Tuesday, 6 December 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) left Australia on 2 December to lead a business delegation to the Middle East and Cyprus. Mr Bowen will return to Australia on 16 December. In his absence, the Hon. John Kerin, the Minister for Primary Industry, will act as Minister for Trade and the Hon. John Dawkins, the Minister for Finance, will act as Leader of the House. I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) left Australia today to visit the Antarctic as guest of the United States Government. In Mr Jones's absence, the Hon. Peter Morris, the Minister for Transport, will act as Minister for Science and Technology. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Sex Discrimination Legislation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth 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 Chaney (from nine citizens), Jack Evans (from 15 citizens) and Messner (from 13 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 Senators Archer (from 309 citizens) and Watson (from 147 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist the school 'community' provide an environment conducive to the development, including moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled; should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State', and Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia respectfully sheweth that: 1. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 2. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 3. We call upon the Federal Government, however, to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own special programs and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 4. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Grimes (from 48 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 sheweth 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 Federation Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own special 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 Reid (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally-funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not resond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 20 citizens) and Gietzelt (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the 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 Senator Collard (from 56 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are deeply concerned for the well-being of Mr Mart Niklus, a leading Estonian and Baltic human rights activist who is in ill health and imprisoned in solitary confinement in Perm Labour Camp No. 389/36 in Siberia. (2) That Mr Mart Niklus has been imprisoned as a 'prisoner of conscience' for the non-violent exercise of his beliefs and is denied visiting and communication rights. (3) That the Australian Government give its support to any initiatives in this case by Amnesty International which has adopted Mr Mart Niklus. Amnesty International believes he has committed no real crime and has never used or advocated the use of violence. (4) That we urge the Australian Government to make representations to the Government of the Soviet Union to promptly release Mr Mart Niklus and grant him a passport and exit visa. (5) That in its representations to the Government of the Soviet Union advise that the Australian Government has approved the sponsored entry of Mr Mart Niklus into Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 85 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 invididuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: i. a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, ii. subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, iii. farmer unrest at seed prices, iv. monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing cropchemicals, v. increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Primmer (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that: General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs, e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 38 citizens), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 33 citizens), Lewis (from 78 citizens), Messner (from eight citizens), Missen (from 30 citizens), Scott (from 45 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to insurance intermediaries. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make provisions in relation to the evidence that may be given in certain foreign proceedings, to provide a right of action in Australia in respect of the enforcement outside Australia of certain foreign judgments, and for related purposes. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Did the Attorney-General or anyone acting on his behalf change the Hansard typescript of an answer to the question that I asked him on Friday concerning ministerial responsibility over the Australian Secret Intelligence Service incident at the Sheraton Hotel by the addition of the word 'always'? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I recall, I did make a minor amendment or two, as is common-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator GARETH EVANS —As is perfectly common for all honourable senators in this place, provided that, in doing so, one does not change the meaning, the substance or the context in which the answer is given. Senator Chaney —A very good proviso. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am very puzzled that there should be indignation on this subject. It is a well known practice in this place to be given 'pinks' for the very purpose of clarifying some things which get confused from time to time. I thought it was perfectly clear, and if honourable senators will refer to the answer in question in Hansard, they will see that the answer that I gave with respect to this was perfectly clear, that it is and was my belief that the principle to which Senator Sir John Carrick was referring did have application, and that whenever an issue arose possibly justifying an application of that principle, it would be appropriate for the Ministers concerned, in those situations, to look to the circumstances of the particular case and to give anxious consideration as to whether the principle was breached. That was the point I was making. The context in which I was making it was perfectly clear, as I indicated in my personal explanation on Friday, and in reading that personal explanation I was reading from an amended copy of the Hansard in question. Senator Chaney —Yes, you sure were. Senator GARETH EVANS —The punctuation, as I recall, because I made a particular point of it in my personal explanation, was somewhat obscure in this particular respect and in fact it obscured a context that was perfectly clear in the language that I actually used and in the hearing of all listeners except those ill motivated points-scorers opposite who seek to derive more than can possibly be derived from the record. Senator Chaney —You are a disgrace. Senator GARETH EVANS —I take the opportunity, in between Senator Chaney's interjections, to make the point-- Senator Chaney —Cheat! Senator GARETH EVANS —As I made it on Friday-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark. Senator Chaney —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator GARETH EVANS —I make the point, as I made on Friday, that there is no question whatsoever of a belief or a skerrick of a belief in my mind that this is an appropriate case for Mr Hayden even to consider resigning. The nature of the blunder in question, spectacular as it was within the organisation, was not of a kind comparable with earlier occasions that have given rise to debate, hypocritical as it may be on this occasion, from honourable senators opposite. Moreover, the point needs to be made, and needs to be reiterated very forcefully , that Mr Hayden's reaction to those circumstances when they came to his knowledge was swift, effective and sensible in the extreme, and, indeed, has not been challenged on either side of this place and has, moreover, been specifically endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, who said that he found Mr Hayden's reaction absolutely impeccable in all the circumstances and one that he would have followed himself. I cannot see the force of the point that is endeavouring to be made on the other side. It is a demonstration of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy, not to mention the political bankruptcy, of what honourable senators opposite have to offer. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Does the Attorney-General assert, from his answer, that the addition of the word 'always' to his answer was a minor and inconsequential change that did not change the meaning of the words, and not an alteration-- Government senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I cannot hear the question. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask the Attorney-General: Did he, by his answer, assert that the addition of the word 'always' to his answer last week meant only a minor and inconsequential amendment which would not alter the meaning, and not a substantial alteration which did in fact alter wholly the meaning? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, I do so assert, vigorously and strongly. There was no question of the meaning, the substance or the context in any way being altered, and indeed, were there such a suggestion, I would have expected the Hansard reporters or supervisor to come to me and say: 'To do this is not in accordance with the practice of this place'. Some of us are less honour bound than others when it comes to these matters, but all of us are honour bound to observe the conventions of this place and not to amend the written record in any way. Senator Lewis interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Lewis. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Lewis has something to withdraw, I understand, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Senator Lewis, I ask you to withdraw your remarks. Senator Lewis —What did I say, Mr President? The PRESIDENT —I shall not repeat it. I ask you to withdraw. Senator Lewis —Whatever it was, no doubt it will be recorded in Hansard. I withdraw. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think I have completed the point I wanted to make. There was no change whatsoever in substance. Had there been a change of substance or something as to render the context or the impression to be derived from the answer different, I would have expected that matter to be drawn to my attention. It was not. Senator Lewis —I raise a point of personal explanation, Mr President. I have recalled that the expression I used was 'Rubbish'. I now withdraw the word ' Rubbish', but I do not think it was unparliamentary. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to you, Mr President. I noticed last week that the portraits of former Senator Dorothy Tangey and Dame Enid Lyons had been moved to either side of the Library doors, and I was pleased that this action had occurred as I understood it was in response to questions in this chamber from Senator Coleman. To my surprise, I notice that the portraits are now back behind the pillars. Mr President, can you explain why the two portraits in question have been moved again, as it seemed to me that they adorned the Library entrance and the top of King's Hall with grace and elegance? The PRESIDENT —The two portraits were first moved without authority about three weeks ago. Because the Speaker and I had had discussions with the Joint House Department about rotation of portraits and it had been reported to the House Committee that arrangements were being made for rotation of all portraits during the forthcoming parliamentary recess and because the portraits were moved without the authority of the Speaker and me, it was decided that they should be returned to their original positions. The instruction that has been given to the Joint House Department for rotation will apply to all portraits, not just the two referred to by the honourable senator, and will take effect during the forthcoming parliamentary recess. Senator DURACK —My question is also directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the words which he used in answer to Senator Sir John Carrick's question last Friday. This is the relevant section of what he actually said, not as it is recorded in Hansard-- Senator Gareth Evans —Huh! Senator DURACK —I understand that Senator Evans agrees that what he actually said is different from what is now recorded in Hansard. This is what the Attorney said: Of course, it is a question of interpretation, in all the circumstances of a particular case, of what is a minor 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. Is not any reasonable listener to that answer entitled to believe that the Attorney-General was referring to the particular incident itself and the Ministers concerned? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I do not accept that. I have now obtained a copy of the question and the answer. The question was about what I thought of the continuing application of the Fraser principle which I had endorsed against the Opposition last year. It was a fair question, a neat question and one which I applauded as such, and I began my answer as follows: 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. I then went on straightaway to the sentence quoted: Of course, it is a question of interpretation, in all the circumstances of a particular case-not, I add for the record, this particular case but a particular case-of what is a major blunder of real importance to Australia and no doubt some anxious consideration will always be given- will be given or will always be given, as one's taste takes one- to the proper application of that criterion by the Ministers concerned. I said 'Ministers', plural, as I emphasised at the time in answer to a supplementary question. I then said something to the effect of it being ' intolerable that we should be subjected, on occasions like this, to the kind of hypocrisy that now wafts across from the Opposition benches'. That hypocrisy, I add, wafts again in increasing gusts today. I said nothing about the circumstances of this particular case. Indeed, it was my belief and knowledge at the stage when I answered that question that only one Minister had been involved , namely, Mr Hayden, and that there was no question of any other Minister, other than Mr Scholes in telling him, being involved. It was only one Minister with ministerial responsibility, as indeed is still my belief. I would not have answered a question in terms of any possibility of another Minister being involved. The whole context of that answer, to repeat endlessly, referred to the general application from time to time of the principle which appealed to Mr Malcolm Fraser in his day but which manifestly did not appeal to this lot when they were in government last year, for perfectly understandable reasons, but ones no less redolent of hypocrisy for that. I do not think there is anything more I can say except that, in answer to a supplementary question, I was pressed on the circumstances of this case. I chose not to answer that question. That is, of course, what gave rise to the allegations of ambiguity which I then corrected in a personal explanation later in the afternoon. I repeat that this attack today is a demonstration of the moral, intellectual and political bankruptcy of the Opposition party in this nation and an ample demonstration of everything that we have been asserting to this effect for months on end. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It is prompted by an article in the Brisbane Sunday Mail last weekend. The article dealt with the proposed assets test and indicated that disability pensions will be assessed as income in determining eligibility for an age pension. As many service pensioners thought this also referred to their pensions, will the Minister advise whether disability pensions will continue to be exempt in determining eligibility for a service pension? Senator GIETZELT —Since the Government announced its proposal in respect of the assets test, and more particularly in the last week or so, there have been numerous articles in most of the popular newspapers commenting upon the decision and giving advice to pensioners, whether they be age and invalid pensioners or service pensioners. Both Senator Grimes and I have examined those statements very carefully because that advice has been made available to people in good faith by the writers of the newspapers. I must say that in an overwhelming majority of cases we have found no reasons to doubt their interpretation given in good faith in the articles. However, I am afraid that there has been a misunderstanding by the writer of that article in the Sunday Mail of last Sunday. It is true that war disability pensions are assessed as income in determining eligibility for pensions under the Social Services Act. To that extent, the article has some particular validity or relevance. However, war disability pensions are not and will not be treated as income in determining eligibility for service pensions. So, in fact, two different standards are applied. The Repatriation Act for which I am responsible is quite clear on this point, that disability pensions are compensatory pensions, not welfare related measures, and are paid irrespective of means. That, of course, will continue whatever happens in respect of the assets test unless, of course, some capricious amendment is adopted in the Senate. However, the Government is concerned that that application of policy to service pensions does not apply in respect of age and invalid pensions, those that fall within the ministerial jurisdiction of my colleague, Senator Grimes. The Government is concerned with a long-standing anomaly whereby disability pensions are treated as income under the Social Services Act. That is a practice and procedure that has existed for many many years and has not, at this stage, been picked up by this Government. However, the appropriate Ministers will be examining a case for removing this anomaly but will do so in respect of the 1984 -85 Budget. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I ask the Attorney-General: Did he or his office have any contact with either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister concerning the Attorney's answer to Senator Sir John Carrick prior to the decision to add the word 'always' to the Attorney's answer as recorded by Hansard last Friday? Senator GARETH EVANS —The answer is no. Senator ELSTOB —My question is to the Minister for Social Security. It refers to the handicapped programs review and its reference to the accountability of organisations that assist disabled persons. Can the Minister advise whether any submissions to the review have related to the lack of liberty and privacy in nursing homes and institutions where disabled persons live or work? Does the Minister agree that, where the Government allocates specific purpose grants to certain social welfare organisations, those organisations should be required to account for the quality of service they provide? Senator GRIMES —Under the handicapped programs review now being conducted we have received in excess of 900 submissions. As is inevitable in this area, some submissions refer to the lack of privacy and personal liberty alleged against some organisations which conduct nursing homes and similar accommodation facilities for the disabled. This has been an issue over many years, as I am sure Senator Elstob will know. Honourable senators will realise that the Government's policy is to assist organisations to provide the least restrictive alternative to those who are disabled, and part of that least restrictive alternative is obviously the protection of liberty and privacy for disabled people in such accommodation. Some months ago I put out a statement pointing out to organisations that we will be considering present applications as well as past applications in the light of this principle of the least restrictive environment and that we will be reluctant to fund organisations that are restrictive in this way. Organisations have limited disabled people's privacy in many ways, from the point of view of mere personal privacy, by not providing individual rooms or rooms where people can be private with friends or others, and of some organisations that restrict the liberty, one could say, of parents of disabled people by insisting that only the children of those parents who are willing to contribute certain funds or certain hours of work to the organisations will have their children looked after. I hope that in the future these restrictive practices will cease, and I know in some organisations they are already ceasing. We will be interested to see how many submissions we get as regards this aspect of the care of the disabled but we are certainly determined to make sure that in future that very important principle of the least restrictive environment does apply. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I remind him of what he had to say in the adjournment debate last Friday. Does he agree that in accusing me of misrepresenting him, both during that debate and in a subsequent Press statement, he based his charge on a doctored quotation which did not actually represent what he had said earlier in the day? As I have since listened to the Hansard tape recording and it is quite obvious that the word ' always' was never used by the Attorney, will he now take action to restore the record to the truth? Will he also withdraw the allegations he made against me and apologise, as it is now quite clear that it is he, not me, who is guilty of fabrication, to quote his own term of abuse? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I do not agree that there was any misrepresentation on my part. There was some confusion in the way the punctuation recorded what I recalled my utterance to be. I wanted to put the matter beyond doubt but I believe, as I have read into the record again today, the context in which I was giving that answer does put it beyond doubt. As to Senator Chaney's Sherlock Holmes or post-Watergate endeavours in listening to tapes and so on, I congratulate him for his stamina and enthusiasm but remind him I made no suggestion in anything I have said today that I did in fact use that word. I made the point today that I was simply putting that word in the record in order to clarify the context because I thought the context had become confused by the punctuation that had been employed and that the sense, the meaning, the context, were utterly changed and that it would have been improper for me to have changed the sense, the meaning or the context, but it is not at all improper, of course, to change particular language. I make the further point that under no circumstances will I apologise or withdraw any imputations or allegations made in respect of Senator Chaney's behaviour in this matter. I described it in terms which I was obliged to withdraw on Friday. The record is there. That record speaks for itself. I will not apologise and I believe it is still incumbent on Senator Chaney himself to do that. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question in light of the Attorney-General's suggestion that the record is straight. I ask him again: Will he correct the record and ensure that the words actually used by him appear in the Hansard? I welcome the use of the word 'Watergate' by him because I think the analogy is quite a good one. I remind him of what happened to President Nixon over the tapes. The PRESIDENT —Order! I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Senator CHANEY —I ask him on what basis he insists that the record should not be changed when he admits the words as they appear in Hansard are not the words he used. He has added the word which has been referred to in this question. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I will not make any such alteration of the Hansard record. I believe it is entirely consistent with the practice in this place employed by all honourable senators, or at least those of us who from time to time bother to look at our 'pinks', in fact to make corrections of grammar and other linguistic usages such as may from time to time be necessary to clarify the particular language or the particular point that is being made. I would be very surprised indeed if any honourable senator in this place has not at some stage or another made some such similar clarification, if only to pull the written record out of the linguistic mess in which the oral contribution may well have left it. Senator PRIMMER —Can the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who I understand handles Customs matters, confirm that an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs was detected illegally importing a machine gun into Australia at the time Mr John Ryan was First Assistant Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs? Was there a cover-up of that matter? Will the Minister provide to the Senate full details of that and any subsequent like incidents? Senator BUTTON —If there were a cover-up of that matter I certainly would not be able to answer the question either now or at any time in the future. I have no information as to whether an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs was illegally importing a machine gun. I will make some inquiries and if there is not a cover-up I will get an answer to the question and I will give it to Senator Primmer as soon as possible. Senator HAINES —Is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women aware of recent Press reports, specifically in last night's edition of the Adelaide News, which indicate that South Australian women's shelters will be ' grossly underfunded' under a new Federal funding formula which allocates an extra $4m of funds according to criteria which do not include need? Is this allegation correct? If it is correct can the Minister say why the Government is abandoning its election commitment to the thousands of women and children who are in need of the sort of crisis care provided by the women's shelters in South Australia? If it is not correct can the Minister say what criteria will be used for the allocation of those funds and whether she believes that the $50,000 which is allegedly to be South Australia's share will be sufficient to met the needs of already inadequate salaries and conditions for staff as well as the ongoing costs for women in crisis care? Senator RYAN —Although the administration of the new women's emergency services program is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Social Security, I can confirm for Senator Haines that the report she refers to in the South Australian newspaper is quite wrong, I think wrong in all details except for the fact that an extra $4m has been allocated by the Federal Government for the first year of implementing our women's emergency services program. The program will be administered in co-operation with the States and it is hoped that the Commonwealth's decision to allocate an extra $4m to this very important, and badly under-resourced area, will be met by increased allocations from States where that is possible. I point out to the Senate that different States made different levels of effort with respect to supporting refuges during the period of the Fraser Administration when Federal support was withdrawn. I know from continuous dealings with the South Australian Government and with women working in refuges in South Australia that the South Australian Government in recent years has been very conscientious in terms of resources, housing and so forth that it makes available for the women's refuge program. The Commonwealth has attached a number of guidelines to the expenditure of the $4m. One of the important ones is that it should assist the payment of award wages to refuge workers. As I am sure Senator Haines is aware, most refuge workers are working for well below award wages. They often work for very long hours six or sometimes seven days a week. As a result, they become quite exhausted and it is extremely difficult for them to deliver the standard of service we would like women and children who are seeking refuge to attract. So we have as a priority the raising of wages to award levels. The other priority we have is the funding of new services in areas of need. Although, of course, all refuges are in areas of need, there are many areas of high need which have no refuges at all. So, that part of the money which will be available for new programs will be available for new projects in areas of need. However, the detailed sharing out of the $4m and the negotiations with the States as to what they can contribute over and above what they have already been contributing is the responsibility of the Department of Social Security. I understand that those negotiations are now under way. I am sure that if Senator Haines would like more detailed information about the negotiations with her State of South Australia officers from Senator Grimes's office would be able to give her that assistance. Senator GILES —I address my question to the Minister for Social Security. I remind the Minister of a report prepared and published about 12 months ago by the Australian Council of Social Service which attacked the way in which officers of the Department of Social Security treated people who applied for invalid pensions and complained about the harshness with which the 85 per cent rule was used by the Fraser Government to disqualify people from entitlement to invalid pensions. Can the Minister assure the Senate that this Government has taken steps to ensure that such a punitive approach has been abolished within the Department? Has the backlog of appeals from rejected applicants been dealt with by the appropriate tribunals? Senator GRIMES —One of the things that have concerned this Government has been the treatment of applicants for invalid pensions. One of the problems in the past, and the problem which still remains, although I believe it is less of a problem than it was, is the divided responsibility between the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health, particularly medical officers of the Department of Health, in the assessment of invalid pension claims. I believe this has been of concern not only to ACOSS and organisations such as the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled but also to honourable senators on both sides of this House. One of the difficulties, as Senator Giles might have implied, is the definition of 'invalidity' in the social security legislation, whereby one has to prove 85 per cent disability and permanency, neither of which is very easily defined in a large number of cases. I, as a medical practitioner, find it very difficult to determine the difference between , for instance, 80 per cent disability and 90 per cent disability. At the moment we are looking at that aspect of applications as part of the handicapped programs review. One of the problems has always been the delay in the processing of invalid pension claims and the inconsistency of some of the application of the legislation. For instance, if one looks at the picture Australia-wide, the percentage of people who apply for and receive the invalid pension is in fact fairly consistent in the long run. However, in individual States, how people get to that position is very different. In some States in the past that position has been reached largely as part of the initial application. In other States large numbers of people have had to go through reviews and appeals, and there have been many delays. As a result of this, earlier in the year, the present Government removed the provision whereby 100 per cent of medical reviews were centralised and carried out by senior medical officers. These are now largely carried out by local medical officers at Commonwealth medical offices. The role of the central medical office is to review and maintain consistency. The regional offices of the Department now have the primary responsibility of determining and managing invalid pension applications. As a result, the time taken to determine applications has been reduced by one-third in most cases and by more in others. We believe that the standard of initial decision making will be improved. Therefore, the number of people who will have to appeal will decrease. This will be confirmed by the continuous monitoring of the new system. I hope that at least this change will result in fewer of the delays which Senator Giles talked about. I hope that no officer of the Department of Social Security would treat invalid pension applicants in an unkind or harsh way. I believe that the vast majority of them never did. I think that the new procedures will facilitate matters and make life easier for those who have to make such determinations and as a result the whole system will be improved. Senator PETER BAUME —I refer the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to the transcript of the Sunday program on which the Prime Minister appeared and to the words he uttered. He said: . . . there is a bit of an unholy alliance temporarily between the wealthy 41- I take it that is 41 schools-- and some sectors of the Catholic Education system- Has the Prime Minister informed the Minister to which parts of the Catholic education system he was referring when he talked about parts of the Catholic education system being in 'an unholy alliance' in regard to the issues now before the public? Senator RYAN —The Prime Minister is certainly not referring to the bodies which are properly constituted for the administration of Catholic schools throughout Australia-that is the State Catholic Education Offices and the national Catholic Education Commission-because from all of these bodies we have received constructive and co-operative comment with regard to our funding decisions. However, the Prime Minister may well have been referring to those people who identify themselves as speaking for some sections of the Catholic community and who say things like their schools are worse off under our programs. Senator Baume will be aware of this, because he was present with me at a meeting last night where it was said that the category 3 schools to which most of the Catholic schools belong are worse off under our programs. Anybody who claims to speak for the Catholic education system and who makes a statement which is so clearly in defiance of the facts is, I believe, calling into disrepute the people he or she claims to represent and is causing many people who formerly had a very high opinion of this sector to wonder what it is all about. Whatever their capacity is, I think those people who claim to speak for some part of the Catholic education system, yet persist in gross misrepresentation of facts, are the people to whom the Prime Minister was referring. On the other hand, as I have said, the official spokesperson for Catholic education in this country, the Catholic education offices and the people from teaching orders who make such an important contribution and have made such an important contribution in the past, have made it very clear that they understand the improvements which will flow to their sector from our policies. They have said that they appreciate them and that they are especially appreciative of commitments such as the commitments to cost supplementation for wage and salary increases, the forward expenditure of capital, the special allocation of funds for new places in new schools, and so on. So there is a very widespread endorsement of a number of the essential decisions made by us, but there are some people who persist in misrepresenting the facts. I presume that it is those people to whom the Prime Minister was referring. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question. In her answer the Minister referred to a meeting at which we were present last night. I remind her that Bishop John Kelly was one of the speakers-- Senator RYAN —Is that a supplementary question? Senator PETER BAUME —If the Minister wants to avoid the issue-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to ask the supplementary question. Senator PETER BAUME —I refer the Minister to the meeting last night. Would she have included Bishop John Kelly and his fellow bishops as being among those people to whom the Prime Minister was referring? Senator RYAN —I do not really regard it as a supplementary question; but, as I understand it, Bishop John Kelly has no connection with the Victorian Catholic Education Office. Senator REYNOLDS —I ask Senator Gietzelt, as Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government, whether he is aware that many local government autorities throughout Australia are currently responsible for major innovative developments in regard to social welfare, urban planning, building design, information systems, traffic management and community arts policies. In view of the increased cost of service delivery at the local government level, can the Minister indicate what steps the government is considering taking in order to support and encourage such welcome initiatives at the local council level? Senator GIETZELT —I think the fact that the Government has appointed, for the first time as far as I am aware, a Minister for Territories and Local Government , the holder of that post being the Hon. Tom Uren, is in itself an innovative initiative in which the Government recognises the important part that local government plays in the trinity of government in Australia. It is true that local government has come a long way from its formative years, when it was largely a roads, footpaths and drainage sort of organisation. In the post war years, in particular, it has assumed a whole range of new functions, such as those to which the honourable senator has referred. The Government is greatly heartened by the initiatives that have been taken and the imaginative approach that has been shown by many local government bodies in the areas of not only administration but also service delivery, to which she has referred. The Government is very anxious actively to encourage and promote this process because citizens and ratepayers generally profit from such innovation, in terms of improved quality of life and better value for their financial investment in local government itself. So, as a start, I am advised that the Minister for Territories and Local Government will be introducing in the Parliament next year proposals to encompass a national award for innovation in local government. The actual, final form of the award, its value and the eligibility criteria, are still matters for determination but the Commonwealth Government is anxious to establish in the minds of local government the need to be innovative and imaginative in developing new forms of urban planning, social welfare and the whole range of community services which the people of Australia, I think, expect to be provided . In addition, the Minister for Territories and Local Government will act in liaison with the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, to determine how best his department and local government generally can contribute to the Government's overall commitment to the encouragement of research and innovation and the development of new and viable industries and activities in Australia. We do believe that at that level, with its closeness to the grass roots and to communities, local government has an important part to play and the Commonwealth intends to do everything possible to encouage such innovation. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he can inform the House and people of Australia what emblem or figurehead will be imprinted on the face of the new Australian dollar coin to be distributed in early 1984. In view of this Government's unnecessary meddling with tradition- namely, the discarding of the Victoria Cross, the abolition of the Queen's Medal , the phasing out of an allegiance to the Queen and a new design for the Australian Flag-how far removed will that emblem be from the traditional familiar ties with the monarchy? Senator WALSH —I am afraid that I cannot answer the specific question as to the emblem which will appear on the new $1 coin. I will ask the Treasurer and provide an answer as soon as possible. As to the other extraneous hotchpotch of matters raised by Senator Bjelke-Petersen in regard to what she termed meddling with tradition, I would just observe for the record that I understand that Senator Martin is involved in the group which is submitting designs for a new Australian flag. It seems as if the squabble in State politics in Queensland between the Country Party or the National Party, as it calls itself these days, and the Liberal Party is now being projected into the Federal Parliament. Senator BOLKUS —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he has any information indicating the accuracy or otherwise at this stage of the 1983 Budget projections. I also ask the Minister whether he can say how the accuracy of these projections compares with the economic forecasts and the accuracy thereof of the previous Liberal-National Party Government. Senator Grimes —Like the accuracy of Rundle share predictions in this place. Senator WALSH —As my colleague Senator Grimes reminds me, no government has ever produced a Budget which has been completely accurate in all its estimates of either expenditure or revenue, but I can give an unqualified guarantee that the projections of both revenue and expenditure produced by this Government in the 1983 Budget will be immeasurably more accurate than the projections of the production of oil from the Rundle project that Senator Sir John Carrick repeatedly gave to the Senate as recently as two or 2 1/2 years ago. I do not have any definitive figures from the Minister for Finance. I do, however, have in broad terms some information on the projections and how accurate, on present indications, they are likely to be. I understand that there could be a significant increase in the estimate of interest paid on public debt, partly attributable, or probably almost entirely attributable, to the fact that the Government's early loan raisings in funding its deficit earlier in the year were so successful. Therefore, interest on that newly acquired debt would have to be paid for a longer period than had possibly been anticipated at the time the Budget was framed. Offsetting that, unless there is a very rapid change in present trends, will be a substantial reduction in actual payments to unemployment beneficiaries as against those which were estimated at the time the Budget was framed. I am not sure what the most recent figures are, but a couple of weeks ago the number of people actually receiving unemployment benefit had fallen by some 40,000 compared with the number at the end of the last financial year. That is a decline in unemployment benefit recipients of close to 10 per cent. As I said, unless that trend is drastically and very quickly reversed, on the expenditure side there will be a substantial over-estimate in the payments for unemployment benefit. In general terms, there is no reason to believe at this stage that the overall estimate of the deficit will be greatly in error. Certainly, I think one could say that there is absolutely no chance that the deficit will blow out in this financial year, as it did in the last financial year when, if I remember correctly, the original estimate was $1.576 billion or thereabouts; it finally blew out to $4 1/2 billion, a threefold increase. Of course, some of that threefold increase in the deficit which had been estimated by the previous Government last year, was due to the recession or depression being somewhat deeper than could ever reasonably have been anticipated. Some of it, of course, was due to deliberate fiddling of the figures at the time the Budget was put together in order to minimise or fool the public into believing that the deficit was, in fact, lower than it was, because at the time the 1982 Budget, the terminal Budget of the Fraser Government and the discredited former Treasurer, was presented, it was the intention of that discredited former Government to hold an election within a couple of months, before the public realised that it had cooked the books for the 1982 Budget. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Will the Government support the application by the Australian Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Sports Federation to hold the 1988 Olympic Games for the Disabled in Canberra? If no decision has yet been reached by the Government and with the determination of the venue to be made in Austria on 21 January 1984, will the Government announce its decision before the House rises this year? Senator RYAN —My colleague Mr Brown, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, advises me that this is principally a matter for the Minister for Territories and Local Government, as the proposal by the Australian Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Sports Federation involves the staging of the Games in Canberra . The application currently rests with Mr Uren. However, Mr Brown advises me that the Government is keen to promote opportunities for disabled people to compete in international competitions and to assist with the staging of such competitions in Australia. The Government appreciates the need for the Australian delegates to be fully informed on the level of Government support for the 1988 Olympic Games for the Disabled prior to the January meeting of the International Co-ordinating Committee in Austria. The question of the level of the Government's support for the Games is presently under consideration, and a decision is expected soon. I presume that that will be before the end of this sitting of the Parliament. This is the first time that it has been drawn to my attention that there is a proposal to hold the Olympics for the Disabled in Canberra. Speaking as a senator for the Australian Capital Territory, I have to say that I would be delighted if such an event were to occur in my electorate, and I shall make sure that I add my voice to that of the Federation and support its submission. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Since much has been said about the supposed uncertainty of the Government's new funding formula for non-government schools, will the Minister confirm that the old percentage link did not provide the certainty and stability that its proponents now claim for it? Senator RYAN —One of the rather surprising things about the terms in which the current education funding debate is being conducted is the myth that has been built up around a particular way of distributing funds, which was, by giving a percentage of average government school costs to all schools in the non- government sector, the same percentage was given to all levels of category, whatever their needs, so that if the average government school costs rose by 2 per cent, a 2 per cent increase was given across the board to the non-government sector. Why such a formula, which was a very rigid one and not a very predictable one, has been turned into some sort of myth from which any departure should cause fear and trembling in the non-government sector, is something I find it very difficult to understand. Senator Chaney —Because it was a guarantee. Senator RYAN —Let us see what it was a guarantee of. It was a guarantee only that a certain measured percentage would be passed on. It was not a guarantee of an amount of money or an amount of growth. There are a number of things that should be considered by people who are now clinging to this concept of the percentage link as the best way of getting a fair deal. The elements which were put into average government school costs from which the percentage was derived, were subject to decisions of government. There was nothing totally objective and predictable about them. That is, what was counted or discounted for the purposes of this formula was very much a matter for the judgment of governments and their officials. In the case of most States, the elements in the formula were not matters of public information, and the increases provided by the percentage link formula varied quite dramatically and could not be predicted. For example, since 1980 they have ranged from almost 6 per cent in one year to less than one per cent in another year. So really, loooking at it objectively, there could be little confidence or certainty about such swings. One of the things that we will do is to provide a formula of funding which will give a much higher degree of predictability than what I have now described and exposed to the Senate as having been a very unreliable way of predicting costs. The Government has already improved on this unpredictable situation with which non-government schools were faced under the previous formula. In a major step, and one which still has not been widely recognised, the Government will provide retrospective cost supplementation for all grants to non-government schools from the beginning of 1984. We have backdated this recently to cover the 4.3 per cent national wage case decision of October 1983. Now this will mean the expenditures of an extra $5.8m over and above the budgetary allocation that was announced in July. An extra $5.8m has now been appropriated for non-government schools this year, in 1983, including extra funds for all schools in group 1 and group 2 categories. So there is already through this commitment to supplementation for wage and salary increases a much greater predictability than has prevailed before. I think it is time that that was acknowledged. I point out also that those schools that are now informing the parents that there will be cost increases, ought not to pretend that wage and salary increases are the cause of those fee increases because, as I have now clearly explained again to the Senate , wage and salary cost increases will be supplemented by us, and have been for the recent 4.3 per cent national wage increase. Another point ought to be made. There has been a consistent downward trend since 1980 in the rate of increase in average government school costs. If this trend were to continue it is not inconceivable that under the old percentage link formula, the one we are hearing so much about, the per capita grants to all non-government schools might actually have declined. It is time for all of those who are seriously concerned about equity in non-government school funding to look at what the old formula really meant, how it was made up and what kind of increases passed on to non-government schools as a result of it. They will conclude, as we concluded, that it was an unsatisfactory formula, that it did not contain predictability in terms of growth and increased funds and that it certainly did nothing to do what we are determined to do, that is, to redistribute funds in terms of equity and need. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of Mr H. M. Lodhia, MP, Chairman of the Fijian Parliament's Public Accounts Committee. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to Mr Lodhia a warm welcome to the Senate and I trust that his visit to Australia will be both pleasant and rewarding. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator WALTERS —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, is in two parts. Can the Attorney say how many other times he has had cause to change in a substantial fashion the Hansard record of his speeches in the time he has been in Parliament? Secondly, is it a fact that the distribution of Hansard pinks to honourable senators is for honourable senators to ascertain the correct record of their speeches and for Hansard to correct their English, where necessary, not to alter the meaning or interpretation of their speeches? Senator GARETH EVANS —I cannot say how many times I have added words, substracted words, rearranged words or fixed up punctuation. It has happened from time to time, as I gather would be the case for every honourable senator in this place. I challenge any other senator who has not ever added a word to any pink that has been put in front of him to rise in his place, wave his hand about, waggle his fingers or do something. Senator Ryan —His or her. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes. The reality of the matter is that that is the way we carry on in this place, provided that in doing so we do not alter the sense, the text or the substance of what we produce. If I am behaving with an insufferable sense of righteousness in this matter, it is because I have an insufferable sense of the rectitude of my behaviour on this particular occasion. Senator WALTERS —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The Minister did not answer two parts of my question. What I asked was how many other times has he had cause in a substantial fashion to alter his speeches. He has referred to punctuation and things like that. I also asked him: 'Is a fact that the distribution of Hansard pinks to honourable senators is for honourable senators to ascertain the correct record of their speeches and for Hansard to correct their English, where necessary, not to alter the meaning or interpretation of their speeches'. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have nothing useful or in any other way to add to my previous answer. Senator JONES —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report in the Australian of today's date that a future Liberal-National Party government would sell public sector businesses to private interests, tighten up the Public Service and increase the number of expert ministerial staff? This announcement was made by Jim Carlton, MHR, former Health Minister in the Fraser Government. Will the Minister inform the Senate which government-owned businesses are likely to be affected by any proposals put forward by Mr Carlton for the Opposition? Finally, in which area are these services likely to be cut and what cuts are likely to be made in the Public Service? Senator WALSH —The final part of Senator Jones's question was: Which government businesses are likely to be affected by the Opposition's policy? I think the answer to that question is none because the Opposition is unlikely to be in a position to implement its policies, whatever they may be, for a very considerable time. Unless the Opposition gets its game together more than it has been able to do either today or on any previous occasion in the Senate or the House of Representatives, I would say it is unlikely ever to be able to implement its policies. The policies it has put forward are really not terribly relevant to the future of, say for example, Trans Australia Airlines, Telecom Australia, the Australian National Railways Commission or Australia Post. However, there remains, I suppose, always hope and always the possibility that the Opposition will improve its performance and behave a bit more responsibly than it has so far in opposition and perhaps, at some time, may be in a position again where it may win an election and actually form a government. What would be the result if these policies announced by Mr Carlton were actually to be taken seriously? I do not intend to canvass the matter in great detail, but one of the objectives of a previous Liberal-National Party government was to sell off the profitable portions of Telecom. If that is done by a future Liberal-National Party government, if there is going to be one, there is little doubt-indeed, I would say there is no doubt-that certain sections of the Telecom enterprise would be readily purchased by the private sector and those sections would be quite profitable. The consequences of that, of course, are that charges currently levelled by Telecom for the services it provides in areas which are not profitable would have to be substantially increased or the services withdrawn or reduced. That is a matter which ought to be of particular concern to the National Party senators from Queensland who claim to have a particular interest in people who live outside the capital cities. In Queensland, of course, a higher proportion of the population lives outside the capital city than in any other mainland State. The effect of this ' Liberal-National Party policy', should the Liberal-National Party ever return to power and sell off the profitable sections of Telecom, would be either to increase drastically the cost or to reduce drastically the quality of the service provided by Telecom in most, if not all, of Queensland outside the Brisbane metropolitan area and, of course, in many other parts of Australia. That is a matter to which I would have thought that one of the senators who purports to represent Queensland, to wit, Senator Bjelke-Petersen, would be well advised to turn her mind rather than asking the sort of question that she asked earlier today. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the statement which the Attorney-General put out last Friday when he sought to explain his use of certain words in the Senate which included the suggestion that I had deliberately twisted his words and taken the words out of context. Why did he not give the full context of the question in that he referred only to the first part of Senator Sir John Carrick's question and not to the part which related to the possible resignation of the Foreign Minister? Why did he specifically quote his own words within quotation marks without explaining the change which he had made to that quotation? Senator Grimes —Tell him. Senator GARETH EVANS —There is a variety of things I am tempted to tell him, Senator, but I am only being asked with relation to a couple of them. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Attorney-General to answer through the Chair. Senator Peter Baume —He gets into trouble when he gets miffed. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry, but the questions are so trivial that I think I have already forgotten what they were. The first question was: Why did I what? I am sorry; can I have some assistance, Mr President? The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition might ask his question again. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I am happy to repeat the question for the Attorney . He might listen this time. I refer to the statement which Senator Evans went to the trouble to put out on Friday afternoon in an attempt to explain the words he had used in Question Time that day. He suggested in that that his words had been twisted and taken out of context. He then went on supposedly to provide the context but omitted reference to the fact that the question also referred to whether Mr Hayden should consider resignation. So that was part of the context of the question. He also went on, to quote his own words, without explaining that he had added a word to what he had quoted and it was not in fact what he had said in the Senate. I ask him why he omitted the full context of the question, since he was trying to clear up what he said was twisting, and why he omitted to explain that he had added words. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is still a very odd question. Senator Chaney —Why don't you go away and think about it? Senator GARETH EVANS —The trouble is that I do not have the statement with me. The answer that I gave was specifically directed to the context of the general application of that principle. That was the context in which I gave my answer. It was from that context that Senator Chaney wrenched a particular sentence and chose to apply it to the particular context of Mr Hayden. I chose not to answer the original question I was asked in any context other than a general context. When I was pressed in a supplementary question for not having answered the particular question I was asked, and therein lies the answer to Senator Chaney's question, Senator Sir John Carrick got to his feet and said: 'Why haven't you answered my specific question? I was not asking about the general principle, I was asking about this particular Minister'. I refused to add anything to what I had previously said. The course of events speaks for itself. Senator Chaney —You just misquoted a supplementary question. Senator GARETH EVANS —This is very tiresome. As to why I did not put in inverted commas the word 'always', I have answered that sufficiently today with the proposition that I saw it as doing no more than clarifying the meaning of a sentence which was already clear by virtue of the context in which it sat and it did not in any way change the meaning, substance, effect or anything else about it. If Senator Chaney wants to waste any further time on this, I will be happy to accommodate him, but I suggest that it is not getting either of us anywhere. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time last Friday Senator Foreman asked me a question about payments under the community employment program in the State of South Australia. I have now obtained an answer for him, which is that in South Australia, as at 4 November, a total of 40 projects involving 408 jobs had been approved under the CEP. Under the State component of the community employment program, 13 projects had been approved as at 4 November 1983. These projects will result in the creation of 143 jobs. The level of projects approvals represents 20 per cent of the total CEP project approvals nationally. The number of jobs in South Australia-143 in these approved projects-is higher than in any other State to date, the next highest being New South Wales with 108 jobs in approved projects. Under the Commonwealth component of the community employment program, 27 projects have been approved in South Australia involving the creation of 265 jobs. In the case of the Commonwealth CEP, the number of projects approved in South Australia to date represents 14 per cent of the total number of projects approved nationally and the number of jobs in these projects represents 10 per cent of the total number of jobs in Commonwealth CEP projects approved so far. Senator BUTTON —On 30 November Senator Missen asked me a question relating to the Arab League boycott of Israel. I undertook to supply an answer to him, which is as follows: The Australian Government has never been advised officially of the Arab boycott of Israel. The Government is aware, however, of its existence and the fact that it has been applied in varying degrees of intensity for some 20 years. The Australian Government does not endorse the Arab boycott of Israel. The Department of Trade has an obligation to ensure, however, that Australian exporters are fully informed of the import requirements of overseas markets. Indeed, the Department would be failing in its duty if it did not inform exporters of the requirements of importing countries affecting Australian exporters' access to the markets concerned, irrespective of whether those requirements concerned matters such as the boycott. In relation to the comments in the specific article in question, the Minister for Trade understands that, although he was not aware of it at the time, in the context of discussions relating to Australian participation in the Baghdad International Trade Fair, certain material was furnished by the Perth office of the Department of Trade relating to the Arab boycott. However, in August the Minister had drawn to his attention that the Melbourne regional office of the Department was disseminating information relating to the boycott, which had been interpreted by some to suggest that the Australian Government was not opposed to the boycott. After considering the matter the Minister took the position that information relating to the boycott must necessarily be given to Australian exporters, but when it is distributed it must be made clear that the Australian Government does not endorse the Arab boycott and that the information supplied in no way represents or reflects Australian Government policy. His Department issued an instruction to that effect to all its regional officers on 16 September. In the view of the Minister the Department would be failing in its duty if it withheld any information on matters affecting Australian exporters' access to overseas markets. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 15 November Senator Chipp asked a question concerning Soviet nuclear doctrine in relation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation intermediate-range nuclear force modernisation program. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided an answer, which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- 1. I have seen the article in 'The Weekend Australian' to which Senator Chipp refers. I have also seen a translation of the relevant portions of the ' Sovietskaya Rossiya' article upon which 'The Weekend Australian' article was based. 2. As indicated earlier, I would not expect the Soviet Union to make public its plans as to the circumstances in which it would consider using nuclear weapons and the Australian Government is not aware of these plans. There appears to be a degree of deliberate ambiguity in Soviet commentary on whether or not Soviet strategic doctrine encompasses 'launch on warning'. It seems to me reasonable to assume however that Soviet military planners have for many years considered a wide range of contingencies, including the possibility of launching their own missiles if they detected a massive attack by enemy missiles-i.e. to 'launch on warning'. I do not think this would be a new thought for them. 3. I also suggest to the Senator, as Senator Evans did at the time, that statements on these issues by parties directly involved in the great debate in Europe on INF have to be seen in context. Because one side in the INF negotiations-the NATO side which the United States represents-consists of democracies, both parties have devoted considerable effort to trying to sway public opinion in NATO countries in support of their respective theses. 4. As to the Australian Government's attitude on the INF issue, I would refer Senator Chipp to any answers to his two earlier questions on this subject which appeared in Senate Hansard on 20 September and 15 November 1983. Senator GARETH EVANS —Last Friday Senator Tate asked whether correspondence between the Prime Minister and Archbishop Carroll concerning the Sex Discrimination Bill could be tabled. I understand that the correspondence has now been published in the Catholic Weekly and note in fact the very tendentious account of it which appeared in a report of the so-called staff correspondent in the Canberra Times last Sunday. I now table a letter dated 19 November from Archbishop Carroll to the Prime Minister, a letter dated 21 November from the Prime Minister to Archbishop Carroll and a letter dated 25 November from Archbishop Carroll to the Prime Minister. Senator GIETZELT —In response to Senator Jack Evans's question on 2 December regarding the role of Qantas Airways Ltd in domestic air services, I have obtained the following additional information. Australia's domestic air services are controlled by the provisions of the two-airlines agreement which was established by the previous Government and which will remain in force until 1989 as a result of legislation passed by that Government in 1981. Under that agreement Qantas's role is effectively limited to that of an international carrier, except for the very minor concession that it may carry its own international stopover traffic-for example, Qantas passengers from Perth to the United States of America who may wish to stop over in Sydney. The Minister for Aviation has announced that he intends to commence a review of Australia's domestic airline policy late in 1984. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Mr President, during Question Time, in answer to a question, Senator Evans, the Attorney-General, suggested that the pratice he had followed with respect to the Hansard change was a common practice followed by other senators. I want to make it quite clear that it has not been my practice to amend the Hansard record. Indeed, it has not been my practice to read the pinks. In other words, I thought , I had always left it to Hansard to determine the record of this place. I understand that the members of Hansard have a shorthand note, and in cases of doubt they refer to a tape recording. I checked with the Principal Parliamentary Reporter this morning, Mr President, because I am aware of the old adage about glass houses and throwing stones, and asked him whether he had had any interference, with respect to my own pinks, from my office during my period as a Minister or at any other time. He told me that yes, Hansard had; that it was the practice of my office, while I was a Minister, to correct my pinks to restore the actual words used. In other words, where Hansard made grammatical and other changes in the interest of neatness and in making it appear that I always used grammatical language-and I appreciate its efforts-it was the practice of my office to correct the pinks, to restore them to the original condition with my words as stated in this place. I would like to make it quite clear that the rather childish attempts of the Attorney to get us all to put up our hands to indicate whether any of us had ever changed our records in the rather pathetic way that he did last Friday is not a challenge that I chose to take up by raising my hand in response to his invitation. I would like to make it quite clear that I would have nothing to do with the alteration of the record of this place to make it appear that I had said something which I had not. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MARTIN —During Question Time Senator Walsh was asked, in his capacity as the Minister representing the Treasurer, a question by Senator Bjelke-Petersen which related, as I understood it, to whether the Queen's likeness would be on the new dollar coin, in the light of the Government's recent decisions regarding the awarding of the Victoria Cross, the competition for the Queen's Medal and the oath of allegiance. Senator Walsh replied that he did not know about the dollar coin and that the other points were waffle. He then went on to presume to present my views on the subject of the Australian flag and to draw a conclusion from them about the National-Liberal parties in Queensland. As far as I am aware , Senator Walsh has absolutely no knowledge of my views on the flag. Until he chose to try to be mischievous in his attempts to avoid answering that question, I was utterly unaware of what Senator Bjelke-Petersen's views on the flag were. I have since inquired of them and I discovered that we have the same views on the subject of the Australian flag. Therefore, Senator Walsh's opinion of my views, as he chose to present them and their relevance to the Liberal Party, are quite wrong. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Overseas Project Corporation-Statement of reasons for the delay in tabling the Australian Overseas Corporation Annual Report for 1982-83 by the Minister for Trade, made in the House of Representatives 1.12.83. 2. Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 8 of the Poultry Industry 1965. 3. Qantas Airways Limited-Annual Report 1982-83. 4. Australian Federal Police-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 67 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. 5. A.C.T. Architects Board-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 39 of the Architects Ordinance 1959. 6. Cocos (Keeling) Islands-Annual Report 1982-83. 7. A.C.T. Consumer Affairs Council, Consumer Affairs Bureau-Annual Report 1982- 83-Pursuant to Section 17 of the Consumer Affairs Ordinance 1973. 8. Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 32 of the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973. 9. Social Welfare Policy Secretariat-Annual Report 1982-83. Ministerial Statement Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.18) -I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I merely identify the report as being a record of the statistics and funding of the industry. Indeed, it is a record of its involvement not only in marketing, in which it plays a very significant role, but also, perhaps even more particularly, in research. The report refers to the 1982-83 financial year and draws attention to the Act, which dates back to 1965, under which the industry is controlled. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.19) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The latest report of Qantas Airways Ltd indicates a very significant loss of some $47.6m in this last year of operation. This result underscores the need for the airline to operate on a similar basis to those privately owned airlines which operate off-shore of Australia. Senator Button —On the same basis as other international airlines? Senator MESSNER —As other private international airlines. Whatever the position has been in the past, there is need to rethink what has happened and to plan policies for the future. It is fairly clear at this stage that the management of Qantas is taking that suggestion on board and is looking very closely at the reorganisation of its activities. Mr Jim Leslie, the Chairman of Qantas, has made the position clear in recent statements that that action is intended, and many processes have been set in train in order to achieve that aim. The management of Qantas must receive the congratulations of the Government and of the Opposition in respect of those actions. The report does raise the question, which I think we ought to acknowledge and start to examine, whether there is sufficient freedom of operation at the management level for Qantas to take commercial type decisions in regard to the competition from overseas airlines from which it is suffering. For that reason I believe that the kinds of decisions we have seen in recent times, and which, according to the board of Qantas indicate a change of direction towards a more profitable level of operation, do indicate that there ought to be more consideration on the part of this Government of the need for freeing up Qantas's managment system. We have put that forward as a suggestion from the Oppostion, and hope that there will be a trend towards increasing autonomy in the operation of Qantas on the world scene. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.21) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.22) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I have moved this motion because the Cocos (Keeling) Islands obviously are going through one of the most important stages of their history in terms of Australia' s association with those islands. I think it may well be desirable that in the next parliamentary sitting we have an opportunity to debate the issues which arise with respect to the future of those islands. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.23) —I wish to raise some of the matters concerning the future of the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. It is a fact , of course, that following a United Nations decolonisation investigation a referendum is to be held among the people so that they can decide on their future. I am speaking on this matter now because I am afraid that various pressures will be put on the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, who are essentially Malay people, to vote for integration with Australia. If this were to happen, they would become a tiny minority of the Canberra electorate of Fraser and in no way could their vote on any issue be relevant. This would not be giving those people self government. I remind honourable senators, through you, Mr Deputy President, that these people are Australian citizens; we have taken on a responsibility for them. The United Nations mission did suggest as one possible option that a proposal be put in the referendum whereby the people could vote for some form of free association with virtually any country. I think the implication there was that that free association could well be with Australia. One would assume that it would be agreed that matters like foreign affairs, defence and possibly a basic oversight of the economy of the islands would be carried out by Australia, but that there would be some attempt to preserve local autonomy in local affairs. It is a fact that the people of the Cocos Islands, like most Malay people, use a consensus system of government amongst themselves, which is very highly developed, and they are very well equipped to decide their own affairs in a peaceful and constructive way. They understand their ideas and the way in which they want their affairs to be carried out in the future. I think-and I think other honourable senators might care to think about this-that a virtual dictatorship of Canberra officials on these islands over those people would be a disaster of the first magnitude. We are kidding ourselves if we believe that by integration and by making them voters in Fraser we are giving them any sort of political power. I think that is absolute nonsense. It would also prove to be outrageously expensive. Through you, Mr Deputy President, I would like to commend to honourable senators a look at page 35 of the report that we are now considering. They will find that in 1981-82 the islands had a revenue of some $ 811,000, mostly from sales of copra, which does not sell all that well these days, and an expenditure of almost $6m. Hence, it is costing Australian taxpayers $5m a year, or some $10,000 a year in subsidy for every one of the men , women and children, 546 of them, living on these islands. Of those, 319 are Malays. On this basis, I wonder whether the Government would at this stage consider letting a small expert committee of some kind, which understands these people, or alternatively a committee of one House or the other of the Parliament, which I understand can take evidence from people, look at the matter. We have it in our power now to destroy completely, and I mean completely, the tradition and way of life of a significant group of people at great expense to ourselves, or not to do so. I would also like to call into question the Government's extraordinary decision to throw Mr John Clunies-Ross and his family out of the house and property they have occupied for over a century. There are only, I believe, some five hectares of land involved. This decision was conveyed to Mr Clunies-Ross, as has been publicised, in a letter of 19 July of this year from Mr Tom Uren, the Minister for Territories and Local Government, who wrote: . . . the Commonwealth wishes to purchase all your remaining real property interests in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. He offers valuation and then adds: It is the Government's intention that, should you decline to sell these interests to the Commonwealth, consideration will be given to using the compulsory powers of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955. I should inform you that following the acquisition of your real property interests the Commonwealth will seek vacant possession as soon as possible and, in this respect, the Commonwealth intends that you then leave and remain away from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I find this quite extraordinary. It seems to be a gross intrusion on individual rights and seems to usher in a phase of Australian colonialist autocracy, orchestrated I might say by the Australian Labor Party, probably unparalleled by the empires and rajahs of the 19th century. It is the sort of autocratic action that has no justification whatsoever. I wondered whether the justification might have been that Mr John Clunies-Ross was highly unpopular in the islands. The Committee on Science and the Environment, of which I am a member, spent a little time on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands earlier this year and I made inquiries, as best I could, among a number of people. It seems that Mr John Clunies-Ross is not regarded as a particular menace. He has no political power there. People still come to see him and take his advice on matters. He has a sort of vaguely paternal role towards those people. He regards that place as his only home. The proposal is that he should be thrown out of it. Of course, this is in direct contravention of the Commonwealth's final agreement with him under which he sold the bulk of the islands, including its plantations, in 1978. That final agreement to sell was conditional upon the Government's agreeing to his retaining the family homestead. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.29) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Unfortunately, we have not been provided with a copy of this report, but I would like to address some remarks to the work of the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat. Indeed, as shadow Minister for Social Security I have had a great deal of co-operation and support from that organisation in recent times in looking at the particular problems of social security. Certainly, the quality of work that emanates from that body is very high. We look forward to a very close co-operation with that organisation in the months and years ahead. Given the present state of debate about the level of retirement income systems and the quality of those systems, the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat will indeed have a great deal of input to the current reference on that subject before the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. Members of that Committee-I am sure that Senators Elstob and Crowley, who are in the Senate at this time, would agree-we look forward to the Secretariat's submission with a great deal of interest. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.30) —I have glanced only briefly through the annual report of the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat. I draw the Senate's attention to the words on page 3, which take up the point raised by Senator Messner. The report states: In 1982-83 the SWPS engaged the services of Mr Chris White of PTOW Consulting Actuaries of Melbourne-- I do not know what PTOW stands for- to undertake long term, actuarial costings of the age pension and of options relevant to national superannuation. This consultancy was fully funded by savings from within the SWPS's budget. The consultancy was finalised in July 1983. The main results were financial estimates, based on a range of economic and demographic assumptions, of the cost of providing pensions equivalent to 25 and 30 percent of average weekly earnings . They also included an updating of the estimated cost of the national superannuation scheme that was proposed by the Hancock Committee in 1976. The content of that consultancy's report will be of enormous benefit to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare with its reference of retirement income. I agree with Senator Messner that the Secretariat will be of great help in providing submissions to our Committee. At this stage, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I present the 214th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES —by leave-Report 214 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance Minute on the Committee's Report 181-the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. The Department of Finance Minute is the formal mechanism used for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee's report on the Canberra Commercial Development Authority was tabled in Parliament on 16 September 1980. The Finance Minute was forwarded to the Chairman of the Committee on 19 May 1983. Further information was sought on 22 September 1983 as a result of changed circumstances, namely, the Government decision not to sell the Belconnen Mall. This was supplied through the Department of Finance on 28 October 1983. The Committee's inquiry arose out of comments in the Auditor-General's supplementary report to Parliament in 1977-78. The Auditor-General reported to Parliament several unsatisfactory features concerning the managment of the CCDA, which included failure to observe the provision of its legislation in investment in bank bills without the approval of the Treasurer, payment of salaries and allowances to staff without the approval of the Public Service Board, and unusual practices followed by CCDA with respect to the payment of underwriting fees. The CCDA also delayed the publishing of its 1978-79 and later financial statements until a dispute with the Department of Finance over the capitalisation of expenditure net of income and with the Auditor-General over the treatment of depreciation of buildings had been resolved. In its report, the Committee made a number of specific recommendations and notes that most have been accepted. Specifically, a nominee of the Department of Territories and Local Government has been appointed to the Authority, and the Authority now advertised all staff positions. On 14 June 1983, the Committee met separately with the Chairman and officers of the Public Service Board, the Auditor-General and his officers and officers of the Department of Finance. Except for the outstanding issue of buildings depreciation, the Committee was assured that all matters outstanding with the CCDA had been satisfactorily resolved. The Committee was later informed that the issue of depreciation had been resolved and the first unqualified accounts of the Authority, for 1981-82, were tabled on 14 November 1983. The Committee also recommended in report 181 that members of the CCDA Board who were the subject of criticism in its report not be reappointed. However, as a result of a Government decision to sell the Belconnen Mall and wind up the activities of the CCDA, the Committee reluctantly agreed to the Board's reappointment. In light of the subsequent decision of the Government not to sell the Mall, the Committee sought further information through the Department of Finance on the relevant recommendations contained in its report and on the decision to reappoint members of the CCDA. In this response, it was stated by the Department of Finance that particular weight was placed on the advice from the Attorney-General to the Committee in January 1982. The Committee considered that this advice was inadequate. The Committee therefore wishes to reiterate its reasons for making its recommendations. The Committee's inquiry revealed a number of shortcomings in the administration and management of the CCDA. It felt that these shortcomings reflected poorly on the management of the CCDA. The CCDA was established on 1 October 1974 by Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 40 1979 under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. Throughout the course of the inquiry it was clear to the Committee that the Authority ignored the Parliament by its disregard of certain provisions of the Ordinance, which the Authority considered to inhibit its commercial operations. The sections of the Ordinance which placed some restriction on the independence of the Authority are common to most statutory authorities and are fairly basic if some measure of public control is to be retained. Consequently, the Committee believed that the Authority's managers were not willing to accept the responsibilities attached to a public authority. For these reasons, the Committee recommended: at the conclusion of the current period of office of members of the CCDA, the Minister should consider restructuring the Authority and those who were subject to criticism in its report not be reappointed; In the course of the Committee's inquiry serious allegations were made concerning the security of tenders. Accordingly, on 27 May 1981, the Committee requested that the Attorney-General initiate a full inquiry to examine the evidence given to the Committee, the witnesses and any other persons or necessary documents to determine the truth of the allegation. We did this in the interests of the people concerned. Any questioning of the fairness of the procedures adopted by the Committee is refuted by the Committee. A response from the Attorney-General's Department was not received until 6 January 1982, 18 months later. The advice from the Attorney-General stated there was no evidence establishing that the CCDA Chairman, Mr Pead, or a contractor was involved in any illegal or unlawful act. In a subsequent in camera hearing to discuss the delay in the Attorney-General's advice, the Crown Solicitor submitted that his Office had not looked beyond the evidence supplied to the Committee. The Committee was very dissatisfied with this approach. While the Committee found no evidence of impropriety on the part of any member of the Board or the staff of CCDA, the Committee considered that some measure of responsibility for the shortcomings in the Authority's administration attached to the two of its members most actively concerned in the Authority's affairs since its inception-namely, the Chairman, Mr J. Pead, and former Executive Director, Mr H. Calderwood. Nevertheless, after critical analysis of all the evidence, the Committee concluded that it would have reached the same conclusions relating to the reappointment of the members of the CCDA who were the subject of criticism. I advise the Senate that the Committee notes the assurances outlined in the Finance Minute and delivered personally to the Committee by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) with regard to the reappointments made to CCDA. The Public Accounts Committee intends to keep the reference open and will monitor the activities of CCDA both in the discharge of its duties in the management of the Belconnen Mall and its intended expansion of activities. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-I support the remarks of my colleague, Senator Georges, the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Having participated in the hearings which resulted in report No. 181, presented to the Senate on 16 September 1980, and the Finance Minute response to that report, No. 214, the matter to which Senator Georges responded today, I view with a great deal of concern the lack of effective control that is administered over statutory organisations and, in particular, the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. Mr Pead, who is the Chairman of this Authority, has demonstrated just how far the leader of a statutory corporation can go with impunity if he has the determination, the hide, the bluff and the arrogance. Some members of the community have seen fit to applaud this sort of approach in the guise of attempting to cut red tape. But it was the manner in which Mr Pead's objectives were achieved which was really the issue in question, largely, in this report. The Public Accounts Committee report No. 181 said that although the action was based on commercial pragmatism, the ends generally did not justify the means. In another area, the report said that Mr Pead had said in response to questioning that the Authority 'had more important things to do' than, for example, to respond to the Public Service Board. It also acknowledged that wage agreements with the Authority were in direct conflict with section 26(e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, that there was a lack of accountability in the Chairman's travel and a lack of security over tender documents. A document was actually taken from the box and, not surprisingly, a later tender was the one that was accepted. Let us look at some of the other shortcomings which are quite significant in report No. 181. The Committee was most dissatisfied with the context and the manner of presentation of evidence, to the extent that it sought legal advice on the application of section 18A of the Public Accounts Committee Act. At paragraph 1.47 the report states: The Authority's submissions were generally uninformative, inadequate, and, at times misleading; What an indictment! The report continues: The oral evidence of Authority's witnesses was at times inaccurate although the standard of evidence and the attitude of witnesses improved during the later stages of the inquiry. This is the sort of approach that this man Pead took towards the Parliament, towards the Ordinance and towards his responsibilities. Again, to quote from paragraph 1.50, the report states: The Committee believes that they demonstrated little willingness to work within the established procedures required of all public authorities. Again, I quote from the report, and this is what Mr Pead says: I do not believe that we can continually cope with a great string of requests for information from Government Departments. The whole of the report is permeated with this sort of approach and an attitude of 'Let's get on with the job. Let's ignore the Ordinance. Lets's ignore the proper procedures under which we should work'. If other heads of statutory organisations took this approach, Mr Deputy President, how do you think Parliament would react? If the head of Qantas took this approach, he would not be allowed to get away with such actions. Why should Pead get away with this sort of behaviour? The Public Accounts Committee came down with a recommendation that this man should not be reappointed. He has been reappointed. It is a most unsatisfactory situation. The other concern that I wish to express is to be found at paragraph 1.17, on page 5, of the Finance Minute, No. 214. That states: The Committee considers that, as the Minister's principal advisor on matters pertaining to his portfolio the Department of the Capital Territory adopted a less than responsible attitude in not keeping itself well informed of the affairs of the Authority. Time and again we are seeing these administrative departments not fulfilling their roles. We witnessed a dreadful situation in Tasmania where the Commonwealth Department of Health in adopting a comparable negligent attitude meant that many people became involved in the collapse of the Druids' Health and Medical Benefits fund that was in financial difficulty. One particular gentleman had to sell his house. What was the reason for his action? It was the failure of the Commonwealth Health Department at that time to administer the legislation, to look at the returns and the figures. Had it done so, it would have seen that this organisation was in financial trouble and had been for many years before the collapse happened, but it did absolutely nothing. Even to this day, attempts by various politicians to try to help the people concerned, who have been distressed through a lack of action by the governing authority, have yielded no results. We see other areas in the transport field, where again there has been a failure to administer an Act properly, a failure to look at the returns and to take appropriate action. In paragraph 1.17 we see a further criticism, and I just wonder how much longer we shall tolerate, as a parliament, such governing authorities-departments-which are responsible for creating a lot of this red tape doing absolutely nothing about discharging their full responsibilities in a proper manner. I recommend a reading of this report to every honourable senator for the purpose of taking appropriate action. Tabling The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I refer to the Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor -General which has just been tabled by the Clerk. This is the first occasion on which the Proclamation of commencement dates of Acts has been tabled in the Parliament. This procedure has been adopted following initiatives by the Senate and is designed to inform honourable senators of what, in many cases, might be considered to be the completion of the legislative process. It also provides a formal means of ensuring that all gazettals of proclamations are recorded appropriately within the parliamentary records. Honourable senators would be aware that the date of the Governor-General's Assent to an Act is already reported in the Senate, and this new procedure will complement this practice. In conclusion, I wish to thank the Government for its assistance in facilitating the introduction of what I consider to be a most important procedure. Report and Ministerial Statement Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —For the information of honourable senators I table the Report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies on Term of Reference (c), dated December 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator BUTTON —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report and statement. The Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies has reported on that part of its terms of reference which called for it to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the expulsion from Australia of Mr Valeriy Ivanov, First Secretary, Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mr David Combe's involvement in those circumstances and the actions of the Government in the matter. Mr Justice Hope was required, under the commission that was issued to him on 17 May 1983, to report on these matters in advance of his more general report on the activities of Australia's security and intelligence agencies. Major Findings The findings of the Royal Commissioner are extensive, balanced and detailed. They amount to a complete endorsement of the actions the Government has taken since we first became aware of the matter on 20 April this year. Among His Honour's central findings are the following: Valeriy Ivanov was a KGB officer, and the Government was justified in expelling him as it did on 22 April; David Combe's relationship with Ivanov was such as to have serious implications for national security; the surveillance of Mr Combe authorised on 21 April was appropriate, and was terminated as soon as it reasonably should have been; it was proper for the National and International Security Committee-NISC-and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), acting on national security grounds, to have secured a decision from Cabinet and the Ministry that Ministers should not have professional dealings with Mr Combe; and the Government acted properly in its dealings with Mr Combe on 11 May, and was not obliged to give him an opportunity to state his case at any earlier time. A full summary of the 24 issues addressed by His Honour and the answers given to them is set out in chapter 9 of the report, and I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- CHAPTER 9 ANSWERS TO ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issues1. In the light of the evidence and my findings and conclusions, I give the following answers to the Issues: Issue 1 On the evidence available to ASIO on 20th April, 1983, was ASIO's assessment of Ivanov as a Soviet intelligence officer- (a) correct; or (b) reasonably open to it? Answer 1 (a) Yes. Issue 2 On the evidence which was available to ASIO on 20th April, 1983, was ASIO's conclusion that Ivanov's relationship with Combe was such as to have serious implications for national security- (a) correct; or (b) reasonably open to it? Answer 2 (a) Yes. Issue 2A Was Combe's relationship with Ivanov in fact such as to give rise to serious implications for national security as at 20th April, 1983? Answer 2A Yes. Issue 3 If Yes to 2 (a) or 2 (b), what were the implications for national security? Answer (i) Mr Ivanov might have succeeded in recruiting Mr Combe clandestinely to obtain and to hand over confidential information or confidential documents of value to the Soviet Government to the detriment of Australian interests. (ii) Mr Ivanov might have succeeded in recruiting Mr Combe to act clandestinely as an agent of influence to try to persuade members of the ALP, including Ministers, to adopt policies or to act in a way favourable to the Soviet Government. (iii) The relationship between Mr Ivanov and Mr Combe was about to become clandestine and ASIO would no longer be in a position to monitor it, either effectively or at all. Issue 4 If Yes to 2 (a) or 2 (b), should ASIO have attempted to acquaint Combe with its conclusion before communicating with the Prime Minister? Answer No. Issue 5 Did the Director-General of ASIO act properly in communicating with the Prime Minister? Answer Yes-although it would have been appropriate, because of the delay involved in securing an appointment with the Prime Minister, for the Director- General to have communicated earlier with the Attorney-General. Issue 6 Did the Prime Minister act properly in convening the meetings of the National and International Security Committee which were held on 20th and 21st April, 1983? Answer Yes. Issue 7 Did the NIS Committee decide, and was it reasonably open to the NIS Committee to decide: (a) to request the Soviet Ambassador to make arrangements for Ivanov to leave Australia within seven days? (b) the the Prime Minister should inform other Ministers that they should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Combe? (c) that the Leader of the Opposition should be briefed on the expulsion of Ivanov and the background thereto? (d) that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory should be advised of the relationship between Combe and Ivanov and of the activities of Combe? (e) that the Director-General of ASIO arrange for immediate surveillance of Combe by all appropriate means? Answer (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (d) Yes (e) Yes Issue 8 If Yes to 7 (a), was it proper for the Government to notify and announce the expulsion of Ivanov in the manner which it chose? Answer Yes. Issue 9 If Yes to 7 (b), should Combe have been afforded an opportunity to be heard by the Government: (a) before the NIS Committee decided that the Prime Minister should inform other Ministers? (b) at any and what time after the decision of the NIS Committee, not being a time fixed by or by reference to the making of any statement in either House of the Parliament? Answer (a) No (b) Although not required by law, it would have been appropriate for the Government to have provided such an opportunity after 4 May. The occasion for providing such an opportunity no longer existed after 12 May. (Steps to provide such an opportunity began on 2 May). Issue 10 If Yes to 7 (b), were the reasons of the NIS Committee in deciding that the Prime Minister so inform other Ministers wholly or partly- (a) the Committee's perception of the activities of lobbyists in general? (b) Combe's position as a lobbyist having regard to the official position formerly occupied by him within the Australian Labor Party? (c) the implications for national security of the relationship between Combe and Ivanov? Answer (a) No. (b) No-although the matter was discussed. (c) Yes. Issue 11 If Yes to 7 (c), was the briefing of the Leader of the Opposition properly carried out? Answer Yes. Issue 12 If Yes to 7 (d), was the briefing of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory properly carried out? Answer Yes. Issue 13 Was it proper for the NIS Committee, if it decided that the Prime Minister should inform other Ministers that they should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Combe, to require that such information be given without comment on the relationship between Combe and Ivanov? Answer Yes. Issue 14 Was the surveillance of Combe: (a) duly authorised? (b) carried out by all appropriate means? (c) terminated as soon as it reasonably should have been in all the circumstances? Answer (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes Issue 15 Did the Prime Minister inform, and if so was it proper for him to inform, other Ministers that they should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Combe: (a) by raising the matter at a Cabinet meeting on 26th April? (b) by raising the matter at a Ministry meeting on 2nd May? (c) without informing Ministers of the relationship between Combe and Ivanov? Answer (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. Issue 16 Was there any unauthorised or improper disclosure by any and what Minister of the decision to expel Ivanov before it was publicly announced? Answer (i) As part of the disclosure referred to in the answer to Issue 17, Mr Young made an unauthorised and improper disclosure on 21 April 1983: (ii) Mr Young made two unauthorised disclosures which were not improper on 22 April 1983. Issue 17 Was there any unauthorised or improper disclosure by any and what Minister of the information made available to the NIS Committee concerning the relationship between Combe and Ivanov before 11th May? Answer Mr Young made an unauthorised and improper disclosure on 21 April 1983. Issue 18 Was there any unauthorised or improper disclosure by any and what Minister of: (a) the decision of the NIS Committee that Ministers should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Combe? (b) the decision (if any) taken by Cabinet on 26th April in respect of Combe? (c) the decision (if any) taken by the Ministry on 2nd May in respect of Combe? Answer (a) No. (b) No. (c) No. Issue 19 Was it proper for the Government to acquaint Combe on 11th May with the information which had been presented to the NIS Committee and to receive a statement from him of his version of his association with Soviet officials? Answer Yes. Issue 20 If Yes to (19), was Combe, on 11th May: (a) properly acquainted with the information which had been presented to the NIS Committee; (b) given a proper opportunity to present his version of his association with Soviet officials? Answer (a) Yes-to the extent that it was appropriate to do so. (b) Yes. Issue 21 Was any and what agreement or arrangement concluded on 11th May between Combe and the Attorney-General or any other member or members of the Government as to subsequent disclosure of or comment upon Combe's connexion with Ivanov and the Government's actions in respect thereof? Answer Yes. An agreement that the Prime Minister would make an agreed statement to the House of Representatives on 11 May 1983 and that neither the Government nor Mr Combe would make any public comment on the statement or its subject matter except that a statement (to be approved by the Attorney-General) might be made by Mr Combe, about his proposed defamation action in respect of an article published in the Daily Mirror. Issue 22 If Yes to 21, did: (a) the Government (otherwise than by action or statement in Parliament); (b) Combe; (c) any other relevant person; resile in any and what way from such agreement or understanding? Answer (a) No. (b) Yes-by making public statements on the matter. (c) No. Issue 23 Should any of the answers to 7 (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) have been different, and if so, in what way, if all the facts relevant to that answer or to those answers had been available to the NIS Committee on 20th and 21st April, 1983? Answer No. Issue 24 If Yes to 2A, are there now any and if so what national security considerations which should be taken into account in deciding whether Combe's access to Ministers should be limited in any way? Answer The national security considerations which led NISC to make the decision referred to in Issue 7 (b) no longer apply and are not now relevant to Mr Combe' s access to Ministers. David Combe and National Security Implications The decisions taken by the NISC on 21 April were premised upon the view that the relationship between Mr Coombe and Mr Ivanov was such as to give rise to serious security concern. That was made plain in the Prime Minister's statement to Parliament of 11 May 1983. The correctness of the view formed by NISC is confirmed beyond any doubt by Mr Justice Hope's report. The Commission has now had the benefit of much more extensive evidence than was available to the NIS Committee. While some of the material before the NIS Committee has been shown to be incomplete or erroneous, His Honour found that these errors were of no more than peripheral significance to the issues before and the decisions of the Committee. The evidence before the Commission confirmed and reinforced the case that Mr Combe was a security risk. Mr Justice Hope concludes in fact that the case against Mr Combe emerging from the additional evidence before the Commission was stronger than the case presented to NISC by ASIO on 21 April (4.110). On the evidence before him Mr Justice Hope was satisfied that Ivanov intended, if possible, to use Mr Combe to obtain and to hand over to him information and documents illegitimately, and in the interests of the Soviet Union, and to act, wittingly or unwittingly, as an agent of influence (4.103). One of the central features in His Honour's conclusions was the finding that the relationship between Ivanov and Mr Combe was about to become clandestine and ASIO would no longer be in a position to monitor it, either effectively or at all. The implications for national security flowing from these matters were real and serious (4.109). The key elements in the report which, when pieced together, justify His Honour' s conclusions that Mr Combe, however unwittingly or unintentionally, was a security risk, may be summarised as follows: Mr Combe had access to Ministers, and his potential access to Ministers was very considerable (4.95). Ivanov was a KGB officer; at the least, Mr Combe believed that he probably was; and his assertion that he believed no more than that Ivanov, like any other Soviet diplomat, might be KGB was not genuine (2.41, 4.95). Mr Combe's visit to the USSR in November-December 1982 was significant: He had been selected by Ivanov; he was given access to unusually high level officials in the USSR; and following his return made recommendations which, if implemented , would have involved his client, the Commercial Bureau of Australia, CBA, in political or propagandist activities of benefit to the Soviet Union (4.45). Ivanov was cultivating Mr Combe for, inter alia, illicit purposes; in the course of that cultivation, and on written instructions from the highest levels in the Soviet Union, Ivanov-though not himself having any responsibility for trade matters-proposed to Mr Combe that he should work in trade on behalf of the Soviet Government (4.70). Mr Combe suspected that Ivanov might have had some ulterior illicit purpose (4. 108). Mr Combe's assertion that he soon lost all interest in the Moscow trade proposal was deliberately false (4.93). Evidence of this included his conversation on 16 March with Mr Alparslan, a New South Wales Government trade official, that he had been appointed as a representative of the Soviet Central Committee and was liaising with a political officer of the Soviet Embassy: Mr Combe's denial that he had made this statement was deliberately false (4.76). Mr Combe would be capable, on the evidence of his disclosure to Ivanov of the matters relating to the CBA report, of betraying a confidence either unwittingly or quite deliberately (4.20). Mr Combe's statements in evidence about the deterioration in his relationship with Mr Ivanov-that during March he came to regard him as a 'creep'-were deliberately untrue (4.92). On 3 April Mr Ivanov told Combe that his house was bugged, his phone was tapped and that he had been under surveillance since he arrived back from the USSR; further, that he should not get in touch with Ivanov, should maintain a low profile, and that Ivanov would contact him by other means (4.81, 4.85): On his own admission, Mr Combe in fact accepted Ivanov's proposal that their relationship should henceforth be conducted in a clandestine fashion (4.106). Mr Combe's failure to report Ivanov's warning points to an appreciation by him that he might be seen to have been compromised by Ivanov (4.107). While in April 1983 Mr Combe would have rejected any request to spy for the Soviet Union, there is a doubt whether he could have withstood a long and subtle process of cultivation and whether he appreciated the dangers inherent in his relationship with Ivanov (4.107). Mr Combe allowed his ambition to override his judgment and to be led into a position where his loyalty could become suspect: The consequent danger was certainly apparent and probably real (4.108). Propriety of the Government's Actions The Royal Commissioner has considered and set out his conclusions on the propriety of the Government's actions. Eight major matters are dealt with in this respect. First, His Honour concluded that the Ministers constituting the National and International Security Committee were thorough and demanding in their consideration of the material which the Director-General had provided to them (3.9); they vigorously cross-examined the ASIO officers who were brought in , at the Committee's request, to provide more information (3.11). Second, His Honour finds that there was ample justification for the decision to expel Ivanov (3.23), and that the expulsion was properly carried out: Once the decision was taken, it was open to the Cabinet Committee to allow Ivanov seven days in which to leave the country, and it was reasonable and proper to announce at a Press conference the Government's decision and the reasons for it as far as they could be made known at that time (3.25). Third, Mr Justice Hope concludes that the placing of Mr Combe under surveillance, which was done on the advice of the Director-General of Security, was a prudent and appropriate course to take ( 3.29). That surveillance was duly authorised, carried out by appropriate means, and was properly terminated on 4 May (5.43). Fourth, the report states that it was undoubtedly open for the Cabinet Committee to regard further professional dealings between Ministers and Mr Combe as undesirable. This was on the basis that it was reasonable for the Cabinet Committee to conclude that the relationship between Ivanov and Mr Combe had serious implications for national security (3.26). The decision that the Prime Minister should inform other Ministers that they should not make use of the consultancy services by Mr Combe is thereby supported. Mr Justice Hope finds that any use by Ministers of Mr Combe's consultancy services, at least until the full extent of his involvement with Mr Ivanov could be determined as a result of further surveillance, would have been unwise and, during the period of surveillance, imprudent (3.26). The Royal Commissioner accepts that it was the desire not to damage unnecessarily either Mr Combe's reputation or his business which motivated the decision that the Prime Minister should not comment upon the relationship with Ivanov when informing other Ministers that they should not deal with Mr Combe in his professional capacity (3.27). He finds that it was proper for the Prime Minister, without mentioning the national security aspect of the matter, to inform other Ministers at a Cabinet meeting on 26 April and at a Ministry meeting on 2 May, that they should not deal with Mr Combe in his professional capacity (page 215). The fifth matter related to the conduct of certain briefings by the Government. Mr Justice Hope states that the Cabinet Committee's decision to brief the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, on the Government's conclusion about Mr Ivanov's activities was entirely proper and appropriate (3.19). He further finds that the Committee's request to the Attorney-General to brief the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on the matter was also appropriate (3.28), and that both briefings were properly carried out (page 214 and 5.20). On the sixth matter, the report canvasses in detail the question whether Mr Combe should have been given the opportunity to be heard. The Royal Commissioner concludes that the NIS Committee was not required by law to give a hearing to Mr Combe, either before it made its decisions or at any time thereafter (6.13). He goes on, however, to consider broader requirements of fairness. He canvasses the arguments for and against giving Mr Combe a hearing, and expresses the view that there were a number of considerations justifying a conclusion that Mr Combe should not have been heard (6.33). Mr Justice Hope says that, with hindsight, an appropriate course for the Cabinet Committee may have been to make an interim decision on access to Ministers, reserving further consideration of the possibility of Mr Combe being given a hearing, until more was known-following a period of surveillance-of Mr Combe's status as a security risk (6.34). He finds, however, that appropriate steps were in fact in train after the termination of surveillance on 4 May to give Mr Combe a hearing (6.39). The reference here is to action that was taken, following discussion between the Prime Minister and a member of his staff, Mr Hogg, to suggest that Mr Combe prepare a written statement (6.37). While these steps were overtaken by events-the public speculation and allegations that led in the end to the Royal Commission-the report says there is nothing in the evidence to show that Mr Combe would not in the event, have been heard in a way that satisfied the requirements of ordinary fairness (6.39). I should mention that this question of a hearing, and the inadequacies of existing legislation in regard to a procedure for dealing with a case of this kind, weighed heavily with the Prime Minister and the Government at the time. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Opposition to purport, as it has on this issue, to be concerned about civil liberties generally, and those of Mr Combe in particular. Mr Justice Hope's report indicates that, despite the difficult circumstances in which the Government found itself, it did what it could to provide a hearing to Mr Combe in order to overcome the limitations of the existing legislation. When in opposition the Australian Labor Party attempted to address the very problems that have been now highlighted by this affair. For example, in a debate in this place on 9 May 1979 the now Attorney-General, Senator Evans, argued for an extension of 'the principle of allowing an appeal where persons are prejudiced by adverse assessments or communications in the nature of assessments '. But the ALP's attempt to broaden the provisions for notification of the existence of an adverse security assessment was defeated in both Houses by votes along party lines. The Government, therefore, welcomes the fact that Mr Justice Hope, in response to an issue that we expressly included in his terms of reference, will be making recommendations in his general report on the need for the establishment of a statutory procedure enabling an independent body to decide, in appropriate cases , whether, and if so how, an individual should be provided with an opportunity to be heard when a report of ASIO may result in action adverse to his interests (page 218, para 2). The seventh matter concerns the events surrounding the statement the Prime Minister made in the Parliament on 11 May. His Honour finds that the discussions between the Attorney-General and Mr Combe on 11 May were understood by both sides to be intended to arrive at an agreed basis for taking the affair once and for all out of the area of public speculation and political controversy (5.65). He concludes that the Government's action in acquainting Mr Combe, as it did on that day, with the information provided to the NIS Committee by ASIO was appropriate (5.65), and that Mr Combe was given an effective opportunity to present his version (5.67). Mr Justice Hope found that the preparation by the Attorney-General and Mr Combe of the agreed statement on 11 May proceeded on the basis that once such a statement had been made there would be no further public comment by way of justification, gloss or supplement, by either the Government or Mr Combe (5.60). He concludes further that Mr Combe's participation in the agreement was made after a full assessment of its advantages and disadvantages for himself, without the application of any undue pressure or the offer of any improper inducement by the Government (5.62). He says he is not able to conclude that Mr Combe did not fully and freely enter into the agreement, which was reached with his own lawyer 's advice and assistance (5.64). Mr Justice Hope says it is clear that Mr Combe, during the evening of 11 May, did comment on the matters covered by the statement that the Prime Minister had by then made to the Parliament, in circumstances which made it highly likely that his comments could be widely published (5.68). Mr Combe's 'backgrounding' of journalists, in breach of his part of the agreement reached that day between him and the Government, effectively frustrated the whole purpose of the agreement (5.72). His Honour finds that no statement was made or action taken by the Government, in breach of the agreement. The final matter concerns the actual or alleged disclosure of various matters by certain individual Ministers. He has found that the Prime Minister's conversations with Mr Butler and Mr Farmer in connection with their proposed partnership with Mr Combe were exactly as described in his evidence and were neither unauthorised nor improper (7.63). This will no doubt cause great distress to the Opposition which, in the course of its continuing attempts to vilify the Prime Minister and the Government in our handling of this whole affair, suggested that the Prime Minister had somehow acted quite improperly in his communications with Mr Butler and Mr Farmer. I draw attention to the statements in the Parliament by the Leader of the Opposition on 22 September 1983 in which he accused the Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, of self-contradiction and public deception, and accused him of ringing cronies to tip them off. The Prime Minister is waiting for his apology. The Royal Commissioner has found also that conversations on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, involved no impropriety (7.64), and that a conversation by the Minister for Housing and Construction, the Hon. Chris Hurford, was not unauthorised or improper (7.67). Only in respect of one Minister, the then Special Minister of State, the Hon. Mick Young, is there an adverse finding to which I shall return. Generally speaking, His Honour found that 'the Government was, at all times, sensitive to the implications for national security of some of the decisions it had made and which were embodied in Decision 321 (NIS). It also realised the need to prevent, as far as possible, damage to Mr Combe through the public linking of his name with Mr Ivanov' (3.30). Future Action in Relation to Mr Combe The Royal Commissioner has considered what action, if any, should now be taken by the Government in relation to Mr Combe by reference to national security considerations. He is of the view that all the circumstances associated with the expulsion of Ivanov, the establishment of the Royal Commission, and the attendant publicity, make it quite unlikely that any further attempt would be made to cultivate Mr Combe, and would also alert Mr Combe to the dangers of any apparent attempt at cultivation (8.5). He concludes that the national security considerations which led the Cabinet Committee to decide that Ministers should not make use of Mr Combe's consultancy services no longer apply and do not now call for a limitation on his access to Ministers (8.7). He makes it clear that he is not expressing an opinion about any action by the Government in relation to its attitude to Mr Combe or any other person as a lobbyist (8.8). The decisions that Ministers should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Mr Combe of course have had to be reconsidered in the light of subsequent developments, including the Royal Commission, and decisions of the Government, which are being announced separately, on dealings with lobbyists generally. The Government agrees and, as recommended by the Royal Commissioner, now affirms that the national security considerations, which led to the decision that the Prime Minsiter should inform other Ministers that they should not make use of the consultancy services provided by Mr Combe, no longer apply and are not now relevant to Mr Combe's access to Ministers. There is thus no present national security reason for a bar on dealings by Ministers with Mr Combe. Whether they do deal with him as a lobbyist is a matter for Ministers' discretion in the light of the events that have transpired, the findings of the Royal Commissioner in respect of Mr Combe and his evidence, and the Government's general policy in relation to lobbyists. The Prime Minister has already made clear his policy to deal not with lobbyists but with principals. The guidelines for Ministers and officials in dealing with lobbyists, to be issued today, reflect this approach. Mr Justice Hope has concluded that no occasion arises for the payment of compensation to Mr Combe. On his findings on the evidence, any loss Mr Combe suffered in his business and in his reputation did not flow from any wrongful act or failure by ASIO or the National and International Security Committee of Cabinet. Mr Justice Hope records that what the Government did in the present case was 'to act bona fide for valid national security reasons, and Mr Combe contributed to his own injury to a significant extent.' (8.9) The Government accepts the Royal Commission's conclusion in this respect and will not compensate Mr Combe other than for the legal costs he has incurred. The Government has already met, or has been in the process of meeting the reasonable legal costs incurred by Mr Combe in the Royal Commission. Payments in respect of his counsel have been on the same basis as those for the Commonwealth's own counsel. The Role of ASIO The actions and performance of ASIO in the affair have come under very close scrutiny. It should be stated that in most relevant respects ASIO's conduct has not been found wanting. It has been shown to have acted reasonably and responsibly in following Ivanov's activities and in raising with the Government its concern at the developing relationship between Ivanov and Mr Combe. In particular, the Royal Commissioner observes (2.41) that: ASIO's identification of Ivanov as a KGB officer was achieved through careful and professional analysis; ASIO adopted a cautious and objective attitude to Mr Combe's relationship with Ivanov-as when the Director-General refrained from mentioning Mr Combe's name in a briefing of the then Attorney-General on 3 February 1983; before 21 April 1983, Mr Combe was not the target of any surveillance by ASIO; the Director-General acted responsibly in deciding on 5 April to notify the Prime Minister of his concern-although given the delay before the Prime Minister could see him it would have been proper for him to have sought an appointment with the Attorney-General; there is no doubt that ASIO's conclusion that Mr Ivanov's relationship with Mr Combe was such as to have serious implications for national security was correct ; with the qualifications indicated in the report, the Director-General's presentation to the Prime Minister was adequate, objective and fair. The report records that a number of errors were made by ASIO in the presentation of its case to Ministers but says that, whether considered separately or together, they were of peripheral significance in its case (4.112). Nonetheless, the report indicates that the greatest care must be exercised when ASIO takes a matter to the Government, particularly when its presentation may adversely affect a private citizen (4.113). There are in this respect, and in one or two other areas noted in the report, lessons to be learned by ASIO from this whole episode. The Government expects, and will demand, nothing but the highest standards of performance. Mr Justice Hope will have a further opportunity to comment on ASIO and its general performance in his wider report on the security and intelligence agencies. He indicates that he will be making recommendations in that report on: the need for ASIO to review its practices and procedures in order to reduce the possibility of error and to reveal, when reporting in the exercise of its functions, the existence of any such possibility; and the need for ASIO to review its practices and procedures when reporting matters to Ministers and particularly when a report will or may result in action by Ministers. Further matters relating to ASIO are dealt with in the separate volume of appendices, for which the Royal Commissioner has recommended limited distribution. In accordance with Mr Justice Hope's recommendation, that volume has not been tabled. Consistent with the practice in these matters, the Government has made the confidential volume available to the Leader of the Opposition. On this occasion also, having regard to the nature of the report, directed as it is to the conduct of the Government, the confidential volume has been made available to the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) and to the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp). The Position of Mr Young Mr Young's actions on 21 and 22 April were unauthorised and, as Mr Justice Hope has found in the case of the 21 April disclosure, improper. He recognised the seriousness of that breach of Cabinet confidentiality and his failure to inform the Prime Minister of the fact by tendering his resignation on 14 July. Thus the facts and the judgment on those facts are not in dispute. What is relevant now is the future position of Mr Young. Let me make a number of points quite clear. First, it is clear now as it always was, that Mick Young never intended to place national security at risk, and the national security was not in fact damaged by his disclosures-although, of course, this in no way excuses those actions. It is clear that these were based on an error of personal judgment from which he has now learnt, and which I am sure will not be repeated. Second, he made his comments to Mr Walsh on the basis that, as Mr Hope observed : 'He wanted to protect his friend.' Those of us who know him so well would clearly understand the value he has always placed on mateship. Let me emphasise that this does not excuse his actions. But I do suggest strongly that it has relevance for the assessment to be made as to the penalty he should suffer. In other words, we are not dealing with an ill-intentioned man. we are dealing with a good man who has made a mistake which he now regrets. Mr Young has already paid a high price for that mistake. Third, I ask honourable senators to contemplate what has been involved for him in his resignation from the Government. He has spent 30 years working in and for the Labor movement. So many of those latter years have been specifically directed at helping to achieve a Federal Labor Government, with the totally legitimate expectation of being an important member of that Government. For no Minister in the Government could the events of 14 July, and the exclusion from that Ministry after only four months, have been more devastating than for Mick Young. I suggest that no one can fully understand what he and his family have suffered. Taking all these considerations into account, it is considered that Mr Young should have the opportunity of returning to the Government by the time the Parliament resumes in 1984. Nominations for the Ministerial vacancy will be called in the new year. The Prime Ministrer has indicated that not only should Mr Young be free to nominate for that vacancy but also he will have the Prime Minister's full support in such nomination. He would have served at least a six months penalty for a mistake which, as Justice Hope observes, was made after only six weeks in office. Mr Young is an extremely able man and it is not intended that the Government or the country should, for any longer than the period designated, be denied the value of his ministerial services. Conclusion The circumstances of the whole affair have brought no pleasure to the Government, and we recognise that in the unfolding of the affair, and its attendant publicity, individuals who have been involved or affected have been subjected to varying degrees of inconvenience, intrusion and hurt. But the issues which arose and which the Government has to face-and which because of the way events unfolded ultimately had to be exposed to full review-were of the utmost seriousness. The legitimate and strong public interest in the issues and in the Government's handling of them called in time for the most thorough examination in order to clear the air. That has now been done by the Royal Commission. The Government accepts full responsibility for, and stands behind, the actions it took. It acknowledges the valuable public service the Royal Commission has performed in clarifying for the record the events in question and the way in which they were handled. The Royal Commission is proceeding with its broader inquiry into the role and activities of the intelligence community generally. Mr President, I move: That the Senate take note of the report and statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Tabling Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable senators, I table Government decisions about the establishment of a general register of lobbyists, a register of lobbyists who act on behalf of foreign governments and their agencies, and guidelines for Ministers regarding their dealings with lobbyists. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- GOVERNMENT DECISIONS ABOUT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENERAL REGISTER OF LOBBYISTS, A REGISTER OF LOBBYISTS WHO ACT ON BEHALF OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR AGENCIES, AND GUIDELINES FOR MINISTERS REGARDING THEIR DEALINGS WITH LOBBYISTS Establishment of a General Register of Lobbyists (a) A register is to be established by the Department of the Special Minister of State of persons or companies which seek for reward to represent the interests of third parties to government. (b) The register shall include details of all clients handled by the individual or company. (c) The register shall be available to all Ministers and Departments. (d) The register shall be voluntary but no individual or company who fails to register will be received by a Minister. (e) In establishing the register the special Minister of State will consult with lobby industry groups with a view to ensuring that the register is in place by 1 March, 1984. Establishment of a Register of Lobbyists who act on Behalf of Foreign Governments and their Agencies Special administrative arrangements will be established immediately for persons or companies which act in dealings with the Government and its officials on behalf of a foreign government or its agencies. These arrangements will include: (i) the establishment in the Department of the Special Minister of State of a register of persons or companies representing foreign governments and their agencies; (ii) where a lobbyist has sought registration, the Special Minister of State will check with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General as to whether the national interest would be adversely affected; (iii) if the advice is affirmative the lobbyist shall be informed. If the lobbyist chooses to proceed in his or her representation, the matter shall be reviewed by a committee of the Special Minister of State (Chairman), the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General; (iv) in the event of the committee maintaining the original advice that the lobbyist should drop the association, and the lobbyist failing to accept that advice, the Special Minister of State shall notify all Ministers that the receiving of representations from that lobbyist should cease. Guidelines for Ministers Regarding their Dealings with Lobbyists The following guidelines have been endorsed to cover contacts between Ministers and officials on the one hand and lobbyists on the other. They apply immediately with respect to dealings with lobbyists who act for foreign governments and their agencies; and, with respect to lobbyists representing other clients, from the date on which the general register is established, i.e. 1 March, 1984. No Minister or official should receive representations from any lobbyist in an intermediary capacity unless the lobbyist is registered with the Department of the Special Minister of State. Ministers should as far as possible follow the practice of seeking to ensure that lobbyists who make personal representations to them are accompanied by the principals they represent. Ministers should seek to avoid granting special privileges, advantages or access to any lobbyist by virtue of that lobbyist's particular background, for example as a former Parliamentary representative or senior office-holder or employee of a political party. Where it comes to the attention of any Minister that a particular lobbyist has failed to meet all of the registration requirements listed above, the Minister should draw this to the attention of the Special Minister of State. The Special Minister of State will then draw the position to the attention of his other Ministerial colleagues, who should not receive representations from that lobbyist until the matter is resolved. Where information of this type comes to the attention of an official, he or she should bring it to the attention of his or her Minister. All of these arrangements will be introduced for a trial period and their operation will be reviewed by Government in twelve months time. Interim Report and Ministerial Statement Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable senators I table the Interim Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group on Commonwealth Terms of Reference (E), (F) and (G). Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GARETH EVANS —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report and statement. On 28 March 1983 the terms of reference of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking were extended to allow the Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Stewart, to inquire into the activities of the Nugan Hand group of companies and related matters. The Commissioner has now reported to the Government on three of the terms of reference contained in the letters patent issued by the Governor- General on that date and this is the report I am now tabling. Honourable senators will recall that serious allegations had been raised concerning members of this Parliament and relating to alleged interference in Commonwealth investigations and wrongful use of an ex-officio indictment. The Royal Commission has inquired into these allegations and found them to be without basis. The first term of reference on which the Commissioner has reported is: (e) Whether any person, organisation or body associated with the Nugan Hand group directly or indirectly made or offered any payment or inducement for, or in connection with, or endeavoured by means of a threat to procure, the disclosure by any Commonwealth officer or any person who was formerly a Commonwealth officer of information relating to an investigation by an Australian law enforcement body into any activity referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) relating to possible illegal activities by the Nugan Hand group; The Commissioner's response to this question is: 'No'. The second term of reference on which the Commissioner has reported is: (f) Whether any person, organisation or body associated with the Nugan Hand group procured or received, directly or indirectly, from any Commonwealth officer or any person who was formerly a Commonwealth officer information relating to an investigation by an Australian law enforcement body into any activity referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); The Commissioner's response to this question is: 'Yes, Mr F. J. Nugan received confidential information relating to the investigation indirectly from a Commonwealth officer, namely, Philip Ambrose Bailey as a result of an approach by Mr Garry Allen in Hong Kong in about November 1977 to an employee of Mr F. J. Nugan to whom the confidential information was passed and who in turn conveyed that information to Mr F. J. Nugan.' Mr Bailey was an investigator in the Sydney office of the Federal Narcotics Bureau from 1973 until the Bureau was abolished in 1979. I am advised that he ceases to be an employee of the Commonwealth early in 1981. The third term of reference on which the Commissioner has reported is: (g) Whether any person, organisation or body improperly interfered with, inhibited or endeavoured to interfere with or inhibit any investigation by an Australian law enforcement body into any activity referred to in paragraph (a) or (b). The Commissioner's response to this question is: 'No'. The report does not contain recommendations for further action on any of these matters. The Commission found that the substance of the allegations against members of the House of Representatives all came from the one person concerning whose credibility 'the Commission entertains serious doubts'. It is the Commission's opinion that there is no credible evidence to support these allegations and the Commission is of the view that the allegations are 'quite unjustified and false' . As to allegations of intimidation by the then Attorney-General, the Commission found that '. . . there is no substance in (the) assertion that the . . . Attorney-General . . . acted maliciously in filing an ex-officio indictment in respect of Mr Volkman in 1982'. The matters that were referred to the Royal Commission were of public concern. Following the Commission's investigation of those matters and its report, the concern can now be put to rest. In accordance with the Commissioner's recommendation, one page of the report-containing information on the identity of two confidential witnesses-has been deleted from the report as tabled. In addition, following consultation with the Commissioner and with his agreement, appendix K and certain other matters-mostly the names of individuals and companies-have been deleted from the appendices in the report as tabled. None of the matters deleted relate, in themselves, to the matters under consideration in the report. Finally I inform honourable senators that a copy of the Commissioner 's report has been sent to the Premier of New South Wales for his information. The Government presently has under consideration, in consultation with the Government of New South Wales, the question of an extension of time beyond 31 December 1983 for Mr Justice Stewart to complete his inquiries into the remaining terms of reference. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Motion for Disallowance Debate resumed from 29 November 1983, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Casino Control Ordinance 1983 contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 53 of 1983 and made under the Seat of Government ( Administration) Act 1910 be disallowed. (Quorum formed) Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.27) —Mr Deputy President, when the debate was adjourned I was discussing a motion moved by Senator Reid to disallow the Casino Control Ordinance which would have had the effect of establishing a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. The attitude of the Australian Democrats has been consistent on this issue ever since it was mooted-that the decision should not be impacted on the people of the Australian Capital Territory by people such as myself who come from Melbourne and by other honourable senators and members of Parliament who come from State capitals, without giving the electors of the Australian Capital Territory an opportunity to vote on it. We held an interim position to give the House of Assembly, the democratically elected representatives of the Territory, an opportunity to make a decision. In the event the members of that House had two votes. One was tied nine-all and the other one was against a casino 10 to 8. One could hardly say that was a thunderously definitive or decisive vote. We now revert to our original position and say we cannot agree to a casino being established in Canberra unless there is a referendum. The vote on Senator Reid's motion was to have been taken last week. I received agreement from the Government that it would contemplate having a referendum, in which case I asked for leave until today to continue my remarks . In the event I am given to understand that the Government will not hold a referendum on this matter, at this point of time anyway, and therefore I announce, on behalf of my colleagues, that we will be supporting Senator Reid's motion for disallowance. I understand that once this Ordinance is defeated, which it probably will be, an identical ordinance cannot be brought before the Senate for six months; so be it. Contrary to the advice given to me in a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), I understand a referendum on this matter could be held in the Australian Capital Territory on the same day-25 February-as the constitutional referenda will be voted upon. Such a referendum would be legal and it could be held virtually for the price of producing the voting papers. The cost would be virtually negligible. We believe that the Government, in the last two weeks that remain in this parliamentary session, should see the wisdom of our proposal. The Australian Democrats, of course, would support a move by the Government to introduce legislation to hold a referendum in the Australian Capital Territory on this issue on 25 February. If that referendum was successful, the Australian Democrats would suggest the reintroduction of this question by way of legislation. At this stage I announce that we will support the motion for disallowance. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.30) —The Senate is considering the attempt by Senator Reid by way of motion to disallow the Casino Control Ordinance 1983. The Ordinance was gazetted on Monday, 31 October, after a decision by the Government on how best to proceed with the development of a complex involving an international hotel and a convention centre, including substantial office space. Therefore, I would urge honourable senators not to lose sight of that fact in considering this motion today. The proposed casino would be part of a much needed complex in Canberra. The importance of the complex must, therefore, not be understated. The Government sees it as an important event for Canberra and an important event for Australia. From the outset, let me remind honourable senators of the benefit which will accrue from this development. I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that the project will provide construction activity and employment which are important for the financial and economic prosperity of Canberra. It will meet an urgent need for office accommodation in a city which is starved of adequate office space. I understand that the position regarding office space has deteriorated very considerably since March of this year when this proposal was before the previous Government for consideration. The complex will fulfil a long neglected requirement that a nation's capital must have a national convention centre which can accommodate international standard gatherings. I think it would be fair to say that no other national capital is denied those important facilities. The construction of this complex will mean that Canberra will be part of the convention circuit in our region; it will mean an end to convention revenue going out of Australia to South East Asian capitals. One has only to pick up journals that deal with business activity to realise that it has become part of the established processes for business conventions to be held outside this country in other capitals and for money associated with the conventions to be spent in South East Asia and the Pacific region. Therefore, the Government perceives this development, and correctly so, as a means of increasing tourism for Canberra and the region. This very important objective will be a step on the road to providing the Australian Capital Territory with a diversified economic base; it will be another boost to employment in the Capital Territory at a time when the Government-I believe correctly-and the community see the creation of jobs as the top priority for both government and the community. Therefore, I ask honourable senators to dwell upon these benefits. Honourable senators should ask themselves also whether they are willing to say today that Canberra should not have these benefits, particularly in the economic climate that faces this country. These are the benefits as the Government sees them. Let me explain how we came to the position which has resulted in the motion to disallow the Ordinance. The previous Government and its members are no stangers to this matter. The development of an international hotel, convention centre and office complex has been raised and considered over many years. At some times the proposal has included a casino; other times it has not. Therefore, the question of a casino for Canberra is not something that suddenly appeared on the scene when the Labor Government was elected to office. It has been around for a long time. At times it was considered favourably by the previous Government and at other times not. Therefore, when the present Government came to office in March this year the proposal for a complex was part of the unfinished business of the previous Government. It was part of the business for this Government. The Minister in the previous Government responsible for the Australian Capital Territory took a course of action unheard of in Australian political history. After the writs had been issued for the 5 March election, he made a commitment to White Industries Ltd for the development of the complex. This proposal included substantial concessions on the part of the Commonwealth. In other words , after the writs had been issued, the previous Minister committed the future Government to the financial implications of this project. Let me say, in passing , that such a situation will never occur under this Government. We will honour the longstanding tradition that, once writs for an election are issued, no decision involving revenue or expenditure decisions will be made. We repudiate that sort of commitment that was undertaken by a government in circumstances in which a change of government was certainly feasible and possible. This was the situation that the Labor Government faced when it came to office. The first move that the Labor Government took was to establish its legal position. We had to establish whether we were bound by the commitment entered into by the former Government with White Industries. We accept the advice that, at the very least, we had a moral obligation to compensate White Industries for expenses incurred after the time when that organisation was accepted as the successful tenderer. The Government, therefore, had to balance the need to the facility, the existing commitment to White Industries, the concessions offered by the Government and the marginal economic viability of the complex itself. The course that was decided by the Government after careful consideration was to include a casino in the complex. This decision was in accordance with the recommendations of the House of Assembly made in 1981. I remind Australian Democrat senators that this recommendation was made by the House of Assembly at that time. This course of action meant that the complex would gain economic viability and could proceed without the substantial concessions on the part of the Commonwealth which were entered into by the Liberal-National Party Government. As to the timing of this proposal and how it should be implemented, the Government had to consider a further range of matters. It had to determine, for example, the number of false starts on the casino issue made by the previous Government. I would remind Senator Reid of the number of times the previous Government had a different attitude from the one the Opposition is now taking. We had to consider the uncertainty that existed in the mind of the developers. Therefore, we decided that, before we called for submissions on the development, legislation should be in place. With the parliamentary year drawing to a close and with the need for the complex to get under way as quickly as possible, the Government introduced this ordinance so that the matter could be expedited. The Ordinance was drawn up so that the House of Assembly could consider the proposal . This procedure is also in accordance with the statement of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) that matters of local concern should involve the House of Assembly. Therefore, this is not a matter, as has been suggested, in respect of which the Government was moving in the dark. Our intentions and our proposals were well known. I remind honourable senators that Tasmania has two casinos in operation. The Northern Territory also has two casinos. There is a proposal for a casino on the Gold Coast in Queensland. When I was in Townsville a couple of months ago in connection with the opening of a counselling service for Vietnam veterans, people were talking about the casino for Townsville which was on the agenda of the Queensland Government. I think it is interesting that the three States that have conservative governments-the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Queensland- all have or are about to have casinos. There is no suggestion that there was something improper or morally wrong with those proposals. South Australia has passed casino legislation and is examining development proposals. Western Australia is also looking closely at having a casino. So it would appear that casinos have arrived; they are here, whether we want them or not. That surely answers those who believe that somehow or other casinos create moral decay and other sorts of problems in the communities in which they exist. Therefore, I think we are entitled to ask those honourable senators who come from the various States of the Commonwealth which either have casinos in operation or which will have casinos in operation why they should be taking a predetermined position in respect of the establishment of a casino in the national capital. When the Government proceeded to draw up the Ordinance, it reviewed existing legislation in Tasmania, the Northern Territory, Queensland and South Australia. We also reviewed the reports of various royal commissions and other boards of inquiry which had been established in the States to consider the question of casinos. It is interesting that in my State of New South Wales we do not have any current proposals for the establishment of a casino. I am not aware of any anyway. However, as I have said with respect to the inquiry that the Government commissioned and the evidence in the States which have taken initiatives in this respect, it is these factors which have enabled us to put before the Senate an Ordinance for the establishment of the casino, which provides the most comprehensive measures of controls existing in Australia. We have learnt from the States. We have learnt from the commission of inquiry of the House of Assembly. We believe therefore that, in spite of all the fears, concerns and innuendoes, the controls which the Government has put into place would overcome those fears. We believe therefore that it is a model of casino control legislation in Australia which the Government has put before the Parliament. The Ordinance provides for very tight control over all facets of the operation of the casino. The developer, the operator and all employees of the casino will require approval. Their bona fides will be thoroughly checked by both the Casino Control Board, which is to be set up under the Department of Territories and Local Government, and by the Australian Federal Police. Once the developer's reputation is established, the developer and all of the parties associated with the control and ownership of the casino must satisfy the Foreign Investment Review Board guidelines. The Minister has been given full control over the layout and design of the proposed casino. In particular, the casino's operations are envisaged as being discreet and tasteful. It will be separated from the other facilities of the complex so that persons will neither be induced, encouraged nor enticed to enter the casino because of the layout or some other aspect of the complex. In other words, strict controls will be imposed over such matters as liquor, the entry of persons and associated entertainment facilities. In accordance with the 1981 recommendations of the House of Assembly, poker machines will be strictly prohibited from being part of the casino complex. This is done very specifically to ensure that the continued viability and growth of the club industry in the Australian Capital Territory will not be jeopardised. So the Government has a balanced approach to this matter. It has taken into account community views and the experiences of all of the States which have adopted casinos or are adopting casino projects. The Minister will have the power to regulate strictly a wide variety of matters, including the hours of operation of the casino, the games to be played and the rules of those games, the betting procedures, the amount of credit which can be provided and the handling and the accountability of moneys. In other words, the Government is being quite responsible and mature in the way it is handling this project. Inspectors appointed under the Ordinance will be on duty whenever the casino is operating and with members of the Australian Federal Police they will have very wide-ranging draw enforcement powers. Very severe penalties are provided under the Ordinance for the breach of any of its provisions, including substantial fines; licence suspension; and if the offence is of a very grave nature, the cancellation of that licence. Those are the safeguards which the Government has provided in this proposal. The Government is aware of allegations linking the operation of a casino with organised crime and with a number of social problems including prostitution and the tainting of the image of an area. No one in his right mind would suggest that any government, whatever its political complexion, would disregard that situation. Obviously any government would take every step, and we have taken every step, to see that those sorts of problems are avoided like the plague. I say to honourable senators that the legislation before us today will inhibit these very undesirable social activities. The provisions in the Ordinance are in line with the recommendations of the 1981 inquiry of the House of Assembly and of a more recent inquiry of a select committee of the House of Assembly carried out in 1983. The most recent House of Assembly inquiry, during which members of that House, the elected representatives, travelled to Tasmania and spoke to both the Tasmanian police and Tasmanian Government officials, found that the involement of criminal elements and the social problems which have been exaggerated and highlighted have not been aggravated during the many years in which the Tasmanian casino has been operating. I have been in the complex in Tasmania. I have not been to the casino, but I have not seen any of those features which have been highlighted in public debate on this project. Bearing in mind that the legislative controls we have in our Ordinance are even stricter, the penalties greater and the scrutiny more exhaustive, the Government is confidient that these sorts of problems will not occur in the national capital. We would be foolish, of course, if we were to allow them to occur. The Government is vigilant. The Government is aware that these features can exist in some circumstances, but it has taken every conceivable measure to see that that does not happen. Therefore I draw the attention of honourable senators to that part of the Ordinance which enables the Minister to control all forms of advertising associated with the casino's operations. It is the Government's intention that approval be given only to advertising which will project an image of Canberra which benefits its status as the national capital, and the nation's capital. It should not be thought that what is proposed will result in a mecca of flashing lights and crass vulgarity in the national capital. It was never the intention of the Government to have a miniature Kings Cross as a result of this project. Even if we were to have one, it would probably enliven the night life of what people sometimes describe as a rather dull sort of place. It would not be a Las Vegas-style development; rather the casino would be a room or perhaps even half of a floor in a building. There will be no external indication that a casino is located within. Honourable senators would also be aware that revenue generated by the operation of the casino, by a decision made by the Government, has been specifically earmarked to provide projects of social benefit to the residents of the Capital Territory. This is different from what happens in many of the States, where gambling revenue, which is now a very considerable proportion of those States' budgets, is treated as general revenue. Here in Canberra the Government's approach has been that the revenue would be available for social benefit and for the benefit of the residents of Canberra in a very specific way. A special trust account will be established under this Ordinance into which such revenue will be paid. This will ensure that the revenue flowing through the casino will be held for the citizens of Canberra rather than be put into Consolidated Revenue, which is the practice in other places. The revenue will be paid into a separate trust account established under the Audit Act. This account will be known as the Australian Capital Territory Social Benefits Trust Fund. The Fund will be used to provide financial and other assistance to disadvantaged persons in the Australian Capital Territory, and there are plenty of them. It will assist elderly and other disadvantaged residents who require housing or rental assistance. All who depend on community facilities and services will thus benefit greatly by the project. Those who have suffered in disasters will be specifically helped. Honourable senators should understand that the purpose of the Casino Control Ordinance is to permit the Government to consider submissions from developers for a whole convention centre complex. This could be done without the substantial financial considerations that would otherwise have been necessary. The development of the proposed complex would provide both immediate and long term developments for the Australian Capital Territory community as well as the Australian community. In the short term, during the construction phase, substantial number of jobs will be generated. It is estimated, for example, that building the whole complex will involve an expenditure of about $130m and create some 1,500 jobs during the construction phase; that in the longer term hundreds of additional permanent jobs will be created. They will be provided in the complex itself and in related catering and service industries. That is a very important objective because we know that the narrow economic base in Canberra does have disadvantages for many of the residents of the national capital. At present Australia does not have a substantial convention centre of the size contemplated by this project. In terms of the convention market the Government believes that a convention centre such as is proposed will mean that Australians will no longer be required to travel out of the country because of a lack of facilities here. That can only benefit all sectors of the Australian community. Also, to date Canberra has been sorely lacking in suitable venues for entertainment. The Government also recognises that, around the world, convention centres, in and of themselves, are not economically viable. Other governments, as we know from the empirical evidence, have had to offer a range of concessions to ensure that such important facilities are provided. If we are to have private investment in this type of project there must naturally be the prospect of an economic return; otherwise the funds will not be provided. The inclusion of the casino as a part of the complex will enable the development to take place without the need for a substantial government subsidy. Honourable senators will be aware that when the House of Assembly considered the proposed amendment last week it recommended to the Minister for Territories and Local Government that the proposal that was rejected by the previous Government should stand-without a casino as part of the complex. The House of Assembly was almost evenly divided on the question. The vote on the proposal was as close as it could be-10 votes to eight. The decision taken was contrary to the two decisions taken on previous occasions when the House of Assembly has discussed the matter. In 1979 and in 1981 the House of Assembly supported, by a substantial majority, a casino proposal. So it must be borne in mind that the Assembly, in making its decision would not have been responsible for providing the concessions. That would be a Commonwealth contribution. The Assembly was not faced with a hard-nosed financial decision, but rather with advice based upon this Government bearing and wearing the consequences. Indeed, the report of the House of Assembly Select Committee which inquired into the casino proposal could not readily come up with any substantial or valid reason for opposing it. Notwithstanding its wide-ranging inquiry, it could find no evidence which would support a recommendation against the proposal on rational grounds. Let me turn briefly to one of the matters raised by Senator Chipp. He said that because of a number of factors, including the closeness of the Assembly vote, we should hold a referendum on the issue; that such a referendum should be held on 25 February next, when the Government is to take five constitutional proposals to the Australian people. I wish to make clear the Government's position on this matter. It is the same as was put to Senator Chipp by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his letter last month. The Prime Minister said that he thought it would be inappropriate to have a referendum on this matter. The Government wishes on 25 February to gain the support of the people of Australia on five important constitutional proposals, proposals which have been debated in the Senate and supported. Therefore, it would be an inappropriate time to have the people of Canberra distracted from these very important matters by having to consider a local issue. As the Prime Minister said in his letter, governments are elected to govern and referendums should be held only on matters of great importance or in cases where it was necessary because of constitutional obligations. That is the position that the Government has taken. We do not feel that it is appropriate further to delay the proposition by waiting until February in order to conduct a referendum. The need for office space in Canberra is far too urgent an issue to permit waiting on the outcome of a local vote. The Government has brought forth a development package designed to ease that accommodation shortage quickly. Senator Reid herself is aware of the difficulties that my Department has had in finding suitable accommodation. Many government departments and areas of the private sector are greatly concerned about the lack of such accommodation in Canberra. The Government considered the referendum question when it first looked at the matters which led to today's debate. It then rejected that option and it still rejects it. I ask honourable senators, therefore, to consider the provisions of the Ordinance, first, as a set of controls for a discreet casino in the Australian Capital Territory; secondly, as allowing for the development of a total complex which will benefit the community; thirdly, as lessening the drain on Commonwealth revenue; and, fourthly, as providing a much needed boost to Canberra's economy. Let us look at the Ordinance on its merits. It provides the tightest possible control and sets a standard for the rest of the nation in this field. I therefore ask honourable senators not to make a cheap political decision today but rather to look at the Ordinance as a positive action, one taken in good faith and with the best of intentions. Honourable senators should remind themselves of the context in which the Government took this decision. It is not a simple matter. It is not just a matter of building a casino, allegedly to spoil the Canberra scene. It is providing for the nation's capital a much needed complex and I urge all honourable senators, particularly those from States where casinos are operating, or will be operating as a result of State Government interest in the matter, to reject Senator Reid's motion and the cynical politics that I believe it represents. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.58) —in reply-I wish to deal with a number of matters that have been raised by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) in his speech this afternoon. About half of it can be used to support, and does support, the argument that I gave initially: That we do need a convention centre in Canberra; that we do need office space in Canberra; that we do need the development that White Industries is prepared to go ahead with and for which it has $130m available, to provide for the jobs that would flow from it. I call upon the Government again to proceed with that proposal forthwith. There is no requirement whatever to hold a referendum on that. There is no reason whatever to deprive this community of the benefits that it would gain from such a convention centre, international hotel and office complex, on the basis previously agreed upon. The Minister referred to the need for an increase in tourism. I wish we could take him seriously, but in the Budget that was put down in August, there was no evidence whatever of support for increased tourist promotion for the Australian Capital Territory. For the promotion of tourism the provision of the Budget this year was $500,000, exactly the same amount as was provided last year, which, in real terms, represents a decrease in expenditure on that area of activity. In contrast, most other States have increased their budget for tourist promotion this year by about 68 per cent. The Minister has referred to the need for a diversified economic base. I could not agree more, and the hotel-convention centre that had been agreed upon would assist in providing that base. The real tragedy of the decision that the Government is attempting to inflict upon this community is the way in which White Industries has been treated. That, of course, if the Government does not go ahead with the proposal, will be something from which this community will probably suffer for a very long period. The Minister called upon senators to say that the Australian Capital Territory should have these benefits-a convention centre-international hotel complex. Of course we need these things and we can have them because we know they are available. It has been suggested that the incentives needed to get them are too high. What about the position in New South Wales? What about the booklet 'Assistance for development in New South Wales, Australia', a document comprising some 39 pages that has been put out by the New South Wales Department of Industrial Development and Decentralisation? Why do we not engage in a little bit of pro Australian Capital Territory activity, instead of knocking it all the time? How about going ahead with the proposals that were put forward and which were acceptable to this community? If the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) still wants a casino, he can pursue that as a separate matter. No reason has been given for abandoning this project, just because somebody wants a casino. What real jobs would flow from having a casino in this complex? The number of construction jobs which would be available in the building of a complex with a casino would be the same as for a complex without a casino. The Prime Minister, in answering a question as to additional jobs, provided the only evidence relating to the provision of additional jobs; those jobs were for young girls in the casino. That is not something about which everybody in this community is pleased. We should consider the other implications of jobs. Mr Dawkins, the Minister for Finance, has made no financial statement regarding this Ordinance, although he promised to make such statements with respect to Bills. I appreciate that the ordinance is not a Bill, a matter I will come back to. We have had no financial statement setting out the benefits to this community from this project, from a financial point of view. We have had no statement about consultation with the community. A report, prepared by Mr Peter Bennett, entitled 'An Assessment of the Impact of Poker Machine Gambling on the Victorian Gambling Market' covers a number of quite interesting matters. It gives the details of expenditure on poker machine gambling in the Australian Capital Territory at present, namely $ 13.842m. I wonder how many more dollars are available in this community for gambling and whether, in fact, gambling in a casino, discreet or otherwise, would be done with money taken from poker machine gambling. At the conclusion of this quite lengthy report, Mr Bennett makes it very plain in referring to the impact of additional gambling outlets in Tasmania and Victoria that the impact on horse racing would be quite severe. He dealt with the effect on gallop races in more detail than that on harness races or on greyhound races. He concluded that there are risks to the racing industry. The number of people employed in Canberra in the racing industry at present is about 604. I wonder how many of those, on the evidence that is available about the shift in the gambling dollar from one place to another, would lose their jobs. We have seen no information from the Government which would give us any confidence whatever in the continued employment of the 604 persons presently employed in the Canberra- Queanbeyan area in the thoroughbred racing industry; nor have we received information to indicate that additional jobs would be provided in the casino. I wonder whether the number of jobs would really be different. In Atlantic City, six casinos over a period were set up. The effect was to force three thoroughbred racing operations to close. They were forced out of business with the advent of the casinos. It might be said that gambling exists and that there is no real difference between the forms of gambling, but I think the evidence is there to show that the jobs are really only being shifted from one gambling industry to another. We come back to the question of why there is such determination to have a casino and what real benefit would flow to the community. We were promised by the honourable member for Canberra during the election campaign that the White Industries hotel-convention centre proposal would go ahead without the requirement for a casino. Why is it that that promise has been dumped and we are forced into this situation? There was an attack made by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on the previous Minister for the Capital Territory concerning the fact that this decision was made near the end of the term of the previous Government. I remind the Minister that in 1976 the then Minister for the Capital Territory did not overturn a recently made decision of the previous Minister for the Capital Territory to take away from the Trades and Labour Council block 4, section 13 of Civic which had been given to it in the dying stages of the previous Government. The Minister for the Capital Territory who then took over was not impressed with what he found on this matter. He would have liked to overturn the decision, but he felt obliged to honour the commitment made to the Trades and Labour Council and he did so. The lease was granted as late as 30 June 1977. It commenced from 13 March 1976. I think the dates speak for themselves as to the Liberal Government's honouring of a commitment which had been made by a Labor Government. So I am not very impressed with that argument for abandoning this proposal. We have heard of the previous decisions of the House of Assembly. I think the Minister would have to agree that a number of royal commission reports and reports of other inquiries have been published since the House of Assembly made those decisions. It did not have the benefit of having the documents which it now has. I do not know about the Minister at the table, but as far as I am concerned if I could win every issue by 10 votes to eight votes, I would be quite happy. The reality is that the vote was really higher on this occasion. The Labor leader of the House of Assembly, Maureen Horder, put out a Press release on 22 September 1983 in which she said: The ALP view-not to support any proposal for the construction of a Casino-was established on Sunday-- that is, 21 November- and at no subsequent stage was this position changed. The ALP did not vote for a Casino. So six of the eight votes were not in favour of a casino. That adds up to me to a vote of 16 to two for this community not wanting or needing a casino. It has been suggested that nothing has been put forward that is improper, immoral or wrong in respect of casinos in the other States. The main argument in this debate, as far as I am concerned, is the harm done to this community by the attack of this Government on the White Industries proposal. A private developer who has put forward a proposal on which he has spent a lot of money and on which he has the money to continue spending has been told to go away and that the project is not really wanted. That will make it very hard indeed for us again to attract private money to Canberra. I turn to the legislation. We have heard about what model legislation it is. Certainly, the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances did not criticise it. But there are aspects of the legislation that I think the Senate should look at before it contemplates passing or allowing this Ordinance to become law. Section 21 of the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance makes provision for the assignment of a casino ordinance with the approval of the Minister, but the Ordinance is totally silent on the issue of mortgaging, charging or otherwise encumbering the casino licence. In fact, financial deals could go on behind closed doors which would have nothing to do with changing the name of the licensee, which the Minister would have to approve. We may have no idea at all whose money is behind the casino, whose money controls it and who really calls the shots as to what is done there. I think it is a very serious defect in the legislation that there is no prohibition on any form of encumbrance on the licence that the Minister would have to approve. Section 57 of the Ordinance provides that a person shall not be employed to perform duties relating to gaming in the casino unless that person is the holder of a casino employee's licence, and the licence may be granted by the Minister. But the Ordinance is totally silent on what criteria should be taken into account when determining whether a licence should be granted to an employee. Those are just two matters. There are other defects, I suggest, with regard to internal controls, administrative, accounting and auditing requirements. These defects would be serious indeed if this project were to go ahead. I will briefly review some of the issues. The reason given by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) for why there could not be a referendum was that it would cause division within the Labor Party. That is some way to run a country, I must say! The legislation which we have before us is an Ordinance which we cannot amend under the Seat of Government Act. Thus, we could not do very much about the defects to which I have just referred. If a Bill, a Commonwealth statute, had been brought in, amendments could have been made to it which would have made the legislation, if it were to become law, more acceptable . The Ordinance was not first referred to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, in spite of the Government's promise and commitment that legislation would be so referred. It is very interesting that the two Ordinances which did not get to the House of Assembly until after they had been gazetted and tabled are the two Ordinances with which we are dealing today and tomorrow. Some explanation ought to be given as to why that is so, associated with what I referred to previously-the indecent haste with which this legislation was brought into being. There need be no further delay in getting the important project that the Minister has outlined in detail under way in the Australian Capital Territory. From March until now we have waited for the jobs that could already have been available on the project that was approved. As I have said previously, I ask the Government to go ahead forthwith. The incentives are not excessive. They are incentives that are reasonable to be given to enable the hotel-convention centre to get under way and the office block to be built to provide the office accommodation that is very much needed at present. Enough harm has been done to the private sector in Canberra by the actions of this Government. Enough jobs have already been delayed or lost as a result of this. I ask the Senate to support the motion for disallowance, and I ask the Government to go ahead with the approved proposal forthwith. Question put: That the motion (Senator Reid's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John Macklin, M. J. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Giles, P. J. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Withers, R. G. Walsh, P. A. Rae, Peter Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 11 May 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.18) —The Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill 1983 was introduced in the Senate a considerable time ago. For some reason that is not clear to me, it has been brought on for debate only towards the end of this session. There seems to be no explanation as to why the matter was not dealt with in May, when it was introduced, I think, or at least earlier this session. It is an important Bill because it seeks to give the residents of the Territories a right to vote in a referendum to alter the Constitution. That is its purpose. The Senate will recall that the Constitution was altered after a referendum in 1977, to give, among other things, the residents of the Territories the right to vote at referendums. This Bill provides the necessary statutory machinery to enable them to do so. Therefore, it is an important Bill. The Opposition supports it, as indeed, when in government, we promoted the referendum in 1977 which altered the Constitution to enable them to exercise that right. However, as I have said, legislation was necessary to give the full effect to it. Although the Opposition is not opposed in any way to the Bill, it is concerned about some other aspects of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act and proposes in this debate to take the opportunity of moving amendments which relate to the concerns we have about these other aspects. First and foremost, we are very concerned indeed by the decision of the Government to spend $1 1/4m of taxpayers' moneys, public money, in promoting the Yes case in the referendums on the five topics that will be put to the people at the end of February. The Opposition believes this is a totally unwarranted form of expenditure, and the promotion of the referendums should be one for the parties concerned to support or to oppose, for the people to support or oppose as they form their views, and as with any other election campagin, the expenses should be met by the people concerned. We have already had very considerable debate in the Parliament recently about public funding. The Opposition made its views very fimly and very clearly in opposition to the proposal for public funding. Yet here we have the Government, without any legislative authority to do so, providing public funds to promote its referendum proposals. The fact that the Opposition has said it supports the proposals and that the Australian Democrats support them is absolutely no justification in our opinion for public funds to be used in the campaign. As I have said, we are against public funds being used in election campaigns and against public funds being used in a referendum campaign other than, of course, the necessary funding which is part and parcel of a referendum or an election. The Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act already provides for funding of the Yes and No cases. That is very even handed. It stipulates who can write the Yes and No cases and provides for those cases to be distributed by the Chief Electoral Officer. The whole process is one of informing the electors on both sides of the referendum proposals.That is not what the Government is proposing here. In addition to that provision in the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act, the Government proposes to spend $1 1/4, not to be divided equally and, indeed, not giving any proportion of it to those who wish to promote the No case . The whole of this money is being used by the Government to promote the Yes case. Obviously, it is a promotion on a large scale and in addition to the distribution of the Yes and No cases. The Opposition expected that at the very least the Government would provide some funds for those promoting the No case; but not a bit of it is so provided. The whole of the money is being provided for the Government's case. The Opposition will move an amendment to prevent any sums of money being used by the Commonwealth in addition to those already provided for in the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act in relation to the distribution of the Yes and No cases. The other point with which the Opposition is concerned-it also relates to other provisions of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act-is the form of the ballot paper which is to be used in the referendum, and in particular the question which is to be put to the electors. The Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act makes it quite clear that the form of the question on the ballot paper is as follows: Do you approve of the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled (here set out the title of the proposed law)? The title of the proposed law is the long title of the Act. That has traditionally been the way in which the question is put to the electors. That is based upon the best and highest principle, namely, that the long title is the one which has been approved by the Parliament. In the passage of the legislation , which is then put to the people at the referendum, the title of the proposed law is determined by the Parliament. That is the principle that ought to apply. However, the existing Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act does permit the form of the ballot paper to be prescribed by regulations; in other words, the form in the Schedule may be prescribed by regulations. As we discovered recently , the regulations have been made to alter the form C or form D, as in this case because there are multiple questions. Form D deals with multiple questions, but the same issue is at stake. The regulations have made the question to provide for questions in another form rather than involving the long title of the Bill. I do not know whether those regulations have been tabled yet, but the Opposition believes that those regulations should not have been permitted to take effect and that the question should remain as it traditionally has been and as is provided for in the form of the Act to which I referred. One option would be for the Opposition to move to disallow those regulations, but we believe that the matter should be taken further and this is obviously an opportunity of doing so. We believe that the forms which are laid down in the Act should not be subject to change by regulation. As I have said, the Parliament, when it passes a proposed law, sets out in the title of the proposed law what it believes is the right way of describing it. Parliament knows that the forms of the ballot paper as set out in the Act require the title of the proposed law to be set out in the question. Therefore, it should not be a matter of making regulation to change that. The Opposition will move amendments to ensure that the traditional forms and the traditional question, namely, the long title of the proposed law, should not be subject to change by a government in making regulations. When all is said and done, the Government could well make regulations when Parliament was not sitting and the Parliament might not sit before the referendum was held. There might be no opportunity at all for Parliament to disallow them if it disapproves of them. As I said, we have a series of amendments to give effect to that concern. We wish to amend the Act in such a way as to prevent any government in the future changing the existing situation as a result of the actions that the Government has taken. The Opposition will be moving some other fairly minor amendments to the Bill. However, I will deal with them when we come to the Committee stage of this debate. At this stage the Opposition fully supports the principle of the Bill. It certainly will give it a second reading and, in the Committee stage, will seek to achieve amendments which it regards as very important-not so much, as I said, amendments to the actual Bill, but amendments to the Referendum ( Constitution Alteration) Act. Our amendments relate to the two matters about which we are concerned and with which I have already dealt. I hope they will be supported by honourable senators. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.33) — The Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill relates to a previous referendum in which the people of Australia overwhelmingly agreed that the people of the Territories in Australia ought to have the right to vote in referenda. It is a technical Bill to enable the various technical problems to be overcome for the referenda to be held on 25 February. The Opposition has indicated that it will be moving a range of amendments in the Committee stage as will the Australian Democrats. The problem has become somewhat murky now that the Government has circulated a series of amendments that it intends proposing in the Committee stage. I turn, first of all, to the original set of amendments that the Australian Democrats circulated to honourable senators in May when last we saw this Bill. They referred to two principal items. First of all they referred to the problems which were raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in relation to the very wide powers seemingly given by the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer to alter the ballot paper in such a way as to make it acceptable for use in the Territories. The actual wording of the Act is very broad. It seemed to us that some specification of that very broad power ought to be included in the Act. Therefore, we will be moving a range of amendments in relation to that. The Government has circulated a series of amendments in relation to the same proposition. If time permits, negotiations should proceed so that we can actually sort out whether it is necessary to move what I understand to be three separate groups of amendments to the one proposition to achieve something about which, I think, all parties in the Senate agree. The second group of amendments that I proposed in May dealt with the ability of the ethnic community to understand, in detail, the situation in relation to the proposed referenda. It is a difficult situation. The proposition contained within the Democrats' amendments very much supported the notion that the ethnic communities ought to have available to them a range of materials in languages other than English to enable them to undertake the task. The Democrats propose that the booklet containing the Yes and No cases be printed in a range of important ethnic languages and that these be available at places such as post offices. (Quorum formed) The Democrats propose, in the Committee stage, to move an amendment to enable the dominant ethnic communities to have printed in their own languages a technical document referring to our Constitution. I think it ought to be clearly understood that, while people may learn to speak, with a fair facility, a second language, it is sometimes difficult, in a second langauge, to comprehend fully a technical matter in a vocabulary area which is not often used in the community. Therefore, I believe that, it would be useful for the dominant ethnic communities in Australia to have available to them the Yes and No cases in their original languages. It is an anomaly that we have not yet undertaken such a course in Australia, given that it has been accepted for some time that we are a multicultural society. I hope that the Government will be able to meet the Democrats' propositions so that that may be undertaken, though not necessarily in the way we are presenting. If the Government has some propositions on this, we certainly will be very happy to look at them. The next issue that I will raise in the Committee stage was raised by Senator Durack in his speech a moment ago. It seems to us that, up to the present, the funding of referenda has been done in an even-handed way from the Commonwealth's viewpoint. This time around, of course, we are confronted with a somewhat different problem from two viewpoints. The Premiers of Queensland and Tasmania, prior to the announcement of the Government's expenditure on the Yes case, said that they would be launching a campaign equivalent to an election campaign in favour of the No case. Presumably, that would only be able to be undertaken by the expenditure of public moneys. It seems to me that what we have, then, is an anomalous situation of some States expending public moneys on an election campaign in favour of the No case and the Government, whose response to this has been equally silly, spending federal moneys on the Yes case. However, if one attempts to draw a principle line, it is very difficult for the Federal Parliament to predicate its actions on what a State may or may not do. So in relation to the Yes and No cases there is always the possibility that whereas the conservative governed States in Australia-Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, which will have power when this Bill is passed to engage in a referendum campaign-may spend public moneys on the No case, the State Labor governments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia may very well spend public moneys on the Yes case. So we are in a very difficult situation in relation to the expenditure of moneys at the State level. It is a pity that this is now occurring because the principle underlying the even- handedness of the campaigns mounted at the Federal level is entrenched in the Act. The Democrats believe that as far as possible this ought to be pursued in that even-handed way and therefore we have circulated amendments to that effect and will be speaking in greater detail about that matter at the Committee stage. I believe it is important to draw attention to the other item raised by Senator Durack. The Government has circulated some amendments of its own which we have had the chance to examine in only a cursory way. We hope that before we get to the Committee stage we will be able to have a more in-depth discussion with the Government and also examine them in greater detail ourselves particularly in regard to the propositions surrounding the change of wording on the ballot paper . The Democrats accept the principle which we believe is behind the Government's move on this, that there ought to be a form of words on the ballot paper which is easily understood and comprehended by the electors-I think that is a reasonable proposition-so that they are not confronted with a rather erudite and technical proposition to vote in favour of the wording of either the long or the short title of a Bill. Senator Crichton-Browne —What if they do not reflect the real argument? Senator MACKLIN —If the honourable senator will hold everything, I will get to the problem that he raises shortly. So the original intent, we hope, of the Government certainly meets with the approval of the Democrats. Indeed, that is what we understood from discussions we have had with the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans). I want to put the history of this matter clearly. It is important so that we might be able to sort out where we are going. When first approached by the Attorney on this matter the Democrats made it very clear that our position was that the wording ought to be included in the original Bill, thereby giving Parliament at the time it was considering the Bill the ability to consider also the wording which would be on the ballot paper. We believe it is appropriate in these very delicate matters for the Parliament itself to make that type of determination, not to have it made by regulation. However, we were informed by the Attorney that under the current Act sufficient power lies with the Government, by regulation, to change the ballot paper by regulation. On that understanding we said that it was quixotic on our part to hold out that it ought to be in the Act if the Attorney already had the power, and we were willing at that point to discuss wordings. It was our belief at that time that it was the Government's intention to have a discussion not only with us but also with the opposition parties so that the wording would reflect-- Senator Chipp —A consensus. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, it would reflect a consensus, as Senator Chipp reminds me, of what all parties believed was a fair and accurate depiction of what the Bills in question were about. Had that been achieved in those discussions, we may not have been at the position we are at now. But I understand, from a cursory examination of some of the amendments that the Government has circulated, that it may very well now be the case that the Government is having doubts as to whether it actually did have the power to do what it did in regard to statutory rule 274. Senator Gareth Evans —It is just an abundance of draftsman's caution. Senator MACKLIN —The Attorney can enlighten us in his response to this second reading stage as to why it is we are looking at a couple of these amendments which, to my way of thinking, seem to suggest that the Government does not have the power that we were led to believe it had. So I restate the Democrat's position. Our original position still stands-we would much prefer that the Parliament, when it is debating a Bill concerning a referendum, also debate what it is that will go on the ballot paper so that we can have a clear and distinct understanding of the question that will be put to the people and that the question unambiguously reflects the content of the Bill. I believe that the regulations do so reflect the questions but the matter could have been put beyond doubt had there been discussions between the Government and the major opposition parties so that the major opposition parties could concur with the wording of those questions. That would have included those people in the opposition parties or in the Senate who opposed the referendum Bills, because I believe that the original Act does give to those people who oppose the Bills certain rights in relation to proposing the types of cases, including the No case, to be put into the pamphlet. It is also important to consult with those people who are proposing the No case so that they feel that the question being put on the ballot paper is a fair and accurate depiction of what they believe the legislation is about. I am not sure whether, by negotiation, one would ever come to an agreement on that matter. I merely raise the issue about the first amemdment, where the dominant context of the Bill refers to senators' terms. Yet the depiction of the Bill-not only under the Australian Labor Party but also under the Fraser Government-was in fact sold as simultaneous elections. Senator Gareth Evans —That is both the short and long title. Senator MACKLIN —That is both the short and long title the Fraser Government used and it is both the short and long title the Hawke Government used. I am still not at all sure that that is what the Bill is about but I will accept that that may very well be the final intent as to what should happen-- Senator Gareth Evans —That is why the proposed regulation is more satisfactory. It refers to that. Senator MACKLIN —But I still believe that since it is unlikely in that type of debate ever to be able to reach the magic consensus so desired and longed for by everybody, it is far better as a matter of principle that that debate be had in the Committee stage of the Bill. The Committee will then be able to deal with what will go on to the ballot paper, because surely what goes on to the ballot paper is of fundamental importance in terms of what people understand it is that they are voting for. So I believe at the moment that there is a fair amount of confusion, unfortunately, about this Bill, most of which I think has been generated by the amendments the Government itself has now brought forward at the dying time of the procedures. It seems to me very odd that it should have done so, as this Bill has been around since May when I first circulated the original Australian Democrat amendments. It is very difficult with an important Bill such as this to be confronted with such amendments at this stage, on the run, which may have ramifications not only for the referenda questions on 25 February but also for referenda basically until the Act is again changed at any time in the future. So I appeal to the Government not only to look at what it might perceive as being in its own interests in the short term but also to look at the fact that as the wheel turns, as it inevitably does in politics, the Opposition parties, as they are now, will once again be in government and doubtless themselves at some stage be proposing referenda of their own. At that stage the Labor Party will be in opposition and may be very concerned about what it has done in government. So, I hope we get a chance, before we get to the Committee stage, to go through and sort out what I think is now a very murky area in relation to all three elements that I have raised. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.51) —I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without making some mention of the importance of the Referendum ( Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill 1983 to the people of the Northern Territory, of the Australian Capital Territory and of Jervis Bay, for it proposes that in future they will have the right to vote in referenda. So, this Bill is of considerable significance to those people. Prior to the action from which this legislation flows, the people of these Territories-and I think I can speak on behalf of them-were very resentful of the fact that when a referendum was held they were denied the opportunity available to electors of the States to cast their votes as to the future of Australia and its Constitution. People in the north-I speak particularly of the Northern Territory-saw decisions being made by a process in which they could not participate. I believe this fact is quite obvious too to the people who are flocking to the Northern Territory now. People living in the southern States had the opportunity to participate fully in decisions reached at referendums concerning Australia. Once they came to the Territory and joined the electors of the Northern Territory they became second class citizens. This state of affairs has been resented fiercely over the years. On days when referendums were held there were many demonstrations by the people to indicate their displeasure. At the referendum in 1977, the Australian people voted overwhelmingly to allow electors of the Territories to participate in referendums. The people of the Northern Territory were very pleased at that vote and have shown their gratitude. Once this Bill has been passed by the Parliament and is enacted, the people of the Territories will be able to participate in all referendums including those that are to be put to the people in February next year. The achievement of this right, in common with many other constitutional steps that have been taken affecting the Territory over the years, is a considerable milestone. Let me look back very briefly-and I will be brief-in chronological order at the events that have taken place in this respect in the Territory. By very slow degrees, constitutional changes have occurred to allow the people to participate in the decision-making processes that have been available to the other citizens of Australia. The Northern Territory was first settled in 1824. It was part of New South Wales from that year until 1863 when, by letters patent, it was annexed to South Australia from New South Wales. In 1868, the towns of Palmerston, Southport, Virginia and Daly were surveyed. In 1869, Palmerston was selected as the site for the chief town in the Northern Territory. It is interesting to note that, in 1890, the Northern Territory voters were enfranchised through two members of the South Australian Parliament as part of the electorate of Grey. In 1901, at Federation, the Northern Territory became part of the Federal electorate of Grey. In 1911, the Northern Territory passed from South Australia to Commonwealth jurisdiction under the Northern Territory Acceptance Act (No. 20 of 1910). I presume that between 1901 and 1911, the electors of the Northern Territory, then belonging to the South Australian electorate of Grey, had some representation in the Senate and perhaps-I have not been able to ascertain whether this was the case-very briefly in that period they had the opportunity to participate in a referendum. However, in 1911, with the Territory being passed to the Commonwealth of Australia came that period when the Northern Territory had all its rights removed. One could say that they were people without a soul. They were citizens of Australia yet they could not participate in its government. They had no franchise whatsoever. In 1923, the Northern Territory obtained a seat in the House of Representatives but the member had very restricted voting rights. In 1939, the Darwin Town Management Board was formed. In 1945, the Northern Territory (Administration) Act was set up; a legislative council was formed; and elections were held in that year. It is interesting to note that this measure which was taken to give the people of the Territory some small say in their own affairs was described in those days as the seven/six treatment. Seven people who were departmental heads and public servants were nominated to the Council. Six people from the Northern Territory were elected to that body. The six elected representatives of the people of the Northern Territory said that the seven departmental heads and public servants who were nominated to the council hit them very solidly and refused them their very many requests. This was caused by the seven/six treatment. Senator Harradine —Nothing has changed. Senator KILGARIFF —It has changed, Senator Harradine, but very, very slowly. At least the people in the Northern Territory-- Senator Harradine —I mean in Canberra, not the Northern Territory. Senator KILGARIFF —I must say that it took many years to shake off the yoke of Canberra, and it has not been quite shaken off yet; but we have fine hopes and great expectations for the future. In 1959, the Northern Territory Federal member was granted voting rights in the House of Representatives. Imagine that now! It took that many years before the member for the Northern Territory could stand up in his own right and speak and vote on behalf of the people. In 1969, there was a further constitutional measure in the Northern Territory by which to the new legislative body eight members were elected and six departmental heads and three non-official members were appointed. This measure was taken from the New South Wales colonial practices of some 100 years ago. Still, the Northern Territory progressed by degrees. In 1973, the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory was established by the Federal Parliament to examine constitutional reform. Its report was most helpful . In 1974, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly sat for the first time as a fully elected body. That was a tremendous milestone. In 1975, as honourable senators would know, for the first time, two Northern Territory people were elected to the Senate. In 1977, it was announced that the Northern Territory would have self-government from 1 July 1979. So, from that date, the Northern Territory became a self-governing territory in most matters. I note that when this Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives the then Special Minister of State, Mr Young, said that the Government was pleased to state that as a result of the referendum, which followed a decision in legislative form passed by both Houses, the denial to electors of the Northern Territory of the right to vote in referendums was being rectified. The situation as it will stand after this legislation is enacted is that the electors of the Northern Territory will be able to vote in referendums although there are still some differences between their position and that of the electors of the States of Australia. For the people in the Northern Territory the proposal now is that their votes shall be counted, and I quote from the second reading speech: . . . only as part of the national vote-that is to say, they would not be regarded as being part of any of the States or of determining the majority view of the States but they would contribute to the determination of the majority view of the nation. The votes of people in the Territories will be counted in the national count. Of course, the Territories as such will not have any bearing on the outcome of a referendum. That brings me to the last point, the very slow process that I have enumerated over the years by which the people of the Northern Territory have gradually been given more say in their affairs and the affairs of Australia. The next step, of course, to put the people of the north on a par with the people in the States is for the Northern Territory to become a State. I will not speak at length on that matter. However, the population of the Northern Territory is increasing at three times the national average partly because thousands of young people are being attracted by the developments that are taking place. The population of the Northern Territory is increasing by half as much again as the increase in the population of, say, Queensland. Many people are flocking to the Northern Territory to help, together with the present population, the development of that region. Therefore, because of the increase in population and the industrial development I foresee that it will not be very long before the people of the Northern Territory will be looking for further constitutional change as the final step to statehood. When that happens they will then be able to claim for the first time to be on the same footing as our cousins in the six States of Australia. I support the Bill. As I have said before, it will give much pleasure to people of the Territories. I believe there will be much celebration in the Northern Territory in February when the people of the territory vote on the five referendum points because this ability to vote on referenda is a further milestone in the development of the Territory. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.02) —I am delighted that the Referendum ( Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill 1983 seeks to give Territory electors the right to vote in referendums. However, problems associated with the referendums have only recently come to light. The original legislation enshrined the principle that there should be an equal and fair opportunity for both sides of a referendum to be put to the Australian people. Until now all governments have abided by the aim of the legislation. The previous Government put a similar question to the Australian people in the simultaneous elections referendum. However, that Government did not try in an underhand fashion to get the referendum through. It tried to present the arguments in a fair and just way and abided by the legislation that has existed since Federation. The important provisions of that legislation state that the Australian Electoral Office must put both sides of the case in every person's post box. Members of parliament who vote for the proposals have the right to put the Yes case. Those who vote against the constitutional amendments have the right to put the No case. The Electoral Office puts together and prints the cases and is responsible for distributing them to every household in Australia. That is the basis of our democracy. Our democracy is based on the belief that changes to the Constitution should be carried out in a fair and just way. As I said, this has been the case until now. However, the present Government has adopted different tactics. In the most underhand way available it has made two vital changes to this practice. The Senate passed the Appropriation Bills on 18 November. Just four days later on the 22nd of the same month the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) put out a news release which told the Australian people that an additional $1.25m of taxpayer's money would be spent on the Yes case alone. He did not tell us this was going to happen before the Appropriation Bills were passed in this place. He announced it several days later. The Appropriation Bills were passed on 18 November; he made this announcement on 22 November. He dares to tell me that I am wrong in saying that the Government has been underhand. This is the first time ever that additional taxpayers' money has been spent on one side of a case for an alteration of the Constitution. Senator Gareth Evans —How much is Robin Gray going to spend? How much are Joh and Robin going to spend? Senator WALTERS —There is no way that that sort of interjection will help the Attorney one bit. In 1977 the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party spent large sums of money on the Yes case for the simultaneous elections proposal. The people who put the No case scraped together a small amount of money, and we were still able to defeat the referendum. On 30 November Senator Jessop asked the Attorney-General why it was that the Government was spending this additional money. The Attorney-General said that it was for the good of the people. He said: It would be quite irresponsible for the Government not to provide positive support for constitutional changes which would provide this country with more efficient and stable government particularly when the changes in question have support, not just of one party, but from all the major parties in this country. That is Big Brother 1984 at its worst. The Attorney thinks it is in the best interests of the country to alter the Constitution. There are honourable senators in this place who support the No case because they do not believe the alterations will be in the best interests of the country. Yet, the Attorney says : 'It does not really matter what the other senators in this place say. It does not matter what the legislation says about putting both sides in a fair and just way. We will appropriate $1.25m to put just one side of the case. In his answer to Senator Jessop he went on that Australia's record of failed referendums is appalling because of the absence of strong campaigning on the Yes side. He went on: When one is spending $21.5m on the conduct of the referendumn, the additional one and a bit million dollars that is proposed for this, by comparison, seems eminently worth spending. His opinion is certainly not the opinion of those honourable senators who support the No case in the proposed referendum. As I say, this is a typical Labor Government underhand method of fighting a battle. It cannot fight in a fair and democratic way. It fights in the underhand way which it has shown very clearly on this occasion. We were told in the other place by the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) that it was for the good of the people that the Government was spending taxpayers' money on the Yes case alone. The Attorney- General was also asked a supplementary question as to where the money was to come from. In Hansard of 30 November, he is recorded as saying: The appropriation in question will come out of, as I understand it, the appropriation for the Department of the Special Minister of State. He went on in his normal sarcastic fashion to tell Senator Jessop that he could pursue this matter with as much vigour as he could muster when it came to the next round of Estimates. The money does not come out of the appropriation for the Department of the Special Minister of State; it comes out of the appropriation for the Department of the Attorney-General and indeed, it comes out of the slush fund of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). The Minister for Finance has been appropriated $53m this year. During the Estimates Committee hearing we were unable to establish where that $53m was going to be spent. No wonder we were not able to find out where that $53m was going. The Government was keeping it very hush-hush. The Government was not game to tell the Senate before the Appropriation Bills were passed where that $53m was to be spent. We were told it was to be spent in all sorts of areas. We were told that social welfare was to get $20m of that $53m and various other departments were told that they were due to receive special amounts out of the slush fund of the Minister for Finance. But not one word was mentioned about the Government spending $1.25m on the Yes case alone for the referendum. That was kept very quietly hidden by the Government until the Appropriation Bills had been passed through this place. Indeed, the Appropriation Bills would never have been passed, because the Australian Democrats would have joined us, had we known that the Government was acting in such an underhand fashion. But there is more to this matter than just that amount of money. Section 14A (1) of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration ) Act states: The ballot-paper to be used for the purposes of a referendum may be in accordance with Form C in the Schedule. Form C in the Schedule to the Act sets out very clearly what a multiple question ballot paper should be like. It is very clear. Under the directions on how to vote, the ballot paper states: DIRECTIONS: Mark your vote on this ballot-paper as follows: If you APPROVE the proposed law, write the word Yes in the space provided opposite the question. If you DO NOT APPROVE the proposed law, write the word No in the space provided opposite the question. Without our knowledge, the Government brought down a new regulation altering the ballot paper in the Act. Senator Gareth Evans —It was with your knowledge. I told the shadow Attorney. Senator WALTERS —We had no idea that the alteration would be set out as it has been. The revised ballot paper states: You must indicate ''YES'' or ''NO'' to EACH of the FIVE proposed constitutional alterations set out below. Does a tick indicate yes or no? Does a cross indicate yes or no? Has this alteration been made to pick up the nearly 2 per cent of informal votes which normally accompany a referendum so that the Government will not have any informal votes? What is it on about? The new ballot paper states: You must indicate ''YES'' or ''NO''. I would like the Attorney-General to tell me whether, if a person were to put a cross and nothing else, a cross would indicate yes or no. If a person placed a tick, what would that do? The whole thing is too ludicrous. The alteration has obviously been made so that the Attorney-General will not have any informal votes but will be able to interpret the crosses and the ticks as he so chooses. Apart from that, he has proposed an alteration to the original ballot paper which every government has used since Federation. No other government has tried this sleight-of-hand. Every other government has used the format printed in the Schedule in the Act. The original ballot paper asks: Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled . . . Then the title of the proposed law is set out. The Attorney-General does not think that that is quite good enough. That question would not put his side of the case clearly enough, so he proposes to alter it. The revised ballot paper states: The proposed laws which make these alterations are, in order: . . . . 1: SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS: To ensure that elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives are always held on the same day, and to adjust the terms of Senators accordingly. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? I do not accept that interpretation of simultaneous elections. None of the people who voted no to the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill accept that as a description of simultaneous elections. There is a lot more to it. In regard to parliamentary terms, the Attorney-General's proposed ballot paper states: 2: PARLIAMENTARY TERMS: To extend the maximum life of Parliaments from 3 to 4 years. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? That is the Attorney-General's interpretation, once again. It is not the interpretation of those putting the No case. There is no mention of an 8-year term for the Senate-not one word. He thinks this proposal will go down well if the people feel that it involves a four-year term and nothing else. It is the most underhand move I have ever experienced in this Parliament. No previous government would have sullied itself by this sort of act. The proposed ballot paper defines 'interchange of powers' as follows: 3: INTERCHANGE OF POWERS: To enable the Commonwealth and States to refer powers to each other by mutual agreement. What does the new ballot paper say about the advisory jurisdiction powers of the High Court? It states: 4: ADVISORY JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT: To enable the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory more easily to obtain from the High Court its views on certain constitutional questions. DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALTERATION? There has been no consultation at all between the Government and those senators who voted no to the Bill which recommended that change in the Constitution. There was no consultation whatever. We had no idea that the regulations had been made. We made no input in regard to the description of the various questions. The Attorney-General has framed them as he wishes them to be framed. We have decided that the original names of the Bills in question ought to remain, because we do not believe we could ever come to an agreement with the Attorney- General on the description terms. Senator Gareth Evans —There was a lot of point in consulting them, wasn't there? Senator WALTERS —The Attorney-General has already made that statement in an interjection. When Senator Macklin was commenting on the need for consultation, the Attorney-General said that in no way would there be consultation. That was his interjection, so Senator Evans should not be so pious with me. Allocating money after the Appropriation Bills were passed and the way in which the Government has changed the ballot papers, with no reference at all to those who voted no to the Bills, are typical examples of what this Government calls consensus. Senator Button —Oh, Senator! Senator WALTERS —Well, I would like Senator Button to tell me when he has approached any member of the Senate who voted no on the description of any of those questions. If he has not, he should not try to tell me that there is any consensus in his Government at all. I turn now to the amendments proposed by the Government. We find that the Government is not too darned clear about its legal right to alter the regulations. It has proposed a couple of amendments in case it finds that it has not the necessary powers. Senator Gareth Evans says: 'We are just being cautious'. Senator Gareth Evans —Wise counsel. Senator WALTERS —I would say that the Government has had very wise counsel because it has not the power at all to alter the regulations. Indeed, it will be on that ground that we will be fighting them. I believe that the Government has done its cause a tremendous amount of harm. The people of Australia will have knowledge of this. The proceedings of the Senate are not being broadcast today. I appeal to the media to note what has occurred because it is only through the media that we can get justice in this; only through the media can we get out to the Australian people knowledge of the shonky and underhand methods that the Government has adopted in regard to this particular referendum. Never before has a government used such tactics, but Senator Gareth Evans says: 'We are using them because it is for the good of the people and we know; we are Big Brother 1984'. The Senate will no doubt be discussing this matter after the suspension for dinner, at the Committee stage. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.23) —I wish to speak on the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill 1983 and the proposed amendments thereto. I hope that I will be more dispassionate in dealing with them than my colleague Senator Walters who has just sat down. I think that sound arguments and criticisms can be made but I do not think there is any need to talk about slush funds and I believe that some of the arguments used were taken to the extreme. A good criticism or argument becomes absurd if given more than its proper weight. The Bill itself is, of course, desirable. Its basic purpose is to provide a capacity to vote, and a procedure for voting, in the Territories as was approved by referendum in 1977. Heaven only knows why it has taken all this time to get these matters before the Parliament. It would have been much better if done at an earlier stage. It is, of course, in regard to other aspects that criticisms have been raised. One of the problems in dealing with such matters as this is that one gets things on the run. I heard only this morning about certain amendments being moved and have seen some documents and amendments only within the last hour. That is very unfortunate but probably one of the characteristics of the end of the session. When dealing with matters, one does not have a full time to look at the implications of all amendments and, therefore, to consider carefully what one should do about them. I wish to refer to two matters in particular because my views on them obviously are not entirely in accord with those of my colleague who has just sat down. I believe that there is substantial cause for complaint to lead one to vote for the proposed amendments. I want to deal first with those that are proposed by the Opposition and by the Australian Democrats in respect of the proposed expenditure of $1.25m, which is not very much in budgetary terms. I can understand and sympathise with the contention that the history of referenda in this country has shown that it is much easier for small groups who are in opposition to raise money and therefore to be heard. Probably they will get much more media coverage in the course of the campaign; they generally do. That was my experience when travelling with the former Prime Minister during the 1977 referendum campaign. The Prime Minister would speak to a meeting of about 1,000 people, for example, somewhere in north Queensland and would get about three lines publicity in the paper but an opposing senator might sneak into town, be interviewed by a radio station and prompt a long article on the subject in the paper next day. In certain places, of course, the local media will have particular prejudices and preferences. I have no doubt that that will occur in the course of this referendum campaign, which does not relate, of course, to any transfer of powers from the States to the Commonwealth, rather with the better administration of Government of this country. It deals also with the provision of facilities from which the States will benefit substantially, in regard to both the question of advisory opinions of the High Court-a facility that the Court has never had before-and the interchange of powers, which will clear up a lot of matters that have been a worry and will provide both for the Commonwealth to transfer powers to the States and for the States safely to transfer powers to the Commonwealth. I am sure those advantages will be overlooked and there will be a screaming campaign on the part of the no voters, asserting that somehow this has to do with the transference of powers to the Commonwealth. All the old arguments will be trotted out. One must bear in mind the support that these referenda proposals enjoy, including that of the leaders of the two major opposition parties, recognising that there are dissenting groups in each case. Also it must be recognised that they have been undertaken at the behest of the Constitutional Convention. The Government has resiled from its original fixed term preference to take up the proposals that the non-Labor members of the Convention insisted should be the alternative. In our election campaign early this year Mr Fraser himself undertook to submit referendum proposals in regard to four year terms and simultaneous elections. No doubt, had we won government, we would now be making these proposals. Therefore, I can understand the feeling on the part of the Government that the Yes cases do not get very much money spent on them, that there is a tendency always for small groups to get an exaggerated amount of attention. Therefore, this money should be provided. I understand my colleague's objection in principle to that. Of course, all kinds of expenditures will be made by governments during the course of the referenda campaign. It is a certainty that the Premier of Queensland and his Government will campaign and will spend a lot of government money in urging the No case. Probably the same will occur in Tasmania. Undoubtedly the Premier of Queensland will use his plane; he will not be lending it to anyone else, I am sure. He will be travelling around and, with other people, will be campaigning at government expense. Of course, provision is already made, and will be in the case of every such referendum, for an equal distribution of the Yes and No cases. Regardless of how few may have voted no in the Parliament-in some cases the No votes amounted to three to five only-the No case will have an opportunity to be heard equal to that of the Yes case. I understand the objection that this proposed further expenditure might be regarded as giving unfair weight to the Yes case. It would perhaps have been better if the Government had instead allocated the proposed expenditure as between the Yes and No cases, upon the basis of the number of members of parliament who voted for them respectively. If such a distribution of the money were made I suppose that very little argument could be advanced against it. It would perhaps be fairer than providing for the making of only one payment. However, I understand the reasons it is being done. I think it unfortunate that it has gone to this stage, although I do not accept some of the more exaggerated things that have been said about it. A second matter is in regard to the regulations to prescribe the form of ballot . I think there is more cause for concern here. It is doubtful whether the regulations, as they stand in the principal Act, justify the making of regulations in this form. It is a very short regulation-making clause. I understand that always it has been the long title which has been used. It would be better if, in fact, more care were taken in the choice of the long title so that it reflected precisely what the Bill was doing. It would then be dealt with in the Parliament and we could vote on it, we could amend it. Unfortunately, when it is done by regulation, the result must be that the regulations cannot be disallowed by the Parliament because there will be no time in which to do so. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MISSEN —Before the suspension of the sitting, I dealt with what seems to be a major objection to the Bill. I refer to the expenditure of money on the Yes case and the amendments which are proposed by the Opposition in that regard. I had turned to another matter, namely, the criticism which is made of the regulation-making power. This is now to be found in the amendments circulated by the Government. I have said that I believe that the current regulation power under the principal Act would not be adequate to cover what is proposed in regard to prescribing the form in which the questions will be put to the electors. Previously, the long title was always used. I have already said that I think more care should be taken-and it should have been taken in this Bill-to see that the long title is one which very clearly sets out what is involved in the Bill and does not prejudice one side or the other in emphasising the features of a proposal and ignoring what might be its drawbacks. I think it is better on the whole that these provisions should be in the Bill itself and that the Parliament therefore should have the opportunity of voting and amending the Bill. The problem with regard to the Attorney's proposal that the regulations prescribing the forms of ballot papers may be made is that we cannot be sure of the form of those regulations. I have seen a draft from the Attorney this afternoon which suggests the way in which the regulations will set out the titles, differing from the long title. Some of the proposed ways for the descriptions to be put before the electors are better and clearer than at present. But I think that at least one is a little deceptive. For example, as raised by other senators, with respect to the proposed four-year term, reference is made only to that of members of the House of Representatives and not to that of senators. I recognise that the proposal with respect to the Senate is the more difficult part of the proposition to sell-- Senator Gareth Evans —It is not deceptive. It talks about the life of parliaments being increased. Senator MISSEN —Yes, it talks about the life of parliaments, but if, as in the Attorney's proposal, a change from three-year to four-year terms is mentioned, mention must also be made of what happens in regard to the Senate. I can understand that a proposal for the term of senators to be eight years is not one of the best features from the Yes point of view. We may be able to live with it, but it is obviously one of the drawbacks of the proposal. I am prepared to work very strongly in favour of its being accepted, but the problem is that, if we go away from the public expression in an Act of the Parliament and leave it to regulations, there will be endless debate. If there were time to disallow the regulations or to bring them before the Parliament to be re-argued, that would be different. But as we know the time factor now is such that we are in the last fortnight before the end of the parliamentary session. Therefore, a notice of disallowance of such a regulation would not come on for debate and would not be dealt with. Senator Gareth Evans —You can debate it tonight. I am going to move it as an amendment to the Bill. Senator MISSEN —Yes, it is being debated tonight; I agree. Senator Gareth Evans —You can debate it now. I am going to change it and move it as an amendment to the Bill itself. I have been impressed by the argument. You can sit down. Senator MISSEN —I agree with that. That means it is subject to debate. We had better have copies of it so that we can consider it and try to improve it. But I agree with the general proposition that the Government has put up that in the past long titles very often have been deceptive and non-explanatory to the electors. Senator Macklin —They were last time. Senator MISSEN —Yes, they were last time and I think it is important that we try to reach agreement on them. Therefore, I understand the purpose of the Government in changing this, but I think it is unfortunate that it has come about this way. I think, in future, the long title should be considered more carefully when we are passing the actual Act, knowing that that will be the title which will go before the public. That will achieve the best result. Therefore, I am sorry to say that, although I support the amendment of the Opposition, I am interested in hearing what the Attorney has to say in respect of the change which obviously has been decided upon during the suspension of the sitting. I will leave it at that and say that I generally support the Bill and what it does to bring the opportunities to the Territories to vote in these matters. I trust that not too many red herrings will be allowed to obscure the real issues in the referendum campaign, issues which can stand on their own merits and which should not be obscured by any outside or unnecessary irrelevancies. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.05) —I will take only a moment to speak on the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill 1983. I thought it would be inappropriate, and I knew that the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, would think it was inappropriate, if I did not express the disgust and contempt that I have for the way in which this matter is being handled. I like the great exhibition of consensus and open democracy that the Government has beaten its breast about for the last few months. Even more, I am appreciative of what an exhibition in deception, misstatement and undemocratic action this is. I also want to give the Attorney-General the opportunity to explain fully how it is that since 1977 he has been able to have such a complete change of heart on some of what he would now call his 'considered views'. When I compare his statements of 1977 with the sorts of things he is trying to ram through in this legislation , I find them difficult to reconcile. The Attorney, being a man of words, by adding a few words here and there will be able to justify this change. If the referendum is to be fair and open, if it is even to seem to be fair and open, why not allow it to be held with fair and equal presentation. I want the Attorney-General again to try to demonstrate why he wants to prevent the cases from having equal presentation. It would be fair if they were to have such equal presentation. I am not at any stage disappointed about this; I am just plain disgusted. It strikes me that we have another of those cases in which the Government has come forward with a few more amendments. This is what I also gather the Attorney referred to earlier today as 'wise counsel'; I think to those on this side it really means that he is trying to botch it up again. It can only be likened to that frivolous mess that we wound up in when discussing the sex discrimination legislation under much the same circumstances. I believe it would be far better if these things were given a bit of proper consideration in the first place and were presented in a form which is fair and reasonable. In fact, when it comes to being fair and reasonable, I presume that the Attorney has seen some of the editorial comment which has already appeared. It does not appear to indicate that he is getting his point across or that the legislation in its present form is saleable. I do not think it is too late to ask the Attorney-General at least to reconsider the position and come up with the only fair decision possible, that is, that the matter be treated fairly and that both sides of the argument be given an equal opportunity at government expense to come before the people of Australia. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(8.08) —I rise to speak briefly on the Referendum ( Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill 1983 for two purposes. Firstly, I wish to raise two issues with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), which arise from the inclusion of certain voters from the Northern Territory. Secondly , I place on record my position in relation to the referendum proposals. I was not in the Senate for all the voting that took place with respect to the referendum proposals, as I was the deputy leader of the Australian delegation attending the Inter- Parliamentary Union conference in Seoul at the time. Therefore, I wish to state quite clearly my position in relation to those referendum proposals, because I think there has been some confusion in the media 's reporting of where I stand on them. I wish to give notice that I am firmly behind the attitude of the Premier of Tasmania, Robin Gray, in supporting a No case. This technical Bill is designed to facilitate the referendum which will take place on 25 February next. I must also deplore the Government's attitude in allocating money to only one side, $1.25m to the Yes case. This is an additional amount, which is directed only to the Yes case. The argument for this is that there will be plenty of money coming from other sources to support a No case. I do not think this is the argument. Our traditional position in Australia in relation to referendums is to give equal weight to both the Yes case and the No case. It is a matter of history and fact that Australians tend when in doubt, to vote No. Despite the fact that the questions that are to be put to the electors are designed to solicit a Yes answer, I think many Australians, if not given an adequate explanation, on a prima facie reading of the referendum Bills would be inclined to vote Yes. As my colleagues Senator Archer and Senator Walters mentioned earlier, these are some of the insidious features of the Bill. The Government's intentions are not entirely clear to the electorate, purely by a simple reading of the questions that are intended to be placed upon the referendum sheet. Many Australians would welcome a four-year term, rather than a three-year term, but a lot more would reject an eight-year term for senators. It would be far too long a term. For example, it would give a non-performer too long an opportunity to remain listless on the back bench. There is a need to be motivated by the needs of the electorate. It would tend to put too many senators far too far removed from the feelings of the electorate. On the other hand, the Bill could be read by many in the community as a continuation of a transfer of powers away from the States and to the Federal Government, thus creating an increase in central responsibilities and central directions, and an increase in the powers of the Federal Government to the detriment of the States. I would totally deplore that. To be successful, the referendum must be passed not only by a majority of voters but also by a majority of States. Without looking too hard into the crystal ball, at this stage I believe that Tasmania would certainly be voting No . It would be voting No on the basis of the discriminatory treatment that it has received from the Federal Government recently. Under this amendment, to some extent there would be an equating of some of the status of the Territories and the States. It is fairly important to realise the distinction between these two, since it is not the issue that those who reside in the Territories are of a second-class nature. At the heart of the matter is really the issue of our Federal system and the impact upon that system of such an amendment. The Federal Government can exercise far greater influence and possess far greater jurisdictional rights over the Territories as against the States. A Territory is not a State and it possesses very few of the burdens of a State. An argument can be made that the Territories are not enjoying this sole preserve of States without their attaining Statehood. If the Territories, especially the Northern Territory, become States, they can claim such right to be included fully in the referendum proposals. If the Northern Territory votes can affect the national vote yet have no impact upon the votes of the States, will this not in some way be potentially upsetting to the conduct of the referenda? That is the first question that I pose. The second question is this: Could not the total vote of the nation be swung in a direction that is opposite from that which would otherwise be obtained from a majority of voters in the States? I would welcome a response from the Attorney- General on those two issues. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(8.15) —Mr Acting Deputy President- Senator Gareth Evans —What is going on here? Don't you put your names on the list? Senator JESSOP —The Attorney-General asks what is going on here. I will tell the Attorney-General what is going on here. We are rising to protect the rights of the individuals of Australia to have a No case presented in a fair-minded way. The champion of human rights asks what is going on here. I should have thought he would relax and enjoy the experience of being told what we think about him. He has adopted sneaky tricks to delude the people, and I object to that. There are many in this country who also object to that. Those of us who are against the propositions put forward quite casually by the Attorney-General are saying to him that we are determined to put an alternative case to the people so that they can make an intelligent judgment about the referendum proposals that he is putting forward. Senator Gareth Evans —You had better get someone else to write it, in those circumstances. Senator JESSOP —The Attorney-General, who uses devious methods to alter Hansard to change the impact of what he says in this place, says that I ought to get someone else to write the case. Senator Crichton-Browne —It was all right last time and the time before that. Senator JESSOP —Of course it was. In 1974 the people rose up and voted against it, in the smaller States particularly, and they will do it again. They did it in 1977. Senator Gareth Evans —It was 37 1/2 per cent against 62 1/2 per cent. Democracy at work! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! Senator Jessop, I think you should direct your remarks through the Chair. Senator JESSOP —I agree with you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I shall try to do that, but you will have to protect me from the invasion of the Attorney- General when I am trying to put a point of view. I was offended by the fact that $1.25m of taxpayers' money, for the first time in history-- Senator Gareth Evans —How much will Robin Gray be spending? Senator JESSOP —The Attorney-General talks about Robin Gray. Let me say this: The people on this side of the House who voted against these proposals did so with a very strong view in mind. That was that if we did not do that, the people would be snowed by the Government, the Liberal Party and others who want to see the Senate subjected to an attack that is quite wrong and would weaken the independence of this House. Senator Hamer —Some members of the Liberal Party. Senator JESSOP —That is right. There are 22 members of the Liberal Party and the National Party who object to that and are opposing the Government's intent. The Attorney-General came into this place and answered me last week when I questioned him about the unprecedented action of the Government in providing $1. 25m. He said that this had been appropriated from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. That Advance is supposed to be for urgent and unexpected matters that have arisen. Later during that Question Time he said that this would be debited to the Attorney-General's Department in due time. It is wrong for that to occur. The Opposition quite properly believes that the people of Australia must have both the Yes and No cases presented in a fair way. The Opposition has demonstrated to the community of Australia a spirit of fairness and I support totally the amendment that has been put forward on behalf of the Opposition. I certainly appreciate the support of the Australian Democrats for the general thrust of the fairness of what we are proposing, but I am a little disappointed that in their amendment they suggest that they are against an equal apportionment of funds from the taxpayers to present a case over and above what we have done in the past, through the Electoral Office and the Australian Broadcasting Commission. They suggest that we should not equally divide money-as I understand it; I might be wrong-- Senator Missen —Our amendment does the same thing. Senator Macklin —They are exactly the same; they are identical. Senator JESSOP —I apologise. Honourable senators can correct my understanding later. I withdraw what I said. But it seems to me that the Government has embarked on a course that is quite incredible. To deny to people who are opposed to their proposition a fair deal is wrong. Of course, the Attorney-General, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and others who want to support the Yes case will be able to swan around Australia in VIP aircraft with government expenditure available to them. Senator Coleman —Why should they? Senator JESSOP —Why should they? The Prime Minister will do that. He will attract the publicity he is accustomed to. It is an unfair attitude that the Government has adopted. If honourable senators look at the proposition we are putting forward on the No side of the argument to protect the smaller States against the dominance of New South Wales, Victoria and the House of Representatives-- Senator Missen —What a hoary one that is. Senator JESSOP —That is all right for the little 'l' liberal whom we have sitting over here. Nevertheless, it is true and, as far as I am concerned, this is an invasion by central Canberra dominated government on the rights of the smaller States. I will always stand up for these rights because I believe that is the spirit of the Federation of 1901. If it were not, the States would never have agreed to Federation. It is an incredible indictment of the Goverment that it should deny the right of the less populous States of Australia to promote their views to the electorate at large. I welcome the support of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats in seeing that fairness prevails. I was interested in an interjection by Senator Harradine about a four-year Parliament. People are deluded by that. They think that four years is a good idea. But they forget that under that concept senators are provided with an eight-year term. As Senator Harradine quite properly said, the only other country in the world that has an eight-year term is Brazil. For the Attorney and the Government to suggest that we should do that is relegating us- Senator Gareth Evans —I can understand the objection after listening to this speech. Senator JESSOP —That is all right. Senator Robertson —We have four years in the Northern Territory. Your knowledge is a bit weak. Senator JESSOP —It is a term of four years in the Northern Territory. However I believe that the Government has acted in an incredibly arrogant way and has denied the right of the people who oppose their concept to a fair deal, particularly with respect to the financing of the campaign. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(8.25) —I support the thrust of the Referendum (Constitutional Alteration) Amendment Bill, which provides a mechanism for people in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to cast a vote in the forthcoming referendums and subsequent ones. What I find diabolical, what I find absolutely disgraceful, is the attempt by the Government to distort the presentation of the case by using public funds in its presentation of the arguments. It is quite unprincipled and its activity is unprecedented. Senator Gareth Evans —Two and a half million dollars for the No case. You realise you are getting that? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Exactly the same as for the Yes case, as the Referendum (Constitutional Alteration) Act presently provides, as the section so states. Senator Gareth Evans —You have Joh and Gray spending money out of State treasuries on the No case. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Let us see what the socialist States do. When the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) talks about how much money the No case is getting, why does he not say that it is the same as the Yes case as provided by the Act at present, explicitly and purposely in such a way as to ensure that there shall be equal and balanced presentation of both sides of the argument so that people can make objective judgments as to how they wish to cast their votes in the full knowledge of all the facts? Instead, by surreptitious, dubious, doubtful, diabolic means the Government is seeking to impose its view on the community. Senator Missen —Dastardly perhaps? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Dastardly, in fact. I find it highly objectionable and in fact offensive that my taxes, the taxes of other senators who cast a vote contrary to that of the Government and the taxes of all of those people who on two previous occasions have opposed at least one of the proposals will be spent on a proposition which Senator Gareth Evans, the Attorney-General, would have cast upon them. It seeks to disregard the fundamental principles of the Act which I referred to earlier. The Act is written in such a way for very good reasons. It allows people to make objective, reasoned, informed, educated decisions and judgments as to- Senator Coleman —Why don't you, right now? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am going to; I am. It allows people to make reasoned judgments as to the effect the proposals will have on them and allows them an opportunity sensibly to cast their votes in the manner they wish, given all the facts. The Government is saying: 'We are going to take away from you the opportunity to make a reasoned judgment. We are going to ensure by this new- found insidious method that you will have put to you only one side of the argument'. It is subjugating the rights of people to understand what the arguments are all about. Of course, it is intended to damage the smaller States. I was interested in Senator Gareth Evans's comments a moment ago when he referred to the No case as a rotten, stinking case. I hope that when he comes to Western Australia he goes on television and says that all those people who support the No case have a rotten, stinking case. Senator Harradine —He didn't say that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, he did. He said the No case was a rotten, stinking case. He also made reference to the fact that on the last occasion 60 per cent of the people in Australia cast a vote in favour of simultaneous elections. Senator Missen —Sixty-two per cent. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Sixty-two per cent. I ask the Attorney-General whether he would support an amendment to the Constitution which provided that a referendum may be carried by a simple majority of the voters of Australia. Would he thoroughly disregard the principles of the Constitution as they now stand that provide that the majority of States must cast a majority of Yes votes for a proposal to succeed? What protection does he offer the less populous States of Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania? We all know that he wants to abolish the Senate. We all know that he wants to centralise power in Canberra. We all know that he wants to have more power for the Executive and to disregard the views of the Parliament. Now, by surreptitious means, he is seeking to distort the arguments by having one case put forward publicly at taxpayers' expense and denying the supporters of the No case the right to put forward their argument. It has twice been accepted by the smaller States as distinct from his argument which, on two occasions, has been ignominiously rejected. I trust that the Opposition's amendment in respect of funding will be accepted. Frankly, If I had my way, I would rather have half of what the Attorney-General is to spend on his campaign so that we got a balanced point of view. The Government will spend this money flying around in its zippy VIP aircraft to gain the exposure and coverage for its case in the smaller States. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.31) —I support the primary purpose of the Referendum (Constitutional Alterations) Amendment Bill which, of course, makes provision for the people in the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to vote in the forthcoming referendum. So many things are happening in the debate that I feel I ought to try to record, for the sake of Hansard anyway, some clarification of where we have gone. The situation is that on 11 November of this year the Government changed the form of the proposed ballot papers for the referendum by a regulation. Senator Townley —Shoofty. Senator Jessop —Devious. Senator LEWIS —One of my colleagues said that it is shoofty while the other has said it is devious. Whether or not that is so there is no doubt that that regulation has changed the form of the ballot paper for referendums in that no longer is it proposed to have the long title of the Bill on the ballot paper. There may, in fact, have been some merit in regard to one of the proposals because the long title of the Bill was unsatisfactory. But, in any event, the Government apparently did this after some discussion with at least one member, and possibly some other members of the Australian Democrats. But the Government talks-- Senator Gareth Evans —And the Opposition. Senator LEWIS —Senator Evans said 'and the Opposition'. The fact is that Senator Evans certainly wrote to Senator Durack about this matter two days after his Party, his Government, his Minister made the regulation. Now, if discussing what one will do with a member of the Opposition after one has made the regulation is a discussion or a conference with him, I do not understand simple English. It is clear that what happened was that Senator Evans's Government made this regulation and, two days later, Senator Evans tried to have a discussion with the Opposition about its form and claimed, as a result of that, that it was consensus. The important thing is that Senator Evans made no attempt to have any discussion with any member supporting the No case to see whether any consensus could have been agreed upon with the No case supporters. That would have been consensus. After all, the Liberal-National Party Opposition and the Australian Democrats have indicated that they support the Yes case. So what happened is that Senator Evans was, in fact, having a discussion with the supporters of the Yes case as to what was consensus and no discussion at all with any supporter of the No case as to the form of words proposed. However, the important point was that the Government introduced the regulation to change the form of the ballot paper on 11 November. It did not then table the regulation in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. That is a most unusual-- Senator Jessop —Devious. Senator LEWIS —That is a devious course, as Senator Jessop said. There could have been only one reason for it not being tabled. If one sat down and calculated the number of days in which the Government could have tabled this regulation, one would see that the Government could have tabled the regulation on the last day that the Senate was due to sit. That would have meant that there would have been no opportunity to debate a motion for disallowance of the regulation and that was the purpose of the Government not tabling the regulation . There is no doubt about that. The clear intention of the Government was to deceive the Parliament by not tabling the regulation so that there could be some consideration of it or consideration of a motion for disallowance. If, in fact, the Senate happened to rise on the day before it is programmed to rise, the Government need not have tabled the regulation until after the ballot was conducted, until after the referendum. I wonder whether members of the Australian Democrats have considered what was involved in this devious ploy. I wonder whether the Democrats have thought to themselves: 'Really, was that what the Government was up to?' It seems very likely that that was what the Government was up to. We would find out about the new form of the ballot paper after the referendum had been conducted because it would not then have had to be tabled until 28 February when the referendum would have been conducted on 25 February. What has happened since is that that devious ploy has been exposed. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has said he will bring the regulation into the Parliament. In the meantime, of course, we have had an opportunity to look at the validity of the regulation and it appears that the regulation was invalidly made. What has happened now is that this discredited Attorney-General has brought into this Parliament a Bill- Senator Watson —Where is the Attorney- General? Senator LEWIS —I do not know where the Attorney-General is. In any event, the Attorney-General now proposes to move amendments to this Bill in order to validate the regulation made on 11 November. As if it is not bad enough to try to introduce into this Bill some sort of post factum validation proceedings, it still does not give us a chance to debate these things. There has been so much fuss that, not more than seven minutes ago, the Attorney-General tabled about seven pages of amendments in which these regulations will finally be incorporated into the Bill which is what we wanted to do. I mention two other matters which are, in my view, of great importance. A number of my colleagues have criticised the Government's proposal to spend $1. 25m in support of the Yes case. I alert the Attorney-General to the fact that, in the Committee stage, I will ask him what his advice is because it is my belief that the Attorney-General's Department would be of the view that the Government cannot validly make any such expenditure. This money is to be spent out of the Advance to the Minister for Finance. Here is a clear opportunity in which the Government, if it wanted, could have brought in amendments or some provision for payment of this $1.25m. But, no; we have been told the money will be spent out of the Advance to the Minister for Finance. No doubt, at some stage after that referendum had been conducted we would find that the money was invalidly appropriated out of the Advance to the Minister for Finance and should not have been spent. The Attorney-General would then say: 'That is unfortunate'. Senator Townley —There will be a High Court case before then. Senator LEWIS —My colleague Senator Townley from Tasmania indicates that it might be possible to have a High Court case. In any event I suggest that the taxpayers of Australia are quite properly entitled to say to this Government: ' Look, there is enough money, some $21m, being spent on asking the people of Australia to support at least one amendment to the Constitution which has already been rejected on two occasions by them. This Government which talks about spending money on the poor people of this nation is, in fact, spending $ 21m trying to amend the Constitution, in many ways unnecessarily. It is not satisfied with spending $21m on presenting a case; it now wants to spend another $1.25m endeavouring to win the case in Western Australia. I say to honourable senators: This is an absolute shemozzle. All these amendments are being brought in and clearly the Attorney-General and his Government stand totally discredited . Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.40) — Much of what I had to say has been covered- I think-by the amendments that have just been thrust into my hand. Let me say first of all that of course I have no objection to the general thrust of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill as it does provide a voting opportunity for Australians in the Northern Territory and in the Australian Capital Territory. But I ask whether the proposal to do by regulation what ought to be done by the prescription of Parliament is proper or valid. Now I have the amendments before me I see what the situation is and in the Committee stage I will have something to say about the appropriateness or otherwise of the actual terms contained therein. Another point, which I do not think I should leave unsaid, has been referred to by a number of honourable senators. I believe that this is an adequate opportunity to raise the question of fairness when presenting matters to the electorate. Indeed, when the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) launched the Government's campaign on 22 November, I indicated that its launch of that campaign, of an unprecedented glossy media campaign, in support of a Yes vote at the referendum was a calculated sabotage of the careful balance given to the Yes and No cases in Commonwealth legislation dealing with referenda. Parliamentarians who oppose all or some of the proposals and those who vote for them are permitted, under the referendum legislation, to submit an official Yes or No case to the people. The Australian Electoral Office, as we all know, prints this material in documented form and it is then circulated to each householder. Senator Jessop —National radio and television give some time to both sides. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, as Senator Jessop indicates, they get equal time. The fact is that the legislation is carefully framed, not only in the balance that it gives to the distribution but also in that it limits each case to 2,000 words . These provisions, underpinning, as it were, the fairness criteria, have existed for over 70 years and obviously have been intended to provide an even balance in the presentation of the arguments for and against to the people before they vote on referenda proposals. From a response by Senator Gareth Evans to Senator Jessop's question, a sub- committee of the Cabinet appears to have made a mockery of these provisions by recruiting the Australian Public Service and public resources for the production of a glossy media campaign the theme of which is 'The Answer is Yes'. At that time, on 22 November, I was concerned about this and suggested that perhaps the referendum Bill could be held up until such time as this was clarified and until guarantees had been given by the Government that it would desist from this unprecedented misuse of public funds. I raise this honestly, though I believe that some arguments can be taken too far and I can understand the depth and feeling of the Attorney's support for the Yes campaign. But I do believe that it is not appropriate for him, or any member of the Parliament, to prejudge what decision the electorate might take on these proposals. Senator Missen made mention before the suspension of the sitting of the possibility of dividing a particular amount in proportion to the number of parliamentarians who may have voted Yes and the number who voted No. I question that because that again prejudges how the electorate might consider the matter. Consider the situation of 1977 when this simultaneous election proposal was put up. It was defeated on that occasion. We have now the very same proposal- Senator Missen —No, it is an improvement. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, I agree. It is a different proposal. Senator Townley —It is more dangerous. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Townley considers that it is a more dangerous proposal, but essentially it is deceptive. In fact, I will get on to that point when we come to the Schedule of the Bill, if the Government's amendment is considered. We cannot say that all wisdom is retained in the Parliament and that therefore the expenditure of money ought to be divided in accordance with the weight of voting for the Yes case and the weight of voting for the No case. I believe that those who framed the referenda legislation provision initially, over 70 years ago, recognised this point and recognised the fact that, for example, nexus proposals that had the unanimous support of the Parliament except for, I think, seven senators or something like that- Senator Missen —Three, I think. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, I think it was only about three senators. That was defeated when it was put to the people. So I simply raise in a conciliatory manner with the Attorney-General my belief that what he has proposed and what he has done is just not fair. He should understand that and, if the Senate adopts these amendments, should desist from this unprecedented misuse of public funds. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(8.48) —Mr Acting Deputy President- Senator Gareth Evans —Come on! Is there no discipline in your ranks? Senator TOWNLEY —I am sorry; I was just going to apologise for speaking very briefly on something that I think is much more important than evidently the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) does. He would rather get on to some other Bills and let the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill, which could affect the whole future of this country, slide. I do not agree with that. Some of us-particularly those from the smaller States-feel quite strongly about the danger involved in these referendum proposals. I recognise that some arrangement has been made with the Opposition about this matter and, because of that, I will speak briefly. The point is that I believe the Attorney-General has embarked the Government on the first stage, or the second or third considering the number of losses it has recently had, of its course towards disaster. I believe that, as in the time of Whitlam, asking people in this country to decide on referenda will make those people decide to vote against the incumbent Government. I very sincerely hope that is the case this time. I want to follow up what Senator Harradine said. I agree with everything that he said, and I suppose I should because he and I are the co-conveners of the No case in Tasmania. Money is to be spent on referenda that I believe will give Canberra total control over what happens in the States. While I was away recently the Parliament passed a Bill which would increase the number of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Before I went I spoke against that increase. Now the Government wants more control over what happens. It wants a longer term for members of parliament and things like that. It wants four years for members of the House of Representatives and eight years for members of the Senate. I believe that fact alone will lead to the loss of the referendum relating to the increase to four years for members of the House of Representatives. As I said previously, if some arrangements had been made to have a sensible length of term for honourable senators-do not say one year-I believe the Government may have got somewhere. Senator Gareth Evans —Would you support four years for both? Senator TOWNLEY —As I said a moment ago, if some sensible arrangement could be made I think the people of the country would support it. It is not what I am going to support; it is what the people of the country are going to support. I do not believe it is constitutional to spend money promoting one side of a constitutional argument. I believe if the Government does not agree to spend no money whatsoever on the Yes case or equal amounts on the Yes and No case, the High Court of Australia will come down with a decision that will say: 'No money or equal money will be spent'. That might hold up the holding of the Government' s referenda. Senator Jessop —Perhaps we could challenge it. The No case could challenge it. Senator TOWNLEY —That is what I am indicating. It will not necessarily be the No case. It may be an individual challenger. It is up to any individual in this country. I was one who voted against legislation for all the referenda that came before this place because none of them are necessary. Let it be quite clear that none of the referendums that are being put before the people of this country are going to make life harder for politicians. None of them are necessary at all. If any money is spent and if the High Court decides that the same amount must be spent on each side, I ask the Attorney-General: 'How is that money going to be divided and allocated to each of the five referenda? Is it going to be divided and allocated to each of the five referenda? Is it going to be done on the basis of the number of people who are going to vote?' Senator Missen —Why not according to the numbers in the Parliament who voted? Senator TOWNLEY —No, Senator Missen. I know you have some funny ideas. In fact, if ever I am in agreement with you I know something is wrong. I really worry about that. I regard you very highly personally but some of your-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! Senator Townley, I ask you to direct your remarks to the Bill. Senator TOWNLEY —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was only responding to an interjection, and I apologise for that. As somebody said, fairness is going out the window. We know that the Attorney feels very deeply about these referenda, as he did about South West Tasmania. He sent aircraft flying over South West Tasmania, using taxpayers' money. He spent money on those flights. That was one-sided, and now he is trying to do the same thing with regard to the referenda. I do not believe he should use taxpayers' money in an unfair way on promoting one side of this issue. I ask him to tell us just what his reasoning is for being able to justify this use of taxpayers' money. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.55) —There is nothing like the President's cocktail party to lubricate the indignation of this chamber, and we have had an ample demonstration of that tonight. It seems to be forgotten that the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill 1983 is primarily designed to give votes in the forthcoming referendums to Territory voters in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. I think it was only Senator Kilgariff, of all those who spoke, who made any particular mention of that, and that provision of course, that central provision of this legislation, is not controversial. It ought to be appreciated that that is the prime objective of this Bill, and if this Bill is lost for any reason, including by virtue of being talked out, those votes would be lost and those Territorians will lose their franchise in this forthcoming referendum. That would be a most unhappy state of affairs. The other issues involved in this legislation are essentially those thrown up by the Government's amendments, which were just reissued in a further modified form a few minutes ago. Four basic issues emerge from those Government amendments, and indeed the amendments that have been circulated by the Australian Democrats and the Opposition. The first group of concerns addressed in these amendments is to accommodate the concerns expressed by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. We will get to that in the Committee stage. As I understand the particular linguistic changes that are proposed to clarify the effect of the legislation and to limit its effect in accordance with the recommendations of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, they are in fact uncontroversial. But I mention those because they are a partial explanation for the length of the list of amendments that have been circulated by both the Government and the Australian Democrats. The second matter addressed by the further amendments that have been circulated is to accommodate a series of legal and technical difficulties flowing from the passage, now completed, of the new Commonwealth electoral legislation. The major part of the amendments, the last of the Government's further amendments, is of course addressed to that particular technical, and again as I understand it, uncontroversial issue. The two other matters addressed in the various amendments around the chamber are, however, very controversial. One such matter is the question of the form of the ballot paper and the other is the question of the costs proposed to be incurred in the Government's own Yes case campaign. Let me say something then about each of those two issues on which we have heard so much this evening. As to the form of the ballot paper, the object of the exercise here has simply been throughout to try to improve the intelligibility of the questions addressed to the individual voter as he or she will confront those questions in the ballot booth, or compartment I suppose we should say with reference to the debate the other night. Until the 1967 referendum, as I understand it, for most of this century it was only the short title of legislation to amend the Constitution that was in fact put to the voters. That short title may or may not have been misleading in the past, but at least it was succinct. Since 1967, and only since 1967 for those traditionalists who are moved by what they recall as the previous practice, it has been the practice to include the long title of the Bill. That is all very well if the long title is expressed in layman's language or intelligible language, but of course very often it is not, and I do not think sufficient concern was given to the drafting of the long titles of this legislation when these particular referendum alteration Bills were initiated and were going through this Parliament. As a result, when one came to look at them it became apparent that the titles in question were not such, when combined with all the other mumbo-jumbo that was involved in the existing prescribed form, as to be likely to be readily intelligible to the average voter in this country. So there was a desire to try to improve the communication flow in this respect and discussions were held with the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, before any amendment or regulation was passed-I say that with respect to Senator Lewis's sally-and discussions were also held of course with the Australian Democrats who are not to be taken as supporting all five of the referendum proposals. They may have voted that way in order to get them before the people, but they have made it very clear to me, and indeed they made it clear publicly, that they are not particularly keen on the simultaneous elections proposal. They may not be as keen on a number of other matters either. So discussions were held with the Democrats and an attempt was made to come to a form of words to be put to the people on the ballot form to accompany the short title of the Bill. The sub-heading in each case, if one goes down the list, is the short title and there is a form of words that has been devised to go with it, which does appear and has certainly been intended to be quite neutral as between the competing views, as to the merits of the case. Let me make some comparisons. The way in which the simultaneous elections proposition is expressed in the long title of the Bill is as follows: An Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are held at the same time. The language is inherited, of course, from Malcolm Fraser. I was interested to note the sally of one speaker tonight that no previous government would have sullied itself by using this kind of language. It was in fact the Fraser Government that used the language of this long title. The proposal which is in the regulation that has already been promulgated and which it is now proposed be incorporated in the Bill itself is expressed in these terms under the short title 'SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS': To ensure that elections for the Senate and House of Representatives are always held on the same day, and to adjust the terms of Senators accordingly. So what we have done is build in a reference to the adjustment of the terms of senators, which is the nub of the objection of many people to the description of simultaneous elections-that it does not refer to senators' terms. We have built that into the actual description that is going to be incorporated in the ballot paper itself. So, if one likes, it is falling over backwards to be fair to the No proponents rather than just stating shortly the point about elections being held on the same day, which is, of course, the essence of the Yes case. What could be-- Senator Lewis —Go on with the next one. Senator GARETH EVANS —As it is expressed in the long title of the Bill, there is a reference to the terms of members of the House of Representatives and senators . In the proposed ballot paper under 'PARLIAMENTARY TERMS'-that is the short title of the Bill-it is expressed: To extend the maximum life of the Parliament from 3 to 4 years. This proposal is not just being put forward one-sidedly, to express the maximum life of terms of the House of Representatives members, which would have been unfair and unbalanced. It is a reference to the life of Parliament. Nobody is going to be in any doubt that this has implications for the terms of senators by the time the No case proponents have had their voice and editorialists have spoken. But that is addressing the issue in a way that is perfectly fair. Senator Walters —You know it is eight years for senators. Senator GARETH EVANS —What seems to be overlooked by this kind of interjection from Senator Walters is that if we go back to the long title of this Bill in relation to parliamentary terms there will be no reference to eight years either . There is just an ambiguous and generalised reference to extending the terms of members of both Houses. So eight years does not get in either. We can argue the detail of this till the cows come home. I simply make the point that there has been no attempt in any way to twist. If there had been, there would not have been any co-operation in this endeavour from the Australian Democrats, who have made it absolutely clear that they want even-handed but intelligible presentation of the basic issues in the question that will be addressed to the voters. It is on that basis that this language was redrafted and on that basis that discussions were held. Some technical issues have been raised in relation to this, one of them by Senator Lewis, who talked in terms of the procedures adopted with respect to the tabling of regulations. What is the situation here? I acknowledge that I was very surprised last week to find that the regulations had not been tabled. Certainly that procedural lapse occurred without any knowledge on my part. It is the case, I now discover, and I make clear for the record, that the responsibility for tabling all regulations, including those initiated by other departments and other Ministers, rests with my Department-the publications branch of the Legislative Drafting Division of the Attorney-General's Department . When the regulations in this instance were received from the printer after, I am afraid, a longer than usual delay, on 28 November-they were not received back from the printer until then-they just sat in the pile of regulations which are delivered weekly to this parliament. Because they missed last week's run, they did not in fact get tabled until, as I understand it, today. It is a simple procedural process that occurred and was not the product of any knowledge on my part or certainly any deliberate intent. There was never any question of denying an opportunity for debate on that particular aspect because I, of course, appreciated that there would be some willingness to mix it in this respect. As to the question of whether or not this should be done by regulation rather than by legislation, it is, and always has been, my belief, as I communicated to some honourable senators in this place, that the existing section 14A (4) of the parent Legislation-the Referendum (Constitutional Alteration) Act 1906-does in fact give the necessary authority for regulations of this kind were it says: For the purposes of sub-section (3) the form of ballot-paper may be modified as prescribed, or a special form of ballot-paper may be prescribed, but so that each question shall be capable of being voted on separately, and so that no change be prescribed in the method of marking votes on the ballot-papers. I had always believed that that was a sufficient legislative authority for a prescription. The view has been taken subsequently in my Department, on further and perhaps better thoughts, that there needs to be some further change to the parent legislation in order to make absolutely sure that the change in the ballot paper for purposes not generally but of a particular referendum is covered. It was for that reason that these further amendments were put before the Senate. Having now listened to the debate that has taken place tonight and thought further about the issues involved, and given the essentially transitional nature of this whole piece of legislation before us, which is not going to be permanent but which will be consolidated and re-enacted next year, it seemed to me to be appropriate to meet the principal objections that were being put, I think in good faith, by the Opposition, certainly in good faith by Senator Harradine and equally meet what I know to be the preferred position of the Democrats and actually incorporate in the text of the legislation itself the proposed language of the ballot papers rather than go down the route of regulations. I am happy about that. I was always happy about that. I just thought we could get home more quickly and conveniently the other way and still be subject, of course, to a disallowance procedure which Parliament still would have had an opportunity to pursue. Might I indicate for the benefit of Senator Walters on this issue that the reference to 'indicate a Yes or No vote' was purely a matter of drafting style which has since been the subject of further and better thoughts by the draftsmen because they certainly did not want to do other than indicate 'write Yes or No'. In the revised form of the ballot paper that is put before honourable senators now as an amendment to go into the Bill itself that has been attended to. There is no shonky, devious, dastardly or other endeavour to open up the scrutineering process to argument about ticks or crosses or any other sordid conspiracy that Senator Walters was contemplating. As for the final matter in issue in this debate, the question of the financial support for the specific Yes campaign that the Government is proposing to embark upon, let me make it clear that the existing legislation, which has been with us for quite a long time, as lots of honourable senators have indicated, does ensure that equal and balanced Yes and No cases will be put under the auspices of the Australian Electoral Office. That is true and that situation will, of course, continue to the extent that something like $5m of the $21m that this referendum will cost will in fact be devoted to the preparation, production and distribution of these equally balanced Yes and No cases. In other words, the material will be rather better presented-God knows how it is going to be written , listening to the quality of contributions tonight-to the voters than it has been in the past, to the tune of $2.5m of taxpayers' money. That is what supporters of the No case are getting to start with. That legislation, which will continue and which ensures even-handedness in the distribution of the pamphlet that will go into every ballot box in this country, does not say, of course, and never has said, that no other money can be expended on the referendum campaign-that is, if the amendment is adopted. It is palpable tendentious nonsense to say that there are some either high order-- Senator Walters —Will you resign if you lose? Senator GARETH EVANS —Calm it down; then you will not have to put your hand behind your ear. It is palpable nonsense to suggest that there is some high order constitutional principle involved here or some legislative or legal constraint, let alone a moral constraint, on this occurring. Because I was challenged by Senator Townley and a few other people, let me indicate why it is that the Government believes that it is justifiable, defensible and, indeed, wholly desirable that some small additional amount be spent on the Yes case in this instance. I think there are four quick points that I would wish to make. The first is this: The No case, whatever the quality of its proponents within the Parliament, always goes into a referendum campaign with an intrinsic advantage. There is an inherent complexity about referendum proposals. There is an inherent apathy in the Australian community about constitutional isues, as we all know. There is an inherent disposition on the part of those advancing the No case to rely on simple, rhetorical, emotional sorts of arguments, often bearing no relationship whatsoever to the truth of the matter. There is an excellent chance of that kind of emotional rather than intellectual appeal carrying the day because of the well-known psychological disposition of individuals, when confronted with something about which they do not feel very strongly and which they do not really understand, to vote No. That psychology is well understood by miscellaneous troglodytes, neanderthals and by more sophisticated campaigners who in the past have propounded the No case. The No case starts, without anybody spending any other money, with an inherent advantage over those who want to create an environment in which people will vote Yes for some reasoned change. So just to get the Yes case into the field, against that background demands, I would say and argue very strongly, the expenditure of some additional resources just to make it impinge upon the voters ' consciences to give it a chance of competing with the raw, crude, vulgar emotion of the kind which gets generated in referendum campaigns. There is an added problem in this forthcoming referendum campaign, because we know that taxpayers' money will be spent on the No case by Mr Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland and by Mr Robin Gray in Tasmania- Senator Archer —How do you know? Senator GARETH EVANS —We know it because Mr Bjelke-Petersen has been saying for weeks that he will wage an election-style campaign against these referendum proposals, notwithstanding that he and his Government voted for many of them in successive meetings of the Australian Constitutional Convention. He sees the opportunity to score a quick political point and he will be in there with his boots flying. Honourable senators opposite know that and will be taking advantage of it. Plenty of money will be expended from the Queensland Treasury on this campaign, mark my words. It has been done in the past and it will be done again. From Tasmania's point of view, we have Mr Gray's very own words to prove this. Senator Robert Ray —You could not believe that. Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, maybe one cannot, but he said it anyway and it deserves to be put to him. On World Today on 5 December Phillip Russell asked Mr Gray: Will you be spending State money on this? He was referring to the No case. Mr Gray answered: We certainly will because this is a referendum which will have disastrous effects for Tasmania. Let us not get into a debate about the reasons why; let us note the fact. The Premier was asked whether he would be spending money on advancing the No case. He said words to this effect: 'Yes I will'. He was asked whether he whould be spending State money; 'Yes, I will', said Mr Gray. I can assure honourable senators opposite that no similar expenditure is likely to be forthcoming from other State governments in this case, because they see no particular opportunity to score any political points from this campaign and they quite properly regard it as appropriate for the Commonwealth to make the running. So my second point is that we go into this campaign with an overt commitment by the Premier of Tasmania and the Premier of Queensland to spend public money in support of the No case. The third point I want to make is that these proposals are not some kind of partisan rant being advanced in a unilateral way by the Federal Labor Party. These proposals are coming forward with substantial cross-party support, with the overt support of the Liberal Party and the overt support of the National Party of Australia, albeit with the potential for lots of defectors from their ranks in the process. But it has cross-party support. It has the support of the Australian Democrats, at least to the extent of their wanting the proposals to be put before the people and, of course, it has 10 years of accumulated support, either unanimous or substantial majority support, from sessions of the Australian Constitutional Convention. It may be that it would be less appropriate for the Commonwealth Government of the day to be spending money on advancing the cause of some proposal which manifestly had no cross-party support at all. That is not the case on this occasion, and I believe it does not constitute any kind of precedent as such for the future. Finally, I make the point that the amount involved, which is a little over $1m, is small both by comparison with the $21m absolute cost of the referendum to be conducted by the Electoral Office and by comparison with the $5m-$2 1/2m of which will be spent on the Yes case and the other $2 1/2m on the No case-which will in fact be spent by the Commonwealth on the Electoral Office pamphlet. I believe, Mr President, that these are compelling reasons why this proposal by the Commonwealth Government ought not to be subject to the legislative attack that is involved in both the Democrat and Opposition amendments. I have given the reasons why it is both a principled endeavour and a practically sensible endeavour on the Commonwealth's part. To anticipate the Committee stage of the debate, which I am not sure we will reach tonight because of other arrangements, I make this point in regard to the Committee stage of the debate: It is proposed that it centre around a re-issued list of Commonwealth amendments. The first group of amendments are essentially those which were on the original list. Senator Chipp —Settle down. We are all tired, not just you. We are all tired and overworked, not just you. Settle down. Senator GARETH EVANS —Settle down? Senator Chipp —Yes. Senator GARETH EVANS —Me? Senator Chipp —Yes, you. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Attorney-General will address his remarks through the Chair. I ask him to ignore the interjections. Senator GARETH EVANS —All I am doing is explaining what the hell is on the list of amendments. Senator Chipp —You are also winning an academy award. Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, if I can do that having had one glass of gin and tonic I am a damned sight better than the rest of the people in this place. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Attorney-General will speak through the Chair. Senator GARETH EVANS —All I wanted to say, Mr President, is that the group of amendments, despite their apparent complexity and the form in which they now come before us again, are essentially the same group of amendments as before, the only modifications being that provisions are deleted with respect to changing the regulations prescribing procedure-schedules C and D and so on-and the terms of the material are now contained in the proposed Act itself. That is the only substantial difference. The other changes are all minor technical ones in order to accommodate that state of affairs. I hope that when we get to the Committee stage of the debate, accordingly, it will be possible rather swiftly, because we are running out of time, to deal with this matter and to support it accordingly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Debate resumed from 29 November 1983, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Upon which Senator Durack had moved by way of amendment: ', but the Senate, whilst welcoming the intention of the Bill to remove discrimination against the people on the basis of their sex, marital status or pregnancy, is of the opinion that: (a) the Bill should not rely on the external affairs power as a head of power; (b) Australia's signature to the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women should be used to extend the powers of the Commonwealth; (c) the removal of discrimination against people on the basis of sex should be recognised as not obliging anyone to enter the paid workforce or alter their view of their responsibilities towards their spouses or children; (d) no decision or action by any educational or child care or other body established for the education of students or the care of children in accordance with the doctrines of a religion or creed or in accordance with stated principles should be affected where that decision or action has been taken in good faith to enable the body to conform with those doctrines or principles; (e) nothing in the Bill should be taken as approving those articles of the Convention which are not implemented by the Bill; and (f) the clauses of the Bill should be re-drafted accordingly'. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.18) —I have been waiting patiently for the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) to finish his tirade so that we could resume debate on a much more moderate piece of legislation. I refer to the Government's third go at the Sex Discrimination Bill. When debate on this Bill was adjourned I was pointing out that the Bill has created deep concern within large sections of the community. I know that the Government has had three goes at amending this Bill and there is no doubt that the Government certainly has improved it considerably. Nevertheless, there is a deep concern about the principles underlying the Bill rather than the words in the Bill. I think it is a great pity that the Senate does not have before it the Green Paper on affirmative action, which apparently the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan)-the Minister in charge of this Bill-has prepared but is not yet prepared to table in the Parliament, so that we can consider it. Of course, there is no doubt in my mind that part of the deep concern within the community about the principles underlying this Bill is probably deep concern about matters raised in the affirmative action Green Paper rather than what is in this Bill. Nevertheless, the Bill still contains problems for many people in the community. On that point, I will refer to some remarks made by the Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn, the Most Reverend Francis Carroll, who recently had a meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Some of the Archbishop's correspondence has been made available through the newspapers. I refer to that part of Archbishop Carroll's letter in which he said: . . . nothing that you have said concerning the operation of the Bill in relation to 'de facto spouses' or to the matter of discrimination on the ground of marital status serves to allay my fear that the measure will, in some circumstances, require a person to choose between conscience and the law. I firmly believe that a law which denies to a citizen the right to prefer a married couple to a de facto couple in areas of accommodation, leasing, dealings with children and in domestic situations, is oppressive. Such a law has the effect of denigrating the institution of marriage whether or not that is the intention . . . There is no doubt that there is concern in the community that the Bill would facilitate abortion. Apparently the view is that it would oblige pharmacists to provide drugs or other devices that could be used for abortions. There is also concern about there being no ground for exemption on grounds of genuinely held conscientious belief, which could oblige, say, a nurse or doctor to provide a good facility or service to which they had a moral objection. The situation, then, is that the Bill still concerns large numbers of people in the community. The problem really is that it goes just so far beyond the equal opportunity proposals which the people of Australia were prepared to accept. They were prepared to accept that under the former Government and would want it under this Government. I must say that the removal of the reversed onus of proof is certainly welcome. Also, the modification of the restraint on church schools, thus enabling them to employ suitable teachers, is certainly welcome. Nevertheless, according to Senator Ryan, the Minister who is in charge of the Bill, notwithstanding all the amendments, the measure retains its main objectives. I might add that it also retains in many ways its ambiguity and confusion. It certainly retains the prejudices and hang-ups of the originators. One of the things that concerns me is that it seems to be more interested in sexual harassment and sexual deviation than with equality of opportunity. It establishes a separate bureaucracy to deal with sex discrimination. Senator Chipp —It is worth being concerned about. Senator LEWIS —What, sex-- Senator Chipp —Sexual harrassment- Senator LEWIS —Certainly I am concerned about sexual harassment. Senator Chipp —When were you harassed lately? Senator LEWIS —I have not been harassed lately. In fact, it is a long, long time since I have been harassed sexually. Senator Jessop —It is not fair to men. Senator LEWIS —Senator Jessop says that it is not fair to men. I do not think that a Bill which I believe should deal with equal opportunity should deal with sexual harassment. If the Government wanted to introduce some quasi-criminal or genuinely criminal offence, which I think sexual harassment should be I might add, I would welcome such a Bill. I have learnt of some instances of sexual harassment and I think the means that some people use to achieve their sexual desires are absolutely disgraceful. However, I do not think that should be dealt with in a Bill which concerns equality of opportunity. A matter which concerns many of us greatly is the use of the external affairs power and, no doubt, the usurping of States rights in this area. It is interesting to look at what some honourable senators have said about the Bill. For example, Senator Haines said that the aim of the Bill was: . . . to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of men and women. . . . what it is about is acknowledging both the rights and the need of many women to work in the paid work force and the necessity to provide appropriate high standard child care facilities to enable her to do that. I intend to return to the subject of child care facilities but, with respect, I do not think that the Bill does deal with those matters. I again say that I suspect that this is what will be in the Green Paper on affirmative action. I really do not understand what Senator Zakharov was saying but it is so non- understandable that I must quote it: The lessening of discrimination . . . will further delineate the separation of people's private from their public lives-surely a progressive step in any just and pluralistic society. She also said: Notwithstanding what I have said, women certainly have more to gain from this legislation than men. That confirms what some others have indicated about whether this is equal opportunity legislation or about something else. Senator Tate caused me even greater concern because he gratuitously made moral judgments about other cultures both within Australia and outside of Australia and their mores. He attacked Aborigines and the marriage of older men to younger women. I do not understand why he got on to that but in some way or other he thought this Bill had something to do with it. Senator Jessop —Who said that? Senator LEWIS —Senator Tate. He went on to suggest that some sub-cultures within our migrant community deal with women in an almost horrific way, by the practice of female circumcision. I do not know what evidence-- Senator Chipp —That is true. Senator LEWIS —Within Australia? Senator Chipp —Indeed it is. Read a few reports. It is most scandalous. Senator Walters —This Bill doesn't do anything about it. Senator LEWIS —It is the first time I have ever heard that there are reports of that happening. If there are, it is a matter of great concern which ought to be taken up by the Attorney-General. Senator Tate should have made his remarks to the Attorney-General and, I would have thought, had something done about it. I say with all due respect to Senator Chipp that something should be done about it , but I also agree with what Senator Walters is saying: This Bill does nothing about that. If it occurs-I have never heard any evidence of it but I do not deny what Senator Chipp is saying-the Bill ought to contain something about it. Senator Chipp —Hear, hear! I agree. Senator LEWIS —I am pleased to hear Senator Chipp say that he agrees because if that were happening in this nation it would be terrible. I do not understand why we need separate machinery to establish these sorts of things. It is interesting to note that the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry got together and indicated to the Government that there were special tripartite committees to deal with discrimination in the work place and that they wanted them to continue. That may be so but it is my view that the unions constitute the very area where there is massive discrimination. It is not necessarily discrimination of a sexual sort. There is the closed shop attitude, such that non-unionists are not allowed to have a job in particular areas. There are closed unions. I refer to miners' federations-where a person is not allowed to join unless his father is a member. He cannot get a job unless his father also works in that job. We are talking about equality of opportunity and discrimination and the Bill ought to be attacking that sort of thing. Let me turn to the question of child care because it is a matter of grave concern to me that many people are saying that that is what is needed. Senator Giles —That is absolutely true. Senator LEWIS —Senator Giles says that is absolutely true. I suggest, Mr Deputy President, that Senator Giles ought to make a proper investigation of the problems involved in child care. I first heard about the problems of child care in the early 1950s when I read about the terrible problems that had been created in Czechoslovakia. Immediately following the Second World War, Czechoslovakia was in such disarray that the Government demanded that all people work. Males and females went out to work in Czechoslovakia and child care facilities were set up for children. Children were taken from their mothers at a very early age and put in child care facilities. When a child had just developed some sort of mother-child relationship with the person looking after it in a group of 10 to 15 children, it was taken away because it was then six months old. The child was put in another situation where it stayed until it was about 2 1/2 or three years and again had just developed a parent-child relationship with another person. At the age of three years the child was again taken away and put in another home care situation. The result was that children aged five and six years sat in rooms in large numbers, their thumbs stuck in their mouths, all trying to rock themselves to sleep. The Government then woke up that there was something wrong with what it was doing. What that Government did to that generation of children born in Czechoslovakia during those years was disgraceful. There is plenty of evidence to support that statement, not only in relation to Czechoslovakia. Let me draw the Senate's attention to an article I read in the Christian Science Monitor of 12-18 November 1983. It contains a review of a book called The Day Care Decision, written by Bill and Wendy Dreskin who had run a non- profit pre-school educational program for three to five-year old children in northern California. I suggest that Senator Giles and Senator Ryan, who puts a big smirk on her face when someone mentions an article in the Christian Science Monitor on child care facilities, read this book to find out about raising children and child care facilities. The article reports: Three-year-olds who had been happy in a morning preschool program couldn't make the switch to spending a full day away from their parents. They began to cry for hours at a time, and either withdrew from their friends or tunred into fighters. They refused to take their toys home at night ('What's the use? I'm here more than I'm home'). They dictated poignant pleas for the journals they kept for their parents ('I wish you didn't have to work, Mommy'). The parents changed, too . . . Instead of asking questions about what their children were learning, they only wanted to know what time they should drop their children off and pick them up. The Dreskins, who ran a non-profit child care facility for children aged three to five years, have turned around and written a book savaging such things as child care facilities for three to five-year-olds. I quote from extracts from their book: Our feeling is that there's a growing awareness that the movement towards day- care centres and full time care was a quick but shortsighted attempt to solve the problem [of how to care for children whose mothers work.] . . . It's being a solution which addresses the needs of parents, but not the needs of children. The authors had discussions with other professionals in child care facilities. One such professional is reported later in the article as saying: I would say over 90 per cent of professionals we deal with would agree with our basic position-that full time substitute care for children under age three is not ordinarily in the best interests of the child. Of course it is not in the best interests of the child. It is a disgrace to talk about some sort of massive desire to have child care facilities set up in this country. I am not suggesting that it is a woman's role to look after the child. I do not care if it is the husband's role to look after the child. It is really the role of both parents to care for the child. A child is not a dog. The care required for children cannot be compared with that required for a dog; although dogs have their problems when not properly cared for, they are, at least, animals. It is a disgrace for parents to bring a child into this world and not care for it and tend it to the utmost of their ability. I am sure that the discussions on child care facilities will be contained in the affirmative action Green Paper which the Minister has not been prepared to table in the Parliament. I ask Senator Ryan why she will not bring it into the Parliament. Senator Ryan —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I have restrained myself from drawing your attention to the fact that the honourable senator is ranging far away from the substance of the Bill, but I must point out that the honourable senator is now making predictions about a Government paper which has not yet been published and which will not cover the grounds about which he is protesting. I suggest that he is engaging in a total irrelevancy and wasting the time of the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Lewis has been dealing with matters which might reasonably be thought to stem from this Bill. He is in order. Senator LEWIS —Senator Ryan has just interfered with my time, as she wished to do. This Parliament is being asked to consider this Bill without knowing what might be in the Green Paper. The Attorney-General has foreshadowed the introduction of a Bill of Rights. Much of this material should be in a Bill of Rights. We are not allowed to have a look at this proposed Bill of Rights while we are trying to push through a Sex Discrimination Bill on which we are having so much debate. Every Tuesday night we have to have these debates on the Sex Discrimination Bill to try to get it over before we get up for the Christmas recess. For what reason? We are not allowed to see the Green Paper and we are not allowed to see the proposed Bill of Rights. I say to the Senate that this Parliament has a duty to ensure that legislation which is passed is not ambiguous, divisive, discriminatory, or likely to create conflicts in vague principles and in sensitive moral, social and religious areas. That is a view which I hold firmly and which causes me great difficulty in regard to this Bill. This Bill certainly does not meet those criteria. In my view, the Bill in many ways is unnecessary. It attacks the traditional family concept. Many people in the community are concered about that. The Bill contains matters which would more properly be put in a Bill of Rights or in criminal law. It certainly does not just support equality of opportunity, which I, and so many people on my side of politics, would be prepared to support openly and strongly. Of course, there should be equality of opportunity, but there should also be protection of the rights of the family and of parents, rights which should not be encroached upon. The rights of those who have conscientious beliefs about so many things should also be protected. If necessary, those beliefs should be discriminated in favour of, because they are so important. In a country where freedom is important, conscientious beliefs are important. (Quorum formed) Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(9.39) —I rise to speak fairly briefly about the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2). Senator Button —Good on you, Senator. I have no doubt you will be lucid and to the point. Senator JESSOP —Now that I am interrupted by the Leader of the Government, I might speak for a little longer. I just want to say how much I appreciated the speech of my colleague Senator Lewis, who drew attention to certain matters that concern me as well. He referred to sexual harassment. His belief, with which I agree, is that common law can deal with such matters and ought properly to deal with them. I would be worried, as he is, about the external affairs power, which usurps the States rights in this area. I am one who believes in the equality of the sexes and that women should be afforded the same treatment as men in job opportunities, provided that they have the background and experience required. I think they ought to be able to raise loans for housing in the same way as the male of the species, and so on. They ought to be able to do all of those things provided that they have the same sort of requirements applied to them as happen to be applied to men as well. There are States that have in law protection for women concerning job opportunities and so on. That is where the particular responsibility should lie. If the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) wants to bring forward a Bill to deal with the Australian Capital Territory, I should like to look at it and no doubt I would give it some favourable consideration. However, this Bill is a demonstration of inefficiency and inadequacy. When it was originally introduced into this Parliament, no fewer than 51 amendments were suggested. Now the Government has brought the legislation back before us, including the amendments, in the guise of a new Bill. The Opposition has about 14 amendments to it, and I know that Senator Harradine has a number of amendments as well. The Bill has been a dog's breakfast right from the start. It is no wonder that I have had so much correspondence about this legislation. Senator Ryan —They would be wasting their time writing to you. Senator JESSOP —People like writing to me. They like drawing my attention to this matter, not that they needed to do that. The massive volume of correspondence dealing with this Bill supports my concern. Anything that the United Nations recommends to Australia I treat with a lot of suspicion. I remember last year when Malcolm Fraser trotted into the Parliament a Bill on human rights. I looked at it and thought: 'This sounds great. I suppose that Australia will be able to preen itself on the international stage and to say that it is progressive'. But then I looked at those who were supporting it in the United Nations, the signatories of the convention concerned, the first covenant of which happened to endorse the freedom of people to give expression to their political views. When I looked more carefully at the list of signatories, I found that 50 of them were military dictators. Would they give their citizens the right to disagree with their political philosophy? I do not think so. They would not discriminate against women, either; they would shoot them all or put them in- Senator Reynolds —Rubbish. Senator JESSOP —If the honourable senator looked at the list of signatories to the United Nations convention, she would realise how many political prisoners these people have. She would be amazed. The great human rights supporters of this Government would then realise that whatever the United Nations puts up must be treated with suspicion. Looking down the list of signatories of this suggestion that we are to adopt, one realises that some of them would certainly not regard their women to anywhere near the degree that we do. Therefore, I treat this with a certain amount of suspicion. Nevertheless, I do not want to alienate myself entirely from the Women's Electoral Lobby. That would be a disaster. Those people would hold that against me. They would probably publish my name in the Press and say: 'We give him zero marks for this'. But I do not worry about that, because there are far more women in the community who would agree that the measures inherent in this Bill provide reason for concern. Some of the letters that I have received are quite demonstrative in the concern expressed. Typical of many that I have received is a letter that appeared in the Australian of 13 October this year. It is headed 'A Trojan horse', and it states : Speaking as one of the ''formidable campaigners'' mentioned by Jane Fraser (The Australian, 20/9) on the sex discrimination bill, I continue to marvel at the innocence of journalists who think that the issue raised by the bill is making ' 'sex discrimination'' unlawful. A number of provisions of the bill, crafted with careful clumsiness, are after much bigger game. Sections 28 and 29, for example, explicitly exclude as non- discriminatory programs designed to create ''equal opportunity'' for ''members of one sex.'' Here is the Trojan horse by which quotas for women-which, of course, discriminate against men-will be introduced. A particularly obfuscatory passage in section 5 of the bill counts as discriminatory any practice whatever that ''unreasonably'' affects one sex more than the other. This gives the sex discrimination commissioner carte blanche to interpret any job requirement, a height and weight or strength requirement, for instance, as ''unreasonable'' and hence in violation of the law. Because of the infinite mischief potential in this bill, all of it directed at men, and hence at men who support their families, it is quite reasonable to see the bill as anti-family. It is certainly not directed outside the home in its impact. Moreover, the noxious provision that ''marital status'' never be attended to by employers, which has nothing to do with sex discrimination at all, is a further effort to elevate what in America we call shacking up to the status of the family. Dr John Hall, incidentally, is to be congratulated for his letter (23/9), which forthrightly explains why discrimination is not the same as recognition of difference. He is right, too, that the bill is a menace to civil liberties, as a Senate committee charged with studying such matters concluded a few weeks ago. That was signed by Michael Levin, a professor of philosophy, of New York. Senator Giles —Ha, ha! You don't believe it. Senator JESSOP —Honourable senators may guffaw and create incredible humour about that letter. They may not believe it. Nevertheless, I shall talk a little more and see whether they believe this. Senator Giles —We would love some more. It would be a little light relief. Senator JESSOP —The Institute of Public Affairs, which is a reasonably credible organisation, states: Most people would support justice for all regardless of sex. Male and female should receive equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity in education and training for employment in the occupation of their choice. I agree with that. I said that at the outset. It amuses me to note the job creation program that is available in local government areas. It ought to be 50: 50 for females and males. I agree with that-except when it comes to road making. I think that ladies should be given equal opportunity for employment on the roads. I believe that in all probability, although because of their physical restrictions they may not be able to lift the load that the male can, they could probably do the work just as well. Why should we discriminate? Senator Giles —Who worries about how much wives are required to lift? Senator JESSOP —I can imagine the honourable senator who has interrupted lifting a wheelbarrow, wielding a pick or doing something like that. I think she could do it very well because, in my view, she has strength that would be more than equal to mine. Those matters ought to be looked at. I cannot disagree with equal opportunity. As the Institute of Public Affairs in New South Wales states: Most would also support the general principle of providing employment, accommodation, finance etc. without discrimination on grounds of sex. I said that initially and this supports my view. It continues: However, the Bill goes far beyond this and raises concern on several different grounds. It must also be realised that any Anti-discrimination Bill in favour of some must discriminate against someone else. The Institute goes on to point to some specific matters: 1. Tying the Bill to the UN Convention associates it with the external affairs clause in the Constitution which, when related to the Tasmanian Dam made it possible to overrule the States. Senator Ryan agrees that this would be so but says that only certain parts of the Convention would be included; however, all the 30 articles quoted are included. Removing State rights and obeying international conventions without putting them to referendum, present dangerous precedents. I think that reflects my concern quite adequately. Later it continues: Many employers, education authorities and people of various religions have strong feelings about the importance of marriage and pregnancy within marriage. Many consider that paid maternity leave in the public service has been abused. It disorganises schools-- Senator Giles —How do you abuse maternity leave? Senator JESSOP —It is all right for Senator Giles to moan again. I would like to see her out on the road with a pick in her hand, doing a bit of hard work rather than bending her mind to things like this. It does disorganise schools, hospitals and whatever throughout the community. Senator Giles —Rubbish! Senator JESSOP —It is not rubbish at all. I have had complaints in the past where the work load thrust upon people, not only-- Senator Giles —That is the employer's responsibility, isn't it? Senator JESSOP —Okay, but the point is made and it is quite true. There are matters in this Bill that have not been thoroughly thought through and for that reason I am concerned. Perhaps my feelings could be summed up quite well if I borrow the words of my former colleague, Sir James Killen, when he wrote-I think it was in the Weekend Australian some weeks ago: Poor philosophy, poor grammar and poor drafting-is about the best that can be said of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983, now before the Federal Parliament. It was an excellent article and among other things he said: I can hear the so-called feminists, many of whom give a unique explanation as to why misogyny came into existence, rail and rant. The Sex Discrimination Bill consists of 106 clauses. It has a Schedule attached to it-The breathed-on U.N. Convention on the matter. Between the Bill and the Convention the only discrimination between man and woman that is not extinguished is the difference. But then there is another splendid assurance within our sight. 'Woman' means a member of the female sex irrespective of age. Is it that the servant in Shakespeare's King Lear was in error when he argued: 'Women will all turn monsters'? Using language which would have been shunned by Boadicea, the Bill proscribes the areas of discrimination. For even the 'part-emancipated mind', the proscriptions are laughable. . . . . 'The aim of a Federation', said the great Mr Deakin, 'is to found a nation'. Perfectly true, but nations are not to be constructed, protected, their cause furthered by ridiculous resorts to legislative nonsense. I am sorry he did not finish up there, but he goes on to say: The common law and the criminal codes of the States are not lacking in authority- that is what Senator Lewis said and I support it-- and sanction with respect to assault of improper physical advancement. But no, the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 seeks to erect its own rockery of discipline. Is a wink at a bus conductress, the sending of flowers to a hostess, the helping of a woman across a street, 'sexual harassment'? One has to ask the question because one never knows; it may be regarded as such. The way the Government brings these things in without a thought makes me very concerned. But then perhaps I do not understand the attitudes or the minds of Senator Ryan and others. My wife seems to be quite happy with her lot. She believes it is quite important for me to open the door for her and all those things-the graces, the traditional behaviour that has come to be expected. I have serious reservations about this legislation. I propose to support the amendments put forward by the Opposition and by Senator Harradine when the time comes and will reserve my final decision until later. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(9.57) —I want to use the opportunity provided by the second reading debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill (No. 2) to put forward some points for consideration. We have heard a lot of debate about this Bill and we all know that it is the second Bill that has been brought forward which includes- Senator Harradine —The third. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I beg Senator Harradine's pardon; the third Bill. But it is called the Sex Discrimination Bill (No. 2). Senator Harradine —I am sorry, it is the second. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —It includes well over 50 amendments to date and we have heard that the Opposition is bringing forward some more, and so is Senator Harradine; so there will be plenty of amendments to it. In my opinion, after reading it, I think that the best amendment of all would be to forget about it. I do not think the Bill is necessary. If we lived in the Middle East, I would certainly say that it was necessary. This legislation is designed, according to the Bill, to outlaw discrimination on grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy in the areas of employment, education, accommodation, provision of goods, facilities and services, disposal of land, activities of clubs and the administration of Federal laws and programs. However, in effect, I sincerely believe that it will do no more than create divisions and long term conflict, not just among women but between men and women, religious groups, families and employers. Most people support justice for all. Regardless of sex, male and female should receive equal pay for equal work. Actually, an Act was passed in 1974 which guaranteed equal pay for equal work. Until then the basic wage was determined on the needs of a man, his wife and two children. The judge, Mr Justice Moore, in granting equal pay, recommended that the Government find some other way to compensate families where the father was the sole breadwinner. This has never been done. In fact, single income families pay much more tax than the two income families with the same gross income. Each wage earner is allowed to earn $4,000 tax free. The two income family gets $8,000 tax free. Even with the spouse rebate, the single income family pays much more tax than if both the father and mother went out to work. I understand that Senator Walters will move an amendment to deal with that aspect. I believe that there should be equal opportunity in education and for training for employment in occupations of choice for both men and women. Most people would support the general principle of providing employment, accommodation, finance, et cetera, without discrimination on the grounds of sex. However, this Bill goes far beyond that and raises concern on several different grounds. It must be realised that any anti-discrimination in favour of some must discriminate against someone else. While accepting the justice of women being equally eligible for work, education and financial recompense as men, forcing employers, education authorities and the Public Service to ignore pregnancy, de facto relationships and the best interests of children is not acceptable to many and makes some of us very concerned. This Bill aims at changes in moral and social values that I do not think should be included. It will infringe on civil liberties of employers when affirmative action is introduced. This has been promised by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) in two years time. Actually I was at a Senate committee meeting at which Senator Giles was also present. Senator Giles said that affirmative action would be mandatory. I feel this would take away from employers the right to hire and fire. Under clause 29 of the Bill, positive discrimination in respect of a previously so- called disadvantaged sex will be lawful. The Minister has already been reported as saying that future Federal Public Service hiring will favour women and that her own Department will begin favouring women in its promotion and management policies. I do not agree with that. Actually, in principle, I feel that affirmative action seems to be artificially creating quotas for women in the Public Service and elsewhere. That is a form of discrimination against otherwise qualified people. In the end, I feel that it will be harmful to the cause of equality of opportunity. The Bill introduces legislation which, by giving preference to women in the paid work force and de facto situations, undermines the family unit. It represents an attack on the freedom of choice for women to stay at home or to go out to work in that it supports the preamble to the Convention which states: The full and complete development of a country, the welfare of the world, and the course of peace, require the maximum participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields. I think we are starting to see some of that in the jobs that women are being given when money is being allocated for the Commonwealth employment program. Half of the jobs have to be for women. It does not matter what sorts of jobs they are. Councils are complaining because half of the jobs have to be given to women. If honourable senators opposite want to go out and work on roads, that is up to them. I remember that once when I was in Singapore I saw women carting big bags of cement on their shoulders. I felt sorry for them. Before long, that will be happening in Australia. Article 10 (c) of the Convention refers to the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education. This stereotyped concept which must be eliminated refers to the mother-father role by which families have been nurtured for generations and which certain people would like to see destroyed. Article 5 (a) of the Convention calls upon governments to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women. Article 10 (c) calls for the revision of textbooks and school programs and the adaption of teaching methods with the object of the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education. I feel that this is nothing short of social engineering. Australia ratified a legally-binding international treaty on 29 July 1983 pledging to use our education system to eliminate these roles. Specific measures include re-writing school books and teaching methods to present only non-sexist roles. I feel that this is quite wrong. Any pictures or stories of a mother and children waving good-bye to daddy going off to work will be banned. Senator Crowley —Nonsense. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I read that in the newspaper and I believe it is true. As I said, it is social engineering. Similarly, article 5 of the Convention refers to family education including a proper understanding of maternity as a social function. Who will dictate what is a proper understanding of 'maternity' in this context? In all of this, it seems that the implication is that women are not fulfilling their roles as citizens unless they are in the work force. That is an implication that I strongly reject. Women at home looking after families are in the work force. I believe they are doing an excellent job. Somebody said to me when I came to the Senate: 'Oh, you have gone to work now?' I said: 'Get that out of your head. I worked a jolly lot harder probably when I was at home rearing my children'. Anyone who is at home looking after a husband and children is doing an excellent job. I do not see why we want to do away with the concept of women being at home with families. I do not see why we want to get into the habit of women having to take over men's jobs. Over the years, men have been recognised as the breadwinners and many women were happy to stay at home to look after their families. Actually, I have a quote from the Prime Minister. In Federal Parliament on 10 May, Bob Hawke said: . . . I accept the point that we must not, in our enthusiasm to eliminate those forms of discrimination, ignore the fact that a very large number of women see the total fulfillment of their aspirations and their happiness in terms of the family-the role of wife and mother, of sustainer and supporter, and the upbringing of children. It is a noble and appropriate role for those who see their total fulfilment in it. I notice honourable senators sitting opposite are all quiet now. The Prime Minister continued: There is absolutely nothing that this Government will do which will in any way prejudice women who appropriately make that choice. Indeed, the range of policies that will be adopted by my Government will ensure that families and women discharging that role will be given the greatest opportunity of achieving fulfillment and satisfaction for them and those dependent on them. They are noble ideas, but I cannot find them contained in this Bill. I refer to another aspect of the Bill which Archbishop Carroll touched on in his letter to the Prime Minister. I notice that a number of other senators are favouring Archbishop Carroll in their comments on this Bill. I have heard him mentioned already by Senator Lewis-- Senator Kilgariff —Not many on the other side. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —That is right, Senator Kilgariff. Archbishop Carroll said: In requiring all people in so many areas of activity to treat persons in de facto relationships on terms of equality with married persons, the Bill, I believe, denigrates the institution of marriage in our society very seriously indeed. In this connection, would it be unlawful for a landlord who advertised a house to let to accept as tenants a married couple in preference to a de facto couple solely on the basis of marital status? The convention does not seem to me to create any international obligation to legitimate, as it were, de facto relationships and to place them on a footing of equality with marriage. Would it be unlawful for a doctor or nurse to decline to perform an abortion? Some amendments no doubt cover this. I have received petition after petition and , no doubt, we have heard them being presented in the Senate day after day requesting that the Bill be amended to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. Of course, in common with many others in the Senate, I have received a tremendous number of letters and petitions asking that this Bill be not passed, asking that the Convention be not ratified, wanting a referendum and complaining that there was no referendum before the Convention was ratified. However, I do believe that in most cases women can get where they want if they have the ability. There are now women in Australia who drive buses, taxis, trams, racing cars and 50-tonne trucks. There are racehorse jockeys, apprentice electricians, mechanics and air traffic controllers. Senator Crowley —In Queensland? Disgraceful! Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I have never said it is disgraceful at all. They can get these jobs and keep them. My husband has a woman pilot and she does a very good job. There are women judges, business executives, managers and of course politicians. There are thirteen women in the Senate and if we had been discriminated against we would not be here either to talk about this famous Bill . I tend to think that there are few remaining barriers against women in Australia in jobs, commercial contracts, politics and social life, and the barriers that do exist stem mainly from traditional attitudes built into society and not easily changed by law. In areas where there is discrimination, let us have specific legislation to deal with specific problems, not an all- encompassing Bill which ties us to the United Nations. We all know what being tied to the United Nations means. We saw that in relation to the Tasmanian dam. That is something we should think about. Actually, the Australian Constitution gives the Federal Government power to overrule the States on any matter on which it has an international treaty. Just as the Tasmanian Government was prevented from building a dam as the Federal Government had an international treaty on that issue, so I am very concerned that the sex discrimination treaty will give the Federal Government power to outlaw behaviour which most of us consider to be quite normal. I believe that when governments legislate to give rights to some sections of the community, often the legitimate rights of other section of the community can be taken away. That is one of the effects of this Bill. The Bill comprises the fundamental principles of justice and liberty. Take, for example, clause 74 (2) of the Bill which reverses the traditional onus of proof for an accused person, from innocent until proven guilty to an effective guilty until proven innocent. As well as this, the Bill states that a person appearing before the Commission does not have a right to be represented by a lawyer or solicitor unless the Commission expressly allows it. I wonder where all the civil liberty protesters are now. They are ominously quiet about that, if one asks me. In my opinion the Bill, itself, is sexist. It promotes a bureaucratic and legalistic approach to the enforcement of morals between the sexes. I find there is a definite contradiction in that on the one hand it maintains that sexual morality, including sexual preference, sexual status and pregnancy, is a private affair but that the manner of acting towards someone of the opposite sex is a matter of public concern and can be regulated by law. The Bill is blatantly sexist in that it assumes that where other factors do not sway judgment and where the sole apparent difference between the two applicants for a job is their sex, the person making the choice must choose on the grounds of sex. I presume, naturally, in this case it would favour the woman. The Bill says it is to give effect to certain provisions of the United Nations Convention. It does not say, of course, which provisions, but it does provide for a Sex Discrimination Commissioner to deal with, through conciliation, matters that have been complained about. Of course people have been raising the question of who is going to be this famous Sex Discrimination Commissioner. My colleague Senator Boswell asked a question about that in the Senate the other day. If the conciliation attempt fails, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner can refer the matter to the Human Rights Commission. This body may then make a determination and if necessary seek its enforcement by a Federal court. I do feel that the Bill has very wide implications for all men, women and children in Australia. It is difficult to anticipate the full effect of its implications and of the associated United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The external affairs power is being used in a deceptive way to bring the United Nations Convention on discrimination into the law in this country. I am concerned that in a time of national difficulty, with high unemployment, inflation and interest rates and with a growing cynicism in the hearts of young people, the Bill does nothing about these problems. This Bill is puting one foot on the sticky paper and when the affirmative action comes in we will have our two feet well and truly placed on that sticky paper. All I say is that I do not think the Bill is necessary and I will support the amendment moved to the second reading motion by the Opposition. I just want to bring these matters and my feelings about the Bill to the attention of the Senate. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.16) —The introduction of the Sex Discrimination Bill (No. 2) calls for some comment from me, despite the fact that I spoke on the second reading stage of the former Bill. This, in effect, is a new Bill and, because it has picked up some of the amendments sought, it does really call for some response from those of us who had been involved in discussions on the subject and had been involved in a deep study of the matter in the hope that the legislation could be so amended as would enable those of us who have a commitment to the abolition of sex discrimination and a commitment to a range of other values to support the measure. I wish to acknowledge the work that has been done and the courtesy that has been shown by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and I assume, naturally, by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan)- Senator Crowley —A natural assumption. Senator HARRADINE —I said that-in the discussions that took place. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General were present, but no doubt the Minister, in the background, was conscious of these matters. I acknowledge their work and their attempt to understand some of the concerns that had been raised and to overcome some of those concerns. They have achieved this only partially, however , and it is my hope that they will see their way clear to come up with other amendments which will get rid of the problems that some people genuinely see. The people who genuinely see those problems do not see them as being in any way associated with bona fide moves to outlaw discrimination against women. I will discuss those points briefly, but before I do it is essential to say something about the question of affirmative action. It was my hope that the Minister may have seen her way clear to bring down the Green Paper on affirmative action so that it could be considered in the whole context of this matter. Senator Crowley —It would be confusing. Senator HARRADINE —That may or may not be. We have been pretty confused up to this time. But I think it would have been of assistance to honourable senators, who recognise, as the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs said, that there would be need for further legislative action after consideration of the Green Paper had been completed. I will just mention, for the benefit of the Senate, why I am saying this and why I feel that even at this late stage it would be important, not only for the people who are opposed to sex discrimination legislation and the people who support the outlawing of sex discrimination but also for the people who support fully the Bill that is before us. I think it would be of importance if the Green Paper were brought down for discussion. The original private member's Bill which was introduced into this chamber on 26 November 1981 by the present Minister contained provisions for affirmative action. The explanatory memorandum which accompanied that Bill stated: The Bill establishes that various organisations must establish affirmative action plans for women employees- It went on: . . . A Director of Affirmative Action is established to advise on the planning and implementing of these affirmative action plans. That is on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum which accompanied that Bill. Honourable senators will recall that most of what the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had to say in criticism of that private member's Bill was directed to those affirmative action provisions, particularly in connection with-and I list them: the absence of review of the guidelines (for affirmative action); the absence of a statement as to what the 'objects' of that Part of the Bill were; the absence of provision for a warrant for entry to premises-not just public premises but 'the premises of private bodies'; and no rights of appeal or compensation in regard to cancellation of contracts. Now let us come to this year. In a joint statement issued by Senator Ryan and by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, on 11 May 1983 headed 'Sex discrimination legislation for present sitting of Parliament' the Attorney- General and the Minister said-and this was in the shape of an accouncement-that there would be a 'change in the order of events' and that the affirmative action provisions would be preceded by a Green Paper setting out options for further legislation. I repeat that-it is in the third last paragraph-Senator Ryan and Senator Gareth Evans said that in addition to introducing the Sex Discrimination Bill the Government would be issuing a Green Paper setting out options for further legislation which would provide for affirmative action programs to ensure equal employment opportunities. That was in May 1983. This announcement was in fact repeated in the Minister's second reading speech on the Sex Discrimination Bill, which was made to this Parliament on 2 June 1983. On the matter of affirmative action I refer to an article in the Australian Financial Review dated 7 October 1983 in which it was revealed that the contents of the discussion paper were available. The article stated: In November the Federal Government will release a green paper on affirmative action for women. It- that is the Federal Government- plans to bring in legislation in the first parliamentary session next year. The article then went on to state: Affirmative action will get its first airing in November when a green paper is due to be released to engender awareness of the issue and it is anticipated a bill will be put through the first session of Parliament next year . . . The green paper is being prepared for Senator Ryan's office by lawyer Chris Ronalds . . . The contents of the discussion paper are a closely guarded secret. This Green Paper was to have been released in November, but on 9 November Senator Ryan, in reply to a question in this chamber, said that although she had a draft of the paper of affirmative action she did not intend to make the draft public 'until the sex discrimination legislation is enacted'. I think the Minister sees affirmative action as part and parcel of the one aim, to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sex and to right the situations that occur in some areas relating to that matter. If that is so, I believe it would be of benefit to honourable senators and indeed to the Minister's own cause if she could see her way clear to release that discussion paper so that honourable senators and the public could study it in the context of the whole range of legislation that it might evoke and in the context of this legislation. Senator Janine Haines, the Australian Democrat spokesman on women's affairs, said as far back as 13 May: Lack of understanding about how affirmative action for women works is no justification for excluding this important programme from Senator Susan Ryan's Sex Discrimination Bill. She was clearly of the view, which I do not necessarily agree with as I have not seen what the Green Paper states, that some such legislation was required and it should have been included in this Sex Discrimination Bill. So it is my view that the Minister, in her own interests and in the interests of the whole of the program, should release this Green Paper. Let me go on to the matters that I believe are now outstanding. Whilst acknowledging the effort that has been put into this by the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister, may I deal briefly with matters that I believe really need clarification, on the one hand, an amendment in the legislation, on the other, before it is, in my view, an acceptable piece of legislation which cannot be used for purposes other than those for which it was designed, namely, the outlawing of sex discrimination. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following papers were presented: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 284. Apple and Pear Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 287. Apple and Pear Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 288. Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 274. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 296. Copyright Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 293. Defence Act- Determinations 1983- No. 26-Bounty Payable to Members of the Emergency Reserve. No. 27-Uniform Maintenance Allowance. No. 28-Special Action Forces Allowance and Others. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 281, 289. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 290, 291. Dried Vine Fruits Equilization Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 294 . Family Law Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 280. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 285. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 292. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 282, 283. Overseas Students Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 286. Public Service Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 295. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1983-No. 57-City Area Leases (Amendment) (No. 2). The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 413 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister repre- senting the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 6 October 1983: (1) Is the Government continuing to review the community development employment projects scheme's (CDEP) effectiveness in each State and in the Northern Territory. (2) Has any action been taken as a result of the report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Aboriginal Employment; if so, what actions have been taken, and where. (3) Is the Government satisfied with the results of the CDEP, following its introduction in Aboriginal settlements; if not, what is being done to make the program more effective. (4) Are Aboriginals registered as being in the workforce and in some areas being paid accordingly, but, in fact, not attending work or carrying out their duties; if so, does this situation cause discontent amongst the other Aboriginals in the settlements who are working for their pay. (5) Are the CDEP payments in reality, just another form of unemployment benefits. (6) Having in mind the many Aboriginal industries-for example: Fishing, gardening, and animal husbandry-does the Government have any intention of providing funds-either directly or through the Aboriginal Development Commission -to re-introduce the following activities: (a) Fishing; (b) gardening; and (c) animal husbandry; if not, what plans has the Government made to encourage increased aboriginal employment, particularly in remote areas of Australia. Senator Button —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) A review of the community development employment program (CDEP) by senior officers from the departments of Aboriginal Affairs, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Finance, Social Security and Employment and Industrial Relations was conducted in January, 1983. Reviews of individual CDEPs will be conducted annually, in conjunction with the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC) under the newly developed CDEP operational procedures and policy guidelines. (2) Yes. The Government has agreed to fund up to 13 new CDEP schemes to remote Aboriginal communities this financial year. In addition, the Government has removed the freeze imposed by the previous Government on the number of participants being paid within each funded project to the level of their full unemployment benefit entitlement. (3) Yes, although difficulties were encountered in the administration of the scheme, new operational procedures and policy guidelines have been developed to overcome these difficulties. (4) No. The new operational procedures are designed to give communities flexibility in defining the nature of work to be performed under the CDEP scheme . (5) No. CDEP is an employment-oriented scheme in which the nature of the employment is determined by the community. (6) The provision of funds for fishing, gardening and animal husbandry will be dependent on the priorities given to such projects by the Aboriginal communities involved. Question No. 477 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 November 1983: (1) Which local authorities in Queensland have been allocated funds from the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Fund. (2) What was the amount of each of these allocations. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) All of the 134 Queensland local government authorities (LGAs) have been advised of their total indicative ABRD entitlement (see below). Under the ABRD program, local government authorities are required to submit projects to utilise these funds. The Queensland Minister for Local Government and Main Roads, the Hon. R. J. Hinze, MLA, is responsible for co-ordinating project proposals by LGAs for submission to the Minister for Transport for approval. To date 107 LGAs have had projects approved. Projects from 10 councils are under consideration and 17 councils have yet to submit projects. (2) Details of LGA allocations are: Indicative total ABRD Local authority entitlements Albert 478,000 Allora 59,000 Aramac 113,000 Atherton 113,000 **Aurukun 35, 000 Burdekin (Ayr) 332,000 Balonne 233,000 Banana 285,000 **Barcaldine 82,000 **Barcoo 234,000 **Bauhinia 126,000 Beaudesert 278,000 Belyando 217,000 Bendemere 59,000 Biggenden 51,000 **Blackall 121,000 Boonah 159,000 Booringa 170,000 Boulia 227,000 Bowen 245,000 *Broadsound 116,000 Bulloo 268,000 Bungil 115,000 Burke 165,000 Caboolture 328,000 Calliope 106,000 Cambooya 61,000 *Cardwell 115,000 Carpentaria 282,000 Chinchilla 158,000 Clifton 66, 000 Cloncurry 247,000 Cook 489,000 Crows Nest 80,000 Croydon 104,000 Dalrymple 280,000 Diamantina 337,000 **Douglas 97,000 Duaringa 179,000 Eacham 96,000 Eidsvold 57,000 Emerald 127,000 Esk 149,000 Etheridge 156,000 Fitzroy 92,000 Flinders 211,000 Gatton 176,000 Gayndah 77,000 Glengallan 156,000 Gooburrum 101,000 Herberton 106,000 Hervey Bay 173,000 Hinchinbrook 246,000 **Ilfracombe 51,000 Inglewood 124,000 *Isis 95,000 **Isisford 62,000 Jericho 103,000 Johnstone 306,000 Jondaryan 159,000 Kilcoy 69,000 **Kilkivan 88,000 Kingaroy 162,000 Kolan 71,000 Laidley 110,000 Landsborough 271,000 Livingstone 223,000 Longreach 174,000 McKinlay 172,000 Mareeba 378,000 Maroochy 557,000 Millmerran 95,000 *Mirani 105,000 Miriam Vale 57,000 Moreton 360,000 Monto 98,000 Mornington Is. 22,000 *Mt Morgan 91,000 Mulgrave 366,000 Mundubbera 70,000 Murgon 92,000 **Murilla 106,000 **Murweh 308,000 Nanango 86,000 **Nebo 59,000 Noosa 162,000 Paroo 243,000 Peak Downs 59,000 Perry 43,000 Pioneer 431,000 Pittsworth 86,000 **Proserpine 127,000 Quilpie 288,000 Richmond 130,000 Rosalie 127,000 Rosenthal 97,000 Sarina 94 ,000 **Stanthorpe 209,000 Tambo 69,000 *Tara 120,000 Taroom 124,000 Thuringowa 186,000 Tiaro 67,000 Torres 98,000 Waggamba 123,000 Wambo 173, 000 Warroo 91,000 Widgee 162,000 **Winton 247,000 Wondai 106,000 *Woocoo 75, 000 Woongarra 139,000 Rural Cities and Towns *Bundaberg 247,000 Cairns 295,000 Charters Towers 77,000 Dalby 82,000 Gladstone 153,000 Goondiwindi 35,000 **Gympie 92,000 *Mackay 176,000 Maryborough 179,000 Mt Isa 543,000 Roma 69,000 *Warwick 114,000 Predominantly Urban Areas Brisbane 6,558,000 Ipswich 727,000 **Logan 413,000 Redland 424,000 Redcliffe 332,000 Pine Rivers 542,000 Gold Coast 826,000 Toowoomba 523,000 Rockhampton 499,000 Townsville 711,000 *projects under consideration **projects yet to be submitted Question No. 62 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Support , upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence Support has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department of Defence Support was established in May 1982. The establishments presently administered by Defence Support were previously administered under the following departments: Manufacturing Industry to 22 December 1975 (incorporated aircraft and munitions factories, Government Clothing Factory, Australian Government Engine Works and Central Drawing Office) Industry and Commerce to 8 November 1976 (administered same establishments as Manufacturing Industry) Productivity to 3 November 1980 (as above, with the exception of Australian Government Engine Works-disposed of in June 1978 and Central Drawing Office) Industry and Commerce to 6 May 1982 (managed same establishments as Productivity) Defence Support from 7 May 1982 (incorporates aircraft and munitions factories, Government Clothing Factory, Guided Weapons Support Facility, naval dockyards and administered research and development laboratories until their transfer to Department of Defence on 7 March 1983). The following figures therefore only refer to amounts expended within those departments by functions now administered by the Department of Defence Support. (1) (a) Computer hardware and software: 1975-76 to 1982-83 = $13,513,599 1983-84 to 1985-86 = $4,816,504 (b) Repairs and servicing of computers: 1975-76 to 1982-83 = $2,374,312 1983-84 to 1985-86 = $3,074,880 (2)- Repairs Hardware/ and Expenditure incurred Software Servicing $ $ 1975-76 844,748 125,690 1976-77 535,935 151,020 1977-78 1,178,021 228,833 1978-79 392,309 256,296 1979-80 1,001,964 256,397 1980-81 913 000 451,000 1981-82 2,987,010 389 633 1982-83 5,660,612 515 443 1983-84 1,783, 300 963 704 1984-85 1,455,936 975 208 1985-86 1,577,268 1,135 968 (3) Four NCR C151s One Burroughs B1726 One Burroughs B1860 One Interdata 7/32 Question No. 175 Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: Are many provincial city public broadcasting stations in a difficult financial position by attempting to establish themselves in a period of tight economic conditions; if so, what measures or remedies does the Government propose to take in order to enable such fledgling public organizations to meet their commitments . Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government is aware that public broadcasting stations are operating under difficult economic circumstances, particularly those in the early stages of establishment. The Public Broadcasting Association of Australia is in the process of establishing the Public Broadcasting Foundation with the objective of raising funds from public and private sector sources to assist stations and prospective licensees. As announced in the 1983-84 Budget the Government is providing $100,000 for initial work on establishing the Foundation. In addition, the Foundation will make recommendations to the Minister regarding allocation of grants to public broadcasters in 1983-84 for which $200,000 has been made available by the Government. Question No. 237 Senator Hearn asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 3 June 1983: (1) How many defence equipment manufacturers are there in Australia. (2) Are they totally Australian owned; if not, what is the proportion of foreign ownership and by what companies and countries. (3) What do they manufacture. (4) What equipment is exported now and to which countries. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence Support has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Earlier this year some 650 firms responded to an invitation by the Department of Defence Support to provide company data for listing in a directory being prepared on the capability of Australian firms for involvement in defence or offsets work. Of these firms, a review by my Department indicates that some 360 are assessed as having been involved in defence work or having the potential to undertake work related to defence capital equipment purchases as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor for the supply of components or material. (2) Of the group of 360 firms assessed as having an actual or potential defence capability, 264 firms are Australian owned. Of the 96 foreign owned firms, the United Kingdom has the largest proportion with 49, followed by the United States of America with 32, Sweden with 5 and West Germany 3. Ownership of the remainder , each with 1 or 2 firms, is located in the Netherlands, Canada, Italy and Japan . (3) The Australian defence industrial base has the capability to provide a wide range of products and services associated with the supply and support of Defence Force equipment. The products and services range from the production of ships, aircraft and trucks, the provision of electronic equipment and software controlled systems and the manufacture of ordnance and ammunition items to the supply of food preparation equipment and the provision of consulting and design services. While the range of capabilities possessed by the private sector is shaped largely by market and commercial factors, the Department seeks to utilise the existing capabilities by the exercise of Australian preference in defence equipment purchasing. Where defence force equipment is procured overseas, attempts are made to involve Australian industry to the maximum extent possible or to seek to have appropriate offset orders placed with Australian industry by the overseas supplier. These policies have enabled or will enable Australian design of, or a high Australian content in, a range of Defence Force equipments. Examples of such equipments include: HMAS Tobruk-heavy landing ship Ikara-anti-submarine missile system Barra-sonobuoy system Waler-armoured fighting vehicle Raven-battlefield communication system FA18-tactical fighter aircraft Basic trainer aircraft; design and production. (4) The Australian defence industry produces a diversified range of products and services some of which are exported to friendly nations as a means of reducing defence costs, and upgrading local technologies and trade skills in addition to retaining jobs in the public and private sectors. Items such as rifles and rifle spares, clothing, handcuffs, birdfrite cartridges, demolition devices, vehicle generators, propellants, high explosives, ammunition, trucks, automated target systems and small boats have been exported mainly to the United Kingdom, New Zealand and countries in the Caribbean and Pacific areas, including South East Asia. (5) In this regard the Government exercises vigorous control over the export of defence materiel. Requests for approval to export such materiel are examined thoroughly on a case-by-case basis and ministerial decisions are taken on the basis of a careful judgment of where overall national interest lies in each case . Question No. 303 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) How many of the following staff classifications were employed by the Department of Transport's lighthouse branch head office in 1967: (a) professional engineers; (b) sub-professional staff; (c) trades staff; (d) clerical officers; (e) light-keepers; and (f) other grades. (2) How many of the above classifications were employed in each of the State offices. (3) What were the numbers in (a) 1973; (b) 1978 and (c) 1983. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Staffing at 30 June 1967 South New Australia/ South Northern Western Office *C.O. Wales Victoria Tasmania Queensland Territory Australia (a) professional engineers 5 nil 2 nil 2 1 1 (b) sub-professional staff 4 nil nil nil nil nil nil (c) trades staff nil 4 18 3 21 11 10 (d) clerical officers *n.a. *n.a. *n.a. *n.a. *n.a. *n.a. *n.a. (e) light-keepers nil 23 23 17 33 21 18 (f) other grades 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 * Figures for clerical staff in 1967 are only available for the whole of the marine services branch; it has not been possible to isolate those staff engaged on lighthouse work. (3) (a) Staffing at 30 June 1973 South New Australia/ South Northern Western Office *C.O. Wales Victoria Tasmania Queensland Territory Australia (a) professional engineers 17 1 1 1 2 1 1 (b) sub-professional staff 17 nil 3 nil 5 2 1 (c) trades staff nil 5 25 6 20 11 14 (d) clerical officers 8 1 2 nil 4 nil nil (e) light-keepers nil 22 18 15 34 14 15 (f) other grades 5 1 7 1 5 2 3 * Figures provided for Victoria are establishment figures; staffing figures are not available. (3) (b) Staffing at 30 June 1978 South New Australia/ South Northern Western Office *C.O. Wales Victoria Tasmania Queensland Territory Australia (a) professional engineers 15 1 1 1 2 1 2 (b) sub-professional staff 19 1 3 1 6 4 4 (c) trades staff 1 7 25 6 20 13 12 (d) clerical officers 8 1 3 1 4 1 2 ( e) light-keepers nil 16 16 11 32 16 10 (f) other grades 1 3 7 1 6 3 4 (3) (c) Staffing at 30 June 1983 South New Australia/ South Northern Western Office *C.O. Wales Victoria Tasmania Queensland Territory Australia (a) professional engineers 10 1 2 nil 3 2 3 (b) sub-professional staff 18 1 3 2 7 4 5 (c) trades staff 3 8 23 5 24 17 16 (d) clerical officers 8 1 3 1 4 2 2 (e) light-keepers nil 16 17 10 30 11 8 (f) other grades nil 4 4 1 6 5 3 * Central Office Question No. 55 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The following amounts of money have been expended and are planned to be expended on (a) computer hardware and software and (b) repairs and servicing of computers from 1 January 1976 to 30 June 1984. The estimated expenditure from 1 July 1984 onwards is subject to normal budgetary approval and has not yet been determined. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (a) Hardware; (i) (b) Year software Maintenance Total $ $ $ 1975-76 545,126 265,580 810,706 1976-77 1,035,238 1,044,156 2,079,394 1977-78 1,118,438 1,239,940 2,358,378 1978-79 1,220,046 1,328,557 2,548,603 1979-80 1,530,800 1,460,371 2,991,171 1980-81 1,374,431 1,113,380 2,487,811 1981-82 1,567,739 1,166,771 2,734,510 1982-83 2,041,370 1,355,921 3,397,291 1983-84 31,402,531 3,014,098 34,416,629 N.B.- (i) Hardware includes hire, office equipment, freight and cartage, capital and data preparation equipment. (ii) The figures provided cover the main computer complex in the central office of the Department with associated terminals in the State divisional offices, as well as separate equipment utilized in the various outriders such as the National Acoustic Laboratories, the Australian Radiation Laboratory, and the Commonwealth Institute of Health and include estimated expenditure by the Health Insurance Commission on computer equipment during 1983-84 for the operation of Medicare. COMMISSIONS UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH Capital Territory Health Commission (a) Hardware; (i) (b) Year software Maintenance Total $ $ $ 1975-76 . . . . . . 1976-77 900 . . 900 1977-78 4,500 . . 4,500 1978-79 54,800 2,870 57,670 1979-80 18,700 5,800 24,500 1980-81 137,600 14,270 151, 870 1981-82 121,000 21,600 142,600 1982-83 359,100 36,660 395,760 1983-84 1, 058,750 146,500 1,205,250 N.B.- (i) The figures do not include the cost of computer equipment installed in hospital nuclear medicine and radiotherapy facilities as a special purpose extension to clinical equipment. (ii) They do not include the use of service bureau facilities at the Department of Health in Canberra and the Health Commission of Victoria in Melbourne. COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES COMMISSION (a) Hardware; (i) (b) Year software Maintenance Total $ $ $ 1975-76 53,000 400 53,400 1976-77 97,000 2,100 99,100 1977-78 93,900 2, 200 96,100 1978-79 184,600 4,800 189,400 1979-80 145,900 6,900 152,800 1980-81 158,700 5,600 164,300 1981-82 366,200 40,700 406,900 1982-83 383,700 82,200 465,900 1983-84 154,600 112,500 267,100 HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION No public moneys have been expended by the Health Insurance Commission since 1 January 1976 and as the Commission's sole function from November 1978 to May 1983 was to administer Medibank Private in competition with other private health insurance funds, none was planned to be expended. In May 1983 the Commission was given (by regulation) the additional function of planning the organisation required to make medical benefits payments under the Medicare program and, as a consequence, the following expenditure is now planned , all to fall in 1983-84. (Prices are inclusive of sales tax, customs duty, etc. ). $m Computer hardware 15.760 Purchase of new software 0.165 Maintenance of software systems 0.039 Rental of software systems 0.153 Repairs and maintenance 1.575 Total 17.692 (3) The following list provides details of items purchased above and now obsolete or expected to be so in the next five years: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH The following major disposals of equipment purchased since 1976 are anticipated over the next five years. PRINTER SYSTEM Purchase price Purchase Release Machine Description (per unit) date date $ 2860 003 Selector Channels 24,000 Oct 1981 Oct 1983 Communications equipment purchased between 1978 and 1980. The equipment listed below supports the Department of Health interstate data communications network. The equipment forms the statistical multiplexer nodes in the central and State offices of the Department. All equipment will be released by October 1983. Date of Model Description Units Total cost purchase $ 6031 INP Mainframe 4 45,640 1 in Nov. 1978 3 in April 1980 6042 INP Mainframe 1 25,155 April 1980 6042 INP Mainframe 2 59,000 1 in Nov. 1978 1 in April 1980 6043 INP Mainframe 1 27,940 April 1980 6130 Terminal port cards 105 53,475 Dynapatch Patch Panels 8 17,624 Continuous Patch cards 50 2,612 Cabinets 3 2,550 V24 cables (various lengths) 300 15,000 Data Entry and Associated Communications Equipment purchased between 1973 and 1976. The equipment listed below supports the data entry phase of the Pharmaceutical Benefits System. Date of Model Description Units Total cost purchase $ T1011 Trans data entry keyboard 200 282,000 1973 to 1976 COMMISSIONS UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH Capital Territory Health Commission None of the existing major items are obsolete and it is not expected that any will become so in the next five years. Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission It is expected that all items currently in use, both hardware and software, will be obsolete within five years. They are not yet so. Health Insurance Commission The equipment being purchased in 1983-84 for the Medicare program is expected to need replacement or substantial modernisation during the forthcoming five years. Question No. 321 Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: (1) Are servicemen who served in the confrontation campaign in Borneo during the 1960s required to have written proof confirming they were ordered to engage in active service in sourthern Borneo. (2) Are those servicemen who entered an active service zone in Borneo without being ordered and as a result were wounded not entitled to repatriation benefits . (3) Were those units posted outside active zones engaged in a supporting role; if not, why were they posted there; if so, why are these servicemen not entitled to repatriation benefits. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) During the Malayan-Indonesian confrontation, Australian servicemen served in the northern Borneo areas of Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei. Those areas were designated as special areas for the purposes of repatriation legislation between 8 December 1962 and 1 October 1967. Servicemen who were allotted for service in these areas during this period are eligible to apply for repatriation benefits. On receipt of an application for repatriation benefits, my Department obtains a veteran's service documents from the Department of Defence. These documents record the Veteran's postings, movements and allotments for special duty. The applicant does not require separate written proof of active service in Borneo. (2) Under the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962, a person who, although not allotted for special service in a special area, was incapacitated as a direct result of action by hostile forces while serving outside Australia is eligible for repatriation benefits in respect of that incapacity. By virtue of section 7A (2) of the Special Overseas Service Act, this provision does not occur in relation to any occurrence before 18 December 1965. (3) As the areas of Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei (which include the waters 50 miles to seaward of these regions) were designated as special areas for the purposes of repatriation legislation between 8 December 1962 and 1 October 1967, all servicemen who were allotted for service there during that period are eligible to apply for repatriation benefits from my Department, regardless of whether they served in an active or supporting role. Question No. 370 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 September 1983: (1) What action is the Department of Health currently taking in relation to fraud and overservicing following publication of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts Progress Report on Medical Fraud and Overservicing. (2) Who is in charge of the review of the Medical Services Committee of Inquiry into Overservicing by individual doctors. (3) What resources is the Department providing from its annual budget to cut back the problem of overservicing. (4) What co-ordination exists between the committee involved with the implementation of Medicare and the group involved with the fraud and overservicing. (5) Who are the people currently serving on the Medicare Liaison Committee. (6) Is the Department now paying benefits to doctors not covered by item numbers as was suggested in evidence provided to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts that there had been a number of changes to the medical benefit schedule; if so: (a) is this practice accepted in the central office; (b) is this practice known as the 'pay-under' item number; and (c) has there been any objection to this practice from health insurance funds. (7) Has any advice been received by the Department from the Deputy Crown Solicitor in relationship to the legality of this operation; if so: (a) has any recommendation been made to lay charges against senior public servants in relation to this matter; and (b) has the Minister for Health been informed of such advice; if so, what action has the Minister taken. Senator Grimes —The Minister of Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In general terms, the Department is substantially up-grading its activities in relation to medical benefits fraud and overservicing. I made details of this available to Parliament in a Ministerial Statement on 15 November this year. (2) The most senior Department of Health officer directly involved in a review of measures for dealing with medical overservicing is the First Assistant Director-General, Surveillance and Investigation Division. (3) The Department has allocated the following resources from its budget for 1983/84 to combat overservicing: Item $ Salaries 1,991,553 Overtime 109,520 Travel 289,200 Office requisites 63, 000 Postage 69,400 Office services 22,700 Vehicles 118,280 Committees 180,000 Advertising 10,000 Freight 2,000 Furniture 34,000 Legal costs 250 ,000 The following additional resources have been allocated for combating the problems of medical benefits fraud and overservicing: Item $ Automatic data processing 1,767,000 Capital equipment 25,000 (4) Such co-ordination is being achieved through the operation of a Medicare Fraud and Overservicing Working Party. This working party is chaired by the First Assistant Director-General, Surveillance and Investigation Division of the Department and comprises officers of relevant divisions within the Department of Health and from the Health Insurance Commission. (5) There is not, and has not been, a Medicare liaison committee, so named. A Medicare ministerial advisory group was established in March to advise me on matters of policy. The membership of that group was. Mr L. Willett (Director-General of Health) Dr J. Deeble Dr B. Shea Dr R. Madden Dr R. Scotton Dr S. Sax Mr R. Williams That advisory group has been dissolved. Meetings are currently held on an ad hoc basis with officers of the Health Department, Health Insurance Commission and representatives of the advertising agency to discuss the progress of Medicare's implementation. (6) (a) Since the inception of the medical benefits scheme in 1953, it has been the practice that, where a patient receives a legitimate medical service not covered by a specific item in the medical benefits schedule, the payment of benefit under the most appropriate existing item will be authorised by the Department. (b) Yes. (c) The Department is not aware of any objections to 'pay under' items from health insurance funds. (7) In giving advice on another matter, the Deputy Crown Solicitor in Perth referred to earlier advice by the Attorney-General's Department on the legality of 'pay under' items. (a) No. (b) Yes. I approved a mechanism for paying benefits for legitimate medical services not specifically listed in the medical benefits schedule so that patients receiving such services are not financially disadvantaged. After consultation with the Attorney-General's Department, appropriate changes to the medical benefits schedule were introduced on 1 November 1983. Question No. 380 Senator Richardson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: (1) Will the Minister for Finance outline the major administrative problems faced by the States and the Territories in implementing the wage freeze legislation, in view of the statement tabled by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Senate on 23 August 1983 in which he announced that payments to the States for expenditure on employment generation and maintenance schemes under the Special Employment-related Programs Act 1982 had been temporarily suspended due to administrative difficulties. (See Hansard, 23 August 1983, page 24.) (2) Have these administrative difficulties been overcome. (3) Have payments to the States and the Territories, as provided for in the Act , been resumed; if so, (a) how much has been appropriated by each State and each Territory under the Special Employment-related Programs Act 1982; and (b) how much has actually been expended by the various State and Territory governments on job creation programs. (4) Have there been any significant moves by the States or Territories to utilise the funds appropriated by them for the purpose of initiating employment generation and maintenance schemes since the Minister's original statement; if so, have there been any visible benefits to the community which can directly be attributed to the implementation of this scheme. (5) Is there any plan to have the operations of the Act reviewed; if so, at what stage are those plans at. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The States have advised that the administrative problems they have encountered in implementing the general employment component of the wage pause program included the following: there were few structures which could be used to administer the program when it was commenced in February; application forms and procedures to consider applications or assistance had to be devised; prospective project sponsors had to be advised of the program and given time to make applications; and project sponsors whose project proposal had been approved required time to develop project operations. All major new expenditure programs encounter similar administrative problems. Even after making allowance for these factors, the rate of expenditure by all States in the first half of this calendar year was lower than that anticipated and hence the cause of considerable concern on the part of the Commonwealth. (2) In general, a high level of project approval has now been attained; at the end of October 1983, 85 per cent of the funds nationally available for the program had been committed to approved projects. However, delays in projects commencing once they have received approval are still in the order of two to three months. (3) Payments to two States, Queensland and Tasmania, were resumed in November. Regular monthly payments have continued to be made to the Northern T erritory. For obvious reasons no advances are made to the Australian Capital Territory and funds are provided as required. The following table sets out the current position: GENERAL EMPLOYMENT COMPONENT OF WAGE PAUSE PROGRAM State/ Commitments Payments Territory Total (percentage made as at expenditure provision of total 7 November as at end available provision) 1983 October 1983 $m $m $m New South Wales 69.9 98.5 35.0 18.9 Victoria 52.7 61.1 26.3 3.5 Queensland 31.9 100.0 21.4 16.3 Western Australia 17.6 76.2 8.8 1.1 South Australia 17.5 82.1 8.8 4.1 Tasmania 5.7 97.0 3.2 2.5 Australian Capital Territory 3.0 99.7 1.3 1.3 Northern Territory 1.7 98.2 1.5 1.2 (4) As noted in the answer to (2), State and Territory governments have committed significant funds under the program. According to the latest information available to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations 16,064 jobs had been approved in respect of 2,258 project approvals by 31 August 1983. Not all approved jobs have actually yet commenced. The number of placements made by the Commonwealth Employment Service to project positions to 31 August totals 7,034 people. While the creation of jobs is the major benefit of the program, projects which satisfy its guidelines will provide facilities and services that result in a worthwhile and long-term contribution to community needs, have a high Australian materials content and provide skills training. (5) Payments under the Special Employment-related Programs Act can only be made in respect of employment created before 30 June 1984, after which time the appropriation lapses. In view of this, there seems little point in reviewing the Act at this stage. Clearly though the suspension of payments by the Commonwealth has encouraged the States to review their operational procedures and project implementation. It should also be noted that the experience gained through the wage pause program has been reflected in the design and operation of the Community Employment Program, this Government's employment creation initiative. Question No. 411 Senator Childs asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 6 October 1983: (1) Is the Commonwealth Government, in the event of an accident at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment, Lucas Heights, New South Wales, liable for any costs related to the HIFAR reactor, both within the confines of the AAEC establishment and/or any related effects outside the establishment area. (2) What processes would be required to enable affected people to claim compensation or assistance. (3) What is the extent of the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to ensure the health and safety of: (a) workers; and (b) residents in the surrounding areas of the Lucas Heights research laboratories. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The question of the liability of the Commonwealth or the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to persons who might suffer damage as a result of events of the kind referred to in the honourable senator's question is governed either by workers' compensation legislation or the common law, as appropriate. Whether the Commonwealth or the Commission would be liable at common law would depend on the facts of each particular case. Broadly, where the Commonwealth or the Commission uses radioactive materials, or is directly responsible for their use, any Commonwealth or Commission liability would depend on general principles of liability applying equally to private persons or corporations. With regard to the Commission, I confirm that the Commonwealth would stand by the Commission to ensure its ability to meet any damages awarded against it. Redress against the Commission (or the Commonwealth) would therefore be handled through common law actions (or such administrative arrangements as the Government might decide to set up following an accident). With regard to personal injury to, or an illness contracted by, an employee of the AAEC in the course of his employment, the employee could make a claim under the relevant workers' compensation legislation, in this case the Compensation ( Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, or could seek to recover damages at common law. (2) See (1). (3) The Commonwealth Government or the Commission, as an employer, has a common law duty to take reasonable care for the safety of its employees. Generally speaking this duty requires the employer to provide a safe place of work; to provide a safe system of work; to provide and maintain proper plant and equipment; and to provide competent staff to manage and supervise the work. The extent of the responsibility of the Commonwealth or the Commission with respect to non-workers, be they nearby residents or others, is governed by the common law and any legislation that may regulate the conduct of the activity in question. The relevant principles of law could only be usefully discussed in relation to particular examples of circumstances that could give rise to liability. In practice, in operating and managing the Lucas Heights research laboratories, the AAEC places a high priority on implementing appropriate measures to protect the health and safety of both nearby residents and staff. The activities of the AAEC are conducted to standards of safety which are equivalent to or exceed the requirements embodied in all relevant Commonwealth and State legislation, the Code of General Principles for Occupational Safety and Health in Australian Government Employment, relevant recommendations on international safety standards and codes of practice, and the relevant guidelines issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council. An independent advisory committee, the Safety Review Committee, advises the AAEC on its overall health and safety standards and procedures. An excellent safety record has been achieved over many years at the Lucas Heights research laboratories. However, to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place in the remote event of an accident at the Lucas Heights research laboratories with off-site consequences, a plan (APTCARE) has been prepared jointly by the AAEC and State authorities which sets out the procedures to be followed. Question No. 430 Senator Chaney asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 12 October 1983: (1) Does the Government intend to provide direct funding to the trachoma and eye health program operated by the Aboriginal Medical Services in Western Australia through a committee appointed by them. (2) Is involvement by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists a pre-condition to funding the Western Australian Aboriginal controlled body. (3) Has the Government altered its original decision to permit Aboriginal administration of the trachoma and eye health program in Western Australia, if so why. (4) What amount of funding is to be provided by the Government for this program for this financial year. (5) What arrangements for the delivery of those funds will be made. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The details of the national trachoma and eye health program in Western Australia and at the national level are under review. In the meantime funds have been provided to the Aboriginal Medical Service in Perth to enable continuation of necessary interim arrangements. (2) It is expected that prior to endorsing revised arrangements the Aboriginal Medical Services in Western Australia will indicate that workable on-going arrangements can be developed with the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists for the provision of necessary professional services. (3) Previously the administration of the funding of the national trachoma and eye health program was undertaken by the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists-RACO-which worked through committees in the various States and the Northern Territory containing majority Aboriginal representation as well as representatives from the relevant health authorities and RACO. The arrangements between RACO and the Western Australian committee became unworkable and accordingly it has become necessary to develop new arrangements. (4) Provided workable arrangements can be developed it is expected that approximately $200,000 will be available for a trachoma program in Western Australia. (5) The interim funding has been made available through the Aboriginal Medical Service in Perth. Question No. 454 Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 October 1983: How much meat and of what variety did Australia import from New Zealand in the 9 months to 30 September 1983. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Preliminary figures supplied by the Australian Statistician provide the following details- AUSTRALIAN MEAT IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND JANUARY-SEPTEMBER 1983 Australian import commodity Quantity classification item (tonnes) Meat of bovines, fresh, chilled or frozen 2,780 Meat of sheep or goats, fresh, chilled or frozen 1,289 Edible bovine, ovine or caprine offals, fresh, chilled or frozen 54.6 Meat, edible offals, not elsewhere specified, fresh, chilled or frozen 86 Meat, edible offals, salted, dried, smoked, in brine, excluding pig and poultry meat 0.4 Meat, edible offals, prepared, preserved, not elsewhere specified, including brawns, jellies and pastes, etc. 36.8 Question No. 480 Senator Lewis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 November 1983: (1) Were the two FFG Class frigates, to be built at Williamstown dockyard for the Royal Australian Navy at an estimated total project cost of $830m, designed prior to the Falkland Island conflict. (2) Have the designs been modified to incorporate the lessons learnt by the British during that conflict namely: (a) the need for ships with quiet engines and ability to launch large helicopters for torpedo attacks on submarines and surface ships; (b) the importance of low profile and minimal radar echo, so that ships are difficult for an enemy to detect; (c) the ability to attack enemy aircraft approaching at low altitude; and (d) the problems created when plastics and light metal catch fire. (3) Has a design comparison been carried out between the Australian FFG Class frigate and the new British Type 23 frigate. (4) How do the Australian FFG Class frigates compare with the British Type 23 design in respect of: (a) quiet engines and range; (b) ability to launch large helicopters; (c) profile and minimum radar echo; (d) ability to attack enemy aircraft at low altitude; (e) defence against sea skimming missiles; (f) anti-submarine capability; and (g) damage control and fire retardant construction (in particular in respect of materials which on ignition emit dense or toxic smoke). (5) What would be the estimated total project costs of building two Type 23 frigates at Williamstown dockyard. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) No. The design already includes measures to reduce noise, allow for operation of helicopters, is of relatively low profile and has the ability to attack low flying aircraft. The Royal Australian Navy has reviewed its fire fighting and damage control procedures and requirements as a result of the lessons learnt by the British. (3) No. The order for the first of the Type 23 Frigates has only just been placed; final configuration details are not yet available to allow a useful comparison to be made. (4) See paragraph (3) above. (5) Until the construction of the first Type 23 Frigate has been completed and production details become available, it is not possible to make a meaningful estimate of project costs for building two Type 23 Frigates at Williamstown Naval Dockyard. Question No. 506 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: What percentage of the world's nuclear power is produced in: (a) Western Europe ; (b) United States of America; (c) other Western world countries; and (d) the Commonwealth countries (so far as this can be ascertained). Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Accurate and up to date figures for total world nuclear power generation are not available because of difficulties associated with obtaining data for centrally planned economies. However, excluding the centrally planned economies, in 1982 the proportions of world nuclear power produced by the countries referred to in this question were as follows: (a) Western Europe 40.8 per cent; (b) United States of America 37.8 per cent; ( c) *other Western world 18.6 per cent; (d) Commonwealth 11.2 per cent. If an estimate is made of nuclear power produced in centrally planned economies (about 15 per cent of world total) the respective figures for 1982 would be around: (a) 35.6 per cent; (b) 33.0 per cent; (c) *16.3 per cent; (d) 9.8 per cent. *category (c) comprises Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries with nuclear capacities other than United States of America and Western Europe. Senator Grimes —On 5 May 1983 (Hansard, page 259) Senator Giles asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning allegations that a number of Sydney private hospitals were involved in a scheme whereby some doctors were receiving inducements in the form of low interest loans to refer patients to these hospitals. I undertook to provide the senator with further information when it became available. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: I am advised that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) investigated these allegations and referred the evidence obtained to the Deputy Crown Solicitor in New South Wales for advice on what offences, if any, had been committed against Commonwealth laws. The evidence obtained by the AFP had tended to substantiate the view that a scheme of inducements had been devised and operated by the management of a company which owns five private hospitals. The Deputy Crown Solicitor examined the facts and expressed the view that there was no evidence to substantiate charges for offences against Commonwealth legislation. He advised that claims for Commonwealth bed-day subsidy and claims made on registered health organisations were genuine in so far as the beds were occupied and the patients were hospitalised; and that there was insufficient evidence to establish that patients admitted by the doctors concerned were not in need of medical and hospital care. He therefore advised that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the institution of criminal proceedings. On 2 June 1983 I wrote to the Attorney-General regarding this matter, seeking a review of proceedings to date and to satisfy myself that the Commonwealth had explored all avenues available to it in relation to possible offences which may have been committed. The Attorney-General on 9 September 1983 advised me that it seemed that the possibilities of appropriate criminal proceedings in this instance had been exhausted. This situation will be kept under review, and should any offences be established at a future time, appropriate action will be taken. In this regard, new sub-sections have been inserted into the Health Insurance Act as part of the Medicare package to come into effect on 1 February 1984. It is believed that the Commonwealth's ability to take action will be greatly strengthened by the new provisions.