numbers sequential up to the 90 per cent expressed in the amendment. I turn to our amendment, which follows the form of the clause in the Bill. The clause in the Bill seeks to differentiate between the situation where there are nine or more than nine candidates and where there are less than nine candidates. We seek to keep it in that form. Our suggestion is this: . . . where there are more than 9 candidates in the election-numbers-each being a number by which a preference is expressed, in not less than 90% of the squares opposite the names of candidates; That means that if we went back to the election in which I was elected, where there were 73 candidates, we would then require something like 64 squares to be filled in, instead of the situation obtaining at present where one requires 72 out of the 73 squares to be filled in. That is the requirement under the present Act. The last square could be left blank under the present requirements. So the 90 per cent requirement allows a considerable latitude. Where the Opposition differs from the Government is that we want those numbers to be sequential. We want the numbers to express a preference. We agree that with inadvertent mistakes, where someone might fill their paper in '1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10'-where they are clearly trying to express a preference and they leave out one number yet go all the way through-one can, in fact, by looking at that paper, determine a preference. The fact is that they have left out a number ; they have not repeated a number. As we have drawn up this amendment, it would permit that vote to be included because one could say that the preference had been expressed. To that extent, in a situation where a number has been left out we are not trying to have the vote excluded provided a preference has been expressed in the way the numbers have been written. The clause as it is written now simply says that numbers have to be written in a certain number of squares. Of course, one could write '1' for the candidate one wished to vote for. Then one could write '2' ten times and '3' ten times. One would be complying with the Government's requirement that 90 per cent of the squares have a number filled in . Senator Gareth Evans —That is a very common phenomenon, of course, is it not? Senator PETER BAUME —It does not matter whether it is common or not. We are trying to look at the electoral process. I am suggesting that what we are proposing by way of amendment actually, I think, seeks to do what is really behind the Government's intention in saying that numbers by which a preference is expressed must be written down. Suppose one wrote '1, 2, 2' and then completed his numbers. Because of the 90 per cent provision-the allowance for error-the vote would still be valid. Senator Sibraa —So it should be. Senator PETER BAUME —Wait a minute. We are not objecting if the voter wrote '1, 2, 2' and then '3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10'. Senator Gareth Evans —That is rubbed out by your amendment. Senator PETER BAUME —It is not rubbed out by our amendment because we have said that we have the 90 per cent- Senator Gareth Evans —Read your own provisions, for God's sake. Read your own amendment. Where there is a doubling up, no preference is recorded. Senator PETER BAUME —I am talking about the conditions precedent. I am not talking about the extent to which the preferences will be counted. In starting this discussion I drew the distinction that there were two matters. The first is the conditions precedent to the vote being a formal vote. The second is the extent to which the preferences will be recorded in the count. The Opposition draws a distinction between those two things. All I am discussing are the conditions precedent. I am suggesting that some amendment to what the Government has proposed is desirable. The amendment we have suggested is in the form that we have put forward. I notice that the Australian Democrats have put forward another amendment which takes what one might care to call a more arbitrary approach. Although the Democrat amendment may be only a foreshadowed amendment at this moment, I wish to say that the only difficulty I have with that amendment is in the conditions which will apply for the smaller list where there are less than nine candidates. I think that the Democrats may have provided too many options for error. It may well be that we should ask the Democrats whether there is some way that they could look at the second part of their amendment, because the Democrats and the Liberal-National Party Opposition are both trying to achieve the same thing. We are trying to make it possible for the conditions precedent for a vote to be formal to be tightened up a bit and yet to accommodate what the Government is trying to seek; that is, that people should not inadvertently make their votes informal. We are trying to find a way to bring the votes into the count and yet to maintain what we think is a desirable electoral environment. I have moved amendment No. (14) circulated in the name of the Opposition. I may return to the argument, depending on the debate which will ensue. The CHAIRMAN —Before I call the next speaker, I think I should draw the attention of the Committee to a procedural problem that we have. Both Senator Baume with the amendment that he has moved and Senator Macklin with a foreshadowed amendment are proposing to leave out the same paragraph and substitute different words. The problem is this: If Senator Baume's motion to leave out the words was not carried, Senator Macklin could not move his subsequent amendment. If both motions were carried but the words of both amendments were rejected, the paragraph would be left out completely. I suggest that the way out of this problem is that we deal first with Senator Baume's amendment and then give leave to Senator Macklin to move his amendment separately, even though that course is technically out of order. That, I think, is the only fair way to proceed. We will proceed then with Senator Baume's amendment No. (14). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.27) —I am sure that Senator Baume is not trying deliberately to mislead the Senate as to the effect of his amendment, but that was the result of what he said. Accepting his distinction between conditions precedent and conditions subsequent and accepting that the subject matter of amendments (16) and (18) go to the conditions subsequent rather than to the conditions precedent, it is still the case that when the terms of his conditions precedent are examined closely, far from rendering formal a vote which meant 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, right through to 90 per cent of the squares, that would in fact manifestly be informal, the reason being that, in the very language of Senator Baume's proposition, each number on the ballot paper up to the 90 per cent has to be a number by which a preference is expressed. The amendment states: (i) in a case where there are more than 9 candidates in the election-numbers, each being a number by which a preference is expressed, in not less than 90% of the squares opposite to the names of candidates . . . (ii) . . . each being a number by which a preference is expressed . . . The reality is that when one doubles up on any numeral one is thereby not, in each of these two numerals which are thus doubled up, expressing a preference. One is certainly expressing a preference as between those two on which one has doubled up and all the other numbers. But as between those two alone, one is manifestly not expressing a preference. That is the difficulty with this proposal. Senator Peter Baume —If the comma were removed between 'expressed' and 'in', would that help? What we are trying to say is that 90 per cent of the preferences should be sequential. Senator GARETH EVANS —The thrust of the existing Government proposal is designed to cope with the second most common reason for informality; that is the doubling up on a particular number. The first most common reason, I suppose, is the jumping of a number; the omission of a number in the sequence. Senator Robert Ray —We do not know that. We suspect it is doubling up. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know. I bow to those around me. Whatever may be the case as to the numerical leader, these are the two common problems. Senator Baume has addressed himself to only one of them. In fairness, he ought to address himself to the other as well. As I understand it, Senator Macklin's foreshadowed amendment, while not going as far as the Government proposal, does allow three mistakes of some kind or other to be made, whether they are made by way of doubling up or whether they are mistakes by way of omission. The Government would much prefer to stick with what we have but will probably yield to the realities of the situation and accommodate Senator Macklin later. Senator Baume has to acknowledge that he just got it wrong when explaining the effect of what he is proposing. He may have some other argument up his sleeve, but we need to hear it. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.31) —If the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) says that the amendment is wrong, does he not agree-my reading of the report likewise leaves the situation open-that if a person starts to write numbers but then loses interest and writes 5s, for example, in the rest of the squares, under the Government's proposal he has put numbers in not less than 90 per cent of the squares? They are not consequential numbers; they do not indicate a preference. There is confusion both in the report and in the provision. If the Attorney-General is not satisfied that the Opposition amendment picks up the problem entirely, what should be done? Surely what the Attorney-General is proposing to leave in the Bill has a great deal of obscurity. A vote might contain any old numbers. Someone might lose interest and write 5,000 or jumble numbers around with no sequence at all. I have seen ballots like that where people have lost interest. If 90 per cent of squares have numbers in them-any old numbers; not numbers which indicate a preference-is there not in the existing clause a problem which requires a more constructive attitude? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.33) —It might be appropriate to give a little of the history of this area for Senator Baume and Senator Missen. If they are asking who is responsible for the Government's scheme, the author is sitting immediately to Senator Missen's left. It is well known that the Australian Labor Party has in its national platform a policy of optional preferential voting. We put it to the people at the last election. We do not hide from it even at this stage. We did not go ahead with that proposal, even though we had a majority on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and even though by far the vast majority of evidence given to the Committee was in favour of optional preferential voting, because it was indicated that three major parties, the Australian Democrats, the National Party and the Liberal Party, were afraid that we may get a system of first past the post voting through the back door. Therefore, we thrashed around for an alternative. That alternative, which was brought up by Senator Macklin, was that it will not matter so long as people make some attempt to put a number in every square. It will not matter whether they put 5,000 in three or four of the squares-at least that was our previous understanding of this proposal-but they have to be forced to make the effort; so that we do not get first past the post voting through the back door. It is very difficult. We do not know whether the major informality occurs by jumping-that is, leaving out a number-or by duplication. My experience from three or four Senate scrutinies is that duplication is by far the biggest problem. We know that 77 per cent of informal voters have attempted at least to put the figure 1 in a square. If Senator Missen looks at the 1983 study he will see, in descending order, where the mistakes occur. About 10 per cent occur after No. 1. In the rest of the cases, it is about 2 per cent all the way down; 2 per cent made a mistake at No. 27 and 2 per cent made a mistake at No. 45. Senator Missen —When they switch from one group to another? Senator ROBERT RAY —Probably from one group to another, although surprisingly it does not jump much. We have those problems. The Government intended in its proposal to introduce a vague form of optional preferential voting which would not lead to first past the post voting. We have tried to accommodate the groups on the other side, in spite of the fact that optional preferential voting is written in our platform and is in our policy and that we had a majority on the Committee. We did not use the majority on the Committee in an absolute vote, except on one occasion. I doubt that what Senator Baume is suggesting would really help in reducing informality for those who, other than in list voting, exercise their normal rights. What Senator Macklin is suggesting would assist. I still oppose it, but the Government intends, I think, to accept it. I may say more about that when it comes up. Senator Evans is absolutely right when he points out that the Liberals ' suggestion would lead to informal voting where numbers are duplicated. The Liberal proposal is an improvement on the present situation. All I can say is that there is a lot of room for improvement. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.35) —I feel a bit like what often happens when one is talking about a car crash. When the witnesses are asked what happened they talk about something quite different. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, in its discussions on a Senate ballot paper, for the purposes of example tended to concentrate on the New South Wales ballot paper which traditionally tends to be of enormous length. I think there was agreement that if a person made a genuine attempt to go right the way through the ballot paper but inadvertently left some blanks or inadvertently doubled up somewhere along the line, it was unfair to penalise that person and declare that vote invalid. We then sought a method of overcoming the problem. A couple of proposals that I originally floated and which got refined in the Committee discussions, as I understand it, were that if it could be judged that a person had made a valid attempt-we thought by that that if a person had basically numbered the ballot paper consecutively, but had doubled up somewhere along the line or had skipped over a small team because that small team had been drawn between two larger teams; those types of fairly normal occurrences which happen to people when filling out forms-then we should try to accommodate that in the legislation. The Government's legislation, as it stands, conforms in some way with State Acts, particularly South Australian and New South Wales Acts. It seems to me that the legislation goes too far for the very reasons that Senator Missen raised. If a person placed a figure 1 and then put a whole series of 2s he could , in fact, subvert the legislation in that way. I have a later amendment which, if we leave that clause as it is, might still overcome the problem. The intent of the later amendment is not to allow a person to advertise in any way or for any person to do that type of thing. The only instructions that are able to be given are to tell a person to fill out the ballot paper in sequence right the way through. I think the Liberal Party amendment goes too far in the other direction. That is how I read the first section. I must say that I agree with the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) that it would not allow one to do anything more than miss some numbers. I do not think that was the intent of the Committee. I think the Committee was suggesting that a person could leave some blanks and double up. Senator Missen —Could you remove the comma from the amendment? Senator MACKLIN —I am not a lawyer, I am sorry. I am relying on the fact that the propositions that I put to the draftsman accommodate what I understood the Committee was suggesting. I foreshadowed that I will move amendments if the Liberal amendments are lost. I admit the point that Senator Baume raised that there is an arbitrariness about the number that one uses. Unfortunately, I think we are stuck with that. I could not think of any other way of trying to accommodate what the Committee was talking about. Senator Peter Baume —It was only for a small ballot paper. Senator MACKLIN —I have similar feelings about the small ballot paper. I was trying to go some way towards what the Government was attempting. I was trying to find a middle path between shoals in this case. My hope is that this amendment, coupled with a later amendment which I intend to move, will mean that there will not be any advertising, no promotions and nobody will be able to go around canvassing the proposition that this is what people ought to do. The only thing that people will be allowed to canvass will be the instructions contained on the ballot paper-that is, if one uses the second part of the ballot paper one must go from No. 1 right through to the end in consecutive numbers. That seems to be fair. I would have thought that with that conjunction of points no one would be in the position of being disadvantaged. I do not think that we will find any significant problems with the system. I say that, I suppose, as a matter of faith, because with the substantial changes that are now occurring it is a little difficult to know precisely what might happen. I could not see myself accepting the Liberal amendment, because it seems to cut out any chance of doubling up numbers and I thought that was what the Committee finally resolved, following discussion, ought to be allowed. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(10.40) —Unfortunately, I think the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform has come down with a recommendation that I consider to be still too complicated. I would have liked to see a system such as the system for the New South Wales Legislative Council. Very briefly, if a person marks on a ballot paper 1, 2, 3 and 4, 4, 4, or whatever, the vote is counted up to the point where the mistake is made. The most common mistake that scrutineers find in Senate elections is not leaving out a number but a duplication of numbers. One of the most common mistakes that has been reported to me and that I have seen seems to occur between numbers 28 and 29. I have not been able to prove why but I have come up with a theory-that exhaustion is beginning to set in and the number 9 as it is printed on the Senate ballot paper is not the way that 99 per cent of the Australian people write it. When they are filling out their ballot papers they try to copy the printed 9, and it can look very much like an 8. This is where all the scrutineers say that many of the arguments start. I hope that the Commonwealth electoral officials will be able to look at the way the 9 is printed and perhaps print it in the way that most people in Australia write it. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.42) —It is quite clear that the amendment which we have moved will not attract sufficient support. Procedurally, it may be better if I seek leave to withdraw the amendment and thus allow the Australian Democrats' amendment to proceed. That may be the neatest way procedurally. Many of our amendments following this are consequential. One of the amendments we are proposing seeks to achieve precisely what Senator Sibraa thinks is necessary. It proposes that where people have doubled up on numbers preferences will be counted up to that point. I hope that that principle can be accepted and incorporated. Leave granted; amendment withdrawn. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.43) — by leave-I move: (25) Page 126, clause 103, lines 7 to 13, leave out proposed paragraph 133B (1) (b), insert the following paragraph: ''(b) has- (i) in a case where there are more than 9 candidates in the election -in not less than 90% of the squares opposite to the names of candidates, numbers in a sequence of consecutive numbers commencing with the number 1 or numbers that with changes to no more than 3 of them would be in such a sequence; or (ii) in any other case-in all the squares opposite to the names of candidates or in all those squares except one square that is left blank, numbers in a sequence of consecutive numbers commencing with the number 1 or numbers that with changes to no more than 2 of them would be in such a sequence; and''. (26) Page 126, clause 103, lines 19 to 27, leave out proposed paragraphs 133B ( 1) (f) and (g), insert the following paragraphs: ''(f) where numbers in squares opposite to the names of candidates are in a sequence of consecutive numbers commencing with the number 1-the voter shall be taken to have expressed a preference by the other number, or to have expressed preferences by the other numbers, in that sequence; and ''(g) the voter shall not be taken to have expressed any other preference.''. (27) Page 126, clause 103, lines 39 to 43 and page 127, clause 103, lines 1 to 4, leave out proposed paragraphs 133B (2) (f) and (g), insert the following paragraphs and sub-section: ''(f) where numbers in squares opposite to the names of candidates are in a sequence of consecutive numbers commencing with the number 1-the voter shall be taken to have expressed a preference by the other number, or to have expressed preferences by the other numbers, in that sequence; and ''(g) the voter shall not be taken to have expressed any other preference. ''(3) In considering, for the purposes of sub-section (1) or (2), whether numbers are in a sequence of consecutive numbers, any number that is repeated shall be disregarded.''. I will not go through the amendments again, as I have already spoken to them. Basically, they allow two things to occur: The 90 per cent provision to be retained, as in the Government's original proposition, so that we can have 10 per cent blank for those tickets which are over nine and also they would allow no more than three numbers to get out of sequence. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.44) —Whilst the Government accepts these amendments, I express some disappointment that we could not come to this agreement on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and probably saved ourselves some drafting time and other time. There may well have been some confusion in each person's mind as to what the final agreement was. Whilst I am not critical of members of the secretariat, it did not always get the finer points of our negotiation down. Whilst we were all quite certain of what they were, they were not. I point out some of the problems in relation to informal votes. I will be very quick. Let us take the electorate of Lalor, a western suburban seat in Melbourne . In the Senate election in 1983 13,749 people voted informally in that electorate. Of those, 958 left blank ballot papers, 224 used lines or scribble, and 848 used symbols, that is, ticks or crosses. So that is probably not such a major problem in terms of the future. When we come to ballot papers with incorrect numerical sequence-that is, either a break in sequence or a duplication of numbers-8,659 people made such mistakes. The number who left ballot papers with more than one square blank totalled 2,947. So we can see that of the 13,000 informal votes in an electorate such as Lalor probably 10,000 could be fixed up by this legislation. The effect of the Australian Democrats amendment would be that not all those 10,000 votes I mentioned would be included , but we suspect from talking to scrutineers and people with a fair degree of experience in these matters, that some 80 per cent of the people whose votes are excluded for those reasons now would be picked up by Senator Macklin's amendment . I am disappointed, though, that it will not pick up the other 20 per cent. To conclude, when we look at where those 13,000 people in the Lalor electorate made their mistakes, some 18 per cent made a mistake at or just after No. 1. Then the figures go right through. For instance, I think there were 49 candidates on the ballot paper and at No. 10, 1.8 per cent made their mistake; at No. 20, 1.71 per cent; at No. 30, 0.95 per cent; and at No. 40, 1.7 per cent. So the effect of this legislation, as amended by the Democrats, would be to include a lot of those votes. I think it is ridiculous to exclude people's votes when they start to make mistakes at No. 40 or 45. They have obviously made a major effort to get that far. I again note that I still, in my own heart, prefer the drafting of the legislation as it exists, but I recognise the realities of this chamber and I think Senator Macklin's amendment is 80 per cent better than what we have at the moment. As such, we will accept it. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.47) —Mr Chairman, the Opposition has a desire to support Senator Macklin's amendments. I would like Senator Macklin to explain, just to make it quite clear, his drafting of amendments Nos 26 and 27. What exactly will the effect be for people who have repeated numbers? Can the honourable senator take us through the reasons he has redrawn these clauses so that we know exactly what is involved? Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.48) —Basically, the effect of amendments Nos 26 and 27 is to do what Senator Baume proposed with his additional amendments; that is, the ballot will be counted as valid up to the point where the duplication in numbers occurs. It will not be counted beyond that point. It will become an exhausted vote at that stage. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.48) —I seek some clarification. The honourable senator refers to a sequence of consecutive numbers. Should I read that to mean that where duplication of numbers occurs, they cease to be in a sequence of consecutive numbers? It does not actually say they will not be counted past that point. Senator Missen —They will not be; past that point they will make up the 90 per cent. Senator Macklin —Yes. Senator PETER BAUME —As long as that is clear. It may be unnecessary for us to move any of the other amendments. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.49) —I overlooked one matter. One problem with Senator Macklin's amendment is that it says that three mistakes can be made. The only time I have been sorry that Senator Macklin is a short term senator is now because I would have loved him to be scrutineering after the next Senate election. The argument as to what constitutes three mistakes will take days, even months, and those scrutineers with the loudest voices, the strongest logic and the most persuasion will have greatest effect on the Returning Officer. I wish them luck. I hope at some stage Senator Macklin gets a long term so that he can go off and scrutineer, because the arguments will be immense. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.50) —As I indicated earlier, the Government has a healthy sense of the reality on this particular matter and acknowledges that Senator Macklin's amendment will be passed. But it is not at all enthusiastic about it and would prefer its original proposal, not least because it seems that the only significant or serious objection that has been made to the original Government proposal is Senator Missen's notion that there are out there a whole stack of eccentric numerologists who have a passion for writing long strings of the same number, or bizarre combination of numbers, in order to fill in their ballot papers. I listened to Senator Ray describe the nature of the problems that emerged in law and the category of eccentric numerologist did not seem to feature prominently among them. It may be that Senator Ray will be able to tell us how many such people are in practice at the moment. Remembering that no encouragement will be given to people to fill in their ballot paper in that particular way in the future, Senator Missen is really talking about a bizarre fringe phenomenon and elevating that to something which will undermine the credibility of the Government's original proposal. The Government's position is that that kind of argument is simply not good enough. I hope, but do not expect, Senator Macklin to have a last minute change of heart and to acknowledge the force of this particular proposal. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 104. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.52) — I understand that an amendment to this clause will be moved. The CHAIRMAN —I have not seen an amendment to clause 104. Senator HARRADINE —It concerns the Senate ballot paper deemed to be marked according to the group voting ticket. A consequential amendment will come forward on that clause. I suggest that the clause be postponed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.53) —It is accepted that there be a postponement of the clause. Clause 104 postponed. Clause 105 (Scrutiny of votes in Senate elections). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.54) —I move: (28) Page 128, clause 105, after paragraph (b) insert the following paragraphs: '' (ba) by omitting from paragraph (1) (d) all the words after 'ballot-papers'; '' (bb) by omitting from paragraph (1) (h) all the words after 'sub-section';''. Amendment No. (28) poses a nice esoteric problem, in that it seems that things that were going to occur, would have occurred. We have to refer to the original Act on this matter. The original section 135 (1) (d) has within it certain operations that are required. Basically my amendment achieves consistency between the actions taken in regard to recording votes in the Senate elections and those which the Act has now adopted in relation to the House of Representatives. In the original Act, copies of writs were sent out to each divisional returning officer, the votes were recorded on the copies of the writs and these were returned to a central recording point. Under the proposed amendments to clause 106 of this Bill, section 136 of the principal Act will be amended so that with regard to the House of Representatives divisional officers will transmit statements to the central point, rather than writing on copies of the writs. It would seem to me to be a matter of consistency that the similar procedure ought to take place in relation to the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.55) —The Government accepts the Democrat amendment. Amendment agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.56) — by leave-I move: (29) Page 130, clause 105, after proposed sub-section 135 (15) insert the following sub-section: '' '(15A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, where, on the completion of a transfer of votes under this section, the number of continuing candidates is equal to the number of remaining unfilled vacancies, those candidates shall be elected.''. (30) Page 132, clause 105, lines 28 to 37, leave out proposed sub-section 135 ( 24). We are into an extremely technical area. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform had some very interesting submissions in relation to improving the method of counting Senate ballot papers. I think it might be admitted by everybody that it is a difficult area and therefore one is not surprised to find problems that may occur. Two possible results may arise out of clause 105 as it now stands-that is, too many people could be elected or too few people, depending on the circumstances. We hope that this clause will be subjected to pretty thorough analysis before we get anywhere near the next Senate election. I must admit that I am not at all confident that what we have here will not raise further problems the more we look at it. I will give an example, particularly in relation to the important sub-section that I wish to leave out, and that is proposed sub-section 135 (24). Unfortunately it is a technical example, but I think when we get to the end of it we will see the result could be devastating if the sub-section were put into practice. If we consider an election to fill seven seats, which we will have at the next half Senate election-if we have one-with three million formal votes, the quota will be 375,001 votes. Suppose six vacancies are filled and that 50 of the ballot papers of one of the candidates-who has 375,101 first preferences, that is, a surplus of 100-on which he has first preference have been exhausted, and we have been through the fact that some votes can now be exhausted, the transfer value of each of his 375,101 papers will then be calculated. If we add the exhausted votes we work out that the figure will be 0.013 of a vote, and that of course under the Commonwealth Electoral Act must be discarded. The six quotas each have 375,001 and six candidates have been elected which means we have got rid of 2,250,006 of the original votes leaving the magic number of 749, 994 votes. When this is actually worked out it means that on the decreasing quota, which is contained in sub-section 135 (24), we would have got to the position that the votes remaining for the continuing candidates-that is the number I have just mentioned-would amount to more than two quotas, although there is only one remaining vacancy. If people contemplate us getting to that situation we would then presumably have to have a new election because we would then have the very real possibility of two people getting quotas out of the remaining votes left for one position. It is completely unacceptable that even that theoretical position should be contained within the Act. I am working on only 50 exhausted votes, which I believe would be a very small number of votes for the last position. If one started taking them up-do not forget that we are allowing three mistakes-the number of exhausted votes could be much higher and the higher the number gets the more likely is the occurrence, under the decreasing quota, of getting to this very point. Senator Peter Baume —There are 50 out of 100 surpluses. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. Senator Robert Ray —That is a very high number. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. I have obviously constructed my example to get us to a position in which we could have that. It is a theoretical example and we cannot contain in the Act even the theoretical possibility of having a Senate election declared invalid because of the decrease in quotas. I propose that we eliminate that although I must admit that my preference, in terms of strict public relations, is that we do have it. However, because of other factors in this clause we would run into enormous problems. If we delete sections 24 and 29 and add the effect of that action to section 105, we will get to the end of the counting and have the possibility of not having a remaining quota. That matter is dealt with in the legislation. The person with the highest residual number of votes would be the person who would be elected. That does not seem to be any real problem; it will resolve itself. Probably the only problem with aesthetics is that that person would not get a quota in the same way as the first six would get a quota. However, I do not think that anybody is going to get upset about that particularly if he or she manages to get a seat. Senator Sibraa —There will be some without a quota. Senator MACKLIN —A person will not get a quota because there is the possibility of there not being a quota left. That is unlikely but under those circumstances it must always be held to be a theoretical possibility. I believe that that would be a better way to go rather than to leave the theoretical possibility of this having the opposite effect which would declare an election invalid. Going the way I am suggesting will mean that we will not have that invalidity. But I still wish to raise the point about the whole section. I hope we can have a thorough analysis of it before we get anywhere near another Senate election because I am still quite worried that it may contain problems similar to the one I am raising now. In the amount of time that I have had to analyse that section I admit I have not had time to work through other scenarios that may be contained within it. It is very important that we make sure that any Bill that we pass does not contain the seeds of our own destruction. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(11.03) —I was not going to enter into this debate but I agree with Senator Macklin about the point that he raises. I do not see any problem in a person arriving in this place not having quite achieved a quota because inevitably he will have a majority of votes over his closest opponent. I sympathise with Senator Macklin in not being able to work through all the scenarios of possible problems under the new voting system. I have not had time to do that either. However, we must inform the public that we have closed many other loopholes by adopting the Gregory transfer method of voting. We have closed many of the problems raised by academics. I think we will have to give some consideration to making sure the whole system works. If it does not, the only good news I can give to Senator Macklin is that I am sure we can fix up any of the minor points in an amendment to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.04) —I appreciate what has been said. I have the same general feeling that one has to be quite certain that all loopholes are fixed up. I think that was partly brought to my attention in a detailed submission by the Proportional Representation Society of Australia which was incorporated in Hansard in my speech at the second reading stage. I believe it was excellent, helpful material. It pointed out what problems could arise. I hope that the solution Senator Macklin has found is a sound one. It seems to be so and I hope it will be acceptable. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 106 to 108-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 109 (Re-count of Senate votes to determine order of election in other circumstances). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.05) —I move: (31) Pages 134, clause 109, lines 23 and 24, leave out, ''as if in sub-section 135 (6) 'half' were inserted before 'the number of candidates' '', insert: ''as if- (a) in sub-section 135 (6) 'half' were inserted before 'the number of candidates'; and (b) the only names of candidates appearing on the ballot-papers were the names of the candidates elected at the election and the numbers I must admit that the Australian Democrats do not agree with the operation proposed here but the reality is that it will stay in the legislation so I believe that it should be done correctly. Effectively, the purpose of my amendment is to eliminate what might end up being an awful embarrassment. Again, the possibility of it occurring is remote. I accept that, but we do not want the povision left as it it. Basically, it presents something very similar to what is known as the Alabama paradox. Following many discussions in the United States, designed to work out the number of House of Representatives seats, it became possible by alighting on certain numbers, to effect a total increase in House numbers but actually a decrease in the allocations of certain States. That may seem odd but it is a matter of the way in which the quotas operate. In a celebrated example, there was only one point involved in increasing the numbers for a particular State, and I think the example is worth mentioning. Senator Sibraa —It will be interesting if the Tasmanians come into this. Senator Peter Baume —We are interested in this. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, we may find ourselves in an interesting State debate. In relation to Colorado there was one instance only in which, if the number of seats in the House of Representatives were to be increased to a figure between 350 and 400-the range that was being looked at-the number of seats from that State would decrease from three to two, as had been the case with a total of 350 House seats. The number which, if chosen, would have that result, was 357. One should not be surprised that the number which was actually moved by the Government was 357. That was a particular problem for Colorado because it had a populist government at the time. The party was not represented in the House of Representatives but was represented in the State. It got it in the neck. It is an intriguing situation. Senator Gareth Evans —Why is it called the Alabama paradox? Senator Sibraa —They probably thought of it first. Senator MACKLIN —Alabama certainly thought of it first; the problem arose first there, but the process has been used all the way through. I gave the Colorado example because it was much more specific. With Alabama it never came about because the Alabama people were sufficiently strong to avoid that. Senator Gareth Evans —Another triumph for populism. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, but a defeat for populism in Colorado. What we have here is the proposal that after a double dissolution the ballots will be recounted as if there were only five to be elected. In respect of those five-presumably later when the Senate reassembles and, under its constitutional prerogative, works out which group of senators is to be long term; that is not stated in the legislation but I presume it is the only reason the provision is there-the process could be used, presumably with the support of the majority of the day, in preference to that currently used, to work out who would be long term senators and who would be short term senators. Of course, it is aimed specifically at Australian Democrats and other minor parties and I accept that that is so-which is why, in fact, it will go through. But in those circumstances I believe we ought to get it right. What the Government has managed to do here, in the way in which it is written, is create a situation in which a person who was not elected to the group of 10 could suddenly pop up in the group of five. Presumably that is not what the Government intended because the person who might pop up in the group of five might be another Australian Democrat candidate and I could not imagine that the Government would like that. I presume that what it is trying to do-and my amendment will achieve it-is to ensure that the only names that appear on the ballot paper will be those of candidates who have been elected. The numbers are thereby decreased. The 10 who are elected are the only ones who are actually used for the purposes of recalculation. Therefore, one eliminates the problem that could occur that I have just raised. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(11.11) — Some of the reasoning that Senator Macklin has used I have seen occur. When the Australian Labor Party in Victoria first went to proportional representation we used the same votes to elect people to a State council and a State conference. It was then possible to get different results, using the differing quotas, with the same votes. Someone who was elected to the major body, that is, the smaller quota, missed out on the larger quota. I saw this happen in 1971. The reason this provision is in the Act is not necessarily just to dish the Australian Democrats. Senator Macklin —Not necessarily. Senator ROBERT RAY —Not necessarily. I think we would all agree that the current provision in the Constitution at the moment in regard to who are long term senators and who are short term senators is unsatisfactory. The tradition has been that the first five elected-honourable senators should note the words 'the first five elected'-in fact become the long term senators. This was fairly easy to establish when we had bloc voting, but once we moved to a proportional representation system in 1949 the first elected had a special connotation in regard to the proportional representation. We have a situation at the moment, after a double dissolution, where a Democrat can get 9.2 per cent of the vote and get a long term. Yet a major party can get 44 per cent of the vote and get only two long term senators. Clearly, the third person on the list would still have a much higher residual quota left than the Democrats. It is all to do with the definition of when they get elected. What this is intended to do is to provide a guide for this chamber, if it wishes to use it, to determine who are short term senators and who are long term senators. I would think it is a guide which, if we set it up in advance and we could all agree to it in advance, we should use. Think of the other difficult problem when a party wins 33 seats in the Senate after a double dissolution. In spite of the argument put forward the other day it is possible, with 53 per cent of the quota needed for a 7:5 result, for a party to win 33 seats in a double dissolution. What that party could do now with no guidance is declare virtually all its senators long term senators and all Opposition senators short term senators. This means that, at the next half Senate election all the Opposition senators go out for election under a proportional representation system or most of the Government senators remain behind. None of us ever wants to see that situation happen. It will never happen while there is a minority balance of power in this chamber. But if we can agree, at least in an ethical way, that it is a fairer system to have the half Senate quotas applied to a double dissolution vote to determine who is short term and who is long term then we will get to a situation where that pattern continues and this Senate does not have to use political interference. Senator Missen —That problem is covered if the Constitution referendum question on this aspect is carried, is it not? There is a provision in that. Senator ROBERT RAY —A rotation of senators? Senator Missen —Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY —I am not sure of that. Certainly that dovetails in with this provision. This provision does not inevitably do the Democrats in the neck. Let us have a look at the circumstances which the honourable senator is talking about in regard to the last double dissolution. I think Senator Haines drew 12 per cent of the vote is South Australia as long term. Senator Chipp drew 12 per cent of the vote in Victoria. If we look at the dichotomy between the Labor and Liberal votes, had we applied this method both those senators would get long terms. It is only in those rare circumstances, about which I have talked, where a Democrat may get 9.3, 9.6, or up to 10 per cent only and is declared elected where he or she will miss out in the long term. But I think that is fair enough; I really do. The Democrats might say that that is not fair, that generally the political system does not help them. But I am sure that Senator Macklin has expressed to me on other occasions the fairness of this proposal looked at without self-interest on the part of the Democrats. I do not want to go into the complexities of the Alabama paradox; I will leave that to the Parliament. It is a little too technical for me. I just want to say that the point Senator Macklin has made is right. It is possible for someone not elected in the 10 after a double dissolution suddenly to find himself or herself elected in the five. I dare say that if we continue with this Bill, unamended-if Senator Macklin's amendment is not carried-there is a one in a hundred chance that within the next 20,000 years this problem will crop up, and I think that would be a terrible thing! Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.15) —Lest it be thought that by agreeing to this provision the Committee in fact is laying down the principles which will guide the Senate in meeting its constitutional responsibility when the time arises, I wish to make it very clear that the amendment contained in the Bill, and of course Senator Macklin's amendment to that amendment, are unnecessary. At the appropriate time for the Senate to declare who are the long term senators and who are short term senators, once the Senate convenes after a double dissolution , it could ask the Australian Electoral Office to undertake a recount on the basis of a half Senate election. There is no problem about that. I do not want to delay consideration of this, but I just make the point that I do not wish the acceptance of these amendments to be regarded as an endorsement of the view that the Senate, when it comes to give its consideration to this at some future time, adopts this proposal. This is merely an aid to the Senate when it comes to considering this. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 110 to 112-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 113. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.18) —The Opposition has already, during the second reading debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill and at other times, made clear its opposition to the concept of election funding and financial disclosure, the subject of proposed new Part XVI contained in clause 113 of this Bill. We do not intend to reiterate all the arguments which have been put. They are known to the Committee from the debates in the Senate. We believe there are objections to the road down which the Government is taking us. We think it is an undesirable course and we are opposed to it in concept. However, I seek leave to move together amendments (19), (20) and (21) to clause 113, if that meets the convenience of the Committee. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I move: (19) Page 143, clause 113, proposed new sub-section 153D (1), at end of sub- section, add 'of three-quarters of the amount of the sum payable and shall make payment to the candidate upon whose votes the amount is payable, one-quarter of the sum'. (20) Page 146, clause 113, proposed new sub-sections 153J (5) and (6), leave out '$1,000' (wherever occurring), insert '$2,000'. (21) Page 146, clause 113, proposed new sub-sections 153J (5) and (6), leave out '$200' (twice occurring), insert '$400'. Speaking briefly to amendment (19), I think this was argued in another place but I go back to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and look with interest at page 148 and the view expressed in paragraph 9.8, where it is stated that the Australian Labor Party considered that if funding were to be made available one-fifth of the amount made available, I take it for House of Representatives campaigns, should be made available for constituency campaigns. That is reported in the Joint Select Committee report. The amendment which we are moving seeks to make a proportion of the money available for constituency campaigns. The second and third amendments which we are moving merely indicate our view that some of the amounts which are set out in the provisions of this section are unduly small. We think that to be reasonable the amounts which we are suggesting-that is, $1,000-should become $2,000 and $200 should become $400 are reasonable and appropriate. We submit the amendments for the consideration of the Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.21) —The Government opposes these amendments for reasons that are so familiar as to not bear repetition. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.22) — The Australian Democrats will be opposing these three amendments. The first amendment, we believe, will take us back to the problems in New South Wales under public funding. The system that the Government has proposed is really the simplest and cleanest method which one could go for. I believe that the distribution of money within a political party is a matter for the political party. I would have thought that the Liberal Party of Australia may very well support the notion that the less interference from government as to how the political parties run their shows the better, quite frankly. I think that it is a lot better for accountability purposes that there is one central point and there is not accountability going right the way across the board. It is much easier, from the point of view of the Executive's responsibility for accountability of public moneys, that the simplest and most direct system be used to allow the political parties to light how they distribute the money within those parties. That is their business, not the business of government. I oppose the first amendment. The Australian Democrats position is well known on the other two amendments. We would not mind going back the other way. We obviously cannot accept the increased amounts proposed by the Liberal Party. Amendments negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.23) —I want to raise a couple of points, which I will ask the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to clarify. I refer him to page 139, proposed new section 151 under the heading 'Interpretation.' The House of Representatives made an amendment to that proposed new section 151 which added the following words: . . . (whether or not incurred during the election period). Can the Attorney-General say whether moneys spent on a campaign manager for the three or four years, whatever it might be, preceding an election, would be an amount of money which would be deemed, under the Act, to have been incurred for election purposes? Secondly, can the Attorney say whether any appeals which may be necessary for a candidate to launch an election might be deemed to be an election expenditure although they would have been incurred after the campaign had finished? Thirdly, in the contesting of by elections in other areas-whether elections or by-elections for State or Assembly elections-could it be argued that the party is appearing in those elections for the purposes of maintaining its position within the electorate and not with a view or with a possibility of winning? Here I would allude, in the majority of cases to ourselves, but it also would apply in safe seats to both Labor and Liberal parties. Are these expenditures deemed to be election expenditures? Fourthly, advertisements and other procedures which might be said to be used by way of a mini-campaign that a party may launch for raising their image within the community with a view to an election which may occur in the next year or year after, could that also be said to be expenditure on the subsequent election? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.24) —Give me a break, Mr Chairman. That is the fourth question in a row. I will do a ventriloquist number , if I may. As I understand it, the first question was whether there could be any expenditure pursuant to this proposed new section in the three or four years , as the case may be, running up to an election campaign. The answer is yes. I presume that follows from the words in brackets in proposed new section 151 (1)- 'whether or not incurred during the election period'. It is so necessarily incidental to the conduct of the campaign that it would appear to be clearly caught by that provision. Senator Peter Baume —Then what restrictions are there? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Electoral Commission has to be satisfied that the claimed expense has been incurred in connection with the election as in the case of a direct nexus in the appointment of a campaign manager over a period, provided it could be established that that campaign manager was not just engaged in ordinary party organisation. It does not necessarily follow that the whole of the salary of someone who described himself as a campaign manager would be picked up in that way. Some notional proportion may be covered. The case would have to be argued out on the facts but there is no reason in law why something-I understood this to be the point of the question-which is not related temporarily to the election should be excluded. I think the second question related to appeals for funds after the election. The advice I am getting relates to court costs but I think Senator Macklin was talking about appeals for funds. Senator Macklin —No, appeals to a court of disputed returns in relation to an election result, because it would appear after a campaign was finished. Senator GARETH EVANS —Does the honourable senator wish to know whether this would count as expenditure? Senator Macklin —Yes. Senator GARETH EVANS —We cannot see why that would not count as election-related expenditure. It would be connected with the election. Again, there might be some arguments about the facts of any particular case but in principle there would appear to be no reason for exclusion. Senator Haines —What about the cost of premises? All parties run their State offices. Senator GARETH EVANS —In short, no. The third question, as I understood it, related to a party keeping its profile in the electorate in the context of fielding candidates for something other than a Federal election. I think the honourable senator is stretching a bit of a long bow there. I think the answer is no. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.27) —I wish just to clarify that point. I raised it because in New South Wales, as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will remember or doubtless will have been informed, our candidate who was successful in the upper House was able to have counted in her election expenditure the expenses which were incurred for lower House candidates, the argument being-and it was accepted by the funding commission in New South Wales- that those candidates stood as part of the campaign to have her elected. It is a similar proposition that I am talking about. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.28) —Senator Macklin is welcome to put that sort of argument to the Electoral Commission. I wish him the best of British luck but I would not bet my shirt on the result. The fourth proposition that he advanced was in the context of advertisements for something he described as a mini-campaign between elections. Again, it would appear that, provided some kind of nexus could be established between what a party was doing then and the next election, there would be no difficulty. If it were a matter of perhaps, a government party wanting to compaign on some particular policy issue, be it Medicare or something else, in order to keep its stocks alive with the electorate, there might be more difficulty about accepting that. Again, I think it would be squarely a matter for the Commission to determine in each case whether there was a sufficient nexus. There would be no reason in itself that I or the Australian Electoral Office can see why that sort of expenditure would be excluded. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(11.29) —I congratulate Senator Macklin on going off on a fishing expedition. I wish to repudiate some of what the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) has said in terms of the future interpretation. We cannot expect the Attorney-General or anyone else to make such judgments. We do not set up the Electoral Commission and then tell it what to do. The Electoral Commission will read the Act and then make its interpretation. No doubt all parties will make submissions to it. I agree with Senator Macklin. Our party would make a submission similar to his-that the expenses of, say, a campaign manager would be a legitimate claim, provided that campaign manager was not the party secretary who was just doing the normal party work. I think there will be problems with many campaigns. I would see that there would be no problems with appeals, say, to a court of disputed returns. Of course, that would be an election expense and one would hope that the Commission , by dint of argument, would accept that. I just make the point that one really cannot expect the Government to say what the interpretation will be. That is why we will have an independent Electoral Commission that will include people with broad ranging views and abilities who will come up with those conclusions. All I can say is that we hope the Commission will have similar views to some of those that have been put forward. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.31) —I am indebted to Senator Ray for the gloss on my remarks. I think it should be said that since we are in the business of creating the rules which the Electoral Commission is going to apply, it is reasonable for some request to be made for interpretation, on best available instincts, as to what the particular language before us might be construed to allow the Electoral Commission to so describe. It is in that context and that context only that I have been advancing in my ventriloquist doll fashion the interpretations in question, not because there is any shred of an intention on my part to express some interpretation by which I would want the Electoral Commission to be bound. Even on the matter that Senator Haines raised, for example, in relation to premises, it may well be that an argument could be sustained, on the language of the Act as it now stands, that a notional proportion of expenditure associated with rental for premises is campaign- directed in the same way as a notional proportion of a campaign manager. I think that argument might well be able to be put, but that is one that remains for another day. I believe the basic principle that runs through the language is sufficiently precise in stating the necessity of a nexus with the election campaign itself to be acceptable to the chamber now. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.32) — That is in fact only what I was seeking-it is the fairly obvious answer. If one in fact is voting in favour of a clause I think it is pretty useful to know what the clause means. I believe the answer that the Attorney-General has given is in line with the intended meaning of the clause. In fact, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform looked at this matter. I would certainly hope that the reassurance given by the Attorney that that is a reasonable interpretation is accepted, because if it is reasonable we would expect it to be accepted by the Electoral Commission. Clause agreed to. Clause 114. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.33) — by leave-I move: (32) Page 163, clause 114, after proposed sub-section 161 (2) insert the following sub-section: '' '(2A) A person shall not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act, print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorize to be printed, published or distributed, an advertisement, handbill, pamphlet or notice that contains a representation or purported representation of a ballot-paper for use in that election that is likely to induce an elector to mark his vote otherwise than in accordance with the directions on the ballot- paper.''. (33) Page 163, clause 114, line 14, leave out ''or (2)'', insert '', (2) or (2A )''. We have already discussed this matter. Amendment No. 33 is simply a tidying up procedure that would result from the adoption of amendment No. 32. The intent of amendment No. 32 is in fact to prevent advertisements or the canvassing of anything in relation to proposed sub-section 161 (2). The amendment seeks to prevent the printing of how to vote cards which display such things as ticks or blanks or anything of that kind. In other words, all that one would be allowed to canvass and promote would be those instructions contained on the ballot paper which explain to a voter how to indicate his preference for candidates at an election. The amendment seeks to prevent people canvassing a variety of provisions which have been included in the legislation to help decrease the number of informal votes but which should not be used around the traps for party political purposes during an election campaign. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.35) —I indicate that these amendments are acceptable to the Government. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Schedule 1. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.35) — by leave-I move: (34) Page 180, Schedule 1, proposed Form E, omit ''5'' (wherever occurring). (35) Page 180, Schedule 1, proposed Form E, proposed note commencing with ''3'' , leave out ''and candidates grouped together are in different parties''. (36) Page 180, Schedule 1, proposed Form E, leave out proposed note commencing with ''5''. These amendments are consequential on previous amendments that the Government has already adopted in relation to the form of the ballot paper and renumberings that are required. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.36) —The amendments are acceptable to the Government. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.36) —Schedule 1, of course, deals with the form of the ballot paper. I wonder, because of the point that was raised by Senator Missen, whether the word 'only' should be inserted in the first area on the list system. I reiterate, of course, that I am opposed to the list system but as we have it, we ought at least to ensure or try to ensure that voters looking at, say, four boxes are not thereby influenced to put something in each of those boxes, rather than put something in only one box. It is only a minor point, but Schedule 1 states: Place the single figure 1 in one of these squares to indicate the group voting ticket which you wish to adopt as your vote. I would have thought that 'Place the single figure 1 in only one of these squares', or words to that effect, should be adopted. Maybe we should postpone the consideration of this Schedule until we come up with words which could be placed on the ballot paper signifying that only one of the boxes should be marked. Perhaps the words 'only one of these boxes should be marked' could be adopted. Amendments agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.37) —The Government would accept an amendment, perhaps expressed in the form, 'one, and one only, of these squares', which is the most usual way of giving emphasis to a proposition of that kind, provided that is acceptable around the chamber. I move: In the form of the ballot paper the expression after the word 'one' add 'one, and one only'. Amendment agreed to. Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of schedules-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Committee has two postponed clauses, 82 and 104, to deal with. I have received notice of proposed amendments to clauses which have already been approved: Clauses 28, 29, 42 and 80. Of course, leave is required to have those clauses reconsidered. Postponed clause 82 (Group voting tickets to be displayed). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.39) —In respect of clause 82 , I wish to pick up the point made by Senator Sir John Carrick yesterday. I move : Page 106, clause 82, at the end of proposed section 107A, add the following sub -section: '(2) Where there are 2 or more tickets to be displayed in a poster in accordance with sub-section (1), their relative positions on that poster shall be determined by lot'. This concerns the displaying of tickets on posters in booths, as distinct from either compartments or places. As honourable members may recall, the question at issue was the order in which the registered how to vote cards would be listed. The proposal which has been circulated is one which adds the words to the effect that as a requirement they 'should be determined by lot'. New sub-clause (2) reads as follows: Where there are 2 or more tickets to be displayed in a poster in accordance with sub-section (1), their relative positions on that poster should be determined by lot. That seemed to meet universal acceptance around the chamber and this proposal is just accomplishing the drafting necessary for the Bill. Amendment agreed to. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.41) — The list of amendments circulated in my name contains an amendment to clause 82, which is really consequential on the substantive amendment to clause 80 which states: (5) Page 106, clause 82, line 32, insert 'or 3' after '2'. That is consequential on a more substantial amendment to clause 80. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.42) —I move: That consideration of clause 82 be postponed until after reconsideration of clause 80. Clause postponed. Postponed clause 104 (Senate ballot-papers demeed to be marked according to group voting tickets). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney General)(11.42) —I move: That consideration of clause 104 be postponed until after consideration of clause 82, and the reconsideration of clause 80. Clause postponed. Recommitted clause 28 (Compulsory enrolment and transfer). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney General)(11.43) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 58, clause 28, line 24, leave out '39B or 39C,' insert '39B, 39C or 41A'. The reason this further amendment in relation to clause 28 has been proposed is purely technical. It corrects an oversight made earlier. There is some doubt as to the effect of section 42 of the principal Act as amended by the Bill. This new amendment ensures that provisional enrolment by 17-year olds is not compulsory. Whatever the differences of opinion about how the provisional enrolment system should operate, nobody at any stage was contemplating that provisional enrolment should be compulsory. This amendment makes it absolutely clear, if it was not already, that that is the case. Accordingly, I have moved it. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Recommitted clause 29. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney General)(11.44) —by leave-I move: (2) Page 60, clause 29, line 15, leave out, 'shall not be considered'. insert, 'received'. (3) Page 60, clause 29, line 17, insert 'shall not be considered until after the expiration of that period.' after 'election'. Both amendments have been moved to correct an error in the drafting of the present Bill, which would have had the effect of disenfranchising electors. These amendments concern the consideration of claims for electoral enrolment after the rolls have closed. As the Bill is presently drafted, it provides that electoral claims shall not be considered after 6 p.m. on the day that the rolls close. This would make it impossible for the cards which are received to be processed by the Australian Electoral Office at any time after the time of actual closure. That has never been the system which operated in the past; nor was it anybody's intention to produce that result. So this amendment ensures that the present situation and the processing of claims which have been received until the point that the rolls close will continue. I commend the amendment to the Senate. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Recommitted clause 42. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.45) —by leave-I move: Page 74, clause 42, after proposed sub-section 58P (2) insert the following sub -section: '(3) A Parliamentary party shall not be de-registered under this section.' Whatever the intention was so far as the registration of party names is concerned, it was not intended that the provision should have application to a parliamentary party in existence as a going concern. Senator Harradine made the point effectively yesterday in debate and this amendment is to accommodate that entirely legitimate concern. I commend it to the Committee accordingly. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Recommitted clause 80 and postponed clauses 82 and 104-by leave-taken together. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.46) -by leave-I move: (1) Page 103, clause 80, line 18, insert ', or any of 3 orders,' after 'orders' . (2) Page 103, clause 80, line 32, insert 'or 3' after '2'. (3) Page 103, clause 80, line 33, leave out 'may be' insert 'requires'. (4) Page 103, clause 80, line 37, insert 'or 3' after '2'. (5) Page 106, clause 82, line 32, insert 'or 3' after '2'. (6) Page 127, clause 104, after proposed sub-section 134A (2) insert the following sub-section: '(2A) For the purposes of section 135 where- (a) in a Senate election a ballot-paper has, or ballot-papers have, been marked in accordance with sub-section 123 (1A) by a mark having been placed in a square printed above the names of candidates in a group; and (b) the candidates in that group have 3 group voting tickets registered for the purposes of that election, then- (c) if the number of ballot-papers is a number divisible by 3 without any remainder-one-third of the ballot-papers shall be taken to have been marked in accordance with one of the tickets, one-third of the ballot-papers shall be taken to have been marked in accordance with another one of the tickets and the other one-third in accordance with the other ticket; (d) if there is only one ballot-paper or the number of ballot-papers is a number divisible by 3 with a remainder of 1- (i) the ballot-paper or one of the ballot-papers shall be deemed to have been marked in accordance with whichever of the 3 tickets is determined by lot by the Australian Electoral Officer for the relevant State or Territory; and (ii) one-third of the remainder of the ballot-papers (if any) shall be deemed to have been marked in accordance with one of the tickets, one-third of that remainder shall be deemed to have marked in accordance with another one of the tickets and the other one-third of that remainder shall be deemed to have been marked in accordance with the other ticket; or (e) if there are 2 ballot-papers or the number of ballot-papers is a number divisible by 3 with a remainder of 2- (i) one of the ballot-papers shall be taken to have been marked in accordance with whichever of the 3 tickets is determined by lot by the Australian Electoral Officer for the relevant State or Territory; (ii) one of the ballot-papers shall be taken to have been marked in accordance with whichever of the other 2 tickets is determined by lot by the Australian Electoral Officer for the relevant State or Territory; and (iii) one-third of the remainder of the ballot-papers (if any) shall be deemed to have been marked in accordance with one of the tickets, one-third of that remainder shall be deemed to have marked in accordance with another one of the tickets and the other one-third of that remainder shall be deemed to have been marked in accordance with the other ticket.''. (7) Page 127, clause 104, line 36, insert ''or (2A), as the case requires,'' after ''2''. (8) Page 128, clause 104, line 1, insert ''or 3'' after ''2''. These amendments relate to the ability of candidates to lodge group voting tickets and, once they are lodged, to how the count will subsequently take place . At present in clause 80, proposed new section 106 (2), there is a provision for the lodgment by candidates of a statement of two orders of group voting figures. Whilst I am opposed to the list system of voting and would prefer only one voting order, I believe that, if we are to have two and are to reflect the facts of political life at this point, we need the ability to lodge three group voting tickets if that is the desire of the candidates concerned. I have discussed this with the various parties in the Senate. I do not feel it is necessary to enlarge on it. I am concerned about the possibility of legal challenge to the two or even the three group voting tickets, but I believe that three are much more preferable than two. The amendment to clause 104 relates to the method to be used by the Electoral Office to count votes after a person has opted to use the list system in accordance with the group voting tickets lodged. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.50) —I question this matter. I have grave doubts about the desirability of there being two how to vote cards because, as I understand it, the effect is the votes are then divided equally in the count. It is taken that people who are voting for the party list are voting equally for the two. With three it will be assumed, for example in the case of Senator Harradine's how to vote card, that someone's vote will go on his count and then equally to the Government, equally to the Opposition and equally to the Australian Democrats. Whether that is the intention of the vote or not is impossible to know. It seems a completely random way of allocating preferences. Senator Robert Ray —If the voter doesn't want that, he votes in the normal way. Senator MISSEN —If a person wants to, yes. But as Senator Ray has already pointed out, and we all know, most people will use the list system because it will be so convenient for them. They will not realise that, randomly, their preferences are going off to- Senator Robert Ray —Surely your advertising machine will let them know. The Liberal Party advertising or disseminating machine will let everyone know. It has done so in past elections. Senator MISSEN —That may be so, but on the other hand, what we are doing is importing a mechanical method whereby an individual's preferences, particularly in the case of the group which wins a ballot and gets on the left-hand side, will go equally to all parties. It seems to be a perfectly artificial thing and may not represent in any way the views, particularly of the person who voted in a donkey-vote way and who just picked out one. I express my concern about this system whereby it is now being extended to three and the preferences are being divided up. Senator Robert Ray —You split the donkey-vote three ways rather than one. Senator MISSEN —If a person picks out one in the list they will proceed then to have it allocated according to that party's system. I put it that this is turning into a random thing. This system is a further disadvantage of the list system, but that has been adopted. I put it that if it is extended to three different opportunities, not only does it clutter up the polling booths and confuse electors but also it means that people then find their votes are divided equally between the parties without any of their wishes being observed at all. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.52) — I agree with Senator Missen. His arguments are arguments against clause 80. I agree with him. But the Parliament will adopt the provision for the lodgment of group voting tickets. Whether there are two or three, the same argument applies. For example, in Queensland, the Australian Democrats at the last election decided to have virtually three group voting tickets handed out in two lots in various electorates. They had one for the Australian Labor Party, one for the Liberal Party and one for the National Party of Australia. Under this clause they would be restricted to two. Under those circumstances that would be discrimination against the National Party. I am not arguing the case for the National Party. I am pointing out that the arguments that Senator Missen used are arguments against the clause and I agree with him. If we are going to have two we might as well have three and face the facts of political reality. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.54) —Now that we are so close to the finishing tape-I also point out that Question Time is at 12 o'clock -I think it would be unfortunate if we got bogged down in an argument about this . I think we all appreciate some of the logistical difficulties about dealing with a three-sided or three-directioned ticket of this kind. But Senator Harradine's point is fairly unanswerable in terms of the current political reality; that there is a disposition on the part of some political groupings in this country to direct their supporters, not just two ways as between the major parties, but three ways. As Senator Sir John Carrick interjected, it may be, in principle, that that could extend to four, five or six ways. But again, taking a balanced course between the demands of strict logic on the one hand and political reality on the other, three seems a pretty fair compromise. I recommend to the Senate, accordingly, that Senator Harradine's amendments be accepted. Amendments agreed to. Clauses 80, 82 and 104, as amended, agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill agreed to with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.57) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMMISSION BILL 1983 The purpose of this Bill and the associated Australian National Railways Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill is to repeal the Australian National Railways Act 1917 and replace it with legislation appropriate to the Commission's role as a commercially oriented business undertaking operating in the 1980s. The Bill defines precisely the Commission's powers and responsibilities and enhances its opportunity to operate commercially in competitive markets. Let me make one point perfectly clear at the outset. We believe the Federal Government has a major role to play in improving the efficiency of railways in Australia's national transport system. This role has not always been recognised- the most obvious example being that as a result of parochial thinking in past years, Australia now has five separate rail systems using three different gauges . Previous Federal governments of various political persuasions have made major efforts to overcome the difficulties of this legacy by attempting to unify and standardise the national rail network. Rail's performance can, and must, be improved. This can be done by the introduction of more flexible and more commercial management and a more consistent national transport policy than in the past. The long term viability of rail systems depends not only upon adequate infrastructure but also upon effective pricing, marketing, organisation and personnel policies. With this legislation, we are providing AN with the powers to operate in this manner. Railway operations should not concentrate solely on traditional areas of business. We expect railways as dynamic organisations to be looking for new traffic to expand its business. By promoting business growth, railways can increase efficiency and productivity and help generate additional employment opportunities. An improved industrial relations environment, better management and rational investment plans will reduce transit times, improve reliability and increase the opportunity for real growth in rail business. Unfortunately, funding is simply not available to undertake all of the investment needs of railways immediately. All governments currently face extremely difficult budgetary situations. Because of this, further investment in rail programs will need to be guided by a careful and responsible assessment of priorities. A good case in point is the Darwin-Alice Springs railway. No one would deny that if resources were no object it may be desirable to construct the railway. This Government is committed to upgrading transport services to the Northern Territory and the inquiry being conducted by Mr David Hill will determine the facts on whether the rail or road option is the more economically and socially sound. Notwithstanding the current difficult economic conditions, governments are, as much as possible, pressing ahead with major railway projects. They are showing their confidence in railways' future by committing further funds for new projects which will expand the overall tasks performed by railways. With adequate investment and improved efficiency Australian Railways will play an essential role in the development of Australia for the rest of this century and beyond. It is a matter of special concern that the national rail network operates efficiently and meets national needs. In addition to infrastructure, railways must also be properly equipped with manpower and management resources and practices necessary to perform that role. A healthy working relationship between labour and management is as important for railways as it is in any industry. Co-operation and consultation are the basic working principles of this Government. Since his appointment, the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has initiated regular meetings with the unions and AN to discuss issues of mutual concern. This process of consultation and co-operation is being expanded both at Ministerial level and within AN. In this way, AN's employees have a greater opportunity to contribute to improvements in AN and to have an input into policy. The ANRC Bill has as one of its objectives the establishment of a unified organisation dedicated to operating a sound and efficient railway system. It is up to AN and its employees to grasp the chance for success and work hard to achieve it. The Government can set the climate but management and unions together must accept the challenge. In AN, the Australian Government's own railway system, these things are happening. For instance, the Commission is upgrading its marketing effort to ensure that it wins its share of the freight available, and is seeking to improve the information available to management. Honourable senators will recall that it was the previous Labor Government which began the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway, completed in 1980. The new standard gauge line between Adelaide and Crystal Brook has also commenced operating successfully, notwithstanding the overall adverse economic conditions. In the first ten months of operation, over 1.1 million tonnes of freight have been carried on the line. Work is proceeding on the Adelaide rail passenger terminal, a new interstate terminal being built as Keswick. It will commence passenger operations early next year. Along with many other transport enterprises, AN's financial performance has suffered as a result of the economic downturn and severe drought. Honourable senators will recall that on assuming office, we were told that an additional $ 34.5m was needed in 1982-83 to meet Commission losses-a 50 per cent increase over the original allocation, giving a total contribution of $106 million. I will describe later the steps we are implementing to avoid a repeat of this experience. In 1983-84, the Government is providing a revenue supplement of $85m or some $21m less than in 1982-83. The Minister for Transport has also asked the Commission to identify those services where it believes Government support should be provided to maintain these operations. Over the years it is clear that railways have undertaken tasks that they would not do if they operated solely on commercial criteria. In order that the Commission can operate efficiently in terms of both its commercial and non-commercial activities it is clear that this latter group has to be identified so that the cost can clearly be seen and taken into account. It is then for others, rather than AN, to determine whether these services should be maintained and if so, to be prepared to meet the costs associated with the provision of the services. Obviously it is incumbent upon Government to fulfil this role. In this manner AN's performance can be judged against broad commercial criteria and community services can be undertaken without detriment to the Commission's overall financial performance. This approach accords with the recommendations made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure in its 1982 report on the Australian National Railways Commission. It also accords with the Government's social audit policy in transport. As well as completion of the Adelaide-Crystal Brook project, capital works to be undertaken this year include continuation of the rehabilitation of the Tasmanian rail system, the purchase of ten new locomotives and construction of AN's new headquarters building. In total, these projects will cost $40.0m in 1983-84. Further support for AN is being provided under the Commonwealth's own share of the community employment program, CEP. All of the $1.6m allocated to AN under CEP in 1983-84 will be used to employ 130 extra people for railway and re- sleepering projects in South Australia and Western Australia. What I have described are a number of the major initiatives this Government has already taken to prepare AN for the challenge of the 1980s. The Bill now before us will provide the framework under which AN can function- as a commercially oriented transport authority. The legislation contains many provisions of an earlier Bill introduced into the House of Representatives with bipartisan support by the former Minister for Transport and Construction. I commend him for this action. Explanatory memoranda have been circulated to assist honourable senators in their consideration of the Bill. The Commission, as established under the Australian National Railways Act 1917, will continue in existence. An important feature of this Bill is that the powers of the Commission have been comprehensively defined. Ministerial intervention in day to day activities is minimised while retaining ministerial oversight in critical areas. This ensures that the Commission is provided with that necessary flexibility to operate commercially but remains properly accountable to the Parliament. Of the changes to our predecessors' Bill, the most important provisions of the legislation relate to the accountability of the Commission for attaining financial targets. We are satisfied these changes are necessary if AN is to be clearly responsible for its financial performance against defined criteria. Certain other clauses have been streamlined in order to simplify the legislation. AN's past financial performance, similar to other railway systems, leaves considerable scope for improvement. We believe that improvement will in part be achieved through greater financial accountability. As I said earlier, the Minister for Transport has asked AN to identify its community service obligations. Taking factors like these into account, AN will be provided with a revenue supplement in the Budget context. It will then be AN's responsibility to ensure that this financial target is at least achieved if not bettered. To do this the Commission will be able to be more flexible and to readily adapt to changing conditions. This Bill will ensure that the annual revenue supplement decided in the Budget becomes the level of contribution that the Government provides to the Commission for that year. But we will not be unreasonable about this. AN will be required to submit to the Minister for Transport a financial target for each year not later than 60 days before the start of that financial year. The Government will then consult with the Commission to reach a fair and just figure involving responsible use of the taxpayer's money.AN will then be responsible for reviewing at least six monthly progress towards achieving the financial target. If it is not on target AN must then determine what actions it will take to meet the financial objective by the end of the year. Notwithstanding all that this review process involves, should AN's operating results then indicate the target will not be met, the Commission will be required to inform the Minister for Transport of the measures it will take to meet this shortfall. The legislation provides that these measures cannot include further recourse to the Budget. Before implementing its proposed measures, the Commission will seek any Government approvals that might be required in the normal way. All borrowings, for example, are subject to the Treasurer's approval. The success of this approach depends largely on the ability of the Commission and the Government to consult to determine a realistic annual revenue supplement . The Government will be working with AN's Commission and staff to ensure that this is achieved. On the basis that a realistic revenue supplement is determined, AN will then have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of any improvements above that level it might achieve during the year. Clearly then the financial target will be the benchmark against which AN's performance can be judged. The division between AN's powers and responsibilities and those of the Minister for Transport are clearly distinguished in the Bill. This arrangement emphasises the need for AN to operate as a commercially oriented transport authority. The responsibility for commercial initiatives rests squarely with the Commission. AN's greater commercial freedom will be evident in relation to day to day matters such as the fixing of fares and freight rates. AN is obliged by the Bill to determine the principles which it proposes to apply in order to fix rates of charges for prescribed services. This concept was included in amendments which the Minister for Transport recently introduced to the Australian Shipping Commission Act, the ASC Act. It will provide approved parameters within which AN will be able to determine and vary fares and freight rates thus avoiding excessive Government intervention in routine operating decisions. These principles are to be determined by AN and advised to the Minister who may accept or redetermine the principles that are to form the basis of AN's charges. As indicated earlier, the Bill enables the Minister for Transport to direct the Commission to undertake non-commercial activities which may be socially desirable. If the Government requires AN to engage in particular activities for social or other reasons, then the Minister for Transport will issue a direction to the Commission. AN would then be reimbursed for any losses involved in carrying out the Minister's directions. Such directions are required to be tabled in Parliament. Although the Bill removes a number of constraints, reasonable provisions for ministerial oversight will remain. For contracts valued at more than $2m approval of the Minister for Transport will be required. The Minister for Transport intends to use the provision to vary this level by regulation to maintain the current level in real terms. Such action would, I expect, be undertaken annually. Ministerial approval must be obtained before AN takes part in the formation of companies or enters into agreements for lease financing. AN will have power to construct small extensions to its existing railway network. Previously it was necessary for all railway construction to be approved by an Act of Parliament. Under the proposed provision legislation will only be required when railways over 25 kilometres along are built. This power would allow AN to further its business interests by construction of sidings or spur lines to clients' premises. This will increase the ability of AN to compete with other transport operators. The Commission's powers relating to the operation, maintenance and construction of railways, including the right to enter and occupy land have been modernised. This is consistent with the powers provided to other statutory authorities and will help ensure that AN is able to fulfil its proper functions in a timely and efficient manner. There are some changes to the Commission itself. There will be an option for appointing the Chairman on either a part time or full time basis. The Bill also provides for a Deputy Chairman to be appointed. The statutory retiring age of 65 for part time commissioners will be removed. The rights of employees of the Commission including those transferred from the former Tasmanian Railways and South Australian Railways have not been changed. But there have been improvements in the area of personnel practices. Conditions of employment of an AN staff will no longer be determined by the Public Service Board. Ministerial approval of salaries of senior positions will not be required . Such matters are more properly a matter for the commercial judgement of AN. There are several other provisions which I would like to also briefly mention. The accident reporting provisions have been revised to specify the types of accidents that must be reported to the Minister. The Minister's power to initiate independent investigation of accidents has also been strengthened. The current legislation has a number of separate provisions covering different kinds of offences. These have been replaced by the one provision, which identifies the single serious offence of endangering the safety of the railways and provides for a substantial penalty. The Commission also has the power to make by-laws to protect railway users and property; penalties of up to $500 can be prescribed for offences. Any such by- laws will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the same manner as regulations . This Bill is not a money Bill and therefore has no direct financial impact on the Budget. The legislation is an important step in giving AN the responsibilities and powers to increase the productivity efficiency and competitiveness of its railway operations. I commend the Bill to the Senate. AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMMISSION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983 This Bill is complementary to the Australian National Railways Commission Bill 1983. Its purpose is threefold. It repeals the Australian National Railways Act 1917 with effect from the date of proclamation of the new ANRC Act. It makes necessary arrangements to ensure continuity in the Commission's operations. In particular, it continues the appointment and terms and conditions of service of the Chairman, commissioners, General Manager, officers and employees of the Commission as if the Act had not been repealed. Lastly, it changes references in other legislation where this is necessary. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Senator DURACK —I refer the Attorney-General to an interview with Mrs Joan Coxsedge on this morning's AM program in which she said that Mr Justice Hope was a totally unsatisfactory person to investigate the Australian Secret Intelligence Service incident in Melbourne because 'he has shown himself in the past to be partisan as far as secret agencies are concerned'. She further said: He certainly showed it in his questioning of the Combe/Ivanov Affair. Will the Attorney-General repudiate entirely these disgraceful allegations about a judge whom the Government has now chosen on two occasions to make specific inquiries on its behalf in relation to activities of intelligence agencies, as well as having chosen him to make the general inquiry into intelligence agencies ? Will the Attorney-General further consider whether Mrs Coxsedge in what she said is in contempt of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies and, if so, will he take appropriate action? Senator GARETH EVANS —Mrs Coxsedge's views on the subject of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and all related matters are well known. I have been bearing the brunt of them for some considerable number of years, both inside and outside the Party. I think the Australian Labor Party and this Government have a strong commitment to the tradition of robust free speech on matters of public concern and lively public interest. We have a very great reluctance to see the law of contempt being used to stifle vigorous criticism of public figures, be they judicial or otherwise. I do believe the criticism of Mr Justice Hope is wholly unjustified, but there is no way in which I personally would wish to initiate any proceedings by way of contempt so far as the particular statements reportedly made by Mrs Coxsedge are concerned. Senator BOLKUS —Has the Attorney-General seen reports that the South Australian Government has been forced, by the Liberal Opposition and the Australian Democrats in that State, to review proposals for the uniform classification of videotapes? What implications does this action have for the implementation of a national uniform classification scheme for videotapes? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Bolkus will not be surprised to hear me say that it does not help the cause of the uniform implementation of a videotape system for that aspiration to appear to have broken down in South Australia. I understand that some further consideration is being given by all the parties in South Australia to this issue and that it may be that the initial reactions that occurred in the South Australian Parliament this week will, after further reflection, not necessarily prevail. I think there has been an enormous amount of misunderstanding in South Australia as to what is proposed in the uniform classification system and in particular the supposedly voluntary character of that classification system. It is the case that under the uniform proposals that all Attorneys-General and appropriate censorship Ministers agreed to a few months ago, there is to be no compulsion so far as the classification process in concerned. However, the sanction for not seeking the classification of tapes is that under the proposed scheme of uniform legislation the vendor or hirer of such unclassified material exposes himself or herself to the full range of sanctions in the ordinary law of obscenity, or laws governing the sale, hire or display of obscene articles. If someone goes through the process of seeking a classification and then sells or hires the product in accordance with the classification, be it 'R', 'X' or whatever is given to it, that person is completely immune from prosecution. As such, there is an enormous practical incentive for persons to participate in that classification system. There is a very real sense in which it can be said that the system is not voluntary at all. When that is better understood in South Australia and the other jurisdictions which will be progressively considering this, it will be appreciated that we have here a law which does effectively strike a balance not only between the demands for free speech and free access to this material on the one hand but also the very legitimate community interest in not having put on public display matter which is manifestly offensive and regarded as obscene by significant sections of the community. Senator WATSON —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. Will the Government's request to Mr Justice Hope to inquire into the Australian Secret Intelligence Service incident at the Sheraton Hotel include the possibility of a deliberate attempt to discredit Australian's security service? Will the Government table the exact terms of its request to the Royal Commissioner? Senator GARETH EVANS —I must admit the thought did cross my mind that there may have been some infiltration of ASIS by the socialist Left as being the only possible explanation that had any rationality about it of the events of Wednesday night. I have no idea whether any attempt has been made to discredit the security organisations that may have been reflected in the course of events which Mr Justice Hope will inquire into. But I assure the honourable senator that the terms of reference of Mr Justice Hope's inquiry in this respect are undoubtedly wide enough as they presently stand to enable him to satisfy himself and, in turn I believe the Parliament, as to whether there is any justification for that kind of suspicion. Senator WATSON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Attorney- General table in the Senate the exact terms of the request to the Royal Commissioner? Senator GARETH EVANS —Since I have been so pre-occupied this morning with the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill, I have not caught up with the formal developments in this respect. As I understand it, the view has been taken by the Government that parts A and B of the existing terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies are perfectly wide enough to accommodate the inquiry in question, because Mr Justice Hope would, in the ordinary course, have been dealing with ASIS and this is obviously something within that larger frame of reference. As to the particular matters to which he was asked to address his attention, I think the answer of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, in the House of Representatives yesterday, which I read into the record in the Senate, indicates the range of matters on which Mr Justice Hope is being specifically asked to focus. But if there is any further information I can give the honourable senator, and, indeed, the Senate in this respect, if there have been any further developments this morning, I will do so as soon as possible. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the Attorney-General seen a joint media release by the Musicians' Union of Australia, Actors Equity of Australia, the Australian Record Industry Association and the Australian Book Publishers Association, welcoming his statement on a possible royalty on blank tapes? Does the Government plan to introduce such a royalty, which could help maintain employment for Australian performers and workers in the Australian record industry? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the release to which the honourable senator referred. On 11 November in a speech to the Copyright Society of Australia and the Australian Communications Law Association, I reported on the review of the Copyright Act that my Department had been carrying out. In that speech I foreshadowed the possibility of a royalty being applied to blank audio and video tapes, the amount of such royalty to be determined by the Copyright Tribunal. I also raised the possibility of increased penalties to ensure better control of the pirating of video tapes. The reaction that has been received to date to those proposals has been very favourable. When the review is completed I will assess all the responses and take into account the further matters relating to employment in the industry that Senator Zakharov has mentioned. I expect to be in a position early in 1984 to take firm proposals to Cabinet and Caucus in this respect and to prepare a Bill which will lie on the table for public comment. Senator CHIPP —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has President Reagan now decided to proceed with a space- based weapons program? Is the proposal for a satellite based system of laser weapons to cost at least $550 billion? Is the overt aim to make space the new high ground for fighting a nuclear war? Will this militarisation of space by both superpowers threaten the verification satellites which are vital to any arms control agreements? Will this increase the incentives for a first strike, making nuclear war more likely? Given Australia's links to current United States military space programs through Pine Gap and Nurrungar, has the Government been in consultation with the Reagan Administration as to this latest horrific escalation of the nuclear arms race? If so, what views has the Australian Government conveyed to America? If not, will the Government urge the United States and the Soviet Union to negotiate a comprehensive ban on all space weapons? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will refer Senator Chipp's question to the Minister. Because of its importance I will seek a very early reply and inform the Senate accordingly. Senator CHILDS —I refer the Attorney-General to the answer he gave to a question from Senator Sibraa on 29 November concerning allegations that Australian intelligence services were involved in the overthrow of the Allende Government in Chile in 1973. In that answer he stated that there was no foundation whatever to suggestions that any Australian intelligence agency was active in Chile around the time of the 1973 coup or assisted in any earlier operations directed against the Allende Government. In an article in today's National Times, Brian Toohey refers to alleged leaked material from Mr Justice Hope's report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security which the National Times published on 18 March 1981, which stated: ASIS was unaware of the help it was giving to the CIA by lending two officers to operate in Chile at the time of the destabilisation project against the democratically elected government of Salvadore Allende. I ask the Attorney-General whether, in view of this claim and of similar allegations published in the Sydney Morning Herald around 1975, he is prepared to give a categorical assurance that neither the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service nor any other Australian intelligence agency or operative of any such agency was involved in activities directed against or aimed at destabilising the Allende Government at any time during the tenure of that Government. Senator GARETH EVANS —In the answer to which Senator Childs refers I chose my words very carefully, and I do not wish to modify those words in any way at all in the light of anything that may have been written by Mr Brian Toohey or for that matter anybody else. I indicated in the course of that answer that I would have no further comment or amplification to make at any time, either inside or outside the Parliament, about the terms of that answer, and I stick to that commitment today. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I noted Mr Hayden's statement that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service exercise 'took place without my knowledge'. I ask the Attorney-General: When did Mr Hayden first learn of the incident and when did the Department of Foreign Affairs first try to contact Mr Hayden about this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —I recall Mr Hayden saying yesterday that he first learnt about this matter when the Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, rang him early yesterday morning-10 past eight was the time mentioned. I do not know when he was first contacted by the Department of Foreign Affairs but I will seek an answer from him and advise the honourable senator accordingly. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. Firstly, can he outline to the Senate the reasons for a $ 34m loss by Qantas Airways Ltd in the last financial year? Secondly, what steps does Qantas propose to take to rectify this matter? Senator GIETZELT —I think it would be true to say that no member of the Parliament, certainly no member of the Government, would be keen to see Qantas placed in a position where it had losses of the magnitude that have been suggested in the annual report of that organisation. But I think we are aware that Mr Leslie has indicated that there is an upturn and that Qantas can look forward to a more profitable trading position during the coming financial year. To that extent, of course, the Government will be watching very carefully the activities of the organisation, as it is our national airline. However, as I represent the Minister for Aviation in this place, I will refer the question to him in the hope that he may have additional information to provide to Senator Ray. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I refer the Attorney-General to the theory of ministerial responsibility which he adopted in a debate in the Senate on 7 September last year when the quoted and embraced a statement by Mr Malcolm Fraser, who said: It is certainly true that Ministers cannot be aware of everything that occurs in their departments. They ought to be aware of all the major matters and therefore can be clearly and directly responsible for them but if a major blunder occurred in a Department, of real importance to Australia, and if the Minister were unaware of it, that Minister should accept responsibility for the mistakes of his Department and offer to resign. I ask: Does the Attorney still acknowledge that view of ministerial responsibility? Does he agree that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service event was a major blunder of real importance to Australia? Does he agree that the appropriate course is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should offer to resign? Senator GARETH EVANS —Being not imbued with the same collection of double standards that afflict the Opposition, nor the same capacity for situation ethics, as I think the theologians describe it, I do still endorse the force of that principle which I sought to articulate last year on no less an authority, as I invoked, than Mr Malcolm Fraser. Of course, it is a question of interpretation, in all the circumstances of a particular case, of what is a major blunder of real importance to Australia and no doubt some anxious consideration will always be given to the proper application of that criterion by the Ministers concerned. I find it quite intolerable, however, that we should be subjected, on occasions like this, to the kind of hypocrisy that now wafts across from the Opposition benches in reliance upon principles which it has never been remotely prepared to espouse. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Am I to understand from the Attorney's reply that he does not know and has not formed an opinion at this moment whether or not the incident two nights ago was a major blunder of importance to Australia? Is that his implication? Has he formed that view? Is it his view and that of his Government that it was a major blunder? I repeat: If that is so and now that he has acknowledged that he still upholds that principle, does he agree that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should resign? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not obliged to accommodate Senator Sir John Carrick in describing my present state of mind on matters of this kind and I do not propose to add anything further to my previous answer. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. There have been a number of claims that many supporting parent beneficiaries are attempting to play the pay-day system by claiming separation before a pension payday and then reconciling shortly afterwards. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to these claims? Can he say whether there is any substance to them and, if so what steps he has taken, or will take, to address this problem? Senator GRIMES —At various times I have received, as I think all Ministers for Social Security have, claims about groups in the community who, allegedly, play the social security system in the manner and similar manners to that which Senator Crowley has described. It is frequently the supporting parents who are accused of doing this sort of thing. It seems unfortunate in our community that there is a general acceptance that aged pensioners, invalid pensioners and widowed pensioners deserve their pensions while supporting parents are the butt of jibes and the source of suspicion. In recent times there have been claims that supporting parent beneficiaries have been manipulating the system by going on and off supporting parent benefit by claiming separation, then reconciliation and separation again. In the light of this, it was decided particularly in Western Australia that an investigation would be made to see just how frequently supporting parents did this sort of thing. No evidence was found that this occurred at any frequent levels at all. The Department of Social Security does keep an eye on this sort of think to make sure that the system is not manipulated in this way or in other ways. There will always be a small group of people, whatever benefit they receive, who will try to cheat the system and not play it fairly but I have no evidence that this is happening in this area. However, we will continue to monitor the situation and make sure that such a practice does not develop. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. In light of the statement made by Mr Leslie, the Chairman of Qantas Airways Ltd, this morning that other national airlines are not comparable with Qantas because they operate on international plus internal airline routes, which makes them more profitable, will the Government allow Qantas to carry internal passengers travelling between remote capital cities of Australia? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Jack Evans will appreciate that this is specifically a matter of Government policy, or at least it falls within ministerial responsibility. Therefore, it is one on which I cannot give a definitive answer. Clearly it falls completely within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Aviation and since I only represent him in this place all I can promise to do is to refer the question sympathetically to him for his consideration. I do know that both the previous Government and this Government have engaged in discussion about how to overcome some of the difficulties related to the profitability of Qantas. Senator COLSTON —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Communications, whether Telecom normally verifies requests for reminder calls. If it does, is the suggestion in the Weekend Australian of 26-27 November correct, that verification is not required if the request is placed between midnight and 5 a.m .? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I understand that Telecom does normally verify requests for reminder calls unless it is extremely busy, in which case it samples 20 per cent of the requests to seek verification. I am told that if the booking is made between midnight and 5 a.m., Telecom does not verify it. I am grateful to the honourable senator for his question because, as he knows, I am a mine of information on many of these matters. Senator REID —I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs what action the Government proposes to take to ensure that its pre-election commitment that Radford College would be built, will not be thwarted because of an entirely unrelated industrial matter. Does the Minister intend to allow the Builders Labourers Federation and the Trades and Labour Council of the Australian Capital Territory to dictate education planning decisions, resulting in the victimisation of Radford College students and parents? Senator RYAN —As the Senate knows, the Government has made a decision with regard to Radford College and that decision stands. There is no connection between that decision and the matters that the Trades and Labour Council and the Builders Labourers Federation were agitating about yesterday. They were expressing concern about the removal of asbestos from public buildings in Canberra, including some Government schools. They have been told by my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, that Government action is in hand to secure a safe working and studying environment for students in those colleges. Indeed, Cabinet will be considering the funding and mechanics of implementing this undertaking next week. But I repeat that there is no connection between our undertaking to ensure the safety of students in Narrabundah and Watson High Schools and the suggested action with regard to Radford College. I conclude by answering the second part of Senator Reid's question. The education policies of this Government are decided by the Government. We engage in consultation with a range of organisations, including trade unions, throughout Australia but no outside group, or other group at all dictates education policy to this Government. It is responsible for its own policies and its policies with regard to schools in the Australian Capital Territory have been made perfectly clear. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. How many community employment projects have been approved so far in South Australia? How many jobs have been generated by these projects? How does the level of approval in South Australia compare with other States? Senator BUTTON —I understood that South Australia was running ahead of the other States in relation to approval of programs. I am not able to provide the precise details which Senator Foreman seeks at this stage. I will seek an early answer from the Minister and let him have it, hopefully today. Senator LEWIS —I draw the attention of the Attorney-General to statutory rule No . 274 of 1983. Senator Robert Ray —Is that what you have in your hand? Senator LEWIS —Yes. It is entitled 'Electoral and Referendum Regulations Amendment'. This statutory rule was made as long ago as 11 November. It has now been printed and is available to the public but it has not yet been tabled in this Parliament. I ask the Attorney-General: Do these regulations provide a new and special form of ballot paper for the 1984 referendums to include a brief description of the proposed laws to change the directions to the voters and the format of the questions to be submitted, but which now does not contain the long title of each proposed law as has been the case in all constitutional questions since 1967? Why has the Government not yet tabled the regulations so that the Parliament can have an opportunity of examining them? Is the Government frightened that the Parliament might criticise the new form of questions and perhaps even move to disallow them? Why has the Government not given the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances an opportunity to consider these regulations prior to the referendum? Is it a fact that the Government intends to delay tabling the regulations until the last day of sitting so that there will be no time for that Committee to examine the regulations and no time for this Parliament to consider the regulations? Is this not just another shonky action? Is it not a fact that this Government continues to preach consensus but dogmatically practises the rule of 'big brother knows best', stifles debate and treats the people of Australia as fools? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is completely news to me that the regulations have not been tabled in Parliament. Certainly they should have been at this stage. I readily acknowledge the force of what Senator Lewis says in this respect. If he wants to get down to the business of getting them before the Committee straightaway and to debate the matter in some way before we get up-it seems as though we still have plenty of time-I will be amply willing to accommodate him. There has been absolutely no intention on my part to stifle any debate in this respect. Indeed, I have discussed the subject matter of these regulations with Senator Durack on behalf of the Opposition. Senator Durack —After you had made them, I think. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is true but I told the honourable senator about them so at least the honourable senator would be aware of them. I also discussed them with the honourable senator beforehand. He indicated that he was not too keen about changing them but, then again, he has never been too keen about changing anything. Senator Chaney —Why haven't they been tabled? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know why they have not been tabled, Senator Chaney. I will do my best to find out. There certainly has been no intention whatsoever to deny in any way parliamentary scrutiny of this. The proposed modifications to the format of the ballot paper are as follows: The short title of the Bill is contained which, up until 1967, was the only reference point in referendums. After 1967 the long title was spelt out and the short title was abandoned, for reasons which remain obscure. The short title is followed by a short and non-tendentious description of the subject matter in language which-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator GARETH EVANS —It is so non-tendentious that, in relation to simultaneous terms, there is a reference to the variation of senators' terms accordingly, which is lacking from the long title of the Bill, and which was the source of considerable criticism from Senator Durack. We can debate the detail of this at some later time. But the object of the exercise was simply to put before the electorate, in language that was intelligible and non-tendentious, the particular matters in respect of which they are being asked to pass. The situation has been that with the recent run of referendums ballot papers, designed as they have been around the long title of the respective Bills, have been almost totally unintelligible and incomprehensible to anyone except persons familiar with statutory language and the approach to these things. They have been full of jargon, such as 'prescribed laws'. The whole thing has been very complex. No doubt that has been of great advantage to those who see the referendum process as an opportunity to bemuse and befuddle the voters. Those who want no cases to be put see a considerable advantage in a ballot paper being unintelligible. The rest of us do not take that view and I do not think it will be a view shared across party lines, particularly in the context of the referendum proposals which have had the cross-party support that these have had. So the Government has nothing to apologise for in this respect, except possibly for some procedural defect which I will ensure is remedied immediately. Senator LEWIS —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I will not make all the smart comments which come to mind; I simply ask: Which Minister will have the responsibility of tabling this regulation? Senator GARETH EVANS —Since they are amendments to the electoral legislation- Senator Lewis —It is signed by Mr Beazley. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, I believe it is the responsibility of the Special Minister of State, because regulations were signed by and initiated by Mr Beazley. It appears there has been some snafu in the system somewhere. We will untangle it and ensure that ample opportunity is given for debate on these matters. Senator TATE —Did the Attorney-General, at the invitation of the Prime Minister, meet with the Prime Minister and Archbishop Carroll of Canberra-Goulburn to discuss several misgivings held by the Archbishop concerning the Sex Discrimination Bill, particularly in regard to the alleged application of the Bill to the provision of medical services relating to abortion and in regard to the actual application of the Bill in relation to non-government schools? Was the Government able to respond to the representations made by the Archbishop? Is any such response embodied in the new Bill brought into this place on Tuesday last. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Prime Minister and I met with Archbishop Carroll on 10 November and at that meeting a number of matters were discussed and concerns clarified. Following the meeting the Prime Minister wrote, on 21 November, to Archbishop Carroll agreeing to consider further points made at the meeting with a view to accommodating the Archbishop's concerns. Archbishop Carroll has since replied to the Prime Minister's letter and has indicated that the correspondence which has been exchanged will in due course be published in the Catholic Press. When the Archbishop takes that step, honourable senators will be able to see for themselves the full range of matters that were dealt with and the diversity of reactions that occurred. But I can say this: In the redrafted Sex Discrimination Bill which was introduced by Senator Ryan on 29 November, a number of concerns raised by Archbishop Carroll and others have been accommodated. Changes have been included in the draft Bill which reflect this. I refer in particular to clause 32 on services, clause 37 on religious bodies and clause 38 on educational institutions. Senator TATE —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Since the Archbishop has apparently indicated a willingness to put the correspondence in the public arena by publishing it in the Catholic Press, can the Attorney table that correspondence, either today or perhaps next Tuesday if the Archbishop wants to take the first running on publishing the material? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think I would prefer to consult through the Prime Minister's office with the Archbishop's office as a matter of courtesy before putting the material on the public record. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the answer he gave to a question asked by Senator Durack earlier today, to the Attorney's apparent commitment to Mrs Joan Coxsedge's right of free speech and the Attorney's statement that he would not be prepared to do anything about possible contempt of the Royal Commission- Senator Gareth Evans —I said 'to initiate'. Senator CHANEY —Or to initiate any action with respect to possible contempt of the Royal Commission on Australian Security and Intelligence Agencies. I remind the Attorney-General of the contrasting stance of the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, who early in August this year responded to a statement made by Mr Peacock which made some comment on the effect of the Prime Minister's evidence before the Royal Commission. At that time Mr Hawke was reported as being furious. He made a statement that what Mr Peacock said was wrong and defamatory. He indicated that the matter would be referred to the Royal Commission through the Government's counsel, Mr McHugh, that the Government's counsel would be instructed to raise the matter before the Royal Commission and that what Mr Peacock said was a contempt of the Commission and, to quote Mr Hawke, 'needs to be dealt with'. I remind the Attorney-General that as a result of that several newspapers censored articles which they had written, which included reference to what Mr Peacock had said, and that in fact counsel for the Commonwealth, under instruction, presumably from the Attorney-General, raised the matter with the Royal Commission and said that Mr Hawke had been traduced and defamed. The PRESIDENT —Order! I invite the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Senator CHANEY —Thank you, Mr President. That was all I wished to remind the Attorney of and I now ask him: Does he agree that there appears to be one rule for Labor politicians and another rule for Liberal politicians? Senator GARETH EVANS —It was the case that Mr Hawke was traduced and defamed by the performance of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the Hope Royal Commission. It is a matter for judgment as to whether the Hope Commission was brought into disrepute by what Mr Peacock said to the extent that would have justified a cause of action in contempt against Mr Peacock. They are two separate issues. On the issue of contempt, I have made my position abundantly clear in public on a number of occasions; that I believe that the law of contempt has been over-used in relation to the activities of royal commissions and tribunals-royal commissions and committees of inquiry in particular- investigating matters of public importance as distinct, that is, from the courts which are actually administering justice in the context of civil and criminal proceedings. With that in mind, I have referred the whole question of contempt to the Australian Law Reform Commission in order that we might be able to bring some better balance into that law than is the case at the moment. There will no doubt be differences of opinion as between Government Ministers from time to time-not that I am suggesting there is any difference of opinion between myself and the Prime Minister-on this issue or the policy issues underlying it at the moment. But that does not alter the fundamental point that the bias of the law, in my opinion, should be very much in favour of continuing to allow robust free speech when it comes to the contributions to debate on matters of lively current interest. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I welcome the Attorney-General's defence of robust free speech, but my question related to consistency of action by the Government. If he claims, as he appeared to in that answer, that Mr Hawke was traduced and defamed by Mr Peacock, does he agree that the Royal Commissioner has been traduced and defamed by Mrs Coxsedge's remarks which go to his partiality and that, therefore, in the interests of consistency, since the Government saw fit to refer it to the Royal Commission with respect to Mr Peacock, it would appear that if the Government is to be consistent it will do the same thing with respect to Mrs Coxsedge? Senator GARETH EVANS —All sorts of questions are in issue in the earlier matter involving Mr Justice Hope as to the implications of what was being said by Mr Peacock for the future evidence of witnesses to come before the Commission. The issues do not appear to be the same in any sense in relation to Mrs Coxsedge. If the Commissioner should take the view that the language employed by Mrs Coxsedge is such as to put his Commission at risk in terms of its capacity to carry on this inquiry effectively, no doubt I will hear from the Commissioner in due course. As the law now stands, the Commissioner cannot actually set in train the contempt proceedings in that situation; he can only refer them to the Attorney- General. I am not prepared to initiate any proceedings, as I have indicated, in this respect but should the Commissioner feel that such proceedings should be contemplated, I will take the appropriate course of action and consider the matter then. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister assisting the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware that the Townsville Daily Bulletin today reports the unanimous decision of the Charters Towers Council to call on the Federal Government to extend the period during which the community can fully consider the environmental impact statement on the proposed uranium mine at Ben Lomond in North Queensland? In view of the extreme importance of this matter, can the Minister report on the possibility of the Department of Home Affairs and Environment being able to respond positively to this request? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided me with some information on the Ben Lomond uranium proposal referred to by Senator Reynolds. The Commonwealth Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act requires that draft environmental impact statements be released for public review for a period of not less than 28 days. However, in relation to major mining proposals it is customary to make environmental impact statements available for public review and comment for longer periods. In the past such statements on uranium mining projects have been made available for comment for up to 67 days. The Government is sympathetic to the request for an extension to the public review period for the Ben Lomond EIS and negotiations with the company to secure an extension beyond the current closing date of 23 December 1983 are now being pursued. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Is it true that the Government has rejected repeated requests to give a commitment to fund the university component of the new Queen Victoria Medical Centre in Melbourne and that this is causing expensive delays to the project? Is it true that the Government of Victoria has agreed to proceed with the building of the university component providing the Federal Government will specify a future date on which it will fund the project? Is it true that if such a commitment is not given this year the entire project may be delayed at a cost of up to $90,000 a day, despite the fact that the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission has been aware of the need for such funding for at least 10 years, and that unless the university component of the project proceeds it may be necessary for Monash University to close its medical school because of the lack of clinical teaching facilities? What is the Government doing about this very unsatisfactory situation? Senator RYAN —None of the assertions made in Senator Hamer's question is true. The question reveals an ignorance of the way in which decisions about the funding of projects in the tertiary education sector are made. Monash University has submitted a concept proposal to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the construction of clinical teaching facilities at the Queen Victoria Medical Centre. It has been advised that the proposal has been approved in concept at a figure of $6m in June 1982 cost values. Such approval indicates the Commission's agreement that the proposal warrants consideration along with other projects as funds become available. The timing of the total project is a matter for the Victorian Government. The Victorian Government has sought a commitment as to the timing of any Commonwealth contribution to the cost of constructing the facilities. The proposal will have to compete annually with other capital developments in higher education for the share of available resources. The university must now keep the proposal before the Commission until it is judged to have reached a high enough priority to be recommended for inclusion in the capital program for a particular year. The arrangements for the construction of the Queen Victoria Medical Centre are the responsibility of the State Government. The relocation of the Centre has been under consideration in Victoria for many years. However, no formal request for funds for the construction of new clinical teaching facilities was submitted to the CTEC until early this year. I know of no proposal to close Monash University's medical school. Such a proposal would be of great concern to the Commonwealth and to the people of Victoria. Senator JONES —I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs whether he can supply details in relation to the operation of the recently established Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service in Townsville and Canberra. Particularly, can he indicate the client usage in Townsville and in Canberra? Can he also inform the Senate whether the client usage of those two centres indicates that there should be an extension to the services provided by them to the veterans? If so, can he further inform the Senate whether any action is proposed by the Government in relation to those centres? Senator GIETZELT —Within the last six weeks the Government has opened two new counselling centres for those who served in Vietnam, one at Townsville and the other in Canberra. This service has exceeded our expectations to the extent that veterans have immediately responded to it. For example, in Townsville, in the first few weeks more than 50 veterans sought personal assistance-in some cases their wives and families did so also-and in Canberra, where the service commenced only a couple of weeks ago, in the first week some 17 availed themselves of the service. That means that the Government's decision to open these centres has been widely supported and appreciated by those who need that sort of assistance, that is, those who served in Vietnam. Generally speaking, whilst there has been a relative decline for the month of September there was a marked increase overall in the usage of the centres last month. This, of course, I think confirms the wise decisions of governments, past and present, to establish the centres throughout Australia. Of course, if it is found that other centres need to be opened in provincial areas the Government will look very sympathetically at such requirements. Senator MISSEN —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, relates to Press reports emanating from the Indonesian Press on the continuing killing of suspected criminals by para- military death squads. Will the Minister comment on these most recent reports and, in particular, the claim by one well placed source that some 1,400 known or suspected criminals have been executed by para-military squads which have the support of several government and military officials? Because of the renewed reports appearing in the Indonesian Press, I ask the Minister: Firstly, what details does the Government have of these most recent extra-judicial killings; secondly, will the Government express to the Indonesian Government the concern of the Australian people about these brutal executions and ask that urgent action be taken to prohibit the continuance of such abhorrent and inhumane practices? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is difficult for anyone not to feel concerned about the reports which have been emerging from Indonesia and to which Senator Missen referred. But, as to the detailed substance of his question and the nature of the Government's reaction, I think it preferable to refer the matter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for detailed reply which I will undertake to produce as soon as possible. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister for Social Security aware that although he provided a grant for Down's Children Inc. earlier this year, that organisation has run into difficulties because it has not received expected assistance from the South Australian Government? Is the Minister aware that this is an extremely important program? Can he undertake to investigate the possibility of further funding? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Elstob said, Down's Children Inc. in South Australia, which cares for children with Down's syndrome, in fact has run into difficulties . I have had representations from various South Australian members and senators over this matter. In fact the organisation itself contacted me, as did the South Australian Government which supports the program but which cannot give any financial aid because of its commitments this year. As a result of such submissions I have agreed to provide further funds of $12, 500 to meet a deficit incurred in 1983 and to an increase of $10,980 in the level of grant in 1983-84 to the organisation. There will be a continuing discussion between the Office of Child Care in my Department and the Commonwealth Schools Commission as to the appropriate funding of such early intervention scheme projects which do not clearly fall within the responsibility of one department or another. However, the Government is committed to maintaining important projects like this, subject, of course, to the usual fiscal accountability and the economic availability of funds. Therefore, at least at the moment Down's Children Inc. is covered. I am sure that as a result of discussions between me, my Department, the Schools Commission and the South Australian Government, all of which are very supportive in this area, this important organisation will be able to continue. Senator MESSNER —My question to the Minister for Social Security refers to the handicapped child's allowance. Is the Minister aware that host families in Toowoomba, Queensland, who look after children from isolated areas who have hearing impairments and who are attending the special education unit at Wilsonton State School had been advised by the Department of Social Security that they could apply for the handicapped child's allowance? Is he further aware that when they did apply, their claims were subsequently rejected? Can the Minister offer any comment on that case? Can he also advise what assistance is available to those host families who may incur considerable costs in caring for children in those circumstances? Senator GRIMES —Senator Messner raises an important matter which has been brought to my attention by the Special Education Unit in Toowoomba at, I think, the Wilsonton State School, and, in fact, by the host parents who are involved in this area. A small number of deaf childen from isolated areas in Queensland live with host families in Toowoomba so that they can attend the special units that are available at this school. I believe that it is an important and useful scheme. Host parents sign an agreement with the Queensland Minister for Education to provide accommodation and care for the children. They are paid an allowance for caring for the children in accordance with a scale which the Queensland Government's Education Department has established in consultation with those parents. The difficulty is that the natural parents retain legal custody, care and control of the children while the children live with the host parents. Accordingly, the natural families continue to receive the family allowance. In general, they retain responsibility for most of the children's expenses, although I am informed by the organisation representing the host parents that, of course, some people-frequently because they are unable to do so-cannot contribute as much as perhaps they could or should to their children's expenses. Difficulty arises out of this situation because the host parents do not qualify for the handicapped child's allowance for these children because they do not have custody, care and control of the children. They therefore do not receive the family allowance; they are ineligible. I think everyone accepts that this is an unsatisfactory situation. Many of the aspects of the handicapped child's allowance and its interrelationship with the family allowance are at the moment under examination. This matter has been referred to the Social Security Handicapped Persons Review Team which at the moment is looking at provisions of services for handicapped children generally, but in particular, I think that we always run into problems when we try to define eligibility in this area, particularly when we tie eligibility for one benefit to eligibility for another benefit, as happens here. I can assure Senator Messner that I do not see the situation as being satisfactory. It certainly was not anticipated by any previous government in its administration of the handicapped child's allowance. I hope that we can come up with a satisfactory answer in this regard as soon as possible. Senator HEARN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Finance aware of continuing concern within the tyre industry about sales tax on retread tyres? Originally it was forecast that, for example, in the case of a retread steel radial tyre for a Ford Falcon, the typical net addition to the wholesale price of $25 would be about $3.60. Already representation has been made to me by employers, the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union of Australia and the Truck Owners and Operators Association. I understand that the Government has been monitoring the situation. I ask the Minister whether there is any evidence of loss of employment, excessive cost to the industry or threat to road safety? Senator BUTTON —I hope the Government has been monitoring the industry as well as Senator Hearn clearly has. I am fully aware of the complaints which have been made in the past. I have had complaints from employer organisations and the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union. I will make inquiries of the Minister for Finance and give Senator Hearn an answer about the monitoring process and its consequences as quickly as possible. Senator WALTERS —I refer the Minister for Social Security to the effect of the proposed pensioner assets test on the owners of small properties adjoining urban areas. Has the Government considered whether the 10 per cent value assets criterion will disadvantage owners of small farming properties which adjoin urban areas and have a much higher value than like properties elsewhere? Has the Government reached a decision in respect of people in this situation who wish to retire? Senator GRIMES —In any assets test, one must of course take into account the special situation of rural dwellers, particularly rural dwellers who have been on farms for a lot of their lives. At the same time, one must take into account the fact that if a person has a very valuable and easily realisable asset, one must weigh his wanting to stay on the farm against the community's obligation to pay, for instance, as happens in some cases, full pensions and full fringe benefits to someone who owns a very valuable and easily realisable asset. We have built into the legislation and its regulations hardship provisions which take the situation of rural people into account. For instance, it would be clearly inequitable, and it is not intended, to insist on taking into account the full value of a farm during times of drought or rural recession when a person could not sell his property. The same hardship provisions will be considered in regard to other properties which may not be easily realisable and it may be difficult to value. In the case of rural properties which abut not only on urban areas but also on holiday areas , such as areas of the south coast, several factors will be taken into account. Firstly, the home and an area called curtilage will be exempt. The size of that curtilage will partly depend on the amount of land which can be subdivided. Secondly, the amount of time a person spends on a farm and the amount of time he has been living there will be taken into account. Thirdly, it is quite clear that, particularly in areas close to an urban area, the value of the land may be some millions of dollars. I came across an example of that the other day. Those millions of dollars may be easily realisable. Excluding the house and reasonable curtilage, there may be land which, if sold, would realise an enormous amount. Under those circumstances, I think that everyone in this place should have to consider whether it is justifiable that the taxpayer should have to pay someone a full pension if that person has easily realisable assets. The position of rural people is, and always was, a special case. It was so under the previous assets test which was administered by conservative governments for so long. I am sure that, when Senator Walters and rural representatives see the legislation and the regulations, they will agree that we have come to a reasonable compromise in this situation. If they do not, we are certainly open to suggestions on how a compromise can be reached. Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2 p.m. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —During Question Time Senator Chipp asked me a question about weapons systems in space. I am able to give him at least this much of an answer at this stage. The Government is aware that various estimates have been made of the cost of establishing a satellite-based weapons system. It is generally agreed that any such system would be extremely expensive. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 4 October that Australia will seek with all possible vigour an international agreement to ensure that the arms race does not extend to outer space. The content of confidential consultations with other countries has to remain confidential. Honourable senators may be assured, however, that the Government's views are conveyed whenever appropriate. Consideration resumed from 17 November 1983. House of Representatives message- Schedule of the amendment made by the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed. Page 4, clause 11, paragraph (a), after proposed new sub-section 14 (1), insert the following new sub-section: '' '(1A) Where a person who is a non-citizen has either before or after the commencement of this sub-section been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs, or has been convicted in Australia of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than five years, the Minister may, subject to this section, order the deportation of the person.'.''. Reasons of the House of Representatives for disagreeing to the amendment of the Senate The Senate amendment is not acceptable because- (1) it is contrary to Government policy which is to create a statutory residential liability period beyond which non-citizens would not be deported unless convicted of security offences; (2) it creates 2 new sub-classes of non-citizens liable to criminal deportation regardless of the length of their residence and unrelated to convictions on security grounds; (3) it is badly worded, in that there is no definition of ''trafficking in dangerous drugs'', and (4) the differences in proscription and sentencing amongst the State and Territory laws, particularly for serious offences, would make the application of the proposed provision inequitable, inconsistent and uneven in operation. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Committee does not insist on the amendment of the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(2.02) —The Opposition will not be insisting on the amendment moved and carried at the Committee stage when the Migration Amendment Bill was last debated here. However, when the Committee reports to the Senate I shall be moving an amendment which will indicate the Senate's opinion of this Bill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(2.03) —I thank the Opposition and Senator Martin. I make it clear that we are aware that this Bill, once it is passed, will need further scrutiny, particularly with regard to sections 78 and 81 of the Crimes Act. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has agreed to do that in conjunction with a consideration of the report of the Human Right Commission. I have moved the motion with that proviso. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported. Adoption of Report Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the report be adopted. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(2.04) —I move: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate- (a) is of the opinion that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs should move speedily to introduce further amendments to the Migration Act to include references to sections 28, 29 and 30 of the Crimes Act 1914 as grounds for deportation; and (b) in view of the Minister's undertaking in the House of Representatives to ' consider including espionage related crimes as grounds for permanent deportation ', draws to the attention of the Government the urgent necessity to introduce further amendments to the Migration Act to include references to section 78 of the Crimes Act, relating to espionage and similar activities, and section 81 of that Act, relating to harbouring spies, so that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs will have power to protect the people of Australia against persons who engage in these activities'. When the Senate previously debated the Migration Amendment Bill on 2 November, in the Committee stage I moved an amendment to the Bill that certain other things become grounds for deportation. There was some misrepresentation, or maybe, at least, a pretty abysmal misunderstanding of the Opposition's attitude towards the Bill when it moved that amendment. I seek the Committee's indulgence for just a few minutes to state briefly what our amendment is about and what it is not about. We are not holding up passage of the Bill. We accept that the Bill needs to be passed. We disagree with some of the details of it and take this opportunity to emphasise the Senate's opinion. The Migration Amendment Bill is essentially about two things. First, it removes the distinction which has existed, until this Bill receives assent, between aliens and immigrants in relation to entry and deportation controls. On that point, the Opposition has had no argument at any stage when it has debated the Bill, either previously in this chamber, or on the two occasions it was debated in the House of Representatives. The second part of the Bill outlines the bases for deportation of non-citizens, as these people will now be called. On the one hand, it outlines the basis of deportation for non-citizens with fewer than 10 years residence and on the other, outlines a very much narrower category of bases for deportation of non-citizens with more than 10 years residence. The only dispute has been on the last point-the basis for deportation of non- citizens who have more than 10 years residence in Australia. There are in the Bill, as the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) described them, security related grounds for deporting non-citizens who have had more than 10 years residence in Australia. A number of these are detailed in the Bill. Certain sections of the Crimes Act are referred to. These relate to crimes of inciting sedition, inciting mutiny, assisting prisoners of war to escape, unlawful drilling-that is, drilling of armies-being an accessory to any of these offences, attempting any of those offences or conspiring in relation to any of those offences. All those things are contained in the Bill. However, certain other offences against the Commonwealth were left out. One cannot help but feel that at least part of the omission was a drafting error. Our amendment would add section 28 of the Crimes Act to the Bill. It states: Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence. That is referred to in the Crimes Act as interfering with political liberty. We consider that to be a serious crime. I emphasise that in expressing the opinion that these offences ought remain as part of the grounds for deportation. We are not saying that people ought to be automatically deported; not at all. We are saying that these are the sorts of crimes in relation to which we believe, if a person offends against then, the Minister ought to have the right to deport. Section 29 of the Crimes Act refers to destroying or damaging Commonwealth property and section 30 refers to seizing goods in Commonwealth custody. The shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hodgman, in debate in the House of Representatives, outlined in detail the sorts of incidents that are covered by those sections and the reasons that we believe they should be included. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in reply, detailed certain circumstances where it would be quite iniquitous, in his opinion, to deport. I emphasise that there was no quarrel at all with the sort of details that he gave where it would be iniquitous to deport. We seek to make the point that there are certain offences for which, when committed, the Minister ought to have the right to deport non-citizens. The most serious sections of the Crimes Act are sections 78 and 81 which are included in the second part of our amendment. Whilst, as I have said, the Government includes as grounds for deportation after 10 years residence such matters as inciting mutiny and of assisting prisoners of war to escape it has not kept for itself the right to deport someone who is convicted of spying or of harbouring spies. One is tempted to think that this was a drafting error. Most of the offences that are included in the Migration Amendment Bill come from a part of the Crimes Act which gathers together under a general heading things described as 'Offences against the Government'. The offences, included in the first part of the amendment we have moved, ought also to be included under that heading. The offences that the Government has included in the Migration Amendment Bill appear under that heading. Further on in the Crimes Act is a special part called 'Espionage and Official Secrets'. It is here that section 78 relating to espionage and section 81 relating to harbouring spies are contained. One is tempted to think that the draftsman did not turn enough pages in the Bill, in which case I think it is a pity that the Government has not moved a little faster in at least rectifying this defect, the inclusion of the spying and harbouring of spies sections of the Crimes Act. The House of Representatives debated this Bill on 24 August. In that debate the shadow Minister for Immigration (Mr Hodgman) and other Opposition speakers pointed out this defect. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs brushed aside those criticisms at the time and talked instead about those clauses of the Bill with which there is no argument. The Senate debated this Bill first on 2 November and forced an amendment. At that point the Minister was obliged to take notice of what was said. The amendment was notified and debated in the House of Representatives on 16 November. Then the Minister gave grounds for rejecting the amendment that had been previously carried by the Senate. Part of his grounds was technical. He said that the amendment could not be accepted as an amendment to the Bill in the form in which it then was. The Bill is now back before the Senate for final consideration on 2 December. In that whole period this very obvious defect in relation to the option of deportation of someone who spies or harbours spies has still not been acted on. It has been pointed out and I point it out again that there is no reason why the Government, if it did not consider this an important defect, could not have acted by now by bringing in a minor amending Bill including those sections of the Crimes Act. I ask the Government: Why not bring in this amendment? The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in debate in the House of Representatives and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) who represents him in the Senate have said that they are aware that the Bill needs further examination but they are waiting on the report from the Human Rights Commission before they do anything. As far as I am aware, there is no indication where this report will come in. The Human Rights Commission is still receiving evidence, I believe, in its investigation into this matter. In the meantime, we are unprotected. I do not want to be unduly melodramatic. Some people are given to melodrama on this subject but one never knows what will appear in the newspaper the next day. Two days ago who would have dreamt that there would have been men with sub-machine guns rushing around the foyer of a prestigious hotel? We do not know these things are going on. It is only when something extraordinary like that happens- Senator Chipp —Why did you say men? Why did you not say 'persons'? Senator MARTIN —I do not believe in neutering people. Senator Chipp —Women can do that too. Senator MARTIN —If they had I would have said men and women. I was referring to a specific episode. We do not know, and nobody can shrug his shoulders and say it will not happen now and again. A couple of things ought to be borne in mind. Some of the most celebrated espionage cases in modern history have involved people who were long term residents of countries but who were not citizens. The Rosenbergs were not American citizens; there is some dispute as to whether Lord Haw-Haw should have been executed for treason, because he was not a British citizen. It has been disputed, therefore, whether he had in fact committed treason. The fact is we are talking about people in a very particular position who are not citizens of this country but who are long term residents. I suggest there is in modern history good evidence that foreign agents often are long term residents of the country against which they are working. Every country should have the right to protect itself. To cut off arbitrarily after 10 years residence and say: 'Past that point, we do not want the option of deportation' is not a reasonable view or a well founded view. I reiterate: We are not suggesting automatic deportation but we are saying there is an important case for having the option of deportation in the case of spies and people who harbour spies. If the Government is determined not to move on these two matters until the Human Rights Commission report is in, I ask why it moved at all before receiving that report if that is now so significant. The Government probably could have looked at how it could have amended the Migration Act to remove that distinction between aliens and immigrants-as they were previously referred to in the Act- without touching at this stage the bases for deportation, if it was still up in the air as to whether the Human Rights Commission report which might give superior information to that on which it has based this amending Bill. So I reiterate to the Government that the Opposition is concerned about the fact that there will be an important gap in this legislation until such time as the Government brings in the amendment to include at least the offences of espionage and harbouring spies. Whilst we accept that the Minister has indicated that he acknowledges these omissions, I suggest there was a fair amount of double talk in the debate on this particular point in the House of Representatives and we seek this opportunity to urge the Minister, as a matter of urgency, to look at further amendments to the Migration Act to include references to espionage and harbouring spies. We say in our amendment that that is urgent. The other part of the amendment indicates that other amendments should be brought in to the Bill to include other sections of that part of the Crimes Act referred to as offences against the Government. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(2.18) —Mr President, I make some comments on this amendment to the motion that the report of the Committee of the Whole be adopted . I am glad that the Senate is not insisting on the amendment to the Migration Amendment Bill that was carried some little time ago. I expressed then great doubts about the fuzziness of the expression of the amendment and about the question whether these particular examples should be picked out for resurrecting discretion for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs over deportation. I am glad that we are not insisting at this stage on the amendment carried at the Committee stage. I must say at this report stage that I have some reservations about another part of the amendment, too. In regard to part (b) of the amendment, the reference to sections 78 and 81 of the Crimes Act, there is validity for expressing the idea that they should be attended to and should be included. I remind the Senate that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) , on 16 November 1983 when debating the Senate's amendment had this to say: Why include all those sections-- that is, the earlier sections included in the Crimes Act- of the Crimes Act and leave out sections 78 and 81 which relate to espionage offences? I simply express surprise that seeing Opposition senators had the numbers during the debate, and if they felt this matter was important, they did not send it here as an amendment. I would have been inclined to accept it if they had, but they did not; they left it out. Irrespective of whose job it was to prepare the Bill and to propose matters and amendments, surely it is clear that the Minister recognises that there is certain validity in this matter being considered and, as Senator Martin said, being considered fairly urgently. I express some reservations in regard to part (a) of the amendment if it were to be read literally. It wants the consideration of sections 'to include references to sections 28, 29 and 30 of the Crimes Act 1914 as grounds for deportation'. I have many reservations about certain provisions of the Crimes Act. It seems to me that the Crimes Act is in need of very urgent reconsideration in many ways. Much of it has been put together in a patchwork way over the years. Much of it represents certain illiberal eras in our history. I am not sure that there are not some unwise provisions in that Act. Perhaps they are mitigated by the sense which governments have to not prosecute on literal offences under the sections. But the three offences that Senator Martin suggested should be included are all offences against the Government. One wonders why offences against the Government would necessarily have greater importance-giving the Minister that wide discretion to deport, which many have found unsatisfactory in the past-just because they are offences against the Government. Surely there must be some better rationale for any decision to resurrect the ministerial discretion in this area. I certainly think they should be considered and where they are serious infringements, perhaps that is a proper ground. For example, if we take the three offences that were mentioned, one refers to interference with any political right. That can be very important. But it could refer to a drunk outside a polling booth who punches the nose of someone who is going in to vote, so that that person is carted off to hospital and cannot vote. Senator Martin —You do not seriously suggest deportation, do you? Senator MISSEN —I would have felt that the honourable senator's interjection would be that surely the Minister, using his discretion, would not deport in that case. I recognise that the point I am making is answerable on that ground. But the senator suggests giving into his hands an area which may be minor, may be on the borderline, or may be major. It may be the case that references to those sections ought to deal with important infringements that show that the person is not fit to be a citizen of or to live in this country. The same thing could be said in regard to the destruction of Commonwealth property-it could be minor or major-and the seizing of property. All offences that might happen under those sections ought not necessarily be ones that resurrect the Minister's right to remove someone who has been in this country for 10 years. Senator Martin —That would be true also of section 81. Senator MISSEN —Yes. I think the whole question ought to be looked at. I am glad that the Human Rights Commission is looking at these matters. The mere fact of a conviction against a particular section might not in itself be adequate. That was the problem in regard to the amendment which we moved in relation to trafficking in dangerous drugs. The point I raised then was that the crime of trafficking in dangerous drugs could be minor or major. I raise this question as being a consideration that should be looked at. I hope the Human Rights Commission will look at whether references to these sections should be in relation to convictions of an important nature. I mention also that the Minister referred in the debate on the Senate's amendment to the criticisms made by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I hope that a number of those criticims will be considered during the preparation of a new Bill which obviously will have to follow the whole consideration of the question by the Human Rights Commission. I just raise that fear that the mere importing of the whole of a conviction under one of these offences, when there may be much more serious offences, may lead to more anomalies than we have at the moment. With that I support the amendment, but I think it should be considered with some gloss on it as to how we will get some rationality into the whole of this area of discretion given to a Minister regarding deportation. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(2.26) —The Australian Democrats support the amendment moved by the Liberal Party of Australia. I will not detain the Committee because Senator Martin, in her usual style, covered the grounds fully and amply. I think the Senate also ought to be indebted to the admonition or warning given by Senator Missen, as we were grateful for the warning he gave when the Migration Amendment Bill was before the Senate before it went to the House of Representatives, and I think his words were heeded by the Government. We support the amendment, as I understand the Government does. I just take this opportunity of registering the view, which I have been asked to do, by that very responsible body, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia. I have a letter from the Chairman, Mr Bill Jegorow, MBE, who puts this view: This is . . . to confirm that the Federation considers that permanent residents of three years' standing in Australia, subject to good character, should not be deported after that time even if they may engage in illegal activities thereafter. It is also considered that children and young persons up to the age of eighteen should not be disadvantaged because they may have been committed to an institution or prison for purposes of their permanent resident status in Australia. I simply register that view of the Communities Councils for whom I have a very high regard. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(2.28) —I will not detain the Senate. I thank the honourable senators who contributed to this debate. The Government will not be voting against this amendment but we do take it, as I think Senator Missen took it, that this amendment is, as it is, an expression of opinion and in particular those references in the amendment to sections 28, 29 and 30, and probably section 81 of the Crimes Act, are not taken as a direction from this chamber to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) or to the Government necessarily to incorporate all those catch-all sections of the Crimes Act, the problems of the application of which have been clearly set out by Senator Missen. It does not mean that it is an instruction on us in any way to incorporate those without proper consideration and I believe, probably in the long run, without proper consideration of the views of the Human Rights Commission. I am aware of Senator Martin's concern that between now and then some terrible spy may escape deportation. I think there is a slim chance of that . If I am wrong I suppose I will have to get up here and recant, but I understand her case. Senator Martin —I hope you are not wrong. Senator GRIMES —Now we know that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service is looking after us I suppose things will be all right. I think Senator Missen's point is very important; we really have to consider the broad nature of the offences under the Crimes Act. We have to consider how this Parliament should limit the potential powers of Ministers which we would give them if we just incorporated sections 28, 29, 30 and 81 of the Crimes Act into this legislation. I can assure honourable senators that the Minister will be taking all of these matters into account. I make one further point, and I do not make it in a patronising way: I appreciate that Senator Martin had to get up here and explain the true position of the Opposition in this matter. I was surprised to read some of the reports which suggested that the Opposition wanted to deport almost anyone who was guilty of any offence in the country. But I think Senator Martin can easily find the reason for that misreporting. The best and simplest way to do it is to turn to the House of Representatives Hansard and compare her speech with the speech made by the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, which was a long tirade on the evil socialist Government which was going to open this country up to drug addicts, spies and every other committer of every heinous offence in the book. Anyone who compares that speech with the clear and lucid outline of Opposition policy today will understand the poor reporting and will understand the report in the newspaper. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Consideration of House of Representatives amendment. House of Representatives amendment- Clause 3, page 2, lines 18 and 19, omit paragraph (a) and (b) of the definition of ''law of the Commonwealth'', substitute the following paragraphs: '(a) the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978; (b) the Norfolk Island Act 1979; or (c) a law made under, or continued in force by, an Act referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);''. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(2.32) —I move: That the amendment made by the House of Representatives be agreed to. The amendment moved by the Government and accepted in the House of Representatives excludes laws of Norfolk Island from the definition of law of the Commonwealth in clause 3 of the Bill, thus ensuring that the administration of that Territory will retain its existing responsibility for prosecution of offences under the local criminal law of Norfolk Island. That Territory is now in a special position, having substantial control over many internal matters. Under the amendment the Director will have a role in relation to Commonwealth laws applying in the Territory but the Territory administration will remain responsible for the prosecution of offences under the local criminal law. Thus under the amendment the position in Norfolk Island will be similar to that which will apply under the Bill in the Northern Territory. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(2.33) —The Opposition agrees with the amendment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. [COGNATE BILLS: STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) BILL 1983 STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 30 November 1983, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(2.34) —In the absence of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) I suggest that the States Grants ( Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1983 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1983 be debated cognately, although separate questions will be put on each Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Is it the wish of the Senate to have a general debate covering the three Bills? I will allow that course to be followed. Senator PETER BAUME —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. Together these three education Bills represent a package of legislation which gives effect to the education funding guidelines announced by the Minister in July last. With other measures announced in the Budget, they represent the Government financial proposals for education during calendar year 1984. While not opposing the passage of the Bills, the Opposition will be moving amendments both at the second reading stage of two of the Bills and in Committee. For the purposes of discussion, I indicate that at an appropriate time the Opposition will be moving an amendment to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill in the following terms: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate condemns the Government for its many dishonoured promises to Australian tertiary students'. To the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill at the end of the second reading, the Opposition will move: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for its many dishonoured promises to Australian secondary students; (b) calls for the restoration of the right of all children to receive guaranteed Government support for their education; (c) insists on the right of every Australian child to receive support for his or her schooling at a level which is predictable and related to educational costs in Government schools; (d) supports the principle of freedom of choice in education and the right of all parents to be supported in that choice; (e) deplores the restriction on the free development of non-Government schools as an expression of the will of parents; and (f) condemns the Government for the unexplained and arbitrary cuts to some Schools Commission Programs and, in particular, to the Professional Development Program'. I will move the amendments at the appropriate stage. They reflect the clear rejection by the Opposition of some aspects of the Labor Government's education program. They reflect our concern, and the concern of many in the education community about the many dishonoured election commitments and assurances which have been part of this Government's sorry performance in the short time it has been in office. The Minister in her first education program has presided over a situation where education spending, as a proportion of total outlays, has fallen by 0.3 per cent. While the amounts involved may have gone up, the share of total outlays which education has been able to claim has, in fact, fallen. The action of this Government has not matched the rhetoric with which it went to the people . Nowhere is this more evident than in higher education. The Opposition acknowledges that some extra funding is being provided for tertiary education but we note particularly the disappointment expressed by those in the tertiary education sector about the guidelines laid down in that area. The tertiary education assistance legislation contains very little that is new or innovative. What we do see is a reduction of one quarter in the subsidy paid to collegiate residences at universities and colleges of advanced education, being done in advance of a review which the Minister tells us is now being carried out. Why cut funding ahead of the review taking place; why move in and cut funds before the Government has received advice about whether that is necessary? In addition, we have seen the proposal to insert a new section which introduces as a condition of grant equal opportunity provisions. We have no objection to that. However we think, and the advice we have received is, that given the performance of tertiary education in recent years this provision is likely to be more symbolic and indicative of a desire for certain outcomes than prescriptive of certain action. I wish to comment on another aspect of the tertiary education guidelines, the provision of a little more than $10m with which to establish, according to the Minister, 3,000 new places. If we consider the number of places provided in higher education and the amount of money that is being spent in that regard, we find that the cost of one student place is approximately $6,000. The amount per student place that is being provided under these guidelines represents only half of that figure. The Minister may argue that only a marginal cost is involved but the amount provided allows for nothing like the sum that is now being spent, on the average, in the provision of a student place. The tertiary sector, the Higher Education Round Table and organisations representing staff, have been quick to pick this up, quick to criticise the Government for requiring the provision of 3,000 extra places from what they consider to be inadequate funding , inadequate provision and inadequate support. We are going to see that, despite the increase in funding in 1984, the requirement for extra places will mean a reduction in the real level of spending per student in higher education across Australia. So it is not surprising that we see in the report that came down recently from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission criticism of the Government for its lack of adequate long term planning, its lack of assurances as to long term funding and its failure to provide for capital expenditure with which to maintain the 3,000 extra places that are to be provided. The Minister has gone further and has attempted to identify who will fill some of these places. She has said that the places are to be used to widen access for disadvantaged groups. The Opposition would want an assurance from the Minister that this will not imply any fall in educational standards, that those who occupy these places from disadvantaged groups will be qualified for entry, and that the extra places will be used to meet demand where it exists now. We do not want to see an instruction that the disadvantaged be taken in. We do not want to see any situation where they are taken in at entry requirements which differ from those for the majority of students and we do not want to see a situation where the existing unmet demand cannot be reduced because some of the places have been spoken for in advance. The Minister's concern to encourage participation and to widen access for disadvantaged groups has to be seen against the background of some of the other actions of this Government in funding, in the guidelines and in the Budget. It has to be seen against the failure to increase assistance for tertiary students in real terms. Tertiary students in this country are behind in real terms. The amount given to them by way of the tertiary education assistance allowance will not keep up with inflation so they are worse off. The Minister's concern also has to be seen against the fact that the means test, under which TEAS is governed, did not increase sufficiently to allow the same number of people to enter so that the eligibility has diminished just by a small amount. There were election promises to the contrary. There were election promises about the level of TEAS which have not been kept. Labor promised progressively to increase student assistance through TEAS until it equalled the single unemployment benefit. It promised then to maintain the nexus. That has not been done. Labor promised to raise the TEAS means test until it equated average weekly earnings. That has not been done. Until it-- Senator Ryan —Average weekly earnings? No, try again. Senator PETER BAUME —The Minister promised to increase the means test and she has not done it. The gap between the TEAS benefit and the unemployment benefit has widened, with unemployment and the unemployment benefit being more attractive options for young people now than they were when Senator Ryan took over as Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. The promise was that this Government would make education more attractive. The reality is that it has totally failed and it has widened the gap. The proportion of students actually receiving TEAS at the end of 1984 will drop because the number of extra enrolments in higher education will be greater than the number of people getting more student assistance. By abolishing the previous Government's student loan scheme-which it was entitled to do-but then failing to put in place, or to honour its commitment to put in place, an emergency loans scheme, the Government has removed a benefit which was available to students as a possible source of finance. It has not replaced it with anything in spite of promises to the contrary-another promise given and another promise broken. I note the recent call by the Australian and New Zealand Student Services Association for an expansion of campus-based emergency loans schemes and the claims that it made that campuses are unable to cope with demand for emergency loans assistance. There is another decision which would seem to be a clear contradiction of the Labor Government's professed concern for the disadvantaged. That is a reduction by 25 per cent in the subsidy paid to residential colleges. This is likely in the necessity for some of the colleges to raise their fees for students, perhaps by $2 a week. Taken alongside the failure to maintain TEAS in real terms, this will further add to the hardship of many students. I remind the Minister that many of these students are country students for whom college is one of the few options open to them. As just one example of the ad hoc way in which decisions are being taken by this Government, this reduction will occur in 1984 with the whole matter pending a review by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. If the Government is going to proceed I suggest that the way to proceed is to get its advice first and then to make the decision on the basis of that advice, and not do it back to front as it has done. The Minister in her guidelines and in her Press releases has talked about access for disadvantaged groups, but we can see little of any specific nature to tell us how this access to disadvantaged groups will be provided. The Minister has talked particularly about women and Aboriginals. I might say that if one looks at the figures for higher education in the last few years one finds that the enrolments of women have increased rapidly and any disadvantage now is only in certain faculties where the gender difference favours males, perhaps in faculties such as engineering. Equally, I hope that the Minister would want to see in those faculties in which women predominate that males are encouraged to enrol and that gender differences there are overcome-unless, of course, her definition of 'disadvantaged' applies only to one sex. The Labor Government has failed students and it has failed the higher education community in its first Budget and its first guidelines. At a time when we need an increasing amount of higher education and skills the Government is asking students to accept less personal support and to bear the brunt of economic difficulties. The hollow commitment to improving educational participation is illustrated quite well in the new Bill, the States Grants (Education Assistance- Participation and Equity) Bill. The Minister has described this participation and equity program as the centrepiece of the Government's youth programs. What it actually is is the school to work transition program with $20m thrown in. For that $20m everyone should be grateful, and I salute the Government for the provision of that money. I acknowledge that that is a useful extra provision of support. If it can encourage participation that is excellent, but what has happened is that the participation and equity program has been swallowed up. During the Estimates Committee examination of these matters I asked the Minister what would happen, whether there would be projects under the school to work transition program that would not be suitable for funding under the new program. Any honourable senators interested in this matter should read the Hansard record of that exchange. It was impossible to get from the Minister an indication of a single project under the school to work transition program that would not be suitable for funding. That suggests that the likelihood is that the school to work transition program will continue to be funded, perhaps projects will change marginally to meet the new guidelines, and that what will go in as extra will be that very desirable $20m. What worries us is that the call for participation is really a fairly hollow call. It is generally acknowledged that if educational participation rates are to rise two matters must be addressed. The first is the perversities in the current structure of income support for youth which continue to make unemployment the best paid option. It is clearly absurd that a young person looking at economics should say: 'I am better off on the dole and I am worse off in education'. The Government has failed to address and to redress that situation. Secondly, it is essential that educational offerings are improved so that further study may come to be regarded as valuable and worth while. Participation in education is not an educational purpose in itself. Participation as a strategy in isolation is meaningless. Participation will be relevant and valuable only to the extent that the educational offerings are themselves relevant and valued. They are not so valued today. Greater participation is therefore a limited prescription and a flawed goal in advance of qualitative reassessment and qualitative renewal of what education offers its consumers. Much of what it offers is pretty poor. Let us not forget that the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty wrote in the mid- 1970s of the deep alienation of school leavers and of their strong negative feelings about schooling, that the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in its report 'Learning and Earning' commented on the active dislike many young people have for the education system, and that most recently the Beswick report commented on the negative incentive value of much educational experience at both the secondary and tertiary levels. I say to the Minister: We wish this program well. We have yet to see that it is going to be more than tokenism, but we hope the extra $20m will be well spent and we will be looking carefully to see what comes out of it. I now wish to concentrate my remarks on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill because it is in this Bill that the Government and the Minister have revealed their true colours. The Bill exposes Labor's true aspirations for Australian schooling. But the Bill does more than that because it identifies further the extent to which another series of promises made before the election have been abandoned or broken. I will just run through some of the promises: The promise to institute a new program for primary schools at a level of $9m per annum, not honoured; the promise to provide an additional $37m in the first year of the Government for recurrent resources in Government schools, not honoured; the promise to provide an additional $16m in the first year of the program for needy non-government schools, not honoured; the promise to provide $24m over three years for computer education, only a smaller amount was honoured; the promise to establish a revolving loan fund with an initial contribution of $5m to bring forward construction planned for new non-government schools, not honoured, and so it goes in terms of promises not kept. As long as the Government and the Minister pursue the course they have chosen to take, as long as the Minister believes that the purpose of education is to advance the Government's social and philosophical goals rather than its educational goals, there will not be any bipartisanship in her approaches to education as they apply to schooling. This legislation embodies perhaps the most destructive and the most discriminatory proposals for education which we have seen before the Senate. This legislation gives effect to the Hawke Government's decision to abandon the percentage link for funding non-government schools; that is the nexus which has linked the cost of educating a child in a government school with a grant paid to children in non-government schools. That is a formula which gave certainty to non-government schools which they regard as the very basis of their continued support. This Bill abolishes the basic right to a grant for every Australian child through action which has been taken to penalise a few children in a few schools. Non-government schools exist only because some people want an alternative for their children. We believe in a dual system. We believe in choice and we believe in diversity. Whilever there is too little choice within government schools for parents there will be a need for them to have some alternative way of exercising a choice. If the Minister would care to take upon herself the task of increasing choice as between and within government schools, she would go a long way to helping advance our emphasis upon choice and upon diversity. But the dual system is valued because people want choice and they want diversity, and it is valued because some people see within the alternative system an ethos, a sense of discipline, a sense of purpose, a sense of mission which they think is valuable for their children and because many of them have disquiet about the activities of the teachers unions. Many parents see educators as trustees on behalf of their children. They do not see them as chosen or self-appointed agents of social change. I reiterate that one of the reasons-just one amongst many-that parents want to have non- government schools available across Australia in increasing numbers, is because they believe that their children are being indoctrinated with values which they do not share and which they are determined to reject. Many parents sheet these unacceptable values home to the teachers federations and to those who would use the education system for the achievement of a union's or a government's ideological goals. For those parents, non-government schools are the only available exit route. This Bill does several undesirable things: It reduces funding in 1984 over what would have been available under the previous formula for 120,000 children in group 1 schools across Australia. They will all get less. It markedly penalises 41 schools which are on this arbitrary hit list. It abolishes the formula determining predictable grants under a percentage link and a funding nexus. The Bill puts enormous new obstacles in the way of new or expanded non-government schools across Australia. The fallacy which is ignored by the Australian Labor Party is that non-government schools in Australia will prosper and can prosper only if parents are willing to support them and to pay money from their own after-tax income for the privilege. It is the financial support of parents that makes non-government schools viable. The Government's measures will not hurt schools as much as they will hurt parents. If the funding cuts mean that fees have to rise it is the parents who will have to pay them. Whilever the ALP cannot understand that it is because parents make these schools succeed with their money, time and support we will continue to have this fallacy that in some way the schools get their funding out of thin air and are rich because they somehow inherited their money. The schools are well resourced only because parents make them well resourced out of their own pockets. We believe that that parental effort must be recognised. We cannot understand the formula which is coming up whereby schools will be eligible for a greater public subsidy if parents reduce their input and their support. What kind of situation is that? That is a poverty trap of the worst kind. The Government will say to parents: 'Pay less, reduce your fees, reduce your offerings and under the formula your school will be eligible for funding.' The parents are certain that Senator Susan Ryan fails to understand them, their aspirations and their hopes, and, in turn, they do not trust her. I remind her of the meetings that have been held. I remind her of the meeting of 5,000 parents. I remind her, much as she may not want to be reminded, that 280 schools were represented at that meeting and that 130 of those schools were group 3 Catholic schools. The parents of the children attending those schools attended the meeting to protest against what she and her Government are doing. We have no doubt whatsoever that there is a hidden agenda. It may be a hidden agenda within the ALP but it is certainly an open agenda in terms of many of the ALP supporters. We can refer to what the teachers federations, including the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the Australian Teachers Federation and the Australian Council of State School Organisations have said. Their view is clear. They have some goals. Their goals are first, to contain the non-government system and prevent its expansion, secondly, to impoverish parts of the sector, to drive people out by economic deprivation; thirdly, to increase the amount of regulation and harassment within the sector; and, fourthly, to move steadily towards setting up an environment in which the integration of schools, in spite of the Government's assurances, becomes more likely. Interestingly, the Government can make integration more likely by taking over an increasing proportion of the funding. For example, I think the schools most dangerously facing integration today are group 3 schools, because as the amount of government funding goes up so does the amount of government control. I am attracted to some of the arguments that Senator Macklin put forward. Senator Macklin —That is what the Sydney meeting was about. It passed a motion. Senator PETER BAUME —Not with my support. I am attracted to some of Senator Macklin's speeches in which he has talked about increased public control. Senator Macklin has made it quite clear where he stands but the funding mechanisms coming in now make integration more likely. The Berlin Wall is offensive to many of us because that wall, between East and West Berlin, is evidence of a state trying to erect barriers to prevent the escape of those who wish to leave it. Senator Ryan's guidelines are a Berlin wall in education. They are seeking to make it harder for people to leave one system for another. Instead of seeking to restore confidence in the government system, instead of seeking to improve a situation where there will be freedom of choice within the government systems, she is trying to make it more difficult for people to exit to another system which they prefer. The move to limit expansion of schools is part of a Berlin wall in education. The move to reduce grants to all group 1 schools is part of a Berlin wall in education-a means to put a barrier in front of those who want to move from one system to another and exercise their choice. The failure to honour the promises it made in education, the promises it made to government and non-goverment schools, is again part of the Berlin wall approach. We have set out the promises; we know what they are. Because my thinking is directed towards individuals, it follows that like political colleagues I value diversity in choice of education. I do not agree with those who value system efficiency or system needs over choice by individuals. I do not agree with those who assert that parents and children have less right to choose than do central planners. I do not agree with those who present education and its politics as part of a class struggle with policy based on perjorative assertions about certain advantaged institutions or groups. I assert that if one is going to extol education as enabling one-I quote Senator Ryan's words-'to resist manipulation by the massive institutions of capitalism', one should also extol it as enabling one to resist massive institutions of government and massive institutions of bureaucracy unless one is playing a crude and overtly political hand. I do not believe that any policy directed at levelling down educational offerings has any community benefit at all to commend it. I believe what is being proposed here will make this more likely. I seek to reduce structural social disadvantage and I wholeheartedly support the goal of equality of opportunity in education. But the purpose of education is not, and never can be, an equality of educational outcomes. The provisions in this Bill frighten parents, and so they should. I call on the Government to listen to opposition from so many quarters. I call on the Government to begin to honour many pre-election promises about due process and about the fair sharing of funds. I call on the Government to desist in 1984 from any action that would reduce grants further to the 41 schools or that would include new schools in the hit list or that would reduce further the position of thrifty parents who are contributing so much to education in Australia or which would make it more difficult for schools to be established or to expand. I support the Bills. I will move our amendments at the appropriate stage. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.03) —We are debating cognately the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill 1983, the States Grants ( Schools Assistance) Bill 1983 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1983. I wish to make a number of comments on all three Bills. Probably more detailed comments can be made on the clauses of these Bills during the Committee stage. I think it would be better to deal with the Bills in detail at that stage. In general, I support the Staes Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill 1983. The Australian Democrats welcome the initiatives taken by the Government in relation to this Bill. The objective, as stated by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) during her second reading speech, of encouraging a significant increase of participation by young people in education and training, to provide a useful and fulfilling education and to encourage the achievements of more equal educational outcomes is a magnificent objective. Oh, that we could reach that! Unfortunately, this Bill falls short of this aim; but that is to be expected. Hopefully, over the years we will move in that direction and achieve more and more of those well worthwhile aims. This Bill appears to be a major attempt to do something about the issues of equal opportunity that were raised in the fifth and main report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty entitled 'Poverty and Education in Australia' . Nevertheless, quite a number of items still concern us. For example, the Poverty Commission stressed in its report at the very outset that the unequal outcomes of schooling cannot be fixed by simply tinkering. I think that yet again we may have fallen for the educational equivalent of a three-card trick. The previous Government sought a way out, which was referred to by Senator Peter Baume, in terms of a variety of programs, the transition programs. I have spoken before in this chamber about those programs, most of which, I feel, were probably not worth the money spent on them. I am quite happy to say that. The alternative use of that money, I believe, could have achieved more in terms of equality of opportunity. I believe that the major reason for our failure to solve our problems in this area is that we keep believing for some reason or another that educational disadvantage is an educational problem. Educational disadvantage is a social problem and will only eventually be solved by social policies, not by educational policies. A simple illustration of that would be two children sitting behind the same desk in a classroom anywhere in Australia. One of those children could be the child of a surgeon at a hospital; the child sitting next to him could be the child of a person who is unemployed. Regardless of the resources that we pour into the institution, the comparative educational opportunity of those children will never be changed. Essentially, the major contribution that is made in that classroom is made by the teacher. But the teacher can provide only roughly the same support to both of those children. Any other resources, whether they be library, audio-visual, science laboratories or whatever, again will provide only equal opportunities to each of those children. Yet each of those children approaches the educational task with quite unequal backgrounds in terms of the resources that their parents can supply. Until we tackle that social problem we will not affect in any material way the problem of equality of educational opportunity in this country. The report of the Poverty Commission states: Factors such as social class, sex, geographical location, ethnicity and age all play a part. Those who gain least from the schooling system tend to be at the bottom of the social scale where lack of post school qualifications perpetuates their position. The outcomes of schooling are most favourable for those at the top of the social scale though their position tends to be less dependent on educational factors. It seems to me that a brave attempt is being made through the introduction of this Bill; it certainly is an attempt which must be made. But again I reiterate that I believe that the money we are spending through this Bill could probably be better spent and achieve those objectives more closely through a different portfolio. So I am not worried about the fact that Senator Baume made great play in the beginning of his speech of the percentage which is spent within the educational portfolio. I believe that the money ought to be spent where it can best achieve the objectives. I do not believe that it is always best spent in the education budget. In the first recommendation of the report of the Poverty Commission much stress was put on the need for collecting and monitoring data on a national basis relating the level of schooling and qualifications for specific groups to such outcomes of schooling as power within the community and occupation, which is basically equivalent to income levels. Without this information, I believe that it is virtually impossible to draw up a participation and equity program that has any real meaning or that will have any chance of lasting effect. In the introduction to the report, the Commission produced a table which illustrates that of those children who are living under the poverty line, more than 20 per cent come from large, intact families and 28 per cent come from families with no disability other than a very low income. These percentages increase amongst children who live in the 100 to 120 per cent of the poverty line category whereas as much as 73 per cent of the children come within these two disability groupings. We think that it is extremely important that people involved in the administration of that education program look closely at this report. It is very interesting to note that children in the traditional categories of single parent families, sick and invalid families, unemployed people and recent immigrants, form a relatively small proportion of the overall numbers. By comparison, over 35 per cent of these poor children come from the more sparsely populated rural areas. So the emphasis which is tending to emerge is an emphasis on what we might call traditional disadvantage, whereas in the education field the real disadvantage lies in two other groups, not the groups which are highlighted in most of what goes on at the moment. I wish to emphasise the last point I made that over 35 per cent of poor children-and that is one of the major groups-come from the sparsely populated rural areas. I mention the plight of rural children not only because of the vast number of these children in my State of Queensland and because of my very deep concern for the multiple disadvantages facing children in remote areas in their attempt to obtain a decent level of education, but also because it concerns me that the Minister has not reacted more quickly in regard to the sale of student hostels in Melbourne. I have linked these two items and I will raise that matter at a more appropriate time when making my comments in relation to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill. I pass now to the second of these three Bills, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill. I have said many times before that I think that we have spent far too much time quarrelling about the implications of this Bill, both in this place, in various town halls and in other parts of Australia. It seems that quite a number of people in the community might prefer that Senator Ryan, Senator Peter Baume and perhaps I should be put into a carriage and trundled round the countryside as part of a continuing sideshow, rehearsing time and time again the debates which go on in this place. Quite frankly, I really do not believe that such debates really help the educational cause in this country. The Australian Democrats were dragged rather brutally into this rather unhelpful debate by very expensive advertisements which appeared in various newspapers this week. Senator Chipp has already referred to the blatantly misleading nature of these advertisements. It has led to the rather ridiculous situation whereby my office has received an enormous number of telegrams. I will quote from some of these telegrams to give an idea of what people think we will do in relation to this Bill. The telegrams state: We urge Democrats to uphold democracy in Australia. Reject Senator Ryan's discriminatory Bill on education. Every child in Australia has a right to an education subsidy. Reject Senator Ryan's Bill. Strongly urge you vote against funding Bill which discriminates against non- Government schools. Quite frankly, I think that if people really have been led to believe that the best course of action would be to vote against these Bills, then someone or other around the country has been engaging in a gross and, I would suggest, rather unfair campaign to promote the idea to the people that if we vote against these Bills, somehow or other private schools will benefit. The reality is that the money provided by these Bills will support government and non-government schools next year, and anybody who votes against these Bills needs his head read . We have been down this path on a number of occasions. Senator Baume, the previous Minister for Education, said similar things about the States Grants ( Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill last year when Senator Ryan, the then Opposition spokesman on education, and I were making vague noises about amalgamations occurring at that time. Senator Baume quite correctly said that after 1 January those institutions would run out of money. That is true, and a very telling argument. I spoke to those people as late as a couple of hours ago. Are they saying to me and to the Opposition that schools in Australia will be quite happy to go without funding until this matter is resolved? It may be all right for those schools which have vast resources. It would be absolutely disastrous for most schools in Australia. Therefore, we have no intention of doing what the Opposition asks. However, at the Committee stage we will be raising a matter we have raised on many occasions not only on these types of Bills but also on other Bills; that is , the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and then to the Federal Court, if necessary, of people with a great concern about areas in which judgments are made based on evaluative criteria. When the Minister makes a determination in relation to an amount of money, it is not an evaluative criterion; it is not appropriate that such a determination be appealable. The amounts are determined by the Parliament. The Democrats have maintained that, where evaluative criteria are built into all such Bills of a serious nature, such determinations ought to be appealable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. We will be seeking to have an appeals procedure against such decisions as are built into this Bill. We have been unsuccessful in this respect on previous occasions, but that has not stopped us trying. We have received from the Australian Parents Council, as have probably quite a number of other people, a range of amendments, which I will discuss at the appropriate time. However, if we adopted a number of the amendments suggested by the Australian Parents Council private schools would be worse off than they are now. I am sure that is not the intent. Senator Peter Baume —We have a few days though. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, we do. Hopefully we will be able to discuss a number of these matters at the Committee stage. I point out yet again, as I am sure the Minister also will be very quick to point out yet again, that two principles operate in this area; one concerning the right of each child to support for its education, and the second concerning those who need more support than others. I put to the Catholic bishops by way of letter the argument that it is inevitable that those principles will come into conflict when one is faced with a cake the size of which one has no control over. I asked them to tell me what their approach would be when those principles conflicted. Unfortunately I have not had very many responses. I have received some letters, and I will be happy at a later stage to read the text into Hansard, the gist of which is yes, it is a very difficult problem. I knew that it was a very difficult problem. I was posing a very difficult problem. I was posing the problem of conflicting principles. While it is all right in the community to keep maintaining that both principles ought to be upheld, when they are in conflict one has to resolve that conflict in favour of one principle rather than the other. That is a necessary factor that resolves in government and resolves in parliament. We would like to be able to uphold both principles by endless amounts of money, but that is just not feasible. The Australian Democrats have made it very clear where we stand when those principles conflict. We will prefer, every time, to give that money to those who are in most need. I do not really believe that anybody could, when confronted with that unenviable choice, do other than that. I say to Senator Baume, in support of his past actions, that he had a number of these things and the same decisions were made. This did not happen on every occasion and I have criticised those actions, but, on the bulk of occasions it did. If one looks at the Act one finds that the only criterion to which the Minister had to have regard was the need of the schooling systems. That was the Act that Senator Baume argued through this place last year. That was the principle to which he believed, in legislative reform, he should have regard. I turn now to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill. We welcome this Bill and are particularly pleased to see an end to the enforced amalgamations. We have been particularly vocal about that. I believe that consultation in this area is always far better than plucking a list out of the air which is meant for something else. One should not make decisions in relation to expenditure when a decision ought to be made in relation to education. However, we are over that hurdle now. In the future we hope that any such amalgamations which may occur-I believe they may occur from time to time-will be done in full and extensive consultations with the various bodies concerned. The only area of complaint that we have relates to the item that I raised before and that is the 25 per cent reduction in grants for collegiate residences in 1984 and especially to the fact that this will be applied pro rata to all residences currently in receipt of Commonwealth grants. We appreciate that the Commission will be reviewing future arrangements for support for student accommodation and we have sufficient trust in the Commission to believe that they will look at the real disadvantages facing rural students. I think everybody is aware that rural parents are very concerned-it is an understandable concern-about their children when they leave home and go off to the big smoke, as it is still called in many parts and certainly in my State, for their tertiary education. They are concerned about their children despite the fact that they are 18 or 19 years of age. I think that is a legitimate concern. Many of them express very strongly, when one talks to them, that they would prefer their children to be in a campus residence where there is, at least , some watchful eye in that first year of two. That really calms many fears that parents quite legitimately express. But over and beyond that, if one looks at the major accommodation in universities around Australia, one sees the rents are extremely high. Senator Peter Baume —The quality is low. Senator MACKLIN —The quality is low in most places and rents are high. I would have hoped that, in terms of the capital works programs that the Government had chosen to carry out to get the economy moving again, we might have seen a major part of that money expended not on footpaths. One gets exasperated by this. We are still building footpaths which will not in any way contribute to our economic growth in this country. If the same amount of money were spent and if the same amount of cement were used on colleges or campus accommodation it would be an asset well into the future and would be marvellous for economic growth. I think it would be very difficult to go past any capital works program such as this for long term economic benefit. I would be very interested if anybody could put up a capital works program that has to be funded by the Government which could get a better return. The submission of the Student Housing Officers Association entitled 'Student Housing: An Issue of Access to Tertiary Education for Country Students', which the Minister certainly has, contains many worthwhile recommendations. It is part of the participation and equity program at the tertiary level. People and students have to live somewhere. In summary, we support the three Bills and, in general, see them as a progressive step-certainly a step in the right direction. However, we still raise problems. No Bill will ever satisfy the people who are concerned with education and neither should any Bill ever satisfy them. There is always more to be done, but one despairs sometimes at the priorities which we place on other areas and at the increasing lack of concern for the well argued premise that money spent on education is, at least in 1983, the best investment for the dollar that anybody can make. I refer briefly to the second reading amendment which was moved by the Opposition. It would be very difficult for the Democrats to support this amendment, for a number of reasons. Since I have very little time left I simply refer to paragraph (d), which states: (d) supports the principle of absolute freedom of choice in education . . . The Democrats do not support an absolute freedom of choice in education. I will raise at least one issue on which I think the Opposition would not support the absolute freedom of choice in education. Children in the country have rights. Children in any democracy must have rights. Parents do not have an untrammelled right under the laws of this country to do what they will with children. We are very clear in a whole range of areas on limiting the rights of parents because of the rights of children. Senator Peter Baume —It means within the law. Senator MACKLIN —The amendment states 'absolute freedom of choice'. I am taking it to task. The Democrats cannot support absolute freedom of choice. We support freedom of choice in education. I will give Senator Baume an educational example . Some schools in this country are giving an education which is detrimental to children. Many parents are now coming to me because they have found out, too late, that their children do not have the chance of even earning a living as a result of the education being given in some schools. Those children's rights to their life, to their enjoyment of their skills and to the contribution they can make to this country have been blighted by the choices made by parents. That to me is as bad as giving a right to a parent to abuse a child either physically or psychologically. They have blighted those children in their life chances. We support freedom of choice but it is never an absolute freedom. There are no absolute freedoms in a democracy. Every individual has rights. Where the rights of the child conflict with the rights of the parents it is not an easy choice. But the rights of the parents in education are not absolute. I have never held them to be absolute and I doubt very much whether anybody in this chamber holds them to be absolute. Senator Peter Baume —Without that word what would your view be? Senator MACKLIN —We can support freedom of choice but we find it very difficult to support amendments which have such wording in them. Senator Peter Baume —It has not been moved. It has only been foreshadowed. Senator MACKLIN —In that case I should not be speaking to it. I thought it had been moved. Paragraph (b) of the amendment which has been foreshadowed states: (b) calls for the restoration of the right of all children to receive guaranteed government support for their education. I suggest that children, under this Bill-this is what the attachment is-have a guaranteed right of support for their education. It is contained in the Bill. This Bill differs little from the Bill introduced last year. I am quite sure the Opposition felt then that it contained within it the right of all children to receive guaranteed government support. That is what this Bill does. That is what this Parliament, when it supports the second reading, will be guaranteeing to all children in this country-government support. We do not have to call for restoration; it has not been taken away. It is there. The Government supports it , and in fact the Australian Labor Party will be insane not to support it. The political situation in this country is such that any party which does not support the continuation of the private education system would not sit on the government benches after an election. So the Government, as is evident from the schedules, has increased the amount of money. Indeed, if one reads the teachers union journals one discovers that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, is no longer the darling of the teachers unions and that she is now almost on a par with the Education Minister from New South Wales. It is pretty difficult to get down quite that low, and she still has a slightly higher rating than he does. Senator Teague —I thought the elections tossed out the leaders of the Teachers Federation? Senator MACKLIN —Yes, and I think what is sometimes attributed to the Teachers Federation is not always the view of the Federation, to be quite fair. Senator Crichton-Browne —Certainly not of the members. Senator MACKLIN —Not even of the presidents of the union, either. That is easily demonstrated-it is on the record-by looking at the speeches that they tend to deliver in places other than annual conferences. So what we ought to be doing with this Bill is attempting, as far as we can, to fix any formal defects, and we certainly will be trying to do that. I believe a range of new items in this legislation ought to be appealable. They are matters of evaluation and they ought to be able to go into court if people feel that strongly about them. I foreshadow that we will be pursuing that in the Committee stage. As for the second reading attachment of the Opposition- Senator Peter Baume —In its present form. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, in its present form, I do not feel that the Democrats could support it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.32) —The Senate is debating cognately the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill , the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill. I will direct my attention to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill. The issue of government funding of non- government schools really raises fundamental questions regarding the future direction of education in Australia. Does the state have an absolute monopoly and right of control over all education in Australia? Should this control reach out and touch every parent and every student? Should that domination extend to eliminating parents' choice of education for their children? The legislation now before us seeks to extend that influence, not by government fiat but rather by manipulating the distribution of public funds and through the selective application of taxpayers' money. Are not the needs of children and the rights of parents to choose the education they think best for the children worthy of consideration by the policy makers? Are all the prejudices and jaundiced policy decisions, as is the case with this Government, to be based solely on the ideological requirements of teachers' unions and federations and the socialist desires for a monolithic state education system? Are people to be supported in their desires and personal endeavours to make very considerable personal sacrifice to achieve what they feel is the best education for their children? Should not encouragement be given to those parents who seek and strive to contribute materially, themselves, to the cost of educating their children? This Government's position on these questions is clearly expressed by the provisions of this Bill, which seeks to cut the basic grant to 41 non-government schools, to deny registered non- government schools the right to automatic government support, and by removing the nexus between the cost of educating a student at a government school and the level of funding for non-government schools it paves the way for ever decreasing allocations of funds to non-government schools. Most Australians oppose the Government's stand on this issue, as was shown in a recent gallup poll in which 52 per cent of people did not believe that the Government was right to cut financial assistance to non-government schools. Obviously the Australian Labor Party is aware of that feeling on this issue, which is no doubt why, during the election campaign, it went out of its way to reassure parents that there would be no cutback in the assistance to non- government schools. Yet only nine months ago the Government promised: Funding at present levels will be maintained during the period of time required to allow the Schools Commission to determine the community standard and to allow schools, in the light of that determination to make their decision. Clearly, the Government had no intention of maintaining the level of funding. At the first opportunity this promise has been broken. Yet only three weeks ago in the Senate the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, said: This Government is genuinely concerned for the education of children. Evidently this concern extends only to the sort of education that Senator Ryan endorses; it extends only to the philosophic concept of social dogma; that we shall have equality, but not excellence. She has already told us 'I do not like the pursuit of excellence. It has elitist overtones which I really dislike'. Senator Hamer —It is a disgraceful argument made by the Minister. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is right. Senator Ryan believes that education should produce 'a sense of self-esteem and identity sufficient to enable individuals to resist manipulation by the massive institutions of capitalism and to make autonomous decisions'. Of course all children have the right to equality of opportunity. They also have the right to the pursuit of excellence and to bring the benefit of their achievements to the entire community. The architects of this Bill are seeking to crush the outstanding individual achievement in favour of a dreary levelling down of education to the lowest common denominator. The method used to decide which schools should have their basic grants cut is arbitrary and unfair. The 41 schools that have had a 25 per cent cut in the level of government assistance are, apparently in the mind of this Government at least, wealthy schools. Yet by its own admission the Government has no definition of what constitutes a wealthy school. Mr Hurford, the Labor spokesman for education in February this year, said: I do have to say at the moment the assessment of what is a 'wealthy school' is totally inadequate . . . We do not currently have an accurate assessment. Under the previous Government schools were divided into three categories, each receiving a basic grant of 20 per cent and a further 10 per cent or 20 per cent according to the category into which they fell. The ALP, through this Bill, now seeks to divide into two the first category of schools which receive only the basic grant. One of those two groups will have its basic grant cut by 25 per cent. To decide which of the group 1 schools are to have their basic grant cut, the Government proposes a formula whereby the private disposable cash income of schools will be compared with the resources required to operate at national average school standards. Where it is believed that private income alone will be enough to enable the school to operate at about average government school standards, government assistance to the school is to be cut. The private income of the school is calculated on the basis of one year's figures. The year used is 1981. Private income calculations include capital fees-that is, fees set aside for some specific purpose such as school improvements. Therefore, a school that perhaps has had a determined fund raising effort during 1981 to improve its facilities in some way may well now find itself on the Government's hit list. It may well be that it was raising funds through additional fees for a new gymnasium, swimming pool or some additional facility to improve the standard of education in whatever form in that school. Now that school runs the risk, of course, of being on the hit list. This formula takes no account of the distinction between what the Labor Party describes and considers as wealthy schools which may have assets that have been built up over many years and the parents who send those children to non-government schools who may or may not be wealthy. It is the parents who have to pay the school fees. Many of these parents make considerable sacrifices to send their children to non-government schools which they believe, as a result of their choice, will provide the type of education which best suits their child or children. A survey conducted by the Victorian Association of Independent Schools showed that over 56 per cent of mothers were working to enable the family income to meet school fees. The Chairman of the Association believes that may well be a conservative figure. Undoubtedly the effect of the cuts in funding will be to raise fees in the 41 schools so affected. The result of this, according to the bursar of St Catherine's School in Victoria, Mr Richard Groom, will be to make: . . . the schools a little more elite than they already are. It will mean that people on the bottom of the income scale will drop off the schools' lists. It will not be the rich who will suffer but the less affluent who have chosen to make very considerable personal sacrifice so as to, in many cases, give their children an opportunity of a private education which they themselves did not have in the past. Under the supposedly egalitarian policies of this Government it will soon be only the very rich who will be able to have a choice regarding their children's education. It is perhaps worth considering the way in which this Government chose to announce its proposed funding cuts. In its statement the Government stated in part: Commonwealth Grants to high resourced non government schools are to be phased down to help meet the cost of additional grants to needy non government schools. The Government has framed its proposals in terms of cutting funds to schools that are in the highest resource category and are mainly Protestant to provide extra funds to schools in the bottom category which are of course mainly Catholic parish schools. This can be construed only as a futile and reprehensible attempt to divert attention from the Government's own actions, and as such has been soundly rejected. In a letter to the Age the Most Reverend John Kelly, Roman Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, described the Government's actions as follows: It has been announced that cuts will be made from the so called wealthy independent schools. But, note the cunning inbuilt contradiction, the money from these cuts will not be given to indigent Government schools, rather it will go to poorer independent schools, i.e. mainly Catholic schools. In the face of that blatant sectarian tactic, I challenge any Catholic independent school to accept this Judas money. That, as I say, was a quote from the Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne. The Government's action has not however been without result. According to the Archbishop of Melbourne, Sir Frank Little: It has been made to appear that Catholic schools have gained advantage by depriving their friends in independent schools. What has been the result? We now have a bitter sectarianism running riot. It has been described to me as the worst in living memory. Concern regarding these proposals has been expressed by the Central Commission of Catholic Bishops of Australia. That body represents the 45 Catholic bishops in Australia and describes the Government's proposal to reduce the basic grant for certain schools and thereby break the percentage link as 'potentially destructive of non-government schooling'. It is not just representatives of the Catholic community who have expressed their misgivings about this Government's education policy. The Anglican Bishop of Tasmania, Bishop Newell, has condemned the decisions. The National Council of Independent Schools has described the changes in funding as arbitrary and discriminatory. Most important of all, parents of children attending non-government schools have shown their fear and anxiety over the implications of the Government's policy by attending a series of mass meetings around Australia, including one at the Sydney Town Hall on 7 November which was attended by over 5,000 people. I understand one of the most outstanding speakers there was Senator Peter Baume. That meeting carried a resolution which reads in part: This meeting applauds the spirit of co-operation and unity that has been shown by all parents in the non-government school sector, from all schools, Catholic and non Catholic, at all levels in the face of the concerted and consistent attack presently being mounted against the right of freedom of choice in education and condemns the arbitrary action of the Government in discriminating against some children and causing uncertainty and apprehension in the minds of parents and children alike. The Government cannot justify its actions on the grounds that it is taking resources from so-called wealthy schools to fund poor non-government schools. In announcing the Government's changes in funding, Senator Ryan clearly stated that Government schools would receive an increase in funds during 1984 of 5.6 per cent compared with an increase of 1.5 per cent in funds for non-government schools during the same year. Evidently the reallocation of resources is not between poor and wealthy non-government schools but rather between government and non-government education sectors. The Government's intention of ultimately abolishing all non-government schools is underlined by the proposal contained in the States Grants (Schools Assistance ) Bill 1983 which seeks to deny non-government schools which have attained the criteria for registration, an automatic right to obtain government funding. This proposal calls into question the long established principles of the right of every school student to share in government funds for education. A non- government school which has obtained registration will now have to show that: The school is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the viability of the existing Government or non-Government schools. Thus, in an area in which a government school is adverse to competition from a non-government school, parents may now find that they cannot exercise their right to choose which school their children should attend because there is no alternative and no alternative will be allowed to the established school in their area, no matter how unsatisfactory they find that school. This is particularly distressing at a time when many parents are concerned with what they see as the declining standards of many government schools. In a gallup poll conducted in October this year, results conclusively showed that non-government schools were regarded as providing a far better education on matters of discipline, morals, personal interest in students and the basic 3Rs-reading, writing and arithmetic. This is the reason why people are prepared to sacrifice a higher standard of living in order to send their children to non-government schools. They are not satisfied with the standard of education and especially the standard of moral education their children may receive at some government schools. The Government's response to these anxieties has been to increase the burden of fees on such parents by reducing the level of funding. Breaking the nexus leaves future funding of non-government schools at the mercy of a ministerial whim which, as we have seen, is likely to be based on ideological considerations rather than the needs of the schools. It has thrown difficulties in the path of the establishment of new non-government schools by no longer recognising the right of registered non-government schools to receive government funds. These policies have cast a cloud of anxiety and confusion over the continued existence of the dual education system in Australia. I do not suggest for one moment that the Government school system does not contain many excellent schools with many dedicated and highly competent teachers. That is not at issue. What is at issue is the right of parents to choose-to select a school of their choice-to send their children to the school which they believe will provide the best education and the best opportunities for their children. This Government would have the community believe that taxpayers are subsidising the parents of children at non-government schools. Of course, that is not the case. Without the non-government school system in Australia, the education system in Australia would be in absolute chaos and the cost of education to all Australians would rise dramatically. This Government has clearly set a course of undermining the non-government school support system to the disadvantage of all Australian taxpayers and, for that matter, all Australian non-taxpayers. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.50) —Mr Deputy President, all afternoon the Senate has been debating the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, which provide Commonwealth finance for schools and for higher education. An expenditure of some $3.5 billion is proposed in these Bills. This expenditure reflects a 5.6 per cent real increase for government schools, a 1.5 per cent real increase for non-government schools and a 1.5 per cent real increase for tertiary education in Australia. The first of the three Bills before us involves an expenditure of only $70m. It is the so-called participation and equity Bill. This is a new name given by the present Government to what had been regarded as the transition program that affected schools and the technical and further education sector. The proposed expenditure also includes money from the past, applied in this new form, except for a small amount of $20m which is to be spent on administration, research and the beginnings of working out ways of achieving participation and equity. The format of these three education Bills is, by and large, much the same as that of the education Bills put before the Parliament at this stage every year. They involve the expenditure of this large amount of $3.5 billion. Because the Government has abandoned the established financial principles for the funding of schools in particular, the debate in the Senate this afternoon has concentrated upon money matters and the way in which the education cake is divided. The same thing happened in the House of Representatives all day Tuesday when so many members, concerned about the Government's policies for the distribution of moneys to schools, in particular, wanted to speak out and represent the views of the Australian public. This concentration upon the way in which funds are distributed, and upon money matters generally, is inevitable in this debate. Many who are listening may regard that as not being the priority that Parliament and politicians ought to set when they are concerned with education matters. I have long held the view that we should be putting forward constructive suggestions aimed at achieving increased quality in education outcome and the participation of more and more school children in courses of training that will serve them well in transition from school to work place, or for the rest of their lives. Indeed, the quality of education has been brought directly to the attention of the Senate; for example, in the course of an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts into the effectiveness of Australian schools in preparing young people for the work force-one in which I fully participated and which brought forth many conclusions with regard to the way in which we ought to improve the school system alone. In our report we stated that one-quarter of Australia's school children were badly served by its schools. Nothing in these Bills, nothing in the policies of this Government, has proposed a substantial remedy to that offence-that a quarter of Australia's school children are badly served by its schools. It relates to the structure of secondary education in Australia and to curriculum-to the inappropriateness in most States of a secondary school curriculum that is geared to higher education entry when less than 10 per cent of school leavers go on to university or colleges. Too often the curriculum-what is taught in our schools-is geared as if all the children were going on to tertiary education. Some very real reforms that we called for-I would like to think that the Senate Committee's work encouraged this outcome- have been implemented now by the South Australian Government education system and, indeed, by many of the independent schools, where the Matriculation Public Examination Board procedures are now being substituted by a secondary school certificate which will give legitimate place to alternative curricula more appropriate to the employment and life outcomes of school children. I say again that it is unfortunate that, in the debate on these Bills, we are distracted from such debates because of the giant offence of the Government undermining the financial principles that had been established for the funding of non-government schools. That is why in every newspaper that one picks up since the Budget there are letters to the editor, complaints and reports of parliamentary speeches. That is why there are questions in the Senate almost daily, and that is why there are public meetings in the cities and in the country. Every day it goes on because of the offence of this Government in upsetting the fundamental principles for the financing of non-government schools . The public is aware of that and, in particular, the parents concerned with non -government schools are aware of that, and the Opposition especially is taking that up in the Parliament. I want to take something of a new tack today in appealing to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). This is the tenth time since the Budget that I have risen to speak about this matter-one of three issues that are most offending the Australian public. First, the Labor Government has not helped the unemployed of this country. Unemployment has grown. Secondly, this Labor Government has offended the aged of Australia. There has been public uproar and debate. There is fear and anxiety among many aged people about what may happen with the assets test, the new arrangements for taxing superannuation and other things. But the Labor Government has not been content just to attack the unemployed and to attack the aged. As well, it has attacked this third group-the families associated with independent schools, who are in an uproar around Australia. It is that distraction of the Government that leads us in this debate again to ask the Government, as it is committed to reviewing the whole basis of funding independent schools, to go back to the established funding principles whereby there is a basic grant for every child at school in Australia, where that grant is a fixed proportion of the cost of a government school place and where those supplementary grants to those children in need in schools that are disadvantaged will also be geared as a proportion of the cost of a government school place. I have before me some photographs taken at one of those public meetings that I have mentioned-the Sydney meeting. On the front page of the Catholic Weekly of 9 November, only a few weeks ago, there are two large photographs; one taken from the rear of the Sydney Town Hall and the other from the front. There were 3,000 people at that meeting; all the faces are in the photograph. There were crowds outside which were not photographed. One headline was 'Parents overflowing Town Hall meeting'. Another headline was 'School Funds Protest'. For decades we have not had these sorts of meetings. The Government is distracting the public and this Parliament from substantial discussion about educational reform by abandoning the basic principles of funding independent schools. I hope that the Minister will be patient and will bear with me as I try a new plea to her and the Government. I ask them to pay more attention to the people of Australia at meetings such as that, but also at meetings that will be held over the next fortnight as every independent school holds its speech night. How many independent schools does the Minister think will not refer to the anxiety that her Government has caused those schools? There are about 3,000 independent schools. They will have speech nights in the coming fortnight. All the parents will be there. Does the Minister think that there will be one independent school that will not refer to the anxiety that this Government has caused them? The Minister does not suggest the number. What about all the churches that have received a copy of the newspaper I have spoken of? That shows the alarm, the concern in the public which Opposition members are reflecting in their speeches. I put a plea to the Minister. She might say that in doing this I am tempting Judas in the same way as many members of the public have said that the level 3 schools are being tempted by her to be Judas with her one-off, extraordinary increase in funding to level 3 schools this year. I put to the Minister that for $20m she could restore the nexus. She could make available the capital grants that would fit the earlier principles for the establishment of independent schools. She could restore the basic grant for $4m. Today we are talking about three Bills to provide $3 1/2 billion-$3, 500m. I am asking that the Minister add $20m to that figure. For that price, if she can be committed to confirming and reaffirming the established guidelines for financing non-government schools, she will stop all this uproar; she will stop all these public meetings and, if she can act even on the weekend, she will stop all the speeches that would otherwise be made in those thousands of schools in their speech nights in the next fortnight. That is why the public is asking the Government to act. It wants an assurance that in the coming six months as the Minister is reviewing the basis for the financing of independent schools she will take into account their support for the established principles that she has abandoned this year and will confirm them, bring them back. If she does that we will not be distracted in this country but we will all be pulling in the same direction to see what we can do to achieve better education outcomes at those schools that are in need. As I have said in a couple of earlier speeches on this matter, we in the Opposition are not offended by the Government's commitment to helping schools in need. That was our commitment in government too. We had level 3 schools to which we gave twice the per capita funding of level 1 schools. We had a disadvantaged schools program and a country areas program, and the present Government is continuing those, in order to help those who are in need and those who are disadvantaged. There are programs for special education for the handicapped and, of course, the English as a second language program. This Government has cut back funding on that, by the way. Senator Ryan —No, wrong. Senator TEAGUE —There is not the same commitment of funds for the ESL program as there was in the past. New arrivals attending ESL classes will not gain the facility for English as a second language teaching which I think every educationalist would want to see them gain. The needs of schools are recognised by the Opposition and were recognised by it in government. There is no monopoly of virtue in the appeal that the Government makes to the needs of Australia's schools. But let us see the Government withdraw the grand distraction it has placed in education circles this year and then we can all pull together towards ways to maximise helping those schools and those children most in need. In any event, there is a 5.6 per cent increase by this Government for government schools and there are less children in those schools than last year. The numbers of children in government schools are declining for two reasons: Firstly, there is a population decrease and, secondly, there is a preference by families for children to be enrolled in non-government schools. Those schools are receiving 5 .6 per cent more money this year through the Bills before us and yet there are less children in the schools. Surely the problem is not the question so much of quantity of funds but the way those funds are used to achieve the kinds of outcomes, the kinds of policies that Senator Robertson and I argued for in preparation for the work force or the kinds of policies that would see primary education, particularly in the first two years, gaining a greater percentage of teachers in those classes than we have seen in recent years. Those are the sorts of things that these Bills do not address at all. We cannot feel relaxed to work together towards those goals in this debate. We will in every other way because the Bills that are before us are offensive Bills. They have abandoned the principles of education funding that the public want and that have been well established and were a good foundation for seeing government and non-government schools alike being assisted. In the minutes that remain, I would like to surmise that there are two reasons for the abandonment of these established principles. Firstly, there is this appeal to those schools in need. We agree with that. We do not deny and we do not want to deny extra resources going to schools in need, except that the Government uses that as a grand excuse to abandon all the other principles. Secondly-here I must be political and I hope the Minister will be patient with me-the reason is that in the last election there was a strong ideological commitment in the teachers unions and in the Labor Party branches, with what one might even call minorities. Key Labor Party supporters gave financial support. They were key members in the branches, not least members of teachers unions who are members of the Australian Labor Party. The Government is not wanting to disown them. They happen to be ideologically convinced that independent schools should be denied the kinds of funds that they were receiving. Their plea, directly to the Labor Party and to this Government, is to make it very hard indeed for new independent schools to be formed and to cut back on all independent schools, especially on the tall poppies. The Government has had to do something to satisfy that section of its political base for ideological reasons. I think the dilemma for the Labor Government is between ideology and democracy. The Government knows that it is losing votes with the public. Senator Cook is from Western Australia and he will bear with me. Western Australia is losing votes because the public do not like the policies of this Government. On the other hand the Labor Party, if it did not implement any cutbacks in funding for non-government schools, would lose support from within its own branches, and perhaps the enthusiasm of some of the key teacher members of the ALP who sustain ALP branches in some of the country and city areas. There is a real dilemma for the Labor Government. How does it get votes from the public, and win some democratic support, and at the same time play up to the ideological commitments of a minority of hard-headed education-oriented people in the Labor Party? One of the Minister's strategies-I do not think she has been using it very well-is what I call political schizophrenia. She says one thing to the Labor faithful and another thing to the public. She says one thing to a large meeting of non-government school representatives and another thing to the government schools. She is selective in her rhetoric according to her audience. Let me give the Senate three brief examples. The Minister, in the middle of October, spoke to the Australian Council of State School Organisations, one of the groups that very much welcome the Minister to meetings. I will concede that to the Minister. This Council, through its members, with its radical stance, is further to the Left, and wants government to do more radical things than even the Hawke Government has been able to do. Nothing on the speech for the ACSSO meeting coincided with the speeches that the Minister gives to the non- government schools. I ask any member of the public just to compare the speeches. The Minister, in her speech to the Council, said that the goals of the Labor Government had been made quite clear. I quote her: Our Government is committed to that course and although we have not yet completed a year in office we have given clear indications of our goals and intentions. When members of the public who are concerned with non-government schools pick up those words-'clear indications of our goals and intentions'-they are rightly alarmed. Yet when the Government goes to them it tries to be reassuring. Senator Robertson —They are selective, like you. Read it all. Read out what the goals are. Senator TEAGUE —I will do so: . . . the achievement and maintenance of high standard public education must be a major concern of the Government. Senator Ryan —Do you disagree with that? Senator TEAGUE —I do not disagree; nor have I at any stage disagreed with the maintenance of high goals and, indeed, education excellence in all schools in Australia. Senator Ryan —You agree with us then? Senator TEAGUE —No, the Government is denying the non-government schools. Later in her speech the Minister was derogatory about those parents who choose an independent school for their children. She went on to say: It is important to acknowledge that government schools in recent years have lost the support of many highly-motivated and well-intentioned parents who have been persuaded that the best way to achieve good education for their children is to buy it from high fee paying schools. That is derogatory language and it is just as derogatory to call those schools subsidised schools. They are not subsidised schools and the parents who choose independent schools in pursuit of educational excellence are not buying something. It is just as much a process of participation as it is in any schools in Australia; yet with such derogatory language the Minister is appealing to the supporters of government schools in a selective fashion. The Minister visited Eire a few days later. In speaking to her audience at the Australian Ireland Bicentennial Conference in Kilkenny, she said: . . . decisions taken by the Labor Government in its first budget strengthen the capacity of the Catholic system to plan and grow. The Government can only sustain that by the selective way in which it has given support to the group 3 Catholic schools. Debate interrupted. Australian Secret Intelligence Service-Appropriation Bills The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 4.15 p.m., pursuant to the order of the Senate, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.15) —I claim to have been misrepresented and I wish to make a personal explanation. I just became aware a few minutes ago of a Press release put out by the Leader of the Opposition ( Senator Chaney) purporting to state that in the course of an answer I gave in Question Time today I was clearly suggesting that Mr Hayden should consider offering to resign. Let me say for the record, if it needs to be said-- Senator Peter Baume —We will look at the Hansard, won't we? Senator GARETH EVANS —Honourable senators are very welcome indeed to look at the Hansard. Let me say for the record this: There is no question whatever of my having suggested today at Question Time that Mr Hayden should consider resigning over the Australian Secret Intelligence Service Sheraton Hotel incident. Of course I do not believe that he should. Senator Chaney has deliberately twisted my words and he knows it. What I did say when the question-- Senator Peter Baume —I take a point of order. To say that Senator Chaney has deliberately twisted his words-- Senator GARETH EVANS —I will say fabricated; I will say lots worse than that. Senator Peter Baume —It is the word 'deliberately' with which I am concerned. I think that the word 'deliberately' is inappropriate. The PRESIDENT —Order! I think the Attorney-General is offending under Standing Order 418. I ask him to withdraw the word 'deliberately'. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will substitute 'contemptible fabrication'. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Attorney-General should withdraw those words. Senator GARETH EVANS —I withdraw them in deference to the Chair, but I hope the point is nonetheless made. The PRESIDENT —I suggest that the Attorney-General withdraw the words. Senator GARETH EVANS —What I did say-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest the honourable senator withdraw the words. Senator GARETH EVANS —I withdraw. What I did say when questioned by Senator Sir John Carrick on a speech I made on 7 September last year in relation to Senator Durack's handling of the bottom of the harbour tax affair was that I did regard Mr Fraser's statement of 1972 as being one of continuing application. It would, indeed, have been quite hypocritical for me to state otherwise. I then went on to say that, in reference to the general principle and its application and not this particular situation, and I quote: 'What is a major blunder of real importance to Australia is a matter which will no doubt always occasion some anxious consideration as to its proper application by the Ministers concerned'. I am slightly paraphrasing the text as it appears in Hansard because it seems to me grammatically not to follow in the form in which it now appears, which of course is often the case. I am stating for the record exactly what I intend to say: That it will always be a matter of anxious consideration for Ministers concerned, when a major blunder occurs in their Department, as to whether the Fraser criterion is satisfied. I then, having been pressed in a supplementary question, specifically refused to be drawn as to whether that principle had any application in this case. Now that the matter has been the subject of quite distorted misrepresentation by Senator Chaney, let me be drawn and let me make my point absolutely clear. Although the ASIS incidnet is obviously a deplorable one and although it could certainly be described as a major blunder by the organisation concerned, as Mr Hayden himself has of course acknowledged, no damage whatsoever to the national interest has flowed from it or is likely to flow from it that is remotely comparable to the loss to the Treasury of hundreds and possibly thousands of millions of dollars as a result of the kind of bureaucratic blundering leading to the failure to prosecute in the bottom of the harbour cases. Mr President, this is the view I put on the record: It is clearly only the most extraordinary and exceptional circumstances involving, I believe, prolonged maladministration of very large dimensions on a matter of extreme and manifest public importance, that could, in the absence of personal ministerial culpability-this is, of course, the context in which we are talking-ever justify a ministerial resignation. I repeat that there is no question in my mind or in any reasonable person's mind of these circumstances or these criteria being satisfied here. I hope that clarifies the record. I hope that Senator Chaney will withdraw the imputation that he quite undeservedly and unjustifiably derived from my answer in Question Time today. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.21) —Mr President, I thank you for the protection which you afforded me in my absence against the unparliamentary remarks of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). The Attorney-General seems to have had second and what he now thinks are no doubt wiser thoughts about the words that he uttered in the Senate earlier today. This is not the first time, of course, that we have seen the Attorney regret his impetuous behaviour. The words he used earlier this year-'It seemed like a good idea at the time'-have gone into the political history of Australia and will no doubt always be a noteworthy part of the Attorney-General's contribution to Australian political life. But to return to the matter that has been raised during the adjournment debate by the Attorney, all I have done, Mr President, is to quote the Attorney-General . I am sorry that it causes him such pain to have his words reproduced, words which are taken from Hansard and which he may choose to say do not represent his true position. But he is in the business of putting the position of the Government through his mouth, both in response to answers to questions and during debate in this place. What I have quoted is that the Attorney-General, a little earlier today, said: It is a question of course of interpretation in all the circumstances of a particular case what is a major blunder of real importance to Australia, and no doubt some anxious consideration will be given to the proper application of that criterion by the Ministers concerned. Senator Gareth Evans —'Ministers' plural, referring to the situations as they may occur. Senator CHANEY —'Ministers concerned', and as I have just said publicly outside this place, perhaps the Attorney is picking up the hapless Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) as well in his comments. The fact of the matter is that the Attorney's words clearly indicate that in his view this is a situation to which some anxious consideration will be given. I think we have just heard some very illuminating additional words from the Attorney tonight. This shows what the priorities of the Attorney-General are-the loss of money through the tax system is a far more significant thing for Australia than a threat to Australia's security according to him. That is the sort of priority that this Government represents. I say that when there is a threat to the security of this country, through some threat being caused to the existence of the security forces which are important to this country, that is a matter which goes beyond mere money and goes to much more important issues which ought to be the concern of this Parliament. I believe that we are dealing with far more serious matters now than the question of mere revenue. So I make no apology for repeating the Attorney-General's words. It was important, I think, that the Attorney be reminded of the standards which he purported to set for others years ago, standards which he purported to endorse today. When he was questioned further he indicated that he thought those standards required anxious consideration by the Ministers concerned. I believe that that is an entirely appropriate response. I hope that his colleagues heed his words. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I ask Senator Chaney to withdraw the imputation made in his public statement. Given that Senator Chaney has said publicly: Senator Evans is clearly suggesting that Mr Hayden should consider offering to resign. and given that I have expressly denied that there was any such intention flowing from anything I said today-and certainly I put it expressly on the record now that I had no such suggestion in mind-will Senator Chaney publicly withdraw the imputation that he has made? Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-The precise words that I used were: The Minister for Foreign Affairs should consider offering to resign over the A. S.I.S. incident at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne. This is the clear implication of an answer by the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, in the Senate today and the Opposition supports his view. I quote the specific words used by Senator Evans. He said: It is a question of course of interpretation in all the circumstances of a particular case what is a major blunder of real importance to Australia, and no doubt some anxious consideration will be given to the proper application of that criterion by the Ministers concerned. I then went on to say, and these are my words, that: Senator Evans is clearly suggesting that Mr Hayden should consider offering to resign. Senator Evans has now come in here and said: 'No, that is not what I mean at all '. All that I am saying is that he has chosen to vary the meaning of the words, and that is something which is up to him. I also point to the remarks of the Foreign Minister in the prepared statement which he made in the House of Representatives yesterday, and which was repeated in virtually the same terms by the Attorney-General in the Senate yesterday. On page 2 of the typescript which was made available to us Mr Hayden said: I make no excuses for-in fact I only have the sternest condemnation about-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. Mr President, I do not think we could have clearer words from the Foreign Minister himself that he regards this as a very serious matter and it is a matter which warrants an immediate reference to the judge who is examining the security services. I believe that the fact that Senator Evans now believes that his mouth has run away with him yet again is something that the Attorney-General has to live with and not that I have to live with. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.26) —Mr President , I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard two sets of answers to questions relating to the Appropriation Bills. They are answers to questions from Senator Walters relating to lighthouses and another relating to departmental employment levels. I undertook some time ago to have these incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- The following information is provided in response to a request from Senator Walters during Senate's consideration of Appropriation Bill No. 1 1983-84. The Senator's question sought information as to the operating costs of manned lighthouses. INDICATIVE ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS AS MANNED STATION Salaries Transport Fuel Total and Main- and nearest Lightstation allowances Contract Ship tenance power Other '000 Booby Island 76,500 19,000 38,300 23,000 6,000 1,000 164,000 Low Isles 45,800 6,200 36,000 23,000 6,000 1,000 118,000 Fitzroy Island 45,800 6,000 25,300 23, 000 6,000 1,000 107,000 Cape Cleveland 45,800 14,000 28,300 23,000 6,000 1,000 118,000 Dent Island 45,500 19,000 33,000 23,000 6,000 1,000 128,000 Pine Islet 79,300 24,000 33,000 23,000 6,000 1,000 166,000 Cape Capricorn 45,500 10,000 25 ,300 23,000 6,000 1,000 111,000 Bustard Head 57,500 11,000 40,700 23,000 6,000 1,000 139,000 Lady Elliot Island 45,500 10,000 18,700 23,000 6,000 1,000 105, 000 Sandy Cape 45,500 7,000 29,700 23,000 6,000 1,000 112,000 Double Island Point 43,900 5,000 18,700 23,000 6,000 1,000 98,000 Cape Moreton 43,900 14,000 33,000 23,000 6,000 1,000 121,000 Cape Byron 42,900 . . . . 28,000 5,000 4,000 80,000 Smoky Cape 42,900 42,900 42,900 30,000 3,000 4,000 80,000 Sugarloaf Point 42,900 . . . . 30,000 4,000 4,000 81,000 Norah Head 42,900 . . . . 27,000 4,000 4,000 78,000 Point Perpendicular 43,900 . . . . 37,000 10,000 4,000 95,000 Montague Island 45,500 26,000 18,700 35,000 8,000 4,000 137,000 Green Cape 45,500 . . . . 40, 000 11,000 4,000 101,000 Gabo Island 45,900 21,000 40,700 70,000 14,000 4,000 196,000 Point Hicks 45,900 . . . . 48,000 11,000 4,000 109,000 Deal Island 45, 500 30,000 29,700 55,000 12,000 4,000 177,000 Swan Island 44,500 10,000 18,700 55,000 6,000 4,000 138,000 Eddystone Point 42,900 . . . . 40,000 8,000 4,000 95 ,000 Cape Bruny 44,500 . . . . 35,000 10,000 4,000 94,000 Maatsuyker 46,800 129,000 . . 70,000 17,000 4,000 267,000 Low Head 23,500 . . . . 41,000 5,000 4, 000 74,000 Wilsons Promontory 45,500 20,400 40,700 70,000 14,000 4,000 195,000 Cape Schanck 43,900 . . . . 40,000 4,000 4,000 92,000 Currie Harbour 24,500 . . . . 38,000 7,000 4,000 74,000 Cape Otway 43,900 . . . . 40,000 7,000 4,000 95 ,000 Cape Nelson 43,900 . . . . 28,000 5,000 4,000 81,000 Cape Willougby 45,500 . . . . 20,000 6,000 2,000 74,000 Cape Borda 45,500 . . . . 25,000 6,000 2,000 79,000 Althorpe Island 45,900 18,000 29,700 23,000 12, 000 1,000 130,000 South Neptune Island 47,800 18,000 44,000 26,000 12,000 1,000 149,000 Cape Leeuwin 64,800 . . . . 37,000 8,000 5,000 115,000 Cape Naturaliste 23,500 . . . . 24,000 3,000 4,000 55,000 Rottnest Island 23,500 . . . . 27,000 2,000 2,500 55,000 Moore Point 23,500 . . . . 10,000 2,000 2,500 38,000 Cape Leveque 51,700 6,000 44,000 70,000 10,000 6,000 188,000 The following information is provided in response to a question asked by Senator Walters during the Senate's consideration of Appropriation Bill No. 1 1983-84. The Senator's question asked for details of staff increases in the departments included in Group A. DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYMENT LEVELS Prime Minister and Cabinet Average employment Actual Estimate 1982-83 1983-84 Second Division 37 38 Third Division 270 270 Fourth Division 151 153 Casual and part-time staff 12 15 470 476 Industry and Commerce Average employment Vari- Actual at Estimate ation 30.6.83 at 30.6.84 Permanent +120 5,388 5,508 Part-time and temporary nil 22 22 +120 5,410 5,530 Employment and Industrial Relations Actual Approval *Vari- at for ation 30.6.83 1983-84 Full time (permanent and temporary) +421 7,059 7,480 Part-time + 2 231 233 +423 7,290 7,713 Communications Vari- Actual Estimate ation 1982-83 1983-84 Full time +37 736 773 Part-time + 2 14 16 +39 750 789 * Increases granted August 1983 (forward Staff Estimate bid and includes 180 for re-establishment of Industrial Relations Arbitration Inspectorate). The numbers listed against the category of casual and part-time staff are all part-time. The full time staff can be sub-divided into permanent and temporary as follows: Actual Estimate 1982-83 1983-84 Permanent 450 452 Temporary 8 9 I also inform the Senate that I will make available this afternoon to Senator Hamer answers to questions which he asked about the National Film Archives. I think those matters are the remaining matters which arose in the course of the Appropriation debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.27 p.m. until Tuesday, 6 December 1983 at 2 p.m.