Wednesday, 7 December 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Education To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We deplore the unprincipled and self-interested attacks being orchestrated by minority sects and groups against the policies and person of the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Senator Susan Ryan. 2. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own special 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 programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Childs (from 218 citizens), Robertson (from 188 citizens) and Zakharov (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decision which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Ryan (from 367 citizens) and Scott (from five citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine: (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from four 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 Archer (from eight citizens), Jessop (from 54 citizens), Teague ( from 19 citizens) and Watson (from 29 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 56 citizens), Walters (from 154 citizens) and Watson ( from 660 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the reduction in the subsidy to tertiary student residential colleges of twenty-five per cent announced in the Federal Budget will: 1. Increase the financial hardship already being experienced by Australian students. The cut in subsidies to colleges will undoubtedly increase fees for that accommodation in 1984. Many students will be forced out of tertiary education as they will not be able to meet these increased costs particularly as the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme only gained a maximum increase of $2.80 per week in the Federal Budget. 2. Decrease access to education for country students Many country students live in college accommodation either to attend tertiary institutions in the metropolitan area or in regional centres. The cut in the subsidy to residential colleges will even further disadvantage this group of students who already have comparatively low participation rates in tertiary education. Your petitioners therefore call upon Senate to ensure: (1) That the full subsidy to student college accommodation is immediately restored. (2) That the Federal Government assume financial responsibility for all student college accommodation to prevent the planned closure of colleges in Victoria. (3) That two student representatives are appointed to the committee of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission reviewing student housing. (4) That new forms of college accommodation are investigated which would be more appropriate to the needs of the current student population, i.e. accommodation appropriate for students with dependant children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 149 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc., for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled. Should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 127 citizens) and Jessop (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches: Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Colston (from 41 citizens) and Zakharov (from 147 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 respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of territorial government or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to territorial or local government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of territorial or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from 527 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Protest to the proposed change to the Oath of Allegiance in which recognition of God and the Queen would be deleted. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should- Request that the Oath of allegiance remain unchanged. by Senator Collard (from 311 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) -I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate deplores the action of the Attorney-General in misrepresenting the stance of the Australian Democrats on the Constitution Alteration Bills by purporting that support given by the Democrats to allow the people of Australia to vote in a Referendum on changes to the Constitution implies support for a Yes vote on those items. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans for Senator Walsh) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to insurance intermediaries. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Bill is to regulate the activities of life and general insurance brokers and to an extent, life and general insurance agents. The introduction of this legislation was foreshadowed in a Press release issued by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 17 October 1983 in which he announced the Government's decision to proceed with legislation based on the Law Reform Commission's report (No. 16) of 25 January 1980 on insurance agents and brokers. I should mention by way of general background that the Commission's report was considered by the former Government but it decided not to proceed with legislation of the kind recommended in the report. However, a private member's Bill based on the Commission's draft Bill was introduced into the Senate in 1981 by Senator Gareth Evans, as shadow Attorney-General. The Bill was passed by the Senate but not by the House of Representatives. During the election campaign earlier this year the Labor Party said that in government it would give priority to enacting legislation in relation to insurance agents and brokers and insurance contracts of the kind recommended by the Law Reform Commission reports on these two important subjects. I have already introduced a draft Bill, proposed by the Treasurer and me, on insurance contracts. Similar arrangements to those outlined by me in my second reading speech on the Insurance Contracts Bill, are envisaged in relation to the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill. It is the Government's intention to let both Bills lie on the table to enable public submissions to be made on the detailed provisions of the Bills. In addition, the Government proposes to hold consultations with the insurance industry and consumer and other relevant groups before seeking passage of the Bills. Public submissions in respect of the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1983 should be sent to the financial institutions division of the Department of the Treasury by no later than 3 February 1984. The Government will also be seeking consultations with the governments of the States and the Northern Territory with a view to assessing whether a uniform approach in this area of legislation is possible. In conjunction with the various consultative processes mentioned above, the Government will be undertaking an assessment of the financial and administrative implications of the Bill based on the principle of the Commonwealth obtaining full cost recovery from the industry in respect of the legislation. A description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable senators for information. In very general terms, the Bill is aimed at strengthening the financial stability of the insurance industry overall; protecting the insuring public against the negligence or misconduct of an agent or broker; and encouragement of practices consistent with the interests of the insuring public and the maintenance of standards of conduct or, and quality of advice offered by, agents and brokers. The main provisions will: Establish the responsibilities of insurers for the conduct of their intermediaries; determine the arrangements concerning the discharge of financial obligations between an insured and intermediaries; deal with questions of misrepresentation by insurance intermediaries; require annual registration of brokers and permit suspension or cancellation of registration; establish financial controls and requirements for insurers indemnifying brokers in respect of liabilities arising out of or in the course of their business operations; and establish measures to minimise the risk of compromise of a brokers impartiality . In considering the regulatory controls which should be imposed on insurance intermediaries the Government has given very careful consideration to the extended credit terms available to many brokers and the practice whereby some brokers invest for lengthy periods and for their own benefit, the premiums and other moneys paid to them by clients. In keeping with the Law Reform Commission's conclusions, the Bill will require brokers to maintain an 'insurance broking account' and to invest in prescribed securities. The Government believes, however, that even with these controls there could be adverse implications for stability of the industry and the interests of the insuring public if the period for which brokers may invest clients' moneys remains open-ended. Successive Insurance Commissioners and the Law Reform Commission have been highly critical of the extent of the credit terms generally available to brokers and it is not uncommon for the financial strength of an insurer to be very heavily dependent on the premium moneys held or invested by brokers. Against this background the Bill contains provisions aimed at placing constraints on the time for which brokers may hold and invest the moneys they receive from clients. In pursuing these controls the Government is mindful that to the extent that the provisions lead to any fall-off in investment income it will be open to brokers to seek adjustments such as increased commissions and fees to cover the costs of their services. Taking the Bill as a whole, the Government believes that it will make a very worthwhile contribution towards establishing appropriate standards and practices in a relatively unregulated area of the insurance market. Clearly, the Bill will provide increased protection for the insuring public and will complement the supervisory systems already established under the Insurance Act and Life Insurance Act. I commend the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill to honourable senators. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.05) —It is not usual to speak immediately to the second reading of a Bill, and I do not intend to trespass on that practice. However, I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that an important Bill has just been introduced. It is fairly typical with the changed order of business that one starts the day with a bevy of Liberal and National Party senators, a bevy of Australian Democrat senators and few, if any, Government senators. I raise that because there is a certain reluctance on the part of the Opposition to continue to maintain the House if the Government does not take this chamber seriously. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave not granted. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- As honourable senators will know, following repeal of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission handed down its decision in the National Wage Case. The Commission enunciated Principles of Wage Determination which provide for a 4.3 per cent National Wage adjustment and, in the future the adjustment of wages on a six-monthly basis in line with movements in the Consumer Price Index, unless the Commission is persuaded to the contrary. In relation to offices which are subject to the Remuneration Tribunals Act, the Government took the view that it would be appropriate to apply the 4.3 per cent salary adjustment to those offices. Accordingly, the Special Minister of State made a submission to the Tribunal on behalf of the Government and on 11 November the Tribunal reported upon, and determined, new rates of remuneration and cost- related travelling allowances for offices within its jurisdiction. Details of the new rates are included in the Tribunal's report which was presented to the Senate on 29 November. Where the Tribunal has determined new rates of remuneration those rates are immediately payable, with effect from 6 October. In the case of members of the Judiciary, however, the Constitution provides that they shall receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix. Clause 6 of this bill therefore amends Schedule 3 of the Remuneration and Allowance Act to prescribe increased rates of remuneration contained in the Tribunal's Report No. 2. Section 66 of the Constitution prescribes, subject to the Parliament otherwise providing, a maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries of Ministers. Clause 8 of the bill increases that annual sum having regard to the ministerial salaries contained in the Tribunal's Report No. 1. The Bill also makes a minor amendment to the Remuneration Tribunals Act. Where a new office is created the Act as it now stands prevents the Tribunal making a determination in respect of the remuneration of that office until a person is appointed to it. The proposed amendment will enable the Tribunal to make such a determination after an office is created but before an appointment is made to it . I am sure that honourable senators will agree that this is a sensible amendment which will enable potential appointees to an office to know the level of remuneration it will carry. Further information on the clauses of the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Australian Democrats nominating Senators Jack Evans, Georges, Hearn and Scott to be members of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave- proposed: That Senators Jack Evans, Georges, Hearn and Scott, having been duly nominated in accordance with the Resolution of the Senate dated 17 November 1983, be appointed as Members of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.10) —The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I merely wish to place on record the fact that it is a matter of regret to the Opposition that the Senate did not see fit to support the Opposition's view that the Committee should be a committee of six. I understand that the view taken by the Government and, I think, supported by the Australian Democrats was that the workload of committees was such that to man a committee of six was not appropriate, and that therefore we would restrict it to a committee of four. The disadvantage from the Opposition's point of view is that this meant that we could have only one representative, because the Democrats, who had brought forward the motion for the Select Committee, were also to be represented as part of the four. That means that we were not able to do as we wished, which was to have a representative of the Liberal Party of Australia and a representative of the National Party of Australia on the Committee. Senator Scott will represent the interests of the combined Opposition on that Committee. We wish it to be made clear to the Senate that, if we had had our way, we would have participated on a broader basis. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: 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. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave, Mr President, to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Bill I am introducing today is to consolidate and expand Australian laws which protect Australian trading interests and policies against the extra-territorial enforcement of foreign laws. I would like to outline, for the benefit of Honourable Senators, the historical and policy context in which the Bill has been prepared and the principal provisions proposed. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the Explanatory Memorandum which has been circulated to Honourable Senators for information. Existing Commonwealth Legislation In November 1976 the Parliament enacted the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act. The purpose of that Act was, briefly stated, to enable the Attorney-General to make orders, subject to parliamentary disallowance, to prohibit the production of documents located in Australia and, in certain circumstances, the giving of evidence in foreign proceedings. The Attorney- General could make orders where he was satisfied that the foreign court was exercising jurisdiction contrary to international law or comity or that the imposition of the restrictions specified in the order was desirable for protecting the national interest. In March 1979 the Parliament enacted the Foreign Antitrust Judgments ( Restriction of Enforcement) Act. That Act, which was confined to foreign antitrust judgments, enabled the Attorney-General to prohibit the enforcement of such judgments on grounds which, whilst not identical, were broadly similar to those enabling the Attorney-General to prohibit the production of evidence under the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act. As in the case of that Act orders of the Attorney-General were subject to parliamentary disallowance. The Attorney-General could also permit the partial enforcement of foreign judgments for a reduced amount specified in the order. The 1981 ''Recovery Back'' Bill In June 1981 the former Government introduced the Foreign Antitrust Judgments ( Restriction of Enforcement) Amendment Bill 1981 (which I shall hereafter refer to as the ''Recovery Back Bill''). The Recovery Back Bill would have enabled an Australian defendant to a foreign antitrust judgment, where an order had been made under the Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act, to recover back from the foreign plaintiff any amount which had been recovered under the prohibited judgment in an overseas country in excess of the amount specified. The former Government did not seek passage of the Recovery Back Bill following the signing of the Antitrust Co-operation Agreement between Australia and the United States on 29 June 1982. The Antitrust Co-Operation Agreement The Commonwealth legislative measures that I have referred to above were introduced against the backdrop of the troubled relations between Australia and the United States in relation to the extra-territorial enforcement of U.S. antitrust laws. That legislation was directly occasioned by proceedings in the United States relating to trade in uranium and, more particularly, the Westinghouse suit for private treble damages. Without wishing to go over the entire Westinghouse saga, I would like to point out that the private suit by Westinghouse to recover treble damages from a number of Australian companies, who were among the list of defendants in the proceedings, related to conduct that, although in breach of U.S. antitrust laws, took place outside the United States and in compliance with Australian Government policies for the marketing of uranium. The deterioration in relations in this area between Australia and the United States had become so serious that the matter was raised in discussions between the President of the United States and the then Australian Prime Minister in June 1981. The outcome of these discussions was a renewed negotiating effort to reach agreement. These efforts were ultimately successful and on 29 June 1982 the Antitrust Co-operation Agreement was signed. The Agreement is designed to provide a framework for the resolution of conflicts which might arise between Australian national interests and policies and the implementation of United States antitrust laws. In the brief, the Agreement contains the following major provisions: A requirement for the United States to give Australia prompt and detailed notification of any U.S. Department of Justice or Federal Trade Commission antitrust investigations that might have implications for Australia's national interests. The option for Australia to notify the United States of any Australian policy that might have implications for U.S. antitrust laws. Either party may seek consultations after a notification, or on a potential conflict that has come to its notice other than by notification. Conflicts to be resolved with due regard to each other's sovereignty and to considerations of comity, with parties being prepared to consider modifying policies or modifying or discontinuing antitrust investigations. In the latter case, the United States will give the fullest consideration to activity involving Australian export or marketing measures. The United States Government will intervene in private antitrust actions to inform the court of the substance and outcome of the consultations, where the matter before the court includes activity that has been the subject of notification and consultations under the Agreement. Where national interests are not affected, both countries will co-operate in restrictive business practice (antitrust) investigations. In the event that a conflict cannot be resolved using the mechanisms of the Agreement, both countries can protect their national interests as they see fit. The Present Position When the Labor Government came into office in March this year, the general climate between Australia and the United States in relation to the extra- territorial enforcement of U.S. antitrust laws had improved significantly, in no small measure due to the fact that both countries were trying to abide by the spirit and the letter of the Agreement. The Labor Government has thus been able to formulate its policy on the protection of Australian trading interests and policies against the extra- territorial enforcement of foreign laws in the light of this much improved relationship between the two countries. In reaching its decision to introduce the Bill at this time, the Government has also had regard to my discussions with Government representatives during my visit in June to the United Kingdom and the United States. As I said then to U.S. officials, it is better to introduce protective legislation now, during a period of improved relations, than to leave it until some crisis arrives, and so heighten what would be at that time a public perception of conflict between our two countries. I would anticipate, on the basis of the responses I received in Washington, that the United States Government would understand the need for Australia to have protective legislation. At this point, I would like to welcome, on behalf of the Government, the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on '' Australian-United States' Relations: the Extraterritorial Application of United States' Laws'' which was tabled last week. The Government is pleased to note that one of the Committee's major recommendations was the introduction of legislation to deal with problems arising from the extraterritorial application of foreign laws. The present Bill is consistent with that recommendation. The essence of the Labor Government's policy in this area, which has already been explained to the United Kingdom and United States Governments, is as follows. First, in line with the conclusion of the Parliamentary Joint Committee that both countries should seek to implement both the letter and the spirit of the Agreement, the Government reaffirms Australia's commitment to the consultative approach of the Antitrust Co-operation Agreement between Australia and the United States. It is the Government's firm belief that jurisdictional conflicts between the laws and policies of sovereign governments should be resolved if at all possible by consultation and not by unilateral legal or executive action. The Government will advocate this approach vigorously in its dealings with individual foreign countries and in relevant international fora. I note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee recommend that Australia participate actively in international attempts, such as those within the O.E.C.D. and U.N.C.T.A.D., to reach broadly acceptable arrangements to avoid or resolve conflicts in the application of national trading laws. Secondly, nothwithstanding the protection afforded by the Antitrust Co- operation Agreement, the Government cannot ignore the fact that the underlying jurisdictional threat to Australian sovereignty and to our export and other trading policies still remains. There has been no significant change in U.S. domestic antitrust laws to take account of foreign government interests, and no modification of their wide jurisdictional claims. Article 4.2 of the Agreement recognises that if after consultation, no means of avoiding conflict has been found, each Party ''shall be free to protect its interests as it deems necessary ''. While articles 4 and 6 of the Agreement also make some progressive steps forward in providing protection against private antitrust proceedings, our central concern remains. That is, private plaintiffs, who account for about 95 per cent of U.S. antitrust actions, are under no obligation to consider the national interests of other countries when they initiate their actions or in the conduct of the case. The U.S Deputy Secretary of State, Mr Kenneth Dam, in a speech earlier this year acknowledged that private treble damages actions are not within government control and as a result are often referred to in this context as ''rogue elephants''. I note that the obligation in the Agreement on the U.S. authorities to intervene in private proceedings is at best a limited and indirect restraint on private plaintiffs and in any event the weight to be given to the U.S. Government's intervention is left to the court to decide. Thirdly, since Australia first came up against the vexed issue of the extra- territorial enforcement of foreign laws, it has become apparent that the problem goes very much wider than the antitrust field. The serious conflict between the United States and European countries within the Atlantic Alliance over the measures taken by the United States under the U.S. Export Administration Act with regard to the construction of the Soviet gas pipeline has focused attention on the wider implications of the problem of extra-territoriality. As the Parliamentary Joint Committee concluded, a number of important questions relating to the extra-territorial application of U.S. laws such as the Export Administration Act have not been affected or resolved by the signing of the Agreement. The problem can extend into many areas such as companies and securities regulation, banking, commodity futures market regulation, taxation, and laws related to enforcing national security or foreign policy controls over trade. Accordingly, consistently with the recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee, the Government believes that Australia should have available to it a comprehensive arsenal of defences which it could use as a last resort, should the resolution of conflict through the consultative approach fail. It is unacceptable to the Government that at the present time Australian businesses, unlike their counterparts in countries like the United Kingdom, have inadequate protection against the crippling damages and costs awards that are usually made in foreign antitrust private treble damages suits. Nor have they means of protection against the extra-territorial effect of judicial and executive orders made under other foreign laws which may be inimical to Australia's national interests. I wish to emphasise, however, that in line with the Government's firm belief in the consultative approach in this area, the substantive provisions of the proposed legislation will only operate when activated by an Order made by the Attorney-General. When in Opposition, the present Government gave broad bi-partisan support to the legislative measures that were introduced by the Fraser Government. The Government in a real sense is completing the task that was begun by the former Government. Indeed, when the former Attorney-General, Senator Durack introduced the Recovery Back Bill he said: ''It is also designed to underline the seriousness with which the Commonwealth Government and the Parliament continues to view this problem. For here, I believe that I express, in a complete sense, a national voice. The two previous Acts were enacted by the Parliament with bipartisan support and, whatever differences in nuance may emerge, the Opposition has been at one with the Government in its concern.'' I would certainly hope for the reasons I have outlined above, that the present Bill will receive the support of the whole Parliament. Content of Bill I will briefly mention the major provisions contained in the Bill. Prohibition of the Giving of Evidence Division 2 of Part II of the Bill replaces the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976. The purpose of the provisions, like the earlier Act, is to enable the Attorney-General to make orders to prohibit the production of documents located in Australia and, in certain circumstances, the giving of evidence in foreign proceedings. The Attorney-General may make orders where he is satisfied that the making of the order would be desirable for the protection of the national interest. The Attorney-General may also make orders where he is satisfied that the assumption of jurisdiction by the foreign court or the action taken by the foreign authority is contrary to international law or is inconsistent with international comity or international practice. Enforceability of Judgments Given in Foreign Antitrust Proceedings Clause 9 of the Bill replaces the Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restrictions of Enforcement) Act 1979. These provisions, like the earlier Act, which are confined to foreign antitrust judgments, will enable the Attorney-General to prohibit the enforcement of such judgments in whole or in part. This gives the Australian Government the flexibility to respond to the foreign judgment according to the circumstances. Thus, if an adverse decision given against an Australian defendant in U.S. antitrust proceedings appeared to be justified, but the enforcement of a treble damages award in Australia would be contrary to the national interest-the treble damages award may for example threaten the financial stability of the Australian enterprise-then the Attorney-General could allow enforcement in Australia of only the compensatory (non penal) part of the treble damages award. The grounds upon which such orders may be made are broadly similar to those enabling the Attorney-General to prohibit the production of evidence under Division 2 of Part II of the Bill. The Parliamentary Joint Committee recommended that, along with the earlier legislation, the Government should introduce legislation to enable Australian residents, or those doing business in Australia, to recover back damages enforced against them under a foreign antitrust judgment. This is done in the '' recovery-back'' provisions which are contained in clause 10 of the Bill. This right of action, given to an Australian defendant to recover back damages enforced against that defendant, is given only where the Attorney-General has made an order that a foreign antitrust judgment should not be enforceable in Australia in whole or in part. The right of recovery-back, which is given only to Australian defendants as set out in sub-clause 10 (4) of the Bill, is for any amount obtained by the foreign plaintiff from the Australian defendant in excess of the amount specified in the Attorney-General's order. The ''recovery back'' provisions are based on the provisions contained in the 1981 Recovery Back Bill although they have been refined to avoid the complexity of the earlier Bill. A series of examples illustrating the operation of the recovery-back provisions is contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. In line with the recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee that Australian defendants should be able to recover the costs of defending a foreign antitrust action, clause 11 of the Bill gives a right to an Australian defendant (including an Australian statutory authority) to recover reasonable costs and expenses incurred by it in defending private antitrust proceedings. This right of action is severely restricted-- (a) it is conditional upon an order being made by the Attorney-General either on national interest grounds or on the ground that the assumption of jurisdiction or the manner of exercise of jurisdiction by the foreign court or the exercise of power or the manner of exercise of power by the foreign court, was contrary to international law or inconsistent with international comity or international practice; (b) it is confined to private proceedings for multiple damages where it is possible for the foreign court to assume jurisdiction simply upon there being an adverse effect on that country's trade or commerce; and (c) it is further restricted to foreign proceedings where a successful defendant is not entitled to recover costs. This is peculiar to private antitrust proceedings in the United States. Clause 11 of the Bill can be justified on three grounds: An Australian defendant with no physical tie with the territorial jurisdiction of the United States can be put to considerable expense because s.12 of the U.S. Clayton Act (which provides for service on a corporation wherever found) enables a United States plaintiff to draw the Australian defendant into United States antitrust litigation. United States antitrust law does not allow a successful defendant his costs. This, when coupled with the widespread use of contingency fees, encourages United States plaintiffs to bring specious actions in the hope that the huge costs burden alone will compel the defendant to settle out of court. The costs burden in large United States antitrust cases is of a magnitude unknown to our legal system and it is not uncommon for costs to amount to millions of dollars. I should also mention that for both recovery-back and recovery of costs, orders would not in general be made where conduct, in respect of which a foreign judgment was given, took place entirely within a foreign country. We cannot discount, however, the possibility that situations may arise where it would be appropriate for an order to be made where conduct did take place entirely within a foreign country. An example would be where the costs or damages awarded in a private suit against an Australian defendant were considered to be so high as to be contrary to the national interest, e.g. they might threaten the solvency of an Australian company, with consequences for the enterprise in which it was engaged and for the employment of Australian workers. Clause 12 of the Bill provides for the enforcement of a ''recovery-back'' judgment on a reciprocal basis after agreement with countries that have '' recovery-back'' provisions that correspond with those in the Bill. The United Kingdom has shown considerable interest in developing the concept of reciprocal enforcement with Australia and has made provision for such a system in Section 7 of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 (U.K.). The Parliamentary Joint Committee recommended that consideration be given to reciprocal enforcement of recovery-back judgments, only if Australian interests are further threatened or damaged by foreign laws. The Government considers it prudent, however, to deal comprehensively with the problem of extraterritoriality, rather than to introduce additional legislative proposals at a later stage if Australian interests should come under active threat from foreign laws. In this way, we avoid heightening what I said earlier would be a public perception of conflict between Australia and the foreign country. The Parliamentary Joint Committee recommended that the legislation should prohibit compliance by Australian residents or those doing business in Australia with orders of a foreign country which might damage Australia's trading interests. This is dealt with by clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill. Clause 13 is concerned with foreign executive orders, and clause 14 with foreign judicial orders. Actions and Decisions of Foreign Governments Affecting Australia The purpose of Clause 13 of the Bill is to counteract the problem created by foreign laws relating to trade or commerce that would enable foreign governments or their agencies to impose obligations upon persons or corporations in Australia. Clause 13 of the Bill will enable the Attorney-General to make an order prohibiting the performance of the obligation where he is satisfied that the act or decision of the foreign government or agency would or might adversely affect the national interest. The topical example of such a foreign law is the U .S. Export Administration Act. A provision similar to this clause (s.1 of the U. K. Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980) enabled the United Kingdom Government to counter U.S. executive orders which were directed at U.K. companies with the purpose of blocking the construction of the Siberian Gas Pipeline, contrary to the national interests of the United Kingdom and the other European States. Prohibition on Giving Effect to Certain Foreign Judgments The purpose of clause 14 of the Bill is to enable the Attorney-General to block judgments or injunctions of a foreign court (but not money judgments) where the object of the judgment is to require the doing of an act or thing in Australia, or to prohibit the doing of such an act or thing, or to require a person to refrain from conduct in Australia. The Attorney-General may make an order based on national interest grounds similar to those in clause 13 of the Bill. Possible instances where this clause could be called into operation could include divestiture orders and 'cease and desist' orders made under U.S. antitrust laws. Miscellaneous Part V of the Bill contains general provisions relating to parliamentary disallowance of orders and instruments made under the Act, jurisdiction of the Federal Court, service of notice of orders, offences and regulations. Financial Impact Statement The Bill will not necessitate any increase in the existing staff establishment of my Department and will have no impact on Government revenues. The Government will not be seeking passage of the Bill in the present Sittings unless any unforseen developments arise. The Government commends the Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 6 December 1983. Clauses 1 to 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.14) —I move amendment No. (1 ), circulated by the Government most recently in the typewritten batch of amendments: (1) Page 1, clause 3, before proposed definition of 'Australian Capital Territory Representation Regulations' insert the following definition: ' ''Australian Capital Territory'' includes the Jervis Bay Territory;'. Senator Haines —That was circulated last night. Senator GARETH EVANS —I apologise again to honourable senators for the last- minute change in the list of amendments circulated. The substance of them remains, as I indicated last night, the same. Certainly the first amendment on the typewritten sheet is exactly the same as amendment No. 1 previously circulated. The effect of this is simply to make it absolutely clear, if it is not already, that residents of Jervis Bay are to be regarded as residents of the Australian Capital Territory for the purposes of the operation of this referendum. One might think it unnecessary but that is true of a number of matters in this Bill, technical as it is, and I commend this amendment to the Committee. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4 (Application of Electoral Act). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.16) —There are a number of amendments to this clause that have been circulated by me, by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and by the Australian Democrats. They all deal with the same issue , namely, the provisions which enable the regulations providing for ballot papers at referendums, as they relate to absent voters, section votes, postal votes and so on, to be subject to modifications made by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer. The Opposition's amendments seek simply to delete the right of the Chief Australian Electoral Officer to modify those provisions. They tie in with subsequent amendments that will be made to provide for the form of ballot papers to be amended and so on. The point I wish to make is that I think it would be more appropriate if I moved these amendments first to get the issue determined because I think the amendments of the Government and of the Democrats simply provide for another form of words relating to the power of the Chief Australian Electoral Officer. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.17) —If I understand what is being proposed, Senator Durack wants to proceed with his amendment to leave it out entirely at this stage; or does he want to seek leave to bring together and debate as a whole all of his subsequent amendments dealing with the same topic? Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.17) —I was suggesting that it would be more appropriate if we dealt with the Opposition amendments first because, if they failed, it would be appropriate to deal with the modification of the words. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.18) —Certainly, I accept that. Does Senator Durack not want to deal with other than the amendments to clause 4 at this stage? Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.18) —I think it would be suitable to deal also with similar amendments which deal with modifications to clause 9. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.19) —The matter can be tested by reference to clause 4. Perhaps in the debate Senator Durack can refer to the subsequent clauses, so that he is putting the whole proposal as one, and we can debate it in those terms even though formally considering only clause 4. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.19) —by leave-That agreed, I move: (1) Page 3, clause 4, paragraph (f), proposed paragraph 4 (2) (ga), lines 40 and 41, leave out ', subject to any modifications made by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer,'. (2) Pages 3 and 4, clause 4, paragraph (f), proposed paragraph 4 (2) (gb), line 46 (page 3) to line 1 (page 4), leave out ', subject to any modifications made by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer,'. As I have already indicated, the amendments are for the purpose of removing the power of the Chief Australian Electoral Officer to modify the ballot papers for a referendum which this Bill provides may be held in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The object is simply to remove that discretion. The Opposition believes that the form of the ballot papers should be determined preferably by Parliament, although some regulations may be required and have been made. If there should be any changes in the ballot papers, they should be made by the Parliament, or by an instrument which is disallowable by the Parliament, and should not simply be at the discretion of the Chief Australian Electoral Officer. I understand that the proposal is to give the Chief Electoral Officer the power to modify ballot papers so that they can be made appropriate for the Territories . In other words, where there is a reference to the States there ought also be a reference to the Territories. As I said, I have other amendments to freeze the forms of the ballot papers in Forms C and D. Those amendments will take account of the new situation of the Territorians having the right to vote. The ballot paper will refer to the appropriate State or Territory. As a result of those amendments there will not be any problem, which I believe this provision which we are seeking to leave out was designed to achieve. I do not put this amendment simply as a consequential amendment. The Opposition intended, at all times, to remove the power of the Chief Electoral Officer which is unreviewable by the Parliament. We believe it is not a correct principle for this Parliament to adopt. That is the reason we are seeking its deletion. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.21) — The Australian Democrats will not be supporting the Opposition's amendments in this regard. If one looks at the actual clause, we are referring only to very formal but very minor types of changes to the ballot papers. I think the foreshadowed amendments that I put forward simply cover the matter without any further complications. However, since we circulated our amendments, the Government has circulated amendments in relation to this issue. We are happy to accept the Government's amendments. They essentially have the same effect as the amendments which I originally proposed. I think there is no undue delegation with the insertion of the words that the Government intends adding. The Chief Australian Electoral Officer is very tightly circumscribed in what he is able to do and, indeed, he would be able to change it only in a very limited and very formal way. I do not believe it is necessary to go to the point of actually having regulations on this issue which may, in themselves, be very complicated due to the fact that when one wants to change something simply from 'Territory' to 'State' it seems that the draftsmen get overly excited and cover pages and pages. I think we have not had any case and neither would I believe there would be any case that the Chief Australian Electoral Officer would seek, in any way to exceed any powers granted to him under this provision, providing it is circumscribed in the way that either the Democrats' amendments or the Government 's amendments suggest. I think that would be sufficient to pick up the problem raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.23) —The Government will oppose the amendments proposed by Senator Durack, not with any great passion because, in a sense, this debate, at the moment, is wholly academic given the Government's intention, which I understand will be supported elsewhere, to prescribe in the legislation the form of the ballot papers to be used in the forthcoming 25 February referendum. All that is involved now in the consideration of this clause is a debate about some hypothetical future referendum and the laws that will govern the form of the ballot paper in such a future referendum. The Government's position in relation to any such future referendum is that it would prefer to leave the existing legislation as it is, that is, conferring a capacity in the Parliament to allow, in turn, regulations to be produced prescribing the form of the ballot paper rather than necessarily having to adopt, as part of the legislation, the ballot paper in each case. To that end we want to have a legislative scheme which is a fair and workable one and one that accommodates the concerns expressed about such a scheme by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The Government will wish to proceed with its own amendments to these clauses which proceed on the assumption that ballot papers may be prescribed by regulation but ensures that there is no excessive delegation of too wide a discretion in that prescription process. In a sense, as I say, the debate is an artificial and an academic one because it is the Government's intention next year to consolidate this legislation governing the conduct of referendums in a single new, streamlined piece of legislation which we will be debating again. The legislation is in rather a muddle at the moment, full of transitional provisions which are consequential upon the recent passage of further amendments to the mainstream electoral legislation. It does badly need to be tidied up and sorted out, and I suggest that the occasion of that exercise next year would be a more appropriate time to debate the larger question as to whether for all future referendums the ballot papers should be individually prescribed in legislation specifically designed for those referendums or whether, rather, we should have a general scheme of the kind that is now proposed in different ways by both the Government and the Opposition. The only further point I make is that the Government's approach to this-which is to delete entirely references to regulations and to make provision for a permanent floating form of legislative ballot paper, the terms of which are set out, or circumscribed, by enactment itself-may be a legitimate way to proceed, and I believe we can debate that further next year. The only difficulty I see in the way of immediately adopting, for the purposes of some hypothetical future, the Opposition's proposals is that I believe they are probably unreasonably narrow to the extent that the form proposed would require the full title of the proposed legislation to be set out in the terms of each question. One of the difficulties we feel, which indeed justifies our approach to the exercise this time round, is that being required to set out the full long title of a Bill, with all the mumbo-jumbo that is necessarily involved in that, does create an unnecessary obstacle to understanding on the part of the voters in the polling booth. While it may well be appropriate next year to debate this in terms of setting out some general legislative prescription of the form that Senator Durack proposes, I believe that there is room for further debate as to what that particular legislative model should contain. It is really on the basis of considerations such as that rather than on the basis of any more fundamental principle that the Government opposes the Opposition's proposal at this stage and will similarly oppose the further amendments that Senator Durack has foreshadowed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.27) —I do not think it is good enough for this Parliament to determine what it thinks ought to be done at this stage, given the fact that, according to the Attorney-General, there will be amending legislation next year. We do not know what that will necessarily contain. We do not know whether the Government will still be of the same view next year; it seems quite often to change its views about what legislation it will have in the constitutional area. As amendments to this important legislation, the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act, are before us we ought to deal for the future, with the question in principle as we see it at this time. It is true that amendments will be moved later by the Attorney-General in respect of the forthcoming referendum. At this stage of the Committee debate we do not know whether they will be passed, but even if they are passed they leave open for all future referendums the position of Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory ballot papers. Therefore, I believe it is the business, responsibility and duty of this place to decide what is the appropriate law which should apply in all future referendums regardless of what we do specifically in relation to the forthcoming referendum. We should be doing it now, while the matter is before us, and not accepting some statement by the Attorney-General that the Government intends to bring in amending legislation next year to cover future referendums other than the forthcoming one. As I have said, the Opposition will be moving a series of amendments which make it unnecessary for this discretion of the Chief Australian Electoral Officer to be included. Senator Macklin has spoken to the amendments and indicated his objection to them. I draw his attention to Opposition amendment No. 10 which does set out a form of the ballot paper providing for the insertion of the State or Territory. By that amendment we are bringing the ballot papers up to date. The ballot papers will then be quite applicable to the new situation provided by the passage of this Bill in respect of ballot papers to be issued in the Territories and for Territorians to vote. The only purpose of this provision in the Bill seems to me to be due to the fact that the existing ballot papers in the schedule do not provide for the insertion of the name of a Territory, obviously because there was no voting in the Territories. We believe that it is proper that the Act should set out the form of the ballot paper and should not be subject to modification by the Chief Electoral Officer. So I persist with the amendments Nos (1) and (2) but draw the Committee's attention to the fact that they are part of a scheme of amendments. We have not yet dealt with the others. I think the decision in relation to these should be made in relation to the whole scheme of the Opposition's amendments. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.32) —Mr Temporary Chairman, we have reached a ridiculous stage where we are now passing legislation for each referendum. Surely we are not going to have the situation where the government of the day, whichever party it happens to be, which wants to alter the Constitution is going to be able to set out a ballot paper without any consultation with those opposing it in words that it chooses and really rigs the ballot paper, because this is what the Government is doing on this occasion. It is referring to its description of simultaneous elections and it is referring to its description of all the other questions that are being put. Senator Missen —That is not the right clause. You are on the wrong clause. Senator WALTERS —I am not, because I am speaking to our amendment which does away with that and which would allow the ballot paper to continue in its normal form, in the way it has been ever since we have held referendums. Now if we do not go back to using that particular ballot paper which enables the legislation to apply to any referendum, no matter when it occurs or what it refers to, we will have this situation that we are facing at the moment-legislation being passed for a particular referendum. As I have just said, we are going to end up with legislation that is being rigged by the Government to suit its particular interpretation of what the constitutional alterations will say. I appeal to the Australian Democrats to look at the old ballot papers. They have served us well ever since we have had referendums. Senator Evans shakes his head because he has not won on the simultaneous elections referendum; so he says the ballot paper has not served us as well as it should have. But the point is that we have used this particular form of ballot paper. The Australian Electoral Office distributes to every letter-box the cases both for and against the referendum proposals. People, in the quiet of their homes, are able to read what the simultaneous elections proposal means and what alterations to parliamentary terms entail. The ballot paper does not have to have the description on it. The voters can go into the booths knowing what the referendum is about because they have all received pamphlets in their letter-boxes. I believe that if we allow any government, no matter what its political persuasion, to put its own interpretation on constitutional alterations, we are really entering a whole new ball game. Senator Chipp —How many Australians out of 10 would you believe would go to the ballot box that well informed? Senator WALTERS —I would say that, by the time the $1.25m has been spent on advertising the Yes case, they will certainly know what that is all about. Senator Chipp —That is not what I asked. I am serious. Senator WALTERS —I know the honourable senator is and that is why I am treating it seriously. Even if they do not read all the literature that will be put in their letter boxes-and as the honourable senator well knows, there will be quite a bit-they will have read at least the first page. Senator Chipp —If. Senator WALTERS —Okay; I think the majority of Australians will read the first page. The rest of the information will be provided through television. I am serious when I say that there is no way that the referendum is not going to be fought, and fought quite hard, when an amount of $1.25m is to be spent. We know that the Government has already arranged for kits to be put out for the Yes case . It has already spent a lot of money. I ask Senator Button to allow Senator Chipp to hear my answer to the question he asked me. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Senator Walters, this is not Question Time. Senator WALTERS —I am not suggesting that it is, Mr Temporary Chairman. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, will you direct your remarks through the Chair. Senator WALTERS —I am not suggesting it is Question Time, Mr Temporary Chairman, but I am objecting to Senator Button taking Senator Chipp's attention away when I am answering one of his- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, I am objecting to you directing your remarks other than through the Chair. Will you please continue. Senator WALTERS —I am directing my remarks to you and I am saying to you that I object to Senator Button taking Senator Chipp's attention away from the answer I am giving in response to one of his interjections. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Well, that is of great import to this Bill. Senator WALTERS —Mr Temporary Chairman- Senator Coleman —He is all ears now. Senator WALTERS —Yes, he is. Mr Temporary Chairman, as I said, I believe the public will be well informed because even if they do not read what is put in their letter boxes the arguments will at least be put very clearly and on numerous occasions on television. As we know, no-one can escape the media. Therefore, both sides will be put. The No case, which will also be financed with public money, will also be supported by the Democrats. I believe it is terribly dangerous for the government of the day to put its interpretation on the question of constitutional alteration. Such an approach opens up a Pandora's box and does away with the democratic aspect of referendums . I appeal to the Democrats to let us get back to the old ballot paper system under which I believe the situation is put very clearly. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.38) — The Australian Democrats have been appealed to I presume in regard to the Opposition's amendment. However, listening to Senator Walters, I was unable actually to work out what her appeal had to do with the amendment before the Committee. The Government will not be given any power as a result of this legislation. This clause is concerned with the Chief Electoral Officer. An appeal has been made to us to get back to the old ballot paper. I think it is useful to note that the old ballot paper did not contain information of the sort referred to by Senator Walters. For the first time the people of the Territories will have the right to vote in a referendum. What we are on about in this clause is to enable the old ballot paper to be changed so that it can be used in the Territories. I am sorry, but I did not quite follow the appeal. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.39) —Senator Macklin, I have subsequent amendments relating to changing the form of ballot papers which include the name of the State or Territory. As far as I can see, that is the only reason why the Chief Electoral Officer should be given the power to modify the existing ballot paper. Senator Macklin —The Government has that in its amendment as well. So we probably don't even need this clause. Senator DURACK —The Government's amendment deals only with the forthcoming referendum. Amendments negatived. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.40) —by leave-Without much in the way of further explanation, I move: (2) Page 3, clause 4, line 41, insert 'in a manner necessary for those purposes ' after 'Officer'. (3) Page 4, clause 4, line 1, insert 'in a manner necessary for those purposes' after 'Officer'. The amendments do make it clear that if we are retaining the capacity to prescribe ballot papers, albeit not for the purpose of the forthcoming referendum, to meet the points raised by the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills and the concern of many honourable senators, the Bill ought to be more tightly written to ensure that the only kinds of modifications that can be made by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer are those necessary for the technical purposes of adjusting the form of the ballot paper for the particular jurisdiction in which it is couched. With that short explanation, I hope that those amendments will not prove controversial. Both have the same effect. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 5 agreed to. Proposed new clause 5A. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.42) —I move: (3) Page 4, after clause 5, add the following new clause: '5A. Section 6A of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting ''in the English language'' after ''pamphlet'' in sub-section (1); and (b) by adding after sub-section (2) the following sub-section: ''(3) The Chief Australian Electoral Officer shall cause the text of the pamphlet referred to in this section to be translated into such languages as are prescribed, and shall cause copies of those translations to be printed and to be made available in such quantities and at such places as are prescribed.''.'. The amendment looks at an issue that I believe it is important to address if we are looking at change in the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Bill. I refer to the problem that I raised in my second reading speech confronting the ethnic communities. We have sought here to cause the Chief Australian Electoral Officer to pay attention to the dominant ethnic languages in Australia and to make provision for the booklet with the Yes and No cases to be printed in the dominant ethnic languages and provided at appropriate places. Our suggestion has been that these could very well be the post offices around Australia. There could be a differentiation in relation to the dominant ethnic groups without particular areas of Australia, rather than seeking an across the board operation . The point I make-it has been raised with me by a number of ethnic communities- is that the items in the Constitution are of a technical nature and that, while one may have a reasonable grasp of the second language, that grasp sometimes fails when one moves into an area where the vocabulary is specialised and the concept is technical. I think this is one such area and I am quite sure that the ability of many of our new citizens to engage in the full democratic process in Australia will be greatly enhanced by making provision for those booklets to be provided in a manner which will allow those citizens to understand the complexities of the changes to the Constitution that are needed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.44) —The Government has quite a profound sympathy for the intent behind this particular amendment but regrets that it finds itself, for essentially practical reasons, unable to accept it. The problem is essentially a logistical one. First, the time constraints are very narrow between when the Yes and No cases have to be completed and submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer and when they have to be printed up and got out to electors. I am instructed that it is very difficult indeed for the Electoral Office to meet the timetable involved in translating the Yes and No cases after their submission, including getting the translations approved by the proponents of the Yes and No cases respectively, because it will be appreciated that there is a lot of room for argument about the appropriateness of a particular translation and the fairness with which the points are put and the language in which they are expressed. Following that, there is the further logistic difficulty of getting the appropriate printing and distribution done. I appreciate that the Australian Democrats have gone out of their way to simplify that by allowing for prescribed locations to be identified. But there is very great difficulty, even so, in working out to the satisfaction of the respective ethnic communities and in a way that will be genuinely useful to the members of those communities, what the best such locations are and what numbers of copies and so on need to be provided at each of those locations in order to satisfy the likely demand. It may be that this is something to which we can give further attention when we have slightly more time to consider all these complexities than we have within the time frame of this referendum. I have not mentioned the additional cost involved. That, of course, is another consideration but not a decisive one manifestly. What we are proposing to do in relation to this referendum to meet the very valid point of the necessity to communicate with the ethnic communities is to take out advertising through the Australian Electoral Office, not through the Commonwealth, the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) or anyone else, in the major ethnic Press and, in that advertising, to set out in some appropriate summary form, approved by the proponents of the Yes and No cases respectively, an account of what the referendum proposals are about and what the arguments are. It is very difficult at this stage to be precise as to how extensive that advertising will be or how rigorous the summaries will need to be in terms of abbreviation because we do not yet know what the length of the No case in particular will be. It could be as long as 10,000 words-2,000 for each of the five proposals. It could be much shorter than that as the Government is proposing its case should be. For those reasons we hope that the Democrats might reconsider whether they will press this particular amendment. The Government will undertake to communicate as best it can to ethnic communities, in the way that I have indicated, what the substance of these referendums is about. The Government undertakes to consider this matter further next year in the course of reconsidering what the longer term future of this framework legislation should be. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.47) —I think the Attorney-General's response is reasonable. I certainly take his point about the problems and the time frame. Since the Government has suggested an alternative-I think in many senses the alternative may be more beneficial than my amendment-I seek leave to withdraw my amendment rather than press it. Leave granted; amendment withdrawn. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.48) —I have an amendment-I notice that the Australian Democrats have one in almost indentical terms-to add proposed new clause 5A which will amend section 6A of the principal Act. That section deals with the Yes and No cases. I move: (3) Page 4, after clause 5, insert the following new clause: ''5A. Section 6A of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: '(3) No monies shall be expended by the Commonwealth in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed law other than in respect of- (a) the publication of the pamphlet referred to in this section; or (b) meeting travelling, accommodation or other ordinary expenses of members of the Parliament, including Ministers, that are lawfully payable by the Commonwealth.'.''. This amendment was foreshadowed by me at some length during the debate on the second reading of the Bill. It relates to the decision of the Government to spend $1 1/4m of taxpayers' money on promoting the referendum campaign, in addition to the distribution of a document setting out the Yes and No case. The document relating to the Yes and No cases will be carefully prepared by the parliamentary proponents for and against the referendum. That document has to be distributed to every elector. It is an even-handed expenditure of public money. It provides, as I have said, for both sides of the argument to be placed before each elector. Some cases are a little on the technical side, a bit detailed, lengthy or whatever, but the fact of the matter is that that is the choice of those who are proposing the Yes case or the No case. As I said, the great virtue of it is that it is even-handed. But what the Government now proposes to do-for the first time so far as I am aware-is to use further taxpayers' money to promote one side of the argument, namely its case. The Government in this case has initiated these referendums and it will be writing the Yes case. In addition, it wants to spend another $1 1/4m of taxpayers' money to advertise in the media arguments for its Yes case. I believe that is the responsibility of the party in government, not the Government. The Yes campaign and the No campaign, like an election campaign should be conducted by those who are taking a particular line in relation to the referendum or election. The campaign should be conducted and paid for by those who are, in their private capacity, supporting or opposing it. It should not be the subject of government expenditure, and large government expenditure at that. In view of the fact that the Government is now seeking to spend this money, to establish this most undesirable precedent, the Opposition believes that we should take the opportunity of having this Bill before us to prevent that being done. That is the object of this amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.52) —The Australian Democrats had foreshadowed an amendment but I wish to speak to the Opposition's amendment which is in identical terms to the amendment we foreshadowed. The proposition is to continue the tradition which has been maintained through referendum campaigns that there ought to be even-handedness from the point of view of the moneys expended by the Commonwealth in relation to both the Yes and No cases. The Attorney-General in his response at the second reading stage of the debate canvassed a number of reasons as to why this position ought to be changed. I believe that some of those reasons in terms of logic, if taken into other areas, would produce anomalous results. For example, the Attorney suggested that the Yes case starts behind the No case. I think that must be an undoubted observation. I also draw the Attorney's attention to the fact that governments start behind oppositions in every by-election that has ever been conducted in this country. The Government has won only one, I think, since Federation. Surely we are not suggesting, therefore, that governments ought to expend money on government campaigns in by-elections to get them level. The proposition, if taken into those areas, does not hold up. I suggest that as principals we need to be pretty careful about what we are doing. I think the principle of even-handedness is one we must abide by and hold on to. However, I raise a query with the Opposition about its amendment. It is a matter which I have only just noticed. It relates to the way in which the amendment is drafted. I am worried that if this amendment is carried it could be detrimental to the Australian Electoral Office which is required, under the Act, to commit other expenditures, for example, in relation to newspaper advertisements or to the item we have just been discussing , advertisements in the ethnic Press. The Australian Electoral Office has a whole range of responsibilities in relation to referenda. Perhaps we need to check my point that this amendment does not refer to or in any way preclude any of the other expenditures which are required by the Act. Perhaps this matter can be settled so that we can be assured that each of those items required by the Act, particularly those involving the Electoral Office, will be able to go ahead. The problem we have is a delicate one from the point of view of this place. This chamber undoubtedly has power to pass this amendment . If it does, the Bill will go back to the House of Representatives. In dealing with this item, the House of Representatives can do what it will, but if it does not accept the amendment the Senate must decide what to do when the Bill returns . I think this problem has to be addressed. This Bill provides the technical means of enfranchising the Territories in relation to referenda. I seek a response from the Attorney to the point I now raise about what will happen if the Bill comes before the Senate a second time and we wish to press this amendment. As a result of what happened yesterday, the Democrats are now much more open-minded about pressing this amendment. My worry is twofold. I am concerned that if we pressed the amendment and the Government failed to accept it we may disfranchise both Territories from voting in referenda. Senator Crichton-Browne —Not us. Senator MACKLIN —That would be the result of the vote here, so I do not think we are able to shuffle it off quite as easily as that. Senator Harradine —That's blackmail. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, blackmail has gone on for quite a long while in this Parliament. The other problem that I believe strengthens the hand of the Senate to press the amendment if it is not accepted by the Government is the fact that if this Bill is not passed referenda may very well be held quite unconstitutionally. Legislation has already been passed to give the vote to the people in the Territories. If we fail to give them that right, the people in the Territories may very well take action to have all the referenda thrown out on the basis of their not having the right to vote. If that is the case, I suggest that the Senate has overwhelming control of the situation. We ought to press as firmly as possible to re-establish the status quo in relation to the way in which these campaigns are conducted. Other honourable senators might be able to speak more authoritatively than I can, but the Attorney raised an additional point to which I seek a response. He said that the governments of Queensland and Tasmania intended to use public moneys to finance the No case. The Attorney read out a statement from the Premier of Tasmania which in fairly clear and explicit terms committed the Premier to expend public moneys. I question whether the Premier of Tasmania will ever get any public moneys, given the difficulties of his budgetary situation. The Attorney said that the Premier of my State, Queensland, also intended expending public moneys. I have attempted to check this. I have been unable to ascertain whether the Premier has anywhere committed his Government to expend public moneys. Senator Harradine —He has been around longer than Gray. Senator MACKLIN —He has indeed. The Attorney said that the Premier had committed public moneys for that purpose. I ask the Attorney where that information came from. As I understand the situation in Queensland, the Premier has indeed said that he will campaign. It is the legitimate right of Premiers to campaign, as it is for every member of this Parliament, to spend public moneys in their campaigns in the normal course of events. That has always been the case and will always be the case. Indeed, in the second half of the Liberal amendment that right is specifically taken care of. Members of parliament, including Ministers, will go about their normal campaigning activities and will expend public moneys in doing so. Senator Missen —Commonwealth moneys. Senator MACKLIN —They are Commonwealth moneys and they will certainly be expending those moneys. It is important to realise that. Senator Missen —They are Commonwealth members, though. Senator MACKLIN —In the past, State members have felt that in a change to the Constitution, which is a State and Federal matter, State parliamentarians have as much right to engage in campaigning as have Federal members. It is a compact. Senator Missen —But the amendment relates only to Commonwealth members. Senator MACKLIN —The amendment relates only to something over which this Parliament has control; that is, the Federal members of parliament. It explicitly excludes those members of parliament who should be able to engage in such activities. Therefore, I think that the Opposition would accept, as do the Democrats, that it is a legitimate right of State parliamentarians also to engage in campaigning and to use whatever public finance is available to them. The only objection that the Democrats have is to the additional funds which the Government intends to use exclusively for the Yes case. We would be much more relaxed about the matter if the Attorney had said that, having expended so much money on holding the campaigns, it was worth while to engage in a television campaign to raise the issues with the members of the public and to do this, as in all other matters, in an even-handed way. I believe there is a good argument for that. The argument that we are to spend a great deal of money and that to spend a little more in elucidating the matter in the new area of communications, television, is a worthwhile one. The proposal, if adopted, would be an advance. We would be relatively relaxed about that matter. However, the Senate has very little power to engage in activities of that kind. If the Attorney wishes to come forward with some type of amendment, I am quite happy at this stage to adjourn this matter to see whether the Government can come up with a proposition which will enable an even-handed way of dealing with the matter to be adopted, so that television may be incorporated into the promotion of both the Yes case and the No case. I think that is a legitimate policy decision that governments are quite entitled to make. If this Government makes that decision, I do not see any opposition coming from the Democrats. Given the issues that I have raised, we would be inclined to believe that this matter must be pressed, and pressed vigorously, so that we do not have a breakdown of the even-handed way in which referenda funding has been treated in the past. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.04) —The Government will stick to its guns on this matter and will continue to resist equally vigorously the particular amendment that is now proposed, to the point, if necessary, of bringing the matter back to the Senate later in the week or next week, as Senator Macklin has foreshadowed we might. The reasons that we are proposing to do this are essentially those I set out last night. I do not want to generate yet another round of debate. We had a robust and vigorous debate on this last night and I think the issues have now been pretty well canvassed. For the record , I summarise briefly the Government's position. The first point, as Senator Macklin reminded us, is that it is the Government's very strong view that as a matter of historical record and political reality the Yes case, whatever its intrinsic merits or advantages, always starts way behind the eight ball when it comes to the conduct of any referendum campaign. Senator Crichton-Browne —That is because you have always asked the wrong questions. Senator GARETH EVANS —We cannot always have asked the wrong questions, Senator. There have been at least eight occasions this century on which the voters have thought that the matters ought to be supported- Senator Crichton-Browne —They were the government aberrations, the only occasions on which you have been right. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am endeavouring to keep this debate in a low key, relaxed and friendly tone, so I shall not respond to some of the more vigorous interjections that I am now receiving. I simply make the point that No cases, by their very character, tend to be easier to put to the Australian electorate because of the almost inevitable complexity of referendum proposals. The fact is that very rarely do voters approach these things with a familiar set of party reference points to guide them, as they do when going into an ordinary election, and natural apathy or indifference tends to result in a no response unless people are argued out of it. In order to argue them out of it, there is a strong case for saying that there just needs to be a differential amount of resources expended on getting both cases equally into the plane of consciousness of the voter so that he or she can make some kind of reasoned choice between them. One needs to spend additional resources just to get, as it were, the Yes case into the perception of the voter in question. It is really with that object in mind, and nothing more sinister, and in order to get, perhaps, a more even-handed approach to the matter, that we are wanting to spend additional resources in this way. I do not think that that is a Jesuitical argument. It is very apparent from the course of history in this country that that is the way the world works. The second point I made, which I will repeat, is that a further reason why the Yes case will start behind the eight ball in this instance is that Mr Bjelke- Petersen, on behalf, so he says, of the people of Queensland, and Mr Gray, on behalf of the Tasmanian Government, have both indicated that they will be campaigning very vigorously. In the case of Mr Gray, that commitment has taken a very explicit form-to spend the taxpayers' money in Tasmania. I repeat for the record the exchange that is recorded, certainly in the program the World Today on 5 December and, I suspect, in several other places on that day, in which Mr Gray was asked by the interviewer, Philip Russell: Will you be spending State money on this? Mr Gray's answer was: 'We certainly will'. It is true, as Senator Harradine interjected earlier, that Mr Bjelke-Petersen is a little more wily in this respect than his southern colleague. Senator Harradine —I did not say 'wily'. Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator said that he had been around longer . As such, I do not have any equally explicit and, perhaps, equally naive confession on the public record from Mr Bjelke-Petersen. But what I do have and what we all have are numerous statements, going right back to before there was any talk of a government Yes case advertising expenditure, of Mr Bjelke-Petersen 's intention to campaign vigorously, to wage an election-style campaign against these referendums. The history of Mr Bjelke-Petersen's election-style campaigns in Queensland has been one of a very willing desire on his part to spend Queensland taxpayers' money. Most recently one thinks of the anti-Medicare campaign that was waged, a purely political campaign, by Mr Bjelke-Petersen, in which very large sums of taxpayer's money were expended, and which generated criticism at the time. There have been numerous other instances of departmental advertising being conducted with Minister's photographs on it in a way clearly and palpably designed to generate political support. Mr Bjelke-Petersen has been around for a long time. He does not have quite the same budgetary constraints as Mr Gray. I have no doubt whatsoever that very substantial moneys will be poured into the campaign through him and through the resources that lie behind him. So that is a further problem. It is my knowledge at present that there will not be similar compensating resources spent by the Labor States. They will be doing some campaigning. There will be some speech- making and certainly some appearances on the media. But there is no intention and no capacity on their part to spend money on television advertising or anything of this kind. Senator Macklin —How vigorous a campaign? Senator Harradine —They advertised last time. Senator Crichton-Browne —What happens if they change their mind? Will you rush back and give us our money? Senator GARETH EVANS —If the honourable senator asks me very nicely, I will certainly give proper consideration to that. The third point I make is that the advertising that is here proposed is based around proposals which, although the debate in this place would not make anyone think so, have been the product of a great deal of bipartisan cross-party consensus. There has not been unanimity. Obviously, the voices that have been heard in this debate amply demonstrate that , within the major party opposite. There has been objection-- Senator Missen —You should not judge the extent of opposition just because they may have the loudest voices. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is true. But it is the case that the Liberal Party and the National Party, nationally, have supported these proposals. It is also the case that the Australian Democrats have supported their being put to the people. I appreciate the distinction that that does not necessarily involve overt support for them. But certainly these proposals have been, as I keep on saying, the subject of either unanimous or strong majority support at successive meetings of the Australian Constitutional Convention. If that process means anything, if that process is to continue to get the kind of support that honourable senators opposite seem willing to give it, that support at successive Conventions ought to be reflected in a willingness to campaign actively and vigorously to implement the products of those cross-party, cross-government agreements that have been put together so painfully and painstakingly over such a long period. So it is not the case that being put to the people here is something which is a partisan preoccupation of one side of politics, and one side only. As I said yesterday, it may well be less appropriate for government expenditure on advertising of the Yes case to be made in the context of what is manifestly a partisan consideration. The kind of referendum proposals now going forward justify the additional impetus that will be given from additional relatively low key Yes case advertising of the kind proposed. My second last point-it is not quite the final point because I have one other in my quiver to direct particularly at the Democrats-is that the amount in question is small. It is something over $1m, and that phases into a degree of insignificance by comparison with the $21m that it seems that the conduct of the referendum will cost us. Of that $21m, $5m will be spent, as I said yesterday, on the production of the Yes/No pamphlet to be distributed to every letter-box in the nation. So there is already $2.5m in that sense being spent on the No case and its distribution and, of course, on the Yes case as well. But the comparative amounts indicate that this is not some massive overkill exercise. It is a supplementation exercise at the margin. The final point I make, which may have some appeal to the Democrats, is that if the amendment is passed in its current form, it will be quite impossible to initiate the kind of ethnic advertising of which we spoke earlier today, because with the way in which the amendment is couched, no moneys can be spent on the Yes case otherwise than in the context of the formal official Yes case pamphlet. I draw that small consideration to the Democrats' attention in particular. As much as we want to spend that extra money on both Yes and No case advertising, through the ethnic Press, on advertisements to be drafted by the Chief Electoral Officer, we shall not be able to do so if this amendment is passed in its present form. To repeat, I hope that those arguments will, if not proving sufficient on the day-to-day basis to persuade honourable senators opposite to reject this amendment, at least lodge in the consciousness and be appreciated as a quite genuine and sincere set of arguments which are not designed to generate some partisan ramp but are simply designed to get a better appreciation of what the consensus Yes case, as it has evolved, means in the minds of Australian voters. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.13) —I support the amendment, which will guarantee that fairness prevails in the presentation of both of the cases for the referenda. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) seems to have a bull- headed, paranoid approach to the matter and a determintion to win the Yes case at all costs, or rather, at an excessive cost to the taxpayers. This amendment states: No moneys shall be expended by the Commonwealth in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed law other than in respect of- (a) the publication of the pamphlet referred to in this section; or (b) meeting travelling, accommodation or other ordinary expenses of members of the Parliament, including Ministers, that are lawfully payable by the Commonwealth. That will guarantee that both cases will be restored to equality as far as the presentation of the cases is concerned. Of course, the Attorney has already appropriated $1.25m from the Advance to the Minister for Finance of the Yes case . Such appropriations from the Advance to the Minister for Finance are supposed to be used for urgent and unforseen purposes. This $1.25m does not come into that category and in my view it is tantamount to a misappropriation of taxpayers ' funds. The Attorney-General says that the Yes case is way behind the eight ball. That may be so but I do not say it is way behind; I say it may be slightly behind the eight ball as far as the constitutional change is concerned. However, it rapidly catches up when one considers the support that is being given, and has already been given unfairly, to the Yes case as opposed to the No case. Added to that, of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Government Ministers have extraordinarily large staffs to assist them in the campaign. They have the capacity to travel in VIP aircraft-I have no doubt that that will occur-and they have the advantage of media impact that puts the proponents of the No case at a tremendous disadvantage. The Attorney criticised the Queensland Premier for stating that he will campaign vigorously for the No case and also he criticised the Premier of Tasmania for making the same statement and offering to co-ordinate the efforts of the smaller States. After all, these States have an incredibly strong interest in the referendum proposals. If Robin Gray did make any undertaking to spend funds within the State to assist the No case, I believe it was brought on because of the miserable attitude of the Attorney-General and the Government in providing funds for the Yes case without equal provision for the No case. I was impressed by Senator Macklin's contribution in this matter. If the Government is reasonable and fair, it ought to reconsider its attitude and provide equal funding so that the people of Australia can be presented with a No case of equal proportion to the Yes case and be given and equal opportunity to become informed on the matters arising from the referendum proposals so that they can make an intelligent assessment of what is required when they go to vote . Therefore, I think the amendments by the Opposition must be supported and pushed to the extreme. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.18) — The Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, contradicted himself repeatedly when he was telling us that the Yes case starts so far behind that the Government needs to spend $1.25m to bring it to at least and equal situation with the No case. He also told us that Australian citizens have in the past voted for alterations to the Constitution. No money was spent at that time to bring the Yes case up to equal parity with the No case. Both sides were put equally and the Australian citizens were able to make up their minds on what they were voting for. There was no need for vast sums of money to be spent. Senator Gareth Evans says that $1.25m is not a vast sum of money, that it is very little, just a drop in the ocean, and that we should not be complaining. He said that the House of Representatives would knock it back and that it would come back here. I hope the Attorney will listen as he is wandering around the chamber because I am asking him several questions and I do not want to have to ask him these questions again because he has not heard them. I would be grateful if he could take part in this Committee stage of the Referendum ( Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill. Senator Gareth Evans —I beg your pardon? Senator WALTERS —I knew the Attorney was not listening. It is very difficult when one is asking him questions and he is wandering around the chamber chatting to people. Senator Gareth Evans —I am now alongside you. Senator WALTERS —I would like him to listen. He said that the House of Representatives would knock this change back and that he would perhaps bring the matter in again, later in the week or next week. I want to know just when it will be coming in. Is he using intimidatory actions by saying that it will come up next week when the House of Representatives has risen. If we want to send it back, will we then have to bring back the whole of the House of Representatives to Canberra? Is that the sort of intimidation that the Attorney is trying to use . If so, I am quite sure that neither the Australian Democrats nor the Opposition will respond to that sort of intimidation. As I have said, previously money has not been spent on such issues and yet the Australian people have been able to vote for alterations when they think them necessary. What will happen in the future? If this proposal gets through, if we set a precedent of governments spending $1.2m or any money on one side of the case, what will happen in the future? Will we see a situation arise, as I indicated earlier in another part of the debate, of the government of the day describing the alterations to the Constitution in its terms, in the way it believes they ought to be described to the people? Will it be open to governments to appropriate any amount of money to push their side of the constitutional alterations so that the people of Australia will be deluged with just one side of the referendum questions? I have grave concern in this regard. I ask the Attorney whether he will answer the question that I have put to him. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(11.23) —I want to say a few words in support of the Opposition's amendment. I really feel that there are two sides to this referendum, the Yes case and the No case. I do not see why the Government should not be even handed about the amount of money that it will use for advertising. This morning I was speaking to the Queensland Premier, whom I know fairly well, and I asked him whether he intends to spend Queensland's money on promoting the No case in the referendum. He said very strongly that he intends to campaign vigorously for the No case. He has been around for a long time, and I say to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that he intends to be around for a long time yet, campaigning vigorously in this referendum and also in further State elections. In the last referendum he campaigned very strongly and I was glad that he was successful; certainly, the people voted No. I am sure that he will work hard to make sure that the No case gets up on this occasion. It is quite wrong that the Government can spend $1.25m advertising the Yes campaign but not give the same amount of money in an even handed way to the No campaign. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.25) —I have already expressed to the Senate my very strong opposition to any expenditure of public funds on either case. The Committee is aware of my views on that matter. There are a couple of specific questions which I wish to raise with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and again, as it was with Senator Walters, it is somewhat difficult. People realise that a lot of things are being done in great haste at the present moment . Nevertheless, there are some specific questions which I wish to direct to the Attorney, now that I have his attention, as to the legality of the proposed expenditure. I ask the Attorney: Has he sought the advice of his Department about the legality of the expenditure? What advice, if any, was received? Is the Attorney aware of attempts made in 1977 to spend public funds on the referendum campaign? The advice given at that stage, I understand, was that it would not be legal to make that expenditure. I understand also that the situation was similar in 1967. I do not know what the advice was in 1974, but I ask the Attorney: Is he aware of that situation? Will he confirm or deny these allegations and, in particular, answer the question on the advice he has received to the present moment? I also wish to raise with the Attorney the question of the use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance. The Attorney, when he was an Opposition senator, was on the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations with me when it brought down a series of recommendations about expenditures out of the Advance to the Minister for Finance. In response to those recommendations, the then Minister for Finance, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, made a statement in the Senate on 26 May 1981. Recommendation 1 stated: Expenditure from the Advance in addition to items already appropriated for, or new items, be permitted only in 'urgent and unforeseen' circumstances. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said: The Government accepts that the issue of funds from the Advance be on the basis that the contemplated expenditure is deemed to be 'urgent and unforeseen' at the time of preparing the relevant Appropriation Bills and cannot reasonably await the passage of an Appropriation Bill. His Excellency, the Governor-General, on the occasion of the opening of this Parliament, announced what the Government's policies would be in relation to parliamentary, legal and constitutional reform and said: A wide range of proposals and legislation designed to enhance the quality of government in Australia and to strengthen the foundations of parliamenary democracy will be submitted for your consideration. The Governor-General devoted four of the following paragraphs to discussion about proposed constitutional reform. I acknowledge that, at that stage, the Government was talking about a fixed-term parliament and was proposing that funds be expended on fixed-term parliament reform which the Government has not proceeded with. Nevertheless, it is clear that as long ago as 21 April this year , the Government contemplated substantial constitutional alterations. In those circumstances it is my belief that, at the time of the preparation of the Appropriation Bills, the Government must have known that it intended bringing down some constitutional changes along the lines, at least some of them anyway, proposed for this constitutional referendum. Senator Jessop —So it is not urgent and unforeseen. Senator LEWIS —As my colleague Senator Jessop said, so it is not urgent and unforeseen. Therefore I put to the Attorney-General-after all, he is the first law officer of the Commonwealth and so we have difficulty in asking anyone else to advise us-whether it is a fact that, under the proposed expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance, this expenditure cannot be made because the expenditure was not urgent and unforeseen at the time of preparing the relevant Appropriation Bill. I hope I get a proper answer to those questions. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.29) — I do not wish to and nor can I, in the Committee stage, canvass the matters that were canvassed, as the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) said, during the rather vigorous second reading debate last evening. I raise a couple of matters that have been raised this morning by the Attorney-General. The first matter that he raised in opposition to the amendment now before the Committee was that this amendment was not adequate and not appropriate because it sought to prevent expenditure of funds on the Yes case to the exclusion of the No case but that, in Tasmania, the Premier is proposing to spend Tasmanian taxpayers' money on the No case and not on the Yes case and therefore the evenhanded approach is not being applied there . There are two things about that. First of all, the No committee has not been contacted by Mr Gray in respect of that matter. He went off on his own on that matter and in respect of a number of other matters without consultation with those of us who have the constitutional responsibility to prepare the No case. Of course, he is entitled to do that. It should be borne in mind that the Attorney-General should not use the actions of someone over whom nobody in this chamber has control as an argument against what has been now properly put by the Opposition, by the Australian Democrats and by me that there should be an even handed approach by the Commonwealth in respect of grave constitutional issues that are placed before the people. The second point that I wish to reiterate is that that expenditure of money should be even handed and not necessarily carved up in accordance with the numbers of senators and members who voted for the proposition and those who voted against the proposition in this Parliament. Senator Jack Evans —There is no record of those numbers; we voted only for having a referendum. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, exactly, that is true. There is the third reading vote to consider. That will sort out those who are in favour ultimately and those who are against. The point that was made last evening was that the people have proven in the past that they reject almost unanimously proposals that have come from the Parliament. I instance again the nexus proposal and the simultaneous elections proposal. I ask the Attorney-General to take those matters in hand and bear in mind that whatever other people might do outside this Parliament, those actions have been taken without consultation with people involved with the No case and we should not have those problems visited upon us. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.39) —Again, without recant and resawing the sawdust, it is a fact that it is quite improper for the Government to fund one side of an argument. It tends, of course, to distort the presentation of the argument and to distort the full force of the arguments on both sides. It will have the effect, of course, of extinguishing and submerging the No case. Already the Government, as it well knows, has a very significant advantage over the small group of dedicated, responsible and highly intelligent members of the No case who will be putting that argument. The Government has the advantage, as has already been pointed out, of VIP aircraft- Senator Townley —Overnight allowances for their Ministers when they are travelling. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is right, high overnight allowances for their Ministers as they travel from State to State in pursuit of Yes votes. Of course the Government recognises that the Prime Minister is able to attract a great deal more media attention than the modest proponents of the No case, so already it is starting with a significant advantage. It would not require $1.25m to put its point of view if it had any confidence in the capacity and ability of the average citizen to understand both sides of the argument. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) says that invariably the Yes case starts behind the eight ball. The facts of the matter are that on the occasions when a sensible proposition which has been in the best interests of all States has been put to the voters, the majority of people in the majority of States has cast votes in favour of the proposal. On the occasions when proposals have been put which could impair and impinge upon the rights of people in the less populous States, the questions have been resolved in the negative. It is a reflection not of the lack of understanding of the people in Western Australia, Tasmania and Queensland that so many proposals have been defeated but more of the fact that they have a very clear understanding of what has been put. It is very much as a result of the type of questions, which invariably seek to centralise power to Canberra and extinguish or dilute the power and capacity of either the Senate, the States House, or the States themselves, that those proposals have been rejected. Clearly the Government has a great fear, particularly in respect of the simultaneous elections proposal, that it will for the third time be defeated. That proposal has been defeated twice before and on the last occasion it had the support of both the Government and the Opposition. It was only a small band of senators from Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania that was able to persuade the majority of people in those States that it was not in their best interests to cast a vote in favour of the proposal. Of course the Government fears a repetition of that and so it is hoping on this occasion to snow the community with $1.25m of advertising, plus all the time it knows it will attract on television and radio, and so distort the argument to the point where the No case will not be heard. That will give the clear impression that there is no No case, only a Yes case. I must say that of all the arguments I have heard put forward in this chamber by the Attorney-General during the time I have been a senator, the one he has put forward in justification of funding one side and not the other has been by far the worst. Even his presentation showed that he tremored with the logic of his own argument. He took up the point made by Senator Macklin in respect of ethnic understanding of the propositions and said that that would not be followed up because of the time frame. I wonder whether he can tell me whether part of the $1.25m is to be spent on 0-28 ethnic television. In fact, there will be some education of those people for the Yes case, but not the No case. The Government knows that it is breaking all the standard principles and rules and the very fundamental concept which is contained in the Referendum ( Constitution Alteration) Act that there shall be put to the voters of Australia a maximum of 2,000 words of argument for and against each case. That is the extent and the limit of the contribution the Parliament and the Government can make with public funds in respect of presenting arguments. It is clearly intended in the Act that there should be equal space and an equal maximum number of words so as to ensure that the community is getting both points of view. I find it staggering for a Government which has just imposed upon the taxpayers public funding for election campaigns on the argument that there needs to be a clear understanding of the policies, the arguments and the position of all political parties-not only the major parties but also the minor parties-to now put it to us that only one side of the argument ought to be presented at taxpayers' expense. That seems to fly in the face of the Government's arguments and seems to be contradictory to the fundamental principles enunciated in support of its logic. I think even Sentator Ray, for all his wily twisting and turning in presenting us with his arguments on the electoral Bill, would have tongue in cheek trying to support this sort of argument. Clearly if the Government, as it pretends, were interested in ensuring that the public is aware of all the arguments, it would ensure that funds be made available for both sides. If the Attorney has the same difficulty drafting amendments of that nature as he has had with other amendments recently, the Opposition will be very happy to accommodate him with an amendmnt which will provide equal expenditure for the Yes case and the No case. I thought I understood the Attorney-General to be saying that if the majority of senators in this chamber choose to persist with this amendment the Bill will be left to lie on the table and voters of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory will be denied, as a result of the Government's action, a vote in the forthcoming referendum. That, to me, is bald, frank and unequivocal blackmail. It is intended to put pressure on the Australian Democrats, particularly, and the Opposition to a lesser extent to cause them to compromise their integrity and their principles for political expediency. Frankly, I am one of those who take the view that in the final analysis that sin will be visited upon the Goverment and nobody else. It will be properly located where it deserves to be because the people in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory will understand, very quickly, that they are being denied a vote not by the Opposition and the Democrats but by the Government, and they are also being denied an opportunity to have put to them in a reasonably articulate way the aguments on both sides of the coin. I hope that the Democrats have the courage to stick to their principles and not have a weather eye on the politics of this proposal, and are prepared to stay with the amendment they have already proposed. The consequences of these referendum proposals are such that they will have enormous influence on the less populous States. The simultaneous elections proposal probably will mean more elections and not fewer; it will mean that the independence of the Senate and of senators will be diminished to a great extent and that the smaller States' representation will lose its capacity to have a proper, equal voice. In respect of High Court of Australia advisory opinions, we know that Senator Evans has an ambition to probe the Consitution as far as he possibly can in respect of external affairs powers to see what further power he is able to draw towards Canberra. As Senator Evans looks frustrated that I am starting a discourse on the virtues of the arguments on both sides, I will leave it at that and continue to say that in respect of this amendment I hope that Senator Evans will be a man of principle, not expediency, and will accept it. If he will not, I hope he will accommodate us by at least giving the No case the same money that he is spending on the Yes case. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.45) — Mr Chairman, I have circulated an amendment to the Opposition's amendment No. (3) seeking to pick up the point raised initially by me and responded to by the Attorney-General. After the word 'section' in Senator Durack's amendment my amendment would add: and any translation into other languages which may be authorised and advertised by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer. The concern that I had in relation to advertising may be affected. I believe that the explanation of the Opposition's amendment, which states that no money shall be expended by the Commonwealth with respect to the presentation of the argument, would not in any way detract from the ability of the Australian Electoral Office to advertise and carry out its other functions that are necessary. I move: Proposed new clause 5A paragraph 6A (3) (a), after 'section', insert 'and any translation into other languages which may be authorised and advertised by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer'. I also wish to respond briefly to the point the Attorney-General made in attempting to paint those who were pursuing the even-handed approach as opposing the referenda. I am not opposing all of them. I will be opposing one but I support the majority of those referenda that are to be put to the people. But I believe there is an argument that when something is put to the people it should be done in a fair way so that the proponents win in a fair way. I hope that the majority of those referenda will be won in a fair way. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.46) —I am happy to accept the addition proposed to my amendment by Senator Macklin. I think it is quite appropriate that the Yes and No cases should be translated into other languages and advertised by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer. The matter will be entirely within his hands. This does not come within the principle we are striking at in the amendment I have moved. Amendment (Senator Macklin's) agreed to. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.47) —I am concerned that this debate is not following a very logical and consistent line. I think there is a very important matter of principle that needs to be addressed, and that is whether, as I understand it, for the first time this Parliament is going to support financially the putting of one side only of a referendum case in a propaganda campaign. My understanding is that there are already provisions within our Constitution and within our laws to put both sides of the case and to give each side equal opportuity to put its case. Frankly, I would prefer that, if it were possible, no additional propaganda be permitted. In that way we would get a far more logical and reasoned debate in this place and consideration by the people who ultimately have to determine the fate of these referendum proposals. I simply ask the Attorney-General whether this is the first time that one side only has been financially funded by the Federal Government. If so, has he considered the dangers that are inherent in setting a precedent such as this for not just this Government but any future government to pick up this particular approach and to build a whole propaganda campaign around only one side of a referendum issue? Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(11.48) —I realise there are some time constraints which the Attorney-General has put on this matter and I do not want to take up a lot of time. Most of the things that could be said about fairness and so on have been said. But I find it quite amazing that the Government should threaten that the people of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory might not get a vote. Perhaps when we look at the way the people of the Northern Territory voted last Saturday we will recognise just why it is that the Government might not want those people to vote, but I cannot understand why the Government would not want the people in the Australian Capital Territory to vote on this matter. The important thing, as Senator Jack Evans just said, is that each side should have an equal go and equal support and that if any money is to be spent an equal amount should be given to both sides of the argument. My personal view is that no money should be spent. Following some telephone conversations that I have had today, I would not be at all surprised to see a High Court challenge on this matter of money being spent on the referendums, even if some is given to the No case a well as to the Yes case. Or course I was one of those who voted against all of these referendum proposals, and I will be doing my best to see that they are defeated. But I suggest to the Attorney- General that he should not underestimate the intelligence of the people of this country. They will be asking themselves: 'Why is the Government spending all this money? Why is it going to all the trouble of flying around the place, as no doubt it will, in VIP aircraft and so on? Why will all the Ministers be spending their time on referendums when they should be spending it in attempting to make life in this country better for the very many people who are finding it very difficult at the moment? I suggest that the Government should not underestimate the intelligence of the people, no matter how much money is spent on the referendums. I believe it will cost about $20m-odd to run them. We are now talking about spending a lot more of taxpayers' money-it is not just money that the Government has; it is taxpayers money-on what I call the attempted forcing through of these referendums by subterfuge. We have to remember that absolutely none of them is essential. This Government could continue to run the country without any of these things being put before the people. Senator Crichton-Browne —And much more effectively. Senator TOWNLEY —I am very much against giving anyone an eight-year term in Parliament, and that is what one of these referendums will do. They will also make it possible for some of the State governments to impose sales taxes. I have that in writing from the Attorney-General through what he said in this very place. It would be possible, once the relevant referendum is passed, for State governments with certain manoeuvres to impose a State sales tax. I was talking to an American about it and he said: 'You never want to let that kind of thing happen because that is one of the ways governments can easily increase their money. Senator Robert Ray —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. We are running out of time. Senator Townley is really canvassing issues of another debate which are not relevant to this clause, other than to show the importance of the clause, which he has already established. The CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. Senator TOWNLEY —Mr Chairman, I do not like this idea of honourable senators saying that we are running out of time. If we are discussing something important in this Parliament I do not care whether we have to sit here until the week after Christmas. Senator Robert Ray —You are costing $1.25m. Senator TOWNLEY —I do not care how much it is costing to run this Parliament and I do not care whether we have to bring back the House of Representatives, because this to me is very important. The point about all these referendums, as I have said, is that none of them is essential. The Government could get by without them. They will enable all sorts of things to which the public should be alerted. If the Government is going to try to steamroll us by saying that we are running out of time, it might find it really will run out of time and it will not get done some of the things that it wants to get done. Senator Missen —I do not want to have Christmas dinner with you. Senator TOWNLEY —I do not particularly want to have Christmas dinner with Senator Missen; I am sure we can agree on that matter. I think we have to be suspicious of what this Government is doing. First of all, it increases the numbers of members of parliament and now it is trying to increase the length of time that members are in parliament. Under our present rules, if a senator gets elected once, he will get a pension. How is that for a good idea? I am sure everybody will be standing for Parliament. Anybody who gets an eight-year term-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Townley, we are discussing proposed new clause 5A. I would like you to keep to that. Senator TOWNLEY —Mr Chairman, I am perhaps going a little longer that I intended to but I was provoked. Senator Mason —They get a pension after one election. Senator TOWNLEY —They get a pension after being elected once. I am sorry; I am replying to an interjection and I should not do that. The point about pensions is a very important one. Nobody who is elected once should get a pension. Anyway , an eight-year term is too long. I ask the Attorney, if he can, to ensure some even-handedness. I suggest to him that if he does not there will be a High Court case. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.55) —I might briefly reply to the questions that were specifically addressed to me. Senator Lewis asked whether the Government has had any advice as to the legality of expending any moneys other than in the formal Yes-No pamphlet for which the Commonwealth Electoral Act provides. The answer is yes, there was oral advice sought and obtained from the Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers, the substance of which was retailed to me in a departmental minute back in August. That advice was yes, the expenditure could legally be made. As to the second question from Senator Lewis about the Advance to the Minister for Finance, I am well aware of the constraints that apply in relation to that as to 'urgent and unforeseen' circumstances and the rest of the variable terminology that has been applied over the years. The situation simply is that I am in no doubt that this is legally and technically within the proper scope of the Advance not least because it has been in doubt up until 17 November as to whether or not these Bills would be passed. It was only on that day that they were passed finally in the House of Representatives. There has been doubt about what the content of the referendums would be until well into this Budget session . There has been doubt as to the timing of the referendum itself being on 25 February as distinct from some later period until comparatively recently, all of which substantially postdated the period for the preparation of the Budget in question. This is a perfectly proper and, indeed, routine use of the Advance. I believe that Senator Lewis should accept that explanation. As to Senator Macklin's point about who is going to the precipice first in terms of what the Constitution provides, the reality is, if Senator Macklin is listening, that in effect it is something of a Mexican stand-off. Section 128, as it is now framed, does, of course, require the territorians to have a vote. However, they cannot in practice have a vote unless the machinery for doing so is provided by legislation. If this machinery legislation is not passed there will, accordingly, be a situation that, firstly, the territorians will not be able to vote and, secondly, the validity of the referendum itself would be put at risk. So if the Australian Democrats insist on pursuing their objections to this, not only will they be denying territorians a vote but also they will be creating a situation where the whole validity of the entire constitutional referendum itself and the value-- Senator Lewis —That is absolute blackmail. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am putting a serious point. Senator Lewis —Of course it is. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not debating the merits of it. I am answering a technical question. The merits of their basic endeavour of getting these proposals before the Australian people will also be put at risk. That is the reality of it. Senator Lewis —Absolute blackmail; there is no other word for it. Senator GARETH EVANS —We can debate that next week if the situation arises. Finally, Senator Walters asked me about bringing the House of Representatives back. It is very likely that the House of Representatives will be coming back for one day anyway next week. That depends on the fate of quite a bit of other legislation that has to be dealt with in this place in the next two days. Should it become necessary for the House of Representatives to be brought back as a result of further developments in the Senate next week, of course it will be. What we do obviously want to do, and I will be very grateful for the co- operation of honourable senators if they could help in this respect, is to get this Bill passed within the next 20 to 25 minutes. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.58) —I have no intention of holding up the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). The Attorney said in answer to Senator Lewis's question that legal opinion was sought back in August. Why did not the Attorney tell us when the Estimates were being examined that $1.25m or some other amount was to be spent. Obviously last August he decided-- Senator Gareth Evans —You did not ask. That is why. If you had I would have. Senator WALTERS —During consideration of the estimates of the Department of Social Security I asked on what $53m from the Advance to the Minister for Finance was going to be spent. We were told that $20m was going to be spent in our area. No mention was made at all of any money that was going to be spent on the referendum. I asked the question. Why did not the Attorney have the honesty to tell us before the Appropriation Bills were passed? He knew that he had sought legal opinion back in August and he did not have the decency or honesty to tell the Senate that money was going to be spent on the Yes case only. He knew that the Appropriation Bills would not be passed if he had told us. He says that we did not ask. So much for open government, freedom of information and whatever else the Attorney wears so often on his sleeve. He wears on his sleeve freedom of information and civil liberties. He wears on his sleeve all of these things. Yet, he did not have the decency to say during consideration of the Estimates that he was going to spend this money on the Yes case. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.00) —In brief answer, I was not specifically asked about referendum campaigns. At that stage, as I recall, the date had not been settled nor had any final decision been made actually to expend any money. That decision was made only recently. There was a question in my mind as to whether, if a decision were made to expend money, in fact that would be legally possible. It was entirely hypothetical at that stage. I do not think the date for the referendum had even been set. There is no attempt to mislead or deceive. I do not think I have ever been in the business of doing that in this Parliament. I regret that Senator Walters chose to put her response in those terms. The CHAIRMAN —The question is: 'That the proposed clause 5A, as amended, be agreed to'. Those of that opinion say aye. Opposition senators-Aye! The CHAIRMAN —Against, say no. Senator Gareth Evans —No! The CHAIRMAN —I think the ayes have it. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Chairman, we shall not waste time by dividing on this. However, I want to make it clear that the Government was in fact voting no. Proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 8-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 9 (Forms of ballot-paper). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.02) —I seek leave to move amendments Nos (4) to (8), all of which are essentially technical amendments of the same kind as were involved in amendments Nos (2) and (3) which were previously debated. They are essentially hypothetical. They bear no particular relevance to the conduct of this forthcoming referendum because the form of the ballot paper will, I hope, be prescribed in this legislation itself. The CHAIRMAN —There are a large number of amendments to clause 9. Is it the wish of the Committee that Government amendments Nos (4) to (8) be taken together first? Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: (4) Page 5, clause 9, line 27, leave out ''in the case'', substitute ''in a manner necessary for the purposes''. (5) Page 5, clause 9, lines 38 and 39, leave out ''in the case'', substitute '' in a manner necessary for the purposes''. (6) Page 5, clause 9, line 41, leave out ''in the case'', substitute ''in a manner necessary for the purposes''. (7) Page 6, clause 9, line 1, leave out ''in the case'', substitute ''in a manner necessary for the purposes''. (8) Page 6, clause 9, at the end of the clause add the following paragraph: '(f) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: ''(5) The ballot-papers referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3) may, in a manner necessary for the purposes of voting by Australian Capital Territory or Northern Territory electors, be modified by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer.''.'. Amendments agreed to. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.03) —We have been dealing with what are really quite consequential amendments. We have already had the debate on this question. I certainly wish to move the Opposition's amendment No. (4). However, amendments Nos (5), (6) and (7) all were dealt with in the debate that took place earlier on whether the Chief Electoral Officer should have a discretion. The Committee agreed that a discretion should be given but that it should be limited in the way in which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has moved. Therefore, I propose to withdraw the Opposition's amendments (5), (6) and (7). I will now move amendment No. (4)- Senator Gareth Evans —To which I have no objection, if that helps. Senator DURACK —I am pleased to hear that there is no objection to it. I move: (4) Page 5, clause 9, before paragraph (a), insert: '(aa) by omitting from sub-section (1) ''may'' and substituting ''Shall'';'. This amendment- Senator Gareth Evans —It is consistent with what we are proposing. Senator DURACK —I think it is. Amendment agreed to. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.05) —A number of amendments to clause 9 which I foreshadowed were consequential upon earlier amendments and, since the matter has been dealt with by the Government's amendments, I will not proceed with them . Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.07) —The pressures that we are facing in dealing with numerous amendments in such a short time are quite ridiculous. We just have to accept the fact that there is no way in the world that we can do otherwise if this debate is to finish by 12.25 or whatever is the magic hour that we are working to. I did not speak to Opposition amendment No. (4), but Opposition amendments Nos. (4), (8) and (9) are part of a package which is designed to ensure that the ballot papers provided under the Referendum ( Constitution Alteration) Act should be in the form that will be set out in the schedule. I propose moving an additional amendment, to clause 28, to provide for the forms in the schedule. It would be sensible that this debate should have regard to my proposed amendment No. (10) as well, although it is, of course, to a clause that will be dealt with later. The CHAIRMAN —Your amendment No. (4) has been passed. Do you seek leave to move amendment Nos. (8) and (9) together? Senator DURACK —Yes. Leave granted. Senator DURACK —As I have said. I agreed not to speak on amendment No. (4) because of the pressures that seemed to be brought to bear to hurry on the debate. I now regret that action because it is part of the package and in order to explain my amendments Nos. (8), (9) and indeed (10), when we finally reach it , given the antiquated way in which we seem to deal with amendments in Committee , I need to explain that what we have done by amendment No. (4), although it has been passed, is ensure that the ballot paper that is set out in the schedule to the Act cannot be amended by regulation, or in any other way; that the form of the ballot paper used for referendum purposes should be given statutory force and should be possible of amendment by statutory provision only. That is the purpose of Opposition amendments Nos. (8) and (9), which refer to other provisions of section 14A of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act. If my amendments are agreed to, the result will be that there will be a form C for single question referendums and a form D for multiple question referendums. The forms, as I propose to move them in my amendment No. (10), will be those that must be used. They will require that the question upon which people are being asked to vote will set out the long title of the proposed law. That is a very different situation from the one that we have now discovered, namely, that the question on the ballot papers, although set out in forms in the Referendum ( Constitution Alteration) Act, may be amended by regulation. We are well aware of the problem that we now have. The regulations have been made by the Government. Certainly, further amendments are to be considered by the Committee-whereby the Government is now resiling from relying on those regulations in respect of the forthcoming referendum. It intends to give statutory force, by way of amendment to the Act, to the different questions to be put to the people being other than questions which set out the long title of the proposed law. But the Opposition's view is that the correct principle is that the question should be in the terms of the long title of the proposed law. The reason is that that is the law which has been debated in the Parliament. The whole Parliament has agreed upon the proposed law and on the long title of the proposed law. If there are objections in the Parliament to the nature of the long title-that it is too legalistic for people to understand, is inaccurate or something of the sort-at the Committee stage of the passage of the proposed amendment to the Constitution is the appropriate place to determine what question is to be put to the people. Therefore, this machinery legislation that we are debating, the Referendum ( Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill, is not an appropriate vehicle, nor are the regulations under it appropriate, for determining the questions that will be put to the people. The object of the Opposition's amendments is to ensure that the Government may not put through, long after Parliament has discussed the matter and agreed on the questions that are to go to the people, a regulation which provides for different questions to be put on the ballot paper. We regard that as quite wrong . It is an abuse of the Parliament and the legislation should be amended in this way to prevent a repetition in the future of this type of action that the Government has indulged in concerning the forthcoming referendum. This is a quite separate issue from that as to what questions are to be put to the people in the forthcoming referendum. We seek an amendment of the Act for the long term . The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) says that next year he will bring down legislation to amend the Act. So be it; the fact is that we are dealing with the matter now and ought to be laying down now what we, as a Parliament, consider are the proper procedures to be followed. That is why I move: (8) Page 6, clause 9, paragraph (d), lines 1 to 3, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs: '(d) by inserting after sub-section (2B) the following sub-section: ''(2C) The form of the ballot-papers prescribed under sub-section (1A), (2), ( 2A) or (2B) shall comply, as nearly as practicable, with Form C or Form D, as the case may be, in the Schedule.''; '(da) by omitting from sub-section (3) ''which may be used by any one elector may'' and substituting 'for use by an elector shall'';' (9) Page 6, clause 9, after paragraph (e), add the following paragraph: '(f) by omitting sub-section (4).'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.14) —I am a little disappointed that Senator Durack should have chosen to spend 10 minutes debating something which I thought, by agreement, we had already debated in the context of the first amendments dealt with today. We all knew that this was essentially a hypothetical debate. It is not related to the context of the forthcoming referendum. It is simply an argument about what the machinery should be for the future. I made it clear that I was open-minded about what that machinery should be and there will be an opportunity to debate it next year. I thought that we had agreed as a Senate, in the context of the earlier amendments, that, for the moment anyway, in order not to leave the legislation a total mess, we would simply aim at tidying up the existing machinery, which does allow for the form of the ballot paper to be prescribed by regulation. I have believed that that was what we were debating earlier on. I expressed my arguments certainly in my contribution to the earlier debate and I do not propose to repeat them now. I would hope that we could leave the debate in those terms at the moment, on the basis that this matter has already been tested and it really is not something of immediate import. It is something that the Senate will be coming back to next year. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.15) —I wish to make it perfectly clear-I appreciate the time constraints with which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has asked the Committee to comply and all honourable senators seem to be doing their best to do so-that I support the proposals moved by Senator Durack, notwithstanding the fact that amendments circulated in my name contain other proposals in relation to the questions which apparently are going to be put to the people of the nation on this referendum proposal. I, like Senator Durack, believe that this matter should have been resolved when the Senate debated the constitutional alteration Bills. The long title of the Bills should have been correct. I think it is a great pity that the long title of the Bill relating to so-called simultaneous elections is such a poor title. I cannot see that the Government can escape its liability for giving the Constitution Alteration ( Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983 that title by saying: 'Mr Fraser's Government did the same thing'. I do not see that that is any answer to it. I think it is a geat pity that we did not correct the long title of the Bill at that stage. Nevertheless, I wish to say that notwithstanding the amendments which have been circulated in my name, I support Senator Durack's proposals. I think it is very important that constitutional alteration legislation in the future be set out specifically so that we know when we are dealing with the long title of a Bill at some future stage that we are in fact at that stage dealing with the question which will be placed before the people. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.17) —I wonder whether the debate at the Committee stage could be adjourned until a later hour this day. I am sure that it would fit in with the plans of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I see no problem in doing that as far as the rest of the Parliament is concerned. I think it would be a good idea to adjourn the debate now. I feel, as Senator Durack said, that pressure has been put on us. Honourable senators are trying to cut short what they are attempting to say. To me it is an intolerable position. Like Senator Lewis, I have a fall-back position and amendments have been circulated in my name. I support the amendments moved by Senator Durack. I believe that is the line we should be taking. If Senator Durack's amendments are not acceptable only then will I move the amendments circulated in my name. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.18) —In relation to the question of time, I point out that the House of Representatives will get up at 8 o'clock tonight. It would not be possible for any Bill to go across to the House of Representatives without major breaches of the Standing Orders. Standing Orders would have to be suspended, at the very least, to enable this legislation to be dealt with by the House of Representatives tomorrow. This legislation was scheduled originally for debate last Thursday. At the request of the Opposition parties-the request was put to me by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) who said that amendments were in the process of preparation-I agreed on behalf of the Government and after consultation with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), to have the matter delayed until yesterday, Tuesday, on the basis that the Bill would be passed yesterday, Tuesday. We did not finish the Bill last night for reasons with which we are all familiar. I was told again that the Bill would be dealt with effectively and with dispatch this morning in order to enable it to go to the House of Representatives. Honourable senators know the particular personal constraints that I am under at the moment. I will live with them. I will stay here until 12. 50 p.m. if necessary and arrange for planes to wait and so on. It creates real difficulties for me. If we could possibly dispose of the Bill in the next half hour it really would be consistent with the undertakings that I have been given regularly since last Thursday morning by honourable senators opposite. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.19) —Mr Chairman, through you, I point out to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that all honourable senators are seeking to co-operate in the best practical and sensible way they can. It seems to me, taking into account the amendments before the Chair and the foreshadowed amendments, that this Bill will not be passed by 12.50 p.m. I ask the Attorney-General whether, in the event the Bill is dealt with later during the day and the Opposition agrees to the suspension of Standing Orders in the House of Representatives, that creates a problem. Is that the only problem? If Standing Orders could be suspended in the House of Representatives and the matter could be dealt with tomorrow does that cure the problem faced by the Attorney- General? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.20) —I am not sure. I have not been able to check what the situation is in the other House in terms of the legislative log jam. As I understand it the House of Representatives was absolutely dependent on getting the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill 1983 by lunchtime. I have not yet had word back. The House of Representatives was also expecting the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1983 which is the other Bill which involves me. I had understood that we were going to have co-operation in that respect. All the arguments are so familiar to all honourable senators that I think we can deal with the Bill quickly and effectively in the time available if there is co-operation. If there cannot be co-operation a Standing Orders situation will have to be created, but nobody wants to get into that situation in the other House. We want to give the House of Representatives proper notice and proper time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.21) —I cannot allow to pass the criticisms of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) of honourable senators on this side of the chamber for not having the debate on the Referendum (Constitution Alteration ) Amendment Bill 1983 over and done with by noon today. If the Attorney-General wants co-operation I suggest to him that he stop trying to be the winner in every debate. The truth is that the Government has brought in a whole series of amendments which comprise some six pages. It is a nonsense to say that the Opposition was concerned that it might have to bring in amendments. Of course the Opposition was concerned about amendments because it could see the defects in the Bill. That is the first point I wish to raise. The second point is that the Attorney-General should not say that it is the Opposition's fault in some way or other that this Bill will not be debated in the other place tomorrow. The Government last night at 9.15 p.m. brought on the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 when we were halfway through the debate on this matter. I cannot sit here and allow the Attorney-General to make these allegations improperly and unfairly. The CHAIRMAN —The matter before the Chair concerns amendments Nos. (8) and (9) to clause 9. I have allowed the debate to widen because the Attorney-General raised another matter but it is not the matter before the Chair. Does Senator Walters wish to speak to the amendments or to the matter raised by the Attorney- General? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.22) —I would like to enter the debate we have been having, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN —The debate relates to amendments Nos. (8) and (9) to clause 9. Senator WALTERS —I feel that the point must be made that the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) said that we are all very familiar with the debate that is about to take place. That cannot be so. I have just put out my own amendments and Senator Macklin had the decency to say to me: 'I will be most interested to listen to the reasons you will put for moving these amendments'. Unless the Committee has the decency to listen to the reasons put in relation to amendments we might as well all save our time and go home right now. Debate in this place has got to take place in a proper fashion. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.23) — I support the amendments moved by Senator Durack. I believe it is necessary to move further amendments which go to the question of the form of the ballot. Do I move those amendments now or wait until the matter is dealt with later? Because of the way the amendments have been circulated I am not sure whether I should move my amendments now. Senator Gareth Evans —Senator Harradine is referring to clause 28A, not clause 9 . The CHAIRMAN —We are dealing with amendments Nos. (8) and (9) which have been moved by Senator Durack to clause 9. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J. Button, J. N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Geitzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles P. J. Zakharov, A. O. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Rae, Peter Richardson, G. F. Withers, R. G. Walsh, P. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 1 December 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(12.31) — When I first rose to speak on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) I had got about three minutes up the track and had only made the point that this is a remarkable piece of legislation. Industrial relations is an area that is usually attended by loud banner headlines and condemnation by one party or the other, but on this occasion the Government, by pursuing its approach of consensus, has brought forward legislation that is approved by all the parties. In the vexed and disputatious field of industrial relations, that is an achievement that I think should be acknowledged. The National Labour Consultative Council, consisting of unions, employers and governments, approved nearly all of the amendments before us. Indeed, some of the amendments arose from legislation that the Fraser Government introduced before going to the polls this year. That legislation has been reintroduced by the Labor Government as it was in large part agreed to last year when it was first put to the Parliament. However, the fact that we are able to come forward with legislation that has a remarkable degree of commitment and consensus establishes clearly that the policy of the Hawke Government in seeking agreement and understanding is the correct one. One hopes philosophically that by pursuing that policy and persisting with it, industrial disputation will cease to be the controversial political weapon it has been in public debate and that the causes and reasons for it will be more understood by the community. The industrial relations debate can then concentrate on resolving the causes of the conflict and not on blaming the parties. I hope that can evolve as we pursue the approach of trying to find reasonable accommodations for all parties. In the Bill before the Senate today there are a number of areas of change-10 in all. Most are technical and complex, but all are important to one group or another. I hope that in this debate we can have a serious dialogue across the chamber, shuck off our ideological blinkers and get to the merits of the issue so that we can concentrate on understanding what is contained in the Bill. It is interesting that there is a precedent already in one State of Australia, South Australia, that demonstrates that it is possible on a comprehensive range of industrial relations amendments to achieve consensus. Jack Wright, the Minister of Labour in South Australia, was reported in the Australian on Monday as saying that he had achieved magical agreement across the board with employers , unions and his Government on major revision of the South Australian legislation. This Government has set up the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, so that we can review the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and all the attendant Acts associated with industrial relations and, for the first time since 1904 when the first Act came in, produce a report which perhaps will capture again that magical consensus and point a new direction for industrial relations. The Hancock Committee, consisting of Professor Keith Hancock, Charlie Fitzgibbon, the former Senior Vice-President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and George Polites, the former Executive Director of the Confederation of Australian Industry, is uniquely equipped to do that. When that report is presented, I hope that we will be in a position to have a similarly supported piece of legislation arising from it as we have now. Perhaps it is in the context of that inquiry-because the existence of the inquiry underpins many of the comments that are to be made about this legislation-that I can make some remarks about a speech made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, Mr John Howard, a few weeks ago, when he announced a proposal for two parallel systems of wage fixation. In a paper to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Society, which was holding a workshop on wage fixation, he contemplated two possibilities: That unions or employers be able to opt for arbitration and pursue claims and differences in that environment; or that they should be able to adopt and run, parallel with the arbitral setup, a collective bargaining direct negotiation scenario. It is important to note that what underpins the philosophy of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is that there must have been or ought to have been direct negotiations between the parties in the first instance, and that if that direct negotiation is not able to bring forth an agreement the parties should submit themselves to the conciliation processes of the Act; and ultimately, if those processes do not work, arbitration is the end result. So what Mr Howard was saying is no different from the fundamental philosophy of the existing legislation. He was couching it with a different emphasis. I can only say that what strikes a discordant note in his paper is the opting out idea of which he has talked, because any practitioner of industrial relations will observe that strong employers will want to opt out and take weak unions or poorly defended workers with them. There are a number of industries that come to mind. The fast food industry employs young workers. In that opted out situation, they would maximise their bargaining power in a collective bargaining environment, which would not be to the advantage of the community. Alternatively, strong unions might wish to opt out and take weak employers with them and force these employers out. Whichever way the opting out into the collective bargaining environment goes, whether it is led by employers exploiting their bargaining position over weak and poorly defended workers or by unions exploiting their position, it is obvious that there will be major disputation at that point. That is not something that the Australian economy or community will tolerate. I do not want to go into a long analysis of Mr Howard's paper. However, since he has put it forward, I must say that the ideal place for him to canvass his views is before Professor Keith Hancock's inquiry. I would hope that the views that Mr Howard has put and the views of his party would be considered, and that there might thus be a commitment across party lines to the ultimate report that is forthcoming. Turning to the Bill itself, I start with the amendments concerning complementary industrial relations systems. Mr Howard, in his paper, contemplated the continuance of the arbitration system. As such, therefore, it is obvious that he is interested in having an effectively functioning arbitration system. These amendments help to ensure that. In Australia over the last several years there has been a major debate as to whether there should be one arbitration system. The proponents of that major debate have often argued that Australia is cursed with seven separate arbitration systems-the Commonwealth and the States each with their own. Of course, there are also a number of sub-systems-tribunals such as the Coal Industry Tribunal, the Stevedoring Industry Tribunal, the tribunal for flight crew officers, and so on- which add to the complexity of arbitration authorities. Without entering the debate which has been strongly argued by people so diverse as the Premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran, when he was beset in that State by disputation at the Kurnell oil refinery, as Gough Whitlam in a major paper last year in which he talked about the need for one arbitration system for Australia, and as Sir Charles Court in Western Australia, who often argued, although he was a rabid anti-centralist, that there should be one central arbitration authority, I think that the amendments in this Bill help to achieve for one authority an effect similar to that which many of the proponents of the one authority line hold as important. Perhaps I may just go back to the prices and incomes accord, which contemplates a centralised wage fixing system, to the National Economic Summit Conference which endorsed that, and to the national wage case decision which endorsed that. By having a central wage fixing system which is supported by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and by the State authorities in the same terms around Australia, we get one method of across the board uniform wage movement, one centralised method. In the terms of the submission put to the national wage case hearing by the Australian Government, it is a system that should not allow sectional claims and should allow anomalies or work value inquiries. In that sense there are no grounds for leapfrogging or for comparative wage justice. We have a centralised system, and that system brings about, because of the commitment to it by the State tribunals and the other bodies, the same effect as one central arbitration authority might have. The legislation before us recognises the particular marginal areas where that effect may not be so uniformly achieved as would be the desire of the Government, the ACTU and, at the Summit, the employers. There are a number of industries that get involved in conflicts in their particular area because of differences between rulings on conditions or local matters by State or Federal authorities. Unions, for example , in the building industry, are covered in part by Federal jurisdiction and in part by State jurisdiction. When they make common claims, one sometimes finds differing decisions being arrived at by the State and the Federal commissions to sit conjointly on common claims or to delegate responsibility for the commissions to sit singly and to determine all claims on a particular site. That is a major change. It is important not only in the building industry but also, going to another area, in the Pilbara. Unions in the land-based activities of the Pilbara mining industry are all covered by State awards, but in the loading out and off-shore-based activities of that industry they are all covered by Federal awards and sometimes find themselves in dispute with their employers over the same issue. Under this legislation there would be no different treatment by the different tribunals but, rather, the same treatment by the whole. That is a great and necessary change. I go to another part of the Bill which is worthy of comment-not that all parts are not worthy of it, but some are more worthy than others. It is the part dealing with the rationalisation of industrial tribunals. As I read it, that is the legalese for the bringing of the Public Service Arbitrator fully into the enclave of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act but with a discrete section in that Act to provide a continuance of his performance of duty. A number of powers dealing with staff selection, employment and promotion are also restored, and provisions on stand-downs and no work as directed no pay-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the sitting of the Senate is suspended until 2 o'clock. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Before Question Time commences, I inform the Senate that Senator Gareth Evans will be absent from the chamber this afternoon. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Evans in relation to his portfolio or those he represents should be directed to me. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask him whether he agrees that the Prime Minister misled the House of Representatives on 17 May this year when he said that apart from Mr Mick Young's 'kick out a Russian' comments before his famous long lunch: . . . he has in all other respects acted as we, that is the honourable member and me, would expect him to do-with honour and propriety. Was this misleading statement caused by the fact that the former Special Minister of State had withheld from the Prime Minister the fact that he had leaked information to his old mate Eric Walsh on the night of 21 April? Does the Minister really believe that a few months absence from the Ministry is sufficient penalty for someone who by his deception of his Leader has caused the Prime Minister to commit the most serious of parliamentary offences? Senator BUTTON —Yesterday in the Senate a statement was brought down, in response to the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, which dealt very fully in one section with the position the Government took in relation to Mr Young's resignation and to the prospect of his returning to the Ministry. I have nothing to add to that statement. I am not in a position to answer the question about whether the Prime Minister misled the House of Representatives on 17 May because subsequent statements made by the Prime Minister will have very much qualified that situation. I prefer to direct that question to the Prime Minister, which I will do. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. I refer to the impending liquidation of O'Connor's Air Services Pty Ltd, as reported in the Adelaide Press. The airline provided a combined passenger and freight service to various South Australian centres on Eyre Peninsula, in the south-east and in the north of the State. In view of reports that people living in about 12 South Australian country towns, including Naracoorte, Millicent and Streaky Bay, will thereby be deprived of a direct air service, I ask the Minister whether there is any scope for Commonwealth assistance in these sorts of circumstances and, if so, the criteria under which such assistance can be provided. Senator GIETZELT —I am advised that matters relating to the provision of intrastate air services are essentially ones for State authorities, in this case for the South Australian State Government. The Commonwealth's involvement occurs on some occasions. The Commonwealth can take steps to pay a remote air service subsidy to any particular airline that may be, under certain conditions, unable to fulfil the service, as a result of economic difficulties. From my information this subsidy relates to the remoteness of some centres, inaccessibility of other transport means and frequency of air services provided. Most of the centres serviced by O'Connor's Air Services failed to meet those basic Commonwealth subsidy criteria-in particular that the frequency of air service is well in excess of the once weekly maximum for normal eligibility and that centres are accessible by sealed roads and other transport means including, in some instances, competing air services. Nevertheless, I am advised that possibly services to Minlaton, Cowell, Cleve and Kimba could qualify for the remote air services subsidy if existing services were discontinued. However, the services would need to be conducted at a frequency well below the present five services per week. If the O'Connor's company were to make a formal approach to the Australian Government the Department would be prepared to look at it sympathetically if it meets any of those basic criteria. Senator TEAGUE —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as Minister representing the Prime Minister. I remind the Government Leader of the words of the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on 23 August when he said: It is quite clear why the Minister resigned. He came to me and he pointed out that he had breached confidentiality and he had not informed me of it. On the basis of what he put to me, of course the resignation was accepted. Now that we have Mr Justice Hope's finding that Mr Young's action was both ' unauthorised and improper', what basis is there for a man guilty of these transgressions returning to the Ministry? As the facts have now been judged as even more serious, is the reason for the change of prime ministerial heart simply that summed up so well on the front page of today's Canberra Times, that is, that Mr Young has the numbers? Senator BUTTON —As a member of the parliamentary Labor Party, I must say that I am quite uncertain as to whether Mr Young had the numbers. I do not think that is a question. The important question which Senator Teague addresses to me is related purely to the findings of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies that Mr Young's conduct was unauthorised and improper. There is no doubt about its having been unauthorised. The real gravamen of the finding is one of improper conduct. In respect of that matter, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the statement made yesterday by the Government in relation to this matter. That statement stands. If people disagree with the statement, of course they will say so. But that is the Government's position. Senator COOK —Has the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs seen the report in today's Sydney Morning Herald headed 'Private teachers back Government policy '? In particular, I ask whether the Minister has seen the reported comments of Mr Michael Raper, President of the Independent Teachers Federation of Australia, that: Calls for the end of state aid are totally irresponsible. But so too is the misrepresentation of the current funding guidelines by extremists like those at last night's (Monday) Malvern Town Hall meeting in Melbourne. Do not these remarks from people in a qualified position to judge represent an endorsement of Government policy? What other expressions of support have there been from responsible and important education organisations? Senator RYAN —I was aware of the Independent Teachers Federation of Australia's policy decision to support the Government's guidelines. In fact, its members have been supportive of the Government's guidelines since they were first announced. I spoke at the opening of their conference over the weekend and later met a delegation including their new executive on Monday morning. I am very heartened by what they had to say and I think honourable senators should take notice. They are the professionals who are running the independent schools which have been the subject of controversy in the media recently. They are the people who are committed to the education of young people in these schools. They are the people to whom the concerned parents, from whom we have been hearing a great deal, have entrusted their children. If those parents can entrust their children 's education to these teachers, I think they should take some note of what the teachers have to say about funding policies. They are informed people. They are professional people. They are dedicated people. It will be very enlightening for some of the parents of children in these schools to realise that the teachers, into whose care they have entrusted their children, do endorse the Government's policy. I point out to honourable senators that these teachers are not only in a position to make a fair and professional assessment of recent decisions but also are well informed about the range of educational needs across systems. Of course , many of them, as honourable senators will know, will have taught in government school systems as well as private school systems. Many of them will have taught in the better-off private schools. Many of them will have taught in the poorer private schools. So, I think they represent a very broad base of understanding of the needs of children in schools. I think their statements ought to be taken very, very seriously by those who have chosen to participate in the present debate. Of course, the Independent Teachers Federation of Australia is not the only responsible professional body which has endorsed the Government's guidelines. From memory, teachers federations throughout Australia have done so. The state school parents organisations throughout Australia have done so. Individual principals of state schools have done so. The Catholic education commissions throughout Australia have done so. It is very clear, I think, from the kinds of endorsements that the Government's policies have been getting, that those people who are informed and professionally engaged in the education of children in the government and non-government sectors accept the equity and justice and the positive and constructive effects of the Government's guidelines. Senator CHIPP —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Government taken any action with regard to the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Lebanon which threatens the lives of the Lebanese people, the fragile peace in the region and a military confrontation between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America ? Has the Australian Government, as an ally of the United States of America and a high priority target in a nuclear exchange between the super-powers, been consulted by the United States Government as to the nature and wisdom of its current moves towards a potential military confrontation with Syria and its predominant ally, the USSR? Given the fact that, during the October 1973 Middle East crisis, the North West Cape communications base was used to transmit a world wide United States nuclear alert without the knowledge of the then Labor Government, can this Government confirm that to date no such alert has been transmitted and that should such an alert be transmitted this Government would receive prior warning? Senator BUTTON —There are a number of parts to Senator Chipp's question. I will deal with them to the best of my ability in the manner in which the question was asked. First of all, I was asked about the general attitude of the Australian Government to the events in Lebanon. I am unable to provide an answer at this stage-I will seek an early reply-to the question whether the North West Cape communications base has been used to transmit any alert or whether the present Government would be informed about that situation if it arose. With regard to the developments in Lebanon, if there is one encouraging thing in those developments-there are not many-it is that the Secretary of State, Mr Shultz, has gone on record describing the latest air strike as an isolated incident, in terms which suggest it would not be the intention of the United States Government to repeat it. He went on to seek to justify that action as a permissible retaliatory action under the terms of the multi-national force agreement in which the Lebanese Government had authorised the use of United States reconnaissance flights. Those are the words that Mr Shultz used. They do not quite match up with what, in fact, happened. I think there has been a quite hopeful attempt by the United States Government to distinguish the recent developments as an isolated incident. We can only hope that is so. As I said, I will seek an answer to the question of the possible use of the North West Cape base and an answer about the degree of consultation which the United States Government has had with the Australian Government about the role of the United States Government in the Lebanon. On the more general aspect of the question, I can only say that the Government is very concerned about developments and has, as I understand it, through diplomatic channels, called for caution and constraint in relation to the Middle East situation. Of course, it does that, in a sense, publicly in Australia in answers to questions of this kind. Senator SIBRAA —Can the Minister representing the Attorney-General explain the stunning hypocrisy of some Opposition Tasmanian senators who bleat about the Commonwealth spending $1.25m of taxpayers' money on the referendum campaign and yet are on record as opposing the simultaneous elections proposal that will cost the taxpayer $17m every time a separate half-Senate election is held? Senator Townley —I raise a point of order, Mr President. Is this matter not related to a debate currently before the Senate? Therefore, should questions about it be permitted? The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator BUTTON —No, I cannot explain this stunning hypocrisy. Senator Walters —Of course you can't. You don't understand the whole thing. Senator BUTTON —I was going to say that I cannot explain the level of stunning hypocrisy because I am stunned by it myself, Senator Walters. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I refer to standing order 99 which sets out the rules which will apply to questions. Paragraph 4 states: Questions shall not refer to- (a) debates in the current Session; We are involved, at this stage, in a debate which relates to this matter. The legislation is only in part dealt with. I think we are in the Committee stage and are dealing with amendments which go to the very point which has been raised . There have been debates on this issue, not only in the current session, but also as recently as last night. Those debates will, I understand, resume today. In those circumstances I ask you, Mr President, to rule the question out of order. The PRESIDENT —I allow the question, but I advise the Minister that he should be careful to keep in mind standing order 99 and he should bear in mind also that a question of ministerial responsibility is involved in this question. Senator BUTTON —It was a very simple question. I was about to explain that I could not answer it because I was stunned by the level of hypocrisy which was displayed in connection with this matter. I really have little more to add to that. I should only say that the Government is very conscious of the costs which would be involved on a continuing basis if a referendum relating to simultaneous elections was not carried. But, of course, the costs of referendum proposals have to be considered in all their manifestations. I take it they will be considered by the Tasmanian Government in respect of any costs which it contributes to the forthcoming referendum campaign. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he knows the cost of the referendum campaigns which are being held next February at the insistence of the Government and what the comparative costs would be if those referendums were held in conjunction with a general election, which would, of course, be a course open to the Government. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney has asked me to do some arithmetic which, so far as I am concerned, is like asking a Minister to advance a legal opinion in this chamber. I am quite prepared to do the arithmetic later and give him an answer in due course. Senator FOREMAN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It concerns a recent survey of mature age workers undertaken by the Bureau of Labour Market Research and released last week. Can the Minister indicate what programs are available within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations specifically to assist mature age unemployed people? Will the Department be implementing any additional programs in light of this report? Senator BUTTON —As Senator Foreman well knows, because he has asked many questions about the employment situation, the unemployment statistics represent something of a blancmange; we deal with a particular situation in one area, then a new situation emerges in another. That is particularly true in relation to age profiles of the unemployed. As Senator Foreman correctly pointed out, a survey has been conducted under the aegis of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in relation to mature age unemployed. The Federal Government has in place several programs which offer a range of services, many of which would be applicable to those in the age group to which the honourable senator referred. I refer briefly to some of those programs. Firstly, there is the community employment program. The Government expects, given the relatively high level of unemployment amongst those of 25 years of age and over, that the program will achieve a reasonable balance between the participation of both the younger and older age groups. Secondly, there is LATA, the labour adjustment training arrangements, which provide redundant workers with training to upgrade and broaden skills. While I have no specific knowledge of the application of LATA, it has been particularly true in some of the steel centres, for example where there has been unemployment, that that scheme has specifically catered for more mature age workers. I believe it has been quite successful in that respect. The third general assistance program involves the general training assistance which is provided to individuals with previous labour market experience who, without training or retraining, have difficulty obtaining stable and rewarding employment. There is also, fourthly, the adult wage subsidy scheme under which employers are offered a wage subsidy to provide adult long term unemployed job seekers with a period of stable employment. Finally, in addition to these specific labour force programs, mature age unemployed people may benefit through the various advisory counselling and other assistance services provided by the Commonwealth Employment Service. I must say in relation to the adult wage subsidy scheme that this program was specifically introduced in view of the fact that the recession was found to be severely affecting adult workers. I should also add that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations will shortly be announcing a thorough external review of departmental labour force programs. He has already indicated that this study should have special regard in its terms of reference to the needs of mature age unemployed people. Senator TOWNLEY —I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Leader will recall that Mr Justice Hope said, on page 195 of his findings, that there was 'a real risk that significant damage could have resulted from the disclosure'. He was referring to disclosures by the former Special Minister of State which His Honour later described as unauthorised and improper. I ask the Leader of the Government whether he agrees with the view of the then Opposition Leader, Mr Hayden, who said on 21 September last year: If the Government sets up an independent judicial inquiry then, very properly, if impropriety is established . . . the Government has no choice in the matter. There must be a dismissal of the person who is identified as being guilty. If he does agree with the Foreign Minister, how can Mr Young possibly return to the Hawke Ministry? Senator BUTTON —As I understand the statement made by Mr Hayden, it was to the effect that if an independent judicial inquiry finds that there is improper conduct and recommends a dismissal, a dismissal should follow. I do not see that as having any particular relevance to the situation in relation to Mr Young's position and the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. The Hope Royal Commission provided its report some four months after Mr Young had resigned from the Ministry, for reasons which were stated by him at the time. Having said that, I repeat what I said earlier during Question Time: The Government's position in respect of Mr Young was stated yesterday in a statement which I read to the Senate. I have nothing to add to that statement. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government aware of the desperate plight of the famed Nobel Peace Prize winner, Professor Andre Sakharov? Is is a fact that he is gravely ill and has been exiled to Gorky, some 400 kilometres east of Moscow, where he is held incommunicado, cut off from the companionship of his wife and the support of friends? Will the Australian Government make representations to the Soviet Government to provide more humane treatment for this intellectual and moral giant who appears now to be in the twilight of his life? Senator BUTTON —The Government is aware of reports that Dr Sakharov continues to be harassed by Soviet authorities. In the Government's view, it is a further example of the Soviet Union's disregard for the human rights embodied in United Nations instruments and the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. If the stories circulated in relation to the harassment of Dr Sakharov are correct, they are outrageous and the Government and, I believe, all members of the Senate would totally reject the petty and pernicious attitude of the Soviet Union in relation to these matters. Many people in this community, quite apart from those in the Parliament, are concerned at the mistreatment of Dr Sakharov and other Soviet dissidents by the Soviet authorities. The Government itself has completely and repeatedly condemned the abuse of human rights as practised in the Soviet Union. Finally, let me say that the Government relies not only on outside reports of the treatment of dissidents like Dr Sakharov but also has continued to monitor, through the Australian Embassy in Moscow, the situation of dissidents within the Soviet Union. On a number of occasions it has through the embassy conveyed its views to the Soviet authorities in the strongest possible terms. As long as this Government is in power, it will continue to do so until some justice is obtained . Senator COLLARD —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It concerns the report of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies and the tabling statement made yesterday. Does the Minister recall saying yesterday that amongst the reasons for Mr Mick Young's return to the Ministry was that he was a 'good man who has made a mistake that he now regrets', that he, his wife and family have suffered and that 'he has spent 30 years working in and for the Labor movement'? Does Senator Button believe that Mr David Combe is also a good man, that he and his family have suffered greatly and that he has worked for the Labor movement for many years? If so, will the Government consider any action to enable Mr Combe to rehabilitate himself in view of the fact that it has decided to reward another person whose actions were strongly criticised by Mr Justice Hope? Senator BUTTON —Of course I recall what I read to the Senate yesterday in relation to Mr Mick Young and I agree with the statements which I made and which were quoted by Senator Collard in his question. I do not have a Government view to put to Senator Collard about Mr David Combe. As far as I am concerned, he is a good man, with the various attributes which are ascribed in other circumstances to Mr Young. I cannot quote them all, but let me say that that is my personal belief. I think the findings of the Hope Royal Commission were not, however, directed to that question. The question the Hope Royal Commission concerned itself with in relation to Mr Combe was whether he had engaged on a course of action which was undesirable and, if I might use the word, silly. Insofar as the question of the rehabilitation, as Senator Collard put it, of Mr Combe is concerned, the Hope Royal Commission clearly indicated that as far as the Commission's terms of reference were concerned the incident in relation to Mr Combe was over and that henceforth Mr Combe could proceed with whatever career he wished to follow without any findings of the Hope Royal Commission being held against him in respect of previous conduct. That is a view which I share- Senator Peter Baume —Such compassion! Senator BUTTON —and, without the assistance of Senator Baume, I hope that that takes place. The general situation in relation to lobbyists was indicated by the Government in a statement brought down yesterday. That will apply to Mr Combe as well as everybody else on an equal basis and I hope that that process will heal as quickly as possible. Senator HEARN —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. The Federal Government recently announced that it would be establishing a women's information service in Queensland. In view of the attitude of the Premier of Tasmania to the position of women's adviser in that State, will the women of Tasmania have access to a similar service? Senator RYAN —It is the intention of the Government to provide adequate information services for women throughout Australia, particularly in regard to the very wide and ever increasing range of Commonwealth programs designed to assist women. Such programs include the new women's emergency services program, which will be administered by my colleague Senator Don Grimes, the expanded children's services program and the community employment program, which is, of course, of extraordinary importance to women who are suffering from unemployment and other matters concerning their rights, and the new rights to be protected against discrimination, which women will shortly have under the sex discrimination legislation. What we are doing, on the advice of the Office of the Status of Women, which in turn is in touch with women's advisers in all States and Territories throughout Australia, is examining the particular needs of each State and Territory. I am sure that if a need can be established for such an office within Tasmania the resources will be found to fund it. So Tasmanian women also will have the advantage of information about programs which will be of great benefit to them. Senator JESSOP —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to a recent Press statement of 5 December, headed 'Button wants his uneasy partnership ended '. Is it a fact that the honourable senator has written to the Prime Minister, unannounced, requesting that he be no longer designated as Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications? Was the Minister for Communications aware of the letter before it was sent and has the Prime Minister replied? Does the disagreement that he has had with, for instance, the Government's proposal for the allocation of transponders on the Australian domestic satellite, amongst other things, have anything to do with his desire to leave the communications area? Senator BUTTON —I do not know what Press report there was on 5 December and I am certainly not prepared to comment on any heading that was given to that Press report. Yes, I did write to the Prime Minister indicating that I would seek to be relieved of my position as Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications . The Minister for Communications was not informed by me, prior to my writing that letter, of my intention to do so. I felt it appropriate that I obtain a response from the Prime Minister before advising the Minister for Communications . I have now obtained a response from the Prime Minister. The Minister for Communications is now aware of the matter. Senator Jessop —A lack of communication? Senator BUTTON —No, not at all. I would have thought that was the proper way to do it. If the honourable senator is concerned about propriety, as he claims in another context, I think it is important that he should recognise propriety here , even in me. Might I just add that speculation about disagreements between myself and the Minister for Communications is pure speculation. It is quite true that I have sometimes different views from other Ministers about various things. That of course would extend to my views about communications matters. But the fact of the matter is that when I became Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications it was not ever intended that I would remain in that role for a long period, and in my letter to the Prime Minister I indicated that I thought it was now time. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In the event of those involved in the Australian Secret Intelligence Service fiasco being injured or killed, would the Repatriation Commission be required to pay them benefits? What would be the Commonwealth Government's obligation? Senator GIETZELT —There would be three principal areas in which persons involved in activities on behalf of the Commonwealth would be eligible for benefits. If they are involved in the role of a peace keeping force, which I referred to last week-I do not think anyone in his wildest imagination could describe what happened at the Sheraton Hotel as a peace keeping arrangement-or if they are in fact members of the armed forces, and I am not sure whether they are, and if they have served sufficient time in the armed forces, they would become eligible for repatriation benefits if they were injured or killed. Of course I am not able to answer whether they were members of the armed forces. The third case would be if the Commonwealth declared that they were in a war zone. I do not think anyone would say that what happened at the Sheraton was a war zone situation. So in those circumstances I am not able to answer specifically because I do not know. In fact, I do not think the Australian Government or the Australian community is yet aware of the particular capacities of those persons involved, whether they were public servants, members of the armed services or what have you. If they were public servants or members of the armed services they would, under certain circumstances, come within the jurisdiction of my Department for benefits and they would also, of course, qualify under the Compensation ( Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. If the farce had developed to a position where, say, a private security guard or a member of the State police had become involved and someone had been killed, compensation probably could have been claimed if they were public servants. If they were public servants they would come within Senator Grimes's area. If they were members of the armed services they would qualify under certain circumstances under legislation administered by my Department. However, I remind the Senate that some of the State police who were involved in the Hilton affair, which was a Commonwealth organised event in Sydney, became involved in a long, protracted struggle to seek compensation for the related injuries and mental breakdowns they suffered as a result of that experience. They did not succeed in getting the previous Government to meet its obligations in respect of that affair. Senator HAMER —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, relates to problems which will face Australian potato growers if New Zealand fresh potatoes are allowed into Australia without quarantine restrictions. Are Australian potatoes at present free of serious disease? Is the Government now considering the relaxation of quarantine regulations to allow the importation of fresh potatoes into Australia, especially from New Zealand? Does not New Zealand have potato diseases of which Australia is free? Is the Minister aware of the disaster which would strike the Australian potato industry if potato pests, such as the golden nematode, were introduced into Australia from New Zealand? Would the Minister agree that the risk must be avoided, since prevention is obviously less costly to our potato industry than the eradication of potato pests after their introduction? Senator BUTTON —I strive very hard to master the details of my portfolio, but I must say that I have not yet mastered the details in relation to the prevalence or otherwise of potato disease. All I know is that the desirability of importation of potatoes from New Zealand was the subject of an exchange of correspondence between the Minister for Primary Industry and me recently. I am not in a position to answer Senator Hamer's question in detail. The matter is currently under review. As soon as I am in a position to do so, I will give him an answer to the details indicated in his question. Senator ROBERT RAY —Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware of a Mr Barry Everingham, who spoke as a 'concerned parent' at the public meeting on government funding of non-government schools held at the Malvern Town Hall on Monday night? Is this the same Barry Everingham, a relative of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who, according to the Melbourne Age of 3 December, became in 1973 the only journalist ever to be expelled from the Parliamentary Press Gallery in Canberra, for being found, without authority, in a suite of offices occupied by Gough Whitlam? Is this 'concerned parent' Barry Everingham the same Barry Everingham who used to write a scandal column called ' Betty' in a Canberra throwaway newspaper? Senator RYAN —I saw the article in the Melbourne Age on Saturday morning. I did know the fact to which it referred-Barry Everingham's expulsion from the Press Gallery. I can confirm to the Senate that that is the Barry Everingham who organised the meeting in the Malvern Town Hall and spoke as the representative of concerned parents. It was also widely believed that he was the author of a particularly unpleasant and unattractive little gossip column called 'Betty' in a throwaway Sunday newspaper which I think was called the Sunday Post. Certainly , when it reached its demise, no citizen in Canberra regretted its disappearance . He is the same Barry Everingham who was the organiser and main spokesman for the concerned parents in the Malvern Town Hall on Monday night. Senator MARTIN —My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, refers, first, to the Minister's statement in the Senate on 10 November 1983 that a decision by the Government on the future funding and administrative arrangements for the Australian Film Archive is 'expected shortly'. Has the Government made a decision? If so, when will the decision be announced? If not, when will the decision be finalised? If the answer to this question is still 'shortly', how much longer than the month since her statement to the Senate is 'shortly'? Is consideration of the same matters-funding and administration-also being undertaken with respect to the sound archives? Senator RYAN —On consulting the brief from the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment I find there is no updated information from what I gave Senator Martin in the Senate recently. However, coincidentally, Senator Martin's colleague Senator Reid raised this matter informally with me yesterday. I have just had drafted a letter asking Mr Cohen for urgent consideration and finalisation of this matter. As soon as that information is available, I will make it available to the Senate. I can assure Senator Martin and other senators that I am as concerned as she is and as Senator Reid is that a proper and stable future for the National Film Archive be established. Of course, I am also aware that there are similar problems facing the sound archives. I will pursue the matter very urgently with my colleague and I hope to have a reply for Senator Martin and the Senate before the end of this week. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is it correct that most World War II ex-service personnel are relatively better placed than other members of the community if they are forced into early retirement? Can the Minister advise whether some employers have reduced their staffing levels by retrenching ex-service personnel or inviting them to accept so-called voluntary retirement? What is the Government's attitude to this practice? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that ex-service personnel who served in a theatre of war and who meet the income test are eligible to receive a service pension at the age of 60. The wives of such ex-servicemen are eligible to receive a pension at 55. It is true that some evidence has emerged in recent times to suggest that employers are taking advantage of this to bring about the early retirement or premature retirement of ex-servicemen. I have had brought to my attention two cases in which employers having to make a choice about retrenching workers have told ex-servicemen that as they are 60 years of age and therefore eligible for the service pension they should be first to go in the retrenchment plans of the company. I believe that is reprehensible conduct because it is placing the burden on the Commonwealth, which has to pay these people an age pension five years earlier than would otherwise be the case. I have suggested to the union that raised this matter with me that it is a clear matter of discrimination when people are singled out just because the Commonwealth can pick up a welfare responsibility and thereby allow a company to retrench workers. Certainly Senator Colston can be assured that the Government is appalled at this practice. In every case that has been brought to my attention I have suggested that the matter is one for determination by the Anti-Discrimination Board. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of Sir Harold Young, a distinguished former President of the Senate, and Mr Peter Sim, a former senator. On behalf of all senators, I wish them a warm and friendly welcome on their return to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator MISSEN —My question, which I address to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, relates to a report released by the Australian Film Commission entitled 'Women in Australian Film Production', which concludes that there is a distinct imbalance between the number of men and the number of women working in film in all areas and at all levels. Firstly, will the Minister comment on this report compiled by the Australian Film and Television School and the Women's Film Fund and, in particular, the claim that most women in the film industry are employed in jobs with low status, low pay and a low level of responsibility? Secondly, what explanation can be given for the current imbalance and will action be taken by the Government to rectify the situation? Thirdly, will a campaign be mounted by the Australian Film Commission aimed at encouraging more women to enter the film industry both in top level positions such as producer and director and in the key technical areas of camera , sound and lighting, where they are comparatively so underrepresented at present. Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Senator RYAN —I am aware of the report to which Senator Missen's question refers. I am also aware of the description it contains of the unequal participation of women in different levels of the film industry. Although the film industry, of which we are all duly proud, has often been cited as an example of a non-sexist industry and an industry in which women have been able to be successful, I think this widely held view reflects the prominence achieved by a small number of well -known women producers and directors who include women such as Jill Robb, Margaret Fink, Margaret Kelly, Pat Lovell, Joan Long, Gillian Armstrong and so on. Their achievements are outstanding and have been acknowledged. But the reality is that few women have gained entrance to the mainstream film industry areas and there is, as the report points out, a serious underrepresentation of women in creative jobs and in key technical areas. The report issued by the Women's Film Fund confirmed this and made some recommendations. In answer to Senator Missen's question about what action is going to be taken, I indicate that the Government has announced a special women's film production unit to be established under the auspices of the Women's Film Fund. This unit will be funded by a grant of $400,000 under the community employment program. It will be housed at Film Australia and employ up to 40 women film makers in the development and production of four film and television programs. In launching the report the Chairman of the Australian Film Commission said that the Commission would give priority to programs designed to enhance women's access to employment and decision-making in the film industry. Steps taken in this regard include a 40 per cent increase in the Women's Film Fund budget from $130,000 to $180,000 in this financial year and the establishment of an internal working party to develop initiatives designed to give practical effect to equal employment opportunities policy. So I think that the deficiencies, in terms of women's access to all sections of the film industry which have been drawn attention to in the report, are now being constructively addressed and I am sure that Senator Missen joins me in expressing the hope that those initiatives will be successful. Senator CROWLEY —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether he has seen an article in the Advertiser of 5 December headed 'Why not girl apprentices?' which reports grants of $11,000 to three South Australians to study small employers' attitudes to employing women apprentices in traditionally male trades. I understand that the term 'small employers' refers to the size of the work force and not to the height of the employer. The report comments that while the Government is encouraging young women to consider trade apprenticeships and providing courses to support them, there has been little study of attitudes of employers. Can the Minister say whether there is any evidence that government programs are ahead of industry preparedness and acceptance to participate, not only in this area of women apprentices, but also in efforts to solve this country's unacceptably high unemployment levels? Is the Minister aware of any other research to establish whether such industry attitudes do exist, or is the seeming co-operation of industry at the National Economic Summit Conference continuing? Senator BUTTON —I was not aware of the study to which Senator Crowley has referred. A number of questions associated with government attitudes to these matters arise from the information that Senator Crowley has provided regarding the study. I will address each of those questions to the Minister and obtain an early answer. Senator WATSON —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether the Government is aware that a decision that Royal Australian Air Force No. 3 Squadron, with its aging Mirages, quit Butterworth, will widen the current rift between it and the Association of South East Asian Nations. To overcome this problem and the need to integrate and train for the introduction of the FA18 Hornet into the Force from 1985, will the Government consider replacing the Mirages with the Australian-displaced Skyhawks, thereby keeping content ASEAN, the Butterworth community and the presently disillusioned Skyhawk pilots, each of whom cost more than $1m to train and many of whom are now seeking work with the British Navy? Senator BUTTON —A number of questions contained in that disarming piece of guile by Senator Watson involve making value judgments-about the Australian rift with ASEAN, about whether particular actions will heal it or otherwise-and I am certainly not able to comment on any of them. I am sure that the Government will consider the proposition advanced by Senator Watson in relation to the Skyhawks but equally I am fairly confident that it will be rejected. I will direct the honourable senator's question to the Minister for Defence and obtain a detailed answer. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that in a paper entitled 'Estimates of Unemployment by Local Government Area', the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations lists 36 local government areas, of a total of 145, as having unemployment rates in excess of the Queensland average of 10 per cent? A study of community employment program announcements in Queensland made to date indicates that only a few of these high level unemployment areas are, in fact, represented, leaving up to 30 areas not as yet recognised by the allocation of funds for vital job creation projects. Given that many of these areas are in northern, central and western Queensland, can the Minister assure Queenslanders that there will not be a capital city-south-east corner bias in the implementation of the Federal Government's important employment initiatives in that State? Senator BUTTON —The community employment program has been developed according to guidelines which, as far as possible, try to eliminate biases of various kinds, whether on the basis of age, sex or geographical location. As the honourable senator is aware, as is quite apparent from her question, consideration has been given to priority of allocations under the program, having regard to employment levels in particular districts. I would be very surprised if, in the allocation of money for the community employment program in respect of Queensland, there was any departure from the general approach. I am sure that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations would be very concerned if in fact there were. There was certainly no intention that a capital city bias should be allowed. However, as the question is more probing than the response to now would indicate, I will direct its more specific details to the Minister. I am fairly confident that the answer will be along the lines I have suggested. Senator KILGARIFF —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to the environmental impact study conducted to evaluate the proposal to establish a Royal Australian Air Force base at Tindal in the Northern Territory and ask: Have any conclusions been drawn by the Government as a result of this study? If so, when will a decision be made on the development or otherwise of an RAAF base at Tindal? If the project is agreed to, when does the Government anticipate that construction on the base could begin? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of the details of this matter, but I believe that the Government has certainly not reached any conclusions about it. In the circumstances, the question as to when contruction will commence is not relevant . I will address the specific matters of timing and Government conclusions, and the supplementary elements of the question, to the Minister for Defence and obtain an early answer. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, refers to two aspects of the community employment program. Can the Minister say whether the Government is satisified with the present efforts to encourage participation in the program by community welfare groups? Can he also advise whether the State consultative committees will be regularly monitoring job placements to ensure that the program policy of helping the most disadvantaged unemployed groups is effectively carried out? Senator BUTTON —The question has two aspects. The first relates to the general aspect of the community employment program and whether the Government is satisfied in relation to its promotion. The Government has conducted a broadly based promotional program in the community related to the CEP. Approximately 25, 000 letters were sent in the course of that promotion to various community, welfare and other groups which might logically be concerned with the importance of the program and its development. Also, an extensive radio and newspaper advertising campaign was conducted at the national and local level, directed at bringing the program to the attention of prospective sponsors, in particular community organisations. Whether one can gauge the success of these campaigns accurately is difficult to say but there have been some 17,000 inquiries about the program and more than 7,500 project applications, by various eligible organisations, including community groups, have been received. Also, some 30 area project offices have been put in place by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations to promote the program to community groups and local government, and to assist prospective sponsors to develop proposals. Insofar as the second part of the question relating to the functions of the State and Territory consultative committees is concerned, I make the point that their functions include encouraging and facilitating the development of worthwhile projects throughout the community in such a way as to ensure that the targets and objectives of the program are met. That involves, as the honourable senator's question implies, the regular monitoring of job placements and other performance indicators. I am led to believe that the results of this monitoring will be provided to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on a regular basis. It is the Government's intention also that the objectives of the community employment program of assisting the most disadvantaged groups of unemployed will be achieved through the involvement of the Commonwealth Employment Service as the sole referral agency to job vacancies created under the program. In essense, the Government is satisfied, as well as it can be satisfied, with the promotional activities in relation to the community employment program. Insofar as the work of the State and Territory consultative committees is concerned, the Government is at this stage, subject to reports to date, satisfied that the monitoring function to which Senator Elstob referred in his question is being carried on in a satisfactory manner. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Haines proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The alarming and increasing incidence of physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children, particularly within family units, and the lack of readily accessible support mechanisms for these children and their families. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.01) —On 16 December last year, the Australian ran an article which, in its headline, connected Christmas and child abuse. It began by saying: The decorations are up, the stores are full, the Santas are at work-and throghout the nation hospitals are busy as the battered babies are brought in. According to Adelaide social workers in the field of child protection, there's only one other season like it-the approach to Mother's Day. At both times of supposed family goodwill, frustrations, anxieties and a desperate sense of inadequacy send hundreds, possibly thousands, of parents over the edge. They lash out at the weakest, most vulnerable person around-usually the child. In 1981, in Victoria a five-year-old boy was admitted to hospital after he had been burned by a blow torch in a row that involved his mother and her husband. The boy is permanently disfigured. In the middle of this year it was reported that a 15-year-old girl had become pregnant after being raped by her father in New South Wales. The 44-year-old man pleaded guilty to having sexual intercourse with his daughter without her consent twice between November and December of last year. On 12 April this year, I gave notice of the following motion: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the alarming incidence of sexual and emotional abuse of children, particularly within family units; (b) deplores the lack of available support mechanisms for these children and their families; and (c) requests that action be taken to investigate the matter, collect statistical data, and provide recommendations for overcoming the problem. Given the rapid approach of Christmas 1983, the Australian Democrats and I thought that it might be reasonable to remove that notice of motion from the Notice Paper and to debate the matter as a matter of public importance today. I put that notice of motion on the Notice Paper seven months ago. During that time , approximately 7,770 children have been battered. Some of those children have died. Some have suffered grave injury. All of them have been scarred emotionally , physically and psychologically. I make it quite clear at this stage that when I am talking about child abuse I am not talking about a child who is smacked for being naughty but about a child who is picked up and thrown across the room repeatedly. I am not talking about a child who has been sent to his or her room without his or her supper for some infraction of the family rules. I am talking about a child who has been repeatedly chained up outside in all weathers as a form of punishment for something which may have been unintentional, something which the child did not even realise he or she was doing. It may simply have been an overreaction by a parent at a time of crisis. I am not talking about the normal forms of discipline that all of us who are parents have exercised on our children. Fatal child abuse, according to the experts, is now the third major cause of violent death for pre-school children in Australia. An average of 37 children each day in Australia are physically abused. The South Australian Health Commission's report that was recently brought down states: . . . between 1977 and 1982, the number of reports of child abuse to the Department of Community Welfare increased by 56 per cent. Sexual abuse reports almost doubled in the same period. The sorts of abuse that the report listed include bruises, welts and scars, injuries to the upper lip, human bite marks, marks from the use of a blunt instrument or from lash marks, plus tattoos inflicted with a sharp instrument and choke marks on the neck. The report stated that a common presentation is a hot water burn which may be the dunking type, particularly resulting in burns to the buttocks. Burns have been inflicted also with matches or lighters. Dry contact burns occur from the forceful holding of a child under or against a hot object. The report describes sexual abuse as incest, rape and other forms of sexual activity, including fondling of the genitalia, inappropriate genital contact, mutual masturbation and child pornographic activities. Examples of emotional abuse listed are when a young child is repeatedly locked out of the home or a disobedient teenage girl has her head shaved. The report says that child abusers come from 'all socio-economic groups and all levels of education'. It will therefore be apparent from that list of abuse forms that physical abuse is far from being the only way in which a child can be maltreated. It has been estimated that, in the seven months to which I referred between listing the notice of motion on the Notice Paper and raising this matter of public importance today, up to 17,500 cases of sexual abuse will have occurred. Only a small proportion of these cases will have been reported and the rest will have been swept under the carpet and concealed. The reason for that, of course, is that people do not like to talk about it. It is not something nice. It is not something that we bring out into the light for us to see and, as a consequence, very little is done about it since it is not one of those things that produce a violent community push for reform. If sexual abuse is difficult to prove because often the victim is not aware of the fact that she is being abused since many sexually abused daughters believe that this is the way all fathers treat their daughters, because the mother will not believe the child or because the child is too embarrassed or afraid to report it, emotional abuse is even more difficult to define and to prove. But that it exists is not in any doubt at all. It involves things like constant scapegoating within a family, terrorising a child, neglecting a child or simple rejection of that child by one or more members of the family. What we do know is not only the forms it takes but also that it results in inevitable mutilation of a child's personality at the very stage when that child's personality is developing. Other forms of child abuse in this area, of course, include medical care neglect which sometimes results from a parent's desire not to let a doctor know that a child has been physically abused in some way, drug abuse and nutritional neglect. All too much of it takes place within the confines of the immediate family and is perpetrated by the natural parents. In the Institute of Family Studies discussion paper entitled 'Violence and the Family', Donald Stewart stated: One of the paradoxes of our society is that the group to which most of us look for love and gentleness is also the most violent civilian group or institution in our society. And much of this violence is treated as normal or is laughed off . . . To those who argue that all families provide a 'haven in a heartless world ' one only has to point to the growth of women's refuges, rape crisis centres, women's health centres and the like, and the increasing demand for similar services. The sensitive nature of the topic- that is, of violence within families- with cultural expectations of marital harmony and fear of violent reprisals- this, of course, is something which prevents many women from acting- makes family violence one of the most difficult areas in which to get accurate information. Most parents who abuse their children are to all intents and purposes outside the family home 'normal' people acting under stress. They are not pathological or paranoiac in any way. They appear to be perfectly normal people. Dr Brian Fotheringham in an article in the Adelaide Advertiser in February of this year said: Most parents who physically abused their children were normal people under stress . . . Less than 10 per cent who mistreat their children are psychotic; the vast majority are normal and have no psychiatric abnormality. That makes one wonder how those who are psychotic or who have some form of psychiatric abnormality behave. Stress, isolation, alcohol, drugs, unemployment, going on the dole, the cost of health care, housing, mortgage repayments, the cost of living, problems at work and other problems, all add up and cause apparently normal people to rage against their children, to take their own sense of frustration, inadequacy and apparent pointlessness in life out on a child. Like wife-beating, child abuse is found in every country and throughout the social spectrum. It is certainly not something which is limited to the lower socio-economic bracket. It should not be associated necessarily with a drunken male parent of low intelligence quotient. It certainly occurs throughout the socio-economic strata and at all professional and work levels. The idea that domestic violence is essentially a lower class phenomenon is not only a gross over-simplification of the problem but can also act to prevent a close and accurate study of the problem. By so doing, it makes it much harder to prevent the problems that occur in society through the scars that are inflicted by child abuse on the recipient of that abuse, because those scars remain throughout a child's life. They will affect it not only physically through the retention of burn scars or the effects of a broken arm when the child was thrown against a wall or whatever, but also socially, in that they will affect that child's future relationships with other people as individuals and with society as a whole. An American study of children who have committed a murder shows that a large majority have one thing in common. They have been victims of child abuse . The social genetics of child abuse, the psychological modelling that occurs in families repeatedly means that it goes on to the next generation. Children who are brought up in a violent environment believe it is a normal environment and therefore have a tendency to continue this form of behaviour through to when they become parents themselves. One of the most noted social workers at the Adelaide Children's Hospital, Janie Barbour, who is an internationally recognised authority on child abuse, had this to say about the effects of that problem: There are high incidence of retardation, growth and neurological problems and, almost inevitably, impaired emotional function among physically abused children. Reports indicate that abuse and neglect bear a fairly direct relationship to social maladjustment and juvenile delinquency. I add that that relationship is much higher than that of some of the things that are traditionally blamed for social maladjustment and juvenile delinquency, such as both parents working or a child coming from a split family. She went on: Abused, neglected and sexually exploited children are hostile,- which is hardly surprising- fearful- which is also hardly surprising- and unable to relate effectively to others. If their idea of relating to others is to operate on a violent scale clearly they will not be able to relate socially in the ways in which a modern society expects them to operate. Janie Barbour also said: It is more than probable that degrees of child abuse and neglect may be the variables that account for socially unacceptable behaviours . . . unreported maltreatment can mean unattended physical injuries resulting in scars, defective vision, loss of hearing, misshapen extremities and urinary tract infections in the short term. In the long term, failure to report child abuse and neglect can result in irreversible developmental damage and academic delays. Most of these effects are equally apparent in the case of sexual or emotional abuse. Sexual abuse has other equally devastating effects, particularly on young girls and women, since sexual abuse is almost entirely restricted to being perpetrated on females. For instance, a study of addicts attending the Odyssey House drug scheme in Victoria has shown a strong link between child abuse, particularly sexual abuse, and drugs. More than 80 per cent of drug addicts suffered mental, physical, or sexual abuse as children. Seventy per cent of female addicts, for example, were sexually abused as children either by rape or incest. Sixty-three per cent of this 70 per cent later turned to prostitution to support their drug habit. I find a nice if unpleasant irony in that vicious circle. According to Mrs Shirley Campbell of the Children's Protection Society in an article in relation to the people she deals with printed in the Australian in October of this year: By the time they reached 11 years, 30 per cent of the females had been sexually abused, including 26 per cent involving incest. Female sexual abuse jumped to 48 per cent as the girls entered puberty at 12 years and above. The article reported that more than half the girls above the age of 12 had been raped and that boys were not exempt from sexual abuse and incest. Mrs Campbell was also reported as saying: Twelve per cent of the male addicts reported incestuous encounters before they were 12 years old, and 16 per cent some form of sexual abuse. I suggest that statistics such as those underline the horror of the situation and the need for something to be done on a national government level. A social worker from New South Wales sent a letter to the Australian recently in which he said: The level of understanding of this problem both within the community and of the professionals who should bring help, is practically non-existent . . . Our society does not want to know about the problem, and, more worrying than that, our professionals and politicians don't want to know . . . Our politicians . . . need to face up to the fact that sexually abused children and their families require specialist services that cost money . . . These children face the grave risk of long term emotional and personality problems. They have the right to skilled and sensitive help; as a society we have a fundamental responsibility to provide it. I do not think one member of the Senate would not fully endorse that view. The question arises of what we will do about it. Unlike this writer, I believe that the level of awareness of the problem of child abuse in all its appalling forms has increased. It has increased because State and Federal governments have provided funding for the establishment of rape crisis centres, women's centres and crisis care centres around the country. Therefore, there has been some opportunity for the collection of data and for the cataloguing of details and appalling case studies relating to child abuse. Although the frequency of child sexual abuse is unknown, because it is very difficult to get the children to admit to this, as I have said, and it is even harder to get the families to report it outside the family, it has been estimated by Stewart that 70 to 75 per cent of offenders are known to the child-I think that most honourable senators are familiar with these statistics-that 20 per cent of offenders are parents or parent figures, and that the home is a common site for the offence. In a Perth study, it was found that 31 per cent of cases of child abuse under the age of 13 were incestuous, with 10 per cent of girls in the 13 to 18 year age group also in this class. I might add that some studies have shown a higher incidence of incest. It is likely that reports of incest, the most ancient of taboos in this country, despite Human Rights Commission recommendations on this subject, with its consequent devastating effects on the family and the enormous guilt with which the victim is often burdened, are even less indicative of the total incidence than are reports of other forms of child abuse. It is important to recall and to remember that the victim in cases of incest is often blamed for the problems. I appear to be rapidly running out of time, Mr Deputy President; so I say only this in conclusion: Family violence is society's problem and one that must be confronted. We see frequently on cars a bumper sticker which says: 'Children are this country's greatest natural resource'. If we are not willing to expend time, expertise and money on their behalf, I wonder whether there is any point at all in expending them on anything else. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.22) —I congratulate the Australian Democrats on bringing to the Senate's attention the problems of child abuse, because it is certainly a matter of great concern to the whole of the Australian community. The matter of public importance reads: The alarming and increasing incidence of physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children, particularly within family units, and the lack of readily accessible support mechanisms for these children and their families. I raise only one question, and that concerns the phrase 'alarming and increasing incidence'. I would question that; but I shall come to that matter later. Child abuse occurs in many forms, as has been stated by Senator Haines-physical , emotional and sexual. Concerning physical abuse, the most common child at risk is the very young baby who cries a lot or the young child who is overactive, because the mothers are under pressure and that is often taken out on this age group. Concerning emotional abuse, this again comes in various forms. There are varying degrees of emotional abuse about which we are told, and many papers have been written about it. Concerning sexual abuse, in the majority of cases it is associated with young girls, although, as Senator Haines has said, it can also apply to young boys; but often it is associated with young teenagers as well. It is mostly committed by a father, an older brother, an uncle or some other close relative. We do not know a great deal about it, but we know these particular facts. Very few surveys have been done, but one survey by Rosenfeldt shows that out of 530 female college students, 8.5 per cent had had some sexual activity with a family member. That figure should be of great concern to us. Senator Chipp —Was that survey done in Australia, Senator? Senator WALTERS —Yes. Sexual abuse is seen as a very difficult matter to handle. I have sat on two committees in this area. One of them looked into the question of homeless youth, and the other is presently looking into matters concerning children within institutional care. Sexual abuse and physical abuse have entered into both of these inquiries. We have been told that as far as sexual abuse is concerned, social workers feel that the prosecution of the father is very detrimental to the family situation; that it ends up only with the splitting up of the family and that therefore the father, in the majority of cases, should be counselled, and that education is the best way to approach this matter. We are told that by many of the social workers who have given evidence before us, in the homeless youth area in particular. But again, as I say, we have had the same groups telling us the same story in our inquiry into institutional care. There was only one social worker, who, not very long ago, put a totally different point of view. She said that the majority of children who have been abused will also, when they grow up, abuse their children, and that it is a cycle that is very difficult to overcome. This particular social welfare worker said that in her opinion it was necessary to prosecute the father because unless one broke the cycle there was very little that one could do about it; counselling was not enough. Indeed, we saw one young girl at a shelter-and Senator Elstob, who is in the chamber, will recall this-who told us that she had run away from home and was in a shelter with the blessing of her mother because she was being sexually abused by her father. When we questioned her, she assured us that there were younger sisters at home, no doubt still being abused by the father, but she had escaped. We, as a community, accepting the social welfare officer's comments that if we prosecute the father, that will end only in breaking up the family, are very reluctant to do that and are more inclined to counsel the father. As Senator Haines has already indicated, it is very difficult for these young children to come forward and give evidence. Senator Chipp —What do these social workers suggest that you do? Tell him that it is wrong? Senator WALTERS —They do; that is the point that I was making. They say: 'Do not disrupt the family; just counsel the father'. But as I have said, one social welfare officer said that that was impossible, that it was stupid, that it did not break the cycle, and that the father should be prosecuted. It is a very difficult area because the young girls do not like to let their mothers down. They do not like the shame of it. They do not like to give evidence against their fathers. As Senator Haines has said, when one looks at some of the shocking cases of physical abuse, one wonders about the mentality of the parent. I should like to quote from an article in the latest edition of the Medical Journal of Australia, of 26 November. It says: Bizarre forms of abuse . . . have tended to substain the belief that parents who abuse little children are psychotic or very seriously disturbed. This is not so; abuse is an irrational act, often caused by a momentary loss of control, to which most of us are susceptible. It makes one wonder just how a parent can lose his or her temper and commit an irrational act. But parents are under pressure. These days, particularly, women are coming under more and more pressure because in many cases they are attempting to hold down two jobs. Some mothers are working full time, going home , picking up children from creches, and trying to do a full day's work in the house in just an evening. They lose sleep; perhaps the baby has a wakeful night and continues to cry. In the majority of cases in which a woman works, the husband does not accept equal responsibility in the home. Senator Haines —That is the real problem. Senator WALTERS —That is the real problem, as Senator Haines says. The husband does not accept an equal share of responsibility in the home and the wife is left to do both jobs. I attended recently a shower tea for a young woman getting married. The advice given to her by many of her young friends was: 'If you are going to work, do not work for too long. You will find your husband still expects his meal on time. You will find the children must be attended to.' History shows that child abuse, has gone on forever. The mid-seventeenth century, of course, saw the introduction of the very famous Punch and Judy show, which is a very violent show. Punch rocks the baby but the baby continues to scream and he finally hits the baby over the head and throws it out the window. Everybody thought that amusing in the mid-seventeenth century, and it has gone on ever since. In the mid-eighteenth century children five years of age worked in factories for 14 hours a day seven days a week and were ill-treated. An Act was passed to stop children who had been separated from their families-but only those children-from working in the factories. The parents, who were entitled to the children's income, were still able to send their children to work in the factories. The Act did not stop that. In 1860 the first study was done of 32 children who had been battered to death. Ambrose Tardieu wrote a paper on that. Indeed, as early as 1860 we had a very clear description of what now has become known as the battered child syndrome. It has been going on for a long time. But it was not until Bowlby in the 1940s spoke about the emotional needs of children that we really began to listen to the fact that children had emotional needs. He warned that unless we had constant, stable and loving backgrounds, especially in the early years of our childhood, there would be very great problems later in life. It is only in the last 20 years that there has been public acceptance that there is a great problem in the community and that the battered child syndrome has finally got through to the Australian people. What is being done in Australia? I am proud to say that my State was the first State to introduce mandatory child abuse reporting legislation. That was in 1975 . Because it is a State matter, all the States are at different stages. Professor Lewis has done a tremendous amount of work in our State in this area. South Australia followed with legislation the following year, in 1976, New South Wales in 1977 and Queensland in 1980. Victoria still has only voluntary reporting. Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have no reporting legislation. Along with the mandatory child abuse reporting, in Tasmania we have protection for people who in good faith report child abuse. They have complete protection from the law in case the parents threaten to sue them and stop them from reporting the incidents. Perhaps I can explain what has happened in Tasmania because I believe we are at the forefront in dealing with this problem; we are making some overtures in the area, at least. In 1972 an advisory committee based in the Attorney-General's Department looked into any cases that came to its notice. But with the passage of the Tasmanian Child Protection Act a Child Protection Assessment Board was set up. It comprised five members. It is chaired by a lawyer and the members must include a paediatrician, a social worker, a psychiatrist and one other person, who is now the Director of Community Health. That Board has done a tremendous amout. It has two regional offices. Certain groups in the community are compulsorily required to report any suspicious cases. The groups include doctors, some social workers, community nurses, principles of kindergartens and primary schools, directors of child care centres, probation officers, school guidance officers and child welfare officers. It covers quite a group of people. South Australia has just joined us. I note that this year, apart from doctors, teachers, dentists and police officers, it has now included kindergartens, psychologists, hospitals, social workers and pharmaceutical chemists. However, the only factor that will really make effective this legislation that is slowly coming in throughout Australia is the attitude and co-operation of family support services. The setting up of the support services is a State responsibility. Tasmania has several projects which work to identify the child at risk as it is believed that the majority of families from which abused children come are usually known to an agency or some community worker. Professor Lewis has written in his paper that he believes that these children at risk can be picked up through this knowledge. I now come to the statement that I queried in the matter of public importance, that is, 'the alarming and increasing incidence of physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children'. There is no doubt that the figures for reported cases have gone up in the last eight or nine years. But those are only the reported cases. We have no idea of the real figures throughout Australia. Tasmania has kept note of the reported cases and I will mention those in a few minutes. But Australia-wide no surveys have been done which give us any indication of the full extent of the problem of battered children. The reported cases have increased because of greater public awareness and because of the compulsory reporting that has now been introduced in some of the States. The figures in Tasmania show that since 1975, when we introduced our compulsory reporting legislation, there has been an increase. In 1975, 42 cases of child abuse were reported. In 1976 the figure went up to 53 and it has continued to go up. Last year, there were 302 cases. Up to 30 September this year 237 cases had been reported, and we expect the 1983 figure to be about the same as the 1982 figure. This figure does not really touch on the number of cases that are not reported. Therefore, I believe we need further surveys and further data collection so that we know the extent of the problem. We know that in Tasmania from 30 September 1981 to 30 September 1983, 312 physical abuses, 108 sexual abuses and 38 emotional abuses were reported. Physical abuse accounts for by far the greatest number of cases. The areas from which these figures come are also very interesting. The highest number of reports, 132, came from the Community Welfare Department. The Education Department reported 109, hospitals 97, relatives 67, the community at large-neighbours and so on-56, child health centres 51, general practitioners 38, mental health services 27, day care centres 21, self-referrals 21, probation services 20, the Department of Social Security seven, homemakers four and others 50. Those are the figures for September 1981 to September 1983. The fact that we do not have figures is a cause for great concern. I believe that little will be accomplished unless we have the data from all the States. I think it is up to the Commonwealth Government to try to encourage the States to get their data up to scratch. Perhaps we could then collate it and publish it so that we know the extent of the problem in Australia. I conclude by quoting from Professor Lewis's paper. He said: . . . children must have advocates in our community if their rights are not only to be protected, but also to be recognised. Children's voices are soft; it is the duty of all professionals working in fields such as child abuse to make certain that they are heard. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.41) —As previous speakers in the debate have said , it is extremely difficult to know the extent of the problem we are debating today. On conservative estimates, in Australia 30,000 children per year suffer from some form of sexual abuse and, conservatively, 13,500 children are reported as being deliberately physically injured per year in Australia. Over the last few months I have made efforts, through the police departments in the various States to try to ascertain the number of children who go missing in Australia every year. It is impossible to tell. On those conservative estimates, we are facing a massive social problem and one which really, in terms of the future of the country, will have a detrimental effect probably beyond all other events which are occurring now. As other speakers have said, the injuries suffered by children are not something that happen and then are put aside. Those children have to live with them and, in many ways, they carry the injuries with them. All too often, unfortunately, they are something that they, in turn, inflict on their own children. The setting for most of the violence about which we talk is in the family. This , I believe, requires and is currently receiving attention from various groups. Not so long ago we discussed in this place the issue of divorce. I want to look, not at the families that break up, but rather at the families that stay together and in which there is constant tension and conflict, wife bashing, child abuse and misery. It is in those families that we find our most difficult social problem because when the family breaks asunder it is often at that point that other groups within the community such as social welfare agencies come forward and assist. Really, this is the paradox of the problem. The problems that children suffer in a divorce situation are not necessarily as massive as the problems that children suffer in families that stay together. If a family remains as a unit it is extremely difficult for the community to intrude into its affairs. The family tends, very often, to cover up. Indeed, there are many cases, when one looks at the histories that are provided in a sanitised way by various agencies or hospitals, where it is in the family situation that the mother often covers for the father with an incest problem or vice versa and where the parents collude to concoct a story as to how a child suffered some appalling injuries. Senator Haines mentioned the case of a child having his body burnt with a blow torch. Other examples include a boy who is deaf because his father punched him on his ears, an 18-year-old child admitted to hospital with seven fractured ribs and broken legs and a child who spent nearly a year locked up in a cage. These are examples from Australia, from within our own enlightened society. The personal tragic problems of children unfortunately are not often raised in debate in this place. In many ways, children do not have the political clout or the public advocacy that other groups have. Oddly enough, it seems that in this country in many ways animals are more of a concern to many people than children. The types of problems that children suffer range right across the board. Indeed, in just a small handful of problems, we could come up with every conceivable inhumanity committed by one person upon another. I refer to a survey that was taken in Queensland in 1980 by Women's House Shelter and Rape Crisis which is a women's refuge. It was well advertised. It was a telephone survey on incest in which victims of incest or their friends were asked to phone the centre in three days. The respondents were asked a series of questions within the constraints of a supportive counselling interview. One hundred and eighty-eight people contacted the centre: 108 victims, five assailants and 75 friends or relatives of victims. Victims of alleged intercourse were as young as one-year-old and the incidence of incest often went over 16 years of age or more. Twenty-four of the callers said they had been raped and molested by more than one relative, generally a family member as well as a near family member. In 14 cases the sexual relationship was still continuing. The overwhelming point to incest was that it was a male assailant and a female child phenomenon. Over 75 per cent of the assailants were male and a similar percentage of victims were female. Half of the victims were under 11 years of age when incest first occurred. That is one quite small survey. It is very difficult to know the validity of it. When one listens to the people who took the survey, one is struck very much by the reality of the problems that faced the people who contacted the women's refuge. That was one small survey carried out in my State of Queensland. I am quite sure it would have been duplicated with increased numbers in every State of Australia . Previous speakers have said that the large problem in this area is non- detection and non-reporting. Indeed, something which falls within the purview of the Federal Government is the lack of national standardisation of available statistics and definitions. That makes it very difficult to obtain comprehensive statistics relating to the problems of child abuse and then, upon these statistics, to base appropriate policy initiatives. The current Government has investigated this matter, through an interdepartmental committee, and presumably the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, will tell us how far we have been able to go down that road towards obtaining an adequate understanding of the extent of the problem. I believe the usefulness of having that understanding is not simply that we happen to know how many people have been abused but rather the enormous problem that undoubtedly would be uncovered by adequate statistics would impel us to undertake action. During the Liberal Party policy speech in the 1980 general election, the then Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, undertook that his Government would: . . . with the States and voluntary organisations . . . establish a national children's foundation to help tackle the problems of child abuse. It is a pity that that proposal never went ahead. As a policy, it was extremely far-sighted. It is unfortunate that in the following three years it did not occur because I believe that if it had we may now, in 1983, in this debate be more adequately informed and have a greater comprehension of the problem which we are attempting to tackle. I raise another question in this area which is not often thought of, but it is a problem which is of just as much concern as those that I have already raised. I refer to children who run away from home. What we are often confronted with is an inability on the part of our various organisations to cope with and understand the extent of the problem. For example, I have not been able in Australia to get figures comparable with those I was able to obtain for the United States. Every year in the United States 100,000 children run away from home. In addition, an estimated 20,000 to 50,000 children a year simply disappear. Undoubtedly some of these children return home but every year in the United States 2,000 missing children are discovered dead. That is a massive, incredible problem. When I read that a few months ago I sought from police departments whether we had any comparable data. I was unable to get any although I was told that, per capita, the problem in Australia is identical to that in the United States. If that is the case, we have on our hands another problem, a problem which often is hidden and tucked away, rarely brought together to assume the enormity that it would assume if we could view the problem as a whole each year. Of course not all of these children come to an untimely end but many of them become involved in child pornography or in drugs-- Senator Haines —Or prostitution. Senator MACKLIN —And prostitution. Again, it was impossible to find accurate figures on this aspect but when one talks to the social welfare agencies in areas where this is a peculiar problem one finds that they all say, without exception, that it has dramatically increased since the recession. That is understandable and is acceptable in that it is what we expect might occur, but it is totally unacceptable that we have not yet taken the first step to come to grips with that massive and very real problem. I think even those people who are able to take other pornography in their stride certainly cannot take in their stride the repulsive situations that occur in pornographic films being made with children often as young as three years old . Indeed, they are made more repulsive and to my way of thinking less understandable when the vast bulk of the adults involved are their parents. That is a tale of woe and an extent of woe that I believe is important to raise at this time of year and I hope that the Minister for Social Security, speaking next, might be able to clarify where we are heading in Australia in relation to this at the Federal level. Of course the vast bulk of the work that must be done in this area has to be done by State governments. It is a State government responsibility. They are finding it very difficult to cope. I believe that if we could at the national level follow the suggestion of Malcolm Fraser in 1980 and set up a national children's foundation to bring together State and Federal governments and the various voluntary agencies, we would start to bring together the people who have a deep and abiding concern for the rights and the lives of these children. If that could occur, my hope would be that in a few years time in a debate like this we might be able to say that we have taken some steps forward in tackling this very real, very tragic human problem. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(3.56) —The matter of public importance raised by Senator Haines is a serious and important one. I think everyone in the Senate agrees with that. It is worded as follows: The alarming and increasing incidence of physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children, particularly within family units, and the lack of readily accessible support mechanisms for these children and their families. Those matters should be of concern to us all although, like Senator Walters, I will raise some questions about the first part of the matter proposed for discussion. Certainly we cannot do justice to this discussion in 15-minute speeches over an hour or so but we can assist in the process of raising the level of awareness in the community about this important subject and particularly we can impress upon all authorities and all parliamentarians the necessity for what Senator Haines describes as readily accessible support mechanisms for the people in this area. The problem of child abuse in society is a problem with which society has always had difficulty coming to grips. On the one hand there is general abhorrence at the abuse of children, be it sexual, emotional or physical. One knows the abhorrence through all levels of society for people who are caught in such situations. On the other hand, there has always been a great reluctance not only in parliaments but also in the society in general to raise to a rational level the level of discussion of these unfortunate instances. Although we have come a long way in recent times and are willing to discuss this matter without putting down the importance of the subject we should question the tendency to assume that the underlying level of child abuse, whether it is sexual, emotional or physical, has in fact increased alarmingly in our society in recent years. That is a point Senator Walters made. The first point is that there is more than a grave doubt that this is a fact and the second point to make, again made by Senator Walters but also Senator Macklin, is that tragically, in this supposedly enlightened era, because of the lack of information we just do not know what the incidence is in recent times compared with past times. There certainly has been, thank heavens, an increased interest, an increased awareness and an increased desire to help, and certainly there has been a rapid increase in the literature available and the research carried out in this area. I point out that this does not necessarily mean an underlying increase in the incidence. I think a proper perspective is best summed up by the final report of the Royal Commission of Human Relationships, which said on this subject, on page 159 of Volume 4: The way children are treated in our society relates to the way we value children and the way we define their rights. It relates to the degree of submission and conformity we expect from children and the extent to which we sanction physical force as a means of getting children to obey. The fact that our society is now concerned with the problem of child abuse does not mean that parents have suddenly taken to beating their children, but that our tolerance to child maltreatment has declined, and we are now appalled by acts to which our ancestors would have been indifferent. It is part of a growing awareness that the human rights, dignity and integrity of every man, woman and child should be protected. I think it is also worth recalling that child abuse, which was considered abnormal even in the last century, was known in the last century and reported by physicians and social commentators at the time. So we should remember that although we are more aware of the problem and although we are more keen to do something about it, to assume that something inherent in our society means that we have a great deal more child abuse than there has been in the past, is very questionable to say the least. Another important point to remember I believe is that in considering the causes , the prevention and the treatment of child abuse we are dealing with a multitude of situations in which the common factor is abuse of children, but in fact the causes and the underlying factors are many. The victims of the deranged psychotics, the schizophrenic or depressive parent, the victims of the frustrated, emotionally immature and non-coping parent, the victims of the alcoholic, the parent with a low IQ, the psychopathic personality, the pedarist and at times just the ignorant, all appear together frequently in the statistics and in the media coverage of this problem. The victims of abuse in institutional situations, which we hope is less common than in the past, and in school situations, which we similarly hope is less common than in the past, equally may not be recognised as representing different facets of many different problems. We also have to recognise-I think this came up in debate here yesterday-that what may be the norm in one religious or ethnic group may be viewed with distaste and as an abuse by another. So we are dealing with a multifactorial problem and we are dealing with a problem which involves far too many children, as Senator Macklin and other speakers have delineated. We are dealing with many different situations. What we do know is that child abuse, whatever the cause, is an important cause of death and disability and social and emotional ills in our society. We know also, as has been quoted by previous speakers, that the reported incidents are far exceeded by the unreported incidents, particularly in those cases within families. As well as this we know that people in the lower socio-economic groups are more likely to be reported because they are more likely to come into contact with the authorities and because they are more likely to use public facilities such as hospital out-patient facilities. Therefore I think every writer on the subject questions very seriously, and I certainly do, the usual truism that in fact this is mainly a problem of lower socio-economic groups. I think one of the things that impress every medical practitioner such as I who goes into general practice, certainly in the time I trained, is the extraordinary incidence of violence within families, be it violence to children or violence between husbands and wives, which most of us or all of us in fact were not prepared for at all during our training. That strikes one wherever one practices. That was my experience and it was certainly the experience of colleagues of mine who graduated about the same time as I did. We know also that earlier estimates, as recently as in the mid-1970s, of the extent of child abuse in this society particularly, were gross underestimates. One thing that the mandatory reporting or notification resulted in in New South Wales and other States was a fuller awareness of the extent of the problem. When I first became a member of this Parliament there was a tendency to believe that the figures in the United States for instance did not apply in this country and that there was something specially different about the United States and that we did not have anything like that problem. What has happened in recent times with reporting and with notification, with more careful research and with more careful looking into the subject, is that we find we are in the same boat as everybody else. What has been brought into stark relief is the fact that child abuse, baby battering et cetera, are almost certainly now the third most common cause of death in those under five years of age in our society and that innumerable children suffer tremendously each year but in fact do not die because of it. It seems to me that everyone recognises the need to achieve certain conditions to tackle the problem. Firstly we need early recognition of and early intervention in cases of abuse and potential abuse. Secondly we need the provision of supportive services for those at risk and those already abusing and being abused to which such unfortunate people can be referred or to services to which they can go voluntarily, as they frequently will if those services are available and accessible. Thirdly we need a system of follow-up and long term assistance to prevent recurrences and to support the victims who suffer almost inevitable long term emotional and psychological trauma as a result of the situations they have been in. Even though there is general recognition of the importance of these factors there is by no means unanimity on how to achieve that ideal state. I believe that everyone so far has talked about notification or mandatory reporting of cases and this would seem to be an automatically sensible procedure for us all to follow, but it is not without its critics and is not without questioning largely because the number of reported cases, even where there is mandatory reporting, is only a percentage of the whole, and that is accepted by everybody. The failure of the relevant authorities adequately to follow up such notification with the provision of adequate services, in fact, discourages reporting. In the higher socio-economic groups in our society there is a reluctance by doctors and others in positions of authority in fact to notify cases, and this does not apply only to the child abuse area; it applies to other notifiable diseases in our society generally. There is also the problem of the results of mistaken notification, and I have seen a couple of these, which are frequently tragic both for the parents and for the person who does the notification. I must say that certainly on balance I favour notification; firstly to protect those who would otherwise not be protected, however few they may be; secondly, to increase community awareness; and, thirdly, to put pressure on the relevant authorities to provide adequate resources and to provide those accessible services that Senator Haines talked about. We need other things. We need improved training and a heightened awareness of doctors and others to the existence and the extent of child abuse. This can be achieved only through the education and training processes. As Senator Haines said, the chief need is for resources; resources in high risk areas for high risk families, resources which are accessible to those who need them and resources which cost money. The human resources needed in this area involve the provision of people with proper training, with sensitivity and a non-judgmental approach to the problem. I think it is important for us to realise that professional qualifications do not automatically result in this approach, but without a non-judgmental and sensitive approach the results can be catastrophic. We have been talking about an area which impinges on many facets of human behaviour. It concerns medical, psychological, sociological and legal factors. It involves sensitive areas such as the rights of parents, civil liberties and privacy, but above all it involves the rights of the child and the duty of society to protect those rights. As Senator Haines I think put it, it is society 's problem. The handling of that problem, with all those pitfalls, involves a fairly sensitive approach and a fair bit of tightrope walking by authorities, but the rights of the child to safety and security and freedom from abuse are paramount. The Commonwealth Government gets embroiled with State governments in this area, but I believe in recent years we have been taking a more rational approach. The Commonwealth Government has taken part in the establishment of the Welstat secretariat to collect proper statistics to overcome the appalling problem of ignorance in this area, and if ever there were an area in which ignorance is not bliss but a sin, it is this. In various sections of my Department and other departments, under the children' s services program, under the family support services and under the youth services scheme and even in the Attorney-General's Department where counselling is involved in the Family Court, there are many programs which are increasingly causing problems in this area. In that description lies one of the real problems that we have: The programs are fragmented between Commonwealth and State governments and they are fragmented between public and private agencies. That is a situation which is no longer satisfactory. The establishment, or attempted establishment, of the national children's foundation by the previous Government foundered on the old difficulty of Commonwealth-State relationships. There was an effort to set up that foundation. By the time I became Minister the negotiations had been protracted and difficult and in the end it was decided mutually that we would not proceed. Senator Chipp —State governments have a lot to answer for. Senator GRIMES —I am not necessarily just condemning them. However, I still believe with Senator Macklin that some sort of organisation like this or like the national centre in the United Kingdom, which will have to be a Federal initiative, where the Federal Government will have to be responsible for national standards and national statistics gathering, is the only way we can contribute sensibly at a national level on this subject. It is an important subject. It is a pity we cannot debate this matter further. I am sure we will in future. But at least the existence of this debate and the approach of honourable senators in the debate is a large step forward. Debate resumed from 1 December 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.12) —This Bill seeks to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act to enable transcripts and tapes of legally intercepted telephone conversations which may be relevant to proceedings before the New South Wales Special Commission of Inquiry headed by Mr Justice Cross to be forwarded to the inquiry at its request. The problem arises because the Telecommunications (Interception) Act has very properly very strict limits on the divulging of transcripts of tapes of intercepted telephone conversations. That Act lays down a very strict code in regard to the circumstances in which telephone tapping in this country can take place. It can occur only on warrants that have been obtained in two areas-by the Director-General of Security in matters relating to security and for the investigation of serious narcotic offences on application to a judge by the Australian Federal Police. The information obtained is to be used only in those two areas, except information which may be contained in such tapes which may be relevant to the possible commission of an offence carrying not less than three years imprisonment-so it is a serious offence-which may be passed to the relevant prosecuting authority. Except for the authorised purposes for which the interception has been made, this is the only way in which information can be divulged. The inquiry being conducted by Mr Justice Cross does not come within that authority. Therefore, the object of this Bill is specifically to deal with that problem. The Bill achieves that purpose and the Opposition fully supports and endorses it. The Bill provides a rather different method of divulging the information from the scheme of the Act itself. It provides for the Attorney-General to exercise the authority to decide whether such a matter should be divulged. However, in the first place, as I said, there must be a request from the commission of inquiry. When such a request is obtained the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police must provide, as the Bill says, 'in his opinion' the matters which are relevant to the inquiry. That must then be provided to the Attorney- General who then makes, as I said, a decision whether or not to communicate. That seems to be a somewhat cumbersome arrangement, certainly compared with the form in which such material may be divulged, as I said, in the strict limitations under the existing Act. However, the Opposition can accept that this arrangement keeps a closer brake on the divulging of information because of the intervention of the Attorney-General. It certainly will not be left to the discretion of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to provide the information as it is under the existing legislation. However, the Opposition is concerned about the way in which the Bill has been structured. We believe that the Attorney-General should have all conceivably relevant information available to him when he makes his decision. As I said, we believe this is a very cumbersome arrangement whereby the Commissioner of Police makes the decision in the first place as to what material is relevant and then passes that to the Attorney-General who decides what is to be conveyed to the inquiry. We believe that as the ultimate decision is to be made by the Attorney- General he ought to have all information which conceivably could be relevant. He should make the decision on what in fact is relevant as well as what ought to be conveyed. Therefore, the Opposition will be moving an amendment to this effect at the Committee stage. Apart from that, as I said, the Opposition supports the principle of the Bill. We believe that it is justified to extend the principle of the existing legislation which has strict controls on the divulging of very sensitive material. We believe that an inquiry of the kind being conducted in New South Wales by Mr Justice Cross is of such importance that it justifies an extension of the principle. It is notorious, of course, that there are in existence some tapes which are relevant to this inquiry because this Government itself made a decision some time ago, as has now become common knowledge, that some transcripts or some tapes of intercepted conversations pursuant to a warrant are relevant to some aspects of the matter which has now become one of the subjects of Mr Justice Cross's inquiry. We hope that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), when he acquires the power under this Bill, will in fact make a thorough examination of the tapes, unlike the cursory examination that he gave them and which was the subject of some questions and discussion in this Senate a few weeks ago. With those observations, the Opposition supports this measure. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.20) —The Australian Democrats support the Bill, which provides for the substance of phone taps undertaken by Federal authorities to be given, where the Federal Attorney- General sees fit to do so, to the New South Wales Special Commission of Inquiry headed by Mr Justice Cross. We are pleased that the Bill has been modified from the original draft by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), which would have provided for this general power to remain on the statute books and be applicable to all commissions of inquiry. As I understand it, the Australian Labor Party Caucus refined the proposal so that it would apply only to the Cross commission of inquiry and not remain on the statute books, to be applied to other inquiries. The Democrats support that refinement. The debate over organised crime must lead to retaining a balance of civil liberties and it is our view that there is enough phone tapping going on in Australia at the moment. Measures which call for the exercise of caution in using material gained from these phone taps, such as this refined Bill provides for, are to be supported. The granting of a general power, under which the results of phone taps could have gone to any commission, would have produced a situation in which there were fewer safeguards and fewer checks and balances against buse. However, we recognise that the Attorney-General must have authority-which is essentially political authority-to determine whether material gained from phone taps should be given to this particular inquiry, or withheld. However decisions of this importance, made by the Executive Government or by a member of it, the Attorney-General, should be open to scrutiny and review by the Parliament. The Attorney-General has recognised this because the Bill provides for a report to be made to the Parliament within 15 days of supplying transcripts to the New South Wales inquiry. I commend the Attorney-General and the Government upon that provision. However, the Democrats would like to see an addition to that provision incorporated in the legislation and will be moving accordingly in Committee. Our proposed amendment will ensure that the Attorney-General will also report to Parliament when he has decided not to give transcripts to the New South Wales inquiry. It provides not only for that notification to be given, but also for the Parliament to be given the reasons for the withholding of transcripts. In other words, under the Bill, if the Attorney-General decides to provide a transcript, he must report to Parliament within 15 days. We say that that should be extended to include cases where he has refused to give, or decided not to give, transcripts. Such a decision also ought to be reported to Parliament, with his reasons. We propose moving such an amendment because we recognise that a decision not to provide transcripts is as important as, if not more important than, a decision to provide them. Accordingly, Parliament should be informed of these decisions. We commend the Government and commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(4.23) —I thank Opposition senators, the shadow Attorney-General and the Leader of the Democrats (Senator Chipp) for their general support of this legislation. Both Senator Durack and Senator Chipp have briefly explained its purpose. That is already on the parliamentary record in the second reading speech and I do not think that there is any need for me to take time to deal with the very obvious purpose of the legislation in this very obvious situation. The Government was mindful, of course, of the need to be able to respond quickly to calls likely to arise from the inquiry in New South Wales, and the legislation represents that response. Insofar as amendments have been foreshadowed, they are concerned mainly with limiting the measure as far as possible. Senator Chipp, in particular, pointed to the fact that the operation of the legislation was limited to this one inquiry in New South Wales. That is important. I think the desire is to ensure that as far as possible, within the necessary framework of confidentiality and so on which will have to apply in this process, safeguards apply in respect of parliamentary accountability for any actions taken by the Attorney-General under the legislation, if passed. They are matters that should appropriately be addressed in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill. Accordingly, I commend the second reading of the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.25) —As foreshadowed, I move: (1) Page 2, clause 3, proposed sub-paragraph 7A (4) (a) (ii), lines 31 and 32, leave out the proposed sub-paragraph, insert the following sub-paragraph: ''(ii) relates, or appears to relate, to the purpose of an inquiry, or may be otherwise incidental to or connected with the subject matter of that inquiry; and''. The Bill provides that where the Attorney-General receives a request, and decides that it is appropriate, he may direct the Commissioner to ascertain whether there is in the possession of the Australian Federal Police any information lawfully obtained by interception, or by a warrant, of course, that may be in the opinion of the Commissioner relevant to the purpose of an inquiry. The Opposition's amendment would replace the phrase which leaves the complete discretion to the Commissioner of Police in determining what is relevant with the words: Relates, or appears to relate, to the purpose of an inquiry, or may be otherwise incidental to or connected with the subject matter of that inquiry. That provision is, I believe, wider than the provision in the Bill. The Commissoner would not then, in the first place, make the judgment as to what is relevant but will pass to the Attorney-General material apparently relating or incidental to the inquiry and the Attorney-General will then make the decision whether it is relevant, and whether it would be appropriate to communicate it. We believe that as the effective decision is to be made by the Attorney-General he should also determine the question of relevance. That is the purpose of the amendment. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.28) —The Australian Democrats support the amendment moved by Senator Durack. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(4.29) —I wish to make a brief comment and express a concern that has already been expressed elsewhere regarding this Bill and the powers given under it. As Senator Chipp has indicated, it is obvious that the orginal intention of the Attorney-General was refined, and with cause. There is also, no doubt, to be a review of the problems which arise under this legislation. The concern, of course, is that there is increasing interception. There is possibly a danger of information being gathered that is not relevant to the purpose for which the warrant was issued. It is the use of that information which concerns many of us. I do not know whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) who is in charge of the Bill at this time can answer the question I wish to ask. Nevertheless, I think it is important to ask this question: Is the obligation of the Director-General of Security under section 14 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to destroy records being efficiently carried out? Is that provision of the Act being efficiently carried out? It is important that those records, once they cease to be relevant, be destroyed as the Act provides. Are adequate security and other methods being instituted to prevent any unlawful communication of information gathered under section 20 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979? Are all facilities provided and adequate methods instituted to ensure that the Commissioner of Police can carry out without delay the obligations under section 24 of the Act to destroy records and copies so that there will be no neglect in the ascertaining and destroying of all records and all copies which are not required and not likely to be required for the purposes stated in the Act? I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer that at this stage. It is important for me to indicate my concern that there may be some neglect in relation to the carrying out of provisions of the original Act. I am also pleased-the Government has accepted this point-that the powers to reveal information have been limited to this particular inquiry. I believe that in some future debate the reasons for limiting, to a particular inquiry, the powers of this amendment to the Act will be revealed. There is a grave danger that the police forces of this country will be encouraged to widen the interception of communcations with the added ability to do so outside the law. They could gather information concerning the activities of citizens and use that information in, shall we say, both a covert as well as an overt way in order to intimidate. Evidence has appeared in New South Wales that certain sections of organised crime-unfortunately this applies to Queensland and certain sections of the police force special branch-are prepared to gather information by whatever means is made available to them, to withhold that information from general distribution and to make it available only to the persons concerned so as to intimidate and to impose upon them limitations in the carrying out of his of her public duties. Evidence has arisen in the Queensland Parliament that files and information received by means that could only be related to interception of communications have been used against individuals by special branch officers through members of Parliament. The whole of this area, of course, is fraught with concern. I merely introduce that concern at this stage. I hope that at a later stage, before we give any extra powers to the law enforcement authorities, we have a wide-ranging debate about the consequence of those extra powers. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.34) —I wish to raise a similar matter to that which has been brought forward by Senator Georges. I acknowledge that there is increasing concern within the community about the extent of unauthorised telephone taps. My concern goes even further to what might be recognised as authorised telephone taps which may require a particular warrant or authority. My question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) is: When a radiotelephone hook-up is used, for example between here and Brisbane-I think also there are lines to Melbourne using radio waves-is it possible that anyone, including representatives from foreign governments, using appropriate equipment can connect into ordinary telephone conversations without authority? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(4.36) —I will deal with the matters raised by Senator Georges first. I am not, as he surmised, able to answer the question as to whether the Director-General of Security is carrying out his functions efficiently under the principal Act in terms of the destruction of records and the obligation that he has to destroy records. That is a matter which peculiarly has to be directed by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) as a question to the Director-General. I will certainly convey the substance of Senator Georges's questions to the Attorney-General. It is not even a matter that I think comes within the province of his Department. It is very much a ministerial matter. Apart from that, I think Senator Georges raised a number of issues which articulated in a precise and lucid way a set of general concerns that I certainly have and I am sure a lot of other honourable senators have about these matters. In a sense the question raised by Senator Watson falls into the same category. I cannot give an authoritative answer to Senator Watson's question as to whether a telephone hook-up can be tapped into, if that is the appropriate expression. The answer I can give in a qualified way is that I believe that is so. I believe that it is technically possible. On the basis of my own slight knowledge of communications technology, I certainly believe that that is so in respect of a wide range of telephone conversations and so on that might appropriately be regarded as private. In a sense, this question is very much directed to the technical capacity to do it. I am sure that the ill will, or whatever the appropriate expression is, exists if the technology is available. My belief is that the technology is available and that those things can happen. It is probably a very good rule of thumb never to say anything on the telephone that one would not say in the city square into a microphone. Senator Chipp —Not even to your wife? Senator BUTTON —That is a matter that I ask each individual honourable senator to sort out for himself, Senator Chipp. It is not a matter upon which I would wish to pronounce a view. Insofar as the amendment which has been moved by Senator Durack is concerned-it is accepted and supported by the Australian Democrats-I want to make it clear that the Government does not oppose it. In a sense it puts a different emphasis on that part of the Bill, I think appropriately so, in that it involves the Attorney-General more in making a judgment on the basis of what relates to the purpose of the inquiry and what is relevant material. It is not a matter about which the Government wishes to enter into any contest with the Opposition parties. The amendment is accepted. Amendment agreed to. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.40) —Before I move my amendment, I ask a question concerning clause 4 of the Bill. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) may not be able to give me an answer directly, but I would appreciate it if, at the conclusion of the debate, he could provide an answer. I do not have the precise details with me but, as I understand it, one of the matters into which Mr Justice Cross is to inquire is an allegation by a journalist that he had information that a magistrate had lunch with certain people and that as a consequence of that lunch, a certain charge against a certain person was dropped by that magistrate. As I understand it, that is one of the matters into which Mr Justice Cross has been asked to inquire. My question is: Would clause 4, or any other clause of the Bill, cover a situation in which Mr Justice Cross asked the Attorney-General, as provided for under clause 3, for any tape recording or transcript of a phone tap relating to that matter and the Attorney-General passes it on to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police? Would this Bill allow that transcript to be transmitted to Mr Justice Cross? Has a 'relevant offence', as defined in clause 3, been committed? Is it enough under the terms of the Bill for an allegation of a relevant offence to have been made, as is the case in this particular instance ? I can understand the simple machinery that is invoked if a relevant offence has been committed, but I wonder about the situation in which an allegation of a relevant offence has been made. I presume that, if a magistrate improperly dismissed a charge, that would be a relevant offence; but at this stage it is clearly only an allegation: Would that situation be covered by the Bill? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(4.42) —Senator Chipp has outlined a particular circumstance as an example to illustrate his question. The answer to the question Senator Chipp has asked is simply this: If an allegation becomes the subject matter of an inquiry, it is not necessary for an offence to have been committed for this legislation to operate. Senator Chipp —I refer the Minister to clause 3 (a) (ii). Clause 3 (a) relates to information that: (i) is relevant to the purpose of the inquiry; and (ii) relates, . . . to . . . a relevant offence . . . The provision does not say 'or'; it says 'and'. Senator BUTTON —As I read that clause, it relates to information that is relevant to the purpose of the inquiry. It would be necessary to look at the purpose of the inquiry. Senator Chipp directed his attention particularly to a term of reference of the inquiry. The word joining that provision and the next is 'and'. Paragraph (ii) then states: (ii) relates, or appears to relate, to the commission, or intended commission, of a relevant offence specified in the notice of the request; It does not mean that an offence has to be committed. It may be that somebody intended to commit an offence and that is the allegation, or it may be that it relates to an offence or appears to relate to the commission of an offence. I follow that on by going back to what I was saying. An offence does not have to be committed to invoke the provisions of this Bill in relation to this inquiry which is referred to in the earlier clauses of the Bill. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.43) —For the reasons outlined in the second reading debate, I move: Page 3, clause 3, proposed new sub-section 7A (8), lines 18 to 25, leave out the proposed sub-section, insert the following sub-section: ' ''(8) Where the Attorney-General decides under sub-section (6) to communicate or not to communicate, as the case may be, information, he shall, subject to sub -section (9), cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the decision is made, a document- (a) if information is communicated in accordance with sub-section (6)- (i) stating that information has been so communicated; (ii) setting out the conditions (if any) imposed as to the use that may be made of the information; and (iii) stating whether or not any approval has been given in accordance with sub -section (7) in relation to the information; or (b) if the Attorney-General decides under sub-section (6) not to communicate information-stating the reasons for his decision.'. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.44) —Mr Chairman, the Opposition supports this amendment. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(4.45) —The Government has no objection to this amendment. It provides for an additional degree of parliamentary responsibility, which, I think, is generally welcomed. Amendment agreed to. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.45) —I have circulated a second amendment to clause 3 which reads: (2) Page 3, Clause 3, proposed new sub-section 7A (11), lines 34 and 35, leave out the proposed sub-section. The proposed sub-section reads: (11) Subject to the Constitution, a decision of the Attorney-General under this section is not subject to review by any court or other tribunal. I am really in two minds whether to proceed with my second amendment. I can see some reasons for having this particular provision. Normally, one would be very concerned indeed about such a provision. I hope this chamber will take very strong exception to a clause of this kind which would mean that the Attorney- General would not be subject to ordinary judicial review in relation to a decision made by him. I can see that there are some special reasons. Because of the very confidential nature of the information about which the Attorney-General makes the decision, it would be hard to see how any judicial review could possibly be commenced, because anybody who would be aggrieved would not even know of the decision until after it had been made and carried out. There is, of course, a parliamentary means of reviewing the Attorney-General's decision, as we have already passed an amendment to a clause in the Bill which puts the widest possible obligation on the Attorney-General to inform the Parliament of what he has done or not done. I am disturbed about any clause of this kind appearing in legislation in this day and age. We have developed major initiatives in this Parliament in recent years on a bipartisan basis to expand greatly the rights of the citizen. Aggrieved people who have grievances against administrative decisions affecting them have the right to have those decisions reviewed either on their merits or by a court if such decisions are alleged to be contrary to law. I do not think that there should be ever inserted into any legislation now or in the future, in view of the great pioneering work that has been done in this Parliament in recent years on a bipartisan basis, any provision which would diminish or derogate those principles without the matter being properly explained to this chamber. Therefore, although I am prepared to move the amendment, if the Minister at the table can give me some good reason for that provision being contained in this legislation, I will not proceed with it. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(4.49) —Senator Durack has indicated that he is in two minds. That seems to me a pretty dangerous state to be in; but I will try to persuade him to one mind, whichever is appropriate. On the basis of what he said, I am not sure which that might be. I understand his general concern about the desire for conformity in legislation on an issue of this kind and his desire to continue with the practices which have developed in this Parliament. I just make the point that this is a special Bill introduced for a quite particular purpose which is specified in the Bill. The real function of the Bill is designed to expedite the flow of information, if required, from the Commonwealth to the inquiry to be conducted by Mr Justice Cross. It is the Government's view that if the amendment were carried and decisions by the Attorney-General were able to be reviewed by courts or tribunals, the process of exchange of information and the making available of information by the Attorney- General to Mr Justice Cross's Commission could be bogged down in technical legal arguments and challenges. I draw the attention of the shadow Attorney-General to the fact that in any case there are procedures in the Bill for the Attorney to put on the table of the Parliament details of communications that have passed from him to the inquiry. That position has been further strengthened by the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats, which has been agreed to. It is the Government's view that it would be inappropriate for a court or tribunal to be reviewing a decision of the Attorney-General as it may mean that sensitive information relating to drug investigations, narcotic inquiries and matters of that kind would be discoverable by that court or tribunal in the course of the review process. It is believed that the proper place for that sort of information should be before the court if and when charges are ultimately brought as a result of any investigations by the Federal Police and not as a result of a review procedure in relation to the Attorney-General's discretion under this legislation. That is the Government's view of the matter. I appreciate the spirit in which Senator Durack's suggestion is put forward, but we think that with those considerations, confined as they are to this case-and we would not seek to set any precedent from this situation-in those circumstances this should be so treated as a particular case for a particular purpose. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.52) —I have not had the benefit of Senator Button's eloquence in explaining the reasons why Senator Durack's amendment was not acceptable to the Government. I had the benefit of the advice from the officers, if they will pardon me, in less eloquent terms than those delivered by Senator Button, but just as compelling. I have informed Senator Durack that for those reasons and for the reasons that have just been given by Senator Button, the Democrats would not support the amendment circulated by Senator Durack, whilst seeing the force of it. We see the force of the amendment by the Democrats which has been accepted, and it goes part of the way towards meeting some of the concerns of Senator Durack and the Liberal Party. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.53) —Senator Button has persuaded me to be of one mind instead of two on this matter as a result of what he has said; also, as a result of the great practical difficulties that anyone would have in being able to exercise this right if he had it, in these circumstances. Because of the very special nature of the exercise in which we are engaged, its very limited nature, as Senator Button has stressed, I shall not move the amendment that I have circulated. However, I am very pleased to note Senator Button's comments on behalf of the Government, and to note Senator Chipp's comments in acceding to them. This is a very special case and the Government will not be pursuing a policy of depriving people of the great rights that have been developed in recent years of judicial review of administrative decisions. Bill agreed to, with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.55) —I compliment the Government and the Opposition on the way in which this matter has been dispatched. It has been done with reason, logic and good sense. It has been a pleasure to participate in a debate such as this and to find the receptivity of the Government to suggestions made from this side of the chamber. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(4.56) —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. Commonwealth Grants Commission-Report 1983-pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 2. Army and Air Force Canteens Service Board of Management-Annual Report 1982- 83-pursuant to Regulation 23E of the Army and Air force Canteens Service Regulations 1981 3. Director-General of Health-Annual Report 1982-83 4. Australian Broadcasting Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 19 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1983 5. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service-Annual Report 1982-83- pursuant to section 52 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975- together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment relating to the report 6. A National Conservation Strategy for Australia-Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development-Report-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment relating to the report 7. National Library of Australia-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 27 of the National Library Act 1960 8. Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region-Annual Report 1982-83- pursuant to section 36 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978 9. Australian War Memorial-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 36 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980 10. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority-Annual Report 1982-83 pursuant to section 6 (3) of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 11. Council of Nature Conservation Ministers-Summary Record of Proceedings of the Twelfth Meeting held in Alice Springs-7 July 1983 12. Australian Environment Council-Summary Record of Proceedings of the Fourteenth meeting held in Hobart-2 June 1982 13. Australian Environment Council-Summary Record of Proceedings of the Fifteenth meeting held in Alice Springs-6 July 1983 14. A.C.T. Canberra Retail Markets Trust-Annual Report 1982-83 15. Department of Territories and Local Government-Annual Report 1982-83 16. Department of Communications-Annual Report 1982-83. 17. Special Broadcasting Service-Interim Annual Report 1982-83 18. Department of Industry and Commerce-Annual Report 1982-83 19. Department of Social Security-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 148 of the Social Security Act 1947 20. The Sugar Industry-IAC Report 21. Repatriation Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 122 of the Repatriation Act 1920-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs relating to the Report 22. Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 86 of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 23. High Court of Australia-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1974 24. Tenth International Trade Law Seminar-Papers and Summary of discussions, held in the Australian Academy of Science Canberra 18-19 June 1983. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.56) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Public administration is thought to be not only arcane but also incapable of rational evaluation. This belief is often well founded when one looks at the annual reports of departments. On this occasion, however, I congratulate the Department of Health on producing this report, the first report from its new Director-General, Mr Willett, which sets out goals for the Department and goals for each division within the Department. Honourable senators will know that the Senate has had an interest in evaluation and has recommended that public administration be associated with goal setting as part of a rational process of public activity. To the best of my knowledge, the Department of Health, in producing the goal statements contained in this report, is the first department to have so moved. The Department deserves considerable credit for what it has set out to do. The goal statements fall within two groups. First, there are those which relate to the Department itself, the departmental goals; secondly, there are the goal statements which relate to the divisions of the Department, to the State offices , and so on. I suggest that the quality of the goal setting is different as between the departmental goal setting and the goal setting within the divisions. The departmental goals deserve considerable praise. I look, for example, to the goal which says that the Department will seek to administer programs to contribute to the improvement of health throughout the world. That is at least a testable goal. One can come back and look at the functioning of this Department next year and evaluate its function against that goal. It has set out a testable statement. Similarly, when it identifies as a goal the administration of programs to ensure that individuals are not precluded from adequate access to health care, and then it lists a series of conditions, that again is a testable goal against which the functions of the Department of Health will be tested next year. Similarly, when it says that it wishes to ensure cost-effectiveness of programs, and it goes on with some more words, that again is a testable goal which the Department is seeking to achieve. On the other hand, the Department lists a number of goals which are simply processes. The trouble with identifying processes as goals is that they really cannot be evaluated. One may say that one wants to run programs to encourage individuals to be more responsible for maintaining their health, but the running of programs is something that will be done anyhow, and the Department will come back and say: 'We have run the programs'. The goal that it should be seeking might be the improvement of individual health, or the goal might be the maintenance of a safe physical and social environment, because they are testable . Processes are not so testable or, if they are testable, the results are worth a lot less. Outcomes are testable. I now turn to what the divisions have set out to do. I must say that the goal setting in the divisions has been patchy. Again, I give full credit to the Department of Health for going down the management by objectives road. If one looks at the Quarantine Division of the Department of Health, above all that should be able to identify outcome goals. Clearly, the Quarantine Division should aim to prevent the entry into Australia of a series of diseases. But the Division has no outcome goal for itself. It simply says that its goal is to plan , implement, administer and review policies and progams which were designed to prevent the introduction or spread of certain diseases. The goal of that Division clearly should be to prevent the introduction or spread within Australia of certain diseases. The statement, as it comes out, could be better. On the other hand, the Public Health Division of the Department has some thoroughly admirable goals. The Public Health Division has set itself goals to prevent sickness, amongst other things. Its goals include improvement of the health of Aboriginals. Its goals are outcome goals which can be tested. I believe that this report reflects credit upon the Department of Health for the reasons I have outlined. Many of us in the Senate who have been interested in evaluation have valued goal setting. The fact that the Department of Health is going down this road is something that I believe will be good for public administration in this country and I wish the Department well in its endeavours. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.02) —I am interested in Senator Peter Baume' s remarks because, from my involvement in health, the debate about whether one can evaluate process or outcome has been a long running one. Many people suggest that it is much easier to evaluate the process than the outcome. Senator Peter Baume —Much safer, too. Senator CROWLEY —Yes, but it is more measurable. Yes, one can say 'We did it', but it is very difficult to measure whether or not one has changed the health status of the community. I suppose that if I look at some of the aims and goals, 'maintaining a physical and social environment free of hazards to health' is no doubt admirable, but I do not think we will ever achieve a freedom from health hazards. So I guess that we have to temper justice with mercy as ever and hope that in the process or program evaluation we take into account some measure of the outcome. I do not think we have too much dispute there but I am interested in Senator Baume's comments. I was particularly taken with the extensiveness of the report and its thoroughness. Of course, I have not addressed myself to all of it but I was particularly interested to look at the occupational health section which comes under the heading of 'Social Health' and to notice that the Department has devoted quite an amount of effort and energy into promoting occupational health and safety practices within the Government's departments and instrumentalities as a first step. They have been very involved with the establishment of a code of general principles of occupational health and safety in Australian Government employment. They have also worked very closely with the National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Labour Consultative Council's Committee on Occupational Safety and Health. Much of the rest of this section is devoted to listing the many occupational health programs or practices that the Department of Health has been involved in. While I am interested to read those, and I think they are important and ought to be done, it is not until we come towards the end of that section, where we see that interdepartmental consultations have begun concerning the establishment of a national institute of environmental and occupational health, which is one of this Government's most important policies-that we begin to look at the establishment of occupational health and safety planning rather than programs to deal with specific bits and pieces of occupational health and safety. While they are important, I do not believe that until now there has really been a thorough addressing of the prior to programs planning and administration so that occupational health and safety is not a series of piecemeal projects but part of an approach, to try to achieve the goal of maintaining a physical and social environment free of hazards to health and work place structures conducive to good health. I am certainly delighted that the Department is addressing these areas with the many efforts that it lists here. I ought not get into assessing whether the number of inches in the book measures the commitment of the Department, but I do not mind putting on record that women's health covers half a page. It seems to be addressed to toxic shock syndrome and following that problem in Australia, and also to the change in cancer patterns and mortality from cancer amongst women in this country, with some research into caesarian section rates and conditions of births. I hope that in future women's health is a matter of more substantial consideration by the Department of Health but I appreciate that this may not be a full report of all its activities. Again, I found it interesting under the heading 'Nursing and Health Facilities' to note that the Nursing (Standing) Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is serviced by the Branch, met twice during the year. I hope that is no measure of the significance or importance placed by the Department on nursing. But, as I flipped through this report mention of nursing was infrequent and small. That is a considerable disappointment because I think the nursing profession probably has the most people in the field practising health, and I do not believe we can lightly ignore planning for the nursing profession if we are to try to look at total and adequate delivery of health services in this country. Finally, I simply make a comment about an area headed 'Sectional Research, Occupational and Environmental Health Section' alluding to some very interesting research done in the Antarctica into the effects of cold on humans and the proposals to continue that to look at the effects of bush fires and heat stress on humans. There is a proposal currently before the Government for money to support that research which could possibly take place over the next summer. The research done last year by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Division of Forests Research discovered things about bush fires that this country was quite unaware of and which has contributed enormously to what we might see by way of prevention of the horrible bush fires that this country suffered last year. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report 1983 Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.06) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is the fiftieth report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The Commission is celebrating its jubilee this year and for half a century it has been the expert body which has made financial determinations to State and local government for funds from the Commonwealth Budget. The Commission was established in 1933 and in its third report in 1936 laid down the basic criteria which have persisted to this day by which it makes determinations of moneys paid to the States from the Commonwealth, particularly the criteria which enable the Commission to pay special grants to the States. Essentially, special grants are made to enable the States, by reasonable effort of their own, to function at a standard not appreciably below that of the other States so that they can deliver public services at a standard not appreciably below those of the better-off States of Australia. Since 1910 special grants have been paid in this country but it was really the establishment of the Commonwealth Grants Commission which put the payment of special grants on a systematic and consistent basis. Over the years since 1910 four States of Australia have received special grants at various times. Tasmania , Western Australia, my State of South Australia and Queensland have all received special grants from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Those grants have involved the Commission in general terms making comparisons with the so- called standard States of New South Wales and Victoria in arriving at those payments to the other States. It is noteworthy that for the first 40 of the 50 years of existence of the Commonwealth Grants Commission its functions changed very little. But in the last 10 years we have seen some quite extraordinary changes to the role of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, beginning with the initiative in 1973 of the Whitlam Government to provide funds to local government for general revenue expenditure without strings attached. Initially, those grants were made on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission but more recently it has had the role of determining the allocation of funds to local government between the States. It is noteworthy that in the Commonwealth Budget of this year $459m is to be paid to local government. The Commonwealth Grants Commission has had quite a key role in developing the system by which those funds are paid. In 1978 we saw the commencement of the review of the tax-sharing relativities. That took several years, created a great deal of interest and finally resulted in recommendations to change the shares of the various States of Australia in Commonwealth tax-sharing funds. That determination is now being put into effect over a period so that the shares of the Australian States in the total tax cake from Canberra will be more in line with those determined by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. In 1978 the Commission was also given a new function, to look at the finances of the Territories. It has done several examinations in respect to the Northern Territory and, more recently, has provided information on the position of finances to the Australian Capital Territory. The Commission, through its relativities and the share of tax-sharing funds determined by it for the States, has a role in the allocation of $8,500m from the Commonwealth Budget to the States and an extra $150m this year for special revenue assistance for the States. That is all being paid out on a formula laid down by the Grants Commission. This report points to some problems that the Grants Commission has in respect of its precise role in determination of tax-sharing relativities. It has expressed concern about the lack of definition of its position in the present arrangements. This is something that will have to be looked at in the future by the Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.12) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Once again we are given the opportunity of complimenting this magnificent re- formed organisation, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, under its new management and new Chairman, one of the most distinguished Australians ever, Kenneth Myer. In the brief five minutes that I have at my disposal I will mention some of the highlights of the year such as the superb job that the Commissioin did on the Commonwealth Games, the Federal election, the Sutherland- Pavarotti concert, the Aboriginal broadcasting programs it began, the bushfire emegency, the service for the hearing-impaired and so on. I note with some displeasure-this is not a criticism of the ABC; it is a criticism of successive governments-that it mentions in its report its continuing accommodation problems . I do not think any statutory corporation in Australia has to spread its resources over so many buildings as does the Australian Broadcasting Corporation . Some time ago in Melbourne the ABC was quartered in something like 22 different buildings scattered over the city. One hopes that some big-minded, far -seeing Minister might correct that problem. I wish to refer to the management and structure of the ABC and make some comments about points raised during debate in May. I commended the Government very strongly then for the mechanism it adopted in appointing the directors of the Corporation. In a very innovative and magnificent move, the Government appointed an all-party committee of which Senator Baume was a member, I was a member and Mr Lloyd of the National Party of Australia was a member and which included the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and the Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications ( Senator Button). We had the opportunity to vet the list of proposed directors. I think Senator Baume would probably join with me, after commending the Government for that, in saying that we would have been pleased had more names been on the list so that we could have a greater selection. I think the names on the list numbered only two more than the number to be appointed. However, it was an innovative move and one which I commend. I hope that if one of the directors needs to be replaced the same procedure will be followed. I also ask the Government to write into the legislation, next time it is up for amendment, the appointment of that all-party committee when the replacement of directors of the ABC needs to be considered. In the short time left to me I refer to a matter that gives me continuing concern-section 78 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act. I asked the Government to remove it when legislation was debated in May. I got an undertaking from the Minister in charge of the Bill, Senator Button, that the Government would look at it at the earliest possible time. It is a monstrous section. It surprises me that many honourable senators in this place who talk about civil liberties have allowed section 78 to remain in the Act for so long. It gives the Minister the power to order a certain program not to be broadcast on radio or television if, in the Minister's opinion, the material is not in the public interest. That is the most blatant, naked form of censorship I can possibly imagine. Yet it is in a Act of our Parliament. I remind the Government also that an identical section appears in the Broadcasting and Television Act. I take this opportunity to plead with the Government that at the first available opportunity, it bring those two Acts before this Parliament for amendment so that that monstrous provision can be eliminated. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.16) —This report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is furnished by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on behalf of the Commission which it replaced, as was provided for under the transitional provisions which we passed in May. I am concerned that, while the report is admirable in many of the ways which Senator Chipp described, while the formation of the Corporation had the support of honourable senators from all sides of the Parliament, while we supported it and while I took part, as Senator Chipp said, in the selection of directors, the report is ungenerous in the way it treats the former Commission and the former commissioners. I cannot let the occasion pass without drawing attention to that fact. This report covers the period of the Commission. The new directors of the Corporation did not take up their appointments until 1 July 1983. This report covers the period before 1 July 1983. Yet the directors of the new Corporation made sure that their photographs appear in the report along with their life histories. The report is not about them or about what they have done. There is not a single word or a mention of the name of a single commissioner of the Australian Broadcasting Commission-- Senator Messner —Not the Chairman? Senator PETER BAUME —Not the name of the Chairman or any other commissioner who served Australia well. I say, in the spirit in which Senator Chipp made his speech, which was a positive spirit, that it is an unnecessary and ungenerous omission on their part. I place on record the fact that the commissioners who served the Australian Broadcasting Commission were distinguished Australians. I place on record that they acted in a tradition of distinguished Australians. I place on record that they gave service to the Australian Broadcasting Commission as an act of public service to the community. The fact that this report, which is about their achievements, their activities and their stewardship, fails to identify them but publishes the photos of all those who had nothing to do with the stewardship of that period is an act which is unnecessary, demeaning, unworthy and not in the spirit of the approach which this Parliament took when it discussed the legislation in May. There is no acknowledgment that they existed. There is not a single word of appreciation for what they did. There is no word of thanks for the service they gave Australia. It is their report. We are entitled to know who were the commissioners responsible for the ABC during that period. We do not have that information. We believe that Dame Leonie Kramer , who was Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, served Australia, the Commission and the community well and that all her fellow commissioners likewise gave excellent service. I conclude by saying that what has happened here may have been an oversight or it may have been deliberate. If it was an oversight, it was sloppy behaviour of the part of the new Corporation and reflects badly upon it. If it was deliberate , it was an unnecessary and petty-minded act which really is inappropriate in this kind of report. I would have thought that the report, which covered a period from July 1982 to 30 June 1983, during the time of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and when commissioners were responsible for that statutory body, at least would have mentioned who the commissioners were and might have found it possible to say something at least half way complimentary about the great job which those commissioners did for Australia and for the ABC. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.21) —I wish to say some things about the report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I agree entirely with what Senator Baume has said. I think it was petty not to mention the commissioners. If that is an indication of the approach of the directors of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation at the moment, it is a reflection upon them. It is a reflection upon the Board not to acknowledge the good work that was done by Board members and the previous Chairman. Mention has been made of the fact that discussions were held between the Government and the Opposition parties, including the Australian Democrats, prior to the appointments being made to the new Board. Of course, no discussions were held with me. I am not complaining about that but I believe that some of the problems that have emerged with the Deputy Chairman of the ABC might not have emerged had she not been appointed to that position. I made a Press statement on the appointment of the Deputy Chairman of the ABC which has not been replied to by her. That should be placed on the record in this Parliament, because I made that statement outside the Parliament and nothing in it has been responded to. I think it is fair to place it on the record so that in any future appointments more mature consideration is given or, as has been said previously in this debate more names are advanced by the Government before these appointments are made. My Press statement of 10 June 1983 said: Senator Harradine . . . today attacked the appointment of Ms Wendy McCarthy as Deputy-Chairman of the A.B.C. 'Ms McCarthy is an ardent pro-abortionist who seeks head-on confrontation. She describes abortion as ''a method of fertility regulation'' '. She made that comment in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 7 July. The statement continued: 'Last year, over the ABC, she characterised the pro-life views of former Minister Tom McVeigh as being ''snotty little ideas about conscience'' '. She said that on the AM program of 11 May 1982. I went on: 'A month later, at the launching of a new pro-abortion group in Sydney, she raised the possibility of compiling lists of politicians who have used Family Planning Association and other agencies for abortion referrals for wives and daughters, if the politicians went ahead with moves to legislate for the abolition of abortion clinics.' That was in the Australian of 28 June 1982. The Press release further stated: 'The appointment of Ms McCarthy is a victory for radical feminists, WEL, and the pro-abortion lobby. 'The contrast between the dignified and balanced approach of former Chairman Leonie Kramer and the strident partisan ''can't wait to get started'' approach of new Deputy-Chairman Wendy McCarthy . . . is quite revealing.' I also expressed my concern that the Government had failed to reappoint a Tasmanian to the Board of the Corporation, stating: Tasmania has had a representative on the ABC for some years now and the Government's decision to ignore Tasmania is another smack in the face for us down there. I am concerned about Tasmania not having a representative on the Board. In fact, Talbot Duckmanton-I heard a very funny interview involving a British Broadcasting Corporation character about that particular name-a former General Manager of the ABC, came from Tasmania. I reiterate my concern about the fact that a Tasmanian has not been reappointed to the Board of the Corporation. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-We have discovered on page 7 of the Australian Broadcasting Commission report in very small writing the names of the previous commissioners but the criticism remains that no thanks were given to any of them for what they did. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report and Ministerial Statement The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Mason, I must warn him that he has only one minute in which to speak before the time expires for this debate. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.26) —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. The Australian Democrats welcome the tabling of the report on a national conservation strategy for Australia but I must say that when the people formulating the strategy first met some time ago we were a little sceptical about the likelihood of strategy being achieved. We wish to express concern, however, in three areas. First, there is no mention in the list of the obstacles in this report about the problem of public access to information. This has been one of the things which has cursed the environmental cause for many years. Our second major concern is that the question of standing has not been addressed under priority national actions and we call on the Government to allow access to the courts to all interested persons and organisations to ensure compliance with environmental laws. This is a matter which I think could be looked at. Thirdly, to brutally compress my comments, we also believe that environmental assessment should normally include, for proposals and policies which are significant, a wide extent of public comment; a public statement of the nature benefits and impacts of proposals which could be brought to public attention well before a project begins to come into operation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allocated for consideration of ministerial papers under sessional orders has expired. Senator Crowley —Mr Deputy President, I seek some clarification. My understanding is that those papers listed but not spoken to can be debated without further listing later this week. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No, there will be no General Business on Thursday during which they may be considered and if no motion is moved with regard to them now they will disappear from the Notice Paper. Interim Annual Report 1982-83 Annual Report 1982-83 Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-In the absence of Senator Rae, who is ill, 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 BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(5.30) —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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —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)(5.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned Record of Alice Springs Meeting 1983 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Record of Hobart Meeting 1982 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Record of Alice Springs Meeting 1983 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Industries Assistance Commission Report Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report and Ministerial Statement Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Summary of Discussions Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —On behalf of Senator Tate, I present the fifteenth report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Australian National Railways Commission Bill 1983, the Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill 1983 and the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MISSEN —On behalf of the Committee, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 16, dated 7 December 1983. Motion (by Senator Robertson)-by leave-agreed to: That the matter referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources on 2 June 1983 be amended to read as follows: The exploitation of the natural resources of the Australian Antarctic territory with particular reference to: (A) the extent of the natural resources of the Australian Antarctic Territory; (B) the technical and economic restraints on the exploitation of the natural resources of the Australian Antarctic Territory; (C) the adequacy of existing and proposed Antarctic environment protection and conservation measures; and (D) the Commonwealth's role. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I present the 222nd Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MAGUIRE —by leave-The 222nd report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts is an examination of the March 1982 Auditor-General's Report. Each year the Committee examines recently published reports of the Auditor- General. Following the tabling of the March 1983 report, the Committee sought written submissions from five departments in respect of seven of the items raised in the report. After discussions with the Auditor-General and departmental officers, the Committee selected one item-HMAS Tobruk-for public inquiry. Another item-Commonwealth Medical Benefits: Reimbursement to Registered Medical Benefits organisations-was addressed during the inquiry into medical fraud and overservicing. Submissions were received in respect of the Department of Defence, the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, the Department of Primary Industry and the Department of Social Security. I seek leave to incorporate the body of the report in the record. Leave granted. The report read as follows- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE The Auditor-General noted that in respect of this project a significant committment of expenditure on production items had been approved before prototype testing was completed. This occurred notwithstanding the Committee's recommendations of the 137th and 150th Reports which concluded that contracts of a nature such as this with significant developmental content required the production of a prototype which should be subject to exhaustive testing before production proceeded. In the case of the Mobile Radio Terminals the Department has stated that production of the units will not proceed until all tests required under the contract have been successfully completed on each of the initial production items. The Department is confident that the extensive level of testing specified will give a reasonable assurance that the equipment will perform satisfactorily. The Auditor-General also criticised the tender evaluation process which it considered to be inconsistent with stated government policy. The Committee shared the Auditor-General's concern and will be considering this matter in more detail during its inquiry into project management in the Defence Force. The Department of Defence is procuring 4 FFG-07 Class Frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. The purchase includes 12 helicopters for tactical surveillance and reconnaisance. The Auditor-General criticised the Department for the time taken (3 years) to agree on the functions and tasks for the armed helicopters, and to agree on the precise level of capability required for each task. This delayed the selection process for the helicopter and in turn will impact on the operational capability of the frigates. The Committee, while acknowledging the need to carry out a careful evaluation process, is concerned at the time taken to arrive at a choice of helicopter, particularly in view of its impact on the frigates surveillance capability. In view of the delays so far witnessed in this project the Committee has requested that any further delays that could impact on the embarkation of the helicopters beyond 1988 be reported to the Committee. DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT The Auditor-General drew attention to a number of irregularities in the administration of the financial affairs of Norfolk Island. The Committee is precluded by the Public Accounts Act from examining matters internal to the administration of Norfolk Island. The Department of Home Affairs and Environment and the Auditor-General are seeking to clarify and resolve these inadequacies in the audit provisions of the Norfolk Island legislation. DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRY The Auditor-General referred to several unsatisfactory features covering the collection of levies, taxes and charges by the Department. The Department has taken action to overcome the administrative and legislative difficiencies associated with these problems. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service provides rehabilitation programs to persons suffering from a physical or mental disability which is considered a substantial handicap to undertaking employment or resuming an independent or semi-independent life in their own home. The Auditor-General doubted whether sufficient information was available from past records to reliably assess the results of the training programs the Service administered. The Department has undertaken a complete review of its statistical collection procedures. The new computerised system should dramatically improve the Department's data collection and statistical analysis facilities. The Committee believes that the system should be reviewed by the Auditor- General at some later stage to evaluate the systems capabilities. The Committee recommended that the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service seek ways to exploit this new system to improve the analytical and reporting capabilities of its casework teams situated at its various centres around Australia. Further the Committee recommends that the results and experience stemming from casework studies should be collated, analysed and made available to appropriate professional organisations in Australia. Copies of this report will not be available for general distribution until Thursday 8 December 1983. However copies are held by the Parliamentary Library. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.36) —I move: That the Canberra Commercial Development (Amendments) Ordinance 1983 contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 51 of 1983 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 be disallowed. The motion that we are discussing seeks to disallow Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 51 of 1983. Perhaps it is not so much a strange coincidence but a true indication of this Government's attitude to private enterprise that this Ordinance No. 51 is so close to Ordinance No. 53, the one we discussed yesterday which is associated with the shameful way that the Government treated the hotel convention centre project when it wanted a casino instead of it. Together, these Ordinances effectively said to the private sector that this is a government town and that is the way the Government wants it and the private sector is not terribly welcome. The Ordinance which we are seeking today to disallow is an extension of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority Ordinance of 1974. That Ordinance was created for the purpose of that Authority developing a shopping centre in the Belconnen area. The quite simple amendments to the Ordinance in this instance merely seek to extend the Authority's jurisdiction: (aa) to construct and conduct a shopping centre in the District of Tuggeranong; And otherwise to change 'that shopping centre' to 'those shopping centres'. The centre in the Tuggeranong area has caused some controversy and there is debate in the community on whether it should be built now and the size that it should be. But they are not the matters which are under discussion this afternoon. There is certainly an imbalance of retail space in that area and there is a large population in that area which is not adequately served by shopping space at the present time. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that there is an excessive retail trading space in Canberra at present and there are difficulties for many traders in balancing their books and earning a living. But , as I said, that is not the substance of the motion today. What we are really talking about is the question: Who is to build this shopping centre? It is proposed to be about half the size of the Belconnen Shopping Centre, about the same size as the Monaro Mall, and it is planned to provide 14,000 square metres of retail space and later 5,000 square metres of service and agency space. The necessary changes to the city plan of the Territory have been approved by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory so that the site is available and can be made available for development. The next step one would think would be that the site should be put up for auction and those who wished to be involved in the development could then bid for the block and go ahead with the project. If the Government really wanted to have the CCDA involved, it could have said that the CCDA could compete with the private sector. I would not approve of that proposal, but at least that would have been one way of dealing with it. However this is not the case. We are told firmly by the Government's attitude that the Government is still in the business of building and running shopping centres. We were confronted on 19 October with a Press statement from the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) telling us just that-that is, that the Authority would be enabled to build and to operate the proposed Erindale shopping centre. The Chairman of the Authority was delighted. Of course he took it as an endorsement of everything that he had done previously and is reported in the Canberra Times as saying: The success of the authority speaks for itself. Our results are second to none and would match those of any private-enterprise development in this country. There are not too many operations which are run as efficiently as this one. He also claimed that the decision was: indicative of the confidence the Government has in what this authority has achieved. That is a statement that bears further investigation. There is no doubt that there are private developers in this area who have the funds and who would be anxious and willing to participate in bidding for this block of land on which to build a shopping centre. I have referred to the Belconnen Mall, which is a government shopping centre. It is the only one in Canberra that has been built and is operated in that way. The other smaller centres-Southlands, Jamison, Kippax, Curtin and Cooleman Court-are all built and run by small developers. The larger ones, such as the Monaro Mall which I have referred to, and the Woden Shopping Square, are also privately built and run. What is the background of the CCDA? It was set up through the Ordinance in 1974 and its function then, as set out in the Ordinance, was: (a) to construct and conduct a shopping centre in the District of Belconnen; (b) to carry on such other undertakings related to that shopping centre as the Minister approves and; (c) to provide community facilities related to the conduct of that shopping centre. I immediately wrote to the then Minister and told him that I thought the decision was wrong, that is was very harmful to the development of the private sector of Canberra that this decision was made, and I asked him to rescind it. Mr Deputy President, this is an example of doctrinaire socialism at work where the Government wants to control absolutely everything in this town, it cannot even resist being involved in shopping centres. Perhaps that would be all right if the Minister for Territories and Local Government was honest enough to say that out and about in the community or if he had been honest enough to say it prior to the last election, but that is not the case. The Government says one thing at meetings and it says other things in a decision such as this. There can be no doubt that there is a need for the private sector to develop and to be encouraged in the Australian Capital Territory. The speech that was given in this place only yesterday on the White Industries matter stressed the need for jobs, the need for development and the need for diversification of the Australian Capital Territory economy. If I had the time I would read to the Senate what the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who represents in this place the Minister for Territories and Local Government, had to say on these needs just yesterday afternoon. I am sure all honourable senators will remember those words. The Public Service employs most people in the community at present and that is always likely to be the case. We have a very high level of youth unemployment. The only way we are going to get a better balanced economy is to encourage the private sector to come to Canberra, not to tell it that the Government will do everything and it is not welcome. We hope that the technology part of the economy will be developed by the private sector. Even that was under attack the other day by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) when he said that he thought government assistance for the development of sunrise industries could go to other capital cities over Canberra. Really, very little incentive is being shown by this Government for private enterprise to come to Canberra to diversify the economy, to increase the range of job opportunities for our young people. Not every young person will have the opportunity to get a job in the Public Service. Not every young person wants to have a job in the Public Service. We do not want all our young people to have to leave Canberra. There are no benefits to the community, the consumer or the retail operator in the proposal to build this shopping centre. I have no doubt that we will be told that the construction of the shopping centre and the running of shops will provide roughly the same number of jobs, whether it is built by this authority or whether it is built by the private sector. That is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the encouragement being shown to the private sector that it is welcome in Canberra, that we are serious about wanting to diversify our economy. What it is really all about is whether or not we are serious about providing jobs for young people. In view of this decision, I question the Government's sincerity in that regard. There is a high level of youth unemployment. At the National Economic Summit Conference the Minister for Territories and Local Government said: Canberra's pressing problem of youth unemployment is exacerbated by the very limited range of employment opportunities. He referred then to 58 per cent of employment being in the government sector. He sounded then as though he knew what the problem was. He sounded sincere. He sounded as though he had a comprehension of the problem. I think most people believed that he really wanted to do something about it. That certainly is open to question. We have had comments from many organisations in the Australian Capital Territory which are dismayed at the decision on two grounds, namely the disincentive to the private sector to develop and whether or not, in any event, this authority is an appropriate authority to be entrusted with more shopping centres. The Building Owners and Managers Association of Australia Ltd has written to the Minister for Territories and Local Government calling upon him to reverse the decision with regard to the development of the shopping centre by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. The Association said: We believe that the private sector is capable and keen to compete for the development and ownership of the Erindale shopping centre, and in the interests of the public should be allowed to do so. I and members of the Association well recall your remarks at the May CARD luncheon when you called upon the private sector to play its role in the continuing development and the creation of economic opportunities in the Canberra Region. The letter goes on to remind the Minister of the statements that he made, of the calls that he made to the private sector to do its bit. What does he do when he gets the opportunity? He goes ahead and builds a shopping centre himself. The Canberra Chamber of Commerce has written to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). That organisation said to him: We are concerned at the decision that the Erindale Shopping Centre is to be developed by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. The concept of broadening and diversifying the economic base of Canberra has been overwhelmingly accepted both non-partisan politically and in the local community. We think that you will have perceived that there is a ground swell of self-help determination to achieve this by leaders within the Canberra regional business community, supported by others who are enthused by the idea of improving employment opportunities for their children and those of their friends and colleagues, in a more balanced local economy. The letter goes on. The Canberra Association for Regional Development Inc. has written to a number of Ministers, including the Prime Minister. It says, in part , having drawn his attention to this decision: In our view this goes against the whole approach to the private sector enunciated on behalf of your Government during the election campaign, at the April Economic Summit and subsequently . . . That organisation, too, refers to the address that the Minister gave at its luncheon in May of this year. It went on to say to the Prime Minister: Potential investors as well as the private sector established in Canberra have, therefore, received a severe setback to their confidence with the announcement that a public sector body employing public funds will be given a monopoly on the development and management of commercial facilities with the Canberra private sector being excluded. There is more to that letter. The Master Builders Association has joined with the Canberra Association for Regional Development in its approach to have this decision overturned. It has indicated to me that there are three members of its association who have indicated their interest in being involved in the development of this site. The Australian Chamber of Commerce has commented and sent a telex to the Prime Minister. I understand the Real Estate Institute of Australia has done likewise. The Australian Chamber of Commerce said: The private sector is prepared to bid for the land and build the shopping centre. The Commonwealth Government would be able to sell the land to the private sector for up to $5 million, and the private sector would subsequently be entirely responsible for the success or otherwise of the project. If the CCDA were to proceed with the project, the taxpayer would forgo literally millions of dollars and bear the risks of the project. There is no evidence with the Belconnen Mall that the taxpayers have got anything significant back for having given the piece of land away. There is no evidence that this will happen in this case either. Again, we have not been given any economic statement which would justify this decision or show any benefit to the community from this decision. Once again we are faced with hollow words from the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) in his statement of September of this year when he promised that financial impact statements would be given on all matters. I acknowledge that this did not include ordinances. However, I cannot imagine that he seriously would have excluded and discriminated against the Australian Capital Territory in the way that one could conclude. The Real Estate Institute of the Australian Capital Territory Ltd also wrote to the Minister for Territories and Local Government. The Institute said: The proposed amendments to the Ordinance would permit the government, through the authority, to usurp the traditional role of the private sector. We believe that the current proposal is contrary to the Government's stated policy of encouraging the private sector in Canberra. The Canberra Development Board in its 1981-82 report commented on what it had been doing. Reporting to the Minister it said: Consistent with your instructions, the Board continued to pursue opportunities to enlarge the private sector and increase employment opportunities in the ACT. An active program promoting Canberra to investors, property developers, industrial and commercial groups, professions, associations, tourists and visitors has been maintained. The Board went on: The development of new industry in Canberra was never expected to be an easy task because of private sector resistance to establishing what was seen as exclusively a city of government administration. It has taken time to get Australian industry to think positively about establishing operations in the National Capital, but the Board's efforts are now bringing results. What are we confronted with now? The Minister has made a decision which totally flies in the face of that and is totally destructive of all the good work that has been done. We need to look at another aspect of this matter, and that is what the electors of the Australian Capital Territory were entitled to think about what the Labor Government, if elected, would do. At a meeting introducing the Australian Labor Party candidates to the Press and the electorate the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), as reported in the Canberra Times of 8 February this year, is quoted as saying: . . . 'Canberra-bashing' would be a thing of the past under Labor, and a better balance would be established between the Territory's public and private sectors. Well, when are we going to see the elimination of Canberra bashing; when are we going to see any decisions made that lead towards a better balance between the Territory's public and private sectors? The same honourable member was reported as having attended on the following day, another meeting at which the policy was launched. A report in the Canberra Times referred to her remarks in these terms: Insufficient economic growth under the Fraser Government had made Canberra ' stagnant', and she advocated an economic-development program with balance between public-and private-sector growth. Again, I say that it is time we saw a bit of it. At a meeting at which the honourable member for Canberra was accompanied by the then shadow Attorney- General, and in which 140 Canberra business people took part, reference was again made to the private sector. In fact, you might almost say that it was stressed, but perhaps that was the place to stress it. I wonder if those people will be so gullible as to believe it again. A Press report of the meeting read: Mrs Kelly said that private enterprise nationally would be better off under Labor policies . . . Mrs Kelly said Labor believed in stability and long-term development as the keynotes of Canberra's future. Labor promised 'moderate growth' for Canberra, in which the private sector would share. She made some other interesting comments, about the White Industries proposal, as well. But it did not just end there. The promises were not all forgotten on 5 March. The process went on. The Minister for Territories and Local Government, as I have said, was at the National Economic Summit Conference and, in part, said: We have a private sector whose confidence to plan and invest has been undermined by the volatility of government policy. No doubt he was referring to Fraser Government policy decisions. I ask him: ' What has changed since you became the Minister for Territories and Local Government?' I have already quoted his comment that 'Canberra's pressing problem of youth unemployment is exacerbated by the very limited range of employment opportunities'. We were entitled to expect that he meant it and would do all he could to encourage diversity, development and the attraction of the private sector to Canberra; but, as I have said, in the first real opportunity that he had to give meaning to this rhetoric he has failed. He also said: . . . We should be interested at this Summit not only in identifying ways of relieving the current hardship of unemployment through short term programs but of linking the short term recovery to the longer term challenge of structural change. If we fail to make that connection we will miss important opportunities for the nation as a whole and for Canberra. In relation to Canberra we will risk the entrenchment of a community in social and economic isolation from the nation of which it is the capital. We cannot let this happen! What has he done about it? He must have forgotten that he ever made the speech. He also said-he had not forgotten the theme then: Canberra is entering the era when diversification of its economic base is the priority-diversification through new forms of economic activity; diversification through a bigger private sector. He concluded: . . . the Government sector and the private sector will have to work in partnership; I wonder, Mr Deputy President, whether the rest of the Summit was as hollow as this part of it was. When the Minister went to the Canberra Association for Regional Development on 12 May he said: Thank you for inviting me to speak to you about the development of the Canberra region. It is a topic close to my heart. I have long had, and I continue to have an affectionate relationship with Canberra. And, as many of you would be aware, I have an enduring commitment to the pursuit of balanced regional development. Hearing all this you would think that the shopping centre would be safely placed into the hands of the private sector. He added: Canberra lacks the diversity of economic activities and employment opportunities apparent in other cities. He went on to quote the figures and to add: There is a need, in the context of a youth unemployment rate of 35 per cent in the ACT, for an expansion of job opportunities in Canberra. He was referring to private sector development and added: . . . employment expansion and diversification to be established through a stronger private sector effort in Canberra. To meet these inter-related needs it is essential for the government sector and the private sector to work together in a co-operative partnership. There should not be and there need not be a competitive stand-off between the public and private sectors. There should be and there can be a complementary development of private and public sector roles. As I have said, what is proposed is not even competitive, let alone giving the private sector any sort of opportunity at all. There is more in all of this. Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), waxed eloquent at the Sydney Chamber of Commerce about three weeks ago. This produced a headline in The Australian of 11 November, which read 'PM: We won't get in way of recovery'. The report states that he said: In the next financial year and beyond we intend limiting the Commonwealth's borrowings to levels that are consistent with strong growth in private investment in the course of recovery. We heard, of course, from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about recovery being in the hands of the private sector. Presumably all of this, for some reason that I do not understand, is to occur in the rest of Australia but not here. There are aspects of the financing of the Belconnen Mall-$38m worth of current outstanding loans, together with the moneys that would be needed to raise for the Erindale Centre, a commitment altogether of about $60m in either direct funds or loans- which certainly make it a case of the Government competing in this area. There is no doubt, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), who is present, knows-he referred to it yesterday-a need for the development of office space in the Australian Capital Territory. The shortage is severe. We need to encourage money to come to Canberra for development purposes. There have been other discouraging government decisions. There was the White Industries Ltd decision. As I have mentioned, the Budget provision for tourist promotion is down. There has been a cutback, effectively, in the incentives program. There has been a failure to appoint a new Executive Director of the Canberra Development Board following the retirement some months ago of the previous holder of the office. The Housing Industry Association wanted to become involved in land development. The Minister for Territories and Local Government has agreed to one small project at Latham but had made it very plain that it is a one-off deal. The sale of Havelock House has been stopped. The sale of Belconnen Mall has been stopped. Not much has been done to encourage the private sector but a great deal has been done to discourage it. I ask the Australian Democrats to support the proposal to give Canberra an opportunity to develop itself and to develop jobs. I come back to the question as to whether or not the Authority is a fit and proper body to deal with this development, if the Government is determined that it is to be a government project and not a private sector project. What are the real benefits to the community and what account has the Government taken of reports of committees of the Parliament that have considered the matter? I refer to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and the Senate Finance and Government Operations Committee, which have been critical. What are some of the realities of the differences between this Authority and, say, a private sector development body? The Authority is required to carry out its functions in accordance with principles of sound commercial practice but they are not really spelled out. The directors of a company are really much more accountable to the shareholders. The objects and powers set out in the articles of association spell out what the directors can and cannot do. They can be held to account, but there is really nobody to whom the Authority has to report. As I have said, the directors of a company are answerable to the shareholders. Again, how does the position of the Authority compare with that of some other government authority? Both Telecom Australia and Trans Australia Airlines can be directed by their Ministers to perform functions or provide services in particular ways. The CCDA is not, except that it must provide information as the Minister requires it on its operations. It is required to submit a report containing audited financial statements to the Minister and to inform him from time to time about the conduct of its operations. TAA and Telecom are required to submit such further reports as the Minister requires. The financial controls over the CCDA do appear to be a great deal looser than those imposed on other authorities. TAA and Telecom have been set up in such a way that they are geared to achieve a precise return on their capital but the Authority need achieve only a reasonable return on capital. There has been debate on the subject in the Parliament previously and I am sure that comments will be made again today. The report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on the CCDA, which was tabled only yesterday, refers to important matters which warrant a look. In paragraph 1 .10 it quotes the Chairman of the Board as stating to the Committee: If we have to rush to government departments continually to get approval we will be hamstrung. If we are bound hand and foot with a huge bible of terms and conditions of employment where people believe that once they are a member of an authority or government department they are there for life, then we cannot work in that area. Honourable senators can draw conclusions, from those statements, about his attitude. If in fact a statutory authority is not a proper body to be running a shopping centre, the Government should not be in the business of doing so at all . I do not see that the Government can have different rules to enable this Authority to do as it likes. In paragraph 1.4 of the report it is stated: This Committee continues to be concerned that there is little sanction available to Parliament against statutory authorities which have been the subject of continual criticism and adverse report and which are prepared to act contrary to legislation. Giving everybody the benefit of the doubt in the best possible way, surely it comes into the category of 'when in doubt, don't'. If the Government is prepared to ignore the conclusions of some of the Parliament's own committees, surely it ought to be prudent in the way in which it acts in relation to a matter such as this. I think the arguments are perfectly clear that it ought to be in the hands of the private sector in any event. Even if the CCDA were the best possible group on earth to run the centre, it should not run it because it should not be in the business of running shopping centres. But given that there are questions about the Authority and the way in which it operates, I think the Government ought to take the prudent decision, sell the land so that it gets the money from it-taxpayers throughout Australia of course would be affected otherwise-and get on with providing what needs to be provided in a more appropriate way. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(6.01) —I intend to oppose the disallowance of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance. I will briefly indicate my reasons for that opposition. What we are concerned with is the Ordinance which provides for the building of a new shopping centre, a community centre, in a zoned area. For that reason, I believe that such a community centre , such a shopping area, should be under public control through a public authority. The authority which is available for this purpose is the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. I believe it is in conformity with Government policy that there should be public involvement in this area in Canberra. There has already been public involvement in the Belconnen Mall and, for all the difficulties that the Mall faced, nevertheless it has been trading successfully in the interests of the people in that area. I do not doubt that the new Erindale shopping centre will perform just as well. Of course, honourable senators realise that such centres are in a monopoly situation because of the planning which we accept is necessary for the national capital. For that reason, I further support the proposition that it should be a public authority which controls such a monopoly situation. To hand this matter across to public enterprise would be to give public enterprise, especially the companies which are concerned, special benefits which, on experience in other areas of Australia will be misused to the disadvantage of those who operate the centre, the tennants, and those who use the centre. I make no apologies for my opposition to the disallowance. Let me come back now to the public authority to which we give the responsibility for building and running these centres. Such an authority should be above reproach. If it is not, it brings into question the responsibility which this Parliament gives to it. My concern about the Canberra Commercial Development Authority is that its record has been open to question before committees of this Parliament, in particular the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, not because of the insignificant matters which the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) described in a statement which he released but because of the significant matters which were brought to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee by the Auditor-General. The Authority was in breach of its legislation. The Authority treated with scant regard the responsibilities that were given to it. It felt that to accept its responsibilities under the legislation was to inhibit its commercial activities. That Authority, I might say, is not the only authority which takes that view. The experience of committees of this Parliament is that once we give authority or responsibilities to statutory authorities they take upon themselves a life of their own and seem to disregard the wishes of the Parliament in regard to accountability. Those shortcomings in the Canberra Commercial Development Authority were revealed before the Twelfth Public Accounts Committee, and the criticisms of the Attorney-General were supported. In the evidence other matters were revealed. It was the Twelfth Public Accounts Committee that first took up this reference some years ago in 1979-80. The reference then passed to the Thirteenth Public Accounts Committee and then came to the present Committee, the Fourteenth Committee, of which I am the Chairman. On the Fourteenth Public Accounts Committee there is only one person who was on the investigatory Committee. There is a misunderstanding by the Minister which is revealed in the Press statement which he released yesterday. The Minister does not understand. Previous committees made the investigation and came down with conclusions and recommendations which were then subject to a response. The Fourteenth Public Accounts Committee investigated that response. It did not have the power to change the original recommendations. It could only comment on those recommendations and see whether they had been carried out. In his Press release, the Minister said: I am gravely concerned that the PAC has, under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege, continued to run a campaign of smear and innuendo against Mr Pead and the operations of the Authority . . . When the Minister said that, he made a charge against every member of the Public Accounts Committee from the Twelfth Committee to the present Fourteenth Committee. In making that charge he made the charge against some of his ministerial colleagues who served on the Thirteenth Committee-Mr Barry Jones, Mr Kerin and Mr Duffy. Surely he did not intend that. He must really take a look at what the Committee recommended and what the Department of Territories and Local Government eventually did. The Committee made very little comment at the time of the reappointment of members of the Authority. It was one of the major recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee that two members of the Authority should not be reappointed. The Committee made little comment except to say that we trust the Minister received certain assurances from the members of the Authority that past errors had been addressed and had been corrected. The Fourteenth Public Accounts Committee then proceeded to seek information from the departments which had made complaints. We asked whether the Auditor- General was satisfied. He responded that he was satisfied that matters of which he had been critical had been corrected, with the exception of the matter of depreciation. Subsequently, we discovered that that matter had been resolved. We asked the Department of Finance whether its problems had been addressed and corrected, and it affirmed that they had been. We asked the Public Service Board whether its problems with the Authority had been corrected. It also said that they had been. On each occasion we asked whether, in the view of those Departments, the approach of the Committee had been fair or unfair. They all said no. We then asked to speak with the Minister who spoke with us, naturally, in private session. He suggested at the time that perhaps we had been unfair and in some way had deprived Mr Pead and Mr Calderwood of their rights because there had been produced before the Committee information that the security of tenders had not been observed. That was a further serious allegation which went beyond the criticisms made by the Auditor-General. The Committee, faced with this information, sought advice. It realised its own limitations, that it could not be a court of law and that it could not carry out investigations in this regard. But it received information of a serious allegation which everyone here would accept as serious, namely, that the security of tenders had been breached and that someone had had an unfair advantage. We referred that matter to the Attorney-General, on the basis that this was the information we had received. We knew that it was hearsay information, but it was of a serious nature and needed to be examined. For 16 months we waited for advice from the Attorney-General. Senator Gietzelt —That was of the previous Government, was it? Senator GEORGES —Yes, of course. Nevertheless, we waited for 16 months for advice from the Attorney-General. When we received that advice we found to our discomfort that it merely addressed itself to the information we had given. We were informed that the information was hearsay. We needed advice early in the piece that the Attorney-General's Department was not in the position to carry out the investigation, that it was somebody else's responsibility. So the whole matter was left up in the air. The Committee finds it unacceptable to be charged with not having observed the rights of citizens. In fact, we did everything possible to see that the rights of citizens were protected. It does not sit too kindly with us to have to read in the Minister's Press release that he: . . . called upon the PAC to bring forward evidence against Mr Pead. We did everything possible to protect Mr Pead's rights by seeking to have the matter investigated. The fact that it was not satisfactorily investigated was not through any error of the Public Accounts Committee. We believe that we received sufficient assurances from the various departments that the Authority as it is presently constituted can carry out the extra function and the extra responsibility. We believe that the Minister by his appointment made a provision that was absent in the previous Authority; that is, a means by which full ministerial responsibility through the Department could be exercised. That is an improvement to the Authority. The Authority is not in character the same as the previous Authority. For that reason, it can be given the extra responsibilities it has been given. In fact, it is the only authority existing that can carry out the function. No one surely can suggest that another authority should be created. When we consider that the criticisms of the Auditor -General have now been met and that for the first time the Authority has been able to bring down unqualified accounts, we can with assurance accept that the Authority can carry out its new function. Nevertheless, the Committee has kept the reference open because of continuing complaints and attacks against it and criticisms about it from those who feel that the Minister has ignored its recommendations. We give honourable senators an assurance that that will add to the security of the arrangements which the Minister has made. The Committee will continue to overview the activities of the Authority as it moves into its new responsibility. Neither I nor any member of the Committee is opposed to the new responsibility, but the Committee has a fear that this Authority and other authorities may again disregard the Parliament. The Minister's Press release supports this view. My understanding of his statement is that he does not understand the function of the Public Accounts Committee and how it works. I am sorry to be critical of the Minister because he is a colleague of long standing. He has been a person whom I have known and been very close to for many years. We have shared many different experiences. I find it difficult to be critical of a statement which he has made, but it cannot go unanswered. As the statement stands, it could be declared an outrageous attack upon a committee of this Parliament which has a responsibility to see that statutory authorities are accountable to the Parliament. We in this Parliament are the arm of the Auditor-General. In fact, any criticism of this Committee is a criticism of the Auditor-General. The Committee cannot work on a partisan basis. It has been suggested that because this Ordinance was before the Parliament we should not bring down a report. I cannot accept that argument. To do that is to engage in party political manoeuvring using the Committee. As long as I am Chairman that will not happen. It could be argued that Senator Reid, in bringing down this disallowance motion for debate, may have instituted the debate a little in order to anticipate the bringing down of this report. That was and still is her entitlement. She is entitled to debate this matter at a time when she thinks that she can most influence the decision. That is her right. As far as this Committee is concerned, the report, when it was ready, having been discussed, analysed, criticised and amended by members of the Committee, had to be brought down. Any suggestion that this report ought to be held back because it might influence today's decision is to be refuted. Rather than disadvantage the making of this decision today, it assists us, as I have stated, to reject the disallowance because the Committee's work has placed the Authority in a much better position. Let me give the Authority a little credit as I conclude. A representation was given to me about a tenant who was disadvantaged, who got into difficulties, who could not make his way, and who faced bankruptcy. If a principal, a private individual in control of that Mall, had the decision before him, that person would have been ejected with little regard. On this occasion, the Manager of the Authority and its Board went out of their way to see that that person was assisted as much as they were able to assist. Instead of leaving penniless, that person left with some funds and some consideration. That is the way in which a public authority ought to work. I give credit to this public authority for the fact that on this occasion it acted humanely. With some landlords of some of the big shopping centres, that would not have been a consideration. There is no animosity on the part of the Committee or myself against the Authority, except to see that the Authority recognises its responsibility to the Parliament, as it ought to do on all occasions; and I trust that, because of the work of the Public Accounts Committee, it will do so in the future. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.22) —Having been a member of the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth Public Accounts Committees to which Senator Georges refers, I should like to place on record my appreciation of the frankness of his remarks and the honest way in which he has presented the Committee's approach on this matter. I also appreciate his chairmanship and the manner in which he places matters that are before the Committee, matters of concern to this Paliament, above party-political considerations. But, whilst Senator Georges has a philosophy of public sector involvement in matters such as the construction of shopping centres, I and the Opposition have a different approach. I believe that private enterprise can best perform these sorts of operations. Therefore, I rise in support of the motion moved by my colleague from the Australian Capital Territory, Senator Margaret Reid, relating to the disallowance of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. The motion reads: That the Canberra Commercial Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1983, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 51 of 1983 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. The Minister for Territories and Local Government, the Hon. Tom Uren, has created an unfortunate situation in giving the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, a government statutory organisation, the responsibility for a further shopping centre, this time at Erindale in the Tuggeranong Valley in the Australian Capital Territory. I say 'unfortunate', since such a project involves at this time the appropriation of scarce financial resources, when I believe that the job could be done much more efficiently by private enterprise. This project, involving the use of taxpayers' funds, smacks of the hypocrisy of the Government's rhetoric in complaining of the need for extreme austerity because of an alleged inherited Budget deficit forecast for the year ended 30 June 1984. In Tasmania, we have been denied an upgrading of our Wynyard Airport. Now we are further faced at that same centre with the withdrawal of fire-fighting services at the airport in the name of saving money because of the problems of the deficit. The constant repetition of this theme, so consistently, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Ministers assumes a single digit intelligence rating on the part of the Australian electorate. But, judging by the recent reaction of that electorate, they will not be fooled. It is time that the Government woke up to the realities and regained its proper perspective and got people back to work. The thousands of petitions that are now coming into this Parliament for the north-west coast, and received largely by my colleague Senator Brian Archer of Burnie, about the Government's attitude towards Wynyard Airport are testimony to the concern of the people of north-west of Tasmania. That is but one example of where funds have been dinied in the name of austerity and the problems of the Budget deficit. But when required, the Government can find money. It has found $1.2m for the Yes case in the referendum. It can find money for extra members of parliament. It can find money to finance the Erindale shopping centre, which could be financed by private enterprise. But it selectively cuts items in my State. I quote but one example at present, that of Wynyard Airport. The correct approach that should have been taken by the Government was to call for tenders. If one adheres to a socialist philosophy, maybe the CCDA could have been given the opportunity to tender, having built the Belconnen Mall-not without a great deal of criticism. If the CCDA submitted the lowest tender, that would have demonstrated the Authority's competence to construct the Erindale shopping centre. But, no; the project was handed to the CCDA, an authority that came under severe criticism by, firstly, the Auditor-General and later by two reports of the Public Accounts Committee, No. 181 of 1980 and No. 214 which was presented yesterday. There was also a further report issued by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, chaired at the time by my Tasmanian colleague Senator Peter Rae. All these reports were severely critical of the operations and conduct of the CCDA. Despite the past actions of the Chairman of that Authority, Mr Pead, he was reappointed as Chairman despite an adverse criticism by the Public Accounts Committee in its report, which contained a recommendation that those who were subject to criticism in that report be not reappointed. Contrary to that recommendation, Mr Pead was reappointed. The manner in which the Belconnen Mall was constructed, its particular monopoly status, the treatment of the staff, the lack of standard terms and conditions relating to tenants and the discrimination that applies there, the delays in finalising lease arrangements, its poor performance, and its lack of paying tax on profits, as yet to be revealed, all indicate that it is a poor performer. In the last accounts lodged within the Senate we find that from an accounting point of view it has been poorly financed . There is a working capital deficit, in that current liabilities are well in excess of current assets. Had the Authority not decided to revalue its assets, its balance sheet would have been in a pretty hopeless position. Investment in the Belconnen Mall has been made attractive only by the impact of inflation on its accounts. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator WATSON —Prior to the suspension of the sitting, the Senate was debating a motion moved by my colleague Senator Margaret Reid, to disallow Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 51 of 1983. The purpose of the Ordinance in the first place was to allow the Canberra Commercial Development Authority to construct a community and shopping centre at Erindale in the Tuggeranong Valley in the Australian Capital Territory. The Liberal Party of Australia has argued that the Canberra Commercial Development Authority is not the appropriate authority to construct this project. Philosophically, the Liberal Party is opposed to public sector involvement in these sorts of activities. Furthermore, the track record of this Authority, under its present leadership, is such that it is not a credible organisation to carry out this work. We raise the question of the hypocrisy of the Labor Government in not making available funds for such projects as the upgrading of Wynyard Airport, yet at the same time finding money to increase the numbers of members of parliament and finding money, taxpayers' scarce funds, to put into a project such as a further shopping complex at Erindale. Last week my colleague Senator Reid was successful in disallowing an ordinance for the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. I submit that this matter is far more important to Canberra and to Australia than the disallowance of that casino ordinance, important and successful though that was. The credit must largely go to my colleague from the Australian Capital Territory , Senator Margaret Reid. In supporting my contention that the Canberra Commercial Development Authority is not a fit and proper organisation because of its track record to conduct the building of this project, I submit that the Chairman, Mr Pead, and Mr Elsworth were the subject of serious allegations concerning the propriety, if not the legality, of certain of their actions. These allegations were also made by two former employees of the Authority. They were not alone in voicing their discontent with certain actions of the Authority . Tenants have been unhappy and there has been a certain inconsistency in the leasing arrangements and the contents of those leases between tenants. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its report No. 181 quite correctly stated that there was a matter of principle involved: Not only must a government authority act in a totally legal manner but also it must be seen to be so acting because ultimately the reputation and standing of an authority is a reflection upon the reputation and standing of authorities in general. Where no action is taken by a government or governments in such an instance, the credibility of the Government and the Parliament's responsibility must also be questioned. Mr Pead, as Chairman of the Authority, did show a lack of regard for even the proprieties of the Authority's actions when he said: If we have to rush to Government Departments continually to get approval we will be hamstrung. Yet the very notion of a government authority is that it is not like a private enterprise; it is accountable to other government departments for many of its actions. The Authority was created by government ordinance. Yet Mr Pead, the Chairman, did not seem to consider this to be so. He considered the primary function of the Authority was to be a profitable operation. In fact, while it was certainly hoped that the Authority could operate at a profit, it was certainly not the primary function of the Authority, nor can it be of any government authority. The Authority, in its financial dealings, appeared not to take the conduct that was expected of it. It agreed to wage agreements with employees which could be construed as being in direct conflict with section 26 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The legality of certain of the Authority's actions was certainly questionable, remembering that the CCDA Ordinance of 1974 created the legal basis of the Authority, something that appeared to mean little to the Authority. As the Committee has already noted, it was clear that the Authority ignored the Parliament by its disregard of the provisions of the Ordinance. I will mention a few matters that were raised by the Public Accounts Committee. They include investment in bank bills contrary to the provisions of section 22 of the Ordinance, payment of underwriting fees on oversubscriptions, payment of salaries and allowances without the approval of the Public Service Board to the terms and conditions of employment and failure to publish its 1978-79 accounts on time. All these matters have been tabled in report No. 181 of the Public Accounts Committee. Yet the Government now refuses to act upon the main recommendation of that report. We acknowledge that it has gone part way in restructuring the Authority, but it continued to reappoint Mr Pead who was without doubt the driving force behind the Authority, being its only Chairman right through until its restructuring. His attitude and behaviour were intolerable. As Chairman, he must accept responsibility for the actions of the Authority. Where the actions of the Authority raise doubts as to propriety, they reflect on him as well as on the Authority. The point at issue is whether legality or propriety is the guiding factor for a government authority. An action can be very well considered improper but still legal. No government can afford to disregard or be seen to disregard the value of propriety of the actions of government authorities. The Committee quite correctly felt that Mr Pead should no longer be a member of the Authority since his actions had brought the reputation of the Authority and the propriety of certain of its actions into question. His continued appointment as a member of that Authority can be considered intolerable. In the intervening period the Committee has been assured by the Minister for Territories and Local Government that action has been taken to ensure that there will not be a repetition of the sad history of past actions which have been subject to criticism not only by the Public Accounts Committee but by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I wish to bring to the attention of honourable senators some matters arising from a media statement made by the Minister for Territories and Local Government , the Hon. Tom Uren, because I believe there are some misstatements in that media statement that reflect rather badly on the Public Accounts Committee. That statement dated 6 December 1983 states: Mr Uren said he had gone before the Committee and answered questions which had again been raised in this Report. 'I emphasised to the Committee- this is Mr Uren- That I have discussed the matters with Auditor-General who had indicated that these matters were not significant and that the Auditor-General had a satisfactory working relationship with the CCDA.' The words that I wish to refer to were that the Auditor-General had indicated that these matters were not significant. Mr Uren has taken the matters out of context because what he was referring to when he met the Committee was the depreciation of the buildings of the Belconnen Mall. The Auditor-General, in his report, expressed dissatisfaction and raised these matters to such an extent that the Public Accounts Committee took them up. Subsequently, the question of depreciation of the buildings arose. Initially, the Auditor-General regarded that the failure to account for depreciation on these assets was not particularly significant. I agree with him on that. On the other hand, the Auditor-General indicated that had the CCDA continued to ignore the finance direction over subsequent years then he would have regarded it as significant. However, Mr Uren said that the item relating to the question of the depreciation on the buildings for one year-we must recognise that many other companies in the commercial world have had this sort of argument as to whether they should depreciate what might be regarded by some as an appreciating asset- was not very significant. I submit that the Hon. Tom Uren misrepresented the words of the Auditor-General in discussions with the Public Accounts Committee or certainly took them out of context. The other matter I wish to raise relates to the concluding paragraph of the media statement in which the Minister questioned the integrity of the former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr David Connolly. He said that calls by Mr David Connolly for a judicial inquiry were the height of political opportunism. What the distinguished former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was trying to do-I heard part of the speech and I have read the speech with great interest-was to find a respectable way out of a very difficult situation in relation to one matter which was brought up by the Committee and over which Mr Pead found himself in a most embarrassing position. I point out to the Government that the Public Accounts Committee bent over backwards to help this man, Jim Pead. He was subject to re-election at the time this inquiry was under investigation. The Committee deliberately went soft on the issue because it did not want to raise any issue that could interfere with his chances for re- election. I think it is rather deplorable that the Minister should question the integrity of the distinguished former Chairman, David Connolly, who was attempting to try to find a way out of this situation by suggesting on the one hand that it might be appropriate for committees of the Parliament to have their own legal advisers so that there could not be a repetition of a situation in which a committee of the Parliament could be forced to wait over 16 months for an opinion and could then be told that that was not the appropriate agency to conduct an investigation. The Auditor-General now says that, in relation to outstanding matters, he is quite happy with the operations of the CCDA. Mr Uren has taken the time factor out of context. The implication all the way through the statement is that the Auditor-General is quite happy and the matters are not significant. The Auditor- General thought that they were so significant in the early days of the CCDA that he issued a very scathing report, such that the Public Accounts Committee took the matter up. I think the intervention of the Hon. Tom Uren has been most unfortunate. I think, as another speaker said, he does not understand the operations of the Public Accounts Committee. My colleague Philip Ruddock, the shadow Minister for the Australian Capital Territory, believes that the CCDA is not the appropriate authority. He questioned the Government for not seeking tenders from the private sector to develop the centre at Erindale. He also raises questions about the leasing arrangements. In his Press statement he said: Further, the Shadow Minister, Philip Ruddock, revealed today that he is seeking information from the Minister for Territories and Local Government as to why the CCDA left nearly $1m in rent outstanding for a period of nearly 12 months. I mention that because the problems within the CCDA and its relationships with its tenants are continuing. This situation is unfortunate because I believe that private enterprise could better build this centre and that the CCDA, on its track record, is not the appropriate organisation to build the centre. I find it unfortunate that the Australian Democrats, the so-called champions of small business as they call themselves, are not able to support this motion. Had they studied in the early years the problems of some of those tenants and the inconsistencies which existed in the leasing arrangements between the tenants who have large areas in the Belconnen Mall as distinct from those who have small areas, and had they recognised some of those problems they would have seen fit to support this disallowance motion moved by my colleague Senator Margaret Reid. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(8.18) —Honourable senators might be wondering just what it is we are debating this evening and have debated this afternoon. They might be wondering whether we are debating the development and ultimate control of a centre for the Australian Capital Territory, whether we are debating the accounting system of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, or whether we are debating the personalities and the occasional human shortcomings of the members of the CCDA. It seems to me that we are debating practically everything except what would be good for the people of the Australian Capital Territory in the development of this proposed complex. To put the debate into some context, I will read from the 181st report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. These seem to me to be the major criticisms that have come from that report. The first is: It was clear to the Committee that the Authority ignored the Parliament by its disregard of the provisions of its Ordinance. That is potentially a serious matter, depending on just what the effects were of ignoring that Ordinance. The next criticism by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts was: The Committee believes . . . that the Authority's managers, commercially pragmatic though they may be, have never been able to comprehend, much less accept the responsibilities attaching to a public authority. This is a report presented in September 1980, so we are going back several years . At that stage the Authority was seen to be commercially pragmatic but as having a bit of difficulty, according to the Public Accounts Committee, in dealing with its role as a public authority. The third criticism was: The Committee is concerned at the lack of adequate machinery and sanctions available to government to investigate and control an authority which has been the subject of repeated adverse report and public comment and has been prepared to act contrary to its legislation. I want to stress that in reading out these criticisms I am trying to give a balanced point of view and not just see one side of the picture as it has been portrayed by previous speakers. It would help if we looked at both sides. The fourth criticism was: . . . the Committee does not accept the Authority is justified in capitalising all expenditure net of income merely, as it appears to the Committee, to avoid potential criticism of its profit performance. Honourable senators will see that we are talking once more about criticism of its accounting methods-not just of accounts in the sense of profit and loss but its method of accounting for its performance. The fifth criticism reads: In the Committee's view it is incumbent on a statutory Authority, particularly one engaged in a commercial undertaking and the recipient of Commonwealth Government benefits to adopt a high standard of disclosure. If such a high standard could be shown to be the detriment of the Authority, then a case could perhaps be made for following practices which have been adopted by private enterprise developers. However, the authority has been unable to demonstrate to the Committee in what manner inclusion of revenue earned during the period 1 July to 8 November 1978- that is important; we are talking about five years ago- in the Profit and Loss Account would be to its commercial disadvantage. The final criticism was. . . . the Committee is of the view that all revenue earned during the period 1 July to 8 November 1978 should be included in the Profit and Loss Account. In relation to the period 18 February to 30 June 1978 the Committee notes that the Department of Finance reluctantly agreed to recommend approval of the Authority' s accounts, resulting in the capitalisation of net expenditure incurred during that period. The Committee does not approve of the practice adopted and considers the authority should have, as initially requested by the Department of Finance, publish such revenue in a Profit and Loss Statement. That was a harsh criticism; it was criticism of a period some time back and possibly it was justifiable. I was not a member of the Senate at that time and I can only pick up from the record-or at least reading between the lines of the record-the implicit criticism of the Authority's modus operandi at that stage. The next report which came from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, No. 214 of 1983, says, to quote concisely from the report: In its 181st Report this Committee hoped that its criticism would not obscure the benefits the community has derived through the Authority. Whatever the justice of criticism of its cost it was a daring commitment to the future and exceptional in that it was constructed quickly, to the schedule and close to budget. As such, it is a commentary on the enthusiasm and ability of those involved in its establishment. I am surprised that we have not heard that quotation tonight. When we are looking at a matter from the point of view of the future development of the Australian Capital Territory, surely to goodness we can get a more balanced perspective of the history of the CCDA. I am also concerned because not only have we had an unbalanced picture portrayed but also the whole debate surrounding the motion has been conveniently but misleadingly divided into a public sector versus private sector battle, and that is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. The debate concerns the right to operate the proposed Erindale shopping complex at Tuggeranong in the Australian Capital Territory. That is what it is about. It should be stressed that we need to make the point about the meaning of 'operate'. Just what do we mean by that term. The whole point of it is to give the CCDA the operating authority and not to lock out the private sector. It is not aimed at locking out the private sector and in fact the tenants will be from the private sector and the contracts for construction will be let to the private sector; the whole complex will be designed, built and tenanted by the private sector. But-the distinction needs to be drawn here-we are talking about two different parts of the private sector. Previous speakers have been referring to the sort of big business that we have in the Australian Capital Territory at the moment, represented in a wide range of developments, including Cooleman Court, Monaro Mall and the Woden Shopping Square. They are already controlled by Lend Lease Corporation Ltd. Lend Lease also owns a lot of other Canberra property. I will just run through the list so that we are not picking out only two or three major developments. They include Akuna House, the Braddon Offices, the Civic Permanent Centre, CML House, Derwent House, Ethos House, the MLC Tower at Woden, Macarthur House, the MTIA building, the National Mutual Centre, Qantas House, Tasman House and the Wales Centre. We are not talking about a little private enterprise; we are talking about an octopus, about a massive developer and entrepreneur which has its tentacles into Canberra, and I suspect into the Liberal Party, which is a strong supporter of big business but not terribly concerned with small business. In this debate I have not heard one word from members of the Liberal Party in support of the small businesses that will benefit from having a landlord-tenant arrangement similar to that enjoyed by the businesses in the Belconnen project. They are very satisfied with the CCDA. Senator Peter Baume —Are you alleging that we are taking a client role? You will not answer that. Senator JACK EVANS —What I am saying is that the CCDA is already a proven valuable asset to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. It has a track record of success in Belconnen, so why should it be denied the opportunity to repeat that success in the new development? To answer the interjection of a moment ago, yes, I am suggesting that the big developers of Australia are the major influence on the Liberal Party in this debate. Senator Peter Baume —I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. If there is any suggestion that senators on this side, of which I am one, in any way will cast their vote as a result of influence being put on us, directly or indirectly, by someone that the honourable senator alleges to be a backer of the Party, I believe he is in breach of the Standing Orders. If he alleges that about senators on this side, I am one of those senators and I find that a most offensive suggestion. I ask him to indicate that it does not apply to any of the senators here who will be voting, because if it does he is breaching the Standing Orders. Senator Mason —Mr Acting Deputy President, may I speak to the point of order? I do not see what standing order Senator Baume took his point of order under and I would be glad of your interpretation of the position. A statement has been made by Senator Jack Evans here which is a perfectly reasonable statement. It is up to Liberal Party honourable senators later in this debate to refute it at the proper time. Senator Watson —Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to speak on the point of order. Senator Jack Evans has cast an aspersion on the integrity not only of myself-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator Watson, what is your point of order? Senator Watson —It is in relation to the aspersion that has been cast that I would be speaking and voting because I was influenced by large developers within Canberra. He not only knows that that is false, but also that it is misleading and I think it is intolerable that an honourable senator should make these untrue accusations knowing them to be false. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I was listening carefully to Senator Jack Evans. He mentioned a particular party but he did not mention any people individually. Now there can be some argument about whether casting an aspersion on a party is worse than casting an aspersion on a particular individual, but I think at that stage Senator Jack Evans was making an argument that a certain party was backed by or had some affiliation with the particular business rather than making the aspersion which I think Senator Watson referred to. I rule that there is no point of order and I ask Senator Evans to continue. Senator JACK EVANS —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I wish that my Senate friends would listen more carefully to the debate. Let me just put what I have said into context. I have said that the Liberal Party has been influenced by large businesses. Let me say quite clearly that the Australian Democrats have also been influenced by small businesses. We have carried out our research and we have asked the questions of the small businesses of the Australian Capital Territory. We have been influenced by their arguments. I suggest that the people who protest have not carried out adequate research or they would also have been influenced by small businesses. The point I stress is that they have been influenced by large business, and that is the reason for them carrying the debate on behalf of large businesses, on behalf of the multi-millionaire developers who would benefit-- Senator Peter Baume —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The situation has now changed. The honourable senator is now relating his remarks directly to those who have spoken in the debate, saying that they have been influenced by large business. At this stage it is not a statement about a party. It is a statement about those who have spoken in the debate. The honourable senator has no way of knowing whether his statements are correct. It is a statement based upon his own personal prejudice which reflects personally upon those honourable senators, including me, who have spoken in the debate. I ask you to afford them the protection of the Chair. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Evans, I again rule that there is no point of order but I think the area you are traversing might be a little touchy. I ask the honourable senator to continue but to leave that argument to one side. Senator JACK EVANS —Certainly, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think it is important in this debate to recognise that there are multiple influences, each of which and each of whom is playing a part in this decision. I am quite unashamedly saying that we have been influenced by a number of the people who have a direct interest, an involvement and a potential benefit which will flow from the decision. I am talking about the consumers of Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory. I am talking about their representatives, the members of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, who were elected by the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The people of the Australian Capital Territory had a very small influence on the composition of the Senate and this Parliament but they had the only influence on the representation in the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. Their representatives voted 11 to six in favour of the CCDA being the authority to control this development. Now there has had to be a great deal of soul searching by a number of people before the case was put to and considered by the Senate tonight. The people who I believe should be heard are the people from within the Australian Capital Territory. That is why I made the earlier comment that the overwhelming opinion from the people within the Australian Capital Territory, the people who are going to be affected and the people who are going to benefit from having the right decision made tonight in this Parliament-are the shopkeepers and the people who are already satisfied with the ongoing operations of the CCDA. The Australian Democrats do not believe that the Senate should override that clear expression of opinion of the House of Assembly on behalf of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. We believe, and here we do side with the other Opposition parties, that the private sector should be the prime mover in the economy. But where we may part company is that we oppose monopolies, whether they are government monopolies or private monopolies. Frankly, the monopolies in the Australian Capital Territory are there for us all to see, as I described earlier tonight. One needs to recognise that government monopolies are no better and no worse than private monopolies. When the crunch comes, when the decision has to be taken, one needs to look at what ultimately will benefit the people here. It appears to us that the private sector, in terms of small businesses, in terms of the builders and subcontractors, is going to suffer absolutely no disadvantage whatsoever if the CCDA is the developing authority, whereas there are reasonable grounds for suggesting that the other major development at Woden does not have quite the same acceptance by the retailers at present and does have the problems that are inherent in privately controlled shopping centres around Australia where the profit motive, the benefits of the landlords, the owners of the complexes and the entrepreneurs, is foremost and those of the shopkeepers have to trail behind. I do not believe that letting the CCDA operate the proposed new Erindale Centre will in any way push the private sector out or will in any way establish a government monopoly. We have a successful example of the CCDA's operations in the Belconnen Mall- Senator Watson —How much tax does it pay? Senator JACK EVANS —The honourable senator asks a question about taxes and perhaps we need to put that into perspective too, because in considering this whole matter I have had to look at the taxes that are being paid by the big business developers such as Lend Lease and they receive very valuable tax concessions. Senator Watson may be interested to know that Lend Lease's General Property Trust, its main activity and the largest such trust in Australia, is free of any tax. So that was not the question for the honourable senator to ask at this time. Lend Lease property investors do not pay tax to this Government; so that is a non-issue. It may be proper for them not to pay tax, but let us not hear any more of this misleading nonsense that private enterprise costs the taxpayer nothing. These generous tax concessions cost you, the Acting Deputy President, me, the people of Canberra and the people of Australia, dollars. Senator Watson —The shareholders who receive the dividends get the benefits and pay tax on it. You know it. Stop misleading the Senate. Senator JACK EVANS —That is not misleading. The honourable senator should do his own research and he will find that what I am saying is absolutely correct. Mr Acting Deputy President, the Australian Democrats will not support the disallowance motion because we believe that the best interests of Canberra and the people of the Australian Capital Territory are served by a mixed economy with emphasis on small business, not big business, and by the Senate respecting the clearly expressed views of the House of Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —I was in my room listening to this debate when I heard Senator Jack Evans make allegations to which I take great exception. Senator Jack Evans said outright that my vote and the votes of Opposition senators in the National and Liberal parties on this matter will be, or have been, influenced in some way by some big business organisations. I treat that as a direct personal attack on my integrity and the reasons for the way in which I cast my vote on this matter in the Senate. I wish the Senate to understand that I take a personal strong exception to what the honourable senator said. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator Lewis, I was asked on two occasions to rule on this matter. I am well aware of the contents of standing order 418. It was my judgment that Senator Jack Evans was not transgressing standing order 418 and thus I ruled accordingly. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(8.41) —For the second day in succession Senator Reid has moved to disallow an ordinance in respect of a development in the Australian Capital Territory. This time she has moved to disallow the Canberra Commercial Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 51 of 1983. The Ordinance which the honourable senator seeks to disallow enables the Canberra Commercial Development Authority to construct and manage the shopping centre planned for the Erindale Centre in Canberra's southern suburbs. We have listened to two speeches by Opposition senators, which were full of a great deal of their philosophical and ideological position and which included some ingredients from the reports of the Auditor-General and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. However, I think they failed miserably to project their views as being other than rhetoric. They did nothing but indicate the views of the Liberal Party and the National Party, in which they believe that their role in government or in opposition is to prevent any public sector activity that might generate a profit for the benefit of the Australian people. From the outset I should point out that on 13 May this year the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly recommended that the development and management of the Erindale Centre be undertaken by a public authority. Yesterday , Senator Reid used the fact that the House of Assembly had disagreed in respect of the casino as the substance for her argument that the casino should not be built. Today, she is seeking to disallow an ordinance despite the fact that it has the overwhelming majority of probably the most representative group in the political sense of any house of assembly in Australia. On 25 October last, the House of Assembly endorsed the choice of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority for this project. This view was expressed by the elected representatives in the Territory after the matter had been fully debated and examined by the House of Assembly. The Government, therefore, had due regard to the views of the House of Assembly in deciding to allow the Authority to undertake the Erindale development. Of course we have heard a great deal about the Belconnen Mall. The Canberra Commercial Development Authority was established in 1974 by the previous Labor Government to build and operate the Belconnen Mall. That seems to get under the skin of the conservatives. They do not like to look at a successful public enterprise. Nobody can doubt the success of that Authority's project at Belconnen. Of course, by the good grace of the electors, in March of this year the Labor Government was elected and the previous Federal Government's plan to sell the Belconnen Mall at a reduced and ridiculously low price was reversed. The Authority, when establish nine years ago, was designed to prevent a one- retailer one-developer monopoly in retail centres in Canberra, to foster a more competitive retailing environment and to create the opportunity for profits from consumer spending to be returned to the local community. One would expect the conservatives on the other side of the chamber to have some regard for what happens in major retail complexes. If honourable senators opposite know anything about the small business sector they will be aware that small shopkeepers in privately owned super complexes are very unhappy with the behaviour of private entrepreneurs who develop shopping complexes throughout Australia. In 1974, the Labor Government sought to create a situation in Canberra where small businesses that operate in retail complexes are given some protection by a public authority . It was in pursuit of these objectives that the Government proposed, having learned from the experiences of other complexes throughout Australia, that the Authority should develop and manage the Erindale shopping centre. We make no apologies for doing that. We believe this decision is in the best interests of the consumer; we believe it is in the best interests of the small retailer. We know something about what has happened in the retail industry in the post-war years. We know that a dozen major shops in all the capital cities of Australia have been swallowed up. Probably within this decade we will find that our retail outlets will be owned by one single entrepreneurial monopoly and company. I believe the Authority's record in developing and managing the Belconnen Mall is an impressive one. How can Senator Watson come into the Senate and put forward the arguments that he did today in regard to the Belconnen Mall, suggesting that it was some sort of white elephant and a drain upon the taxpayers and that it was unsuccessful in every sense of public or private activity? He spoke at great length about the shortage of public funds in Australia. Does not he appreciate-obviously he has not done his homework-the extent of government involvement in the Belconnen Mall which has a book value of $54m? He does not seem to understand that the total Government outlay in respect of this project was only $1m. He does not seem to understand that the money that helped to finance that project came overwhelmingly from private sector funds. At the end of the 1982-83 financial year almost $22m had been spent in interest payments from private lenders in respect of that project. The Authority completed construction of the Belconnen Mall ahead of schedule. It came in very close to budget. It has operated at a profit. It has provided community facilities rarely found in private malls. It pays full municipal charges and a commercial rent for its land. It has received no public subsidy. Contrary to what Senator Watson has said, it pays all taxes-income tax, profit tax and sales tax-as well as municipal charges. The Belconnen Mall was financed almost entirely by loans. As I said, only $1m worth of equity capital was provided by the Australian Government. Its accumulated profits to date have exceeded more than $2.25m. Yet, Senators Reid and Watson come into this chamber and suggest that this arrangement should not be repeated at Erindale. What bunkum, what balderdash-if I wanted to continue the alliteration I could use another word beginning with 'b' but, having due regard to the way in which the Senate operates, I will not. When this Government came to office it was faced with a situation in which the new suburbs of Tuggeranong lacked many of the basic facilities available elsewhere in Canberra. This was, of course, a legacy of years of neglect by the Fraser Government of the community needs of Canberra, our own national capital. Therefore, this Government has made it a priority to rectify the situation. There is, contrary to what Senator Reid said, an urgent need for additional shopping facilities in Tuggeranong. In fact, I point out to Senator Reid, who was sympathetic when I, as Minister for Veterans' Affairs, opened new facilities in Canberra, that my Department was criticised by some of the shopkeepers for using important frontage to the streets of Civic, because they claimed there was a shortage of office and retail space in the city. So there is a need for additional shopping facilities in Tuggeranong, in contrast to what has been claimed by some private interests which have objected to the proposed Erindale development. I think Senator Jack Evans is quite correct in drawing attention to the fact that private interests are intent upon stopping the Government's role in this development. The Development Authority has recognised the need for more shopping facilities and the market potential. I find it hard to appreciate the arguments put foward by Opposition senators about the market-place and about competition because here we will have a project that will be in competition with the other shopping centres operated privately in the Australian Capital Territory. Given the track record of the Authority in completing Belconnen Mall ahead of schedule , there can be a confidence that it will provide these facilities in Tuggeranong as soon as possible. One of the objectives of establishing the Canberra Commercial Development Authority was that of using its profits progressively to develop community facilities. The bone of contention seems to be that the profits that will flow from both the Belconnen Mall and the Erindale project will be used to provide community facilities for the residents of Canberra. They will have access to those profits. They will not go into Consolidated Revenue; they will go to providing important community facilities within the project itself and much needed retail space. From the beginning, a child care centre was provided at the Beleconnen Mall as an indication of our intent in that respect. The operation of that child care centre is subsidised by the Authority to the order of some $50, 000 per annum. The mall has been specifically constructed to accommodate further facilities on its roof. Allowing the Authority to develop Erindale will provide the opportunity to fund much needed community facilities in Tuggeranong without drawing on the Commonwealth Budget. I say to Senator Watson that it will also enable the Government to meet some of the needs that he believes governments ought to meet elsewhere throughout the Commonwealth. There is a limit to the Commonwealth dollar. We are aware of that. That is why we believe that, in respect of Erindale, we should be involved as a Commonwealth and as a public authority. The Government believes it is economically sound and just to use profits generated by consumer spending for the benefit of the community. That seems to be the point at which we depart from the Liberal and National parties in the Parliament . In so many privately owned retail centres, where the profit motive is paramount, that fact is reflected in the poor level of facilities for patrons and the community. Let honourable senators think about that. Let them look at the paucity of public facilities in some of the privately owned shopping complexes, not only in Canberra but also in all our capital cities. The development of the Erindale shopping centre by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority will strengthen its integration as a community facility with other surrounding facilities in a very important and fast growing part of Canberra. The Authority, in managing the Belconnen Mall, has built up considerable expertise in the local retail industry. Let honourable senators opposite name one tenant of the Belconnen Mall who is critical of the way in which the Authority operates, controls and manages the mall. The Authority is more accountable to the Canberra community for its actions than is any private developer or manager. Most of the Authority's members are Canberra residents and , under the Ordinance, one is also a member of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. That seems to me to retain a certain obligation on the part of the members of the Authority to act properly on all occasions and in respect of every development with which it is associated. Three of the four largest retail centres in Canberra were built, and are currently managed, by one firm. Do Opposition senators want it to have another? The Government has been concerned, therefore, to encourage greater competition in the retail property market. We think it is a good thing to have the public and private sectors compete with one another. The Government's actions on Erindale will contribute, we believe, to that very important objective. I would like to remind honourable senators that previous, conservative governments have also considered concern over the near-monopoly situation in Canberra's retail industry. I have already indicated that the Belconnen Mall was financed with almost no call on the Commonwealth Budget. The Government has decided that the Erindale project will be financed entirely by loans. No Commonwealth funds will be expended, I remind Senator Watson. That can be achieved because of the significant asset that exists already in the form of Belconnen Mall, which is now held by the Authority. Of course, it has been said by Opposition senators that the Government's decision is anti-business. It is suggested that it will seriously jeopardise prospects for future private investment in the Australian Capital Territory. Where is the evidence of that statement? What person or firm has suggested it? It forms part of the Opposition's argument, but it is just nonsense to suggest that that is so. The Government's decision will remove only a small proportion of the development from direct participation by the private developer. Construction of the centre will be funded by borrowing in the market-place. Those private investors who have funds to lend will have the opportunity to lend to the Authority and surely will regard it as a gilt-edged investment. The physical structure of the centre will be built by private developers under contract. The occupants of the centre, upon its completion, will be private businesses. The Authority's involvement will be as construction manager and, subsequently, as centre manager. Its record in this area, the Government says, is very impressive . To claim that the participation of a public authority in the management of two of the many shopping centres in Canberra would damage private investment confidence is quite ridiculous. I will wager now that when the loans are called for on the capital market we will be swamped with investment funds. I suggest that this public participation will enhance private investor confidence, not damage it, and also that a claim to the contrary demonstrates to me that the proponent has a poor opinion of private investor judgment. I believe that will be proven to be so. The Authority has managed the Belconnen Mall in accordance with well- established commercial practices. It has been absorbed into Canberra's retail market without any distortion or disruption and has received no significant criticism from the private sector on that score. There has also been an insinuation that the Canberra Commercial Development Authority has been afforded favourable treatment, to the detriment of private investors. That is a dishonest claim and one that we reject. The Authority is subjected to exactly the same imposts and restraints as is a private developer. It pays exactly the same site rent. It pays exactly the same charges as does any private developer. It receives no favoured treatment whatsoever. It pays a commercial rental for its land and full municipal and commercial charges for its utilities and services. It is subject to assessment by the Commissioner of Taxation in exactly the same way as is a private corporation. I would defy any Opposition senator to find otherwise. In fact, it is the Authority which suffers a disadvantage. Every year it is subject to the vigilant scrutiny of the Auditor-General who, I would venture to say, would not look nearly as kindly as would his private counterparts on various schemes designed to reduce the contribution made to the Commissioner of Taxation. We all know, of course, how the private entrepreneur is able to hide his profits and give himself and his shareholders great benefits by reducing his taxable profitability. We cannot and do not encourage this; it is not permitted to be done by a public authority. The Canberra Commercial Development Authority may have gained a slight advantage, I submit, in regard to the cost of its borrowings for the Belconnen Mall by virtue of the Government underwriting such borrowings, but the Authority has made a profit. If the advantage in the borrowing rate has lifted that profit then who benefits from it? Nobody in this chamber benefits from it. Only the residents of Canberra benefit. The benefit goes to the community. As I have said, the Authority receives no subsidy from the Commonwealth with regard to the Belconnen Mall. Likewise it will receive no subsidy for the Erindale development. Let me turn to the suggestion that the Authority should in some way be disqualified from participating in this development because of certain allegations made against some members of the Authority and subsequent recommendations by committees of this Parliament. Obviously there have been some grounds for criticism. I think that the criticisms of Senator Georges were quite constructive, compared with the destructive criticisms of Opposition senators. It is true that the 181st report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts tabled on 16 September 1980 and the sixth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations tabled on 16 September 1982 raised a range of issues concerning the membership and administration of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. These allegations were raised yesterday in the 214th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts even though the Committee brought forward no new evidence to substantiate them. These allegations have been repeated again tonight in contributions to this debate. The evidence is indicated in a statement made by the previous Attorney-General, Senator Durack. He said: The evidence given . . . consists of unsubstantiated allegations said to have been made by the executive director. Their evidence is hearsay. The subsequent evidence of the Executive director was directly inconsistent with these allegations. On the evidence of Mr Parker, the allegations said to have been made by the executive director were not more than his 'suspicions'. That view of course, was also endorsed by the Solicitor-General. That was the finding of a member of the Liberal Party, the previous Government's Attorney- General. I must add that since taking office the Labor Government has considered carefully all of the matters raised both by the Public Accounts Committee and the Senate Committee. Discussions have taken place with the Auditor-General, the Chairman of the Authority and officers of the Department of Territories and Local Government who have been involved with the affairs of the Authority since its inception. The Government accepted the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee that the Authority be restructured. This has been achieved with the appointment of Mr W. Lawrence, who is a departmental nominee of the permanent head of the Department of Territories and Local Government; Mr McDonald who is the Secretary of the Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labour Council; Ms K. O'Clery, proprietor of the Cuppacumbalong Arts and Craft Centre, and Mr D. Griffiths who is an officer of the Department of Industry and Commerce and a director of Civic Co-operative Permanent Building Society Ltd. They are all reputable people, people in whom this Parliament can repose a great deal of trust. The new membership will ensure a wider representation of local community views on the Authority and will provide for closer departmental scrutiny of the operations of the Authority. The Government will not accept the recommendations that persons subject to criticism in the reports not be reappointed. The Government believes that there is a vital need to provide some continuity of membership and commercial expertise on the Authority and that the reappointment of members can best fill this particular need. In taking this course, the Government had careful regard in particular to the allegations of impropriety reported by the committees. But none of the allegations of impropriety against members of the Authority were substantiated, as I have said. We have to have regard for the views of the former Attorney-General in respect of that. The Public Accounts Committee noted that the allegations should be resolved in the interests of both the witnesses and the Authority members. I do not think anyone would take kindly to some of the unsubstantiated allegations and suggestions that have been made in the chamber in this debate today. It is, therefore, unfortunate that the 214th report of the Public Accounts Committee added nothing to the original allegations and continued to criticise Mr Pead and the operations of the Authority. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing or mismanagement it should be brought forward. It has not been brought forward. As no evidence has been brought forward since these allegations were raised over three years ago the Government considers that these matters should now be considered resolved and the allegations dismissed. The Committee also reported a number of instances in which the Authority failed to comply with provisions of its ordinance. I can assure the Parliament that my Government will not condone actions by a statutory authority which are not made in accordance with the Ordinance. The matters raised by the Committee occurred several years ago, in the life of the previous Government, not in the life of this Government. Upon examination of these allegations, we believe the Authority led by Mr Pead and Mr Elsworth made substantial progress in rectifying the areas of maladministration. The Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Uren , has discussed these matters with the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has indicated that they were not serious and that a satisfactory relationship existed with the Authority. I should make it very clear that the Authority was not solely responsible for the delays which occured in obtaining the necessary approvals. Some other matters arose from genuine misunderstandings in interpreting the Authority's rights and responsibilities in dealing with these very complex issues. I believe that the Government has moved correctly and properly, in co-operation with the newly appointed Authority, to ensure that the remaining outstanding matters are resolved as quickly as possible. Let us look at the question of depreciation of the Belconnen Mall since considered reference has been made to it in the debate. In disagreeing with the Auditor-General the Authority acted on advice from its accountants. Who else should it act in accordance with but its own advisers, its own accountants? The Authority believed that its actions were commercially proper and this was demanded by legislation. This matter has now been resolved. The Authority has agreed to accept the Government's preference that the Auditor-General's view be acceded to and has given an assurance that there will be no further occurrences of this nature. The Government gives an assurance to the Senate that this matter will be closely watched and monitored by the Minister for Territories and Local Government. If previous Ministers had properly exercised their ministerial responsibility and control for oversighting this Authority perhaps this would have happened earlier. In conclusion, I must stress that the matters referred to by the two committees occurred several years ago. It is the Government's view that they have been satisfactorily resolved. Since the Government came to office it has restructured the Authority, appointed new members, resolved the issue of depreciation which was a contentious issue and obtained agreement from the new Authority that it will comply with the requirements of the legislation. In view of the assurances received, the efforts of the Authority to resolve the issues raised and the failure of any person to produce evidence or proof to substantiate the allegation of impropriety levelled at members of the Authority, the Government is therefore satisfied that no additional action is warranted. The Government rejects Senator Reid's motion to disallow the Canberra Commercial Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance 1983. It rejects Senator Reid's proposition that development of the Erindale shopping centre will deter private investment in Canberra. The Government rejects this further attempt to make political capital from unsubstantiated allegations against members of a statutory authority. A number of other matters were raised in the debate by honourable senators which I think I have probably dealt with in what I have said. One of the questions raised by Senator Watson concerned leases when the Belconnen Mall was opened. The lease with the major tenant was still under negotiation at the time he raised the matter. The rent was deferred. When the lease was finalised the rent was then paid in full. No advantage was given to that particular tenant. The same arrangement was made and extended to all of the other tenants. I believe that the Government is entitled to have the motion for the disallowance of the Ordinance rejected by the Senate. I ask the Senate to vote accordingly. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. I was in my room just a little while ago. During this debate I heard Senator Jack Evans say that the way the Liberals were to vote on this issue was influenced by big business. I take strong exception to that. I have never been influenced by big business or any other interest group or anyone else on any vote I have ever cast, nor, I am sure, have any of my colleagues. My views may be different from those of Senator Evans, but he should not accuse me of being influenced by big business. I never accuse him of being influenced by any specific group, and I do not appreciate it being suggested that I would be influenced by big business. I would appreciate it if Senator Jack Evans withdrew his remarks and apologised. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented and wish to make a personal explanation. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) cast aspersions on my ability to understand the accounts of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority in relation to tax losses. I refer to the latest available report of the Authority, the seventh annual report that for 1981-82. On page 17 of that report it is stated: In accordance with the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, as amended, the Authority has incurred tax losses to 30 June 1982. On page 19, under the heading 'Income tax losses' it is stated: The income tax loss available to be carried forward at 30 June 1982 is estimated to be $4,211,000 (1981: $4,873,000). I believe the annual report justifies my action and that I do have the ability to read and understand the accounts. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —by leave-I wish to speak to the matter raised by Senator Walters. I was in the Chair at the time that the remarks which led to some consternation among some Opposition members were made by Senator Jack Evans . On three occasions I ruled that there was no point of order in the matters that were raised. On the last occasion, I went to some length in explaining that I did not think there had been any transgression of standing order 418. I had to be as impartial as I properly could be, which I believe I always am when I am in the chair. I made that ruling and I think it would be quite untoward for any honourable senator, at this later stage, to canvass that ruling and ask Senator Evans to withdraw the remarks that I ruled had not transgressed standing order 418. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —You will recognise, Senator Colston, that because of your previous rulings, I have not asked that Senator Jack Evans withdraw anything. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I find Senator Colston's remarks most extraordinary conduct on the part of an Acting Deputy President. I suggest that the matter raised by Senator Colston should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Standing Orders because I think his was a most extraordinary statement. I think it was quite out of place and out of order. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.15) —in reply-I would like to reply to some matters that have been put tonight. Many of them are red herrings. The substantial issues we are talking about tonight are the development of the Australian Capital Territory, the diversification of its economy, and the provision of jobs. Honourable senators will recall that earlier this evening, when I spoke on the matter, I recounted at some length the promise made at the time of the election that the private sector would be allowed to expand and grow if Labor were elected. I went through at some length the speech that the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) gave to the National Economic Summit Conference. I went through the speech he gave to the Canberra Association for Regional Development on 12 May. I quoted statements of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in relation to the private sector and the place it has held in the heart of the Labor Party. I said, and I say again, that what we hear from its members when it suits them to speak to a selective audience is totally different from what happens when they have the opportunity to do something for the private sector. Senator Georges entered into the debate and totally honestly explained that he saw the Canberra Commercial Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance as an appropriate measure. It is a socialist measure and he acknowledged that; I respect him for the opinion that he gave. I do not respect those who preach development of the private sector and do something totally different. He also said that it was a monopoly situation, but he believed that that was appropriate to the national capital. He went on to deal better than I ever could with the totally inappropriate statement in relation to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts which the Minister for Territories and Local Government put out last night. I do not intend to pursue that matter as I believe that Senator Georges put the position more eloquently than I could. Senator Georges assured us that the Public Accounts Committee will continue to overview the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, if this Ordinance is not disallowed, as it moves into its new responsibilities. Under his chairmanship, that would not be in dispute. Senator Jack Evans contributed to the debate. He did not seem to have any comprehension whatever of the fact that jobs are important to the Canberra community. He made an offensive attack on the Liberal Party, suggesting that its members were interested only in big business. I can assure Senator Evans that my concern in this electorate is for consumers, shoppers, the small businessmen and the people who are running businesses in shopping centres. I found his attack offensive. Perhaps that is what we would expect from the Australian Democrats; I do not know. Senator Evans has not been here long enough for me to form a firm view. Certainly, tonight was an interesting exercise on his part; he expressed views that one would take into account in the future when assessing his contribution to any debate. He seemed to think that we were talking about the public sector as opposed to the private sector in the Australian Capital Territory. Of course, we are talking about private development in the Australian Capital Territory. I rely on the quotes I gave earlier from remarks of the Minister for Territories and Local Government to substantiate the need for diversification of this economy to try to overcome, in particular, the youth unemployment problem. Senator Evans purported to give us a great list of places that were owned by Lend Lease Corporation Ltd. He called that company an octopus and was generally offensive in his remarks. Perhaps he is closer to Lend Lease than I am ever likely to be. My recollection of evidence given by the National Capital Development Commission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory at a meeting a year or so ago is that the extent of property managed by Lend Lease in the Australian Capital Territory is about 25 per cent of the total shopping space. I may not be quite accurate in that figure, but that is my recollection this evening. Senator Evans read a list of properties said to be owned by Lend Lease. I do not know whether he has done any searches, but my understanding of the matter is that the only shopping centre in which Lend Lease has an ownership relationship is the Cooleman Court shopping centre. Its manages others but does not own that great list of property read out by the honourable senator tonight. I do not know where he got his information or how he checked it. I wonder whether that information is as accurate as his information about the purported views of tenants, information which he did not substantiate. The Southlands shopping centre was developed in 1971 by five different small developers. As I understand it, it is still owned by five different small developers. The Jamison shopping centre was developed by a small local developer and subsequently sold. The Kippax shopping centre was developed by local small developers. The Curtin shopping centre was built and owned by five small owners. Cooleman Court, as I have said, is owned, I understand, by Lend Lease. Woden Plaza is owned by Mutual Life and Citizens' Assurance Co. Ltd. Monaro Mall is owned by the Australian Mutual Provident Society and MLC, as I understand it. The Wanniassa shopping centre is owned by a small local developer. They are the medium sized shopping centres. As I understand it, the small shopping centres are all owned privately. So some facts need to be brought to bear on this discussion. It is a small or medium sized shopping centre that we are talking about in Erindale. On the basis of the history of development in Canberra it would be most appropriate that that also be developed by the private sector, for the reasons I set out earlier. We need to encourage private development in the Australian Capital Territory. No one has suggested that all the tennants in the Belconnen Mall are unhappy. I can only conclude from some of Senator Gietzelt's comments that his speech was written in anticipation of what I might say rather than in relation to what I have said. He made a most extraordinary suggestion early in his speech when he said that I had suggested that there was not a need for shopping space in Tuggeranong. That is quite untrue. I commenced by dealing with the question of shopping space and by explaining that there is a need for shopping space in that area, but that was not the topic under discussion tonight and that what we were talking about is who will build and manage the shopping centre in that area. Senator Gietzelt said that we had been talking about the market-place and other things. Again, that must have been something that was expected to be in my speech but was not in it. He criticised me for not taking notice of the House of Assembly decision on this matter. You might think that it is petty, Mr Acting Deputy President, but yesterday the Government clearly rejected a very clear House of Assembly decision on the casino issue. So, it is tit for tat, I suppose . If that makes him feel better, perhaps that is why he has put the argument in that way. I do not intend to go through everything that has been said tonight in great detail. It is part of the record. However, it has been suggested that the Belconnen Mall Authority has a much more benevolent attitude to its tenants. I wonder whether that is really right. How does Senator Gietzelt explain the situation of a present tenant who is attempting to sell a business together with goodwill? In the Belconnen Mall leases, if one sells one's business in the first year of operation, any part of the sum for the sale of the business which is claimed to be for goodwill attracts the requirement for one to pay to the Authority 40 per cent of that sum; in the second year it is 15 per cent; in the third year it is 10 per cent. I am told that that provision does not apply in Lend Lease leases in the shopping centres that Lend Lease manages. However, it applies in the CCDA leases. I suppose that if that is the way that one goes into a lease, that is the way that it is; and if one signs it, one signs it. But what I understand to be the case is that the Authority implements this provision selectively. One tenant selling a business may be asked to pay this percentage of the sum representing the goodwill but another may not be asked for it. I have looked at the accounts that have been published recently. I could see no identification of the figure and no means of working it out precisely. I would be interested to know whether the provision is put into effect selectively and whether it applies to everyone, or on what basis one is likely to get such favours from the Authority. That is not clear. I should like an explanation about matters that the shadow Minister for Territories and Local Government placed on notice yesterday which relate to the lease entered into by the Authority with Myer N.S.W. Ltd for a term commencing on the 16 October 1978. That lease was substantially different from a number of other leases. The shadow Minister asked whether or not Myer failed to pay rent for 11 months and whether the first instalment of rent was made only after 25 September 1979. How many other tenants in that place were allowed a rent holiday for 11 months after they entered into occupation? How many other leases did not provide for a penalty for late payment of rent, as with the lease of Myer? There are a number of other provisions and a number of other questions which lead one to conclude that the Authority has not necessarily been evenhanded in dealing with its tenants. I do not think that the rosy story as to the Authority's relationship with tenants that we have had presented tonight, without any evidence to substantiate it, stands up at all. I shall repeat what I said at the beginning, which is the substance of this disallowance motion. We believe that we want more jobs in the Australian Capital Territory, a greater variety of jobs, a more diverse economy, with greater opportunities for young people. We believe that this can be obtained by diversifying the economy, by encouraging private sector development in the Australian Capital Territory, by encouraging developers to come here and encouraging businessmen to come here and participate. This decision says to the private sector: 'Don't bother. We even build and run our own shopping centres. You are not really welcome'. That is the thrust of what is being said on this matter. We want to encourage development, not to discourage it. I also said earlier, and I will say again, that even if the Authority were the most competent authority that one could imagine, it is still inappropriate for government to be building and developing shopping centres. We have heard about the newly constructed Board. I am not about to criticise or attack the people on it. Mr Lawrence is a well respected man in this community. Mrs O'Clery, from Cuppacumbalong, is also well respected in the community. The Trades and Labour Council representative, Mr McDonald, has been referred to. He has been placed on the Board. Mr Byrne was dropped off it. He has the reputation of being a competent businessman. One might have thought that if the Authority were to be changed and if anyone were to be dropped, it might have been one of the people who had been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee and not one who had not been criticised. But the Minister for Territories and Local Government refused to put on the Authority a representative of the tenants. A very specious argument for this was put forward. That was that they may have a conflict of interest with this and that. Perhaps as far as the setting of rents is concerned , they would. But they need not be involved in that. They could be specifically excluded from that. But even in that area they would have a view to put forward which would be relevant. The Minister has no problem in putting Mr McDonald, the Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council, on the Authority. He is closely involved with all the union workers. The Minister does not see that Mr McDonald has any conflict of interest, and I do; no more serious a conflict of interest than a representative of the tenants would have. The Minister has scant regard for the tenants, their welfare, their interests, or their views. He would not make a place for them to be represented on the Authority. I urge the Senate to pass the disallowance motion that I have moved. Question put: That the motion (Senator Reid's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. R. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J. Button, J. N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Harradine, B. Chipp, D. L. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. Jones, G. N. Coleman, R. N. McClelland, DouglasColston, M. A. Macklin, M. J. Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R.. Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Reynolds, MEvans, Jack Sibraa, K. W. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Giles, P. J. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Withers, R. G. Ray, Robert Rae, PeterRyan, S. M. Lajovic, M. E. Robertson, G. F. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Clauses 10 to 28-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 28A. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.35) —I had another amendment, No. (10), on behalf of the Opposition. Its purpose was to insert a new clause 28A to amend Form C in the Schedule and provide a new Form D in the Schedule. In the light of the fact that amendments which I moved earlier were defeated, I do not propose to proceed with Amendment No. (10). I believe that the Committee has already made its decision on this matter and that there is no point in debating it further. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.36) —Before I formally move amendment No. (9) circulated on behalf of the Government, I wish to explain a change that has been made. The form in which the amendment appears in the typewritten sheet which was circulated yesterday has been slightly modified. A further version of it has been given to at least some honourable senators. The effect of the further version is to change the word 'may' where appearing to ' shall' to make it clear that the form of the ballot paper here set out specifically relating to the five referendums proposed for February 1984 is the form that will be on the ballot paper on that occasion with no 'ifs', 'buts' or 'maybes'. It may be that, in the statutory language or the context in which it appears, 'may' means 'shall' but, to put the matter beyond doubt, that word has been changed. A consequential result flowing from that change out of an abundance of draftsmanlike caution just to be sure that we are not locked into the precise typeface and so on that might otherwise conceivably be argued to be the case, is that the words 'language employed in the forms' have been inserted also. I add that explanation- Senator Walters —Is that in the new one? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes. Senator Walters —I do not have a copy of that. Senator GARETH EVANS —I know that Senator Walters does not have a copy. That is why I am going through and telling her. If she did have a copy, I would not go through this process. Senator Walters —I would like to see it, please. Senator GARETH EVANS —I would be delighted for Senator Walters to borrow my copy if she would like to come across the chamber. The bits in question are underlined. Having explained the alterations, I move: (9) Page 12, after clause 28 insert the following new clause: '28A. After section 41 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Part VII: Forms of certain ballot-papers ''41A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other section of this Act relating to the forms of ballot-papers to be used for the purposes of a referendum, the language to be employed in the forms of ballot-papers (other than the forms for the purposes of voting pursuant to section 91A, 121 or 121A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) to be used for the purposes of the submission to the electors of the following proposed laws shall be in accordance with the language employed in the forms set out at the end of this section: 1. Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1983 2. Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) 1983 3. Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) 1983 4. Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court) 1983 5. Constitution Alteration (Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions) 1983. ''(2) Notwithstanding anything in any other section of this Act relating to the forms for ballot-papers, the language to be employed in the ballot-papers to be used for the purposes of the submission to the electors of the proposed laws referred to in sub-section (1), being electors who claim to vote in pursuance of section 91A, section 121 or section 121A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, shall be in accordance with the language employed in the forms set out at the end of this section to be used by an elector voting as an absent voter, and for that purpose, the words 'ABSENT VOTE' appearing on those ballot-papers may be struck out and 'Section 91A', 'Section 121' or 'Section 121A', as the case requires, may be substituted. ''(3) The reference in sub-section 14A (3) to Form D in the Schedule shall, for the purposes of the submission to the electors of the proposed laws referred to in sub-section (1), be read as a reference to Form 1 set out at the end of this section. I believe that is perfectly clear. I appreciate that the way it was expressed before with the word 'may' was ambiguous. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about that and I make that further change accordingly. The basic thrust of the amendment is well understood by honourable senators now as a result of the previous debate we had and it does not need any further comment from me at this stage, although I understand there may well be some debate about the particular language employed in the various provisions. I make the general comment that I made before that there has been no attempt in any way to express the language of each of the questions to be put to voters in a tendentious way or a way that encourages a Yes answer. It has been simply an attempt to put the substance of the questions at issue in language that has a rough chance of being more intelligible to the voter than would be the case if we had the full long title of the Bill. Under those circumstances, with that brief explanation, I commend the amendment to the Committee. The CHAIRMAN —A large number of amendments have been foreshadowed and circulated to this new clause. I will take them sequentially. The first is from Senator Lewis. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.40) —I propose to move amendments (1) (3) and (4) and not (2). I had discussions with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) this morning about the proposed amendment (2). On reflection I decided to withdraw it on the basis that he convinced me that the question about alteration rather than law would be perhaps more accurate than my proposed amendment. However, I will move amendments (1), (3) and (4). The CHAIRMAN —Senator Lewis, there are intervening amendments and it might be appropriate to move only amendments (1) and (4). Senator LEWIS —by leave-I move: (1) Proposed new clause 28A, proposed Forms 1 and 3, after 'BALLOT-PAPERS', insert 'Commonwealth of Australia'. (4) Proposed new clause 28A, proposed Form 2, after 'POSTAL BALLOT-PAPERS', insert 'Commonwealth of Australia'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.41) —I indicate that the Government does not oppose these amendments. In fact it supports them. We are quite happy to have them put into the title. Amendments agreed to. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.42) —I move: (1) Proposed new clause 28A, proposed Forms 1, 2, and 3, leave out 'on the same day' (wherever occurring), insert 'at the same time'. The amendment relates to the question to be put to electors in respect of simultaneous elections. I place on record my acknowledgment of the fact that the Government has included in this legislation the terms in which the measures will be put to the people. In my view that is now, perhaps, a belated recognition on the part of the Government that section 128 of the Constitution requires the Parliament to prescribe the manner in which the vote will be put to the people. Having done that, of course, it really invites members of the Parliament to consider the appropriate words which should be used on the ballot paper. The proposal by the Government in relation to simultaneous elections states: 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. The title of the Bill that was passed by the Parliament had these words: . . . to ensure that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are held at the same time. I agree that the words that have been added by the Government and that are proposed to us for passage, namely, 'and to adjust the terms of Senators accordingly' are an improvement to the title of the Bill. I am not sure why the Government has chosen to use the words 'on the same day' instead of 'at the same time' as is included in the title of the Bill. Senator Gareth Evans —Because it is more precise in simultaneous elections. Senator HARRADINE —I follow that point, but could I put it to the Attorney this way: 'Simultaneous elections' as has been said, is a fall-back position from that which was adopted I think by the Attorney-General and by a number of other honourable senators and members of the House of Representatives whose preferred position was fixed term parliaments. That being the case, the question of fixed term parliaments was, in essence, an argument for an election on a particular day every three or four years as the case may be, but it was an argument for an election on a particular day. My concern about putting this proposal to the people is that they may confuse this proposition with the one for a fixed term parliament; that is to say, an election to be held on a particular day. That is the reason that I put this amendment forward. I believe it is consistent with the title of the Bill. The Bill states 'at the same time'. Senator Missen —It is easier to say that rather than to move it. Senator HARRADINE —Exactly, Senator. It is at the same time as the House of Representatives is dissolved. That might be at the same time as a Prime Minister of the day has chosen to pull the trigger of the already loaded section 57 constitutional gun. In that context, it is, at that same time, that the Senate and House of Representatives elections take place. It is at that time that the House of Representatives is dissolved and that half the Senate goes to the people. The CHAIRMAN —Perhaps I could clarify for the benefit of the Committee exactly where we are. We are considering proposed new clause 28A moved by the Attorney- General. We are considering the wording on the ballot paper forms under the heading 'Simultaneous elections'. Senator Harradine has proposed a change of wording under 'Simultaneous elections' and Senator Walters has foreshadowed a complete change of wording. She has circulated an amendment. The matter before the Chair at the moment is the proposed change of wording by Senator Harradine. Senator Walters —Could I ask a question? Would it be permissible to put both points of view before we take a vote? The CHAIRMAN —You may, in discussing Senator Harradine's amendment, push the cause of an alternative approach to the same problem, that your amendment is superior. Senator Gareth Evans —You can foreshadow your proposed amendment, but do not let us debate it again. You can put it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.47) —I thank the Attorney-General for his advice. I foreshadow my amendment. I agree entirely with Senator Harradine's proposition. Because I agreed entirely with the proposition 'at the same time' I included those words, as honourable senators will see, in the amendment that I distributed recently. I changed the wording from 'to ensure that the elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives are always held on the same day, and to adjust the terms of Senators accordingly' to what I believe is a more accurate description for simultaneous elections. 'Simultaneous elections' will not ensure that the elections of the Senate and the House of Representatives are held at the same time. My wording gives the government of the day the power-this is the emphasis that I would put on that description-to call half Senate elections at the same time as elections for the House of Representatives and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly. I believe that the emphasis on giving the Government the power to take the Senate out, as the Prime Minister of the day already has the power to take out the House of Representatives, is crucial to the description of simultaneous elections. At the moment the Government of the day has the power to take the House of Representatives to the people only when the Prime Minister thinks fit. Under the simultaneous elections proposal, that power is changed. If the proposal is passed it will give to the Prime Minister of the day the power to take out half the Senate at the same time as he takes out the House of Representatives. So I agree entirely with Senator Harradine's amendment and, as I say, I have incorporated it in mine. I would like to hear whether Senator Harradine has an opinion on that point. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.51) —I would like very briefly to say that as far as possible we should try to keep near to the words of the long titles of these various alteration Bills. We should only really alter them away from what is in the Bills-- Senator Gareth Evans —Do you want to delete the last bit of my sentence? Senator MISSEN —No. I think the Attorney's sentence is generally a much more accurate description of the legislation in this case. It is better in that it shows the effect the proposal has with regard to the Senate, which the long title does not do. I think Senator Walters's alternative brings in new concepts, new words like 'the power of the government'. That is weighted somewhat in the context of the referendum. In fact, it is a matter of ensuring that elections are held at the one time, on the one day. I think Senator Harradine has an excellent point in that it is possible that people may confuse this with the fixed terms proposal. People may think that having elections on the same day means on the same day every three or four years or something like that. Senator Gareth Evans —Or at the same time every three or four years. Senator MISSEN —I am saying that the words of the Constitution Alteration ( Simultaneous Elections) Bill do use the word 'time' and not 'day'. In any event, we should stick to that as far as possible unless there is good reason to act to the contrary. I think good reason for so acting is the possible confusion in people's minds when we use the word 'day'. They may think the meaning is somewhat different from what is intended. I support Senator Harradine's amendment. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(9.53) —I do not want to frustrate the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) but I would like to make a comment on this matter and he may feel disposed to answer me. I want to contribute to this particular amendment. I agree that what Senator Harradine has said is the way to go but I also remind the Committee that as far as I am concerned, and as far as many people are concerned, this really does not involve the question of simultaneous elections so much as dissolving half the Senate. I support the thrust of Senator Walters's argument and draw Senator Harradine's attention to the fact that her proposal improves his amendment, and supports his views on whether we should have elections on the same day and at the same time. Many people have regard to the significance of what we are doing and as the question happens to deal with dissolving half the Senate, I support what Senator Walters has said. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.54) —I have been asked to respond to the points raised. I acknowledge the point made by Senator Jessop and I would very much like to vote for Senator Walters's proposal but I do have one difficulty, which is that while I agree that it does give the power to the government of the day to call half the Senate to election at the same time as the House of Representatives, that is not the only occasion on which, if this proposal is supported, there will be a simultaneous election. Under section 28 of the Constitution, if through the effluxion of time the House of Representatives runs its full three years then, as provided in this proposal, half the Senate will go to an election. It is not then the doing of the Government; it is not the using of the power that is conferred on it by this proposal that will bring half the Senate to election at that time. However, I agree that this is designed to do what Senator Walters says, and that is how it will work on most occasions. But there might be the odd occasion when that is not the case. There has been only one time in the whole of the history of Federation that the House of Representatives has gone to its full term, and that was way back in 1910. Maybe in 2010 it will happen again. To be perfectly truthful, I think the No people should not gild the lily, although this is what that argument will be used for. There is no doubt about that. This is what the Government will use it for but there may be one chance in a hundred that, as a result of the provisions in the Constitution, a parliament- namely, the House of Representatives-will expire because of the effluxion of time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.57) —Let me begin by saying that I am indebted to Senator Harradine for pointing out that the language of the proposed ballot paper coming forward from the Government is in fact more descriptive of the content of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill than is the long title, to the extent that it does make a reference to varying the terms of senators accordingly. I would have thought that, if nothing else, would give the lie to the argument that there is something deceptive about this exercise on which the Government has embarked. What we are trying to do, as I have repeated on numerous occasions, is simply to put in simple language, graphic language where possible, what the basic content of the legislation is. I am grateful to Senator Harradine for acknowledging that fact; he was more gracious than some others in that respect. The acknowledgment of that point makes, however, the further point that there is no magic in the long titles as such of the Bills. That is certainly the view the Government took. There had not been much thought given to the long titles at the time of the preparation of the Bills because I do not think that at that stage anyone was thinking-certainly I was not-in terms of what the long titles would look like on the ballot paper. The long title in question here was simply inherited from the Fraser Government's simultaneous elections Bill. I do not think more than half a second's thought-- Senator Lewis —You will in the future. Senator GARETH EVANS —We will in the future but I make the point, partly in answer to Senator Missen when he says that we should so far as possible stick to what is there in the long title, that I do not think anything much flows from that, and certainly that is the approach that has been adopted with respect to the other questions. One of Senator Harradine's points was that the fixed term parliaments proposal might confuse people. All I can say is that I do not think anyone is in too much doubt-I certainly am not, to my cost-that the fixed term parliaments proposal is not going forward to this referendum. I imagine that it will be a vigorous part of the No case that all we have here is a recipe for the Prime Minister to call elections at any time he wants, that the four-year terms exercise is a sham and a fake because it will not really be four years. If anyone is under any illusions that anyone could possibly read any of these provisions as a fixed term parliaments one I would be delighted to know because it might help to salve some of my feelings on that particular subject. I think that the point made by Senator Harradine in that respect is not a very powerful one. Moreover, if that is really his concern one would have thought there was not a hell of a lot of difference-I suppose I should say a heck of a lot for the sake of Hansard; I do not want to change the record-between saying ' at the same time' and 'on the same day' if the point he is making is that it somehow creates the aura of a fixed term arrangement. The next point I make is that the language of 'on the same day' is in fact more descriptive of the content of the Bill than the description in the long title. If honourable senators will peer at page 3 of the Bill, sub-clause 13 (8) refers to elections being held 'on the same day as a general election of members of the next House of Representatives'. That language is actually used to describe the non-double dissolution situation. Then when we turn to the change proposed for section 57 of the Constitution again the reference is that 'an election of senators shall be held on the same day'. So the language is about 'day' rather than 'time'. It is more graphic, more immediate. It is less vague, and for that reason alone it seemed to the Government and the Australian Democrats, with whom we discussed this, to be a more desirable proposition. There is one remaining reason why the language of 'day' was chosen rather than the language of 'time', and that is that back in the 1977 referendum much was made, understand- ably because of the vagueness of the Bill in this respect, of the point that it was not really a simultaneous elections proposal at all because the provisions were written in such a way that elections did not in fact have to be held on the same day. There was a weakness in the way in which that proposal was couched, about which Senator Peter Rae and others made much; but quite apart from all its other alleged deficiencies, it was not even a guarantee that elections would be held on the same day, so the public was being fooled, so it was said, in that respect as well. The point I want to make here is that by using the language of 'on the same day ' we are making it very clear for those who can remember that previous saga- there are probably not many of them around, mercifully-that there is a distinction. The drafting has been changed, and it is in fact a guarantee that elections will be held on the same day. But this is not an issue about which one would want to go hammering and riveting at the barricades, because it is purely linguistic and basically the same message is being conveyed either way. But I do suggest to Senator Harradine that the language we have chosen is more concrete, more descriptive of the precise content of the Bill, particularly as compared with its 1977 predecessor, and is to be preferred. As to Senator Walters's proposal, I think Senator Harradine has really made the points in opposition to that. It is simply not the case that this gives power to the Government of the day to call the half Senate to election in the terms in which she described it. The situation is that once the Government either chooses to call a House of Representatives election or, as Senator Harradine points out, is required by effluxion of time to call a House of Representatives election, it inexorably automatically follows from the language of this Bill that the half Senate must come to the polls at the same time. So it is just a misdescription, quite apart from anything else, for this to be claimed to be a measure to enable the Government to take out the half Senate whenever it may choose to do so. It is a misdescription, with respect, quite deliberately put there by Senator Walters to advance a particular view of what this proposal is about, but it is not a view which accurately reflects the content of the legislation and cannot, I think, as Senator Harradine-- Senator Harradine —Don't put it on me. I said that in most cases she is dead right. Once every hundred years you might be right and I might be right. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will not put the point as strongly then. I would not wish to draw any rift between the advocates of the No case. They are getting along famously at the moment and I would hate to do that. I accept the point that Senator Harradine has just made, but equally the point that both he and I would make is that it is not the case that it gives the Government any right to play about with the Senate as such in every case. That is not what this is about , and it is a sort of ethnocentric view of the world to think that it revolves around us here in the Senate to suppose that that is what the Government is proposing in this referendum Bill. So I urge honourable senators to stick to the language of the original Bill. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.5) —Mr Chairman, it has become clear that what has happened here is that the Committee has almost resolved itself into a drafting committee. With respect, could I suggest to the Attorney-General that the senators who are involved in the drafting committee know what the Bills are all about and there is no need for him to stand up for seven or eight minutes at a time and to go into a long harangue about the matter. Really we would get through a lot quicker if there were simple explanations. When the Attorney- General says that Senator Harradine has explained to Senator Walters what it is all about, there is no need to go on for another four or five minutes re- explaining it. I also suggest to the Committee that it is a bit disturbing to hear the suggestion that before we came to consider this matter there was some sort of agreement between the Attorney-General and the Australian Democrats as to how they would vote on these matters. I understood we were coming in here this evening to consider these proposals on the basis of the arguments. I want to put to the Attorney-General the simple point that there is a general consensus on this side, as expressed by Senator Missen and Senator Harradine, that the use of the word 'day' does create a difficulty with regard to the possibility of fixed terms and that, instead of saying 'on the same day', it would be much better to say 'at the same time'. I suggest to the Attorney that he agree to that proposition so we can move on to the next matter. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.6) — Might I just reply to Senator Harradine's criticism of the amendment. Senator Harradine said that my amendment was right, that 90 per cent of the time I am right and 10 per cent of the time the Government is. The simultaneous elections proposal does not change the three- year constitutional right, it only changes the 90 per cent of the time that the Attorney-General is admitting that I am right. It does not interfere at all with the time that expires if the House of Representatives goes its full three years and the Senate is due to go to the polls. But the new simultaneous elections legislation that is being proposed does now give the power to the government of the day to call half the Senate out whenever it calls the House of Representatives out. Senator Harradine —That is what they want this for. Senator WALTERS —Yes, of course it is. Therefore, a true description of the Bill is that it will give the power to the government of the day to call half the Senate to an election at the same time as the House of Representatives and to adjust the term of the Senate accordingly. It does not interfere with the normal constitutional provision that at the expiration of the three years of the Senate the House of Representatives can join in elections. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.07) —It was not my intention to contribute on this matter, but in answer to a point raised by Senator Lewis I would just like to state that I am quite sure that governments, not only this one but the previous one, would have been very happy if they could have got such agreements as he is referring to. The historical proposition that I think the Attorney- General was talking about is the fact that some number of weeks ago he consulted the Australian Democrats about the wording. I have already explained that we were under the impression at the time that he was also consulting the Opposition parties. The situation in relation to these matters is that we thought they were a fair and accurate response. I indicated that we would listen to the debate on each of these aspects and vote according to what we considered was a fair and reasonable representation of the question which was being put to the people. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.08) —I would simply like to ask the Attorney- General whether he recalls a comment that he made in the Senate in 1982 that all he wanted to do was to remove the capacity of the Prime Minister of the day to call elections according to his own opportunistic whim. I wonder whether that is still the case or, if not, what has transpired in the time since then. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Chairman, I do not think I am obliged to answer a question which is not directed to the substantive questions before the chamber. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.09) —I support Senator Walters's proposal because I think it is a closer reflection of what is being asked in the question than what is proposed by the Government. In fact, to my mind the one vital element which is lacking in the question and which is the most fundamental one is that the proposal abolishes fixed terms for senators. There is absolutely no reference to that at all. If I were sitting here preparing a draft proposal, which I am not, I would be inclined perhaps to move something along these lines: 'To abolish senators fixed terms and to provide that upon each occasion when the House of Representatives expires or dissolves one half of the Senate shall be dissolved'. I think that is a closer reflection of the truth. It removes the camouflage of what has been put to us by the Government. Senator Missen —What you are suggesting is not even in Senator Walters's amendment. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am just lifting it to a higher plateau. On the basis of what is before us, I support Senator Walters. Amendment negatived. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.11) —I move: (1) Proposed new clause 28A, proposed Forms 1, 2, and 3, leave out '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.' (wherever occurring), insert 'To give power to the Government of the day to call half the Senate to election at the same time as the House of Representatives and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly.'. I do not think there is any point in my debating the amendment. I had intended to add my amendment to Senator Harradine's amendment. Amendment negatived. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.12) —I move: (3) Proposed new clause 28A, proposed Forms 1, 2 and 3, leave out '2: PARLIAMENTARY TERMS: To extend the maximum life of Parliaments from 3 to 4 years .' (wherever occurring), insert '2: PARLIAMENTARY TERMS: To extend the maximum terms of members of the House of Representatives from 3 to 4 years and of senators from 6 to 8 years.'. It is obvious that there is considerable concern about the expression of the question on the parliamentary referendum proposal in relation to parliamentary terms as indicated by the three proposals. I intend to be very brief. I am sure that we have all read the proposals and understand what we are talking about. However, for the sake of people listening perhaps on the radio, although I should not imagine there are many left listening to this sort of debate, the proposal put by the Government is that instead of the long title of the Bill there is the short title 'PARLIAMENTARY TERMS' followed by the words 'To extend the maximum life of Parliaments from 3 to 4 years'. My proposal is that instead of that, the expression should read: 'PARLIAMENTARY TERMS: To extend the maximum terms of members of the House of Representatives from 3 to 4 years and of senators from 6 to 8 years'. The reason is fairly obvious. The Government's proposal, as it stands, makes no mention of the fact that senators would end up with terms of eight years. My proposal would make that quite clear. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.14) —I foreshadow my amendment. I hold the view-I have maintained it before-that as far as possible we should try to keep to the long title of Bills. I hope in future we will always keep to the long titles. A lot of care should be taken to ensure that the long title is presented. Therefore, I think we should try as far as possible to keep the long title. I agreed that the Government's proposal to say 'To extend the maximum life of Parliaments from 3 to 4 years' is inadequate because it does not refer to the Senate and people may well be confused and think that that is going to be the term of the Senate as well. I know it is not right but people may well think that. I think that one must refer in the prosposal to the effect the legislation will have on both Houses. My amendment, which I foreshadow, is actually the same as Senator Harradine's except I have added one word. The amendment seeks to include the word 'maximum' in the long title. The long title would then read: 'To alter the Constitution to extend the maximum duration of the House of Representatives and the terms of service of senators'. I think 'maximum' ought to go in because we recognise that it does not mean there will be no fixed three or four year term or no fixed eight year terms. That is the maximum. It may well be less. Of course, a Senate term may well be quite less. Those of us who have never seen a six year term- only the President in this chamber has ever seen a six year term-would be amazed if we ever got such a term. It may be a seven year term, it depends on when Parliament is called. There is no fixture involved. I think, therefore, the long title ought to include the word 'maximum' to indicate that the Parliament will not necessarily run for that period. Apart from that, my amendment is the same as that moved by Senator Harradine. I think we should stick as far as possible to the long title. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.16) — As I have not moved my amendment I do not need to seek leave to withdraw it. I will not move my amendment because Senator Missen's amendment contains a perfectly valid point which was not picked up in my amendment. Having said that, though, it appears that we are moving a little away from the title of the Bills as we have done in the first proposal. Let us have a look at what the Government proposes to put to the people in respect of parliamentary terms. What the Government proposes to do is ask the people this question: Do you approve the proposed alterations to extend the maximum life of parliaments from three to four years? I think everyone around this chamber who has looked at the Bill will see that that is an inappropriate manner of putting forward the essence of the Bill. The title of the Bill is: 'An Act to alter the Constitution to extend the duration of the House of Representatives and the terms of service of senators'. The Bill then sets out the short title. The first part of the Bill deals with the Senate. It says this: Section 7 of the Constitution is altered by omitting from the fourth paragraph 'six years' and substituting 'eight years'. For the Government to say that the proposition to extend the maximum life of Parliament from three years to four years properly reflects the purposes of Bill , boggles the imagination. I think we should all agree that the Government's proposal is totally inadequate. What then should the proposal be? Having now seen Senator Lewis's proposal, I feel that what he is proposing is somewhat nearer to the point but only to the extent that it mentions that terms of senators are going to be extended from six years to eight years. I am sorry that I have not been able to discuss the amendment with him because I have only just looked at it. However, the words 'to extend the maximum terms of members of the House of Representatives from 3 to 4 years' appear to need qualification. I am just wondering whether strictly speaking that is correct because I imagine the terms of members of the House of Reprsentatives commence from the date on which they are declared elected after the return of the writs. After all, the writs are the authority for holding an election and for the election of successful candidates. The writs must be returned 90 days after their issue. In turn they must be issued, from memory, not more than seven days from the dissolution of the House. Of course, the House need not sit immediately and normally it does not sit immediately after the return of the writs. Normally a month elapses before the House actually sits. It is three years from that date that we are talking about, so the Government could well be extending the terms of members of the House of Representatives to four years and 120 days. Senator Gareth Evans —What? Senator HARRADINE —Yes. If one looks at the Constitution, one finds that that is so. That is my difficulty with what is proposed. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will be happy to know that I am coming around to supporting what is proposed, provided that he will agree to add a few more words. If it were to be said that the proposal was to extend the maximum life of parliament from three years to four years, and the maximum terms of senators from six years to eight years, that would truly reflect what is contained in the Bill. Senator Missen —Could I suggest that you are supported by section 28 of the Constitution, which states that every House of Representatives term 'shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, . . .' It does not start from that point but continues from it. That backs up your argument. Senator HARRADINE —I acknowledge what Senator Missen has said relating to section 28 of the Constitution which states that every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House and no longer , but may sooner be dissolved by the Governor-General. I repeat that a true reflection of what is contained in the Bill would be what is described by the Attorney-General in his proposal with the addition of the words indicated by Senator Lewis 'and to extend the maximum terms of senators from six to eight years'. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.23) — The proposition put by Senator Harradine seems reasonable. I think that when one looks at the actual terms that the Government proposes one appreciates that undoubtedly we run into trouble in relation to No. 2 by interpreting it in such a way as to indicate that No. 1 has been carried. That is essentially the difficulty of carrying these two propositions together, as it was in the drafting of the Bills themselves. What the Government has here is, I think, correct, whether No. 1 is carried or not. However, I believe that some of the other proposals, particularly that of Senator Lewis, have a certain amount of dependence upon the simultaneous elections provision being carried, to enable them to work correctly. I wonder whether Senator Harradine's point might be taken care of if, at the end of what is proposed, if the Government adds the words that it added to the simultaneous elections proposal-'and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly'. Senator Walters —It does not mean from six to eight years. Senator MACKLIN —That might or might not be the case, unfortunately or fortunately, depending upon what happens with the simultaneous elections proposal. The difficulty is that it must be so framed as to be able to stand on its own merits, regardless of whether the simultaneous elections proposal is carried. That is my worry at the moment, with the various proposals that we have . Somehow or other we must make sure that it can stand on its own merits. The Government's proposal does at the moment. I felt that Senator Harradine's proposal to add words at the end was reasonable. Then again, technically, ' parliament' includes both the Senate and the House of Representatives and it can be understood to mean that the Parliament runs for that particular time and that the Senate runs for two parliaments, whatever those parliaments happen to be. It is very difficult to come up with anything very much better than what is already proposed. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(10.25) —Senator Harradine said that the proposal of the Government was inadequate. I go one step further and say that the proposal, in that it does not mention that it is intended, by this referendum, to increase the life of the Senate, whether to eight years or eight years and three months, as I presently understand it to read, is deceptive, not merely inadequate. Senator Chipp —The Senate is part of the Parliament, surely. Senator TOWNLEY —Yes. I say that not to mention that the life of the Senate is to be increased to eight years or eight years three months, or eight years and four months, whatever the period is, is deceptive. I do not believe that the people of this country will agree to giving anybody an eight year term. Therefore, I say that for the Government not to mention that the term of a senator will be increased to about that extent is deceptive. I would therefore very strongly support what Senator Lewis is saying, whilst agreeing with what Senator Macklin said a moment ago. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.27) —After that bizarre contribution by Senator Townley- Senator Townley —If you want to talk about bizarre things, I will mention what you said to me during a division today. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Townley happens to say that the question ought not to be phrased in a particular way because the electorate is likely to answer in the negative. Senator Townley —It was very unparliamentary. Senator GARETH EVANS —It will be even more unparliamentary if you do not mind your own manners in the future and the way in which you conduct yourself in this place. Senator Townley —I was being polite to you and you were being most impolite to me. If you want a point of order on it right now, you will get one. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator will address his remarks to the Chair. Senator Jessop —Through you, Mr Chairman, I object to your referring to my colleague in that way. I believe you should consider what you have said and moderate your language, otherwise we might keep you here till Christmas time. Senator GARETH EVANS —You are referring to the Chairman? The CHAIRMAN —Order! Tempers are becoming a little frayed, and I think some intemperate remarks may have been made. The Attorney-General must address his remarks through the Chair. Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me recommence-at the beginning- Senator Jessop —Well, be polite. Senator Walters —Just calm down. Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me begin at the beginning once again. There is a certain fundamental principle of communication which says that if you want to convey a message to anybody, including a voter-and I presume that is the unanimous desire of all honourable senators in this place-you use concrete language rather than abstract language; you use simple and short language rather than long and convoluted language. The difficulty with the language of the long title as it now stands, the difficulty with the language of Senator Missen's amendment as it now stands, the difficulty with the language that Senator Macklin was proposing as possibly apropriate to add to the tail end of this in each case is they are couched in obscure and abstract language rather than precise and concrete language. They talk in terms of extending duration but do not use '3', '4', '6' or '8' for that matter. As such, it is just likely to look to the average voter coming in to confront it as a long line of lawyerly mumbo- jumbo. If any of us is genuine about wanting to ensure that people do understand what they are being asked to decide upon, he will agree that they ought to be confronted with language that is readily understanble. That is the essential reason why the Government has proposed that all this language be stripped back to its simplest and most concrete form to talk in terms of simply extending the maximum life of parliaments from three years to four years. Everyone is familiar with talking in terms of parliaments. For instance, we are sitting now in the 33rd Parliament. We are used to talking in terms of parliaments having a life of three years, at the moment. What this particular proposal is about will be readily understood. The Government could well lay itself open to a charge of selectivity or possibly even deception, were it to say 'to extend the life of the House of Representatives or the terms of service of members of the House of Representatives from three to four years' and then say nothing about the position of senators. That would be being selective. That would be choosing just to focus on one side of a two-sided equation. But that argument does not hold when the language here employed is, in fact, chosen- language referring to 'parliaments' rather than to 'House of Representatives'. Under those circumstances I do not believe it is necessary for me to say very much more, observing Senator Lewis's stricture, except to say that if anything I prefer Senator Lewis's language to that of Senator Missen and the other more abstract and vague language because it is concrete and at least it does make the point which many people in Australia seem to fail to appreciate at the moment- this has been shown in research that has been done for us already-that is, that we are elected to the Senate for six years at the moment. Very few people seem to be aware that that is the case. One of the reasons they are so upset, as indeed many people are, by the notion of extending the term to eight years, is that they do not appreciate that we have six-year terms at the moment. At least Senator Lewis's proposition makes that clear. To that extent it makes it rather easier, I think, to convey to the electorate that no very substantial change is involved in this amendment after all. But I think the issues are remarkably clear on this matter. There is not much more any of us can do than vote upon it. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.31) —I am glad that the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) recognises that the amendment moved by Senator Lewis has merit. It is all very well for you to talk about extending the terms of the Parliament-- Senator Gareth Evans —Are you referring to the Chairman again when you say 'you' ? Senator JESSOP —I address my remarks through the Chair. I would like to talk to the proposition that was put by the Attorney-General in his simplistic, humble, honest and forthright way without wanting to delude the electorate at all. If people come to me and tell me that they have no objection to extending the life of the Parliament from three to four years I ask the question: 'What do you think about extending the life of the Senate from six to eight years?' They say: 'We did not think about that'. I am glad to say to you, Mr Chairman, that I appreciate the acknowledgment of Senator Evans in support of Senator Lewis's amendment. I support the amendment. I gather from what the Attorney-General said that the Government supports it. We need say no more. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.32) — I foreshadow that I will move an amendment which incorporates what is generally agreed to be the appropriate course. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said that the benefit of Senator Lewis's proposal was that it was clear, unequivocal and presumably reflects the content of the Bill. Senator Lewis's amendment states: To extend the maximum terms of members of the House of Representatives from 3 to 4 years and of senators from 6 to 8 years. I have explained why the word 'terms' is not appropriate. I have simply provided to extend the maximum life of the House of Representatives. I believe the words 'House of Representatives', are more appropriate than is the word 'Parliament' because this proposal is to reflect what is contained in the Bill. Clause 4 of the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1983 talks about the House of Representatives. It does not talk about the Parliament. In fact by voting for this measure the people will be changing the Constitution. What part of the Constitution will they be changing? They will be changing, as the Bill says, section 28 of the Constitution. They will be changing it in this way: Section 28 of the Constitution is altered- (a) by omitting three years and substituting 4 years; and (b) by adding at the end thereof the following paragraph: In relation to a House of Representatives- not the Parliament- whose first meeting occurred before the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) 1983, the last proceding paragraph has effect as if the reference to 4 years were a reference to 3 years'. In fact that is why I agree with Senator Lewis that the words 'House of Representatives' should be included. When the people vote they will be voting to alter the term of the House of Representatives. They will not be voting to alter the terms of members of the House of Representatives but the term of the House of Representatives. The amendment which I foreshadow and which will be circulated shortly in my name in part states: . . . to extend the maximum terms of service of senators from 6 to 8 years'. That is precisely what the Bill means. I should like to come back to the point made by Senator Macklin. In his contribution he more or less presupposed that the first proposition, the simultaneous elections proposition, will be carried. Who is to say that the simultaneous elections proposition will be carried? It may not be carried. Senator Jessop —It will not be carried. Senator HARRADINE —Exactly, Senator Jessop; it will not be carried. In fact there are honourable senators in this chamber who strongly oppose the simultaneous elections provision but who support this provision to increase the term of the House of Representatives from three to four years. I think Senator Hill is in that situation. Senator Jack Evans is in that same situation. They oppose the first proposition of simultaneous elections but support the change to the term of the House of Representatives. If the people will follow the recommendations of those two honourable senators they will reject the first proposition and accept this proposition. The Australian Democrats have said all along the line that they want these matters to go truthfully to the people, no matter whether they agree with them or not. The policy of the Australian Democrats is that referenda should go to the people. If referenda should go to the people let us put the questions to the people as they are contained in the legislation. Let us not hide anything. The amendment which I foreshadow is simply a refinement of Senator Lewis's proposition to extend the maximum life of the House of Representatives from three to four years and to extend the maximum terms of service of senators from six to eight years. That is how I believe the proposition ought to be put to the people. I hope the people will solidly defeat it. (Quorum formed) Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.40) —I support Senator Harradine's amendment. I take pleasure in asking Senator Chipp just one question. He indicated to me earlier today when we were debating these amendments that he doubted whether people would bother to read what was in their letter boxes. I agreed with him that people know very little about how parliament works. Unless they read every bit of the material in their letter boxes, they will be completely unaware that the life of the Senate is to be extended to eight years. It is all very well for the Attorney-General to say that the Parliament is to be extended from three to four years. I ask Senator Chipp how many people in Australia really know that senators will serve eight years if it is said that parliament will be extended from three to four years? Does Senator Chipp really believe that words to the effect that the Parliament will be extended from three to four years clearly indicate to the people of Australia that if that occurs the Senate will be extended from six to eight years? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.41) —I make it clear for the record that the Government opposes the amendments of Senator Lewis and Senator Harradine for reasons set out by Senator Macklin. The Government does not want to play around with the suggested alternative tentatively proposed by Senator Macklin, because of its abstract and non-concrete character. We believe that the language of the present provision is concrete, sharp, precise, and non-deceptive . I am sure that at the conclusion of the No case there will be no misunderstanding on the part of the Australian people about the implications of this proposal for the terms of senators. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.42) —I pay Senator Walters the courtesy of answering her questions. I agree with her. In fact, I am glad that she now acknowledges part of the thrust of my interjection today that many Australians do not really absorb with the fascination that we politicians do the pros and cons of any referendum issue. I agree, if she wants me to, that there will not be very many people who will look at this question on the notice paper and say: 'Hah! If they are increasing the maximum term of the House of Representatives to four years, therefore the term of the senators will be eight years'. I concede that point. But that does not necessarily lead me to a view that we should put the wording that Senator Harradine or Senator Lewis suggests on the ballot paper. Senator Jessop —Why not? Senator CHIPP —Why do we not put the salary of politicians on it? Why do we not put all explanations? What attracted me about the progressive idea of the Government-I call it a progressive idea because in my adult life I have voted in so many referenda in which on the ballot paper has been printed simply the title of the Bill; I would not have had the faintest idea what the question meant-is that at least it is an honest attempt- Senator Jessop —That is right. Senator CHIPP —I believe it is an honest attempt. Honourable senators might suggest- Senator Chaney —Inept, but honest. Senator CHIPP —To that extent, the honourable senator might say it is inept, but I do not agree with that. I think it is an efficient, 'ept', an honest attempt to put in the mind of the voter when he or she is in the cubicle the information on what he or she is voting for. To embellish that information with all sorts of other considerations that are caught up in the question would be to have almost an essay on the matter. I think it is an honest question to put to electors whether they approve of the maximum life of a parliament being extended to four years. If honourable senators say that means that senators from now on will have an eight-year term, I suggest that the likelihood of an eight-year Senate term is almost in the land of the fairies. In practice, this is not the case. We have had a number of short term Parliaments. The average length of parliament since Federation, as I understand it, is two years and four months. Therefore, while I concede Senator Walters's point-I did not want to enter this debate because it has been capably handled for the Democrats by Senator Macklin-out of courtesy, I have risen and given Senator Walters, I hope, an honest response. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(10.45) —I suggest that many of the amendments with which we are dealing are being taken on the run. There have been three amendments with regard to one section of the Bill. As I see it at the moment the Democrats do not know what the Liberal Party is doing and the Liberal Party certainly does not know what the Labor Party is doing. I think it would not be a bad idea for this country if we sought an adjournment on this motion so that the Whips, the Government and the Australian Democrats can get together and work this out. At the moment, some motions that should not be defeated most probably will be defeated, and some that should not be carried will be carried. The whole thing is getting to a quite ridiculous state. The Democrats do not know what the Liberal Party will support, although they have certainly heard from the Attorney -General which ones the Government will support. I see that we have 14 minutes before the Senate is due to adjourn this evening. I see that I have about 13 minutes to go. I do not intend to take that time, but I do not want to see passed in this chamber legislation that is not properly thought through. I think that we should have a brief adjournment and come back later tonight. I am not saying that we should put off consideration of the legislation until tomorrow, but if we do not know quite what is happening we will have to talk this through. We could negative the adjournment or come back tomorrow or next week to fix up this thing because at the moment it is a total mess. The Attorney-General is the guy who is responsible for the mess that this country is getting into. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.47) —I believe that it is very difficult for people in the electorate-I would like Senator Chipp to listen to me on this-to understand what the word 'parliament' means. I think that is the point. I know that Senator Chipp and his colleagues are very fair about wanting to present the people with the facts about these things so that it is clear in their minds. I believe that the question of the extension of the life of the Parliament from three to four years is very difficult for many people in the community to understand. I would be grateful if I could be afforded the courtesy of the Attorney-General listening to me, rather than perambulating around trying to coerce people into supporting his attempts to subvert the issue. It is very difficult for people to understand the issue. People have come to me and said: ' What is this extension of the Parliament to four years all about?' I tell them that it means an extension of the term of the House of Representatives to four years, but it also means an extension of the Senate term to eight years. I think that is very important. Senator Chipp —There is nothing sinful about that. Senator JESSOP —I am not talking about it being sinful. I am talking about a proposition that we have to put to people who do not understand the issue as the Democrats do. Quite clearly, they know what parliament is all about; I know what parliament is all about, but the people of Australia do not understand. It is very important, though, to understand that the public at large needs to be guided in this way before people exercise an intelligent vote at the referendum. Senator Gareth Evans is gabbling away to himself. I want him to listen to this. Senator Gareth Evans —At least I am sober, Senator. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the Attorney-General to withdraw that remark. Senator Gareth Evans —I withdraw it, Mr Chairman. Senator JESSOP —There is no need to be nasty. I would not want to insinuate anything about the honourable senator who has just made that statement. But I heard him say earlier that he supported Senator Lewis's amendment. I think that he was quite right in doing that. I do not know why he changed his mind. I suggest that it is in the interest of this Parliament to consider what I have said-that many people outside it do not really understand what Senator Chipp has said, but I think that on reflection-- Senator Georges —It is not only outside. Senator JESSOP —I know that. Senator Georges —I cannot understand what you have been talking about. I have been listening to you for five minutes. I have watched your hands waving around. Senator JESSOP —The honourable senator wants to sit here for eight years, but the people outside this place do not want him to do that. It is very important to explain those things to the people before they vote in the referendum. I suggest that, on reflection, Senator Chipp might agree with the proposition that I am putting. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.51) —There has been a good deal of discussion on this matter. The matters that have just been raised by Senator Jessop are eminently relevant to this matter. How can the Government propose and how can this chamber accept a proposition to go to the people which deals with only five lines out of a Bill of 40 lines? That is what will be done. This proposition by the Government is to put to the people a proposal to alter the Constitution to extend the life of the Parliament from three years to four years. In fact, it does not even do that. Those five lines are to amend section 28 of the Constitution, to extend the duration of the House of Representatives from three to four years. The remaining 34 or 35 lines or so of the legislation deal with the extension of the terms of senators from six years to eight years. In other words, it would bring senators in Australia into line with senators in Brazil. I say that just as an aside; that is not in the legislation. But the remainder of the Bill, those 30-odd lines, is to amend the Constitution to extend the maximum term of senators from six years to eight years. If this Committee refuses to accept the amendment that has been proposed by Senator Lewis and refined by me, it will not be putting to the people what is contained in this Bill. It will be practising a deception against the people. In a way, I hope that it does that, because that is the first point that some of us will start off with when writing the No case. Honourable senators should think about that. Senator Lewis has said that the points that I have raised relating to his proposal are acceptable to him. In other words, my amendment simply picks up the technical point that is doubtful in his proposal, and that is, as he says, to extend the maximum terms of the members of the House of Representatives. I am suggesting that it ought to be to extend the maximum life of the House of Representatives. Some honourable senators were not present when I explained that the terms of members of the House of Representatives, under the proposition, can go for four years and 120 days. Naturally, Senator Lewis has accepted the refinement that I am suggesting. I shall not say anything more. I hope that the Committee passes what Senator Gareth Evans is proposing, because we will go out and say that it is just practising deception. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Harradine, Senator Lewis does not seem to be present at the moment. I have had no confirmation of his accepting that amendment. Senator Walters —Yes, he had accepted it. Senator Gareth Evans —That can be tested in a vote. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.55) —While we are waiting for Senator Lewis to return-I hope that someone will find him-I simply want to comment on the various amendments before the Committee. The Opposition, on behalf of which I am now speaking, as the Committee would know, has taken the firm view that the long title in the legislation proposing constitutional alterations should be the form of the questions put to the people. That is based on the fact that that is the legislation that has passed through the Parliament, and the Parliament presumably regards that as adequate, knowing that traditionally that has been the form of the question that has gone to the electors. The problem that we face tonight is due to the Attorney-General, in his usual style, trying to be too clever by half in bringing down regulations to change that position. He has found that there are, perhaps, some doubts about it, and, for what other reason I do not know, he has now brought forward another amendment to the legislation for extending the benefits of the constitutional change in 1977 to the electors in the Territories. We are now considering different questions from those in the long title of the Bill. This debate is only revealing the difficulty that exists in that sort of exercise. The Senate is forming itself into a drafting committee, with numerous different views being put forward. The present proposal is in relation to the extension of the life of the Parliament from three years to four years; in other words, to change in the Constitution the figure '3' to the figure '4' for the House of Representatives, and to change the figure '6', which is the fixed term of Senators, as the Constitution provides, to a fixed term of eight years. To paraphrase that in the way in which the Attorney-General proposes by saying that the proposal is to extend the maximum life of parliaments from three to four years, is quite dishonest. It is not a true statement at all about this proposal. The Opposition will support Senator Lewis's amendment. I understood that that amendment was foreshadowed to the Australian Democrats last night. There really should not be any doubt on the part of anyone on the Opposition side of the chamber about where the Opposition stands. Because some doubt has been raised as to where we stand, I have spoken in the debate simply to make that quite clear. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Lewis, it has been suggested that you had accepted a rewording by Senator Harradine of your amendment. Is that correct? Senator Lewis —That is not so, Mr Chairman. My amendment is as I moved it. I am afraid that Senator Harradine will have to move his own amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.59) —Since it has become apparent that the Opposition leadership has lost all control of its back bench members and that we will not get a vote on this matter tonight, I rise only to say this quickly, on the record: There is no attempt at deception and there never has been on the part of the Government on this matter. All that we have been doing is trying, in an honest way, to simplify the questions that are to be put to the Australian electorate. I make one quick response to the rather peculiar arithmetic advanced by Senator Harradine to a hushed assembly a few minutes ago. The Bill is 60 lines long. Eight of those lines deal with the provision in the House of Representatives. Six of them deal specifically with the extension of the terms of senators and the remaining 46 lines deal with purely formal and transitional matters. It is a nonsensical illustration which I am afraid does not assist the cause of Senator Harradine's argument. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 11 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- RAAF Aircraft Accident-Importation of Russian Vehicles The PRESIDENT —Order! I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.01) — In the adjournment debate tonight I wish to raise only one item, and that briefly. Today a Royal Australian Air Force plane crashed in Victoria. The pilot, who was a personal friend of mine, an exceptional Australian, was killed. The point I wish to make is that many members of the armed forces day in and day out, not only during war time but also during peace time, risk their lives for this country and occasionally, as we have seen in the last few weeks, a number of them are killed. The pilot of the aircraft today, David Groves, was a Queenlander, with a family. He was going about normal service duties. Those duties eventually led today to his death. It seems to me that too often, in the words of the motto of the Returned Services League of Australia we do tend to forget the types of activities that are undertaken and the types of dangers that are faced by many Australians in defence of their country not only during war but also during peace. I wish today to pay tribute to this man. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.02) —I feel that I should raise a matter as the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, is still in the chamber. Some weeks ago I asked Senator Button a question relating to the importation of vehicles manufactured in the Soviet Union, component parts of which, according to reports emanating from Canada, are manufactured in slave labour camps in the Soviet Union. The Minister did say that he would obtain a response for me on this matter, and in particular in respect of the provisions of the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations. As yet that response has not come through and I am hoping that it will because it is important not only that the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations be upheld, particularly those parts prohibiting the import of materials and manufactured goods produced in slave labour camps or by slave labour anywhere outside this country, but also, from the point of view of the Minister's portfolio of Industry and Commerce, that the vehicle industry in this country can be assured that those vehicles are not being improperly imported into this country and are not being manufactured by non-union Gulag labour. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.05) —I recall the question which Senator Harradine addressed to me some time ago and I apologise for not giving him an answer. Subsequent to the question being directed to me, I made inquiries from my Department and was told that it had no information about the matters which Senator Harradine raised. That does not mean that it would not be able to get information. Senator Harradine —From our Embassy in Moscow. Senator Georges —There is no information to get. How can they get information that is not available? It does not exist. Senator BUTTON —If Senator Georges will let me answer the question from my point of view, the Department informed me at that stage that it had no information about the matter. I do not advance that as a reason for not seeking to obtain information about it. I suggest to Senator Harradine that if he is able to give me the source of the information, which allegedly comes from Canada, that might be a useful avenue in order to obtain further information to enable us to provide a satisfactory anser to the question. Senator Harradine —I thought I gave you the reference but I may not have. Senator BUTTON —With respect, the honourable senator did not. This is the first time I have heard Canada mentioned. I am not in any way seeking to resile from seeking an answer to the question. I have done that and the answer I have is that there is no information available at present. If Senator Harradine gives me a source through which I can start inquiries, I will certainly see that that is done. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.07 p.m. The following paper was presented: Lands Acquisition Act-Land, etc., acquired for Telecommunications Services, Walcha, New South Wales.