Thursday, 8 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: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Crowley (from 20 citizens), Georges (from 43 citizens), Macklin ( from 21 citizens), and Robertson (from 150 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 Robertson (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 771 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia are concerned at the termination of the tax exemption on Defence Force Reserve pay. We are convinced that unequal relativities in pay will occur and the Reserve Force will lose a large number of dedicated trained servicemen and women which which will make it impossible for the Reserve to meet its commitments to the defence of Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will act to form a Senate Select Committee to inquire into and report on the effect of the removal of the tax exemption prior to the implementation of Government policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 37 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 210 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 2. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 3. We call upon the Federal Government, however, to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own special programs and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 4. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 34 citizens) and Hearn (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We deplore the unprincipled and self-interested attacks being orchestrated by minority sects and groups against the policies and person of the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Senator Susan Ryan. 2. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own special program and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Georges (from 38 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: As 26.10.83 is International Women's Peace Day and as retailers and advertisers have commenced the 1984 promotion of toys for Christmas, there is concern that many toys including video games, have violent and warlike themes. Others by their nature and packaging are sexist and therefore restrictive. The themes of peace and goodwill to all are central to the celebration of Christmas and should be truly reflected in the goods available for gifts. Positive inducements should be made available to manufacturers and importers to discourage toys which glorify war, incite violence and limit sex-roles. Your peititioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act by way of legislation and encouragement to ensure that toys available for purchase in Australia are physically safe, non-violent and non-sexist. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Georges (from 189 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 abortion. 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. (Quorum formed) And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 157 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That every child in Australia is entitled to government financial support for their education whether they attend government schools or non-government schools . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision for the continuation of Federal Government per capita grants payable in respect of all children in non-government schools at a rate calculated as a percentage of Government Standard Costs at a level not less than that prevailing in 1983. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 219 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of territorial government or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to territorial or local government, your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of territorial or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 293 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 petitoners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. by Senator Robertson (from eight citizens) and Scott (from 27 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(10.05) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Trade Union Training Authority-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 58 of the Trade Union Authority Act 1975 2. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 49 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Act 1977 3. Pig Meat Promotion Committee-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 16 of the Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975 4. Department of Transport-Annual Report 1982-83 5. Australian Tourist Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967 6. Department of Administrative Services-Annual Report 1982-83 7. National Capital Development Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 24 (3) of the NCDC Act 1957 8. Norfolk Island-Annual Report 1982-83 9. Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority-Annual Report 1982-83- pursuant to section 33 (4) of the A.C.T. Electricity Supply Act 1962 10. Snowy Mountains Council-Annual Report 1982-83 11. The Pipeline Authority-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 45 of the Pipeline Authority Act 1973 12. Human Rights Commission-Report-Proposal for Amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act to Cover Incitement to Racial hatred and Racial Discrimination-pursuant to section 9 (1) (c) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981-together with the text of a statement in relation to the report 13. Security Appeals Tribunal-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to sub-section 83 (1) of the ASIO Act 1979 14. National Companies and Securities Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 52 of the National Companies and Securities Act 1979 Annual Report 1982-83 Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.05) —I have not yet seen this paper, Mr Deputy President. I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.06) —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)(10.06) —In the absence of Senator Peter Rae, who is away 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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.07) —In the absence of Senator Peter Rae, and on his behalf, 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 MARTIN(Queensland)(10.07) —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)(10.08) —In the absence of Senator Peter Rae, and on his behalf, 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)(10.08) —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)(10.08) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(10.09) —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)(10.09) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.09) —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 HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.10) — I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the reports relating to the following proposed works: Perth Airport International Terminal Complex and parallel taxiway; Provision of navigational aids, Hydrographers Passage, Great Barrier Reef; and Royal Australian Air Force Base Williamtown, New South Wales-FA18 Hornet facilities development; supplementary report relating to relocation of Army Parachute Training School from RAAF Base Williamtown, New South Wales, to HMAS Albatross, Nowra, New South Wales. Ordered that the reports be printed. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present a report of some observations of Australia's diplomatic representation in Africa and adjacent Indian Ocean island states dated December 1983, and extracts from the minutes of proceedings. I seek leave to move a motion relating to the report. Leave granted. Senator SIBRAA —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report on Australia's diplomatic representation in Africa and adjacent Indian Ocean island states arose out of deliberations of the Sub-Committee on Middle Eastern and African Affairs of which I am the Chairman. Since 1978, members of the Sub-Committee, and the Sub-Committee's predecessors, including the former Sub-Committee on Southern Africa, have taken a considerable amount of evidence on African issues. Members of the Senate will recall the Committee's reports on Zimbabwe, tabled in May 1980, and on Namibia, tabled in August 1982. The issues prompting the writing of a report at this time arose during the Sub- Committee's inquiry into the Horn of Africa. Australia's post at Nairobi is accredited to Ethiopia and looks after Australia's interests in Somalia, as well as in a number of other countries. Ethiopia was the fourth largest recipient of Australian bilateral aid and Africa south of the Sahara in 1982-83, after Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda. During evidence taken by the Sub-Committee it was clear that the Nairobi post's ability to monitor aid activities in the Horn was limited because of a lack of resources . A number of allegations were made to the Sub-Committee about misappropriation and misuse of aid in Ethiopia. Many allegations were based on hearsay, and others appeared to be exaggerated. Nevertheless, there does appear to be a need for increased staff resources to enable more thorough 'on the ground' checks of aid contributions. The Committee is also of the opinion that briefings provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs, especially in relation to internal political events in Ethiopia and Somalia, were inadequate. This is not a reflection on the officers concerned, but reflects a lack of resources allocated to the area. After considering the importance of Ethiopia, and noting that the Organisation of African Unity's headquaters are located in Addis Ababa, the Committee has made the following recommendation: The Committee considers that valid reasons exist for the upgrading of Australia' s representation in Ethiopia and recommends that consideration be given to the establishment of a mission resident in Addis Ababa. The Committee is cognisant that financial constraints and Australia's other representational priorities will be factors associated with such a decision. As in the case with other countries with which Australia has diplomatic relations the Committee notes that the fact of having diplomatic relations does not of itself indicate approval of the other Government's policies or actions. By comparison, the Committee does not consider that a resident post at Mogadishu is justified, but considers that: . . . close attention should be paid by the Department of Foreign Affairs to developments in Somalia. Another matter addressed in the report is the issue of Department of Foreign Affairs' coverage of events in Francophone Africa. During the year Chad was invaded by Libya, an event which has ramifications for a number of Saharan countries, particularly those with mixed Muslim and Christian populations. Australian coverage of events in the many French-speaking former colonies is conducted from posts in former British colonies. The Committee has recommended that 'consideration be given to opening a post in a former French colony' and observed that 'such a post could service other Francophone countries'. A recommendation of the Committee which is of particular significance at present relates to our representation in the Indian Ocean. There has been considerable competition among the major powers for port facilities in and around the Indian Ocean in recent years. Australia hosts a significant expatriate population from Mauritius and the Seychelles in Perth. Australian tourism in the area, and especially to Mauritius, has been growing steadily over the years. This brings me to the Mauritius option. Currently there are discussions between the Australian and Mauritian Governments about our relations , including the question of Australia establishing a resident post in Mauritius. Another major question in the discussions is the possibility of Qantas Airways Ltd flying to Mauritius. At present it only flies to Harare in the southern African region. If Qantas takes this step and if South Africa Airways is taken off the South Africa-Australia run, Mauritius will be of even greater significance for Australia. At present Australia's High Commission in Nairobi is accredited to the Seychelles, while our High Commission in Dares Salaam is accredited to Madagascar and Mauritius, and also looks after our interests in the Comoros and Reunion. This arrangement causes unnecessary logistical difficulties, especially in relation to travel between the posts and the countries concerned. The Committee has therefore recommended: . . . that consideration be given to opening a post at Mauritius to promote Australia's interests in Mauritius itself and among the island states of the Indian Ocean. In the Committee's view such a post would be of a more rational use of resources than exists at present and would improve considerably our ability to promote our interests in this strategically important region. I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I present the 216th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts which is the annual report 1982-83. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES —I seek leave to have a short statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The 216th report is the annual report for 1982-83 of the Joint parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. It contains a review of the inquiries conducted by the Committee during the year and issues arising from our investigations and other matters which the Committee regards as significant in its development. 1982-83 witnessed a number of changes for the Public Accounts Committee. The thirteenth Committee ceased when Parliament was dissolved on 5 February 1983. The fourteenth Committee was appointed following the election and held its first meeting on 11 May 1983. The administration of the Committee secretariat was transferred from Joint House Department to the House of Representatives in December 1982. Throughout 1982-83 the Committee has continued to maintain an extensive program of inquiries and research. It tabled four reports on significant public sector management issues such as 'The Form and Standard of Financial Statements for Commonwealth Undertakings', 'Administration of Bilateral Overseas Aid', 'The Selection and Development of Senior Managers in the Commonwealth Public Service' and the 'Medical Fraud and Overservicing Progress Report'. The growth of government activities, the creation of statutory authorities, and the public's demand for more financial and other information has meant that new and additional means of financial measurement and communication need to be derived. The committee fully supports efforts to increase the consistent application of relevant accounting methods so that financial reporting in the public sector will better serve the community. This is the fourteenth Public Accounts Committee since its re-establishment in 1951. The success of the Committee, which I have the privilege to chair has been built on the solid foundation laid over the past three decades by successive chairmen, members of the Committee and staff as well as by its official observers and advisers. I would like especially to pay tribute to my colleague, the honourable member for Bradfield Mr David Connolly, who was, until Parliament was dissolved for the election earlier this year, Chairman of the thirteenth Public Accounts Committee. Mr Connolly became a member of the tenth Committee in 1974 and its Chairman from the establishment of the eleventh Committee in 1976. Only the distinguished emeritus professor F. A. Bland, MP, served the Committee for a longer period, I am sure that in the future, Mr Connolly's chairmanship will be regarded as having a profound influence on public administration in the Commonwealth. However all who have been associated with the Committee have contributed to the building of a significant mechanism for effective parliamentary review. The Committee wishes to record its appreciation to its secretary, permanent and seconded staff and its advisors for their excellent work throughout the year. In addition, the Committee wishes to thank officers from the Department of Finance, the Public Service Board and the Auditor-General's Office who have continued to provide advice and assistance as observers for all our inquiries. We are also appreciative of the work done by the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and his staff for their valuable assistance and other officers of the parliamentary departments who have supported the Committee in its activities. Copies of this report will not be available for general distribution until Friday 9 December 1983. However copies are held by the Parliamentary Library. I commend the Report to honourable senators. Senator GEORGES —by leave-I believe I should speak to the last part of the statement. The success of the Committee, which I have the privilege to chair, has been built on the solid foundation laid over the past three decades by successive chairpersons, members of the Committee and staff as well as by its official observers and advisers. I would like especially to pay tribute to my colleague, the honourable member for Bradfield, Mr David Connolly, who was, until Parliament was dissolved for the election earlier this year, Chairman of the thirteenth Public Accounts Committee. Mr Connolly became a member of the tenth Committee in 1974 and its Chairman from the establishment of the eleventh Committee in 1976. Only the distinguished Professor F. A. Bland, MP, served the Committee for a longer period. I am sure that in the future, Mr Connolly's chairmanship will be regarded as having a profound influence on public administration in the Commonwealth. However, all who have been associated with the Committee have contributed to the building of a significant mechanism for effective parliamentary review. The Committee wishes to record its appreciation to its Secretary, permanent and seconded staff and its advisors for their excellent work throughout the year. In addition, the Committee wishes to thank officers from the Department of Finance, the Public Service Board and the Auditor-General's Office who have continued to provide advice and assistance as observers for all our inquiries. We are also appreciative of the work done by the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and his staff and for their valuable assistance, and other officers of the parliamentary departments who have supported the Committee in its activities. Mr Deputy President, as you are aware the Public Accounts Committee has placed reports before the Senate on almost every sitting day for this session. One must appreciate the tremendous work that Committee members have done and the difficulties which they have had and, if at some time we may have offended the Standing Orders of the Senate, it would have been done I would say with good purpose. Copies of this report are not yet available for distribution, which brings me to the point that we must also thank the Government Printer for the assistance he has given to the Committee in preparing and printing the reports and having them ready for distribution. On this occasion I can only say that the main distribution will not take place until Friday, 9 December; but, in the meantime, copies of the report can be obtained from the Parliamentary Library. I commend the report to honourable senators. Interim Report of Australian Branch Delegation Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I present the interim report of the Australian Branch Delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to the 29th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, Kenya, October-November 1983. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator SCOTT —One of the most significant developments from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference from the Australian point of view was the acceptance by the General Assembly of the recommendation from the working party on the CPA and the future that the number of regional representatives on the Executive Committee be increased from two to three. As a result of this decision and arrangements agreed upon by the branches in the Australasian and Pacific region the Commonwealth of Australia branch will be represented on the Executive Committee once every six years compared with the previous arrangement of once every 27 years. It will also ensure more regular representation for the other branches of the region. Briefly, let me say that the Conference held in Nairobi, Kenya, this year was a useful discussion of an agenda which ranged from housing and unemployment through to the energy crisis and indeed the consideration of the future of parliamentary democracy. It is appropriate and necessary that I should remark on the hospitality of our hosts, the Kenyans. Every facility was available for all the delegates of the Conference. The Kenyan Government and the Kenyan people provided facilities and entertainment; they provided an opportunity for all delegates to see a great section of their interesting country: I am sure that every member of the Australian delegation appreciated the very generous efforts of the Kenyans on that occasion. It was also clear to me and I think to other delegates that there is real value in constructive discussion as opposed perhaps to the type of exercise that is involved in debating specific motions. I am sure that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Australian High Commissioner, his wife and to their staff who went to great trouble to see that any problems that confronted the delegation while in Kenya were overcome. Finally, Mr Deputy President, I place on record my appreciation and, I am sure, the appreciation of the delegation of the friendly, efficient and untiring efforts of Mr Barlin who acted as secretary to the Australian delegation. (Ministerial Statement) Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —by leave-On behalf of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), I present the response to the Australia-Indo-China statement and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- AUSTRALIA AND INDO-CHINA PARLIAMENTARY STATEMENT REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE ON ''POWER IN INDO- CHINA SINCE 1975'' (1981) I make no apologies for the fact that Indo-China has been a major foreign policy pre-occupation of this Government. The problem of Cambodia, in all its many dimensions, is the greatest unresolved source of tension in South East Asia . It is not unnatural that we seek to offer, as a good neighbour, to help in the pursuit of a resolution of tensions which could beset our region for decades. To this end we have sought, without illusions as to the complexity of the problem, to build upon the mature and robust relationships established over many years with the ASEAN countries, and upon the growth of a more productive and comprehensive relationship with Vietnam, in order to seek out areas in which dialogue on the problem can be encouraged. As a government which has good relations with all parties we have an opportunity to involve ourselves in this process, and an obligation not to allow that opportunity to be missed. Moreover, we have an obligation to the Australian people. I have been greatly impressed in recent years by the compassion Australians have shown towards the suffering Khmer people. Their plight has aroused a response among Australians proportionately greater than in any other Western society. This is perhaps not susprising in view of our growing involvement in this region but I think it brings home to any Government a recognition that the Khmer people's destiny has for too long been determined by others. Their plight is one which is to a great extent dictated by historical reality as a small nation. Like the Lao people, their future depends on how rival historical ambitions are resolved. For, in the end, the Government is conscious that the survival of the Khmer nation is at the centre of the dispute. Only a solution that guarantees their survival is acceptable; indeed only such a solution can secure the interests of all concerned. I commend for your reading the report entitled ''Power in Indo-China since 1975 '' prepared by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. While that report was tabled in 1981, the issues it raises are much in our minds now. Despite the two years since the report was drawn up, there is a striking degree of relevance in its comments and recommendations to both the continuing situation in Indo-China and the policies of this Government. There is broad concurrence in the report with the Government's policy in its emphasis on the need for due recognition of Vietnam's potential contribution to the region; on the desirability of promoting a peaceful solution to the present situation; and on encouraging dialogue, both at the regional level and through international efforts, to decrease regional tension in South East Asia. This concurrence is perhaps not surprising. The Committee has taken a broad and largely dispassionate view of its topic, and its findings reflect the reality of the situation. Sadly, that reality has not changed substantially in the past two years. Stalemate still faces Indo-China. Vietnam's relations with China and the ASEAN countries in general remain at best cool. Cambodia is still an occupied country, subject to guerilla activity especially in border areas, and is still reliant on international aid for the foreseeable future. The Australian Government remains concerned at the increase in Soviet influence in the Indo- Chinese region resulting from Vietnam's current close relationship with the Soviet Union. Such continuity with the findings of an all-party committee also points to the strength of shared community perceptions on Indo-China which spread across party lines. The Committee's study was prepared under the former Government, yet its findings fit well with his Government's current policy. It is especially important, in view of comments made by the Opposition in the House of Representatives during this session, to note the unmistakable and significant elements of continuity in the approach of this Government and its predecessors. Mr Street reminded the House of Representatives on 18 October of his statement to the International Conference on Kampuchea in 1981. I should like to quote his remarks to that conference in some detail, to demonstrate the care with which he chose his words. He said that among the prerequisites for an acceptable settlement were ''the withdrawal of foreign forces from Kampuchea''; he mentioned the general history in the past decade of 'war, genocide, famine and the invasion and occupation of their territory by foreign forces' endured by the Khmer people; and he noted that 'there are still some 200,000 Vietnamese troops in Kampuchea, and a significant proportion of these are stationed close to the Thai-Kampuchean border: this Vietnamese presence in Kampuchea is challenged by forces belonging to the various Khmer groups'. He called for 'a phased withdrawal' to 'avoid the creation of a power vacuum which could result in the return to power of the Pol Pot regime'. He added: 'Australia does not deny that Vietnam has certain legitimate security interests of its own: however, that is no justification for their invasion of a neighbouring country'. Similarly Mr Peacock, when he addressed the UN General Assembly as Foreign Minister in 1980, had said: 'A peaceful and secure South East Asia cannot be achieved until a political settlement has been reached in Kampuchea which is acceptable to all parties concerned and which gives full opportunity to the Kampuchean people to determine their own style of government and way of life. We accept that Vietnam has legitimate interests to safeguard in regard to Kampuchea . What we cannot accept is that Vietnam and its allies should be able to go on refusing to discuss seriously the fundamental questions of the occupation of Kampuchea by foreign troops and the legitimacy of the regime in Phnom Penh'. I emphasised Australia's unequivocal condemnation of Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia in talks with the ASEAN Foreign Ministers earlier this year, and the Prime Minister reminded the House of Representatives on 1 November and again on 9 November that the Government in no way condoned Vietnam's action. We have repeated this point at the UN General Assembly and in discussions with ASEAN Leaders. This Government, in close consultation with its regional neighbours, is seeking dialogue on the Cambodia question. I have quoted these passages to demonstrate that our predecessors largely shared our approach. No purpose is served for this country by attempts to exaggerate any differences of perception which may arise in such a complex policy area. The report of the Joint Committee provides a useful outline of the history of developments in Indo-China up until 1975. The history of the three decades from 1945 to 1975 brings out the lack of any longer-term Western perspective on an appropriate response to the aspirations of the Indochinese people. Australian attitudes were formed around a policy of commitment of troops which is now recognised to have been a mistake. We are only slowly assimilating the lessons of that mistake and perceiving in the events of these 30 years the consistent threat, not of international communist expansionism, but of the struggle of the Vietnamese people for their independence. Moreover, before 1975 the community perception of Cambodia as a nation was, at the best, hazy. The need now to develop an understanding of events in Indo-China is important not simply as a means of exorcising our feelings of guilt about the past. Events since 1975 have shown us the peril of excluding Indo-China from our perception of the future of South East Asia. There should be no iron curtain in this part of the world. The future of Australia lies in developing a mature and balanced set of relationships with its neighbours in South East Asia. Indo-China is part of that neighbourhood. There can be no secure future for the whole of South East Asia without an accommodation between Vietnam and its neighbours. This Government wishes to pursue the development of its relations with South East Asia by developing with Vietnam a mature and productive relationship. Eight years ago Indo-China emerged from over three decades of conflict into what was hoped would be a period of post-war reconstruction and recovery. Many Australians breathed a sigh of relief; although the expected post-war period would not be easy, and although the installation of communist regimes in all Indo-Chinese capitals was a result which few found desirable, peace would have to be better than the decades of conflict that had preceded it. The ASEAN countries also made it clear that they were prepared to work for a constructive and stable relationship with the three Indo-Chinese states. Yet by 1979 many of these hopes were dashed. Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge had turned Cambodia into a wasteland. In addition to the Khmer Rouge reign of terror within Cambodia, the regime's aggressive actions against Vietnam had revived fears of Pol Pot's regional aspirations. The consequent Vietnamese armed intervention had touched off a series of population movements that brought a refugee flood right to Thailand's borders. Perhaps even more than 1975, 1979 was a critical year in South East Asian affairs. The very survival of the Cambodian nation seemed to be in danger; Thailand's security appeared threatened; Vietnam's armed forces responded to provocative actions across its borders by openly intervening in Pol Pot's Cambodia, where they remain to this day; and hostilities occurred on the Chinese -Vietnamese border. The results were hard for outsiders to assimilate. Even now, four years later, the issues not only remain unresolved but have led to a new form of stalemate in Indo-China which offers further risks of instability and of great power involvement in the region. There are many aspects of the events of 1979 which Australia cannot accept. Vietnamese forces invaded another country in an action which, although presented in terms of crusade to save the Cambodians from Pol Pot, also followed sustained attacks by the Pol Pot regime into Vietnamese territory and realised Vietnamese security objectives at the expense of the independent status of Cambodia. The continued presence of Vietnam's forces in Cambodia is unacceptable. The heightened tensions on the Chinese-Vietnamese border, which have continued, are also a regrettable cause of instability. On Thailand's border with Cambodia over 200,000 Khmer civilians are caught in a refugee situation which bears many signs of perpetuating itself. Finally, and perhaps most ominously, the new situation has brought an intensification of relations between the Soviet Union and Vietnam which can only work to the disadvantage of all of us in the region. The Soviet presence and Soviet ambitions not only serve to focus great power rivalry in the area but leaves Vietnam almost exclusively dependent on its Soviet benefactor. Since 1979, we have thus been faced with a series of problems in South East Asia considerably more menacing and intractable than those we faced in 1975. Looking for a way to resolve these problems, we are faced with a multitude of proposals. There are two-among many-conventional schools of thought. The first would urge the acceptance, however reluctant, of the Vietnamese presence in Cambodia and the Heng Samrin regime as an inescapable reality. The second, outraged by Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia in 1979, would advocate continued economic, political and military pressure on Vietnam through support for the Cambodian coalition which includes Pol Pot. Immediate practical considerations can be seen as giving some validity to both of these schools of thought: ASEAN has the strength and unity to stand behind Thailand and the Cambodian coalition in their resistance to Vietnam; while on the other hand Vietnam can take comfort from the fact that the situation on the ground in Cambodia is largely in its favour, despite resistence to its occupation especially in the border areas. But other realities remain. A sizeable refugee concentration exists on the Thai-Cambodian border; while inside Cambodia the brutality of the Pol Pot forces has not been forgotten. This perpetuates a situation which prevents the Khmer people from addressing the task of reviving their economy, restoring their food production and finding again their identity as a people. In those divisive circumstances Soviet influence in the area can only increase, particularly given Vietnam's massive reliance on Soviet assistance to maintain its military effort. Moreover, in terms of people, a new generation of Soviet trained and influenced officials, teachers and experts is coming to the fore. In Cambodia the Khmer people will increasingly have only Vietnam and the Eastern bloc to which to turn. And Vietnam's horizons will be narrowed even further by the lack of any access to the rest of the world for economic, educational and other support. With all of these considerations in mind it seems clear to us that what must be pursued is a comprehensive Cambodian solution based on: the acceptance by Vietnam of an appropriate accommodation with its neighbours; phased withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia matched by an effective arrangement to prevent Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces going back into Cambodia; an act of self-determination for Cambodia; the creation of conditions for the peaceful return of displaced Cambodians to Cambodia; the acceptance by all parties that Cambodia is neutral, independent and non-aligned; and the restoration of normal relations on the part of Vietnam with China, ASEAN and the West. In seeking to achieve this I remind Honourable Senators again of the very similar words of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Street, which I endorse and which are an essential pre-condition to any arrangements which have a chance of being accepted by the parties principal to the whole issue, and therefore of working. He said in his address to the International Conference on Kampuchea in July 1981: ''The prerequisites for an acceptable settlement are the withdrawal of foreign forces from Kampuchea; an act of self-determination by the Khmer people; the establishment of conditions which will allow Khmer refugees to return; continued humanitarian assistance to the Khmer people; a guarantee of non-interference in the internal affairs of Kampuchea; and an undertaking that a fully independent Kampuchea will not act against the interests of its neighbours .'' And, as I noted earlier, he also said: ''Australia does not deny that Vietnam has certain legitimate security interests of its own. However, that is no justification for their invasion of a neighbouring country. Even so, we do not insist on an immediate withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Kampuchea. A phased withdrawal would avoid the creation of a power vacuum which could result in a return to power of the Pol Pot regime.'' I have said on innumerable occasions this year that I have no magic solution. I do not delude myself that the situation is other than extremely complex. The policies pursued by the main parties to the Indo-China situation were firmly fixed in reaction to the events of 1978/79. Given the cataclysmic events of that year, it is not surprising that positions of principle have been firmly set up. Countries are entitled to preserve their principles. What can change are the modalities by which they are implemented. Many Western politicians preached during the fifties and the sixties that it would be capitulation to go against the West's principles by recognising China. By 1970 however it had become clear that Western countries did not have to capitulate to set up sound and mature relations with China. A veil was lifted once countries realised they could talk to each other. In relation to Indo-China, I do not say that the situation is analogous. Indeed it is a good deal too complex to be approached in terms of the simplistic misapprehensions and misunderstandings of the cold war period. Relations between China, Vietnam, the ASEAN countries and the West at large are firmly interlocked with global issues including the many levels of the Sino/Soviet dispute. In urging on the parties some re-assessment of positions, some readiness to explore dialogue, Australia is playing a sober and responsible role as a member of the South East Asian region. We are not without credentials on the issue. We are firmly committed to the series of United Nations General Assembly resolutions on the situation in Cambodia which have been proposed by the ASEAN countries, including this year's resolution, which we voted for on 27 October following a statement in the debate on the situation in which we explained our attitude to the resolution. Our firm support for the ASEAN position flows from the congruency of the principles on which it is based and the principles we advocate in pursuit of a Cambodia solution. In seeking to facilitate dialogue between the parties, Australia is not lining up against old friends or playing one side off against another. In speaking to Vietnam, for example, I have been aided by our treaty links with the United States, our close and friendly ties with ASEAN, and our warm and increasingly important relationship with China. I have taken no steps that will detract from these links. Indeed Vietnam in its response has offered the view that our role is enhanced by our ability to talk freely to all parties to the Indo-China problem, including its adversaries. I would not wish to give the impression that there is anything revolutionary in this approach. The new element Australia contributes is that it is a close neighbour of the South East Asian countries and that its links with its existing friends are extremely close. They will remain so. I am conscious that it will sometimes require a degree of tolerance from these old friends when we say things they may not always agree with. But recent weeks have demonstrated that we have developed the habit of talking freely to each other and doing so directly. I am confident it will be appreciated that broader links will not evolve at the expense of existing friendships which are valued highly by this Government, as by its predecessors. Moreover I hope it will be accepted that Australia has developed its own foreign policy perceptions. We may be a young nation and one which has only since the Second World War accepted the task of developing its own relations with the world. It should now be clear, however, that we no longer feel the need to borrow our foreign policy perceptions, that we make up our own mind, read the evidence ourselves and listen carefully to perceptions which have evolved in our own community. Australia's earlier attitudes to Indo-China and its 1965 to 1973 military involvement did not provide a basis for a continuing and realistic policy. Since 1975 not only the opponents of Australia's involvement in Vietnam, but also those who supported it, have had to build on the new reality in Indo-China. The fundamental continuing basis for our approach has been the ALP's policy before 1975 of recognising the strength of the desire for independence on the part of all the countries of Indo-China. As in the case of our relations with China, the Labor Party alone has developed the seeds of a realistic policy approach. What in 1965 was heresy, in 1983 has become commonplace. Not all the events since 1975 have been to our liking, but there are some lessons to be learnt from the disasters of 1945 to 1975, particularly about the dangers of outside involvement . It is a matter for grave concern to Australia and its regional neighbours that similar risks exist again today. Since 1975 the Indo-China situation has also brought another great reality to Australian minds, one which may take even longer to absorb than the communist victories in Indo-China: the arrival in Australia, including direct boat arrival , of sizeable Indo-Chinese community. I would like to address those who have left their homelands in Indo-China and are now settled in Australia. I understand the fears and experiences which brought about their departure and which must be expected to colour their attitude towards their homelands and particularly to the government in Hanoi. I know that they are conscious of the proud nationalist tradition of their homeland and do not want to let that be forgotten in the free and tolerant atmosphere of this continent. The changes since 1975 in their homeland have clearly not been to their liking and the policies of the Australian Government in reacting to those changes may not always meet with their approval. It is, however, realistic to accept that many different points of view co-exist ; and we cannot cut ourselves off from Vietnam because its government does not act in the way we would want it to. Moreover, having relations with Vietnam and building up those relations does not mean approval for all of its actions, such as its policy on human rights. But the broader interests the Government must look to is in maintaining and indeed widening contact with Vietnam so that its government is susceptible to outside opinion including respect for the feelings of former Vietnamese citizens and their desire to have their families united in their new homelands. In the end, it is only through more productive relations based on mutual respect that we can ensure that we are listened to responsively when we press our points of view with Hanoi. For this reason I do not accept any policy of isolation and punishment of Vietnam. This substitutes a policy of frustration for one of positive action. Furthermore, punishing Vietnam simply doesn't work. We are all victims of the misconceived practices which have marked the West's dealings with Vietnam from 1945 until now. The Vietnamese, as a proud and resilient people, want to be treated with dignity and will only deal on that basis. This we will do without in the process sanctioning their Government's errors or overlooking its excesses . I ask the Vietnamese community to understand this process, and to see it as part of the way in which a pluralist Australia must seek to look after the interests of all its citizens. I do not accept that the present regime in Phnom Penh is any guarantee of Khmer survival. It is too clearly a regime dependent on Vietnam; the government itself and its administrative apparatus is too fragile; too much of the talent which should be at its disposal is dead, politically alienated, or has fled the country; and the political basis of the regime is too narrowly founded on a simple fear of Pol Pot's return. Australia will give what reasonable assistance it can to the Khmer in ways that will help them to get on their feet economically and to revive their agriculture. Sadly, however, they are far from that goal. This is the tragic kernel of the Cambodian and indeed the Indo- Chinese problem. We will use our ingenuity to address it but will not, in the process, sanction the regime of Heng Samrin. This Government, as did its predecessor, has made it clear that it will not take any action which could be seen as recognising the claims to legitimacy of the Khmer Rouge, the major part of the coalition resistance. We cannot support any strategy based on the Pol Pot forces, whose ruthlessness and disregard for democratic values and human rights are virtually unrivalled. I see much to admire in the nationalist aspirations of the non-Communist Khmer leaders, Prince Sihanouk and Mr Son Sann, and respect their role in servicing as rallying points for Khmer opinion, but it is regrettable that they have locked themselves into a military situation which relies on, and can only be sustained by, the co- operation of the Khmer Rouge. I intend to maintain my contacts with the principal parties to the dispute. I have had frequent discussions with the ASEAN Foreign Ministers as well as talks with the governments of Vietnam, Laos and China. I continued these contacts in New York during this year's UN General Assembly session. During November the Prime Minister and I visited Bangkok for talks with Thailand's leaders, who welcomed our productive role in the region and agreed that Australia and Thailand share the same objectives. In New Delhi at the CHOGM meeting the Prime Minister discussed aspects of the Cambodian problem which are important to both ASEAN and Australia with the Malaysian and Singaporean delegation leaders, while I visited Indonesia for discussions with the Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, in which we agreed to maintain the closest possible consultation on Indo-China. The Vietnamese Foreign Minister, Mr Thach, will be visiting Australia in March 1984 and I shall follow up with him then the questions we have pursued in our earlier sessions. We have kept in close touch on this issue with the American administration and Secretary of State Shultz has commended the role I have sought to play. We shall continue to take other opportunities to pursue a solution of the Cambodian problem, such as the discussions which will occur during the Prime Minister's forthcoming visits to China and the North Asia region. I have spoken at some length on Australia's policies in this important area because I welcome the product of the 1981 Joint Committee's work, particularly as many of its recommendations are valid today. This Government has sought to pull together these thoughts and the many other threads into a consistent policy ; not one that seeks spectacular or foolhardy results but one that recognises that much patience is required. The Government is aware of the need for a great deal of careful talking, and is prepared to face the likelihood of many discouragements and ultimately, perhaps, the prospect of a continued bleak stalemate. We do however have an obligation to try and, in the process, to stake some of our national imagination on the development of an intelligent and broad perspective regarding the future of South East Asia. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —On behalf of the President, in accordance with the usual practice, I table a list of parliamentary committee reports to which the Government has not responded within the prescribed period. The list has been circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, the report will be incorporated in Hansard. The report read as follows- 1. Australian Capital Territory, Joint Committee-Retail Trading Hours in the A. C.T. Tabled 21 October 1982 Proposals to Variations of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs. Tabled 25 August 1983 2. Constitutional and Legal Affairs, Senate Standing Committee-Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings. Tabled 25 November 1982 Constitutional Qualifications of Members of Parliament. Tabled 2 June 1981 Interim Response 24 August 1983. 3. Education and the Arts, Senate Standing Committee Tenure of Employment of Academics. Tabled 9 September 1982 4. Finance and Government Operations, Senate Standing Committee-Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth: Fifth Report Tabled 16 September 1982 Report on Certain Annual Reports November 1981. Tabled 26 November 1981 5. Foreign Affairs and Defence, Senate Standing Committee Indochinese Refugee Resettlement-Australia's Involvement. Tabled 16 February 1982 6. Government Clothing and Ordnance Factories, Senate Select Committee-Future of the Government Clothing Factory at Coburg. Tabled 14 October 1982 7. Industrial Relations Legislation, Senate Select Committee. Report Tabled 26 October 1982 8. National Resources, Senate Standing Committee-Development of the Bauxite, Alumina and Aluminium Industries. Tabled 25 November 1981 Commonwealth's Role in Rural Research and Extension. Tabled 30 November 1982 9. Passenger Fares and Services to and from Tasmania-Senate Select Committee. Report Tabled 18 August 1981 Interim Response 1 December 1983 10. Social Welfare, Senate Standing Committee-Another side of the Drug Debate-a medicated society? Tabled 14 May 1981 Homeless Youth. Tabled 17 August 1982 11. South-West Tasmania-Demand and Supply of Electricity for South-West Tasmania, Senate Select Committee-Report. Tabled 23 November 1982 12. Trade and Commerce, Senate Standing Committee-Development of the Australian Fishing Industry. Tabled 21 April 1983 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.28) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to increase the size of membership of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts from ten to fifteen. The need to increase the size was initially raised with the Government by Senator Georges, Chairman of the Committee, and it is supported by the Government. The Committee's role has been expanded in recent years and has resulted in an increased workload, especially in its examination of the financial affairs of statutory and other government bodies and its examination of reports made to Parliament by the Auditor-General. Over the years, however, no provision has been made for an increase in the size of membership of the committee and in fact its numbers have not been varied since 1951. The Committee's program is large and deals with complex issues. An increase in membership would allow the establishment of an extra sectional committee, which would enable the Committee to keep pace with reports made by the Auditor-General and to ensure continuing proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill also provides for adjustments in the composition of the membership. Five members are to be appointed by the Senate and ten members are to be appointed by the House of Representatives, reflecting the relative size of each House. In addition, the quorum requirement will be raised from four to six. The size of sectional committees will not be altered by the proposed amendments. I recommend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a first time. Second Readings Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.29) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- STEEL INDUSTRY AUTHORITY BILL 1983 This Bill is designed to give effect to the Government's decision, announced on 11 August 1983, that a steel industry authority be established to monitor and facilitate implementation of the steel industry plan. The steel industry plan reflects the Government's commitment to the maintenance of a viable and efficient steel industry in Austalia. This industry is strategically and economically important to the Australian economy. Output of the steel industry was valued at more than $5 billion in 1981-82 representing 3.4 per cent of GDP. It is based on the processing of Australia's extensive reserves of iron ore and coal. The products which it makes are the basic material inputs into a large part of Australia's manufacturing industry. The industry is of major significance to the economies of the regional steel making centres. Employment in the industry accounts for approximately one half of the workforce in Whyalla, one third in Wollongong and about one eighth in the Newcastle region . Apart from being an important direct employer of labour within these regions, the industry supports employment and economic activity in a wide range of other industries which are suppliers of goods and services directly and indirectly to the iron and steel industry. The Australian steel industry, like many others throughout the world, has been in recession for some time. Production, sales, profits and employment in the industry have all fallen dramatically below the levels recorded during the 1970s. Steel production has fallen to approximately 25 per cent below that of recent years and steel employment (by BHP) is 27 per cent below the May 1982 level, representing a loss of around 10,000 jobs. The severe deterioration in the industry's competitive position resulted in BHP 's steel division incurring heavy losses in both 1981-82 and 1982-83. A number of factors can be identified as contributing to the deterioration in the industry's international competitiveness. Falling domestic demand for steel associated with the economic recession resulted in marked production cut-backs and rising unit production costs. In 1982-83 demand fell to around 5.4 million tonnes compared with around 7 million tonnes in 1980-81. Demand has fluctuated in the past, reaching a peak of 7.3 million tonnes in 1973-74, but declining to around 5 million tonnes in 1977- 78. The domestic demand situation was exacerbated by an excess in world steel making capacity leading to a significant increase in import competition and strong price competition which, in turn, placed further pressures on profitability. Whereas in the past, the Australian industry offset the decline in domestic demand by exporting, the severely depressed world market and excess capacity inhibited such exports over the last year or two. Other factors contributing to the industry's loss of competitiveness included a marked decline in labour productivity, sharply increased labour costs and problems with over-manning in the industry. Labour productivity declined significantly between 1980-81 and 1981-82, reversing the trend toward higher productivity during the early to late 1970s. In recent months, there have been signs of a gradual improvement in the industry's situation. Production has picked up from the very low levels recorded in 1982 and early 1983. In fact BHP's steel division operated at a small profit in the first quarter of 1983-84. Employment has stabilised, although still well down on levels of previous years . These signs of recovery are encouraging, but do not remove the need for the kind of support which is to be provided under the plan. An assessment of the industry overseas indicates the likelihood of continuing over-capacity and low demand in the world steel industry, and hence continuing strong competition among steel producers to dispose of their excess output on the world market. Against this background, the provision of no additional long term assistance, as recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission, would have led to a run down in the local industry's activity, resulting in further severe social and economic disruption in the steel regions of Wollongong, Newcastle and Whyalla. The plan is seen by the Government, the industry and the union movement as being essential to reverse the decline in the industry's fortunes, and represents a new approach to industry policy in Australia. It is scheduled to commence on 1 January 1984 and will run for an initial period of five years. Its objective is to restore the long-term viability of the Australian steel industry and to provide job security for its employees, while also providing inputs into a wide range of metal and engineering industries at internationally competitive prices. The key factors in achieving these aims will be cost reductions and quality improvements through new investment in the upgrading of steel making facilities, tighter management, improved productivity, improved work practices, and containment of labour costs and state charges. The plan has been developed as a co-operative effort involving undertakings from all parties with an interest in the development of the industry, including the steel producers, the steel unions and the Commonwealth Government. The relevant State Governments have also been asked to contribute. In deciding upon its contribution to the plan, the Government had the benefit of the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the iron and steel industry and the report of the Steel Industry Advisory Council. The plan seeks to overcome the underlying problems confronting the industry, and its success will depend upon the various undertakings being adhered to. The major assistance provided by the Commonwealth Government under the plan is the payment of bounties of up to $71.6m per annum on the production and domestic sale of certain steel products. Following the introduction of this Bill, I will be introducing two Bills to provide for payment of the bounties. Bounty assistance has the advantage over alternative assistance measures such as tariff quotas as it avoids an adverse price impact on downstream user industries. The bounties will operate on a sliding scale providing for maximum assistance at low production levels and will scale down as production reaches higher levels . In this way the industry will receive assistance when it needs it most. Conversely the Government is not committed to large outlays in times when market conditions are buoyant. The bounties will be complemented by a safety mechanism to which I shall refer later. An effective import watch system and a 'fast track' dumping mechanism for steel products will also be introduced as part of the Commonwealth's contribution to the plan. In addition, imports from developing countries at preferential rates of duty will be subject to quota restrictions, limiting such imports to the average of steel imports from those sources over the five years ending 30 June 1983. The industry has undertaken to provide job security for its workforce at the three major regional steel centres and to introduce an investment program involving expenditure of up to $800 million over a four year period directed at upgrading facilities, reducing production costs, improving productivity, product quality and customer service. The unions' undertakings are in the areas of wages, productivity improvements and dispute settlements. They are contained in an agreement between BHP and the ACTU acting on behalf of the steel unions. The unions agreed that wages for the industry's workforce will be contained within prevailing community standards, consistent with the Prices and Incomes Accord. They undertook not to use the assistance provided under the plan to seek improved wages or conditions. The unions and BHP also agreed to improve productivity with the initial target being to re-establish a productivity level of 250 tonnes per employee per annum in the major steelworks. Initial levels of productivity at other steel industry centres will be established, consistent with their best performance in the past. During the course of the assistance program, progressive increases in productivity will be sought by the company and the unions with the objective being for those increases to be higher than the trend rates in national productivity. Agreement has also been reached to adhere strictly to established grievance settlement procedures and for consultation to be held on changing work modes. All parties agreed that the contributions to the plan and the progress of the plan should be closely monitored. This Bill provides for the establishment of a Steel Industry Authority. The Authority will be an independent body, whose main functions will be to monitor and analyse steel industry matters and where appropriate, conduct inquiries, report and make recommendations to the Minister on such matters. The matters which the Authority will cover include the level of steel industry investment, local production, imports, employment levels, productivity changes, wage settlements, steel prices, standards of product quality and customer service, levels of State Government taxes and charges, assistance provided and to be provided to the steel industry, and any other matters relating to the Australian steel industry, which may be referred to it by the Minister. The establishment of the Authority will allow the Government to receive timely but comprehensive reports on a regular basis on all aspects of the industry's operations and on the success of the plan in achieving the Government's policy objectives for the industry. The Bill allows the Authority to inform itself in such manner as it thinks fit. The Government's intention is that the Authority be in a position to react quickly to changing circumstances to provide advice to the Government, pursuant to the safety mechanism provisions of the plan. The safety mechanism provides for a review of the assistance arrangements whenever the local industry's market share in any of eight designated product categories falls below eighty per cent or rises above ninety per cent over any period of three months. The Bill further provides that the Authority continuously monitor imports and, in the event of a sustained increase in any of the areas not covered by the designated safety mechanism categories, report to the Minister on the need for changes in assistance or other appropriate action. In this connection, the Bill provides that for the duration of the plan, the Government will be able to vary assistance to the steel industry following a report by the Authority. I would point out, however, that the sending of references to the Temporary Assistance Authority or the Industries Assistance Commission on the steel industry or particular steel products during the period of operation of the plan is not precluded by the provisions of this Bill. The Authority will develop and maintain links with all parties involved with the steel industry, including local producers, unions, importers and users. It will develop a data file on the industry. These links will afford each of the parties ample opportunity to present information and views to the authority. Similarly the authority will be able to check out the various claims put to it, with other interested parties. Thus the authority will be well placed to identify changing circumstances, to analyse their significance and to react promptly. This prompt reaction is an essential feature of the safety mechanisms included in the plan. In many instances the authority will need do no more than seek comments from the parties as it will already be in possession of the relevant facts. However, over the period of the steel industry plan, matters may arise which properly should be the subject of public inquiry. Accordingly, the Bill empowers the authority to conduct public inquiries and contains the appropriate provisions for the conduct of such inquiries. The Bill provides that the authority report regularly to the Minister on its operations. Where those reports contain recommendations on the respective contributions to the plan those reports will be publicly released at the time that the Government's decision on those matters is announced. The authority will also be required to present an annual report to the Minister who will be required to present the report to the parliament. It is proposed that the authority consist of three part-time members, each appointed by the Governor-General with one member to be appointed as Chairman. A secretariat located within the department of Industry and Commerce will service the authority. The cost of the operations of the authority, including remuneration of members and salaries for secretariat staff is estimated at $188,000 in 1983-84 and $293, 000 in each of the two succeeding years. Although, no direct revenue will result from the operation of the authority, the Government believes that the real benefits will be the improvement in the long term viability of the Australian steel industry. The Steel Industry Authority is considered by the Government to be essential to the effective implementation of the steel industry plan and its overall successful operations. I commend the Bill to the Senate. BOUNTY (STEEL MILL PRODUCTS) BILL 1983 This Bill is the second of three Bills designed to give effect to the Government's decision, announced on 11 August 1983, to provide an assistance program for the Australian Steel Industry under the Steel Industry Plan. The Government's policy for the steel industry and details of the Steel Industry Plan were outlined in my second reading speech introducing the Steel Industry Authority Bill 1983. This Bill forms part of the bounty package to be provided under the plan. The bounties in the Bill are intended to assist the production of certain quenched and tempered steel plate, certain steel pipe and tube, and certain cold rolled steel sheet products. Bounty payments will be made to the producers of these products on the basis of a percentage of the sales value of prescribed hot rolled steel strip and plate used as inputs in bountiable production. The bounties will operate on a sliding scale providing for maximum assistance to be given at low production levels. This will provide assistance when producers most need it, and avoid large government outlays in times of buoyant market conditions. The bounties will assist the Australian industry in those areas which have recently been most vulnerable to import competition and the benefits will also flow back to Australian producers of the prescribed types of hot rolled steel strip and plate. Bounty will be paid on quenched and tempered steel plate as a percentage of the value of the prescribed plate feed used during a quarter in production of those products. The maximum bounty rate of 20 per cent will be paid where the annualised industry use of the prescribed plate feed, calculated for a quarter, is 5 000 tonnes or less. The bounty rate will be progressively reduced as industry ouput increases. No bounty is payable where the annualised industry use during a quarter is in excess of 8 800 tonnes. Bounty will also be payable on steel pipe and tube as a percentage of the value of the prescribed plate and strip used during a quarter in production of the products. The maximum bounty rate of 17 per cent will be paid where the annualised industry tonnage of the prescribed plate and strip, calculated for the quarter, is 350 000 tonnes or less. This bounty will be progressively reduced as industry output increases. No bounty is payable where the annualised industry use during a quarter is in excess of 500 000 tonnes. Finally, bounty will be payable on cold rolled steel sheet as a percentage of the value of the prescribed strip used during a quarter in production of the products. The maximum bounty rate will be paid where the annualised industry tonnage of the prescribed strip, calculated for a quarter is 700 000 tonnes or less. This bounty will also be progressively reduced as industry output increases. No bounty is payable where the annualised industry used during a quarter is in excess of 900 000 tonnes. The applicable bounty rates are set out in the schedules to the Bill. The bounty schemes under the steel industry plan will commence on 1 January 1984 and will run for a period of five years. It is proposed that at the end of the fourth year a review will be undertaken and a decision made on whether the plan should be extended. The amount of bounty is to be limited in the first year of the steel industry plan to $600,000 in respect of quenched and tempered plate, $22 million in respect of pipe and tube and $40 million in respect of cold rolled sheet. These limits will be adjusted in later years in accordance with movements in domestic steel prices under the plan. However, the actual amount of bounty payable in any year will depend upon the level of activity in the domestic industry. In view of recent increases in efficiency and activity in the industry, it is likely that the maximum available amount of bounty will not be utilised in the first year of its operation. I commend the Bill to the Senate. BOUNTY (HIGH ALLOY STEEL PRODUCTS) BILL 1983 This Bill is the third of three Bills designed to give effect to the government 's decision announced on 11 August 1983 to provide an assistance program for the Australian Steel Industry under the steel industry plan. The Bounty (Steel Products) Act 1983 currently provides for bounty assistance on a range of high alloy bar products and stainless steel flat products during the period 1 January 1983 to 31 December 1983. This assistance has taken the form of a bounty of five per cent of the price paid or payable for bountiable products produced and sold in Australia, to a maximum limit of bounty payments of $3 million. This Bill will provide for the continuation of the payment of bounty on these products from 1 January 1984 to 31 December 1988, but on a sliding scale with the bounty rate varying according to the industry annual rate of domestic sales of eligible product. The bounty rate will be set according to the annualised industry volume of sales for the quarter during which the product is sold for use in Australia. A maximum bounty rate of 20 per cent will be payable where the annualised rate of sales of the products is less than 20 000 tonnes. The bounty rate will then be progressively reduced as industry output increases. No bounty is payable where the annualised industry sales are in excess of 39 000 tonnes. The applicable bounty rates are set out in the schedule to this Bill. The sliding scale arrangement for bounty payments proposed by this Bill provides for maximum assistance to be given at low production levels when producers most need it, while avoiding large government outlays in times of buoyant market conditions. The maximum cost of the bounty as proposed by this Bill is expected to be $9 million in 1984. This annual ceiling will be adjusted in later years in accordance with movements in domestic steel prices under the plan. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —I inform the Senate that the President has received the following message from the House of Representatives: Message No. 175 Mr President, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate a copy of a Message from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending amendments in the Bill intituled 'A Bill for an Act to amend the 'Taxation Administration Act 1953' ', together with a copy of the said Bill as forwarded by the Speaker to the Governor-General for Assent, and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has agreed to the amendments recommended by His Excellency the Governor-General in this Bill, with which it desires the concurrence of the Senate. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That the message be considered forthwith in the Committee of the Whole. (Quorum formed) Motion (by Sentor Ryan) agreed to: That the amendments recommended by His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to. Resolution reported; report adopted. Consideration resumed from 7 December 1983. Proposed new clause 28A. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.34) —When the Committee adjourned last night we were in a state of considerable confusion because of the number of variations and switches which were occurring. Of course it is very difficult at the Committee stage to attempt to draft and redraft the provisions of a Bill. At the end of the debate last night-I want to comment on this-Senator Durack spoke on this matter. At first he said that he believed that the long title of the Bill should be used. I generally agree with that, although I suggest in my amendment that one word should be added to it. Then Senator Durack-I could not understand why-proceeded to adopt a completely different course and that was to recommend the Lewis amendment which, of course, goes away from the long title and refers to three and four years and six and eight years. Senator Durack —The reason I did that, Senator, was that we lost that argument. Senator MISSEN —No, that argument has not been lost. The argument for the long title is still there. In fact, my amendment seeks to add one word to it. Senator Durack —The Committee voted against my amendment to achieve that purpose . Senator MISSEN —It voted on the honourable senator's earlier amendment but it has not voted on the other amendments which were put forward. In fact, it is now , therefore, quite relevant to consider what should be done. Senator Lewis's amendment, of course, goes away from the long title and I shall show in a moment that it is in fact inaccurate and cannot be sustained. Senator Harradine had originally put down an amendment in favour of the period set out in the long title. He agreed in his speech that the word which my amendment seeks to add is accurate and necessary. However, he then seized on Senator Lewis 's amendment. I can understand why he did this. He has made it very clear that he desires to argue strongly against the referendum proposals. He thinks that the reference to six and eight years in the question that will be put before the public will no doubt improve the situation. He quite fairly points out that if the Opposition's amendments are defeated we will be left only with a reference to three to four years and that will be a very useful red herring to throw against the Government with the suggestion that the wording is unfair and does not disclose the consquences for the Senate. I think there is validity in that argument. As I said, Senator Harradine abandoned his own amendment and his original support of mine and went with Senator Lewis's amendment. I have thought about this matter overnight and I believe it must be realised that Senator Lewis's amendment is inaccurate. Although I think it would be quite reasonable to include the proposal that the maximum life of the House of Representatives be from three to four years it is not accurate to say 'to extend the maximum term of senators from six to eight years'. If we look at the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1983 we realise that actually the extension of the term of the Senate depends on the defeat of that first proposition-that of simultaneous elections-because if the first proposition is carried the term of the Senate will not be six to eight years-it will be two terms of the House of Representatives. That is altogether a different thing. The period could be considerably less than six to eight years. One understands why the Government does not want to refer to six to eight years. It would be inaccurate to do that. However, to leave out any reference to the extension of the period would be, likewise, open up the use of the 'red herring' . In attracting the proposal, I warn the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) about this. This red herring will no doubt be used. Of course, every opportunity will be taken to bombard constituents with information. Unquestionably, in this proposition the six to eight years Senate term is the weakness and the penalty one pays for getting a House of Representatives term of four years. The six to eight years proposition obviously will not be as popular compared to the three to four years Parliament. I stand firmly behind the amendment I foreshadowed last night because I believe it is accurate. The Attorney-General said he wanted exact statements, not general statements, in these questions. I put it to him that, in regard to the six to eight years Senate term, there must be reference to the extension of the term of senators. But one cannot refer to it unless one has an essay set out in the question before the voter explaining how, if one thing happens the term will be six to eight years and if something else happens, the Senate term will be two terms of the House of Representatives. Therefore, to refer in the question, as I have done, 'to extending the maximum duration of the House of Representatives and the terms of service of senators' is accurate. It is as accurate as we can get. I agree that the words 'three to four years' could be included. On the other hand, to refer to a precise figure in regard to the term of senators would be quite inaccurate and would presuppose the defeat of the first proposition. Of course, what we have here is an attempt by certain dissident senators who are desirous of opposing what their parties have decided in regard to the referendum , and therefore campaigning against those views. Because they want to have in the questions-- Senator Lewis —Ha, ha! Senator MISSEN —They may laugh on the other side of their faces after 25 February. There will be a great attempt to obfuscate and confuse the electors, to bring into the debate any red herrings that can be raised. So the questions should be made quite clear. They should not be of such a nature as to be confusing, either by leaving out something altogether or putting in something that is so definite that it is inaccurate. Therefore, I strongly urge the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter. I believe that he brushed aside my proposed amendment but I put it to him that that represents a fair situation. That which is proposed by Senator Lewis and now by Senator Harradine is not correct. What the Government was proposing, just to refer to a change from three years to four years, will be taken by people as not representing an adequate display of the whole effect of this particular Bill. Therefore, I urge the Government and honourable senators generally to be careful not to allow these questions to be so manipulated as to give unfair support to some aspect of the particular proposition. The CHAIRMAN —Before we go further, I should make clear what the Committee is doing. We are considering proposed new clause 28A, which contains the Attorney- General's amendment No. (10)-to which a number of amendments have been moved in regard to the forms annexure. We have dealt already with the proposed amendments to the simultaneous elections definition. We are now dealing with the proposed amendments in respect of parliamentary terms. One amendment has been moved by Senator Lewis. Two others, by Senators Missen and Harradine, have been foreshadowed. I will call on them if the first amendment fails. The amendment moved by Senator Lewis is now before the Committee. I call Senator Lewis. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.43) —First let me respond to Senator Missen's comments about certain senators not doing what their party has decided to do in this matter. For Senator Missen, of all people in this place, to be making such an allegation is utterly incomprehensible. Of all the senators on this side of the chamber who have constantly crossed the floor-- Senator Missen —That is untrue-- Senator LEWIS —He has done so when we were in government, against the wishes of the government of the day, and when we have been in opposition, against the wishes of the parties in opposition. For Senator Missen to be making this allegation is absolutely beyond me. Senator Missen —You know that that is untrue. Senator LEWIS —He is now alleging it to be untrue but we can show him, from the Journals of the Senate, that time after time he has voted against everyone else in his own Party. Senator Walters —Even to gag us. Senator LEWIS —Indeed, as Senator Walters has said, even to gag us on occasions. He has joined the Democrats and the Labor Party in order to gag his own colleagues. For Senator Missen to be making such allegations in a debate of this nature is absolutely beyond me. Let me go on to say that it is quite clear that around Australia Liberal Party and National Party organisations have decided that they are going to work against these proposals. It is not clear, as Senator Missen would know, where the Liberal Party in any State of the Commonwealth stands in this matter. It is about time he kept his mouth quiet instead of making such allegations against me and the rest of his colleagues, because we will certainly blow them up. Having got myself worked up about that, let me turn back to the proposals. The truth is that there are attempts here really to conceal or obscure from the people of Australia the true purpose of this proposal. The Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, last night conceded that there was need for some sort of hiding from the people of the true meaning of these constitutional questions by saying 'Well, the psychology has to be right. We have to phrase the question in a particular way'. What does he mean by all that? It is clear what he means by that. He means that we dare not tell the people that what will happen is that members of the House of Representatives will get a four-year term as a result of this measure and senators will be elected for an eight-year term as a result of this measure because the people will not be happy about that. They will not like seeing that because they are unhappy about politicians. They have a latent insipient dislike of politicians. The plan then is to confuse the people by talking about extending the term of parliament. I suggest to the Senate that that frankly is just an act of dissimulation. By talking about the term of parliament, it is hoped that in some way or other the people will not realise that that will mean extending the terms of service of politicians. The important point about the proposal to alter the Constitution to extend the duration of the House of Representatives and the terms of the senators is that the question posed by the Government is quite clearly designed to deceive. It is clear by the number of proposed government amendments that there is great concern. The question posed by the Government proposes to extend the maximum life of parliaments from three to four years. I suggest that there is no doubt that that is designed to obscure from the people the inevitable result that members of the House or Representatives will have a maximum term of four years or, as Senator Harradine says, it could be a term of four years plus 120 days and that the fixed terms of senators would go from six to eight years. That is what the Bill says. Senator Missen said that what I am saying is inaccurate but that is what the Bill says. The Bill also has another qualifying section that, in the event of another thing happening with the referendum proposal, a different result would occur in relation to senators so that instead of having an eight year term they would hold office for a period equal to two terms of the House of Representatives. But the fact of the matter is that the Bill provides for terms of senators to go from six to eight years. Unless the Government wishes to extend the question to become a book I suggest to the Government that the proposition I have put fairly places before the people the facts which they ought to be aware of in order to make a decision on this question. I turn to the next proposal. If my proposed amendment fails for one reason or another, certainly I would support Senator Harradine's proposal. At least that places a greater degree of explanation before the people. Senator Harradine apparently is concerned about the possibility of the term being four years plus 120 days. I suggest to him that that is insignificant and that a term of four years adequately covers a possibility of four years plus 120 days. However, if he experiences some difficulty with that and if my amendment is lost I would certainly fall back on and would accept his proposal 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. I can see merit in Senator Harradine's proposal, especially in the way he has phrased the question with regard to senators. I point out that if Senator Harradine's proposal also fails to achieve acceptance in the Senate I would fall back on Senator Missen's proposals because I acknowledge that Senator Missen's proposal is certainly a lot better than the Government's proposal. Senator Walters —It does not mention the years that they may serve. Senator LEWIS —Senator Walters is right. She said that it does not mention the years that they may serve but at least Senator Missen's proposal does talk about the terms of service of senators whereas the Government's proposal does not make any reference to the terms of service of senators at all. In fact it talks about some other, I suggest, dissimulation by talking about the term of the life of the parliament as though it is some marvellous thing that the people of Australia could grasp with both hands. At the same time the people would not understand that they would be giving to those politicians whom they dislike so much a term of service of four years or eight years and fixing up the Parliament in some way. I suggest to the Senate that the way in which the amendments are proposed-they are referred to as forms 1, 2 and 3-is the order in which, to my mind, they carry merit. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.50) — Last night I asked Senator Chipp whether he believed that people, when they read the description put forward by the Government that the term of the Parliament be extended from three to four years, would think of a Senate term of eight years. Senator Chipp acknowledged that people would not automatically think from such a description that the senators they elect would have an eight-year term. It does not matter how the elected senators perform or how they work. Senator Coleman —They do not know that we are here for six years now. Senator WALTERS —That is a ridiculous statement. How far does the honourable senator want to extend the term? We are here for six years and I think six years is a long term for the people of Australia to elect senators. Senator Lewis —Senator Coleman says that the people do not know that they give us a term of six years. Senator WALTERS —They do not know that they give us a term of six years, but if we intend to extend it to eight years people should realise that. It is absolutely ridiculous for the people of Australia to be hoodwinked by not being told. I ask what Senator Evans is frightened of. Is he really frightened to put on the ballot paper that senators are to be elected for a term of eight years? He knows darn well that the people of Australia would not agree to that. So he is not putting it on the ballot paper. I am disappointed that Senator Chipp, having acknowledged that the proposed wording on the ballot paper does not clearly tell people that the term of senators will be extended from six to eight years, will not join us and vote for our amendment. I think we on this side have agreed now to Senator Harradine's amendment, or a combination of it with Senator Lewis's amendment. I do not mind about the precise detail, so long as the eight- year-term for senators is mentioned. I think it is imperative, honest and just for the people of Australia to be told that they are electing senators for eight years. I am willing to come to any compromise to include that eight years on the ballot paper. I ask again why the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, who has been, in my opinion, underhanded in all the matters concerning the referendum, will not come across and put in the description in the Bill the fact that the Senate' s term will be extended to eight years. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.54) —I listened carefully to such contributions as there have been to the debate today and, with the exception of a couple of technical points made by Senator Missen, there has been absolutely nothing new said. There was a long debate on this subject matter last night. It looks as though we are settling in for another long debate this morning. The issues have been canvassed in an exhaustive and exhausting fashion. There are obvious problems about getting universal acceptance for any particular formula which is of less length than that of an essay. The Government, having listened to all the arguments, proposes to stick exactly where it began with the simple, straightforward and non-deceptive proposal in terms of increasing the life of the parliaments. The essence of the particular referendum proposal is about extending the life of the Parliament, the life of the Government. That is the attraction of the proposal. That is what appealed to the majority of representatives at the Constitutional Convention which considered this matter. This is the way the matter has been argued in this place and the basis on which it attracted the support of the major parties in this Parliament. Everything else is incidental to that proposal to extend the life of the Government and the Parliament from three years to four years. It is the case, of course, that senators' terms will be affected by this, but that is incidental; it is not the essence of the proposal. It is not as if the electorate will be confronting this proposition about senators' terms for the first time when they get into the ballot box. I doubt very much whether the No case proponents, on the evidence of debate in this chamber, will be quiescent on that subject matter. Equally, it will be the case that full details of the Yes/No proposals will be put in every letter box in the country. Certainly, the question of extended terms for senators will undoubtedly be addressed in both the Yes and No cases. This will not hit anyone by surprise. What we are simply trying in the formulation of these questions on the ballot paper to ensure is that the average voter whose capacity for absorbing large slabs of written information, particularly when confronted in a ballot box type situation, is limited, will appreciate which proposal it is that he or she is being asked to pass upon and will recognise accordingly what the basic proposal is. It is as simple as that. That has been the argument all the way along. If I thought for a moment, responding to Senator Harradine's remarks last night, that accepting this amendment would ensure that for the remainder of the debate in the referendum campaign we would not be subject on the part of the No case proponents to irrational, emotional argument, to an emotive approach, to allegations of dishonesty on the part of the Government or on the part of those propounding the Yes case, if that were the guarantee, I would be in it like a shot. Of course, the reality of the matter is that the No case proponents will grab at every straw along the way between now and 25 February to disguise the real matters in issue in this campaign, to generate sound, fury and emotion about these issues. Senator Missen —You should take away the opportunity. Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no point in capitulating on an issue on which a sound and defensible stand has been taken. There is no question but that. Looking at the way in which the No case proponents on the opposite silde are lined up smirking at the moment, there is no way whatsoever the Government can capitulate. I know honourable senators opposite well enough to know how this case will be conducted on their side. I know that whatever goes on the ballot paper, the character of the arguments that will be put to the people in the public forums and the media with the help of money from Mr Bjelke-Petersen and Mr Gray will be, regrettably, full of arguments that are tendentious in character and not directed to the real issues involved. There is no guarantee whatsoever that the performance will be any different from that. If there were to be a guarantee, if I were to be given undertakings of that kind, from all honourable senators opposite it might make me think otherwise. But I know honourable senators opposite all too well. I do not incorporate you, Mr Chairman , in that suggestion. So I believe the stance that the Government has taken is perfectly defensible. There is no element of deception about it. I propose to insist upon the language originally proposed. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.58) —If Senator Evans thinks he is placating us in any way, I assure him that he has not succeeded. We on this side are not smirking. We know that he has worked a swiftie. We are attempting to alert the people to exactly what he has done and, boy, will we do that. I assure Senator Evans that we will tell the people that for the very first time in Australia's history this Government has allocated money after the Appropriation Bills were passed for one side of the case only. That is the sort of Australian Labor Party democratic system we have in Australia. We will also tell the people that for the first time in Australia's history this Government has changed the ballot paper. It snuck in the change, by attempting to put it in regulations which it would not table. That is the first time that a government has attempted to distort matters in this way. Other governments that have run referendums have at least conducted them honestly. But this Government has made no attempt to do it in an honest fashion. It was extremely interesting that Senator Evans said-and I should like the Australian Democrats to listen to this bit-that it would not be the first that the people of Australia have heard about it. He said that we do not need to put in the eight years because there will be a lot of publicity, all the letter- boxing will have been done, the people will know about it, it will not come as a surprise, and there is no need to put it as eight years. That completely undermines his original proposal that there should be a description of each Bill . He said that they need the description of the Bill. Indeed, Senator Chipp said that a description of the Bill is necessary because the people will not know what it is all about. When I pointed out to Senator Chipp that it would be in their letterboxes, he said: 'Who is going to read it?' Now we have Senator Gareth Evans saying: 'This is not coming to the people as a surprise. They will have it in their letterboxes. They will all have read it. There will be a lot of advertising'. He is taking up the exact point that I made. We do not need a description. We do not need the ballot paper to be altered. We need the long title of the Bill only. But he has decided to add a description. He said originally: 'People do not understand it. They will not read the stuff in their letter-boxes. They will not understand the advertising being put across. So we will put a description on the ballot paper'. He cannot have it both ways. Either the people read the stuff in the ballot box or they rely on the description of the Bill. I ask Senator Evans to reply to that criticism that I am making of the speeches that he has made in this place on this issue. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.02) — A couple of things raised in the debate this morning require clarification or answer. Senator Missen's accusation and complaint about Senator Lewis's amendment and my amendment was that it presupposes the defeat of the first proposition. Senator Missen —That is right. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Missen says that that was his situation. The interesting part about it is that the Government's proposal presupposes the support of the first proposition. That is the problem. What we have to address our minds to is a form of words which truly reflects the Bill that has been passed by the Parliament and requires approval of the people. I believe that Senator Lewis's amendment and my amendment, and Senator Missen's amendment, neither presuppose the defeat nor presuppose the support by the people of the first proposition. My difficulty with the situation is that the Government's proposal nominates three to four years. It is quite clear that it is proposing an extension from three years to four years. If it does that, it must then add the extension of terms proposal for the services of senators from six years to eight years. I just do not see why the Government, if it wants plain language, if it says that the title of the Bill, which is essentially what Senator Missen is proposing, is not appropriate and not clear enough for the electorate-and, by inference, both Senator Lewis and I accept that now that Senator Durack's amendment has failed-that will obviously mean that Senator Missen's proposal will fail, because essentially Senator Missen's proposal is the title of the Bill. But the Government has, by its actions, defeated that. So now we are therefore left with Senator Lewis's proposal and my proposal. As mentioned last night, there is just that minor technical problem with Senator Lewis's proposal. Honourable senators would know that the Statute Law ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, No. 39 of 1983, deals with the interpretation of when a member is a member. As I said last night, that could be three years and 120 days. It could be of durations of less than that time, too, for the purposes of remuneration of members of the House of Representatives. We are really talking about the term of the House of Representatives, not the term of members of that House. But as Senator Lewis said, that is only a minor point, and my amendment has simply picked that up. The final point I must raise is that last night the Attorney-General, at the dying stages of the debate, called into question my honesty in- Senator Gareth Evans —Just your arithmetic, not your honesty. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry, my arithmetic-which is often bad, anyhow. He called my arithmetic into question when I indicated that if one were to read the Bill and look at the proposal as is suggested by the Government, one would immediately see that the majority part of the Bill is not referred to in the question; that is, majority by volume. I invite honourable senators to look at the Bill. If I were preparing the No case on this matter, as I am involved in this situation, I would be inclined to just send out the Bill and let the people read it. If they read the Bill they will see that clauses 2 and 3 deal with senators' terms, and that it is only in clause 4 that there are six lines dealing with the duration of the House of Representatives. The rest is dealing with the terms of service of senators and with the interim arrangements for the terms of senators. We have reached the stage at which we are either honest or we are not honest. If we are not honest, we will support the proposal put forward by the Attorney- General. Senator Missen's proposal is doomed to failure, because we have voted on that already. Senator Missen —No, we have not. Senator HARRADINE —Well, we have voted on the principle of the issue, which is to have the title of the Bill- Senator Missen —I have not even moved it yet. Senator HARRADINE —I thought that last night we voted on the proposal by Senator Durack to have the questions in the terms of the title of the Bill. Senator Missen —That general direction. Senator HARRADINE —That has been rejected. Senator Missen's proposal is essentially that. Senator Missen —No; it is only on this one. Senator HARRADINE —Therefore, we come back to Senator Lewis's proposal and my proposal. For the sake of the record, I will vote for Senator Lewis's proposal. If that is defeated, naturally I will vote for mine, but I am not sure which way they will be put. The CHAIRMAN —The only amendment before the Chair at the moment is Senator Lewis 's amendment. If that fails, I will give Senator Missen the opportunity to put his amendment. If that fails, Senator Harradine will be given an opportunity to put his amendment. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.11) —Mr Chairman-- Senator Chipp —Fair go! For goodness sake. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I have not started yet. Senator Chipp should hang on with bated breath. He might learn something. Senator Missen —He has not spoken yet. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is quite right. I have not spoken this morning yet . The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) says that people will understand the Yes case and the No case because of what they read in stuff posted out to them. Senator Georges —They won't read it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Of course they will not read it. There is no prospect of their having the slightest idea of what they are voting for by reading the question. The Attorney-General knows that. It is very presumptuous of him to suggest for a moment how the No case will conduct its campaign, to suggest that there will be-- Senator Giles —Would you like to tell us? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —If I did, I do not think it would influence the honourable senator, quite frankly. Senator Cook —It would be a dirty tricks campaign in Western Australia, that is for sure. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It is so sad for us to see Senator Cook learning so quickly from some of his colleagues. The question that is being put really shows that the Government is being thoroughly dishonest. The Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, knows that the question being put in the words in which it is being presented is not a fair reflection of what is intended. The average person in the community will not understand the implications and ramifications of the question. The Attorney-General knows that. That is why he is spending $1.25m. He said that people are invariably confused by referenda, and he is seeking to confuse them further. He said that the Yes case is always behind the eight ball because people do not understand the question. He is seeking to perpetuate that position. Nobody of normal intelligence reading that question would automatically presume that senators will have a maximum of eight years. That part of the question is as fundamental as the terms of the House of Representatives. Senator Lewis —Or, indeed, even that they would recognise that they might have two terms of the House of Representatives. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Or that the Senate might have two terms of the House of Representatives, whichever is the case. I am opposed to senators having eight- year terms but I support the House of Representatives having four-year terms in the hope that we might have responsible government in respect of economic considerations. If we want four years for the House of Representatives, we are compelled to support eight years for the Senate. But in my view the whole thrust of the Government's style reeks of absolute dishonesty. The question is not a reflection of what is being put. I support Senator Lewis's proposal and, if that fails, I will support Senator Harradine's and Senator Missen's proposals. but it really matters not how I cast my vote. Ultimately, it depends upon the Australian Democrats. I am quite sure that the Democrats recognise that the question being put to extend the maximum life of Parliament from three to four years does not imply that senators will have eight years. I hope that the Democrats, who have declared that they want these questions put to the people, will want them put truthfully, honestly, fairly and accurately and that they will support any one of the three amendments which make reference to the life of the Senate and the length of terms of senators. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.15) —I have just one short matter relating to the honesty and integrity of the Government's proposal which I omitted to mention in the course of my somewhat less than totally temperate contribution to the debate earlier this morning. I just want to put on the record that on the authority of both the red and green 'Bibles' that we employ in this place and the other place, I believe it is perfectly proper for the question on the referendum ballot papers relating to the parliamentary terms proposal to refer to the maximum life of parliaments. On page 163 of Odgers Australian Senate Practice it is stated: The life of a Parliament . . . is regarded as the duration of the House of Representatives for the time being. The same point is made by Pettifer in House of Representatives Practice at page 118 and also at page 243 where it is stated: The Senate . . . does not officially include itself in the description of what constitutes the life of a Parliament. There is a further reference in Odgers but not in Pettifer to the proposition that parliaments are numbered according to the number of the newly elected House of Representatives. That is in a sense stating the obvious. Senator Chipp —You are introducing a whole new debate. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not intending to do that, Senator Chipp. Since integrity and honesty keeps being- Senator Chipp —You will bring another five of them to their feet. Senator GARETH EVANS —That may be so but I think it is important when the integrity of the Government is being impugned, as Senator Chipp would appreciate , at least to put those propositions on the record without any further argument. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.16) — I wish to respond to that argument. We are simply dealing with how we will put a question to the people which embodies the provisions of the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill which has passed. The Bill that has passed talks about the duration of the House of Representatives. We are asking the people whether they agree to section 28 of the Constitution being amended. Section 28 of the Constitution deals specifically with the House of Representatives, not with the Parliament. An interesting question came up to which, I think, Senator Missen adverted. I certainly will do so at this stage. The Government presupposes that the first measure will be adopted, that is to say, that the life of the terms of senators will be for two parliaments. Two times four equals eight. What is wrong with putting eight years in here? Senator Chipp —This is the point I do not follow. I want to follow it. If the simultaneous elections measure is passed, surely if there is a premature House of Representatives election the term of the Senate will not be eight years or four years. Senator HARRADINE —That is right. But that is for the people to decide in respect of the first question, not in respect of this question. People in this chamber, such as Senator Hill, will vote against the first question and vote for the increase in parliamentary terms. So will Senator Crichton-Browne. Senator Missen —But you must read to the end of the Bill to realise that that is affected by the Opposition. Senator HARRADINE —That is correct. The Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill states: If, at or before the commencement of this section, a law to alter the Constitution entitled ''Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1983'' comes into operation, sections 2 and 3 of this Act shall not take effect. But we are proposing to place that option before the people. We will place the first option in the first question, surely to goodness. Let us be clear about this. If the Government is not prepared to do that, what it is really saying is that it does not want four-year parliaments. If it does want four-year parliaments and it is dinkum about giving a guarantee to the people that the life of the House of Representatives will go to its full term, of course it is saying that the term of senators will in every case be eight years. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.20) —One simple matter that I wish to refer to is, quite frankly, the question of the people of Australia reading the case which is sent out to them by the Australian Electoral Office. It is my belief that a large majority of the people of Australia will read that case. In particular, I suggest that practically in every family in every home around this nation at least one person will sit down and read that paper through. I think any suggestion that it will get tossed in the rubbish bin is a nonsense. The people understand that it is an important document and will read it. But I say also to the Senate that what happens after they receive it is that the questions will start to resolve themselves down to one or the other very simple matter in their minds. They will pick on some aspect which will become the deciding factor in their minds. More often than not that one factor will be the nature of the question. That is why it is important that the question properly reflects the matter which is before the people at the referendum. Last night, Senator Evans said: Let me begin at the beginning . . . There is a certain fundamental principle of communication which says if you want to convey a message to anybody, including a voter- . . . and then he went on and said: you use concrete language rather than abstract language; I agree with him. The point is that it is clear that the question is trying to communicate a message to the voter. That is the important thing. The question is very important to the voter because it will convey that message to him. I know, for example, that Senator Chipp said that the Australian Democrats were elected on one occasion to keep them honest. Here is a perfect chance for him and the members of his Party to vote to keep this Government honest in what it will present to the people on this matter. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.23) —I do not think the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) has helped his case by quoting Odgers or any other authority. That seems to fly in the face of and is contradictory to every good reason that he has put to us so far for having these amendments in the first place. It is not a question of whether the wording is technically correct or whether it is legally correct by his own argument. It is really a matter of whether or not the question is put in such a way that it is understood by the ordinary voter to be a reflection of its implications, its ramifications and its ultimate intention. The Government's argument has been that the long title confuses people and does not lead them to the obvious conclusion to decide what they are voting for. That is what we are about today. That is the very argument and the reason that we are having his debate and the reason that the amendments have been put before us. I find it very confusing to follow the Attorney-General's argument that, technically he is correct and, on the other hand, he says being technically correct is not the argument; the argument is to put the proposals in such a form that they can be understood by the people. It is clear to everybody in this chamber who is being honest with himself that the question as it is put at the present time will not be understood by the great majority of the voters as meaning a maximum term of eight years for senators. I have no doubt that that is the reason for the Government spending $1.25m. I have no doubt that that is the reason that part of the $1.25m is being spent on surveys. The surveys are intended to find out what the public understands and what it does not understand . That will manifest itself in the television, newspaper and radio commercials for which the taxpayers are paying. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Lewis'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. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. 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. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Rae, Peter Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.31) —I move: Proposed new clause 28A, proposed Forms 1, 2, and 3, leave out 'To extend the maximum life of Parliaments from 3 to 4 years' (wherever occurring), insert 'To extend the maximum duration of the House of Representatives and the terms of service of senators'. I abstained from the last vote of the Committee because, although I think the amendment was a better proposition than the Government's proposition, as the Government's proposition can well be claimed to be deceptive because it does not set out anything about the Senate, it was still an inaccurate description of it. That is why I was opposed to it. I have not sought leave to make a personal explanation in regard to the attack which Senator Lewis made on me a little earlier this morning. I resent it very bitterly and I regard it as most offensive, coming from a colleague. It is totally inaccurate. I will not go through my record in this Parliament to justify my position; I do not have to justify it to Senator Lewis. He well knows that on this subject I have defended him and others who are indeed dissidents in the Opposition parties on the subject of the referendum matters. I have defended their right to take that stand. He probably knows that I have already done that. I object to the bullying tone in which he endeavoured to tell me that I should not speak on these matters and cannot take a view because I have on some occasions voted differently either from our previous Government or from the Opposition's stand on very rare occasions. I have done so with restraint. I just say that I resent very much the abusive attack which he made on me this morning, which was totally inaccurate. I leave it at that. I have endeavoured in this matter to take a view on this question which I hope is a fair view. I still plead to the Government to recognise that these aspects wil be used as red herrings against it if it does not make a reference in the question to the extension of the Senate term. The last clause of the Constitution Alteration (Parliamenary Terms) Bill makes it clear that the six- year to eight-year term change does not operate if the first referendum question , on simultaneous elections, is passed. So, if we are to spell out these facts, we have to spell out not only the six-year to eight-year term but also the fact that the period of service of a senator may be two terms of the parliament if the first proposal is passed. We cannot have the question put before the people in the form of an essay. We must have reference to these things. I hope my amendment, with the addition to the long title of the word which Senator Harradine recognises is correct-the 'maximum' duration-is the way in which the question will be expressed. I believe that is a fair raising of the question and an expression of it in regard to the matters to be put before the people. I cannot support those wordings which inaccurately describe the question, which unfortunately is what the motions of Senator Lewis and Senator Harradine do. I cannot support the Government's proposal which leaves it out altogether. I do hope that the Committee will adopt that reasonable course and that it will therefore support the amendment I have moved which, as I say, but for one word is exactly the long title of the Bill. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.35) —I propose to the Committee that Senator Harradine's amendment should be considered before the amendment moved by Senator Missen. It seems to me that the fall back position of some honourable senators in the Committee is that they would prefer Senator Harradine's amendment, and putting Senator Missen's amendment first will force us to vote against that amendment in the hope that Senator Harradine's amendment will get up. Putting Senator Missen's amendment after Senator Harradine's amendment would, I think, suit the purposes of the Committee. The CHAIRMAN —The reason I put them in the order I did is that that is the order in which they were received by the Chair. Only if Senator Missen is prepared to withdraw his amendment for the moment, can we follow that procedure. Senator Missen —I withdraw my amendment, at the moment. Amendment-by leave-withdrawn. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.36) — I move: Proposed new clause 28A, proposed Forms 1, 2 and 3, leave out 'To extend the maximum life of Parliaments from 3 to 4 years' (wherever occurring), insert 'To extend the maximum life of the House of Representatives from 3 to 4 years and to extend the maximum term of service of senators from 6 to 8 years'. Frankly, Mr Chairman, I would rather have Senator Missen's proposal put first but, seeing that everyone wants my proposal to go up, I might as well move it; and I have done so. In fact, this proposal comes at a place where people have to face the truth. In the interests of truth, either we accept this proposition or we adopt the Government's proposal. As I understand it, the Australian Democrats are voting against Senator Missen's proposal. They voted against that sort of proposal last night, from Senator Durack, which essentially was a proposal to put the question to the people in the form of the title of the Bill. The Democrats are going to oppose Senator Missen's proposal. Therefore if they and the Committee reject this proposal, they will be allowing the Government's proposal to go to the people; and the Government's proposal is deceptive. There is no doubt about that. If one looks at the Bill which is to go as a question to the people of Australia, to leave out any reference in the title to increasing the term of service of senators is deceptive. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Let everybody be aware of what they are doing. If we are to keep them honest, we should at least keep them honest on a very major issue such as an alteration to the Constitution. That is the question; and the responsibility is heavily upon those who vote against this proposition. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.40) —I shall endeavour to be brief, but before I turn to this question I must say-I do not want to continue on endlessly-that in regard to Senator Missen's comments it is my belief that a fair reading of today 's Hansard and a proper analysis of the Journals of the Senate will support the contentions that I made. As to this matter, I believe we are involved in a charade. Those of us who have taken great interest in these constitutional referendum proposals were led to believe, by discussions which took place outside this chamber, that the honourable senators who were in the Opposition area-in other words, the Australian Democrat senators-were going to give some fair and proper analysis of the arguments presented and the proposals presented because our proposals had not previously been considered by the Government when it came down with its regulation. It is clear that that is not going to happen and that it is a charade. I suggest that the debate be wound up and that we get on with the vote. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.41) —I did not want to contribute to what I believe has become a very poor debate in many ways, but we have had a series of accusations of bad faith all around. I believe the various people who have contributed to this debate have all done so on the basis that the propositions they have put forward most accurately represent what this constitutional question was all about. Undoubtedly there will be divergent views about that matter. For example, I personally am opposed to this referendum question, but I believe one must try to transcend one's views and try to get a reasonable and fair proposition. In looking at the ones we have before us I must admit that I find them all, in various ways, fair and reasonable representations of what it is that we are on about, and that is essentially the absurd problem of having a Committee debate when such debate ought to have been had elsewhere. We really cannot get to a reasonable and sensible conclusion in this type of atmosphere in this Committee. Therefore I must admit that personally I am drawn to Senator Missen's proposal, which seems to me to be a fair and reasonable representation of the situation, but the Government's proposition is technically correct. In that case it seems that the choice which one is forced to make between one and the other is really quite invidious. I am still interested as to what the Government's response might be to Senator Missen's proposal, but at this time we are discussing Senator Harradine's proposal. I indicate that we will not be supporting it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.43) — That was a most amazing contribution-- Senator Chipp —Don't you think you have spoken enough on this? Senator HARRADINE —No. I want to make the point that it is all very well for Senator Macklin piously to say that the best thing would have been to have consultations about it. The Australian Democrats were consulted by the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans). Those who oppose the proposition were not. It is all very well to come in here and say: 'Oh, yes, all of these questions are matters which are very relevant and very real and the unfortunate part about it is that there were no consultations'. They were consulted; I was not. Those of us who had the legal responsibility of preparing the No case were not in fact consulted; and that is a disgrace. Senator Macklin should have been condemning the Government, before it brought these matters before the Parliament, for not in fact doing the right and fair thing. Senator Macklin —I said that. Go and look at the Hansard record. Senator HARRADINE —Excuse me. What Senator Macklin said was that there should have been consultations. What in fact happened was that the Attorney-General contacted the Democrats and got the agreement of the Democrats to these proposals so that they could go into the regulations. That is what the Government did. In any event it was inconsistent with section 128 of the Constitution. That is point number one. Now we come to point number two. Senator Macklin said two things after that: He favours Senator Missen's proposal and he believes the Government's proposal is technically correct. Could I just repeat that? This is a very important aspect-- Senator Chipp —Every time you get up you say the same thing. Senator HARRADINE —I am not saying-- Senator Chipp —Tedious and tiresome. Senator HARRADINE —Mr Chairman, I was finished with this debate until Senator Macklin made comments which required response. The two points that he made were that he personally favoured Senator Missen's proposal and that he believed the Government's proposal was technically correct. Those two statements are mutually exclusive because Senator Missen's proposal talks about the terms of service of senators. The Government's proposal does not. What is the definition of ' technically correct' in this context? The terms to be put forward to the people must surely reflect what is contained in the legislation in the Referendum ( Constitution Alteration) Act. Clearly if Senator Missen is right, Senator Evans is wrong. Clearly Senator Missen's proposal includes what the Bill says. It talks about the extension of the maximum terms of service of senators. All that my proposal which is now before us and which is in plain language-if Senator Evans is technically correct on the extension of terms of members of the House of Representatives from three to four years-does is extend the maximum term of senators from six to eight years. Now under those criteria Senator Macklin and the other Democrats must support my proposition. On this occasion, on a matter of major importance, of constitutional importance, the Government must be kept honest. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Harradine'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. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. 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. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. (Teller)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. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Withers, R. G. Richardson, G. F. Rae, Peter Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.55) —I move: Proposed new clause 28A, proposed Forms 1, 2 and 3, leave out 'To extend the maximum life of Parliaments from 3 to 4 years' (wherever occurring), insert 'To extend the maximum duration of the House of Representatives and the terms of service of senators'. I have already spoken to the amendment. I do not intend to say anything further except to urge, in view of the intransigence of the Government, which I think is foolish, the Australian Democrats in particular to put into this question a statement which is a reasonable and fair statement and one which will not be easily controverted by irrelevancies in the campaign that goes on. I very much urge the Australian Democrats to support this amendment. I hope the Opposition will support the amendment as a fair statement of the proposition. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Missen's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. (Teller)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. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Withers, R. G. Richardson, G. F. Rae, Peter Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.01) —I move: Proposed new clause 28A, proposed Forms 1, 2 and 3, leave out 'To enable the Commonwealth and States to refer powers to each other by mutual agreement.' ( wherever occurring), insert 'To enable the Commonwealth and States unilaterally to refer powers to each other.'. My amendment seeks to change the Government's description of the interchange of powers. The wording that the Government proposes to use on the ballot paper is: INTERCHANGE OF POWERS: To enable the Commonwealth and States to refer powers to each other by mutual agreement. That is completely inaccurate. There is nothing in the Bill that says a State must agree before the Commonwealth refers powers to it. There is nothing in the Bill that says the Commonwealth must agree before a State refers powers to it. That wording is a complete distortion of the Bill. It is not accurate. I have already discussed this matter with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) who has told me that I am right, that technically I am correct, but that in practice, of course, that would not happen. I do not believe that the Attorney is such an oracle that he is able to say what will happen in future. We cannot describe what is in a Bill on the basis of what the Attorney thinks will or should happen. As has already agreed that the words 'mutual agreement' are not technically right, my amendment seeks to substitute the following words: 'To enable the Commonwealth and States unilaterally to refer powers to each other'. I would like the Attorney to take note of the length of time I have spoken on this amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.04) —I appreciate the force of what Senator Walters is saying about the technical force and effect of the Bill because if the States want to refer a power to the Commonwealth there has to be, as a technical legal matter, either a request or a form of consent by the Commonwealth to that. The justification for putting it in these terms is, as Senator Walters in fact foreshadows, a practical matter. The States will never be interested in going to the trouble of referring powers unless there is some request or clear indication by the Commonwealth that the power is both sought and will be exercised. The endeavour here is to make absolutely clear, in the event that people might otherwise be in some doubt about it, that this is a purely voluntary machinery measure which does not in any way compel anybody to do anything. It may be that on reflection there is a better form of words to convey that particular flavour. I do not think, with the utmost respect to Senator Walters, that the word 'unilaterally' helps us much. I do not think there are many people in the community, apart from perhaps Senator Walters and those of us here, who feel entirely comfortable with words like 'unilaterally' in terms of understanding precisely what they mean and what is intended. I may be doing a disservice to the average-- Senator Durack —More people would understand that word than would understand ' tendentious'. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, but then again I was employing that word only today. I would not use an expression like that when the proceedings were being broadcast. But in this chamber, I think on a non-broadcast day, 'tendentious' suits the mood perfectly. 'Unilaterally' I think is an inappropriate and unhelpful word and in fact it throws rather much of the emphasis totally in the other direction, which was no doubt the thought that Senator Walters had in mind when she moved her amendment. Perhaps we can reach some accommodation here. I accept the proposition that 'mutual agreement' is perhaps putting it too highly. It is also tautological. If it is an agreement one does not need the word ' mutual' as well. That is another point that has been made to me. I would be prepared, accordingly, to delete the words 'by mutual agreement' at the end of this question and to substitute the word 'voluntarily' earlier on so that the question would read as follows: 'To enable the Commonwealth and the States voluntarily to refer powers to each other'. I believe that accurately captures exactly the flavour of this legislation. It removes the technical objection which Senator Walters, with her usual perspicacity, has pointed out to me and it ought to be acceptable all round the chamber. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(12.06) —I wish to speak briefly on this matter. For the reasons that have been given, I do not think the Government's proposal is an accurate statement. The proposal emphasises mutuality. I imagine, of course, that there would be a lot of agreement in regard to the exchange of powers between the States and the Commonwealth. There would be an interchange of powers . But that is not the essential nature of the legislation. I also do not think the word 'unilaterally', as proposed by Senator Walters, is also the essential nature of it. I go back to the long title. After what has happened this morning I do not think I have any faith left in the ability of argument in this place to get anywhere on this matter. Obviously, there is a longstanding arrangement between the Australian Democrats and the Government to support various proposals . Irrespective of their own views, the Democrats are sticking with this arrangement. I will not move an amendment but I suggest that we should have stuck with the long title, perhaps altering a word here or there. The long title states: 'An Act to alter the Constitution with respect to the inter-change of powers between the Commonwealth Parliament and the State Parliaments'. That wording is all right but we could alter the wording to read: 'to facilitate the inter-change of powers' because there is already an existing power for the States to deal with the interchange. However, there are defects and the Commonwealth has no power in this respect at the moment. As I said, we should have stuck to the long title, or the long title with a slight variation, 'to facilitate' the interchange of powers. I think that would be the correct way of proceeding, because the situation would not be pushed either way. If we say the arrangement is mutual we are moving in the Yes direction. We emphasise the fact that the arrangement must be by agreement. To say it is unilateral suggests that one is forcing power on the other. I think that in either way we would be pushing the Yes or No case. I have endeavoured to suggest that there is a middle and sensible course and that the long title pretty well has it right. I just regret that reason makes it not likely to be worth while my moving any amendment . Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.09) — It is most interesting, as Senator Missen has said, that there is obviously a long-standing agreement between the Australian Democrats and the Government in regard to the wording to be put to the people. No matter what honourable senators say in this chamber the situation will not change, apart from the adoption of a simple suggestion which again does not reflect what is contained in the Bill. The Bill to which we are referring is the Constitution Alteration (Inter-change of Powers) Bill 1983. Let us say that the Commonwealth Government wished to cede its powers to the States in relation to the collection of sales tax. Although the States may not want those powers the Commonwealth, under this proposal, could do that. That is not a voluntary act on the part of the States. It is not an interchange of power. An interchange of gifts denotes sending and accepting; it is in the nature of offering and accepting. That is what 'voluntary' means. In fact, the Commonwealth, if it so desires, can cede its powers in respect of certain issues -though certainly not on foreign affairs and such matters-to the States, whether the States like it or not. Senator Missen has made the point that, if anything, in this particular matter there may be a question concerning the title of the Bill. Unfortunately we did not discuss the title of the Bill, but it does not reflect- Senator Gareth Evans —It is just not descriptive. Senator HARRADINE —It does not reflect what the Commonwealth could do under this proposal, if accepted. Senator Crichton-Browne —It is more accurate than what is here, though. Senator HARRADINE —I believe that what Senator Walters is putting forward is more accurate than all of them. It is a question of unilateral transfer. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.12) —I certainly do not agree with the amendment proposed by Senator Gareth Evans. It does not make any difference, none at all. As far as I am concerned, he can go back to his use of the term 'mutual agreement' because the use of the word 'voluntarily' just does not make any difference. It does not express the fact that the interchange of powers is undertaken unilaterally. The amendment does not help me in any way. Amendment negatived. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.13) —I move: Delete the expression 'by mutual agreement' and add the word 'voluntarily' before the expression 'to refer powers'. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.14) —I have only one thing to say. What has occurred does disappoint me because when I showed that provision to Senator Macklin he said: 'It is by mutual agreement; they must both agree'. I said: 'No, I discussed that with the Attorney and he told me that he agreed that technically that was not so'. Senator Macklin then said: 'Oh well, if so I could be supporting your amendment. We will give it some thought'. But obviously the agreement was made outside this chamber, not after listening to the debate. The honourable senator did not listen to my remarks on this matter. He had already come to an agreement with the Government and it seems to me to be quite futile to go on debating in this place if deals are being made all the time, with no true appreciation of the debate that goes on in the chamber. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.14) — The discussion that was had in relation to the amendment just moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) took place in this chamber. In fact, it took place only a short time ago. Senator Walters —Certainly not publicly. Senator MACKLIN —If Senator Walters will just listen she might learn something. I raised with the Attorney Senator Walters's proposition about the use of the words 'mutual agreement' and said that her point seemed to us to be correct; that it would not be possible to support the terms as set out because they were not technically correct. That was accepted by the Attorney. In the course of discussion, the Attorney then suggested that this was the case and that to meet Senator Walter's objection the word 'voluntarily' could be inserted. It seemed to us that that did meet Senator Walters's proposition and therefore we were in agreement with the Government on that issue. I would hope that if honourable senators wish to make personal accusations they will make them personally and go outside this chamber to do so. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.15) —I am not suggesting for one moment that Senator Macklin went outside the chamber, but an agreement was made between him and the Government on this particular issue without its being debated in this chamber. Senator Missen —Could we know what is the wording of the amendment? The CHAIRMAN —In the third proposal, relating to the interchange of powers, the proposal is to delete the words 'mutual agreement' and insert before the words ' to refer' the word 'voluntarily'. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.16) — I wish to refer to something that Senator Macklin has just mentioned. In my previous contribution to this debate I referred directly to the points that he made in his contribution. It is clear, evident and recognised by all honourable senators that discussions took place outside this chamber prior to these matters being dealt with and debated here; that an agreement had been made between the Democrats and the Government without the benefit of either having heard the points to be made in this debate. Senator Gareth Evans —That discussion was in the context of the regulation. It takes place outside the chamber anyway. That is a fair point, is it not? You are talking about in the context of the regulations? Senator HARRADINE —In the context of the regulations, I thank the Attorney very much. Senator Gareth Evans —That was weeks ago. Senator HARRADINE —I am glad that that is now officially on the record. Senator Macklin —It has always been on the record. Senator Gareth Evans —It has been on the record. I had discussions with the Opposition too. Senator HARRADINE —The Attorney-General has had no discussion as he would surely , given his position-- Senator Gareth Evans —Because the Democrats were worthy guardians, if you like, of the national interest in this respect because they do not support all the cases. They do not support the Yes case on every proposal, as they have made very clear. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There are too many interjections. Senator Harradine has the call. Senator HARRADINE —The point that I am making, and Senator Evans has now made it , is that the arrangement had been made, not between him as the Attorney-General and those who have the legal responsibility for preparing the No case, namely, those senators and members who voted against the third reading of these referenda Bills, but with other persons. As has been clearly stated, that is an inappropriate and unfair way of dealing with it. In general, it is quite disconcerting to me to feel that fix-ups and arrangements can be made on all sorts of issues before a matter is finally determined in this place, particularly on questions of this nature. We are to have before us a number of other pieces of legislation which impinge on areas of cross-party concern. Will the Government attempt to get the agreement of the Democrats either to gag debate in respect of those issues, or have matters cut and dried before they come into the chamber-without benefit of debate? No reflection is being made on anyone personally. I referred specifically to the matters that Senator Macklin raised. I now express my deep concern that it appears that the Australian Democrats do, and that they are prepared to, come to agreement with the Government on matters of not only cross-party concern but also very grave concern to individual honourable senators and not hear debate in this chamber before they make their decisions. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.20) —I thought I had finished speaking in the debate on the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill 1983. As I said earlier I did not propose to take any further part in this charade which is all this whole proposal has been over the past three days. We now discover, on the third day of debating this Bill, that we have been involved in a charade. I did not intend to take any further part in this debate until I heard the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) of this nation describe the Australian Democrats as-I cannot remember the words-- Senator Walters —The guardians. Senator LEWIS —He described them as 'the guardians of this nation' or similar words, as Hansard will record. Senator Gareth Evans —The guardians of the national interest. Senator LEWIS —'The guardians of the national interest' were the words used by the Attorney-General, as Hansard will record. I will bet my bottom dollar that the Attorney-General lives to regret ever saying that. I bet at some stage in the future he ultimately rejects as totally false his claim that the Australian Democrats are 'the guardians of the national interest'. In this debate, the Australian Democrats have shown themselves as the pawns of the Government. They have been described as the limpid fish of the Australian Labor Party and properly so. Since the time they have been in this Parliament they have voted, acted and worked in conjunction with the Australian Labor Party. It is about time the people of this nation became aware of what the Australian Democrats are all about. There is no doubt that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for the ALP . Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.22) — The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said all the way through this debate, when we accused him of conferring only with the Australian Democrats, that he also conferred with the Opposition. Is he so ignorant that he does not realise that the people who are opposed to these referenda are those honourable senators who voted against the various questions put in relation to the Constitution? If the Attorney-General is not aware of that it is about time he was made aware of it because the legislation states that the people who voted against the various questions that the Government proposes to put at the referendum are the people who must prepare the No case that is to be distributed. The Attorney-General made sure that he conferred with the Australian Democrats because he wanted their votes, nothing else. Very simply, he wanted their votes. It did not matter one iota because the Democrats voted in favour of the questions relating to the Constitution. The Australian Democrats, therefore, will play no part in drafting the No case. Legally, they are unable to play any part because they supported the Government and voted for the legislation. For Senator Gareth Evans to keep saying that he did confer with us all is absolutely untrue. There is no truth in that statement at all! He knows that. He is deliberately stating as facts arguments that are not true. I feel, I suppose, very similar to the way in which Senator Lewis, who has just spoken, feels. The statement made by the Attorney that the Democrats are the guardians of the national interest is similar to many other statements that the Attorney has made off the top of his head. For example, he said: 'Please, your Honour, I thought the spy flights over Tasmania were a good thing at the time. I have since re-thought the matter and have decided that it was not such a good idea'. Senator Robert Ray made a very good interjection the other day when the Attorney was saying that he had not quite said what appeared in Hansard. I thought Senator Robert Ray's interjection was very timely when he said: 'Oh, haven't you read the amended Hansard?' We even have the Attorney's own colleagues pointing out that the Attorney amends the Hansard record. I think that the Attorney-General does get a little carried away and makes numerous comments off the top of his head when he is just being verbose. Senator Gareth Evans —Why don't you do what Senator Lewis did and leave? Go on, storm out. Senator WALTERS —I do not intend to storm out, Senator. I am afraid that the Attorney will have to put up with my being here for quite a while yet. If Senator Gareth Evans continues with his policy in relation to the description of each Bill and does not accept the suggestion-he has not accepted it so far-made by the whole of the Opposition that we go back to the original ballot paper, there is very little left I can say because the Attorney has already done a deal with the Australian Democrats. The Australian Democrats are supporting the Government. I will not say any more. The Democrats are not listening and there is very little point in going any further. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.26) —I wish to refer only briefly to the points raised by Senator Lewis. As Senator Lewis is a member of the Opposition, I presume he may well have been speaking on behalf of the Opposition. I would certainly like to hear from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Durack) in relation to the points raised by Senator Lewis. If Senator Lewis wishes to take that particular stance, we will certainly accommodate the Opposition by in fact not discussing matters with its members, if that is what it wants. I remind Senator Lewis, who sits on the back bench and does not frequently involve himself in legislation, that it is an important part of the process of legislation that discussions be held with all parties. We engage in such discusions at all times. If the Opposition wishes to exclude itself from such discussions, I would be happy to accommodate it. I would save a hell of a lot of time. Senator Missen —He was not speaking for the Opposition; he was speaking for himself. Senator MACKLIN —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is here. I want to hear from him whether he accepts what Senator Lewis said. If he does accept what Senator Lewis said, I, for one, will not be discussing matters in future with anybody from the Opposition. In fact only about 10 minutes ago I was holding discussions with Senator Peter Baume on the States grants legislation. I will refuse in future to do anything of the kind. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.27) —I guess I ought to put it on the record, as Hansard does not quite catch the nuances of these things, that there was just a slight touch of irony about my statement that the Australian Democrats were the guardians of the national interest but it was not entirely-- Senator Walters —Are you going to change Hansard? Senator GARETH EVANS —No. I am not going to change Hansard because I was making a genuine point in the context in which it appears. I was making a genuine point , that is, that my discussion with Senator Macklin, on behalf of the Australian Democrats-I held a similar discussion, of course, with Senator Durack but I cannot be held to account if Senator Durack does not choose to communicate with his own back bench in this respect because it was certainly my intention and hope that he would-occurred in the context of an attempt to get some agreed language between all the parties that would be acceptable. The discussion took place in the context of the proposals to promulgate regulations in this respect. There was, of course, an opportunity for parliamentary debate, had the matters worked out that way, in relation to those regulations. The position that was taken by the Democrats-I do not think Senator Macklin will mind my saying this- was that they agreed with the basic aim that I was endeavouring to promote, that is, to get some simplified and more concrete language and not the abstract and impenetrable language of the existing long titles. But the point was put to me very forcefully by the Democrats, who were and are divided themselves as to their views about the merits of these various proposals, that the language employed had to be fair, had to be neutral as between the competing cases and could not have any whiff of campaigning about it. That point was put to me very strenuously by Senator Macklin. I readily acceded to it. The attempt all along has been to try to find language that accommodates that need. It was at Senator Macklin's suggestion, for example, in relation to the first item dealing with simultaneous elections, that the reference was added to the variation of the terms of senators which was not in the long title. Senator Harradine —Why was it not added to the second? Senator GARETH EVANS —All these accusations of bad faith and lack of integrity, apart from being poor debating points to make in the context of the debate, are getting very tiresome because they are quite unfounded. Indeed, they are becoming quite intolerable. I hope it will not be necessary for me to say anything more than that in this debate. I put on the record the nature and character of that exchange which was an entirely honourable one between all the parties concerned. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.30) —I speak only in relation to the statements made by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) about the so- called consultation he had with me. I do not know whether I will be allowed to comment at this stage. If I do not do so now, I will have to make a personal explanation. I think the record needs to be put straight. Senator Evans came to see me in my office a day or two before 11 November. I do not recall which day it was, but it certainly was only a day or two before that date. He put to me the proposition which he had about making regulations. I do not understand whether regulations were to be made, but in some way a change was to be made in the questions to be put at the referendum. When he saw me he had obviously had very full negotiations with the Australian Democrats and it appeared as though agreement had been reached with them. I told him that one of the difficulties I had in negotiating on the matter was that a large number of honourable senators on the Opposition side opposed the referendums and that I could not speak for them. Senator Gareth Evans —I understood that. Senator DURACK —Senator Evans did not tell the Committee that. He gave the impression that I was in some way at fault. I want to get the record straight. Senator Gareth Evans —It is your own backbenchers who say you did not consult them. Senator DURACK —I told Senator Evans that I could not speak for the Opposition backbenchers on this matter and that he ought to consult them. As he had asked me for the official Opposition view, I told him that I would take the matter to the shadow Cabinet and obtain its reaction. I agree with Senator Evans that I was not enthusiastic about the proposal and that I preferred the long title. Perhaps Senator Evans can recall whether we had that conversation one day or two days before 11 November. I am not sure of the date, but my submission to the shadow Cabinet on the matter is dated 11 November. The shadow Cabinet was to meet on the following Monday. It did so and dealt with my submission then. I replied to the Attorney-General on 15 November telling him the official Opposition view. I told him that I could convey only the official Opposition view to the Attorney-General and that I could not speak for those who supported the No case. To my utter astonishment, I learnt that the regulations were in fact made on 11 November, a day or two after I had been first approached and the day on which I prepared my submission for the views of the Opposition to be obtained. The CHAIRMAN —I want to explain something to the Committee. It may seem that this discussion is out of order, but, in fact, it concerns negotiations that led to the preparation of the wording of these parts of the Bill and it is relevant to their consideration; therefore, this discussion is in order. How long the Committee wishes it to continue is in its hands. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.34) —I think Senator Durack's remarks clarify the situation as I understand it. I am surprised that Senator Evans did not take up Senator Durack's suggestion to approach those members who have the legal responsibility to make up the No case, but he obviously had no intention of doing so. As Senator Durack said, the Attorney-General made the regulations without even bothering to table them. Eventually, we found that regulations had been made and had been in force for some time and that the Attorney had not even tabled them in this place. He did not table them until forced to do so by questions put to him. Senator Gareth Evans —Come on! I have explained that. Behave yourself. I have explained that properly. Senator WALTERS —Senator Evans should not tell me to behave myself. He is at risk in the community because of the underhand way in which the Government has handled the referendum proposal. I advise the Attorney to be very careful of his behaviour. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.35) — I am concerned that people such as Senator Evans and Senator Macklin are taking umbrage at what is being suggested and are making accusations of bad faith. No accusations of bad faith have been made, at least not by me. The fact that discussions have taken place between the Government and the Australian Democrats is not disconcerting. I am not concerned about that. As somebody by way of sotto voce interjection said, in case it was not caught up by Hansard, this happens all the time. Discussions between various people outside the Parliament happen all the time; but there are two things about the matter which I find disconcerting. One is that discussions on matters of this nature are highly selective and not undertaken with persons who have the legal responsibility to prepare the No case. The other disconcerting aspect is that those discussions come to conclusions which are then forced upon us and no chance is therefore given for a receptive audience for arguments which may be advanced in the Parliament. If discussions take place, well and good; but it should be ensured that all the points are discussed. It should not be assumed that those points are totally outlined until such time as the debate takes place in this Parliament. Otherwise, the whole show is a charade, as Senator Lewis said. Amendment agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —We now turn to the fourth amendment to Government amendment (9), on the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court. There are two foreshadowed amendments. I call Senator Walters. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.38) — The Government's description on the ballot paper proposed to be used for the referendum is again very far from accurate. It is proposed that the description of the legislation on the advisory jurisdiction of the High Court read: To enable the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory more easily to obtain from the High Court its views on certain constitutional questions. We have debated the Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of High Court ) Bill in this place. I do not agree with the Bill, obviously. I voted against its being put to the people. I believe the long title is the description we should use, but as that has already been defeated-- Senator Missen —No. Senator Harradine has an amendment to that. Senator WALTERS —The Opposition put it and it has already been defeated. I now propose that if we have to describe this Bill, that description should be in the following terms: To give power to the Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory Governments to seek advice from the High Court as to the full extent of their powers under the Constitution. That is exactly what it is all about. Senator Gareth Evans —Not true. Senator WALTERS —What absolute rubbish! What the Government is attempting to do is what it did in Tasmania-use the external affairs powers. What it is doing now is to go to the High Court of Australia and seek its advice as to the full extent of its powers under the Constitution. How much further can we go in taking away the States' rights? The Government is proposing that a question be put to the people, and not giving the reasons for its judicial powers. The true reason is as I have already stated. I will not take up the Committee's time. We all know very well what the Government is proposing. We all know very well that the description of the Bill that was agreed to between the Australian Democrats and the Government is not accurate. We know very well that the Government is asking the High Court to give it information as to how it can use its powers to the full extent against the States, because we also know that the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has stated publicly that there is no reason for State governments and that there should be a central government only in Australia. We know very well and understand completely that the Government is attempting to make a central government for Australia and to take away the States' rights completely. Senator Jessop —It is using the High Court as a political tool. Senator WALTERS —As Senator Jessop has said, it is using the High Court as a political tool to enable it to do so. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.42) —I wish to oppose Senator Walters's amendment, for obvious reasons. She is not coming to grips with the subject matter of this proposal at all, but just advancing another and very familiar ramp of her own. The simplest way of describing how Senator Walters's own account of this is itself misleading is to point out that a variety of matters, for example, interpretation of sections 44, 45 and 57 of the Constitution, are expressly vested in the jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia by this measure, and those provisions have nothing whatsoever to do with the powers vis-a-vis each other of the Commonwealth or the States. The reference to certain constitutional questions is deliberate, in order to cover the whole range of matters that are within the scope of the Bill. To anticipate Senator Harradine's objection, I just say that the whole problem was to try to get away from the use of a technical expression such as 'advisory jurisdiction'. 'Advisory' is understandable enough, but 'jurisdiction' is another mumbo-jumbo lawyer's word so far as the average Australia voter is concerned. What we are trying to do is simply find some neutral, concrete language to explain as precisely as possible what this Bill is about. There is no attempt to mislead and no attempt to be deceptive. Certainly there is no question of us accommodating the kind of proposition that Senator Walters is advancing. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(12.43) —I regret to hear what the Attorney-General has said. I do not think that the Government's proposal is a correct description of it. It is a long description about enabling the Government more easily to obtain views from the High Court of Australia. It certainly does that in a sense, but it is not 'more easily'. The power does not exist at the moment; that is the point. There is no such power at the moment to obtain an advisory opinion. For years now the terms 'advisory opinion' and 'advisory jurisdiction' have been known and have been a matter of controversy. The Senate brought down a report on advisory opinions. It has been discussed in the Constitutional Convention and it is known as an expression in that way. That is what the Bill is about. Its title is 'Constitution Alteration (Advisory Jurisdiction of the High Court) Bill'. Once again, I say that we should be sticking to the long title. That will be understood and vigorously argued. What the Attorney-General says is not right, because it is not just 'more easily'. It is creating a new jurisdiction which does not exist at present in the High Court. But likewise, Senator Walters's description is also inaccurate. One despairs at the attempts to push things one way or another according to different views on these matters. Senator Walters —Hear, hear! Senator MISSEN —Senator Walters had better stop saying 'Hear, hear'. Progress reported. Debate resumed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.45) —Madam Acting Deputy President, as I understand it, there is no opposition to this measure, and we want to get it through before the adjournment. It is to increase the number in the Public Accounts Committee. It is a bipartisan measure. Perhaps that could be indicated. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(12.45) —The Opposition supports the Public Accounts Committee Amendment Bill 1983. We wish it a speedy passage. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.46) —I am indebted to the Opposition for its support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its reamining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 1 December 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a first time. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria)(12.48) —Like many other senators, I have long held very strong reservations about the propriety and competence of Australia's intelligence establishment. Whilst initially supporting the Hawke Government's ' steady as she goes' policy of hastening slowly and getting rid of poor performers and corrupt operators at the top of the bureaucracy, I now believe that events have proved that the Government and the nation would have been better served by an early wielding of the axe. Honourable senators are very well aware of my view that the Department of Foreign Affairs is one example. I intend further broadening my allegations against the hierarchy there in the very near future. But today I intend to concentrate on one area of the intelligence community. I believe that I am voicing the views of many honourable senators and colleagues in another place and, indeed, the views of a majority of Australians when I say, admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, that the Government erred badly in not putting the cleaners right through the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation as soon as it came into office. Its failure to do so has resulted in the Government being implicated in the sustained persecution of two loyal and long-serving stalwarts of the Labor movement. I refer, of course, to David Combe and Mick Young. In implicating the Government, ASIO has demonstrated a blend of criminal cunning and sheer bumbledom which would make Laurel and Hardy blush. Its head, Harvey Barnett, learnt his stuff during the many years he spent in the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, and it is about ASIS that I shall speak today. ASIS is a mysterious body which does not appear in the telephone book. By repute, its activities seem to fall somewhere between hard line Central Intelligence Agency and Dad's Army or Fawlty Towers. We had a stunning example of its capacity in Melbourne last week, and I only trust that Premier John Cain will put those lunatics where they belong. ASIS is modelled after the British equivalent, the Secret Intelligence Service and perhaps falls into the British mould all too clearly. ASIS comes under the control of Bill Hayden, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I want it to be clearly understood that I would have conveyed to him what I am about to expose to the Parliament had his door not been closed to me on the issue of bureaucratic corruption. It is a truism that an organisation can be only as good as the man who runs it. Since 1981 ASIS has been headed by a Mr John Edmund Ryan, OBE, who comes from the Foreign Affairs Department stable. On the basis of information made available to me from a number of sources, which have been carefully checked, I can conclude only that Mr Ryan would seem to be about the last person who should be allowed to be in charge of any operation, let alone the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. Let me explain. According to Who's Who in Australia, Mr Ryan joined the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1946 and served in Athens, Rio de Janeiro and New York until, in 1965 , he was made High Commissioner to Ghana. I understand a phantom was detected on the High Commission payroll at that time but I am told that Mr Ryan was apparently not to blame. In 1968 Mr Ryan was appointed Australian Ambassador to Laos at a time when the Australian Embassy there was little more than a minor branch office of the Central Intelligence Agency. I am reliably informed that, as so often seems to happen in the Department of Foreign Affairs, as Ambassador in Laos Mr Ryan engaged in financial malpractice and embezzlement and, having enriched himself in this way, was promoted as Australian Minister to the United States of America-a very highly sought after position. In 1971 Mr Ryan returned, on promotion, to Canberra, and like so many other corrupt senior officers before and after him, was appointed to a management job as First Assistant Secretary in charge of the whole management and financial area of the Department. One of his first jobs was to cope with the fallout of his own financial misconduct in Laos in 1968 and 1969. The cover-up that was set in place somehow unravelled itself to the extent that it was decided that the Secretary to the Department, Sir Keith Waller, would have to go through the charade of rebuking Mr Ryan in writing. But that is not the whole of it. The Secretary's written rebuke to Mr Ryan-let us remember that if Mr Ryan had been a clerk, a shop assistant or a tradesman, he would have been instantly dismissed- was prepared by Mr Ryan himself. That was quite a slap on the wrist. Firmly esconced as head of the Department's management from 1971 to 1974, Mr Ryan was directly and indirectly involved in collusion with his subordinates, some of whose names have a familiar ring. Mr Ryan was involved in covering up various embezzlements by his ambassadorial colleagues across the whole range. These included false entertainment claims, such as that in Stockholm, phantom servants, tax evasion, furniture removal frauds, importation of dangerous goods like machine guns and frauds of every conceivable description all over the world -from Peking to Paris, if one likes. Needless to say I hold the details of many of these. Mr Ryan also developed a reputation for crude and abrasive treatment of his subordinates, but he reserved the best for officers who had been honest or silly enough to blow the whistle on frauds involving senior officers. These he humiliated, blocked from promotion and even tried to expel from the Department. In that regard I seek the incorporation in Hansard of an article from the Bulletin dated 13 December concerning Mr Ryan. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —As nobody on the Opposition has seen the article, I suggest, Senator Primmer, that you continue with your speech and give somebody on the Opposition bench the opportunity to look at the article and that you seek leave again at the end of your speech. Senator PRIMMER —Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I realise that much of this is reminiscent of exposures I have made of Foreign Affairs shenanigans in recent times. Others have followed in Mr Ryan's footsteps. In 1974 Mr Ryan moved overseas as Ambassador in Rome where, I have it on good authority, he managed to muck up arrangements for a visit by Prime Minister Whitlam. But this time his increasingly frequent bouts of drunkeness and disorderliness were a source of embarrassment to Australians and Italians alike. I am informed that Mr Ryan's wife was reduced to begging journalists not to report her husband's doings. When he moved on to Canada as High Commissioner in 1977, the general opinion at that time was that he had been put out to grass, which was probably better than he deserved. But general opinion was wrong. In 1980, under the very suspect regime in Foreign Affairs, about which I have had so much to say, and will have more, Mr Ryan was transferred back to Canberra and promoted. Yes, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary in charge of-wait for it-management and finance. To the surprise of most, in 1981 he was appointed head of ASIS, a position he still holds today. Whilst I do not know how highly he rates in the field of trade craft, I hardly need to say that he is obviously totally unsuitable for his present position. He is a crook, a bureaucratic bully, a professional liar, a bad drunk, a social embarrassment-in fact a man tailormade for blackmail, just as were Burgess and McLean. This is the sort of person we have presiding over one of our most super-secret intelligence bodies. If anyone seriously harbours any doubts about the accuracy of my information about Mr Ryan, I suggest that he come down from his ivory tower and speak to honest retired and serving Foreign Affairs staff and to the media. If he does this, he will find support for my allegations, and more. In any event, I am placing on the Notice Paper a range of questions aimed at uncovering the details of the allegations I have made today, and more. I hope that they will be answered quickly and honestly. This is clearly a situation where the Government must act without delay. Any hesitation will cause further damage to Australia's foreign relations and what remains of the Government's good name. The longer the Government allows these corrupt operators to remain in positions of trust and influence, the more painful will be their eventual removal. I for one am not prepared to wait around until the next session to see Mr Ryan removed from a job which is obviously beyond him. I happen to be old fashioned enough to believe that the misleading of Parliament is one of the most serious offences that can be committed in a democracy. Once it becomes routine for Ministers to rubber stamp false material put through them by dishonest or incompetent officials, the very basis of our deliberations in this chamber and in the other place is grievously damaged. I think many honourable senators will agree with me when I say that the most frequent offenders in this regard have been the defence, foreign affairs and intelligence bureaucracies. Despite the entertainment afforded by the recent Dad's Army episode at the Fawlty Towers Sheraton, there are very serious matters deserving attention. As an example I refer to questions asked by Senator Giles and myself last week about the misleading of parliament by bureaucrats of the defence establishment, through senior Ministers, about the tragic effects herbicides used in Vietnam. But again only last week this chamber was subjected to a clearly misleading statement by the Attorney-General concerning the shenanigans of ASIS and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization in South America and in the Chilean coup in particular. Since the Attorney-General read the two sentences concerned into Hansard I hope that he will freely admit that the material was supplied by bureaucrats who will be exposed, suspended and punished if, as I intend to demonstrate, they have wilfully misled Parliament. Should Senator Evans, or any member of the Parliament, be inclined to assert that my allegations are without foundation, I warn them that this is one of several matters-crusades if one likes-that I will not drop just because Ministers find it too bothersome to deal with corrupt and lying senior officials. Let me put it bluntly: The Attorney-General's assertion about intelligence activities in Chile was totally misleading. Let me explain. While Mr Whitlam, to his credit, ordered the ASIS station in Chile-even the CIA term was used-closed in March 1972, it is now well known that the senior ASIS official whom I will call Mr D stayed on in Santiago, actively involved in the CIA destabilisation program, until just over one month before the military coup and the murder of President Allende. The Attorney-General's second sentence is therfore false and obviously so. But there is more to come. Thanks to honest officers in ASIO, and there are some even there, I can now state without a shadow of doubt that ASIO has maintained at least one representative in South America from 1972 to the present day and that most of the time of those agents has been spent in Argentina and Chile, and that includes 1973, the year of the coup. I will call the agent concerned at that time Mr J. Four Corners claims that ASIO was active in Argentina during the Falklands War. Therefore, Senator Evans's first sentence is also totally false. While I am fed up to the back teeth with Minister's purveying lies prepared by corrupt officials to this chamber, I nevertheless retain my belief in Senator Evans's basic honesty. To put it simply, he was lied to and passed those two sentences full of lies to the chamber and into Hansard. I demand that he initiate all possible action to expose and punish the responsible officials, whoever they are-ASIS, ASIO, the Foreign Affairs Department or the Attorney-General's Department-and give a full and truthful report to the Parliament. Let him tell Mr Hayden and any other Ministers involved that the Senate, at least, has at last called a stop to this sort of performance. Let him know that honourable senators are no longer prepared to accept the words of these anonymous liers in preference to the facts as asserted by many parliamentarians, academics, the media-especially Four Corners-and plain citizens. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Senator Primmer sought leave during his speech to incorporate in Hansard an article from a recent Bulletin. Now that members of the Opposition have seen it, is leave granted for it to be incorporated? Leave granted. The article read as follows- ASIS chief not new to hot water Last week's Sheraton Hotel raid is not the first incident that has brought the head of ASIS, John Ryan, into conflict with Labor ministers. Back in the Whitlam years when Ryan was with the Department of Foreign Affairs he prepared a draft letter for the foreign minister to send to an unhappy job applicant who believed he had been passed over on security grounds. Not so, said Ryan's answer. But Foreign Minister Don Willesee called for the file to see for himself and it showed that security was the ground. Willesee referred the matter to Whitlam who was so annoyed that he ordered Ryan not be appointed as ambassador to Rome. Whitlam was eventually placated and Ryan became ambassador. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(1.02) —This is not the first time that I and, I think, the whole of the Opposition have been concerned with the way that Senator Primmer has used Parliament to deal with matters which he obviously believes are major grievances. I have no personal knowledge about the matters which have been raised by Senator Primmer. But I express the strongest possible concern about the way Senator Primmer has gone about this use of the Senate. This debate is termed a non-contentious debate. We are speaking through what is normally the luncheon adjournment. It is, perhaps, highly undesirable that there is not even a Minister in the chamber in charge of the Senate. So we have a situation in which very serious allegations have been made against an Australian citizen in the absence of a Minister and, so far as I know, without notice to a Minister who might have been able to be advised on this matter. Great damage could be done to somebody who may well be innocent. Whether that person is innocent or not of the very serious allegations made about him is not open to this chamber to find out or to determine. I believe for Senator Primmer to simply come in here and to make the sort of allegations which have been made in the way that they have been made is a procedure which will diminish the status and the standing of this place and which may give rise to a very serious injustice to one of the people whom we are supposed to be here to represent. We carry a very heavy responsibility because we have a very special privilege. We are allowed to come into this place and to say absolutely anything about anybody that we like to mention. The rules of this place, the Standing Orders, give some very special protection to a very select group of people. They protect us, for example. Senator Primmer cannot come into this place and say that Fred Chaney is a crook because we have been careful to provide a set of rules which determine that that is unparliamentary. There has to be a resolution to justify that. The Standing Orders would ensure that you, Madam Acting Deputy President, would sit him down and demand a withdrawal if he said that in the chamber. Because he has come in here and said it about a citizen, there was no point in my taking a point of order because, although that may have interrupted Senator Primmer's flow, I understand the Standing Orders well enough to know that you, Madam Acting Deputy President, could not have intervened. We protect ourselves, we protect our House of Representatives colleagues, we protect members of State parliaments, we protect statutes, but we provide no protection for the people of Australia. We do that because of a very important principle. We are supposed to be able to expose matters fearlessly and to have no fear of legal action. The constitutional principle which underpins our complete freedom to come in here and say what we wish is based on important considerations of public policy which I am sure we all support. Parliamentary privilege is an important protection for the Parliament and an important way of guaranteeing that we can carry out our duties. But, I think the fact that we have that power means that we must exercise it with the very greatest care, because we have it in our hands to do people enormous damage without those people having redress if what is said is subsequently proved to be wrong or to be beyond proof. It is not open to Senator Primmer to say that he is powerless to try to redress these grievances in a way which would be fairer to the citizen involved. He is a supporter of the present Government. I think, even if he were not, even if he were in Opposition still, he would know that he has access to Ministers and that he should surely, as a first step, make detailed representations on these serious matters to the Executive Government and seek an explanation. I know that it is part of his complaint that he is not satisfied with the explanations he has been given in other cases. He made that clear again in speaking today. But there is no indication from what I have heard from Senator Primmer today that these matters have been raised in detail with the Government and dealt with either satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily. I understand that it may well be that it is not possible to get satisfactory redress from the Executive Government. The Ministers may not, for whatever reasons. They may not choose to deal with the matter, they may not be capable of dealing with the matter, they may be prevented by the bureaucrats from dealing with the matter, they may be prevented for a whole range of reasons from dealing with the matter. I would have thought that some very substantial steps and attempts should be taken before this sort of allegation is made against a member of our community, the community that we are here to serve. I do not see any evidence that that first step has been taken . If a member of this Senate has a serious allegation to make and if he cannot get satisfaction through the normal channels, even through the Government of which he is a supporter, then surely the matter could be raised in Parliament in a way which provides some protection for the citizen. Surely the responsible Minister could be alerted; surely the basic facts could be provided so that at least if there is a defence, there is a chance for that to be aired at the time when the calumny and the detraction are aired. I do not believe it is good enought simply to come in here and air a matter in the way that this matter has been aired today. If a matter of detail requires investigation or if there is a serious possibility of maladministration and scandal, it could be dealt with otherwise than by coming in here and making general accusations. We have a number of parliamentary forms. If the honourable senator concerned feels that he must make the accusation here, surely a Minister who has the administrative responsibility for that department and that person should be present to hear the complaint and be armed at least with the basic facts so that if there is some saving point that could be put forward it could be put forward immediately. There are other procedures available to Senator Primmer. If there is major maladministration in a department, we have a very good committee system. For example, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has a high reputation. It has gone into matters. I believe that any honourable senator with a sense of responsibility for the people whom he is here to represent would do everything possible to canvass ways which would fairly and justly raise what he obviously thinks are serious matters going to the public administration of this country, to its foreign affairs and to its security services. It is not for me to respond to Senator Primmer. But on behalf of the Opposition I express my very great reservations about the procedure that he has adopted. It is not for me to question Senator Primmer's beliefs or integrity or the honesty of the belief he holds. But I question very seriously the appropriateness of the way that he has gone about this. He has come in here and told us that he believes that one of his own Ministers, Senator Evans, has told lies to this chamber. No more serious allegation can be made against a member of the Government. To make it during lunch time on Thursday during a non-contentious debate when a Minister is not here I find nothing short of extraordinary. I condemn this use of parliamentary privilege. I know that Senator Jessop is also listed to speak. I do not wish to trespass on some very important views which he has on the sorts of issues of principle which I have raised in response to Senator Primmer. I think Senator Primmer's performance today has demonstrated yet again that we, as members of this Senate, need to look at the power which has been given to us and at the very great privilege that we have to speak on any subject without redress being offered to those whom we might hurt. I think I would support our very carefully examining how we could provide proper avenues of redress and protection for those who might be damaged for what may be a very careless exercise of the very great privilege that we carry. So, Madam Acting Deputy President, on behalf of the Opposition, I express very great concern through you to Senator Primmer for this further use of the Parliament which I think comes very close on the face of what we have before us to being an abuse of the privileges we have, and I believe that Senator Primmer should enter into the most careful dialogue with his Government to try to find some way of tackling these matters other than by dragging the names of people into the public arena in this way when they have no opportunity to reply, no opportunity to defend themselves and no opportunity to contest what may well be hotly contested questions of fact. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans Affairs)(1.10) —As I think I am the only Minister who heard some of Senator's Primmer's contribution to the Senate-I was in my room-perhaps I ought to respond and at least say that the allegations he has made are very serious. I believe they are allegations a member of the Senate is entitled to make if he feels that the questions require some public ventilation. I wish to give my other colleagues who have come into the Senate an opportunity to appreciate the degree to which Senator Primmer has referred to a number of matters that have caused him concern for considerable time. I noticed that, in respect of his allegations about our intelligence agencies in Chile, he did not name the persons in that country but he did, nevertheless, name Mr Ryan, a person of whom I did not know until the unusual incident and activity at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne for which he was responsible. Mr Ryan was named by Senator Primmer. Of course it is on the public record that Mr Ryan did give certain information to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who I am pleased to see rejected it, which was designed to keep from the Minister and from the Parliament the illegality of that particular incident in Melbourne last week. However I rise only to give my fellow Ministers the opportunity to make an evaluation of what Senator Primmer has done. I must say in respect of what the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) said that individual members of Parliament do have the right, untramelled, under the Westminister system to raise matters in the Parliament. It may well be that other steps could have been taken. Senator Primmer has shown over recent times his desire to raise a whole number of matters which may or may not be true but which obviously are matters which he has expressed with some vehemence and some consistency. To that extent I supose I can note the statement that Senator Chaney has made on behalf of the Opposition, that he has grave reservations about the matter, but I think it would be a sorry day for parliament if members were expected somehow to conform to certain standards in respect of Ministers of governments even though that is probably regarded as part of the tradition and the practice of parliament. Nevertheless, there is always the overriding consideration that members do have to express in the Parliament matters which they believe have not had sufficient ventilation. The Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Grimes, who is in charge of the day to day administration of the chamber , might now be in a position to make some response to the remarks of Senator Chaney. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(1.14) —I will speak for only two minutes. There are two aspects of this matter. First of all, I did not hear Senator Primmer's speech. I certainly did not know that what was obviously a controversial matter would be brought up at a time when there was by agreement to be a non-controversial debate. Secondly, the fact that there was no Minister here is certainly my responsibility as manager of Government business. I have since ascertained, by talking to my colleagues, that there was a mix-up in the roster but that is no excuse. I know it has happened before. I remember once when I was shadow Minister for Social Security I sat down and there was only myself and the Deputy President in the place, and no one else to speak. It should not happen and I will certainly ensure that it does not happen again. I will ascertain the details of what Senator Primmer has said and consult with the Government and the Minister concerned and ensure that the honourable senator receives a response to what he has said. I make the point that I had no warning that this was going to happen during this debating time. I will try to make sure it does not happen again. Senator SIR JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(1.16) —I thank Senator Jessop for allowing me the opportunity to speak briefly. This is the latest in a series of attacks that Senator Primmer has made upon various senior officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have risen before on this issue and have said with all the force I can command that I reject what he is saying; I reject his methods. I find I have to say to Senator Primmer, as a senator whom I have respected, that I find it despicable that he should pursue the matter in this way. I say that to someone to whom I wish I did not have to say it. The fact of the matter is that I have known of old that his attacks on, for example, Sir Nicholas Parkinson in regard to his medical condition are totally without foundation. I have seen the medical evidence and I know the allegations to be untrue. I find it quite wicked-I used that word-that Senator Primmer should make such attacks. To come in here fed and fuelled each day by written leaks from somebody disaffected in the Department does no credit to him, no credit to the Senate and no credit to his political party and is very destructive of the Government and the Department. But let me quickly put in perspective what he has said today. He said: 'I come in here because two very well respected members of the Labor Party, David Combe and Mick Young, have been attacked and savaged by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and I am therefore going to reveal things that are damaging to the intelligence services of Australia'. In other words, he is saying that, because there have been revealed increased breaches of the law and of procedures, we will not deal with the miscreants; we will sack or destroy the police force. This is a nonsense situation. I could not help but marvel at what he said-I put down his words: . . . misleading of Parliament is one of the most serious offences that can be committed in a democracy. My goodness! Senator Primmer has come in here and defended Mick Young as being one who has been savaged, when Mick Young has misled the Parliament and misled his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) quite apart from the offence of which Mr Justice Hope found him guilty. Indeed, if ever there was misleading it was in the case of that ex-Minister. It is not good enough to say that a person has the right and freedom to come in here and say things such as Senator Primmer has said. I do not think that the Australian Labor Party Caucus gives Government members the right and freedom; I do not think the Labor Party Caucus, which governs the Labor Party of which the Prime Minister has demonstrated himself to be a captive and prisoner in recent days, is willing or ought to be willing to see a whole department destroyed, one by one. I now say that I believe that Peter Henderson is a man of first class integrity and he does not deserve the mischief that has gone on. I know and respect Sir Nicholas Parkinson and I reject any allegations made about him. I do not happen to know Mr Ryan but, in the absence of any kind of fair judgment, I reject those allegations too. What nonsense it is to be angry about the fact that David Combe was not given a fair go because, if ever there was a Moscow trial of any person, it was by the group of six people on the National and International Security Committee that tried him and hanged him and put out a Press statement about him before he could go before any kind of judicial inquiry. We are talking about the fact that-and most of the Labor Party holds my view-whatever were the faults of David Combe the way that the Prime Minister and his Ministers handled this was heinously wrong. Senator Ryan —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Sir John Carrick's suggestion that the Labor Caucus does not endorse the Government's statement is entirely wrong and I ask him to withdraw it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —There is no point of order. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I can understand the desire to interrupt, but the fact is that today we have heard in here the most twisted and distorted forms of argument. Indeed the Labor Party tried and hanged David Combe, and published his crime and sentence in public, before he could even have a fair trial. Whether he ws right or wrong does not matter. Now precisely the same thing is happening as many members of the Labor Party have complained about in relation to David Combe . I am on record in Hansard as having said this here months ago. They are now doing the same thing to a senior officer of the Foreign Affairs Department. I have to say that I reject it. I have to say that unless this Government now takes this matter up and deals with it properly and effectively, by proper investigation and proper decision making processes, it will have abdicated its responsibilities. No government can sit back day by day watching a government member systematically destroying the character of the senior officers of one of its most senior departments. It cannot do that. It is not good enough to say: ' We have had an investigation and the evidence is not there'. After all the records of these people outside are being destroyed, but above everything Australians name overseas is being destroyed. What kind of situation is it in which we are now saying to the people overseas that our intelligence agencies ought not to be respected overseas, ought not to be consulted overseas because the leaders of them are people for whom we have no respect, they are people who are corrupt? I have to say equally that if indeed it is true, as Senator Primmer said, that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) came in here and uttered lies, however unwittingly, the Attorney-General had better look to the question of what happens in his judgment of Ministers who assume the responsibility of saying things and then finds them to be lies. I have never been more disturbed in this Parliament by any actions than those that Senator Primmer has triggered in the past and today. I repeat that his argument today has been that two of his mates in the Labor Party have suffered and therefore we should destroy the police force. The day we destroy the police force instead of looking at the miscreants is a sad day for Australia. I suggest that the Labor Party get its targets right instead of allowing the civil war of the Caucus today and yesterday to spill over into this chamber. Senator Haines —Madam Acting Deputy President-- Senator Harradine —Madam Acting Deputy President-- Senator Jessop —Madam Acting Deputy President-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —I call Senator Haines. I am sorry , there is some confusion. I appreciate that Senator Jessop's name is on the speakers list. I understood from the opening remarks of Senator Sir John Carrick that there had been some arrangement whereby he was replacing Senator Jessop. Senator Sir John Carrick —No. Senator Harradine —It is all right. I will have my say later. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In that case I will call Senator Jessop. I am sorry , Senator Haines. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-Madam Acting Deputy President, I wish to make a personal explanation. A number of honourable senators were under the impression that this period was set aside for debates of non-contentious matters and that was dealt with in the debate relating to sitting hours. As far as I am concerned, I have two meetings to attend; one which I had almost completed when I heard part of what Senator Primmer said, and another meeting which is an Amnesty International meeting, which is currently going on. I am affronted, as a member of the Senate, at what I heard because it was an outrage on a public servant who has served this nation internationally and nationally under both Australian Labor Party and Liberal Party governments. Worse still, I am affronted by the attempt by the Minister for Veteran Affairs ( Senator Gietzelt) to clothe this attempt by Senator Primmer to underline the security and intelligence services of this country with some degree of respectability. That is in clear defiance of the clearly expressed attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Minister should resign. This is a time for non-contentious debate and if the Government does not do something about it today I intend to use the forms of this chamber by not granting leave between now and the end of the session. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(1.26) —Madam Acting Deputy President, I did defer to my colleagues earlier because of the nature of the debate. I regret very much that it has become a little controversial. It is not the first time that I have risen in my place to defend people outside who have been accused under privilege of certain things, not only with respect to Senator Primmer's attacks on Mr Peter Henderson, but also other matters which have been raised. It has been my feeling for a long time that the Senate should do something about this in order to give redress to people who have been accused without the opportunity of reply. It seems to me that the Senate ought to give consideration perhaps to referring some matters of the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges with the object of giving the people outside, who regard something that is said in here as being damaging to their reputations or their business credibility, the opportunity to make a submission to the President and then for that submission, if the President warrants it, to be referred to the Privileges Committee to be dealt with. I think that would be fair. It would give the people outside the opportunity to present their cases or defences in an appropriate manner. I suggest we think about that seriously. Perhaps I will bring in a motion to that effect next year. I originally rose to reply to something that Senator Colston raised on the adjournment on, I think, 8 November. I rise only to read to the Senate a letter that was written to me by Brigadier Greville. I mentioned this matter to Senator Colston and I thought that it was fair for me to read the letter I have received into the Hansard. It states: Dear Senator, I have read carefully pages 2138 and 9 of Hansard covering the proceeds of the Senate on November 8, 1983. The statement made by Senator Colston (Queensland) about me upset my aged mother which I find quite offensive. I seek from you someway of redressing the wrong done me. I think the particular matter he refers to was broadcast over the radio and this is the reason for this letter. He continued: Should the Senator have made these statements outside of the Senate, I would not need to call upon you to redress this wrong. I would like to make it quite clear to you, what it is that both my mother and I find offensive in the . . . statement. In the first instance, I do not object to the Senator's accusations about my lack of taste in commenting adversely about the dead. He is referring there to the late Wilfrid Burchett. He continued: Taste is a matter of judgment, and depends on one's attitude in this instance towards the Soviet Union and the spread of communism. I would suggest too, that I believe myself qualified to speak on behalf of other Australians who suffered the indignity of being prisoners in the hands of the Chinese Communists, some of whom did not survive the unpleasant experience. Senator Colston's good friend Senator Georges complained bitterly a few years ago about the unhumanity of being in solitary confinement for twenty-four hours; I like many other Allied Prisoners in North Korea spent one hundred days, in solitary confinement, not in the friendly hands of the Queensland Police in a comfortable watch house, but in utter degradation and under constant threat. My objection is to the statement 'If Greville felt so strongly about Mr Burchett, he should have said these things while Burchett was alive. It seems uncharacteristically cowardly for Greville to wait until a person has died to launch a vitriolic attack on him. Both the Brigadier and the Pacific Defence Reporter should be aware that often there is dignity in silence'. There is dignity in the silence of the dead in Korea, especially in those whom Burchett may have saved if he possessed one spark of humanity for his fellow Australians and their Allies. Those of us who survived have our duty to ensure that they did not die in vain. The facts are that I have been consistently vocal about Burchett ever since he tried to return to the country that he foresook, many of my efforts to expose him have been thwarted, but not for lack of effort on my part. I attach, Sir, a deposition which I lodged as a witness in the case Burchett re Kane. I do not possess a copy of my evidence at the trial, but it is a matter of public property. As that deposition makes clear, I had on two occasions written letters to the editors of papers stating clearly that in my opinion Burchett's conduct in Korea had been traitorous. Because Burchett had laid charges against Mr Denis Warner and the Melbourne Herald, the Editors of all the papers contacted considered the matter sub-judice and would not print the letters. On his return to Australia I was given a chance to confront Burchett when I was invited to appear as part of a panel interviewing Burchett on a Four Corner's programme of the ABC. Although a serving officer, I risked offical censure to appear on the programme, and travelled to Sydney to do so. When Burchett learned from the Director of the Programme that one of the panel was an ex-POW, he refused to take part. The ABC dropped me from the panel, but I was given an interview immediately afterwards in which I made it quite clear that in my opinion Burchett's conduct in Korea was indefensible. As Defence Correspondent of the Advertiser under great provocation from certain sectors of the media, I retaliated by publishing three articles about Burchett, each of them making it clear that I believed him to be a traitor. I have too, written the chapter on Australian POWs in the Korean War for Volume 2 of the Official History of that war edited by Dr Robert O'Neill. In that chapter, I made it quite clear that as a soldier I was most disturbed by the fact that successive Governments of both political persuasions had ignored, or failed to comprehend the enormity of Burchett's crime towards Australian POWs. It may be that this chapter is the cause of the volume being some eighteen months overdue. When Burchett arrived in Australia on February 27, 1970, Mr Eric Donnelly, Chief Photographer of the Sunday Truth met Burchett in the course of his duties at Brisbane Airport. He publically accused Burchett of being a liar-see Sunday Mail, Adelaide February 28, 1970. Donnelly had been severely wounded before capture and suffered greatly in those crude conditions; he was fortunate to be evacuated in 'Little Switch' but unfortunate to meet Burchett before being repatriated. He knew the facts. Donnelly was so incensed about the treatment he was dealt by this fellow journalists that he had to remind the District Committee of the Australian Journalists Association that he had been a financial member of the organisation for twenty-two years, and was surely due some consideration over Burchett of whom he declared 'the word objectivity, impartiality and accuracy are strangers' . Because citizens of Australia can be libelled with such impunity by their elected representatives I can only appeal to you, to have the record set right. I am not sure of the mechanics, but if the words cannot be expunged from Hansard , I would ask you to have included sufficient of the above and the attachments to ensure that it clearly established that at no time have I been afraid to say to the world at large, that Burchett was a traitor. He made the point that he did this, of course, well before Mr Burchett unfortunately died. I know Brigadier Greville personally. As a prisoner of war he was in solitary confinement on a number of occasions. On one occasion he was thrown into a packing case left by the Americans. It was a wooden box arrangement measuring about 4 1/2 feet by 3 1/2 feet by 2 1/2 feet. He told me that he was reasonably happy there because he could see out through the cracks in the wood. However, the North Koreans threw into this confined space with him a South Korean soldier who had had an arm shot off and who had abdominal wounds. Even worse, later on a wounded civilian Korean also had to be accommodated in that small space. Brigadier Greville spent 21 days in that sort of situation so I think he can be excused for feeling very strongly about the fact that Wilfred Burchett during those years went behind enemy lines and tried to coerce Australian prisoners of war into saying that they were being treated very well, the Americans were the aggressors and so on, on the promise that they would be taken out of these degrading prisons and given better accommodation and better food. I think it would be fair to suggest that the feelings of Brigadier Greville plus those of a lot of other POWs would be quite strong against Mr Wilfred Burchett. I thought it a fair thing that I take this opportunity to present Brigadier Greville's case so that the Senate could study its contents. I apologise for delaying the Senate. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(1.37) —I will not delay the two honourable senators who want to make a contribution before 2 o'clock. It seems that I will not have the chance of replying on this matter before 2 o'clock. At this stage I indicate that I would like to comment on the remarks made by Senator Jessop today. However, I will do so at a later stage when I have the opportunity. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(1.38) —The matter I want to raise today in what is supposed to be a time set aside for non-controversial debate, relates to what I believe is the wilful, if not actually blatant, disregard by the Government for the rights of an Australian citizen. The gentleman I refer to is Mr Rafe Slaney, a businessman who lives in Geelong. For the last six or so years Mr Slaney has operated a business in Geelong called Medicare-Doctors' After Hours Service. I see that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) is in the chamber. I did not inform the Whip's secretary about the topic of my speech although I did so last Thursday night when I intended to raise this matter during the adjournment debate but changed my mind at the last minute. Mr Slaney' s problem has been raised in the media and I believe it is worth while raising it again in this place. For those members of the Senate who are not familiar with the situation, Mr Slaney first registered his business in 1975 and the service commenced in 1977. The business is registered as 212 Shannon Avenue, Geelong West. I remind honourable senators, who actually should not need reminding, that in 1975 the then Government's health care scheme was called Medibank. It continued to be called Medibank despite the various changes that it went through for some years. Mr Slaney's service-Medicare-Doctors' After Hours Service-provides an after hours surgery, waiting room and toilet facilities for patients and accommodation for a locum doctor and family as well as for a receptionist/operator. It supplies on site medical requirements such as dressings, bandages, sutures, instruments, plaster of paris, slings and a host of other items including notepaper, account forms and envelopes. Medicare-Doctors' After Hours Service operates independently of, but in co-operation with, local doctors and hospitals . Over the past six years it has provided medical care for more than 20,000 patients. It conforms to the guidelines for locum services laid down by the Australian Medical Association. I suggest that the dilemma is a very obvious one . While Medicare, to the Government and a large number of the Australian population, means the new health care system which is due to commence on 1 February next, to a large part of the population of Geelong for the last six years the term 'Medicare' in that abbreviated form has been used to describe Mr Slaney's business, the long title of which is Medicare-Doctors' After Hours Service. But as we all know, when you have a title like that most people will shorten it, and in Geelong and surrounding districts the business has been known simply as Medicare. Therefore, for them it has become synonymous with the provision of medical care under private practitioners and locums when their own doctors are of duty. I do not think that it takes anybody with the IQ of a genius to work out the effect that this could well have on Mr Slaney's business. In an open letter he has issued he makes the point that Medicare-Doctors' After Hours Service is listed in both the Geelong and Melbourne telephone directories. Their phones, he believes, could well be jammed with inquiries during the next year. He believes that his surgery will be overrun with people making claims, inquiries and so on in relation to the Government's new health system, which is also known as Medicare. Conversely, he says that to patients seeking their own doctors, or doctor's replacements, the name Medicare could well put them off ringing or coming to the surgery as they could well imagine that they would get 'government ' doctors. Thus, he believes, his business will be adversely affected because patronage will be lost and patients for whom the service was intended in the first place will not be seen. Over the last eight months or so Mr Slaney has been trying to clarify this position with the present Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, in an attempt to try to come to some agreement and obtain some form of redress. To date the Minister has chosen more or less to wash his hands of the matter. I point out that the first letter that Mr Slaney sent to Dr Blewett was sent prior to the 5 March election, anticipating presumably that the Labor Party would get in, or at least having foresight that most good businessmen have, to forestall any problems. The Minister's latest answer of any note of which I have a copy is dated 28 June 1983. In fact, it is a letter to Senator Chipp, who took this matter up through correspondence with the Minister. It begins: I apologise for the failure to attached the relevant correspondence to my earlier reply concerning Mr Rafe Slaney. Mr Slaney's then solicitor, John J Byrne, contacted me during the election campaign about the name 'Medicare'. On 23 March 1983 I telegrammed an acknowledgment to this solicitor (copy attached) and requested my department to investigate the matter. I point out at this stage, Madam Acting Deputy President, that that telegram from Dr Blewett on 23 March was prompted by a number of requests for acknowledgment of, or answers to, previous letters sent either by Mr Slaney or his solicitor. Dr Blewett's letter goes on: My department approached the Crown Solicitor's Office for advice on the matter, and as a result I sent the attached reply to Mr Slaney's present solicitors. Investigations have revealed that there are about 17 firms who use the name ' Medicare' or names very similar to it. No company has 'Medicare' as a registered trade mark, and as I have indicated it is already in widespread use. The government's Medicare health insurance programme will be widely explained in the coming months, so there should be no confusion with other products. We have no intention of interfering with the rights of persons who have already registered 'Medicare' as a business or company name, but we will consider limiting its further use. It is jolly generous of the Minister to say that he has no intention of interfering with the rights of persons who have already registered 'Medicare' as a business or company name. Presumably by that he means that he will not stop them from going on using it, but by the same token, he apparently has no intention of making any sort of redress available to those who, over a number of years and in very good faith, have used that name and have established a business accordingly. To go back to something else that the Minister said-that the Government's Medicare health insurance program would be widely explained in the coming months -I interpolate an anecdote that was repeated to me by a relative of mine who had been talking, at some social function or other that an Adelaide football club, to which he belongs, was holding, in a group of nine or 10 people. The topic of the Medicare cards and forms that have been sent out by the Government to everybody came up. It was confidently asserted by one member of the group, and agreed to by almost all the other members of the group, except my relative, who knew better, that there was no point in filling out the form and applying for the card because Medicare was not going to get through the Parliament. That happened within the last week. It shows how well the Government's Medicare health insurance program has been explained in the months since 28 June. Even if the Minister had made tremendous efforts in that regard, it is not possible to cover every member of the public. Many people simply do not care, many are not interested, many do not read papers and so on. People who have for the last six years been used to associating the term Medicare with a particular business in their country town are quite likely to assume that that business, if it continues, has either become some sort of a government organisation or has otherwise changed its method of operation. So I suggest that the Minister's, and therefore I presume the Government's, rather off-handed approach to what is likely to happen to a medical service that is provided in Geelong is not good enough. It simply is not satisfactory to shrug one's shoulders metaphorically and say: 'Well, 17 other firms are using it . We are not going to make you stop using it. On the other hand we are not going to do anything about it if you lose business'. I therefore ask the Minister, through the good offices of this debate, to reconsider his decision and look at Mr Slaney's case again with a view to reaching some sort of reasonable agreement with him as to compensation, if any is necessary, and to do likewise with any of the other people who feel that they have been disadvantaged in this way. Presumably, the Minister does not want to give any sort of payment, ex gratia or otherwise, to Mr Slaney in case it will establish a precedent or set off some sort of rush for compensatory payments, but I would have thought that this particular case-other cases may be equally deserving-should be looked at on its merits with a somewhat more sympathetic eye, given that when the business was established Medibank was the term used in this country for a government sponsored and government run health care system and that this man has been operating a very successful business and providing a very necessary service in a country town in Australia. I think that he deserves better treatment than he has received so far. Senator Peter Baume —Would he have any civil rights? Senator HAINES —I have not the faintest idea, not being a lawyer, one of those noxious types that abound in this place. Perhaps we could find out from somewhere else. As Dr Blewett has said, he has approached the Crown Solicitor's Office for advice and that Office-not noted certainly for giving very radical opinions-has indicated that there is no legal requirement on the part of the Government to act. However, I repeat that the Crown Solicitor's Office is quite notorious for making ultra-conservative judgments in these cases, and perhaps it is worth challenging. Mr Slaney has already expended a large amount of money in solicitors' fees and so on in attempting to get some sort of satisfaction from the Government. I presume that his resources are considerably less than are the Government's. He may well not be in a position to fight this matter further. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(1.50) —The annual report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was presented to the Senate yesterday but the Senate did not have time to discuss it yesterday. I thought that today, during a non-controversial debate, I would be able to say a few words about it. I am very interested in the report. I am sure that the cover of the report will make everybody who sees it think that it would be very nice to spend some time on the Great Barrier Reef. I have been to many of the islands, although I have not been fortunate enough to go to the outer reef. The report states: The Great Barrier Reef Region covers an area of almost 350,000 square kilometres. It is considerably larger in area than the United Kingdom or the State of Victoria. The area has been used by Aboriginals from time immemorial . . . That, of course, is quite right. If one visits Lizard Island, one hears the story of Mrs Watson, the wife of a beche-de-mer fisherman who was left on the island by her husband while he went fishing. While she was there some Aborigines arrived for an initiation ceremony. I am afraid that they threatened to kill her . As a result she got into a ship's tank with her Chinaman helper and her baby and pushed off to sea. Unfortunately, the currents did not take her to the mainland which is within sight of Lizard Island but they took her to another island further away where there was no water. In the end Mrs Watson, her Chinese servant and the baby perished. It is, of course, a very sad story. If one happens to go to Cooktown and visits the museum one will be acquainted with this very interesting but particularly sad story. The report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority states: When the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act was passed in 1975 by both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament, with the support of all parties, there already existed a complex set of mechanisms which regulated human activity on and near the Great Barrier Reef. These included State and Commonwealth regulations on fishing, mineral exploration and recovery, boating and shipping, tourist operations, operations of ports and harbours and the discharge of wastes from fixed installations and vessels. As at June 1983, 14 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef region was within the Marine Park. That figure has now increased to 80 per cent; so it will not be too long before the whole 100 per cent of the region comes within the Marine Park. I think everybody accepts that the Great Barrier Reef is one of the great wonders of the world. The latest section to be declared is the Cairns section. The report states: The Cairns Section is huge. It is physically and biologically complex and is subject to a wide spectrum of human uses. Development of its zoning plan, during which all the submissions of experts and the general community were taken carefully into account, was correspondingly difficult. The Chairman of the Authority, Mr Kelleher, said: The creation of a new Marine National Park Buffer Zone in which the only fishing activity permitted is trolling from moving vessels was necessary in order to provide protection for many reefs while avoiding unnecessary restrictions on fishing activity, which is an important component of human use of the Great Barrier Reef. Of course, we know that when the marlin fishing time comes around Lizard Island is very important. Lots of people from America visit Townsville and go marlin fishing from there. The report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority states that its objectives are: to maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems; to preserve genetic diversity; to ensure the sustainable utilisation of species and ecosystems. These are some of the interesting comments in the report. Another point I wish to make in connection with this report is that when I visited Lizard Island in August this year I took the opportunity to visit the Lizard Island research station. I was asked about the Federal Government's policy towards supporting funding for research stations on the Great Barrier Reef. It has been claimed that all the island research stations could be funded by various universities but they are not university operated. It was drawn to my notice while I was there-I had an opportunity to look at the station properly-that funds for research on the Barrier Reef are spent at the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville but that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and fisheries and university scientists still need to use the island's research facilities. Having had a talk with the gentleman who is in charge, I feel that there is a need for the Government to consider providing funds to cover basic operating and maintenance expenses at the research stations on the reef which then, of course, should be supplemented by a reasonable user pays system. I ask the Government to give consideration to the need which I have outlined. Debate (on motion by Senator Coleman) adjourned. (Quorum formed) Senator DURACK —I refer to a question I asked the Attorney-General on 6 September this year arising out of his opinion to the Prime Minister on 29 August concerning the question of the possible prosecution of Mr Young for a breach of the Crimes Act. I referred to a passage in that opinion under the heading 'Need for Deterrence' in which he said: In the official secrets area, sanctions that have been traditionally regarded as applicable . . . are not those of the criminal law but the political sanctions . . . In answer to my question, the Attorney said: The particular remarks to which Senator Durack referred were made in the very specific context of the proper grounds upon which the discretion to prosecute should be exercised in the event that it ever became clear that a technical offence had been committed. I ask the Attorney-General: In the light of Mr Justice Hope's findings in the report tabled here on Tuesday last, does he still consider that Mr Young committed only a technical offence? If so, how does he justify that view? If not , will he now reconsider the question of prosecution of Mr Young? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not the case that Mr Justice Hope made any finding at all as to whether Mr Young had committed any criminal offence. Mr Justice Hope deliberately refrained from drawing any conclusion on that basis on the ground, as honourable senators will recall from reading the report, that to do so would be oppressive, given the way in which the matter had been handled up to that point and given, in particular, the circumstance that I had indicated that no prosecution would flow. Even had Mr Justice Hope found that a criminal offence, technical or otherwise, had been committed, my decision would remain the same so far as prosecution is concerned on the basis of the criteria which I set out carefully in that letter. There is no ground whatsoever for reconsideration by me or, I believe, anyone else of the basic foundations of that opinion and the decision as recorded in that letter. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I specifically asked the Attorney-General whether, in the light of all the findings of fact, comments on law, and views on Mr Young's unauthorised action and impropriety, and in view of the application of section 79 of the Crimes Act, does the Attorney-General adhere to the view he expressed on 6 September to me that Mr Young committed only a technical offence? Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I have nothing to add to my previous answer. Senator COATES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. I refer to the annual report 1981-82 of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust which the Minister for Finance tabled with the Auditor- General's report in the House of Representatives last night. I do not ask about the accusations of recklessness in investment procedure and so forth in the Auditor-General's report, but because of the attention drawn to the whole report I had a closer look at it than I might normally have done. Appendix A of the SFIT report lists the property in which the Trust has invested. There are 50 or so properties listed, not one of which is in Tasmania. I think there appears to be a fair spread amongst all the other States and Territories, but there is not one property in Tasmania. Will the Minister raise with the Minister for Finance and the Trust the question of such investment bodies, especially public ones, taking into account a fair spread of investment, especially as the superannuation contributions of public servants in Tasmania ought to be reflected in the activities of the Trust and the benefits to everyone from it. Senator WALSH —I am not aware in detail of the contents of the report that was tabled last night by Mr Dawkins in the House of Representatives. I have been told that what Senator Coates has said about the dearth of investments in Tasmania by the Superannuation Fund is correct. While everyone would expect the managers of such a fund to pay due regard to the likely return on investments they make, it would be unlikely, to say the least, that anyone would expect that there are no investments worth making in Tasmania. For that reason, it seems that the Fund ought to pay some more attention to Tasmania or to the potential for investment in Tasmania than it has in the past. On prima facie grounds one would expect that there ought to be opportunities for profitable investment in that State. Also, as Senator Coates pointed out, it is a reasonable expectation for Tasmanians, or, indeed, the people of any State, to hold, that a reasonable amount of the investment from the Fund to which employees in all States contribute, not necessarily on a 1:1 ratio, be distributed fairly equally throughout the country. Of course, I can understand Senator Coates's interest in that matter because like all Tasmanian senators on this side of the House, he is interested in getting productive investment in Tasmania and securing some economic growth in that State. As the Premier of Tasmania told me directly some four or five months ago, the private sector in that State over the last 10 years has not generated one net job. For that reason, among others, Tasmania, compared with other States , has had a chronically high level of unemployment, a situation which Senator Coates obviously would like to have repaired. I will refer the question to the Minister for Finance to see what, if anything, he can have done about the apparent neglect of Tasmania to which Senator Coates has drawn attention. But I am not sure what powers of direction, if any, the Minister has over that Fund. I will see what Mr Dawkins has to add to the answer that I have given and will ensure that Senator Coates is notified accordingly. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General and follows that of Senator Durack in that it concerns the Attorney-General's opinion of 29 August on the possible prosecution of Mr Mick Young under the Crimes Act. Is it true that both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General agreed that should Mr Eric Walsh's evidence of the 21 April conversation be preferred to Mr Young's , it was possible that an offence under the Crimes Act could have been committed ? Does the Attorney recall suggesting in the opinion that, in this event, the question of the application of section 79 (3) of the Act would be 'much more finely balanced'? Does he recall Sir Maurice Byers's view that: It would be open to a jury to find that Mr Young had committed a breach of section 79 (3). In light of the decision of Mr Justice Hope to accept the Walsh account and his findings about Mr Young's conduct, will the Attorney-General now reconsider his position and his decision not to prosecute? Senator GARETH EVANS —The contents of my opinion of 29 August and that of the Solicitor-General are a matter of public record. I believe they speak for themselves. As to the question of reconsidering the contents of that opinion in the light of recent developments, I do not believe Senator Messner asks any different a question from that which Senator Durack asked a few moments ago. The answer is exactly the same. No, I do not propose to reconsider the opinion because the opinion and that part of it which related to the decision not to prosecute were expressly based on what I described as worst case assumptions. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In view of the fact that, during the years of the Fraser Government, Australia's eight family planning associations were forced to charge those utilising their services, except for pensioners and other beneficiaries, can the Minister give any indication of changes likely to occur as a result of the introduction of Medicare on 1 February 1984? Senator Archer —Here comes a ministerial statement. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry to disappoint honourable senators opposite. It is not a ministerial statement. I will make one if they like. Certainly, as Senator Giles has pointed out, over the seven years there were considerable difficulties with the family planning associations because of the necessity they had to charge patients except those with various health benefit cards. As a result, many of the people whom the family planning associations would have liked to assist, such as disadvantaged people who, for one reason or another, did not have such cards, were charged or, if they were not charged, the associations had to bear the cost or the people had to do without the assistance. Under the new arrangements under Medicare Dr Blewett has announced a situation whereby family planning associations in future will be able to be reimbursed without having to charge patients. I think it is a step forward. It has been welcomed by the family planning organisations. On Dr Blewett's behalf, I shall be tabling a statement in this place, not reading it out at Question Time, as Senator Archer thought I would, giving the details of that program and the programs in association with the States. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . How does the Government intend to guarantee sufficient supplies of motor spirit in Australia if political troubles or war resulted in a sudden lack of availability of Middle East oil? Is the Government aware that a highly respected and internationally used mathematical model, called Markal, to assess the best available energy options for national economies, has been applied to Australia by a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation team, and that it has concluded that we could profitably begin to produce methanol as a motor fuel from natural gas, and possibly also petrol, from 1990 onwards? Since the lead time for such natural gas to methanol or petrol plants is at least five years, does the Government intend to commence planning this development over the next few years, perhaps using North West Shelf gas on a large scale, in view of the current dilemma of the North West Shelf partners? Finally, is the Minister aware that major natural gas to methanol and petrol plants are already complete and operating successfully in New Zealand? Senator WALSH —Senator Mason has asked a number of questions. In regard to the first question, as to the likelihood of a sudden disruption in supply from overseas, nothing could fully compensate for the complete withholding of supplies from overseas; not that that is likely. It is, however, possible, for a variety of possible reasons, that a smaller amount than is currently supplied from overseas could be supplied at some time in the future. The Government has before the Senate now, we hope that it will be passed during this session, the Liquid Fuel Emergency Bill, the pre-planning for which was done by the previous Government, and which is intended to cope as best as is possible with such a situation. The Government is also involved with the International Energy Agency's plans for coping internationally with such a possible major disruption to world oil supplies. Regarding the mathematical model which has predicted that by 1990 it could be economic to produce methanol or even petrol from natural gas, I am aware of that study. It incorporates assumptions about real increases in oil prices which were made some time ago and which are higher than I think most people, possibly including even those who drew up the model, would make today if they were again drawing up the guidelines for that model. In other words, disregarding short term disruptions of supply, it now seems unlikely that real oil prices will increase in the time frame that had been previously envisaged. Therefore, the period in which it may be economic to produce petrol or methanol from natural gas needs to be pushed well back into the 1990s. The third question was whether the Government would commence planning for development of production of methanol from natural gas next year. In view of the points I have already made, the answer to that is no, because we believe it would be premature to initiate such plans at this stage. Expectations about this question can be proved to be wrong. For example, it was only a couple of years ago that Senator Sir John Carrick was forecasting that by 1985 we would be producing 50,000 barrels of oil a day from the Rundle shale deposits. I do not think that anyone expects that to happen by 1995, let alone by 1985. That estimate is very generous to Senator Sir John Carrick. If it ever happens, it is more likely to be pushed some time into the twenty-first century. On the last question, regarding the New Zealand natural gas to methanol and petrol plant, I understand that it is not yet complete but that it will shortly be completed. It is not for me to pass judgment on the policies of the New Zealand Government. Again, I believe that plant was commissioned and adjudged to be economic against an expectation of a very rapid increase in real oil prices, which has not occurred. I would therefore be surprised if the fuel produced from that plant in late 1984 or 1985, whenever it is completed, were price competitive, at least at this stage, with petrol produced from imported crude oil. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen a report in today's Age in which the former Prime Minister argues that interest rates in Australia are falling because of, firstly, big capital inflow; secondly, the fact that the money supply is running at about 2 percentage points above the upper reaches of the Government's objective; and thirdly, the extraordinarily weak private demand for funds? Does the Minister accept this as an accurate explanation of the fall in interest rates? Senator Messner —It is accurate, but he will not accept it. Senator WALSH —I had with me that cutting to which Senator Zakharov referred, but I seem to have misplaced it. I have seen it. It is a most extraordinary article and a most extraordinary comment from the discredited former Prime Minister; although nobody who was aware of his record could reasonably dispute his expertise on matters pertaining to interest rates. It was he, for example, who said in 1977: 'Interest rates will fall by 2 per cent over the coming year. It is a target that can and will be met'. That was what Mr Fraser said in the run- up to the 1977 election. It was not, of course, what happened; and it was not only Mr Fraser who said that. The discredited former Deputy Prime Minister and present Leader of the National Party of Australia was at the same time stating that if interest rates did not fall by 2 per cent he would eat his hat. Something might have eaten his hair since then but, as far as I know, he has not yet eaten his hat. For good measure, I might add-including this comment to whoever it was who interjected when Senator Zakharov's question was being completed-that if Mr Fraser were correct in his assessment all the sycophants in the Liberal Party and National Party in 1977 did not dispute that ridiculous assertion which their then Leader made. To return to the details of the remarkable statement by the discredited former Prime Minister, from which Senator Zakharov has quoted, he claimed that interest rates were falling despite the size of the deficit, which contradicts what was dogma throughout the years in which the Fraser writ ran in this country, because of the big capital inflow and the fact that the money supply was running at about 2 percentage points above the upper reaches of the Government's objectives . The important fact which Mr Fraser has overlooked in arriving at that conclusion is that the money supply in the earlier part of the last financial year was running at a very high rate. Therefore, at this stage, those months of the last financial year in which the money supply was running at a very high rate are still included in the current annual rate. Towards the end of the last financial year the money supply on a month to month basis was growing at a very much lower rate. I cannot quote the precise figures. That was the monetary target set by the Government. By the end of this financial year the annual figure will have shed the high monthly growth rates which had been recorded in the earlier part of the last financial year. In other words, to simplify it, the real growth in the money supply is somewhat lower than the crude annual figure suggests because of variations within a year in the month to month rate of growth in the money supply. I refer to M3. He said that the private demand for funds is weak. That is certainly correct. It is weak because he wrecked the economy in the final years of his Government and drove it into the deepest recession which it had seen for 50 years. After he had wrecked the economy, with the assistance of his colleagues here who are gibbering on the other side of the aisle, he said that it was all due to a wages blowout, as if that were some extraneous event over which he had absolutely no control, whereas, of course, in June of 1981 he was more interested in abandoning any attempt at a government wages policy and ducking off to London for the royal wedding. He was not criticised for that piece of irresponsibility either. In closing, on the Government's stated objective for money supply-M3-it was to fall on a June 1984 on June 1983 basis, between the range of 9 and 11 per cent. It was also stated by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech, or if not in the Budget Speech contemporaneously with the Budget Speech, that that was a target which would be reviewed during the year in view of possible changes in economic activity. As the most recent statistics show, economic growth has been more rapid than was anticipated at the time the Budget was presented. If that trend should continue, the money supply target could, quite consistently with the objectives outlined by the Treasurer at the time the Budget was presented, be extended. If we take a mid-point figure of 10 per cent in the anticipated target , the money supply growth rate incorporated an assumption that nominal gross domestic product would grow by around 14 per cent and that the velocity of circulation would increase by about 4 per cent. If nominal GDP growth in fact exceeds 14 per cent, which now seems possible, it is not reasonable to expect the velocity to increase by more than 4 per cent. Therefore, it would be inappropriate under those circumstances to choke off the economic growth which is currently occurring by an unduly restrictive monetary policy. That is a lesson which I suggest members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia fruitfully use their time in opposition to learn. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. I have been very patient. We have had reasonable Question Times in the absence of Senator Walsh and on his return we get back into the business of destroying Question Time by debating questions. I ask you to impose some discipline on the Minister. The PRESIDENT —I think the Minister has completed his answer. Senator SCOTT —Does the Attorney-General agree that major factors in his decision not to prosecute Mr Young under the Crimes Act were the degree of culpability of Mr Young and his, Senator Evans's, view that the former Minister had not intended to harm Australia's security? It is now a fact that Mr Justice Hope has found that the potential and not actual damage to national security of Mr Young's disclosures is the determinant of impropriety, that there was a real risk that significant damage could have resulted and that, notwithstanding Mr Young's short ministerial experience, it should have been apparent to him that he should not have made the disclosures. In view of this, will the Attorney- General therefore reconsider his decision since one of the main grounds for it has now been seen in a much different light by the Royal Commissioner? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think Senator Scott would have asked his question, even though it was put in his hands by someone else, had he actually read the terms of my opinion on 29 August because he will find that the matter is squarely there addressed. The criteria that were spelled out as appropriate to be taken into account in determining whether a prosecution should flow, even on the worst case assumptions as described, were: Obscurity of the law, the need for deterence, the seriousness of the offence and degree of culpability. The question that I further drew attention to on page 9 of the opinion is that a conviction under section 79 (3) of the Crimes Act, which is punishable by two years imprisonment, would be likely to result in Mr Young's automatic disqualification from parliament. As to the particular matter of the degree of culpability what I wrote was this, and I believe it conveys its own answer to Senator Scott's question: Although the disclosure of the specific matters described in Mr Walsh's account would potentially have been very serious-in terms particularly of what it would reveal about, and the way in which it might have interfered with, security operations-it does not appear, in the event, that any such damage occurred. Nor was there, obviously, any intention to harm Australia's defence, security or international relations. Mr Hope's finding was that no damage had in fact occurred. It was potential, certainly, but the findings of Mr Justice Hope were in a sense identical with those that were anticipated here in the articulation of this particular criterion. Once again, despite the probing and general neurosis and fidgeting that is going on from Senator Chaney and others on the other side, there is simply no substance in any of their suggestions about reconsideration, and I propose to do nothing of the kind. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs been drawn to a statement on this morning's Australian Broadcasting Corporation news made by Mr Holley, Chairman of the Canberra Celebration Board? Mr Holley complained that Mr Everingham, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, stated that Canberra was 'a hateful place, an awful place to live' and that it lived a 'lapdog existence'. Does the Minister support Mr Holley's condemnation of such statements about our national capital? Senator RYAN —I certainly join with Mr Holley in condemning these outrageous criticisms of the national capital by Mr Everingham, and I presume my colleague Senator Reid would also. It is rather offensive for citizens of the Australian Capital Territory to be abused in this fashion. I must say that it is a singularly inappropriate choice of abusive metaphor on the part of Mr Everingham to refer to Canberra citizens as lap-dogs when everyone is aware that the Commonwealth funds the Northern Territory to the tune of something like 87 per cent. We do not complain about that. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr President. I ask in what aspect of the Minister's responsibility this question lies and whether it is within Standing Orders. The PRESIDENT —I understood that the question was directed to Senator Ryan in her capacity as Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and I ask her to answer in that regard. Senator RYAN —It is very unfortunate for Mr Everingham to decide to score points in this way. People of the Australian Capital Territory find it very offensive. This is a place where many people have chosen to live, and live very happily. The population is growing again, of course, since the election of a Labor Government. It is a place with a very lively community, as Senator Reid will attest. We have an enormous number of charitable organisations and sports organisations. We have the finest government school system in the country and a number of other community services which make life here quite the opposite of hateful. I point out again that Mr Everingham, presiding over a territorial administration that is 87 per cent funded by Commonwealth funds, ought not to point at this community, which is a very high tax-paying community and a very harmonious and pleasant community to live in and, I might add, to represent. Senator LAJOVIC —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. In the Attorney-General's option of 29 August did he rely on what he called the obscurity of the law as a ground for not prosecuting the former Special Minister of State, Mr Mick Young, under the Crimes Act? In the light of Mr Justice Hope's analysis of section 79 of that Act, will the Attorney now agree that the section is clearly applicable to the facts of the case and that there is no reason for declining to prosecute on that ground? Senator GARETH EVANS —The point has, once again, been spectacularly missed by Senator Lajovic and the person who wrote all these spectacularly inept questions . The sheer fact that there has been so much controversy about section 79 (3), so many different options expressed about it and so many different submissions made about it, is in intself, demonstration that the law is not clear. It may well be clear in my mind; it may well be clear in Mr Justice Hope's mind. The considerations in determining what it does mean, the applications of it and whether it refers to legal duties or classes of non-legal duties as well, are very much matters on which perfectly reasonably and well informed legal minds, not to mention lay minds, may well differ. Were this matter ever to be litigated in some context or another, it is perfectly likely that differences of opinion would be carried through all the way up to the High Court of Australia. I read into the record, again, the relevant paragraph from that part of my opinion in which I was, at that stage, indicating reasons why it would be inappropriate to prosecute even in the event that a clear offence was made out. I said that the question of obscurity of the law was one relevant criterion. I said: This element is clearly present here, as is evident from the terms of both the Solicitor-General's opinion and my own: the issue of criminal liability, in our view, comes down ultimately to an assessment of what is required by the ''nature '' of the information, the ''circumstances'' of the case, and ''any other reason ''. We are aware, moreover, that at least one distinguished constitutional expert (Professor Sawer) has expressed a view of the law contrary to our own. That was all that was said, making the point that there are a number of very vague expressions in section 79. The meaning of a number of the provisions in the Crimes Act are eminently worthy of reconsideration by this legislature. I hope that reconsideration will proceed next year. In the meantime, nobody can be quite confident also what these terms mean. It is perfectly appropriate under those circumstances to proceed on the basis that someone who might potentially be liable under one reading of these sections ought to get the benefit of any doubt as to the conduct of a prosecution in relation to that. It is a well understood and traditional ground of considering the criteria for discretion to prosecute. It is one that I applied without any apology in this case and I make no apology now. Senator ROBERT RAY —Can the Minister representing the Treasurer advise the Senate whether the employment and unemployment figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics are consistent with Government forecasts made in the 1983 Budget? Is the Government satisfied with the progress being made in the labour force? What does the Government believe is the outlook for the employed and the unemployed for the rest of this financial year? Senator WALSH —The monthly ABS statistics have been somewhat erratic recently. Therefore, it would be a bit rash, I think, to draw unequivocal conclusions from the figures for any month. Nevertheless, the most recent statistics harden the trend which has been apparent for some time. Senator Ray's specific question was : Are the latest figures consistent with the Government's Budget forecasts. The latest employment figures are not consistent with the Government's Budget forecast because employment has grown at a very much faster rate, according to the most recent statistics, than was anticipated at the time of the Budget. In other words, should the most recent figures be confirmed in subsequent months, the Government's estimate at the time of the Budget was conservative. That was in marked contrast to the estimates that this Government's predecessor used to make about all sorts of favourable economic matters. For the eight months since March 1983, total unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis has increased by almost 100,000. The Government's Budget forecast for the whole year, if I remember correctly, was for about 90,000. That is in marked contrast to the eight months prior to the present Government coming to office when, again, on a seasonally adjusted basis, the total number of persons employed fell by 127,000. In the eight months of this Government, the seasonally adjusted unemployment figure has gone up by almost 100,000; in the last eight months of the previous Government the seasonally adjusted figure fell by 127,000 . We have not quite yet compensated for the damage which the previous Government did in its last eight months. However, we are approaching that figure. As I said, the statistics have been somewhat erratic in recent months but they are following a consistent trend. That trend has been hardened by the most recent figures. Since the trough in employment in April to the most recent figure-that is, the figure for the end of November-employment has grown by 126, 000 which is, as I said, considerably in excess of the expectations and forecasts of the Government at the time the Budget was delivered. The final part of Senator Ray's question concerned the prospects for the future . There seems little doubt that, for the immediate future, the prospects are good. That does not mean, of course, that unemployment will disappear overnight or even in one or two years. That is not a reasonable expectation. There is now a reasonable expectation that over the next 12 months or so there will be a very marked growth in employment and even, perhaps, a substantial decrease in the unemployment rate which has already fallen by almost one per cent in the last two months. The unemployment rate, of course, reflects other factors as well. But, for the longer term, the view of the Government, which has consistently been put by the economic spokesman and the Prime Minister over the last eight or 12 months, is that the crucial factor will be whether the prices and incomes accord is honoured. That was emphasised again today by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Ralph Willis, who, in his official comment on these figures, said: For the growth in the labour demand to be maintained there must be firm adherence by both employers and employees to the guidelines of the Prices and Incomes Accord. That is the view of the Government. Probably the most important factor, now that we have a stable and reliable government in power as distinct from the situation which existed 12 months ago, is the honouring of the prices and incomes accord. The Government intends to stress to all sections of the community that that matter is crucial. Senator CHANEY —I again refer the Attorney-General to the opinion that he has been waving around, which he gave to the Prime Minister on 29 August, as to whether a breach of the Crimes Act could result from the conversation between Mr Mick Young and Mr Eric Walsh on 21 April this year. I ask the Attorney to confirm to the Senate that the decision to exercise his discretion not to prosecute Mr Young was substantially based on his view that the political sanction of resignation was more appropriate than the penalty provided for in the criminal law, that is, a possible two-year gaol term, as well as the constitutional penalty that would be exacted of Mr Young if he were prosecuted and convicted of an offence under that section, namely his expulsion from this Parliament. Now that the Prime Minister has said that he welcomes Mr Young's return to the Ministry, will the Attorney-General agree that the political sanction on which he placed so much weight, shortlived as that sanction was, has now been removed? In light of that removal and the substantial difference, therefore, between the circumstances now and the circumstances set out in this opinion, will he now reconsider his decision not to prosecute Mr Young? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that the availability of the political sanction of resignation was one of the criteria I took into account. It was the fourth mentioned out of four criteria that were discussed and applied in that opinion and I can assure Senator Chaney that my answer would have been exactly the same had those considerations not been relevant at all. Of course, it is a matter of judgment as to whether or not one takes the view that the period of time that Mr Young has been out of very senior ministerial office in this country is such as to amount to the kind of resignation that would satisfy everyone. All I can say is that on all the available evidence, six months absence from the Ministry in all the circumstances is something that appeals overwhelmingly to reasonable and fair-minded Australians as a very serious sanction indeed. That penalty, that sanction, has been suffered, has been experienced, and I think the extent and significance of it should be treated with rather more consideration than the insensitive characters on the other side of this chamber seem able to do. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I simply ask the Attorney-General to confirm that in this important respect the facts as they were when he gave the opinion are no longer the facts now. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that Mr Young has still not been restored to the Ministry. He has resigned and will remain out of the Ministry until such time as a place is available. To that extent the facts have not changed at all. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Attorney-General to a decision in the High Court of Australia last Friday ruling that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation produce documents relevant to a Mr Seary, a key witness at the trial of three members of the Ananda Marga religious sect. I note that the Court further provided that the Attorney-General could object to the production of the documents or of any one of the documents. In view of the obvious importance of these considerations to the fair trial of the three people involved and in light of the Attorney-General's stated position on these matters, can he say whether or when he will make any such documents available to the High Court? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not my intention to object to the production of any documents that ASIO may prove to have that bear upon the subject matter of this trial. Some attention is being given at the moment to digging out such material as there may be on this and I understand something will come to me in the form of a draft affidavit either later today or tomorrow. That has always been my position in relation to the production of documents. I know that the previous Attorney-General took a different view. I thought it was appropriate for that view to be tested in the High Court in order that the fundamental issues of public policy that were here involved might be resolved. Senator Durack —Do you mean you have made up your mind without seeing the document? Senator GARETH EVANS —Okay, I will insert a further phrase-on what I know about the nature of any documents that might be possessed and the way in which those documents have been reported to me. It is not my intention to take the threshold objection in principle that Senator Durack took, that not under any circumstances should any document coming from within ASIO be produced to the Court. I do not happen to share that particular view of the world. Senator LEWIS —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Has the Government decided to withdraw its application to the Federal Court of Australia for the de-registration of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation unions-- Senator Cook —There is only one. Senator LEWIS —I am sorry; union-when this matter resumes in Melbourne on Monday , 12 December 1983? Have employers in the building industry advised the Government that the undertakings of good behaviour suggested by this union and the Australian Council of Trade Unions provide no guarantee of future industrial good behaviour and most likely would be viewed as inappropriate by the Federal Court? I ask the Minister whether at the Vosti conference on 30 June, when Commissioner Vosti read out a telex from the Minister, Mr Norm Gallagher, the General Secretary of the union, said to Commissioner Vosti and three departmental officers-I quote him although I understand I have to delete an expletive: I am not going to take this- this is a deletion- The Labor Party has welched on the deal with us. They took $20,000 to pull out the de-registration. I ask further whether the minutes of the Vosti conference record that outburst by Mr Gallagher as: He vehemently objected to the wording of the telex and accused the Government of breaking undertakings given to the BLF. Has the Government now decided to honour its undertaking given prior to the last election? Senator BUTTON —I do not know anything about any undertakings referred to by Mr Gallagher, allegedly given prior to the last election. I do not believe there were any such undertakings in the form which Senator Lewis suggested in the way he has couched his question. I am not personally aware of whether a telex was sent to the Vosti inquiry on 30 June from Mr Norm Gallagher in the terms which Senator Lewis had indicated. Might I say, however, that the wording which Senator Lewis read into his question sounds strangely familiar to me and I would have no doubt at all that Norm Gallagher said something like that, particularly with the expletive included. I make the point that since 30 June the situation in relation to the building industry, including negotiations in the building industry, has come a very long way in terms of discussions which have taken place regarding the building industry agreement, undertakings that have been given by the BLF and undertakings that have been given by the ACTU in relation to those undertakings given by the BLF. I might also say that the situation in the construction industry has considerably improved. Those improvements have occurred as a result of the intervention of the Government in discussions on the building industry agreement and by the Government trying to obtain a better industrial relations situation in this industry. It is no tremendous comfort to Senator Lewis or anybody else to discuss what happened on 30 June or what Mr Gallagher said on that day. If I might be unassisted by the clamorous multitude, Mr President, this Government has moved quite fast in relation to the situation in the building industry and to industrial peace in that industry since then. The first part of Senator Lewis's question asked whether the Government had made a decision in principal on withdrawing its participation in the deregistration proceedings against the Builders Labourers Federation. The answer to that part of the question is yes. Senator COOK —My question which is directed to the Leader of the Government, is a good news question. Is it true that the national account figures posted today show a remarkable 4.4 per cent increase in gross national product for the September quarter? Does that performance indicate that Budget projections have been too modest and should now be revised to provide a bolder but on these results more realistic target? Taken together with the dramatic turnaround on the employment front, do these results vindicate the Hawke Government's economic strategy, and will the Government now invite the Opposition to cease its carping and senseless irrelevancies and, in tune with the good-will sentiments of this time of the year, back the Government's economic strategy. Senator Chaney —And refer to capital expenditure, won't you? Senator BUTTON —I am asked a question by way of interjection. It is actually Senator Cook's question but Senator Chaney is piggybacking again and I will deal with his interjection first. The situation in relation to capital investment in Australia is disastrous and it has been now for 10 years. The Government, on the basis of the answer which I am going to give to Senator Cook's question, hopefully can look forward to an improvement next year in the capital investment situation, but the projections are not very satisfactory. If one looks at the situation of capital investment, particularly in the manufacturing industry in the last decade- Senator Chaney —Try the last quarter. Senator BUTTON —He says: 'Try the last quarter'. I will try the two quarters before that if he wants me to. The point about it is that I take it that Senator Chaney's interjection is an expression of concern, rather than nitpicking, about the level of capital investment in Australia and I am saying that I share the concern. I believe the Government has taken all the steps that were available to it in the budgetary context to encourage an increased level of capital investment in this country. Senator Cook asked me an intelligent question, if I might say so; a concerned and genuine question as distinct from the piggybacking which Senator Chaney indulged in. Insofar as Senator Cook's question is concerned, I do not think the Government has been too modest about its achievements. I do not think a government can be too modest about these things. I think it is important that a note of caution be engendered in all the considerations of the figures which are now available and which have been available in the last couple of months in relation to improving employment trends and the national accounts figures to which Senator Cook referred. I do not think it is any time for any government to be throwing its hat in the air. What I would say is simply that in our view the task which we set out to achieve when we were elected is showing progress. We are showing progress in respect of that task which we set out to achieve and we will go on doing that. I do not invite the Opposition to abandon any different views it might have. I am delighted to find it is reduced today to talking about capital investment, because that is the only statistic which looks bad in the current picture. Senator Chaney —It is very significant. Senator BUTTON —Of course it is very significant, and I acknowledged that earlier in my remarks. Let me just make these points: The national account figures published today show that growth has resumed in the Australian economy in the September quarter at an annual rate of 9.1 per cent in respect of non- farm gross domestic product. Indeed that is a rate of advance that has not been seen in Australia since the December quarter of 1981, and it contrasts very sharply with the contractions in the economy recorded in six of the preceding eight quarters. Senator Chaney will no doubt, by way of interjection, want to tell us which six they were. I believe these things are a manifestation of confidence in the Government's policies. For example, I do not get up here and pretend that the fact the drought has ended is not significant, but these things are a manifestation of confidence in the Government's policies which is seen in a wide range of figures, including, for example, consumer confidence and things of that kind which have been published in the last month or so. These do reflect confidence in the Government's policies and put the lie to those pessimists who have consistently queried the soundness of the Government's approach. That approach is built upon a realistic incomes and prices policy coupled with responsible fiscal and exchange rate policies. The national accounts also show a welcoming decline in the broadly based measures of inflation. I do not want to refer to the details of that but I will do so, of course, if anybody wants me to. I appreciate that sometimes answers to questions in this place are too long, just as questions are too long and sometimes the answers are painful and I do not want to inflict pain on anybody today because, as Senator Cook said at the start of his question, it is a good news day. Senator WALTERS —I draw the attention of the Attorney-General to a report in today's Age newspaper which quotes his spokesman as having said: 'The only reason we're not printing the No case is that no rational person would vote against the proposals'. I ask the Attorney-General whether he authorised this comment? In any event will he withdraw this gratuitous insult to the intelligence and integrity of millions of Australians who will undoubtedly vote No when the proposals to change the Constitution are put to the people in February? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not recall authorising the comment in question. In fact it is not one that I would make. There are rational arguments that can be put into a reasonable public debate on all the matters in issue in the referendums. The point, however, is that we have not heard any of them from this place and certainly not from the honourable senator who asked the question. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Attorney -General withdraw this gratuitous insult to the intelligence and integrity of the millions of Australians who will undoubtedly vote No when the proposals to change the Constitution are put to them in February? Senator GARETH EVANS —I did not make a gratuitous insult to thousands of Australians; I made a calculated insult to one honourable senator opposite. I do not propose to withdraw the latter and there is nothing to withdraw as far as the former. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Attorney-General and refers to a matter which I have raised previously regarding current legislation for home video movies and the need to ensure that appropriate censorship is practised where children are concerned. Is the Attorney aware of a recent British research report on videos and children which found that children rerun the most bloodthirsty and violent sequences and that four out of 10 children aged five and six have seen videos showing scenes of sadistic sex and horrific violence? Is the Attorney aware that similar practices as found in the British study are occurring in Australia? Can he advise whether special consideration has now been given to drawing the attention of consumers to the dangers associated with children viewing certain kinds of material? Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand my Department is aware of the existence of this report but has not yet been able to obtain a copy as one is not yet available in Australia. As soon as it is I will certainly make it my business to look at it. The proposed uniform Commonwealth-State censorship classification scheme, which is due to be introduced on 1 February-there still needs to be some further discussion in the light of recent events in South Australia, but to my knowledge it is going into place elsewhere around the country-will ensure that guidance is available to parents on the contents of the extremely violent video cassettes which are referred to in the report and it will ensure that children will not be able to buy or hire them as a result of point of sale controls which are part of this particular scheme. There is a difficulty of course about such video cassettes being purchased nonetheless by adults and being taken into the home environment. Under those circumstances, I think one simply has to say that it is the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children are not exposed to offensive or potentially harmful material of this kind. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Attorney-General, which follows one I asked him last Wednesday concerning allegations in a National Times article about Australian Federal Police reports based on phone taps applied to a Sydney solicitor in 1980. I ask: Has he received the extra information he said he would seek from the Special Minister of State regarding these serious allegations? Is he now in a position to assure the Senate that the allegations have been or will be thoroughly investigated and that appropriate action has been or will be taken if it is found there have been breaches of Commonwealth law? Senator GARETH EVANS —The short answer is: No, I have not received the further information I have sought from the Special Minister of State in this respect. As soon as I do I will ensure that it is made available to the honourable senator, or released publicly if it is the kind of information that does in fact lend itself to that treatment. I assure him that, if there are any revelations of breaches of the law, the appropriate steps will be taken. Senator Archer —Unless it is a friend. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry; I have just picked up the substance of an interjection, 'Unless it is a friend', from Senator Archer. Mr President, I ask you to require Senator Archer to withdraw that palpably offensive interjection. The PRESIDENT —I did not hear the interjection, but if Senator Archer made it- Senator Archer —I made it. I am sorry, Mr President, but I missed the point of the request. The PRESIDENT —It is obvious that Senator Evans regards it as an infringement of standing Order 418. I ask the honourable senator, in view of Senator Evans's objection, to withdraw. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I will assist the honourable senator's, if that is the appropriate description, recollection of this matter by reminding him that as I sat down I was saying that the Government would take appropriate steps to enforce the law if any evidence of breaches of the law became available . The interjection which then flowed was: 'Unless it is a friend'. That is manifestly, in that context, extremely offensive, quite unparliamentary and I ask that you request it to be withdrawn. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. We had a long statement read to us in this place on behalf of the Government by Senator Button which indicated that the Government was withdrawing what it regarded as a sanction against Mr Young on the basis of his service to the Australian Labor Party, what a fine chap he was and all the rest. That seemed to me, Mr President, to be a quite clear statement that those matters of the personal characteristics and the association with the Labor Party that Mr Young had had were matters which influenced the Government in its decision as to whether or not sanctions would be applied. I see that as being no different from the point which was made by Senator Archer in his comment. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Evans has asked for a withdrawal. I therefore ask Senator Archer under standing order 418 to comply with that request. Senator Archer —I am happy to comply. The PRESIDENT —Thank you. Senator REYNOLDS —I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As the Christmas season approaches, what jurisdiction does the Government have in relation to monitoring the sale of children's toys throughout Australia? Are all Australian made toys checked to ensure that they are physically safe and do not constitute any risk when handled by young children? In particular, what procedures are adopted to guarantee that imported toys are subject to close scrutiny before being made available to the community? Senator BUTTON —The Commonwealth has various powers, although not exclusive powers, over the supply of children's toys to the domestic Australian market. Monitoring is performed using the product safety provisions of the Trade Practices Act, the Quarantine regulations and the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. A regular program is carried out by the Commonwealth, State and Territorial authorities to test the toxicity, constructional and flammability safety requirements for toys. The Australian Toy Association, which is the local sales body, assists with this testing program. All complaints about toy safety are investigated and all toys supplied in Australia are monitored by the Commonwealth-State Consumer Products Advisory committee. Toys subject to bans under the Trade Practices Act and the Customs Act are restricted from entering Australia by the Australian Customs Service in accordance with its normal procedures for examing imported goods. Consideration resumed. Proposed new clause 28A. The CHAIRMAN —The Committee is considering proposed new clause 28A to which Senator Walters has moved an amendment concerning advisory jurisdiction. The question before the Chair is: 'That the amendment moved by Senator Walters be agreed to'. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.03) —I was, I think, in the middle of a sentence when the debate was adjourned to enable the rapid passage of another Bill through the Parliament. I have just a few other things to say about Senator Walters's amendment. I think I should go back for a moment to the Government's draft and refer to one other matter I have raised. I said that I believe the Government's draft is inaccurate not only because of the use of the words 'more easily' but also because it deals with obtaining from the High Court its views on certain constitutional questions. That also is inaccurate because the Bill deals with questions arising from the application of section 45 of the Constitution. Those questions could not properly be described as constitutional questions. Everything, of course, is done under the Constitution. However, these questions are not concerned with the validity or otherwise of such acts. The legislation will also deal with matters arising out of treaties. Of course, the description of constitutional questions is so vague. I thought that this was the thing that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said the Government wanted to get away from. In fact, I think the legislation becomes vaguer by the use of this language. Before the debate was adjourned, I was dealing with Senator Walters's amendment which I think, likewise, is an incorrect description of the Bill. It is a long one. I, of course, urge that what we ought to do is get back to the long title which, though called long title, merely says: 'An Act to alter the Constitution so as to confer an advisory jurisdiction on the High Court'. Senator Harradine's proposed amendment, which is in the same words, contains a description even shorter than that. I believe he may not move his amendment. I hope that one could take over that amendment because I think it ought to be put to a vote before the Committee. I think that Senator Harradine's amendment is better. I think the public knows what is meant by advisory opinions or advisory powers. That has been discussed. Senator Gareth Evans —You are living in a world of your own. What does ' jurisdiction' mean to most people? Senator MISSEN —I agree that I am living in a world of my own. I am living in a world of reason which has deserted very much this chamber in the last few days. I am content to live in that rather than in the world in which many other people are living. However, I believe it is well worth trying to get accuracy into the question which is to be put before the people. I do not think that the wording will make a great deal of difference because people will be reading documents and hearing arguments and they will know generally what is involved. I do not think, therefore, that the wording of the question is of tremendous importance. It is rather more important to ensure that a proposal is not criticised because it does not accurately describe the position. Senator Walters's rather lengthy amendment proposes to give power to the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory to seek advice from the High Court as to the full extent of their powers under the Constitution. That clearly is not true. It is not an accurate description of the Bill at all. The Bill, the title of which includes the words 'advisory jurisdiction of the High Court', is not concerned with the full extent of the power of the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory. It will probably, if used, be used very often sparingly in regard to certain parts of their powers and whether certain parts of a Bill have constitutional validity or not. The legislation certainly does not involve the full extent of their powers. I appeal to any honourable senators of reason to let us have it simple, let us stick as far as possible to the long title and let us not go into either the drafts of the Government or Senator Walters, both of which are quite inaccurate. Senator Walters —Mr Chairman, I was just wondering whether you could tell us how you are going to deal with the amendments. Will you be putting my amendment and then Senator Harradine's amendment? Does Senator Missen have an amendment? Senator MISSEN —No, I will seek leave to take over Senator Harradine's if he does not move his. The CHAIRMAN —There is no need for Senator Missen to seek leave. If Senator Harradine, for any reason, does not move his amendment, Senator Missen is perfectly entitled to move a similar amendment. The sequence will be that I will put Senator Walters's amendment. If that fails, I will give Senator Harradine the opportunity to move his amendment. The question is: 'That the amendment moved by Senator Walters to proposed new clause 28A be agreed to'. Amendment negatived. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Harradine, do you wish to pursue your amendment? Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.09) — Yes, Mr Chairman. I move: (6) Proposed new clause 28A, proposed Forms 1, 2 and 3, leave out 'To enable the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory more easily to obtain from the High Court its views on certain constitutional questions.' (wherever occurring), insert 'To confer an advisory jurisdiction on the High Court.' My preferred position, of course, was for Senator Walters's amendment. However, we have been told that there is a technical problem. I believe my amendment expresses the proposal in more accurate terms than the wording used by the Government. The Government is proposing to use the words 'more easily' in regard to the advisory jurisdiction. Of course, as had been explained by Senator Missen quite adequately-and I will sit down so that he can do so again-we cannot have the people voting that the Constitution be altered so as to provide to governments the power more easily to obtain advisory opinions, when governments do not now have power to seek such opinions and are not able to exercise any such power in the manner provided for in the Bill. It just does not make sense. I rest my case on that. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.11) —It makes sense to me. The language is 'To enable the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory more easily to obtain from the High Court'-not advisory opinions, which it does not have the power to do at the moment as Senator Harradine points out, but rather 'its views on certain constitutional questions'. That is what it does do. It enables the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory to obtain more easily the views of the High Court. Declaratory proceedings are available at the moment. What is now suggested represents a much easier procedure. I do not accept Senator Harradine's amendment, essentially for the reason that I have explained by way of interjection: It is not language which is comprehensible to the ordinary, average Australian. If Senator Harradine's amendment were to prevail, the heading on the ballot paper would be: '4. ADVISORY JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT'. That would be followed by the words 'To confer an advisory jurisdiction on the High Court'. So, instead of having just one heap of gobbledegook, which we have at the moment, we would have two. Under the proposed Government form we have what will appear to many people to be the gobbledegook of the short title, but at least it will be followed by concrete language which is apt to describe the procedure here involved and the change involved in it. I commend it to the Committee without further argument. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.12) —The wording of this question is no different from the wording of the other questions, in that it is thoroughly misleading. Nobody in a booth, preparing to cast a vote and reading this, could reasonably understand its ramifications. It does not give any indication that it refers to proposed laws. It gives the impression very clearly that such a power already exists and that the purpose is simply to make exercising it easier. The power is not there. Senator Gareth Evans —There is a power to seek declaratory judgments. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —If the Government is satisfied with declaratory judgments, why does it need advisory opinions? Senator Gareth Evans —It needs to be done more easily. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It is a different and stronger power, a power that the Government at present does not have. So it is not making easier, or facilitating , what is already available; it is not available, it is a new proposition. The langugage proposed gives no one an indication that the High Court of Australia will be sitting in judgment on legislation passed by the Parliament prior to that legislation being proclaimed. Nobody with average intelligence, reading the proposal, could be drawn to the conclusion that that is what is intended. As I said earlier in the day, the Government's contention is that we should not have the long title because it could be misleading, confusing and in many cases would not indicate the real intent. It is my view that the Government's proposed wording gives even less indication, is more misleading and is more likely to attract a Yes vote. It is certainly a mischievous way of putting questions and is distorting them which, it has been the argument of the Government all the way through, should not occur. The proposition, as it would be amended by Senator Harradine, would much more accurately reflect the intentions of the Government on this proposal. Amendment negatived. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.15) —I simply rise to seek information from the Attorney-General. Now that these questions are enshrined, what is the status of the regulations, bearing in mind that at least one of the questions, as now contained in the legislation, differs from those contained in the regulations? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.16) —I regard it as being clear, as a matter of law, that the regulations are superseded by the terms of the Bill. If that is not clear, if I have it wrong, I assure the honourable senator that the form of the ballot paper will be in accordance with today's debate rather than with the regulations themselves. Certainly, there is no intention to proceed with the regulations. Senator Harradine —Are the regulations thereby withdrawn? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know whether they are withdrawn automatically, but I suppose we can ensure that they are. Proposed new clause 28A, as amended, agreed to. Clause 29 agreed to. Proposed new clause 30. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.17) —I move: (10) Page 13, after clause 29 insert the following new clause: Operation of Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, &c., in relation to a referendum 30. (1) The succeeding provisions of this section shall have effect after the commencement of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983 (in this section referred to as the 'Amending Act'). (2) For the purposes of a referendum- (a) the amendments made by the Amending Act to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, other than the amendments made by sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 150 of the Amending Act, shall be deemed not to have been made; and (b) the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906, the regulations referred to in sub-section (3) and the regulations that were, immediately before the commencement of the Amending Act, in force under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906, shall have effect accordingly. (3) Notwithstanding the repeals effected by section 151 of the Amendment Act- (a) the Australian Capital Territory Representation Regulations that were, immediately before the commencement of the Amending Act, in force under the Australian Capital Territory Representation (House of Representatives) Act 1973; and (b) the Northern Territory Electoral Regulations that were, immediately before the commencement of the Amending Act, in force under the Northern Territory Representation Act 1922 and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, shall continue in force for the purposes of a referendum. (4) For the purposes of the application, in relation to a referendum, of any law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory, or any order or instrument under any such law, in relation to anything done or to be done after the commencement of the Amending Act- (a) a reference to the Australian Electoral Office shall be read as a reference to the Australian Electoral Commission established under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 as amended by the Amending Act; (b) a reference to the Chief Australian Electoral Officer or to the Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth shall be read as a reference to the Electoral Commissioner appointed under that Act as so amended; (c) a reference to a Commonwealth Electoral Officer for a State or to an Australian Electoral Officer for a State shall be read as a reference to the Australian Electoral Officer for the State appointed under that Act as so amended; (d) a reference to a Returning Office, in relation to a Division of the Australian Capital Territory or in relation to the Northern Territory, shall be read as a reference to the Divisional Returning Officer for that Division or that Territory, as the case may be; and (e) a reference to a Registrar, in relation to a Subdivision, shall be read as a reference to the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division of which that Subdivision is part or, if an Assistant Divisional Returning Officer has been appointed for that Subdivision, to that Assistant Divisional Returning Officer. The purpose of this amendment is simply to accommodate some technical problems that flow from the fact that we now have in force, as a result of the successful passage of the electoral legislation, amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. However, it is not proposed that every single aspect of that new legislative arrangement be applicable to the February referendum. For example, the Electoral Commission will not have been established by that point in time and we need to pick and choose our way through those provisions in the new electoral law as it stands which are applicable to the conduct of the referendum , and those which are not. Proposed new clause 30 is designed to achieve that result. It is a purely technical amendment and I hope that it can be supported accordingly. Proposed new clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 December 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(3.19) —This is the third start that I have made on my speech on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) and I hope that it will be a case of third time lucky. When I last addressed the Senate on the subject I was dealing with what the draftsman chose to call the rationalisation of industrial tribunals, which is legalese for bringing the Public Service Arbitrator within the ambit of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The significance of that change I had gone into in some detail but the point that I wanted to make before I leave that alteration is that while the Bill does that it also restores to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission a number of powers dealing with staff selection, employment and promotion, and removes provisions on stand-downs and no work as directed no pay. This legislation provides that public employees will be treated in the same way as private industry employees. When industrial disputes arise they can be taken before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Commission can deal with them as it sees fit and issue whatever directions it thinks are appropriate without building into the legislation what amounts to penal clauses for public servants. I think that is a significant change. It was supported by the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration in 1976. That Commission recommended changes similar to those in this legislation. The National Labour Consultative Council also supported these amendments. There is, of course, recognition in these amendments of what has developed as the normal procedure of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in having the Public Service Arbitrator sitting on major cases such as the national wage case and other major test cases. That procedure has evolved over time. I point out the significant dates in that evolution process. In 1952 appeals to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission were introduced from the Public Service Arbitrator. In 1956 the hearings of some cases were transferred to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In 1972 the Public Service Arbitrator was put in a position in which he could deal with industrial action and so on. The introduction of these amendments is the culmination of a long evolution of powers to the Public Service Arbitrator which have caused that office to resemble more closely the Commission. It is apt and appropriate at this time that there should be a bringing together of those two bodies recognising, of course, that the Public Service Arbitrator's office is preserved as a discrete section within the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Having made those remarks I turn to another section of the Bill that I think is worthy of some comment. I refer to the provisions which deal with the financial accounting and reporting of organisations. The provisions that are subject to amendment in this legislation were included in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act by the previous Fraser Government. Those provisions resulted in long discussions being held by members of the National Labour Consultative Council. Whilst those provisions were not supported by representatives of the unions at those discussions nonetheless a considerable amount of progress was made in tuning the Fraser Government's proposals so that they were more acceptable. I suppose that there was resigned acceptance that the Government would wreak its will and, in that case, the union movement-it was the prime target of the amendments-felt that it should be done in a way which would make the unions feel comfortable with the amendments. One of the points that came out of the NLCC consultations was that there ought to be a monitoring of how the financial accounting provisions proceeded and that, therefore, at the end of a reasonable period of monitoring there should be a preparedness by the Government to make appropriate changes to the legislation. We are now at the end of such a period. It is now appropriate to make some changes based on the performance of those provisions. In looking at financial accounting and the reporting of organisations to their members about their balance sheets and financial affairs, essentially two points arise. The first point is that the accounts must be properly compiled and accurately reported. The second point is that all members of the organisation should have access to those accounts. Bearing in mind those two principals, we can see that the provisions in the legislation before the chamber this afternoon base themselves on that understanding. They are also based on the fact that if the accounts are badly reported in normal accountancy layout members of some unions may not be able to comprehend the full importance and meaning of those accounts. Therefore, the accounts in their complete detail may serve to confuse or obfuscate the understanding of what is the real financial position of an organisation. These amendments require that a simplified and understandable version of the accounts should be produced and, importantly, that any simplified and more comprehensible series of documentation based on an organisation's accounts must go before the auditor and be approved as being a due and accurate copy of the accounts. I now turn to another section of the Bill which has attracted some opposition from the other side of the chamber. I refer to the provisions dealing with disqualification from office. The first point I make about disqualification from office-this section was put in the Act again by the previous Government-is that the Hawke Government has announced an inquiry into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which will be chaired by Professor Hancock. That inquiry will be dealing in greater detail and more comprehensively with the whole subject of disqualification from office. Despite that inquiry it is appropriate that there be some remedy of the anomalies and inconsistencies that exist in the present prescription. We need not wait until the Hancock inquiry has been able to report to do some gardening of the provisions and weed out the inconsistencies and anomalies. There is not total agreement amongst members of the NLCC in relation to the changes that the Government proposes. I make what I think is a reasonable observation of the state of play between the parties represented on the NLCC. While organisationally, the NLCC is bound by particular policies to resist some of the changes that are being proposed, there is a recognition that the role of government is to propose reasonable compromise. Although policies might hold parties back from being able to commit themselves to that compromise, there is an acceptance that the compromise is reasonable. Although there is not a formal commitment to the proposals there is acceptance. I do not think that acceptance is attended by any bitterness or rancour. As I have said, the Fraser Government put these offences into the Act last year . The offences deal, in the event of a person being convicted, with disbarment from holding office for a period of five years. The amendments to the Act which the Government is proposing will reduce the number of offences and modify the types of offences that can occur. Essentially, the offences that remain as offences for disbarment are those relating to ballots and elections. I think it is appropriate that they continue. The remark can be made about the offences that the Government proposes to move from the Act that they represent the overkill of the previous Government in trying to manipulate the Conciliation and Arbitration Act so that it would become an Act of penalties for industrial disputation rather than, as the title of the Act implies it should be, an Act for the conciliation and arbitration of disputes. The penalties we are seeking to remove had the unreasonable and unfair effect of applying two penalties for one offence. Nearly all the penalties we are seeking to excise from the Act were capable of resulting in directions or orders from the Commission, the contravention of which would of itself be an offence. It is unreasonable to load on top of an offence that could probably be dealt with by the Commission, a further offence which would have the result of disbarring someone from office, thereby removing his livelihood and, in fact, penalising the one 'crime' twice. There is, I suppose, a quite clear distinction between the philosophy of the former Government and the Hawke Government on this matter. The Hawke Government believes that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act should be devoted to preventing and settling industrial disputes. It should not be an Act which beats one party around the head with massive doses of penalties which add a second tier of dispute to the original dispute which gave rise to the actions that attracted the penalities. This complicates the mess even more and leads to continuing disputation. Rather than take the big stick approach we seek to amend the current Act to provide that disbarment can occur for offences associated with ballots and elections. In our view, disbarment should occur for such offences, but it should not occur for matters that can reasonably be dealt with by the Commission itself. I make two supplementary points. If the current provisions were to be consistent with the Companies Act they would resemble what we now propose. When the Act was amended last year, the then Government applied penalties much more extensively to unions than it was prepared to apply to companies. The basic element of reasonable justice is that if offences are provided for in two Acts there ought to be a comparability and an equity between the level and type of those offences in both Acts. On that point, I also remark that if we, in various Acts of Parliament, apply offences to officers in companies and in unions or industrial organisations, we ought one day to look at office holders of political parties. If some of these offences applied in that context, the whole financial committee of the Liberal Party in Western Australia might then be penalised for bottom of the harbour activities and may be removed or disbarred from office. With those remarks, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that there is a philosophical difference here and we seek an understanding that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act should be so designed as to facilitate the settlement and prevention of industrial disputes rather than aggravate them as the Fraser-inserted changes have the potential to do. Finally I turn to the remarks made by Senator Walters dealing with the registration of organisations. Although I am nearly out of time, I wish to point out that Senator Walters has misunderstood the provisions dealing with the registration of organisations. We seek to provide that owner-drivers or sub- contractors who want to join organisations, typically the Transport Workers Union, can do so. The amendments are aimed at providing that facility for people who elect to join such an organistion. Senator Walters wanted to prevent people from joining that union at all. As we see it, that is a deprivation of rights. The argument is about whether or not such people are workers. I think quite clearly from the record they are and that they should therefore be able to join the union of their choice. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.33) —The Australian Democrats support the general thrust of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2). We see the need for ongoing improvement and updating of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as, obviously, does the Opposition. Much of the Bill's contents come from the previous legislation either planned or even introduced by the Opposition during its term of office. It is also good to see that the main thrust of the Bill is supported by the National Labour Consultative Council and that it takes on board some of the suggestions that came out of the Economic Planning Advisory Council discussions in this approach to removal or reduction of conflict in the industrial area. The fact that many of the previous Government's legislative proposals lapsed because of the calling of the election ahead of time was rather unfortunate for the people involved with industrial relations in Australia. We are pleased to see that the Government has very quickly got hold of the bulk of those legislative changes and is now introducing them. We hope that there will be further and even more dramatic changes to the arbitration system in the next sitting of Parliament. I suggest two or three of those immediately. One obviously, is the passage of the industrial democracy legislation which has been lying around for far too long in this Parliament. It is an Australian Democrat's Bill, originally introduced by former Senator John Siddons and picked up by me as the first Bill that I introduced in this Parliament. I was rather hopeful that the Government would run with that and include it as part of the proposals in this package. But we will have to wait a little bit longer for that obviously. It is also sad to see that there are still no provisions for the introduction of fee for service, another area of great conflict within the industrial relations scene in Australia. But we live in hope and we keep getting promises from the Government that such legislation is just around the corner. Once more, the Australian Democrats will introduce private members Bills for that particular provision if the Government delays its introduction much longer. The other good thing to hear from the Government is that there is an ongoing review not just by the National Labour Consultative Council, but also by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who has the responsibility for continuing the review and, in part, is doing that through the Hancock inquiry. That is to be applauded and the Australian Democrats hope that the Government moves rapidly to implement the changes that are seen as necessary and does not just let them lie on the back burner. One of the specific provisions which is causing a little difficulty is the removal of penalties for officers in unions. We have recognised that this is a contentious provision. Clause 23, which amends section 132F of the Act, reduces the range of offences which leads to disqualification. The offences would now be confined to elections or ballots and only crimes associated with damage or violence, intentionally committed, and resulting in a prison sentence will be offences which will be prescribed under the Act from here on. I think that is a fairly reasonable approach. Again, we do not see the other minor offences as requiring a double penalty, which was the situation under the Act. I indicate to the Government our extreme disappointment at its inability or unwillingness-perhaps I should be fair at this stage and allow that it could be inability-to resolve the problems of owner-drivers in this country. These people have been for some time, and are now, under tremendous pressures. They do not seem to fit anywhere-either under the conciliation and arbitration system or under the trade practices system. They fall between these two stools. They suffer economic pressures as a result of increasing costs which in turn result in repossessions, bankruptcies, and too many vehicles on the road. Consequently, they are played off against each other causing damage not only in economic terms but also to life and limb, not just to the drivers themselves but, as we have seen, to other road users. At this moment the major transport companies have these owner-drivers by the short and curlies. They really have them at a distinct disadvantage and within their power. The fear that was expressed by the Opposition of the power of the unions to coerce these owner-drivers into joining a union is balanced by the fear that I express that these people are being squeezed by the major transport companies in this country. I will read into Hansard the specific approach which was made to the Australian Democrats and which, I understand, has been circulated to other honourable senators. It is contained in a telex which reads: That section 22 of the Bill be amended by inserting after sub-clause (2) the following additional sub-section: (1A) Section 132 of the principal Act as amended by sub-section (1) is amended: (a) by adding after sub-paragraph (1) (B) (ii) the following sub-paragraph:- (iii) persons other than employees or employers who follow an occupation in or in connection with that industry of driving a motor vehicle required to be registered and/or approved under the laws of any State or Territory for use or intended use on any public street, road or highway including a motor vehicle for use or intended use beyond the limits of any one State or Territory. (b) By adding after sub-paragraph (1) (C) (ii) the following sub-paragraph:- (iii) persons other than employees or employers who are engaged in that industrial pursuit or one of those industrial pursuits in driving a motor vehicle required to be registered and/or approved under the laws of any State or Territory for use or intended use on any public street, road or highway, including a motor vehicle for use or intended use beyond the limits of any one State or Territory. (c) By inserting in each paragraph (1) (B) and (1) (C) after the words 'sub- paragraph (ii)', the words 'or (iii)'. I hope that you will forgive me for taking up the time of the Senate by reading that, Madam Acting Deputy President, but it was important to have it incorporated, because this has been a genuine attempt by the Transport Workers Union to resolve the problem of owner drivers. I regret that the Australian Democrats do not go along with this proposed resolution of the problem, because we see it as only a partial solution of the major problem of owner drivers. It would not be sufficient for them simply to be thrown into a union pool and to be part of that union. They must have their own association, with its own rights, its own rules and its own arbitration provisions, because they are unique in this country. They are different from the normal employee who would come under the normal conciliation and arbitration system. Regrettably, therefore, we shall not be putting forward that proposal. I say ' regrettably' in the sense that there has been a genuine attempt to solve the problem by the TWU, but we do not see that as any more than a short term solution and we want to keep the pressure on the Government for the long term solution. I ask the Minister at the table, Senator Button, to agree and to indicate that the Government will agree to introduce legislation early next year which will give rights to owner-drivers to have an arbitration system which will resolve the massive problems with which they are faced these days. It needs a new approach. I understand that, according to the Minister, it is being investigated by the Government right now. All that I need is the nod from the Minister that we shall have that new and enlightened resolution of the owner- drivers' problems early in 1984. I speak briefly about two other aspects of the Bill which deal with matters of concern, and for which I again applaud the Government on its action as they have created major disruptions and anxieties around Australia. The first is the provisions for more co-ordination between Commonwealth and State industrial systems. To those I am sure that most people around Australia will cry ' Hallelujah', because this will help to remove some anomalies but, much more importantly, it will reduce the potential for conflict. It is pretty much identical with the 1982 Bill, the Conciliation and Arbitration (Complementary Industrial Relations System) Amendment Bill of 1982, introduced by the previous Government, and it is based on the recommendations of a Commonwealth-State working party. So one would hope that that would have the support of all parties in the Senate. The other slighly less supported item in the legislation is the Public Service arbitration system, which is now incorporated under the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. There can be arguments pro and con on this matter; I have listened to them. But there is an overwhelming argument in favour of this movement of the powers towards Australia's national, universal conciliation and arbitration system. That is, that it will have the effect of removing some of the powers of government to get directly and immediately involved in industrial conflicts. Regrettably, that was the perception of many people when it was introduced, because it seemed to give the government of the day the opportunity to declare the Public Service as the enemy and to declare war on that enemy whenever there was an industrial dispute involving the Public Service. The Government must be more remote from industrial activity at that early stage of conflict. The way to achieve that is to leave the Government out of it and to let the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and its system get on with the job of resolving conflict, until, ultimately, there is perceived to be no resolution in sight, at which stage it may be necessary for the Government to become involved in it. We have suffered in this country for several years from a government becoming one of the protagonists in the industrial relations system with the Public Service. That is not acceptable in the opinion of not only the Australian Democrats but the great majority of Australians, not just trade unionists and not just public servants. This measure puts into effect the recommendations of the 1976 report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration. It has taken a long while to have that report's recommendations implemented. It is a natural progression and is similar in many respects to provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Government Service) Amendment Bill, which was introduced by the previous Government. As I understand it, it has the support of the National Labour Consultative Committee. The Bill will be supported by the Australian Democrats. I gather that that will ensure its passage through the Senate and through this Parliament. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.47) —Perhaps I may interject a note of slight disharmony into this debate. Up to date, there has been a bit of back scratching going on about this legislation picking up some of the things that were proposed last year. I am glad that it does not pick up all of the things that were proposed last year by the previous Government. The Senate should be reminded that a number of issues that are now incorporated into this legislation were canvassed before the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation last year, and that had it not been for the report of that Committee to this Senate, this nation could well have faced industrial relations conflicts the like of which it had not seen in its history. Let me remind those members of the previous Government now in opposition that their proposals, as brought forward to this Parliament and discussed last year, were a recipe of industrial anarchy and a direct attack on the principles of conciliation and arbitration and on the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission itself. That would have been the net result of their propositions last year had they been adopted, as they very nearly were, by this Senate. It was only because the Senate decided by a majority vote, against the vigorous opposition of the then Government, to establish a Senate select committee, that an opportunity was given to those in the industrial relations arena-to representatives of employers, to representatives of unions, to the departments and to other interested persons and bodies-to make submissions to this Committee and in an open and constructive way to present their submissions and support them before the Committee. What these people had to say was very revealing. Let us never forget that what the then Government was proposing, in addition to one or two of the things that are now contained in this legislation, was to restructure the unions in Australia to impose from above a structure which would fit into the economic concepts of those who were in power last year; to impose on unions an industry- based structure; to abolish the long-standing provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which encourage unions and the formation of unions, and I refer to the provisions relating to preference; to provide further amendments which would create various offences and penalties; and, finally, to impose automatic stand-downs at times of industrial disputes. Those provisions were prescriptions for industrial disputation. I refer honourable senators to the report of the Select Committee presented to the Parliament on 28 October-it may have been a week before but certainly the tabling speech was on 28 October-and the debate of 11 November last year. That was only a year ago. We could have been in the midst of industrial conflict. That Committee made certain recommendations and, insofar as the imposition of structures on the trade unions is concerned, the Committee was most forthright. Of course, it recognised that there was a problem in respect of a number of unions attempting to amalgamate. In particular, we received some very worthwhile evidence from the boot trade unions and the clothing trade unions. We made certain recommendations which this Government has since picked up. I do not know whether it was the chicken and the egg situation because a particular member was on the Committee, but the Government has picked up those recommendations although without one of the safeguards that we recommended. On that occasion we noticed that, for the first time in such a forum as was provided by the Committee, various and indeed conflicting concepts of industry unionism were aired and the desirability of encouraging by legislation the development of industry-based unions was seriously questioned. The Committee stated: The Committee is not opposed to industry-based unions. However after consideration of the submissions and evidence the Committee does not consider that the proposed legislation is the best method of providing changes in the structure of Australian trade union organization. The Committee at paragraph 8 stated: There is considerable doubt among the industrial relations community that union structures predominately determine industrial relations outcomes. So far as the abolition of preference was concerned, the Committee stated: The Committee notes that the Government intends that its proposed legislation will weaken the power of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to deal with union membership disputes. The Committee shares the view generally expressed by witnesses that the proposed legislation would not be conducive to industrial peace and would further unsettle the industrial relations climate We adverted to the question that was raised by Senator Evans in his speech when he talked about the fee for service proposal. I refer the Senate to paragraphs 18 and 19 in which the Committee stated as follows: The Committee notes further that the Government intends that its legislation ensure 'the protection of the rights of the individual'. It went on: Some individuals are quick to recognise their perceived rights but are not also as quick to recognise their duty to associate with others for the common good. In addition there is a distinction between personal choice based on conscientious belief on the one hand and the dictates of self-centered individualism on the other. The Committee acknowledges the need to retain the status of conscientious objection to union membership which is presently provided in section 144A. However, it believes that a less fundamental objection to union membership should also be recognised, namely that a person holds principles or belief which prevent membership of unions. I interpolate here that there were varying views on the Committee on these and other matters, but this was a consensus approach and indeed this was what the Committee said. I read it because, as Senator Evans said, the Government may bring something up. This was the decision of the Committee on which Senator Siddons from the Australian Democrats played a very worthwhile role. He not only took a very positive approach but also worked very hard on the Committee. The Committee also stated: The Committee considers that such persons should be entitled to be exempted from membership provided that they contribute a fee for the services provided by the appropriate union, to that union. These are the people who are not covered by the conscientious objection provisions already in the legislation. The Committee went on to say a number of other things as to how that should be managed, et cetera. I remind the Senate and Senator Jack Evans that these people are provided for in paragraph 19 of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation. The Committee considered that the provisions of the Bill relating to stand- downs would not contribute to industrial peace but would create industrial instability. It was concerned that a situation could not go to an independent tribunal for consideration but that automatic rights would accrue to the employer to stand down employees. The Committee considered a number of other matters, some of which are contained in this legislation. I apologise for introducing this note of asperity but I think the record must be kept straight. I am concerned, though I do not know the precise details of it, that a situation could develop in Queensland whereby some persons who may be well motivated might be attempting to introduce industrial legislation in that State which would create industrial turmoil and disadvantage some of the very people within the trade union movement who are attempting to preserve the integrity of the trade union movement and not allow it to be used for overt political purposes. As I said, I have only heard this; I do not know about the legislation. If it is similar to that which was proposed by the former Liberal-National Party Government, then let them beware of that. Let them also consider what happened to governments in South Australia and in Western Australia which tried to interfere in the industrial relations climate in that fashion. What happened to those governments, of course, is a matter of record. I turn to the matters that were considered by the Committee, some of which have found themselves in this legislation. The Committee gave full consideration to the matter of casual vacancies. The report states: The Committee recommends the adoption of the provisions . . . insofar as it is designed to remove doubts in relation to the filling of casual vacancies under well established collegiate systems of electing officials of organizations of employers or employees. However, the Committee recommends that the Government redraft the relevant provisions to enable the greater flexibility sought by major employer and union organizations. Overall, the Committee recommended that the matters outstanding be considered by the National Labour Consultative Council. I am the first to say that there is nothing magical about the National Labour Consultative Council. All wisdom in the industrial relations arena does not repose in the National Labour Consultative Council. Nor does all wisdom repose in the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. It will be most interesting to read its report when it comes down. As has been indicated in this chamber that report will be tabled in the Parliament before the Government takes any steps in respect thereof. Hopefully, during the time of that tabling, it will be open to debate in this chamber and in the House of Representatives. I hope that that debate will be constructive. I welcome the provisions in this Bill which create a climate and a framework to facilitate the work of organisations responsible within the industrial relations arena. Before closing, I must say that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in the former Government, Mr Macphee, whilst not able to pull off the pack with which we were confronted in this chamber when we had our backs against the wall last year, nevertheless took cognisance of what was contained in the Senate Select Committee's report and, in fact, he, his advisers and others were able to convince the Government that the more disastrous elements of that legislation that had been proposed should be jettisoned. I will support the Bill during its second reading stage. Again, I believe that we should never forget what occurred last year. I certainly shall not. We should, from time to time, go over the report of the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation to see what came out of it and what the situation now is both in the industrial relations sphere and, might I say, in the political sphere. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.08) —in reply-I thank Senator Harradine for his contributions to the debate. They were splendid reminders of things past which have relevance to the present and the future. I even found his contribution poetical and was reminded of this couplet of Tennyson: Yet all experience is an arch wherethro' Gleams that untravell'd world whose margin fades For ever and for ever when I move. I am looking at the Deputy President because he frequently corrects me on matters literary, but I think I have it right today. Generally, the debate has reflected a positive and constructive approach towards this legislation. The speakers pointed to the fact that the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) contains a number of amendments, many of which are, in a sense, fairly technical and are supported, generally, by all sides of the Parliament. The only comment that has been made is that perhaps some of the amendments should not have been dealt with at this stage because the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems is yet to complete its deliberations and so on. But I think the amendments are not ones which do anything but improve the legislation and should not greatly concern honourable senators. I think there are important points to emphasise about the legislation such as the provision for greater co-ordination between Commonwealth and State tribunals . Again, that is a matter-I think Senator Harradine would agree-about which we can very much learn from the experience of the past. It is tremendously important that we increasingly rationalise the activities of industrial tribunal throughout Australia and this legislation is part of that process. One could not estimate the cost that has been incurred in this country in years gone by because of the failure to take these steps earlier. I am not just referring to the last decade; I am referring probably to the last 30 years. That is a very important aspect of the legislation. The proposal to repeal the Public Service Arbitration Act and transfer jurisdiction to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission again is a proposal which in the Government's view provides further co-ordination and rationalisation of the activities of industrial tribunals. The Government's general view, which is reflected in our attitude to amendments which have been foreshadowed, is that as far as possible industrial disputes in the Public Service should be dealt with in the same way as they would be dealt with in the non-government sector of the economy. That aspect of the legislation reflects that view. Mr Deputy President, I also referred earlier to a number of various tidying up and machinery provisions. Not all of the suggestions of the National Labour Consultative Council have been adopted by the Government. Senator Harradine made the point that that body is not the source of all wisdom. The casual vacancy provision in respect of which it advanced a view has not been adopted by the Government but generally those tidying up provisions have had the support of the employers and the unions, as reflected in the NLCC. Senator Jack Evans made a contribution to the debate on the position of independent contractors and particularly owner-drivers. He asked me whether I would repeat in the Senate the undertaking given by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service and Industrial Matters (Mr Willis) simply that early next year the Government would bring forward legislation which will address the question of independent contractors and particularly owner-drivers as they fall within the scope of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In the course of the debate honourable senators have touched on various aspects of the legislation which reflect a general agreement with it and of course a number of matters remain the subject of amendments to be moved in the Committee stage which reflect, I would think, residual disagreement around the margin, as it were, of matters which the Government has taken into account in the course of preparing this legislation. I do not think I can usefully add anything at this stage, and I commend the second reading of the legislation to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 13-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 14. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.14) —On behalf of the Opposition, I move: Page 10, clause 14, proposed new sub-section 70A (1), definition of 'industrial matter', at end of definition, add 'but does not include any matter or question relating to, or to the selection or procedures for the selection of persons for, appointment, re-appointment, employment or promotion in public service'. I dealt with this amendment at some length in my remarks in the second reading debate. The reason for the amendment is that in the transfer to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of jurisdiction over Commonwealth employees, which at present is exercised by the Public Service Arbitrator under the Public Service Arbitration Act, the Government has not in this Bill provided for any exceptions which preserve the traditional position of the Public Service Board in these matters and which were contained in the Fraser Government's Bill to give effect to the same basic proposal-namely, the transfer of jurisdiction from the Public Service Arbitrator to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-and this means that the Bill will confer upon the Arbitration Commission a greater power than is presently exercised by the Public Service Arbitrator in matters of appointment and promotion in the Public Service. So if this amendment is not carried there will be duality of control by the Public Service Board and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in relation to the Public Service matters set out. We believe that that is undesirable. The Opposition has already stated its position on a number of occasions; it is in line with the policy we pursued when in government. We think it is desirable to obtain this residual jurisdication for the Public Service Board which it has traditionally exercised and that this transfer, which is otherwise strongly supported by the Opposition, should be subject to an amendment of this kind. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.17) —The Government really is of the view that this amendment suffers from some degree of misconception. Certainly it is different in its approach. I just want to make a couple of points about it to indicate the Government's view. It is not intented that this legislation provide a method of removing the essential managerial functions of the Public Service Board and those thereunder who exercise managerial functions in respect of day to day matters. The Government's intention is that if an industrial dispute arises as a result of promotion appeals and so on, the Public Service should be on the same footing as the private and the non-Federal Government sectors and those industrial disputes should be dealt with by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If we were to restrict the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Commission in the manner of the previous Government, it would be inconsistent with that approach of equity across the board in dealing with industrial disputation that the Government seeks to achieve by this legislation. In a sense the amendment represents-I do not wish to be pejorative about it- sort of half-baked retreat from the Government's position which is, as I say, to seek equity across the board in terms of the method of treatment of industrial disputation. I just make the point that the Opposition opposed this sort of restriction when it was introduced into the Public Service Arbitration Act in 1978. It is not the Government's intention that the Commission would get involved in appeal processes involving individual promotion or appointment decisions in the Public Service, or those sorts of things which are traditionally defined in the Arbitraton Commission legislation as matters of management. If, however, a matter of management, whether it be in the Public Service or in the private sector, leads to an industrial dispute situation, it is the Government's view that the Commission should have jurisdiction, and that is why the amendment is not acceptable to the Government and will be opposed. Amendment negatived. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.20) —I move the second amendment on the sheet circulated: (2) Page 15, clause 14, proposed new sub-section 70J (2), lines 25 to 27, leave out the proposed sub-section, insert the following sub-sections: '' '(2) The orders that may be made under sub-section (1) are- (a) orders relating to conditions of employment of employees (whether members of an organization or not) who are concerned in or affected by, or are likely to be concerned in or affected by, the industrial action; (b) orders directing the cessation of conduct by employees that constitute, or encourages the continuation of, the industrial action or prohibiting conduct by employees that would constitute or bring about the industrial action; or (c) orders authorizing the standing down of employees (whether members of an organization or not) who are concerned in or affected by, or are likely to be concerned in or affected by, the industrial action. '(3) Where an employee has been stood down under an order made under sub- section (2), he is not entitled, in respect of the stand-down period, to- (a) any salary, wages or other remuneration; (b) any allowances of a kind that are to be included in salary for the purposes of, or of any provision of, the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976; or (c) any other allowances of a prescribed kind. '(4) Where an employee has been stood down, under an order made under sub- section (2), from his employment in a qualifying service, within the meaning of the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976, then, for the purposes of that Act, the continuity of that employment of the employee shall be deemed not to be, or to have been, broken by that stand-down period but the employee shall be deemed not to be, or to have been, employed in that service during that stand-down period. '(5) Where an employee has been stood down under an order made under sub- section (2)- (a) any recreation leave credit or sick leave credit that is a relevant credit in relation to the stand-down period; or (b) where that credit is required to be reduced in accordance with any other law-that credit as so reduced, shall be reduced, or further reduced, by a period equal to- (c) where the employee was an employee for the whole of the relevant period in relation to that credit- (i) the prescribed fraction of the period of that credit; or (ii) where that credit is required to be reduced in accordance with any other law the prescribed fraction of the period of that credit before it is so reduced ; or (d) in any other case the prescribed fraction of the period that that credit would have been if the employee had been an employee for the whole of the relevant period in relation to that credit and that credit was not required to be reduced in accordance with any other law, for each working day, or part of a working day, in the stand-down period ( excluding any part of that period that is not included in the relevant period in relation to that credit). '(6) For the purposes of the application of sub-section (5) in relation to an employee who has been stood down as mentioned in that sub-section- (a) each of the following recreation leave credits or sick leave credits is a relevant credit in relation to the stand-down period: (i) any recreation leave credit or sick leave credit that, but for sub-section (5), would accrue to the employee concerned during (but not on the first day of) the stand-down period; (ii) the first recreation leave credit and the first sick leave credit that, but for sub-section (5), would accrue to the employee concerned after the expiration of the stand-down period; (b) the relevant period, in relation to a recreation leave credit or a sick leave credit, is the period of 12 months ending on the day immediately before the day of accrual of that credit; and (c) the prescribed fraction, in relation to an employee, is (i) where the employee works a five day week- 1; or 261 1(ii) in any other case- 313 '(7) An order made under sub-section (2) authorizing the standing down of employees may include directions not inconsistent with sub-section (3), (4) or ( 5) that, for any purpose relating to their conditions of employment as employees that is specified in the order, the stand-down period is not to be taken into account, or is to be taken into account as provided in the order, and any directions so given, unless varied or revoked by another order, have effect notwithstanding any law, or any award, that is inconsistent with the directions. '(8) The powers conferred on the Commission by this section are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the powers conferred on the Commission by any other provision of this Act.''. The purpose of this amendment is again to provide for some qualification in relation to powers which will be transferred to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The previous Government did qualify the transfer in respect of powers in relation to stand downs and no work as directed no pay orders which may be made by the Public Service Arbitrator. There is also a provision which made it clear that public servants who were stood down were not entitled to salaries, wages or allowances while they were stood down and that the period for stand down would not count for purposes of recreation, sick leave , nor long service leave. It may be true that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would have the general jurisdiction to provide for stand downs and so forth. But the Opposition believes that these matters should be very specifically emphasised in legislation of this character which deals with the problem of employees and public servants in particular. We have already expressed views in opposition to legislation to repeal a number of pieces of legislation relating to the Public Service, namely the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977 and the no work as directed no pay legislation which was recently repealed by this Government. In our view there is a need for special provisions to be made in relation to Public Service employment because we believe that public servants have a very privileged position in the employment field. It may well be that when their conditions of employment are looked at in regard to the whole field by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, that may have some effect in bringing the two areas more closely together. I do not know; that could be a long term proposition, but it may not occur. But the fact of the matter is that by reason of the employment policies of successive Commonwealth governments very favourable conditions have been provided by the employer without necessarily the need to obtain arbitration decisions. Public servants have tenure, great avenues of appeal in relation to promotion, very favourable superannuation and so on. The Opposition believes it is appropriate that legislation covering the conditions of employment of public servants should emphasise some of these matters and that where they do not discharge their responsibilities to the community, which is the other side of the coin, they should very clearly forfeit some of these conditions and they should not be able to behave exactly the same way as other employees in private employment. Senator Button —They should not behave in that way either, should they? Senator DURACK —No, I know, but I think the arbitration system does not specifically deal with private employers in the same way. The Opposition believes it would be desirable, when this transfer jurisdiction legislation is passed, that some of these provisions that exist in the Public Service Arbitration Act should be set out and carried through to the new jurisdiction being provided to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That is the purpose of what is our very long amendment, which I do not propose by any means to read or refer to further because it is taken from the wording of the Bill which was included in the Opposition's proposal when we were in government last year. All of these provisions were included in that legislation. I have given the reason why they were included. The Opposition has no reason to change its mind in relation to this matter. This amendment is designed to incorporate those provisions in this transfer legislation. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.25) —This amendment represents the tail end of a long debate, I suppose-it has been going on for some years in the Senate-as to whether various provisions relating to stand down, et cetera, should be in the Public Service legislation or whether there should be uniformity, which is the other issue which has been raised, between private sector systems and public sector systems. The effect of these provisions is to give the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the same powers, as it were, to make the same kinds of orders, including stand downs and no work as directed no pay orders as the Public Service Arbitrator can currently make. So there is a transfer of jurisdiction from the Public Service Arbitrator to the Counciliation and Arbitration Commission. That does not mean that the Public Service Board for example is in any different position from a private employer. The Public Service employer can apply to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a stand down order or a no work as directed no pay provision insofar as those provisions are included. That employer has the capacity to make orders relating to those matters which are included in the conciliation and arbitration legislation. Once again it is an issue in respect of which it is the Government's view that the position of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should as far as possible be the same in respect of both public and private sector employees, and the relevant section 70J gives effect to that situation in the legislation. The amendment proposed by the Opposition would retain separate provisions, as it were, in relation to the Public Service because, as Senator Durack would argue, the Public Service is in a special position in employment by virtue of the fact that the members of the Public Service enjoy a number of benefits, such as tenure of employment and so on which other sectors do not enjoy. I do not have a serious degree of disputation with Senator Durack about that, but the Government just does not agree that this is the way to address that matter and that the inclusion of what might be crudely described as penalty provisions in Public Service legislation-different jurisdiction from that applying to private sector employees-is not desirable. For that reason the amendment is opposed. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment) be left out . The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)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. Haines, J. Button, J. N. Harradine, B. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. (Teller)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. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Withers, R. G. Hearn, J. M. Rae, Peter Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clauses 15 to 21-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 22 (Registration of organizations). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.37) —I move: (3) Page 17, sub-clauses 22 (1) and (2), lines 2 to 30, leave out the sub- clauses. There are two different questions at stake here. I do not know whether it is appropriate to deal with them together. I suppose that will depend a bit on the attitude of the Committee. Clause 22 deals with the entitlement of Federal organisations to cover employees, or people who in many cases are not employees in a strict sense but who are covered by a deeming provision of section 132 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Section 132 (4) provides that where people are regarded as employees under certain State legislation-I think this applies particularly in four States-they should be included as eligible for membership of Federal organisations. This matter, of course, has a very long history and I do not propose to go into that. However, clause 22 (1) deals with a situation which has arisen in New South Wales following changes made in 1979 to the New South Wales Industrial Arbitration Act. As a result, the existing provisions of section 132 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are not applicable to people engaged in the transport industry because a new scheme of registration of associations of owner -drivers has been developed in that State. The provisions of the New South Wales Act enable special awards to be made in favour of owner-drivers in that State. The legislation before us is designed to preserve the position of people who would have been eligible under the old legislation but who are no longer eligible because of amendments in 1979 to the New South Wales Act. Because of the existing provisions of the State Act and section 132 of the Federal Act, there has been a good deal of coercion of people to join State unions and, by using the eligibility provisions, become members of the Federal Transport Workers Union. Owner-driver organisations in various parts of Australia have expressed great dissatisfaction about this situation. I have already referred to this in the second reading debate. We do not believe there should be any amendments which will in any way facilitate or perpetuate the situation which has arisen. Therefore, we are opposed to the provision in the Bill. What has happened in New South Wales in providing for a separate organisation to cover owner-drivers is, we believe, the right course to take. It is interesting that apparently the Government is also looking at that as a means of overcoming the problem which has arisen. I hope that in the near future it will be able to come forward with some proposals of its own to cope with the problem. It certainly is a great problem and has been for a long time. It does call for a special solution. It cannot be solved by the tinkering type of amendment that is provided for in sub-clause (1). Sub-clause (2), which is also the subject of our amendment to delete, will validate the union membership of a number of non-employees again mostly independent contractors and owner-drivers, who were members of unions prior to the 1977 amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Those amendments made them ineligible for membership. However, a number apparently continued to remain members. No doubt it was very acceptable to the union which obtained their fees but there seems to have been no justification for the situation being allowed to continue. Now the Government, by sub-clause (2), is seeking to validate that situation, at least in relation to those who have wrongly remained members of their union in defiance of the 1977 amendments. We believe those amendments should be observed and that no sanction should be given to the continued membership of trade unions by persons who are ineligible to be members . We believe that what the union has allowed to continue is a most undesirable situation. No doubt it has had some problems as a result of its actions and some problems concerning the validity of actions that it has taken. That is all due to the fact that it has not observed the very clear provisions of the legislation in 1977 which introduced the present scheme in section 132 of the Act. We do not believe the Parliament should not give its imprimatur to that situation, which has continued until this time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.43) —The Government opposes this amendment. First, the purpose of clause 22 (1) is to impose limitations on the right of organisations to recruit self-employed persons. Non-employees will be able to join a State branch of an organisation of employees only where, and to the extent that, State industrial arbitration, legislative authorities and legislation authorises non-employees to be members of State unions. I did not make that fluent little speech without notes. I was quoting what Senator Durack said in introducing the second reading of Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) of 1977, as recorded in Hansard of 20 October 1977. That is what this legislation is designed to do, that is the result that it is designed to achieve. These amendments in the clause are, in a sense, purely of a technical nature. They are designed to enable those who were deemed employees prior to the 1979 amendments to the New South Wales Act to continue to be members of the branch of a federally registered organisation. It does not enable to become members of the Federal Transport Workers Union owner- drivers who were not, prior to the 1979 amendments to the New South Wales Act, capable of so doing. Therefore, it is consistent with the concept introduced by the previous Government's amendments of 1977. For these reasons, we see no cause to accept that aspect of the Opposition's amendment. With regard to clause 22 (2), Senator Durack says that there is no justification for allowing those persons who joined a union, in the situation covered by the sub-clause, to remain in the union. The Government finds some difficulty with that view, the unions being essentially voluntary associations but, as was pointed out in the second reading speech with great clarity, the Bill deals with the position of non-employees who have validly become members of federally registered unions following the 1973-74 amendments to section 132 but whose continued membership is in doubt after the further amendments of 1977. I do not want to take the matter further. I simply say that it is the Government's view that those employees have to be dealt with, and are best dealt with, in the context of the legislation, for the reasons described basically in the second reading speech. As I said, the purpose is to validate the membership of affected non-employees who have legitimately become members and presumably wish to remain so. That situation, I might say, is not unusual in organisations. It becomes unusual in the case of owner-drivers but is not generally unusual. The Government sees no reason why the amendment moved by the Opposition on that point should be carried. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 23 (Prescribed offences). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.48) —I move: (4) Page 18, paragraph 23 (a), lines 3 to 7, leave out the paragraph. Clause 23 seeks to remove from the Act a number of provisions, and to substitute others. In the process, what has happened is that the Bill will significantly reduce the number of offences for which, upon conviction, a union member can be barred from holding office in the union. Although it is claimed, I notice, by the Government that the provision is restricted only to offences relating to elections or ballots, it removes a number of quite serious offences relating to failure to comply with Federal court orders, including orders in respect of secret ballots. I propose to state the policy behind the provisions in the existing Act, as introduced last year by the then Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Macphee. He referred to the recommendations of the Winneke Royal Commission and said: . . . these recommendations highlight the need for the honest administration of registered organisations. These bodies play a vital role in Australian society. It is plainly against the interests of the community and the members of registered organisations if their administration is not competent and honest. The Government does not doubt that by far the majority of registered organisations are honestly run, and not only the Royal Commission into the Builders Labourers Federation but also that into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union has shown that there is an urgent requirement for legislation to combat corruption in the management of registered organisations. Mr Macphee said that it was desired to try to equate the position under the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, with, as far as possible, relevant provisions in the Companies Act. Of course, we know that people are debarred from being directors of companies if they have committed various offences, particularly those relating to fraud and dishonesty or specific offences under the Companies Act. As I have said, the present Government has not resiled from that principle as far as I can see. It has sought to reduce the range of offences under which debarring from holding office will occur. We are opposed to the changes being made in the list of offences as they exist in the Act. As I have said, some of the offences which are being removed as grounds for debarring people from holding office include failure to comply with orders of the Federal Court of Australia, in particular an order made by the Federal Court to comply with the rules of the organisation in respect of secret ballot; failure to comply with a direction of the Federal Court in observance of the rules of an organisation; failure to lodge with the Industrial Registrar details of moneys held by an organisation; and failure to lodge with the Registrar details of loans or donations over $1,000. They are quite important matters which go directly to the competence and honesty of people involved in the administration of unions. We believe that those provisions should remain in the legislation as grounds for debarring people from holding office. Therefore, the purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the present situation is retained. It certainly should be retained pending the conclusion of the tripartite inquiry and further consideration by the National Labour Consultative Committee in regard to these matters. They are the reasons I have moved this amendment. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.53) —The Government is proposing by this legislation to reduce the number of offences in this section of the legislation. The comments that Senator Durack has just made- and I do not intend to be disrespectful-are the sort of fag-end of the debate which we had when these provisions were introduced into the legislation by the previous Government. At that time, the then Opposition made the point that many of these offences were not encompassed in the report of the Winneke Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation, that the Government of the day was using a sledge hammer to crack a nut, for want of a more eloquent expression at 5 o' clock on a Thursday afternoon, and that a number of deletions should have been made from the offences at that time. The Government of the day did not choose to do that. The Government today does choose to do that for reasons which I will briefly explain and which I have already explained in the past. Senator Durack referred to the comparison between the Companies Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which was a sort of trojan horse in the debate last time. I make the point that only three of the offences to be deleted carry a sentence of imprisonment as a possible penalty. This contrasts very sharply with the relative offences against the Companies Act which would have the effect , if a conviction were recorded, of leading to disqualification from being involved in the management of a company. Of the 15 offences against the Companies Act and related legislation which can lead to disqualification only two do not have imprisonment as a penalty. I make that general observation. I could in fact make it in more detail but the Government's view is that this provision brings the legislation more into conformity with the principle of equity which is sought with the Companies Act than was previously so. I reiterate the point I made about a number of the offences in the existing legislation. In respect of the commission of those offences there is an alternative remedy. I do not know whether it could be argued-I do not seek to argue this-that in respect of some of those situations people could be put in double jeopardy. I refer, for example, to the issue of non-compliance with the relevant Federal Court order. That matter can be dealt with by the Court under its comtempt powers. In the case of offences involving non-compliance with orders made in deregistration proceedings, the Court has specific powers to suspend the rights or privileges not only of the organisation but also of the members of the organisation. On the other hand, criminal offences are involved in the signing of misleading returns or breaches of accounting provisions which are more likely to lead to prosecutions under the criminal law than under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act where the penalties provided are far less serious. In fact, I take a particular example which was cited in the second reading debate-the contravention of section 185 which deals with false representations as to membership of an organisation. That is already covered by section 132F (1) (A) because that section provides for a penalty of six months imprisonment. The same point can be made about section 146. Without going into repetitive detail I indicate that it is the Government's view that the reduction of offences will be more satisfactory and will not lead to any dire consequences. I also make the point that the National Labour Consultative Council has recommended that section 132F and related sections should be looked at by the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. The changes being made by the Government in this legislation are interim changes only to that extent. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.58) —I would like to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce: Why does the Government believe that the offence must be one for which a person, on conviction, has served or is serving a sentence of imprisonment? It seems to me that that does a number of things. It creates a burden on the judge who is considering what penalty he will impose on a person convicted of some offence. No doubt the barrister making the plea for the accused will draw the judge's attention to the fact that a penalty of imprisonment has a different consequence for the accused than the conviction on the offence. Senator Georges —Why should that not be the case? Senator LEWIS —Senator Georges asked me why that should not be the case. I would have thought the situation is that it is the offence which is important rather than the consequences applied by the judge. Let me give Senator Georges an example. Let us presume that a person is charged with drunken driving which has nothing whatsoever to do with his union qualifications or his membership of the union. Senator Button —That is not what you were saying last year. Senator LEWIS —With respect, I do not think Senator Button could have been talking about comments made by me last year. I was trying to give Senator Georges an explanation of what I was talking about. A person may be charged with drunken driving-or even with some other driving offence not to do with drunkenness, which is now so strictly a criminal offence it ought perhaps be put in a different category-and the magistrate or judge may decide to send him to gaol for seven days. Under the proposed provisons the magistrate would have some difficulty in sending that person to gaol because it would be pleaded very strongly that the person's employment would be placed in jeopardy as a result of that term of imprisonment being imposed. Senator Georges —And so it should be argued. Senator LEWIS —Certainly it should be argued in favour of the accused if loss of employment is to be the consequence of the imprisonment, but is it not much more important that the nature of the offence with which he is convicted should determine whether his position as a union organiser will be placed in jeopardy? It seems to me that if the offence were of such a nature that on conviction the person would be liable to a substantial term of imprisonment his union ought to get rid of him. Even if the magistrate or judge decided in the circumstances to grant the person a bond or give him some leniency it would not alter the fact that he had beem convicted of a very serious criminal offence. The same sort of thing happens with public companies and company secretaries. It seems to me that to limit prescribed offences to those for which the person on conviction 'has served, or is serving, a sentence of imprisonment' goes about it the wrong way. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.02) —I am not quite sure of the relevance of Senator Lewis's remarks to the amendment which is before the chamber but, as always, I am interested in his observations. They have a certain sense of deja vu about them, the last of the 1982 show. They are observations which might well have been made when this legislation was introduced last year by the previous Government. These provisions are regarded by the Government as interim provisions, pending the deliberation of the Hancock inquiry on these matters. I see some validity in the logical points the honourable senator made and I will personally see that the remarks he has made in the chamber today are directed to the Hancock committee of inquiry. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. 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. Haines, J. Button, J. N. Harradine, B. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Hearn, J. M. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Rae, PeterRichardson, G. F. Withers, R. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —Speaking in a first reading debate at lunchtime today, Senator Primmer made a series of extraordinary allegations, including one that I had, as a result of false information supplied to me, he said, misled the Parliament in answer to a question addressed to me by Senator Sibraa on 29 November. I raise this matter at the first available opportunity. I have only just, in the last few minutes, seen a full transcript of what Senator Primmer has to say. Mr President, it will take more than Senator Primmer's assertions, unaccompanied as they are by any evidence, to make me believe that I have in any way misled the Parliament in my answer to Senator Sibraa. On the evidence presently available to me, I have no reason to doubt either the comprehensiveness or the honesty of the briefings on which I based my parliamentary statement. I regret that, not for the first time, Senator Primmer, whatever the sincerity of his beliefs, has chosen, without notice and under cover of parliamentary privilege, to make extremely damaging and defamatory allegations. I ask him, as both I and the current Minister for Foreign Affairs ( Mr Hayden) have done on numerous occasions, as indeed have Ministers in the previous Government on several occasions, to produce some hard evidence to substantiate his allegations. Unless and until he does so, they will remain not only very offensive to the persons concerned, including myself on this occasion, but also unbelievable. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(5.13) —I seek leave, Mr President, to make a statement on the matter raised by Senator Gareth Evans. Leave granted. Senator GEORGES —I find it regrettable that Senator Gareth Evans has sought, by personal explanation, to make an attack against Senator Primmer. Senator Robert Ray —Oh, come off it, George; sit down. Senator GEORGES —Mr President, let me say something to Senator Robert Ray who has not been here for very long. Senator Robert Ray —That is right, but I have learnt something, I will tell you. Senator GEORGES —I have learnt something. But let me say that Senator Primmer, on a number of occasions, has brought information before this Parliament which on first consideration appeared to be exaggerated. Let my say, on behalf of Senator Primmer, that on both previous occasions- Senator Peter Baume —He is here now. He can speak for himself. Senator GEORGES —Yes, he can speak for himself, but I am speaking on his behalf. On both previous occasions the information that he brought before the Parliament was subsequently substantiated. Senator Gareth Evans —That is not true. Senator GEORGES —I would suggest that the matters which Senator Primmer has brought before this House ought to be accepted and ought to remain not challenged in the way in which Senator Gareth Evans has challenged them for some time yet. There have been occasions on which matters to which Senator Primmer has referred have been brought before other forums of this Parliament, and the doubts which he has raised have been raised elsewhere. I do not think that it is quite fair that Senator Primmer should be put under the pressure that he has been put under by Senator Gareth Evans on this occasion. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.15) —Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of the statement which has just been made. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement which has just been made by Senator Georges. I welcome the fact that there has been some response, perhaps of necessity a rather brief response, from the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). I hope that there will be a more formal response on behalf of the Minister at some later time. This is not the first occasion on which Senator Primmer has made extremely serious allegations about people who are servants of the Commonwealth and who have served the Commonwealth, as was said in an earlier discussion today, under governments of both Labor and Liberal persuasions. I believe that it is a matter which has to be taken very seriously by this Senate when people who are serving the Commonwealth as public servants are open to the sort of attack which has been made today and on other occasions here without warning and, indeed, without even giving Ministers the opportunity to be prepared and able to defend those servants of the Commonwealth as they may be entitled to be defended. I take issue with the statement made by Senator Georges that what Senator Primmer has previously put before the Senate has been substantiated. Senator Georges —I did not say that. I said that on other occasions his statements had been substantiated. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Senator CHANEY —I respond to that interjection. I meant to say, and I certainly understood Senator Georges to say, that information given on previous occasions had been substantiated. I join with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on this occasion who, by interjection, indicated that in his view that was not so, and that is my recollection also-that it is not so. Senator Gareth Evans —He was right about the meat inquiry. Senator CHANEY —There may be some bits and pieces, but there have also been lengthy statements put down in this place on behalf of Mr Hayden which have disputed matters brought before this place in the same way by Senator Primmer. I sought to move a motion to take note of this statement because I think that we need to debate and to consider what courses of action are open to the Government and the Senate to prevent abuses of the necessary privileges which attach to this place. Senator Georges is a man with whom I have worked closely. I believe that he is genuinely concerned about some aspects of civil liberties. That is certainly the evidence of my association with him. I believe that he shows an extraordinary lack of balance in coming to the defence of this sort of behaviour in the Senate. I do not believe that it is consistent with other aspects of his attitudes which he has aired in this place. I do not believe that we should be prepared to see the forms of this place used in the way in which they were used. I hotly dispute Senator Georges's defence of Senator Primmer. In an earlier opportunity that we had to debate this matter I pointed out that there are other avenues available to honourable senators if they feel that there is a matter of maladministration which needs to be attended to. Surely the first step which should be taken, particularly when a government supporter is involved , is to take up the matter with the government of which he is virtually a part and to seek redress through the Ministers who have the responsibility for the administration of their departments. To fail to do that and to move straight into it is an act which would appear to have almost a vindictive quality to it. I have yet to see the total of the remarks made by Senator Primmer, but he referred to other matters which have occurred and which have caused some distress within the Australian Labor Party over recent days and weeks, and to use that as a reason for bringing into this place allegations about a public servant who may have been involved in some aspects of the security services is utterly inexcusable. There is a heavy obligation on the Government to look to the behaviour of its own supporters and to do something to prevent yet another repetition of this sort of behaviour. Senator Primmer —Gag me. Senator CHANEY —I think that Senator Primmer said 'Gag me'. I would defend the right of any honourable senator to try to do something about the Administration if there is maladministration. As I tried to point out previously, there are avenues which would safeguard the citizens involved against possibly wrongful accusations, and in this case, I suspect, definitely wrongful accusation. I do not believe that one should, as one's first course, rush into this place and put the accusations on the table in a way which leaves the citizen utterly defenceless. That is inexcusable and I regard it with abhorrence. There should be an opportunity for us to debate this matter fully. Earlier today Senator Jessop made a particularly constructive contribution when he mentioned something that he has raised within our Party on a number of occasions and which I know he will be pursuing, that is, the possibility that we could have some sort of machinery that would provide redress for the citizen who is caught in the situation that Mr Ryan is caught in today. I do not believe any of us would want to see the privilege of the Parliament removed. Quite clearly there are in extremis situations where one has to say things which one needs the protection of the Parliament to say. Presumably Senator Primmer made that judgment today. But the fact is that we do that in a system which provides no redress and no real right of reply to the citizen. I think we should consider the sorts of views that Senator Jessop put today about whether it would be possible to provide some mechanism for complaint, for inquiry, for retraction and so on. That is one element that this place needs to consider. I do not wish to make a lengthy speech as we have a great deal of business to get through. But I believe that the whole of the Opposition regards it as totally unacceptable that servants of the Crown are treated in this way by people who are elected to the Parliament. The failure of Senator Primmer to follow the other avenues available to him is an approach that just cannot be justified. I totally disagree with the sort of justification which was put up by Senator Georges. It is perhaps more serious that there was something close to a justification from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who initially responded but who is not in the chamber at the moment. I think that warrants further examination and I believe that the Senate should consider the way that Senator Gietzelt responded, keeping in mind that he bears ministerial responsibility, that he is part of the Government and that he has some responsibilities not just on his own behalf and not only to reflect the views of his Caucus, his faction or whatever else he might reflect, but also to reflect the views of the Government. This is not a very good day for the Senate; indeed it is a very bad day for the Senate. I will not seek leave to continue my remarks because it may be that others will wish to speak but I believe that we should address ourselves to the principles which are raised by Senator Primmer's further excursion in smearing people of whom he disapproves and of attacking people of whom he disapproves. I believe we should attend to that in a conscientious way which might do something to restore not merely the reputation of those who have been traduced, but also the reputation of the Parliament. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.23) —For the reasons that the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, and Senator Chaney have given, I believe that this is a serious matter and deserves serious consideration by the Government. What is more important, it deserves serious debate in this place by both the Government and the Opposition. For that reason, I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Senator Sir John Carrick —Mr President, I seek the call. Senator Georges —Can we speak to that motion? The PRESIDENT —There can be no debate on the adjournment motion. Question put: That the motion be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Giles, P. J. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Peterson, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John Macklin, M. J. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Withers, R. G. Hearn, J. M. Rae, Peter Question so resolved in the negative Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.28) —I rose earlier today when Senator Primmer made his comments because I regarded the issue as a very grave one. I rise now not in any contentious fashion but to put some points. I say from the beginning that I appreciate that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs has not had any adequate time to reflect upon the material or to reflect upon the possible consequences. I acknowledge that fully and therefore am not combative about the issues. I want to try to define, in any future approach to this matter, the magnitude of what I think the problem is because, in my judgment, the problem is not a narrow one at all. There have been a number of occasions on which Senator Primmer has made in this chamber a wide series of allegations about a considerable number of senior officers and officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Today he made an additional one about the Director of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. If one looks at the totality of what has been said, charges were made which could suggest, if there were any truth in them at all following investigations, only that there was some massive conspiracy and massive corruption, not among a few people, but in the whole Department. I reject that. I put the matter in terms of its magnitude. There have been allegations of theft, of lying, of alcoholism and of bad behaviour. There have been allegations of a total pattern of misbehaviour by a number of officers and an allegation that the senior officers in the Department have known these things and are covering up. Of course, if this were so, not only would the reflection be upon the whole Department but it would be upon the Minister. The allegations would apply not only to the present Minister, Mr Hayden, but also to the previous Minister. The allegation could be made that he must have been covering up because the Minister has a responsibility to look at these grave charges to see whether they are true or not. There have been wide investigations of this matter. Senator Primmer has not produced hard evidence at all. Today he widened his charges. We are not just considering individuals of a department. We are considering charges covering, first of all, a whole Department and, secondly, charges covering the Director of ASIS. If one allowed allegations to be sustained about the whole Department of Foreign Affairs we are saying to the world outside that the whole of our international contact is defective in that the Department is contaminated, corrupt and subject to all sorts of criminal offences. It cannot be left at that . It is of that magnitude. Nor can it be left at the magnitude that the Minister has either been defective in his inquiries or that, knowing these things, is covering up. What happened today went a step further. Senator Primmer started off by saying that David Combe and Mick Young had been in trouble and that the trouble had arisen partly out of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I think he used the words: 'Here was proof that there should be an axe taken to ASIO and to the intelligence services'. I hope I am not distorting that. That was the general thrust, as I understood it. It has been known for a considerable period that certain elements of the Australian Labor Party want to destroy ASIO and ASIS and would take any opportunity that they could to do so. I sound a warning: There is a very grave danger, indeed, if, in the course of the Combe affair and the Mick Young affair, anything should be done to damage the intelligence systems of Australia or to damage the diplomatic system of Australia. A respected Royal Commissioner has already carried out one inquiry into ASIO and ASIS and is doing another. Let us not do wilful damage to the systems upon which the integrity and security of our country depends. If something is wrong let us clean it up. We cannot have the terrible argument which was put to us today by Senator Primmer which was that ASIO has reported upon David Combe who was found responsible and instead of that reflecting upon David Combe or Mick Young, ASIO should be abolished; the police force that has brought the evidence should be abolished. I know of nothing that is more distorted or more convoluted than the idea that the way to reduce offences is to abolish the ability to detect them. I do not want to be combative at all but to say that if we are to consider this matter in depth we will be considering a massive problem. We are considering now allegations made about a total department, not just one, two or three people. Allegations have been made about a permanent head of a department, a Minister responsible for a department, and therefore, the Government and, of course, the intelligence services. I regard this matter as extremely grave. I believe this matter should be debated next week. There is a necessity for the Government to respond in such a way that it is possible, once and for all, to put this matter to rest. There is a secondary situation in this matter. I think that the closest attention should be given to the speech today by Senator Gietzelt. I think the words and the arguments that he put today must give the gravest concern to the Senate. Senator Harradine —And to the Government. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —To the Government and to the Senate. I do not raise this matter today because that will come in the course of things. I said that I do not wish to be combative. I think we ought to look at suggestions such as Senator Jessop's but above everything in this world we have to take the view in this place that people are innocent unless we can come forward and prove guilt by very firm methods. It is a very sad day indeed. I acknowledge the Attorney's difficulty at this moment. I look forward to a thorough debate in the future. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.37) —The matter which we are discussing was raised during a period which has been set aside for debate of non-contentious matters, by agreement between members of this chamber. When we discussed the hours of meeting for the Senate we agreed that the time between 12.45 and 2 o' clock on Thursdays would be devoted to the debate of non-contentious matters. Honourable senators can imagine my surprise when, going from one meeting to another, I went to my office and heard what could be described only as a most extraordinary and outrageous attack on a public servant who has served both the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party governments internationally and nationally. That person has no recourse available to him to refute those outrageous comments made about him other than to be defended by a Minister. Instead of going to the second meeting which was a meeting of the executive of Amnesty International, I immediately made my way to the chamber. Prior to entering the chamber I was absolutely amazed to hear the comments made by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). It is no reflection on Ministers and no reflection on the Government because they, like the rest of us, believed that the Senate would be having a non-contentious debate. However, it appears that Senator Gietzelt heard on his intercom some parts of the statement made by Senator Primmer. What Senator Gietzelt said was designed-or if it was not designed this was the effect-to clothe with some degree of respectability the attack made by Senator Primmer, and in particular the attack that he made on Australian security services. Of course this is in direct defiance of the publicly expressed attitude of Australia's Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I agree with what Senator Sir John Carrick said-this is a matter which of course ought to be of grave concern not only to the Senate and to us as individual senators but also to the Government. As I said before, if something is not done about the question of having non- contentious debates during that period, if people are going to come in here and raise contentious matters, other forms are available to senators to achieve a result in that particular area. I hope that it does not have to come to that but I do feel-I do not reflect at all on the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) who manages Government Business because obviously he was not aware of it -that some action should be taken to ensure that this part of the day is used for non-contentious debate. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.41) —I do not wish to enter into the substance of this debate; I merely want to make a couple of points. The first is that when I moved for the adjournment of this debate the suggestion was made-maybe it was a reflex action, this being a political chamber -that I was trying to gag debate. I was not trying to gag debate at all; in fact , before moving the adjournment I made it clear that I and the Government consider this to be a serious matter, a matter which deserves serious response from the Government and the Minister concerned, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). He has not been able to give it that consideration, a fact that is recognised on both sides of this place. The fact that Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Harradine wished to speak immediately meant that the adjournment motion was defeated but in moving the adjournment I made it perfectly clear that I did not consider that that was a means of gagging or preventing debate on this subject. What I want is a debate which involves serious response from the Government and a serious non-heated atmosphere for the debate from both sides of the House. Senator Harradine —Most senators probably did not even hear it. Senator GRIMES —I did not hear the debate. It is unfortunate that the debate started in that period, which is supposed to be for non-controversial matters, but I want to make it perfectly clear that we believe this is a serious matter. We believe it raises serious implications and we believe it deserves the serious consideration of this chamber. That consideration cannot be given without proper preparation. It was for that reason that I moved the adjournment. I repeat that any adjournment moved now, as I expect Senator Ryan will do, will not result in the cessation of this debate. Quite clearly it is a matter that has to be settled not only for the Government and the Opposition but also for the Parliament as a whole. Debate (on motion by Senator Ryan) adjourned. Bill returned from the House of Repre- sentatives without amendment. [COGNATE BILLS: STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) BILL 1983 STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 2 December 1983, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.45) —Mr President, on Friday last when we were debating cognately the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, I was at the point, with a few minutes to go, of trying to outline how we see the strategy of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). I described it as political schizophrenia-how to maximise support from the public by saying things that the public wishes in some instances but with the party ideologues, the party members and the branches saying other things. There is a direct dichotomy between, on the one hand, what will make for democracy and what will make for public support by the Government moving to reassure the public and, on the other hand, the Government fulfilling the ideological commitments of party members. Similarly, I referred to the statements the Minister made during her visit to Ireland. She said that the Government was serving the Catholic schools wonderfully and yet, at the very same time, Catholic bishops and representatives of Catholic schools were decrying the Minister. If only the people of Ireland had seen that, they would have seen that it was a much more complex picture than the simple, happy story she was telling them. Another illustration of this political schizophrenia are the facts with regard to level 2 and level 1 schools. Quite apart from the 41 schools on the hit list, the Minister has acknowledged in the Senate that level 2 and level 1 schools will not be given greater support than they would have received under the nexus or percentage link formula of the past. Senator Peter Baume —They will get less. Senator TEAGUE —They will be getting less for the most part, except for some level 2 schools. The great majority of level 2 schools and all level 1 schools will be getting less than the formula. The example of political schizophrenia is that the Minister will not acknowledge that to the schools; she will acknowledge it only under careful questioning in the Senate. I summarise my plea again to the Minister and to the Government with regard to these Bills: Please do not distract us in this debate and please do not distract the country from the main thrust of helping those schools that are most in need or from the issue that is most important in the education area; that is, quality of outcome for Australia's school children. The same could be said with regard to tertiary education. By the abandonment of the guidelines and established principles of funding for non-government schools, the Senate has been distracted by this kind of debate and by the uproar that is all about the country. I again say to the Minister that for $20m or less this Government could redress that situation by restoring the basic grant for all school children on the basis of the principles of the past, by restoring the nexus or the percentage link, and by making it possible for newly established independant schools to have the same access as in the past to capital funds for their establishment. I implore the Minister, in this six months of review, to re-establish those principles so that we are all pulling together in this country and focusing upon the education questions that matter. In conclusion, I urge that honourable senators support the second reading amendment moved by my colleague Senator Baume. I understand that he is seeking to leave out one word from the original proposal. I do urge honourable senators to support that opposition amendment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.49) —Mr President, I understand the wish of the Government at least that we reduce the length of our speeches on these matters because of the Government's program. It is unfortunate that measures of such importance as the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the States Grants ( Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill have come before the Senate in the last couple of weeks of parliament. Of course, the measures deal with a wide range of educational matters, some of which I am the first to acknowledge are welcome initiatives or improvements, although if time permitted I would have liked to have made some substantial comment on the participation and equity program. Nevertheless, because of those circumstances I will concentrate briefly on those areas in the legislation which implement the Government's guidelines in respect of the funding of non-government schools; in other words the matters of real contention which, as the previous speaker has said, have overshadowed other areas of educational interest which are of real importance to the whole of the community. In my view it was totally unnecessary for the Government to bring down these guidelines to break the nexus, abolish the basis grant and insist upon a type of impact study before new schools are funded. It was unnecessary for the Government to do what it did in those three areas, as I will point out during the debate. I do not intend to argue the way I did in previous debates on these matters because I think the atmosphere has slightly changed since then. I hope that it has because at that stage-I am referring to the stage until about a fornight ago -the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) was accusing persons who were concerned about these educational issues variously of being anti-Labor, of stirring the pot or of having some ulterior motive. Just to give honourable senators an example of that, on 9 November, when replying to the matter of public importance that I raised in the Senate, the Minister said: We know Senator Harradine's motives. They are what they have been for a very long time. They are aimed at eroding the Labor forces in this country and the Labor Government. Of course, it is of great concern to Senator Harradine and his echo in News Weekly, Santamaria, that the catholic education commissions are, in fact, extremely supportive of our needs-based approach to education. She went on to say: One could find almost word for word what Senator Harradine has just said in this article by B. A. Santamaria in News Weekly. That would not surprise anybody in this place. They are extraordinary statements from a Minister who should know better. They indicate not only her lack of grasp of the real educational concerns of people but also her lack of knowledge of the political circumstances of the nation. Of course not only had I not even read what News Weekly had said about this matter- although if it agreed with what I was saying it was obviously on the right track -but also, and this was the most disconcerting aspect of the Minister's observation, she failed to understand that at that time there were people like me who were genuinely concerned about education. After all, I have some reason to be concerned about the issue. I have thirteen reasons to be concerned about it. I was concerned also about the fact that the Minister was engaging in what appeared to be, on the face of it, a deliberate tactic of intimidation towards non-government school parents and their principals in the non-government school area. I hope to be able to acknowledge that the Minister has changed her attitude in that respect. Having gone to some of these meetings I think she now realises-I hope she does-that this is a matter of genuine concern. To me and to many of the parents who have gone to these meetings it has nothing to do with party politics . After all there is no election in the offing for another two years, and these people are concerned. At a meeting in Ballarat the Minister acknowledged that the nexus gave some security in planning to the non-government school sector. She said that the advantage of the nexus was that it gave confidence for the future and that it gave some security in educational planning in the non-government sector. She said that the disadvantage was that the nexus was not flexible enough that the Government had decided to abolish it, that it would attempt to rearrange the amount of money that was available from Commonwealth funds within the non- government school sector and that it would increase the grants to non-government group 3 schools; the most needy schools. As I said on that occasion, we would have all gone home happy if the Minister, who is proposing a 3 per cent increase for non-government group 3 schools, had simply said: 'For the time being we will make that 43 per cent-and keep the nexus'. We would also be happy if she withdrew her comment, which is on the record, relating to the basic grant. I hope the Minister will see her way clear today either to say that the comment was not adequately detailed in the Press or at least that she now rejects it. In the Canberra Times of 26 September 1983 the Minister is reported as saying: The view that parents who choose non-government schooling for their children had a right or entitlement to government funding of that choice because they were taxpayers was a specious argument. Senator Sir John Carrick —When did she say that? Senator HARRADINE —It is reported in the Canberra Times of 26 September 1983. I would say that very few Government members would adopt that point of view. I am just wondering whether the Minister will take the opportunity that is now available to refute that statement and say that in fact there is a prior right for parents to choose the education best suited to their child or children. It may be, as is very often the case, that because of certain circumstances parents choose a state school for one child-say, a child attending primary school-and a non-government school for another child. But if the Minister is able to see her way clear to refute that statement, so much the better. Senator Tate —But, Senator, you do not get the right as a taxpayer; you get the right as a person sending your child to a school. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, one gets the right as a person. A parent has the prior right to choose the education that is best suited to his children. In Australia, for example, we have compulsory education. We have no choice about that. However , a parent has the right to choose freely the type of education best suited to his child and that right should not be qualified by overburdensome fiscal pressures. The fact is that parents who choose to send their children to non- government schools are taxpayers. Part of their taxes is earmarked for education . That is another reason why the Minister ought to retract her statement. That is the basic reason for the establishment of the basic grant. In my book it was too low, but it has been taken away from 41 schools and naturally the parents of children who attend those schools are concerned. I make the point that some people are saying: 'You are going to bet for these 41 elitist schools'. I am not going to bet for any school. I am going to bet for the right of the parents to choose the form of education best suited for their children and their right to have a portion of the educational expenditure from government sources-in other words, taxpayers' sources-directed to their children . I would like to read a letter from a parent of a child who attends one of the schools that has been hit. This parent is either a deserted wife or divorcee. I think honourable senators should listen carefully to the letter. She states: Dear Senator Harradine, I am a sole parent with two children, both boys. My elder boy is at an Independent School, although he attended his local State School until Grade 6. I was forced (although I knew it would be a shocking financial strain) to change his school because of behavioural problems due to the breakdown of the marriage and complete rejection by his father. I am hoping I can keep my second boy at the State School. The stress of bringing up two boys, working full-time and caring for an ailing father is enourmous and we are forced to lead a very spartan existence. At the time I decided to change my elder boy's school, I thought I could handle the financial strain whereas I could not handle two delinquent teenage boys. Now, what do I do? Do I unsettle my boy even more by changing his school when he has settled in (he is now in Year 7), formed friendships, is very happy, working well and receiving the extra care and attention he so badly needs? I am writing to you as a concerned parent. I pay taxes, part of which are set aside by Government for education of my children. I feel strongly that it is discriminatory to give my elder boy less grant because he attends a private school when my tax grant alone would fully fund him if he attended a State School. He should at least get the same grant as the school of my choice as he would if he attended a State School, because I pay the same tax levy. Why should the State Schools get my share of my elder boy's grant when he does not attend a State School? The logic is unanswerable. Yet this right is being undermined by the Government' s guidelines. This lady's child attends one of the 41 schools which have had their grants reduced. This letter indicates that it is not so much a matter of wealthy schools as a matter of wealthy or poor parents. Many wealthy parents send their children to government schools. Therefore, in that sense, this is not a social justice issue. The burden placed on this single parent is quite enormous. What does she do in a situation in which although her child is happy at the school she may well have to take him away and thus create real problems for him? What happens when people go to bat for these 41 schools? I am disturbed and sad to say this, because I respect many of the things that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is doing, but I am concerned that, presumably on very bad advice, he said recently that there was an unholy alliance between the 41 schools and some Catholic schools. I do not know to whom he was referring or where this unholy alliance is. As far as I am aware all of the Catholic authorities, including the National Commission of Bishops and the National Catholic Education Commission, have expressed grave concern about these aspects of the Government's guidelines. They have done so in statements that have been made after conducting a very rigorous examination of them. It has been put to me that these 41 schools should not be supported because most of their students go on to universities and there hit the taxpayer jackpot. That is no argument for the guidelines. It is an argument for the reintroduction of tertiary fees. If the Government wants to bite that bullet, I invite it to do so. It might be get more support than it expects. In what I hope is a more conciliatory atmosphere that is developing, I wish to ask that the Minister bear certain things in mind. I ask her, first of all, to acknowledge that there is real, genuine concern amongst many parents. They are concerned about the future. They are concerned also that the future is being designed by the Commonwealth Schools Commission whose membership is now influenced by appointees of the Minister, three of these having a long track record of anti-State aid campaigning. Non-government school parents are concerned that their representative was not reappointed to the Schools Commission. I am not talking about education officers. I am talking about a parent representing non-government school parents. The Schools Commission is, of course, now deeply involved in the study, as directed by the Minister, of a number of areas including the target recurrent resource standard study. It is most unfortunate that there is such a weight of anti-State aid people on the Commission when considerations of the future of non-government schooling are being undertaken. It is probably too late now totally to reverse the situation just by filling vacancies with people but at least that would be a start. Let us at least now approach this matter recognising that there is very deep concern throughout the community. If the Minister does that, I am sure that she will be surprised at the co-operative attitude that may develop. But how can the Minister get a co-operative attitude when she has pulled the rug from under the parents of the children attending these 41 schools-children who have had their just rights denied to them. My suggestion to the Minister is that she withdraw this legislation; that she tie the level 3 schools, for the time being, to 43 per cent, of the nexus; that she restore the basic grant to the 41 schools and withdraw the forthrightness, if that is the word, of her guideline relating to the establishment of new schools. Then she will certainly open the door to co-operation on the part of concerned parents. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(6.16) —In listening to the debate on the substance of these Bills, both in this chamber and in the media-and we have heard a lot of it lately-I am struck by the great emphasis being put on the non-government schools. In fact, we have heard for just on half an hour from Senator Harradine virtually solely that topic. Yet this group of schools together educate only about one-quarter of the school population of Australia. Three-quarters of all primary and secondary students attend government schools; yet the Opposition and the noisy minority that is supporting it out in the community are only concerned , it seems, about non-government schools. Clearly, they care little for the rights and needs of the other 75 per cent. Much of the argument we have heard from the Opposition benches-and it features in their proposed amendments to the Bills-focuses on the freedom of parents to choose their children's school. In fact, Senator Harradine spent a lot of time on that also. I agree with the comments made by Senator Macklin the other day that complete freedom of choice, even if it were available to all parents, is not necessarily in the best interests of the child. In this regard I welcome the provision made to implement educational accountability as well as financial accountability for the spending of taxpayers' money on non-government schools. I hope that it will lead to the badly-needed betterment of educational standards in some of those schools. I believe that every child has the right to education but at the moment some schools provide a minimum of education and a maximum of indoctrination. The fact that mothers go to work to pay non-government school fees is supposed to convince us that a bigger slice of the education cake should go to those schools. That is a spurious argument. Mothers go to work for all sorts of reasons apart from urgent financial need, for example, to pay for swimming training or a tennis court for their children. Are we, then, to subsidise these choices? Other mothers go to work to feed and clothe their children and maintain them at school past the minimum leaving age. Should the taxes that they pay be used to subsidise resource-rich schools? Freedom of choice in this sense is not available to most Australians. Fees at the schools where parents are protesting loudest are way beyond the reach of most families. Those who do have the choice often choose a government school because they prefer a good education within a group which represents the total community. One of the sorry side effects of the present debate is the implication that non -government schools provide a superior education-apparently just by reason of the fact that they are non-government schools. On an educational scale, from my own experience, both government and non-government schools are spread throughout the range. In my experience, parents are often falsely persuaded that what they pay highly for is necessarily better. Some of the speeches on this topic in recent months might be described as misleading advertising in this regard. I would like to refer to some of the comments that Senator Harradine has just made. He quoted from a letter from one of his constituents. I wonder why she sent her child to one of those 41 very expensive schools, considering the sort of financial situation in which she was obviously placed. I cannot believe she could not find any other school which would meet the child's needs. It has been my experience, for example, that counselling and guidance staff of education departments meet these problems all the time and satisfactorily solve them if they are given a chance by finding a school that will fit the needs of that child whether it is within the government or non-government systems. Yet some non-government schools also in my experience give false information and claim that they had a monopoly for caring or catering for children who have special needs. Some non-government schools do not reach minimal educational standards in relation to trained staff, adequate equipment or curriculum. Yet, some people assume that those schools are bound to be better because they have to pay. Senator Teague was critical last week of secondary schools whose curriculum is geared solely to higher educational entry. Such schools are most often found in the non-government sector. In fact, many of those schools discard students or weed them out if they are unlikely to do well in academic courses. Frequently, at the end of the tenth year at school it is suggested, to put it kindly, that a student move to a government school. The real reason, of course, is that the non -government school wants to keep up its final year pass rate. Diversity of curriculum, that is, real educational choice, is more often found in government schools which do cater for all students. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1983 has attracted much less attention in this cognate debate than the other Bills. Perhaps this is because tertiary education has no significant private sector. I would like to refer to a few aspects of that legislation. University administrators and staff with whom I have spoken in recent months have welcomed the provisions for retrospective cost supplementation which will allow tertiary institutions to plan for the future on a more secure basis. In passing, it should be noted that that cost supplementation also applies to school funding. It is wrong, therefore, for non-government schools to claim, as some have, that fee increases for next year are due to wage rises. It is very good to see the ending of compulsory amalgamations of tertiary institutions which was so strongly opposed by both the staff and the students who were affected by them. This does not mean that there will be no further amalgamations. Some such amalgamations will have substantial benefits educationally as well as financially, but the decision will no longer be forced on the institutions concerned. This is in contrast with the policies of the previous Government which forced amalgamations which are little more than cost cutting exercises, with small regard either for the wishes of the people concerned or for the educational consequences. Senator Peter Baume —What about undoing amalgamations? Do they do that too? Senator ZAKHAROV —Possibly. We have heard criticism from the Opposition about the minor cut in subsidies to collegiate residences. It seems to me inequitable that the accommodation of some students should be subsidised, without any means test, while the vast majority of students living away from home receive no such subsidy. I believe we need to find a better way to assist students who cannot live at home. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill provides $10. 5m to assist institutions in meeting the expenditure involved in increased enrolments for 1984. This complements the participation and equity program legislation. Both these programs aim to increase the participation in education of those who are at present under-represented in both the higher levels of secondary schooling and higher education. Participation and equity program guidelines aim to encourage young people to continue their education within the existing framework such as in technical and further education colleges and also within more diversified programs within schools or other community facilities. The participation and equity program will also encourage young people and older people too to come back into the education and training process. It is very important to encourage this second chance. Many young people leave school and later learn, often the hard way, that their level of education does not equip them for what they want to do with their lives. They need encouragement and programs designed to meet their needs. A participation and equity allocation will help to provide that. Finally, I would like to pay a brief tribute to the parent and teacher organisations in government schools which have done so much to raise the standards of education in government schools, even under the financial strictures of the previous Government. They too need to be reassured that the Government is committed to funding schools according to need and will not be diverted from that commitment. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(6.26) —I would like to add a few comments to the cognate debate on the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill 1983, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1983 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1983 which are now before the Senate. I have listened with interest to the case that has been put by honourable senators from this side of the chamber. I agree with what has been said by those honourable senators. I would like to raise one or two points. Senator Zakharov just said that 75 per cent of children go to government schools and only 25 per cent go to non-goverment independent schools and they have not been hurt. I suppose that is why those schools have been particularly mentioned by honourable senators on this side of the chamber. We have all heard a lot about the hit list of 41 wealthy non-government schools, as they are called, whose funding is to be reduced, whose basic grant is to be taken away. I would like to point out to the Senate that many parents who send their children to these schools are not necessarily wealthy parents. They scrimp and save so that their children can go to the school of their choice. The parents might have gone to those schools, the parents might feel there is better discipline at those schools or they might feel that their children can get religious instruction at those schools. For some reason or other they want to send their children to those schools and they make an effort to do so. I know of one family which had a home worth $80,000. The family sold it and moved into a house worth $50,000, so the $30,000 left could be used to pay for the education of their children. I received a copy of a letter in the mail just recently in which I was told that it was estimated that 65 per cent of mothers of private school children work to keep their children at those schools. These mothers cannot really be classed as wealthy. I think it is probably a matter of priorities. A lot of people feel that the education of their children is a priority. Some people buy new cars, caravans or whatever they want to buy. I would like to say that I do not think- Senator Walsh —How many of the 65 per cent have kids at the 41 schools? You have not got the faintest idea. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I do not interrupt Senator Walsh all the time. I wish that he would refrain from interrupting me. Senator Walsh —I just wish you would provide relevant information. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I am saying to Senator Walsh that education is very important to these people. I feel that this is something that needs to be said. Many parents make a real sacrifice to be able to choose the school to which they send their children. The trouble, as I see it, is that after the 41 schools have had their funds cut the next thing that will happen will be of course, that funds will be cut to other private schools. As a matter of fact the grammar schools in Queensland have written to me. They have been very concerned about the cutting back of funds for boarders. I see this as a penalty, in the main, for rural people throughout Australia. I was at the speech day for Scots College in Warwick just recently and many of the parents- Senator Ryan —Its funds were not cut. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I realise, Senator Ryan, that its funds have not been cut. It is very concerned because although it is not on the hit list of 41 schools, it is sure that the funding for the boarding facilities eventually will be cut for children who are going to board at the school. It seems to me that this is a matter of regret. I feel that this reflects in many ways the way that the Government seems to hit at people who live in the country. People with children at boarding schools certainly feel that there is a need to help them with their education costs. Through the years people living in the far outback of Australia have had problems with education. They have had to employ governesses and the children have had to work through the School of the Air and have correspondence lessons. Parents who live in isolated areas have to send their children to boarding school out of pure necessity, yet these people, like others, will be faced with prohibitive fees. This needs to be taken into consideration. I feel sure that help from the Federal Government to these schools will eventually be reduced. Of course, if the funds are reduced, fees will have to rise. Some principals claim that one of the side effects will be the isolation of children of lower income earners from the independent school system. This will make the private schools more elitist because any places left vacant in those schools by withdrawals will immediately be filled by pupils whose parents are better able to bear the cost of sending their children to these schools. It was recently reported in one of the Brisbane newspapers that the Isolated Children's Parents Association in Queensland, the children of whose members are dependent on boarding schools for most of their education, wrote to the Minister because they were worried about this problem. The article reported: A resolution was sent to Canberra . . . saying the education of isolated children would be jeopardised if the cuts went ahead. Some schools have already closed their boarding sections because of the financial strain. Others have reduced their capacity and are faced with big increases in fees. This is why the grammar school representatives are very concerned about it. Senator Ryan —Are these schools in Queensland? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —They had a meeting in Toowoomba not so very long ago. Senator Ryan —No schools in Queensland were cut. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I am saying that in future there could be further cuts to these schools and that that needs to be taken into consideration. At the meeting in Toowoomba it was reported that the grammar school representatives said: . . . non-government schools were receiving only 13 per cent of government funds to finance 25 per cent of the school population. One leading Brisbane school, attended mainly by children of middle-class families, will lose $240,000. Senator Ryan —Which school? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —As the paper did not name the school, I cannot inform the Minister of that. I feel sure that the Minister must recognise that if parents have to pay increased fees because of cuts in government funding, many children will be taken away from private schools and sent to government schools. Of course, the cost then comes back to the Government. I chose to send my children to state primary and high schools. I was quite satisfied with them, but perhaps I was not in the same situation as many people in outback Australia. Senator Peter Baume —Tell Senator Ryan what they were like. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Our government schools were actually very good at Kingaroy. I was very pleased to be able to get a bus that went from my door to the school. I like to feel that my children got good educational training. But I think it should be the right of every parent to choose the type of education that they want for their children. I believe it is the right of every child to educational justice and it is the duty of the Government to protect the right of parents to choose the type of education that they want for their children. As I said earlier, some parents want their children to receive religious education at school. That might be the only way, regrettably, that they ever get it and it is not always available within the State system. I believe that an equal share of tax to help in educating children no matter where they attend school is a democratic right for all parents. Therefore, I join with other senators on our side-Senator Baume and Senator Teague and other speakers-in opposing the proposals in this legislation and in supporting the Opposition's amendments. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.34) —In the 30 years that followed World War II, successive governments of Liberal faith set out progressively to bring about a uniting and a unifying in education. They looked towards the pre- war years and to the divisiveness, religious bigotries, and the rich and poor strata of the community and they set out with goals to overcome the divisiveness and bigotry and to get an education system which would cover all Australians. They set out to bring the best quality education to all Australians, whether in government schools or independent schools. They set out to establish a dual stream of education in the general concept of the United Nations charter and a recognition of the right of parents to choose. Indeed, as the decades went on, they achieved a great unifying and a great healing. I pause to say that in a matter of a few short months the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, and the Hawke Labor Government have done great harm to the unifying of the dual system. No government, no Minister, could have done more to revive divisiveness, to revive bitterness, to pit Australian against Australian, than the present Minister and the present Labor Government. Senator Cook —That is just rubbish. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is the tragedy of this situation. Let me spell this out, because some like Senator Cook might have short memories. I remind the Senate that for the first 20 years or more of the post war period, the Australian Labor Party was opposed to any direct aid at all to independent schools. It was only in the early 1970s that that policy changed. I myself had a great deal to do- Senator Ryan —And you fought and struggled to keep the Schools Commission Bill from being enacted. You opposed the Schools Commission Bill in this place. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Ryan can interject, but she will not alter the facts. Let me recite them because they are very important and the people of Australia are entitled to know them. I remind Senator Ryan that in the 1950s the Menzies Government brought in interest subsidies for capital privately raised in the Australian Capital Territory and was violently opposed by the Opposition even though the public servants-and public servants have long memories-who were forced to come to Canberra from Melbourne and other cities were denied the right of choice and were forced into greatly overcrowded schools. When governments of Liberal faith said 'Wouldn't it be reasonable to help the independent sector to build their schools and to give them freedom of choice?' there was violent opposition. In the 1950s and 1960s came the indirect aid-the science blocks and the library blocks. Again, there was very great resistance by the Labor Party, particularly by its militants, to any kind of support for independent schools. As the governments of Liberal faith moved on further towards direct per capita grants, it became absolutely necessary politically for the Labor Party to come in and to adopt direct per capita grants. The leads in giving assistance to the independent system and in creating and establishing the dual system were given by governments of Liberal faith. Senator Ryan has asked about the Whitlam era. I remember that there was a category 1 in the Whitlam era, devised so that some schools in the independent sector would get nothing. I think those who now look with a little deja vu at the situation might not wonder where the axe will fall. I make it perfectly clear. I speak as one who was educated, and proudly so, in state schools-State primary schools and state high schools. I speak as one who has been very active in parents and citizens associations in state schools. I speak as one who would want to see the highest quality education that one can get in both state and independent schools. But whenever there is a Labor Party in office, there will be pressure from a sector within the Labor Party and from an enormously powerful sector in the militant teachers unions to weaken and destroy aid to independent schools. It is important to remember that the militant unions themselves, which support the Labor Government with enormous donations and bring great pressure to bear on it, aim to destroy all support for independent schools, not just to reduce it. That is the pressure that is constantly upon the Labor Party. It is true also that a number of members of the Labor Party, in the branches, the leagues, the conferences and, indeed, in the Caucus, would like to see no support for independent schools; they would like to see integration, as the Radford Committee has indicated. Senator Ryan —Make up your mind; you cannot have both. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —There is no need for me to make up my mind. The one problem of making up the mind is with the Minister and the Government, because the Minister speaks one thing and acts another thing. If the Government wanted divisiveness, it could not have done more. If it wanted unification, a healing process, a dual stream, the key situation was to have three main principles. They were, first, the principle of a direct per capita grant clearly established for every student. Also, so that every school could predict for next year with certainty that it could survive and grow, it was necessary to have a fixed percentage link between the cost of an average student at a state school and the grant itself. Also, there was a need to have a Schools Commission which, in its membership, would be balanced, so that it would have a balance of viewpoint between the independent sector and the government sector. It is an outrage that one should directly and knowingly put on the Schools Commission people who are out to destroy the independent system. Any Ministers who have done that on their own personal responsibility must be flying a clear signal that they do not believe in a balance between the two streams at all and that they are willing to put in a white-anting system to destroy it. Why else would any Minister put on a commission people who, by their declaration, are out to destroy? Why else would they ignore the representatives of the parents? Why else would they ignore the broad cross section? That is what the Minister has done. She threatened direct per captia grants. She has abolished the percentage link, and every school in Australia including the category 3 schools, to disadvantaged schools, now has the total uncertainty about what will happen next. It is no use the Minister trying a little fancy socialist propaganda by distributing some financial berley on the waters at this moment, making a Robin Hood gesture and sprinkling it in category 3, which she has done. That is no use, because the schools want to know not about this year but about next year, the year after, and the year after that. It is no use the Minister, in response to the massive public demonstrations-5,000 people in Sydney, and 3,000 people in Malvern Town Hall-saying, 'These are people from the rich schools; these are the people who do not know', because the facts are against her. The facts are that the parents, the teachers and the principals of the category 3 schools throughout Australia are saying to the Government; 'You are doing something wrong, something philosophically totally wrong. You are being divisive. You are setting up division between one category and another'. Every one of them is opposing it. The Central Committee of the Catholic Bishops of Australia has rejected the principle, step by step. At all levels of the independent system, the people have said that what the Government has done is wrong. Let me test the very principle of the ugly and devisive concept of wealthy schools. There is an old fashioned belief in this community that people ought to have the right to choose. I commend that, because the Minister may want to ask the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) about this. Senator Ryan —How much would you subsidise a pensioner to choose Kings School? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is interjecting too much. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I suggest that the Minister save her interjections for the meetings which she ought to be attending. Let me simply say that this community believes that people have a right to freedom of choice in a whole series of situations. If anyone is sick, the community says: 'If you believe that you ought to go to a private institution, a religious institution, a St Vincent's or a St Luke's, if you believe that the surgeon there with the scalpel in his hand and the prayer in his mind has something that you would want which others do not, go there and we will give exactly the same per capita grant to that hospital as we give to the public hospitals'. If one is considering a nursing home and one wants, in one's older years, to spend one's time there, not in a secular situation but with religion there, with a belief in the spirituality of the circumstance, the Government and the public say: 'You ought to be able to get the same grant, rich or poor, with no means test wherever you go. If it is child care, or orphanage, or whatever, the test is simply this: You want your choice, and a service is provided. We will give the same and we will not apply any test. We will not say, and it would be wrong to say it, that we think that St Vincent's Hospital is wealthy and ought not to get the money'. Why do we not impose this test? It is a nonsense test. The per capita grant is the same for every hospital. It is the same for every nursing home. It is the same for the institutions. But the only time that it is deviated from is on education, and the Labor Party is retreating from it. So we have a completely ugly situation. The Labor Party will not only do that but it will also make darned sure that there will not be the growth of new schools in the independent sector which will allow freedom of choice. This philosophy of the Labor Party is utterly ugly. Over the years the Liberals have said: 'We believe that there should be equality of opportunity. We believe that everybody, however poor, however disadvantaged, should lift upwards and be helped upwards. Whether a person is bright, average or disadvantaged, we should beckon people on because we believe that one should develop the personality, the talents and the dignity of people, allowing them to do their best and allowing the brightest to help to develop a community to help the others'. But what is the Labor Party talking about? We have heard phrases such as 'equality of outcome'. What an ugly phrase that is. It is a socialist phrase of destruction and of levelling downwards. How can people have any concept of the individual when they want to level down rather than beckon upwards? In all of the Labor Party policies there is a divisive note running through them, a splitting of the public. The independent system has been protesting against this because it has spent three decades unifying. But where in the Labor Party's policies is it talking other than quantitatively? Where is it talking qualitatively? Where have we heard talk of quality of education? Not a bit of it . 'Equality of outcome'-an ugly destructive situation if ever there was one. Nothing could be more ugly in its concept, and nothing more stifling of a community than that. Equality of opportunity, beckoning onwards, beckoning upwards and saying to people 'Do the very best you can' is a great thing. How is it that in this community our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is willing to associate himself with the pursuit of excellence in everything other than education? If the America's Cup can add to his glory, he is there to put in his cheers. If somebody runs fast or if somebody plays Australian rules or rugby league well, he is there to enshrine the best and to pursue excellence and elitism. In education the Government is out to destroy. The way Government members talk about wealthy schools is outrageous in error. The way they attempt to destroy excellence is terrifying. I know most of the schools that they call wealthy. Many of them that they call wealthy have been built up in bricks and mortar by benefactors, by donations, by capital contributions of parents over the decades, and indeed over the centuries . There is no way one can look at those resources and say: 'We are going to isolate them'. If we look at the measure, in some schools the principals and the parents choose to have more teachers and smaller classes. In others they have more physical resources. That is their right of choice. But fundamentally the Minister falls down again when she says: 'Our aim throughout the whole of education is to give to the needy. That is what we will do. We will take from level one and give to levels two and three'. But when asked why the Government does not apply that money in the same way when it gives it to the government schools, she retreats by saying: 'But we do. We do it for disadvantaged schools'. She knows and everybody knows that that is nonsense, that the great bulk of that money that is given, the direct per capita grants go to all the government schools. She knows very well that the Karmel targets showed-I was proud when Minister for Education to be associated with this-that the targets set for the years 1980-81 were surpassed in government schools two or three years ahead in the whole of Australia. I was immensely proud that we could put resouces into government schools to lift them up. She knows also that when that happened the resources in most of the non-government schools were still at 70 per cent, trailing behind. Yet the Government goes on in its divisive way, pretending that more money is given to independent schools than to government shcools. It pretends because it is unwilling to add together the totality of the money from the Commonwealth and the money from the States. It uses the fact that the Commonwealth has set the pace in having a dual stream over the years and therefore is carrying a greater burden than the States in the independent sector. It uses that to suggest that in Australia more money is going to non-government schools. This is outrageously wrong and ought to be rejected out of hand. But wherever there is a corruption of a principle in education, the Australian Labor Party will surely do it. In fact, it is retreating now under the pressure of huge amounts of finance that come from the teachers unions. Let nobody believe that they have no influence. I have it on the authority of the Labor Party members on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that the pressure of money of that magnitude does bring about influence. The Hansard records are full of it. It was said from their mouths that the pressure of giving money can influence their normal objective judgment. What we have at the moment is a system. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber know that the unifying journey from indirect grants with Archbishop Eris O'Brien, a man of great name in his time, for libraries, for science blocks, for direct grants, to pick up the non-government training colleges and helping them has been undertaken by governments of the Liberal faith. We are able to say that in our time the state school system had been so supplied with resources at Federal and State levels that the schools reached targets years faster than the non-government schools. Nobody attempts to classify government schools in terms of category one or category two. Everybody is proud when we can produce a first class resource unit in a government school. I for one would be the greatest advocate of it. What the Government has done is to take something that was precious, sensitive and delicate-the development of a dual system over a period of two to three decades-and to set about being divisive. To the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs who now giggles, let me say that what I have just said has been said by all the Catholic Bishops. They have said that what the Government is doing is aiming at divisiveness. The parents have said that the Government is creating divisiveness. The parents have said that the Government is creating a sectarianism that had died down, and a division between one sector and another. Indeed, all that the Minister's response can be is pathetic giggling. We had done something in Australia to unite all Australians. Let us not have any nonsense talk about rich schools and poor schools. The simple fact is that we do not do that with hospitals, nursing homes or any other institution. We accept the right of the parents. I heard a horrible phrase, I think from Senator Zakharov, who said that she and Senator Macklin agreed on the principle-I hope I am not misquoting her-that parents are not always the best judges of what is best for their children. My goodness, Brezhnev or Andropov may well say that. The day that this society believes that the family is not the deciding unit, that the family does not have the right to decide what it shall do and what the parents shall do, is the day that democracy and good solid principles, as we know them, disappear. To say in this chamber that parents do not know best is to corrupt our principles. The only societies that I know of which hold that view are the collective societies of Russia and the socialist states. To say that many of these independent institutions do very little education and a great deal of indoctrination is not only grossly insulting but also utterly wrong. What right has anyone in this place to decide what quantity of spirituality or spiritual intake anybody in this community shall have. Those who are quick to refer to United Nations treaties in respect of the Tasmanian dam or sex discrimination should now look at the very heart of the human being, because the declaration on human rights gets to the heart of it. It states that the individual and the individual family are the matters that we should cherish. The right of individuals to choose for their children not only their education but also their spiritual and temporal development is profound and should not be contaminated. I never believed that I would come into the Senate and hear someone say that parents do not know best and that there is too much indoctrination. This is an outrage. I for one want to say that I uphold the right of every school registered in this country to increase to whatever limit it wishes the degree of spiritual training. I will now put into perspective what this is all about. In the 1890s in this country, and until then, education was done voluntarily by private schools. Then governments made decisions which forced consecutive decisions. Governments said: 'We will compel all children to go to school and we will compel them to go to school for a certain period of years and to follow certain curricula'. Those governments decided that to make sure everyone was compelled to attend schooling those who could not afford private schools would have government schools education available to them. But all they regulated was the age to which students must go to school and the basic curriculum to be followed. No other compulsion applied. All other aspects were open to freedom of choice. Indeed, governments then started raising taxes for education purposes. If, in fact, in accordance with what Senator Harradine read out of the newspaper, Senator Ryan's view is that there is no right for those who pay taxes generally in the same way as anyone else to some benefit for independent education of their children, I reject that view out of hand. The compulsion applies to age of leaving school and curriculum. Taxes are raised to help education. They are not raised to help government schools. When did anybody evolve that kind of concept? Taxes are raised to be applied for the purpose of education. Do we apply divisive measures to universities and colleges. How extraordinary is the situation that in post- secondary education all fees have been abolished and no means test at all is applied but now, down further in the education system, divisiveness is being reinforced. I rose because I wanted to say what a tragedy it is that this community is now being divided. Spokesmen for the key groups in this society are saying that; and they regret what is happening. The responsibility for that development lies squarely on the Minister's head and lies also on the Hawke Government because a unifying and a healing process was going on. I reject the ugly philosophy that has been espoused here. The equality of outcome is the ugliest philosophy of all : Parents do not know best. That is a very ugly philosophy. This Government has attacked institutions through the claim that they are guilty of indoctrination. How could any member of a labour or socialist cause inveigh against doctrination . If there is a doctrinaire philosophy and if there is an indoctrination of the minds of people, how further is the step to socialism? Yet, the philosophy is: It is right to indoctrinate when we believe in it: It is wrong to indoctrinate for the freedom of others! Parents do not know best! If indeed it is right for us to allow a surgeon, with a prayer in his mind, to operate when we are sick, if it is right for us to choose a nursing home when we are old, if it is right for access to orphanages and other institutions to be gained without means tests and without any division at all, how much more right ought it not to be for people to choose the type of education that they want for their children. That is what we should aim at. What we should be hearing about today is how we can get the best education for both state schools and independent schools; how we can get quality into education; how we can look to the primary and secondary schools where many students feel that education is not for them and there is no concern for them and where they are not getting pastoral care. We need to build into that system freedom of choice for parents in the government system between one government school and another. We need to build parent councils into government schools in the States as in the Australian Capital Territory. We need to do all those things. But, above all else, we need to recognise one fact: Throughout Australia today, many parents are concerned that the quality of education that their children are getting is not good enough . They want the right of choice whether it be between government school and government school or government school and independent school. We will serve this nation well if our policies unify and not divide. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(7.05) —in reply-I rise to close the debate. In doing so, I will address some of the points of information or of factual confusion which were raised during the debate. I will not address the rhetoric because I feel we have heard a great deal of it over the last few weeks. Really, there is no substance to much of what has been said. However, on those points which were factual points, I will attempt to give some information. When speaking on the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, Senator Peter Baume questioned the $10m participation money. He asked what use would be made of that money and how that program would work. I inform him and the Senate that the report on that aspect will be tabled in the Senate shortly-next week, I expect. It will demonstrate that there will be increased participation in the numbers involved in tertiary education in 1984 even though, of course, the year after year reduction of Federal funding for the tertiary sector under the previous Government has made it difficult, in one Budget, to turn that situation around and increase numbers. However, numbers will be increased. Of course, in the special extra participation program, the Government is supporting better access to higher education by a wide range of groups, a wider range of groups than is represented at this stage in tertiary education. It is a fact, of course, that the previous Government, on this access point, made no adequate provision for higher education in the outer metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne. Under the participation initiative, the Macarthur and the Nepean colleges of advanced education in Sydney and Footscray Institute of Technology and La Trobe University in Melbourne will benefit and thus provide increased access in areas of very high need. Senator Peter Baume raised the question of standards. That question has been raised by other speakers as well. He seems to think that, by providing opportunities for people from a disadvantaged background to get into higher education, there will be an inevitable drop in higher education and an inevitable drop in standards. I assure him that that is not the case. That matter will be addressed in the participation report that I will be tabling next week. It is certainly not the intention of the Government, while increasing participation, to take any steps that would lower standards. In fact, it would defeat our whole purpose. Our whole purpose is to increasing equity, that is to give people who have previously not had the opportunity the access to and the benefits of higher education. If those benefits were to be eroded through a loss of standards, of course, the action would be self-defeating. The Universities Council and the Advanced Education Council is well aware of this. Although in some cases universities may develop courses to assist people who have had a disadvantaged educational background to get to the level where they can competently undertake higher educational courses and succeed in them, this will mean a raising of standards for that individual and not an overall reduction of standards. Senator Peter Baume also questioned the statement in our Budget statement that, in the participation program, the average cost of each student would be about $3 ,300. That is, of course, much lower than the existing average cost per student. But Senator Peter Baume will be aware that the existing averaging cost per student covers all faculties. It is an average of the cost in all faculties including very expensive faculties such as medicine and veterinary science. He will be aware, I think, from his experience as Minister for Education, that the cost in areas such as commerce and business studies are lower. The Tertiary Education Council has advised that more than $10m will be needed to maintain intakes in later years. I stress, of course, that this Government recognises that, if our increased participation is successful this year, there will be flow-on costs. There will be flow-on recurrent costs because the number of students will be higher and there will be flow-on capital costs because more facilities will be needed. We accept that and we will be addressing that in subsequent Budgets. Of course, as I pointed out, we are faced with the enormous task of having to turn around the situation which the previous Government prevailed over for many years of reduction after reduction, year after year, in funds available to tertiary education. We have not been able to do that completely in our first Budget. We have made a start. Of course, it is our intention to continue in subsequent Budgets. I should point out too, in terms of our commitment to growth in this sector, that we have restored retrospective cost supplementation in place of the previous Government's unsatisfactory prospective allowance system with all the uncertainty in planning that that entailed. As Senator Zakharov pointed out, this step is being widely-I would say universally-accepted in the higher education sector. The matter of the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance was raised by Senator Baume and other speakers. I point out that the allowance for students receiving TEAS has been increased for 1984 by more than the national wage case increase. It is true, of course, that the rate for unemployment benefit is still much higher. This Government, faced with a $9.5 billion deficit, had to make some very hard choices. We made the choice that a significant increase in unemployment benefit particularly for the young unemployed who had received no increases for many years just had to be a higher priority than a very substantial increase in TEAS allowances in our first Budget. However, we did increase the allowance by more than the national wage case rise and we are continuing with our commitment to further increases in the TEAS allowance in subsequent years. Senator Baume said that the TEAS means test had declined in real terms. In fact , the Government adjusted the means test upwards according to the best estimate we had available to us at Budget time of the likely increase in average wages. It is a fact that average wages did rise by about half a percent more than the estimate we had available to us at the time; so it is true that there is a half a per cent gap. Nonetheless, it was a genuine attempt to make a full adjustment. To be perfectly clear about what that means, it does not mean there is any ceiling on the numbers of people who can qualify for TEAS. Anyone who can qualify under the adjusted means test will receive it. As many people who qualify will receive the allowance; so it is wrong to argue from the level of increase in the means test that there is some sort of ceiling on the numbers of students who are eligible for TEAS. Eligibility, where it is achieved, will result in the allowance being paid. Senator Peter Baume —It is marginally less because the MAFI has not gone out enough. Senator RYAN —It is half a per cent less than average earnings. The record of the present Opposition when in government on adjusting the means test is a very sad one. Over the period 1977 to 1983 increases in average weekly earnings exceeded increases in the TEAS means test by a massive 50 per cent. Yet Senator Baume, of course, has the hide now to criticise us because we are half a per cent behind. Criticisms have been made of the Government's decision to reduce by 25 per cent the $9 a week grant to residential colleges. This decision is one that we made in the light of cost pressures and the economic difficulties we inherited, and the savings did help to establish more broadly based initiatives such as the participation and equity program available in the higher education area. I point out that the total subsidy is worth $9 a week per student while the fees range around $75 a week. The 25 per cent cut amounts to $2.25 a week, which is a very minor reduction. It is not a decision we were happy about having to make, but I should point out there is no needs based assessment of students who get the benefit of this subsidy. Indeed it is my view that the majority of really low income students are not living in residential colleges. Nonetheless, we have announced a review of the accommodation needs of students and I should point out that at this stage only those students who are in residential accommodation do get any subsidy for their accommodation needs, even though many other students need it. We expect that as a result of this review we will have a more equitable way of distributing the funds that are available to assist students who need accommodation. The particular needs of country students and of students attending regional colleges are being addressed in this review. The debate on schools was for some speakers at least a very heated debate the likes of which we have heard a great deal in recent times, although other speakers made constructive contributions. I simply remind the Senate of the facts with regard to school funding. They are that most schools in the non- government sector received increased funding and of course there was increased funding for the government school sector. Again, there was the restoration of the retrospective cost supplementation, a very important element in enabling schools to plan for their future. We introduced the participation and equity program which will benefit children in a range of schools, government and non- government, although it will be targeted in the first instance to those schools which have low participation rates, be they in the government or non-government sector. We expect that the changes to and regeneration of secondary curriculum which will come about, partly stimulated by this program, will benefit all students in all schools. I must condemn entirely the kinds of attacks that have been made on government schools and particularly on teachers in government schools during this debate. It is extremely unfortunate that in a society where 75 per cent of children are educated in government schools, and I presume about that number will continue to be, honourable senators take it upon themselves to condemn in the most outrageous terms the activities of the people who teach in those schools. It is not the view of this Government that every industrial action by every teacher union in this country is something that can be supported; of course it is not. On the other hand, the dedication, the commitment, the creativity and the caring approach of government school teachers throughout this country are things that I think we should all acknowledge and things which I as a parent am very happy to acknowledge. It is most unfortunate that the parents of those 75 per cent of children, who have chosen either because of their philosophy or because of their economic circumstances to have government schooling for their children, have to be subjected to these tirades against the people who teach in these schools. Senator Teague —The Opposition did not attack teachers. Senator Peter Baume —Who did that, Minister? Senator RYAN —I refer honourable senators who are now questioning this to the remarks of Senator Baume, who never seems to speak on the subject of education without attacking the teachers in government schools. I just refer honourable senators to Hansard, where they can see an ongoing attack particularly by the Opposition spokesperson on education, Senator Baume, on teachers in government schools. The question of the pursuit of excellence has been raised. I and the Government have been accused of wishing to destroy excellence in schools, of not wishing to see children raise their standards or raise their aspirations and performance. Of course this is an absolute contradiction of the real situation. What we do resile from is the idea that excellence is something that is applicable only to a very few students, only to certain kinds of schools or to certain kinds of subjects. It is the view of this Government that excellence-that is, the highest possible standard of achievement-is an aim applicable in all schools, for all children, whatever their natural capacity may be, and in all subjects. Every child can increase his or her level of performance to what is, for that child, a high standard. Every subject ought to be taught, although I know it is not, at a very high level of intellectual demand and challenge. It is false and distorting to accuse this Government, which is concerned with allowing all children and all schools to raise their standards, of wanting to destroy excellence. Senator Baume has made much of what he claims are 123,000 students in group 1 schools who will receive less in 1984 than under the previous percentage link policy. Of course it is the case that schools in group 1 will receive less-I acknowledge that-because it is the policy of this Government to engage in some redistribution. Under our policies, over 540,000 students in group 3 schools will receive higher grants than under the old percentage link, higher by a total of $5m in 1984. If any honourable senators are under the impression that that extra funding is unwelcome or not needed in group 3 schools, I suggest that they spend more time visiting these schools particularly in the less affluent areas. They will find that the increases are not only greatly needed but also very warmly acknowledged. I have no doubt that they will be put to very good use. Of course we have heard again in the debate this evening, mainly from Senator Sir John Carrick, accusations that we are provoking sectarian hostility. Again I can only say that I find this kind of accusation personally offensive as well as deeply offensive to the Government in which I am a Minister. Everybody in this place knows that the way in which decisions were taken to redistribute funds in the non-government area had nothing to do with the religious affiliations of those schools; it had everything to do with the private income available to them . It was an objective formula; I have described it many times in the Senate and all honourable senators will have received copies of it. They will know that those decisions, whether they like them or not, had nothing to do with religious affiliation. It is also very offensive and a rather contradictory allegation, but one I have also received, to say that I am concerned only to assist poorer Catholic schools . I certainly am very concerned to assist them, but I and the Government are equally concerned to assist all of the needier schools. I should point out that group 3 schools are not all Catholic schools, that non-Catholic schools represent about 10 per cent of the schools in the category 3 area, and that 10 per cent covers a wide range of denominations. So again, although I say this with some pessimism because I expect that at least some honourable senators opposite believe that it is in their political interest to keep on saying this, our concern is with the level of resources available in the schools and not with making judgments about the religious affiliations of the people who have organised these schools. The facts about the 41 schools that received a reduction of 25 per cent in their Commonwealth recurrent grants still seem to be ignored or rejected by some Opposition speakers, so I will simply list them again. Of course we are not being broadcast but it is something that I think parents are still having kept from them by some opponents of our policies. The facts are that the 41 schools will still receive in 1984 basic recurrent grants; that is, they will still receive $270 per primary student and $428 per secondary student, which is a total of over $13m in recurrent grants to the 41 schools alone. I should point out that that contrasts somewhat unfavourably with the $5m available to the disadvantaged schools in the non-government sector. Some of the proponents, and by no means not all of the parents or teachers associated with those schools, have said: 'Well, we don't care. It is not enough'. They have said: 'The sum of $13m is not enough. Despite the economic situation and despite the existence of many schools which have inadequate resources, we just want more. We just want more than half a million dollars for our school'. Well, it may be that they want it: It is the case that our Government has decided in the present economic circumstances with the present inequalities that prevail in Australian education systems that we were not prepared to give more than $14m in recurrent grants to those 41 schools. If we look at those schools, we see that Knox Grammar School in Sydney, for example, is getting half a million dollars in recurrent grants alone. Now Senator Peter Baume and Senator Sir John Carrick will immediately say: 'Oh well, it is not a wealthy school'. I wonder how many people whose children attend category 3 schools have even been into schools such as that, have ever been able to make for themselves an assessment of what those schools have to offer the students and whether they do indeed justify receiving more than half a million dollars in recurrent grants alone, whereas some little convent school out in Marrickville will probably get something like $150,000 in recurrent grants. While that situation prevails it is a situation we are going to change. The Opposition can shout and claim that this is somehow an erosion of choice to give only half a million dollars to Knox Grammar. I do not think it is and I do not think that most of the parents whose children attend category 3 schools, especially the poorer category 3 schools, would really think, once the facts were presented to them and once they had an opportunity to look around a school such as that, that it was an erosion of anybody's democratic rights that Knox Grammar got only half a million dollars instead of the three-quarters of a million dollars or whatever it says it wants. But these are judgments that every citizen will have to make for himself or herself. The Government has made its decision, and that decision is as reflected in these Bills. I will pass quickly to the contribution of Senator Macklin, which was extremely constructive and I think very thoughtful and very intelligent. In fact I would say it was the most intelligent contribution to the debate because he did acknowledge that there are complexities. He did acknowledge that a slogan like ' freedom of choice' does not cover and does not of itself guide a government in how to distribute money equitably, or it does not necessarily guide parents in how to make the best education choices for their children. Nobody denies freedom of choice, and this Government has done and will do more than any preceding conservative Government to entrench the rights of individuals through the human rights package that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is preparing and so on. But simply to say 'freedom of choice' is not the end of the argument. Decisions still have to be made about how the education budget is to be spread about. I did appreciate very much the contribution of Senator Macklin. Senator Harradine made a constructive contribution to the debate tonight and raised some points which I think are entitled to a response. Senator Harradine raised, as he has done several times, the question of the rights of taxpayers. He quoted a report, which was a truncated report but nonetheless a report, of part of a speech of mine, in which I said that being a taxpayer of itself does not bring automatic rights to automatic levels of grants. I would just like to expand on that view. I think it is the only logical and reasonable view that one can have. All people in this society with incomes over a certain level are required to pay taxes. Because of that they have a general right to a whole range of services within our community. But one cannot argue that that gives them a specific right to a specific amount of money for a specific purpose, because conversely we have to consider the position of people who do not pay taxes, such as the pensioner parents who pay no taxes. Are their children to be denied the right to education? Of course not. The right to education comes from being a child in our society, not whether one's parents pay taxes or not. Senator Teague —I disagree with you. Senator RYAN —Is the honourable senator saying that a pensioner's child has no right to education because the pensioner does not pay taxes? Is he saying that the childless taxpayer should get a rebate because his or her taxes are not being spent on education? Is he saying that the pacifist should get a rebate because he or she does not want his or her taxes spent on military weapons? That is not the way the taxation system works. Every child in this society has a right, acknowledged by this Government and funded by this Government, to education, but the level of taxes that one pays, or whether one pays taxes or not, is not what confirms that right. Being born into this society, in the view of this Government, gives one a right to education. One's parents have the right of choice as to where that education is carried out and we subsidise that choice to the extent that the Budget permits it and according to our philosophy of needs. I am informed, Mr Deputy President, that there are some procedural matters that need to be addressed before the Senate adjourns, so I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President has received the following message from the House of Representatives: Message No. 183 Mr President, The House of Representatives returns to the Senate the Bill intituled A Bill for an Act to amend the 'Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906', and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has agreed to Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 12 made by the Senate, and has disagreed to Amendment No. 4 , set forth in the annexed Schedule, and for the Reasons shown therein. The House of Representatives desires the reconsideration by the Senate of the Bill in respect of the amendment disagreed to. H. A. JENKINS Speaker Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That consideration of the message from the House of Reprsentatives in the Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. 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-Attoney-General)(7.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —This bill gives effect to the undertaking by the Government to establish a Prices Surveillance Authority. This body is an important part of the Government's prices and incomes policy and its establishment will honour a major commitment by the Government as part of the prices and incomes accord. The Government's mandate to establish the Prices Surveillance Authority has been widely recognised in the community, including by business in the National Economic Summit Conference communique. Following the National Economic Summit Conference a working party was established to provide advice to the Government on the legislation for the establishment of a prices surveillance body. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of the speech in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —The working party, comprising representatives of the trade union movement, business, state and local government and community groups has been extensively consulted by the Government in drafting the Bill I bring before the Senate. Before explaining the measures provided for in the Bill, I would like to make some remarks concerning the Government's approach to prices surveillance. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of the speech in Hansard . Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Government is firmly committed to restoring economic prosperity in Australia and to bringing about the sustained high rates of economic growth that are necessary to reduce present high levels of unemployment. At the same time inflationary pressures need to be reduced so that economic recovery can proceed unhindered. The Government's policies, based on an effective prices and incomes policy, are directed toward achieving these goals of sustained non-inflationary economic growth. Substantial portions of the Government's prices and incomes policy are now in place. Establishment of the Prices Surveillance Authority will help to complete the implementation of this policy and will encourage price restraint as a counterpart to the wage restraint being exercised by wage and salary earners under the wage fixation principles established by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the title of this Bill, which indicates that the scheme embodied in the Bill is one of price surveillance, not price control. The Prices Surveillance Authority will monitor and examine prices . It will not attempt to hold down prices by administrative fiat. The Government is well aware that the private sector employs the majority of workers in Australia and that it must play a central part in any broadly based economic recovery. We recognise also that sound profits are an essential requirement for increased employment in the private sector. The approach of this Bill reflects these concerns. The best form of price restraint comes from the effective operation of competitive market forces. The majority of businesses in Australia operate in competitive market environments, and the effectiveness of the constraints that this imposes on prices is illustrated by the very low profitability that has applied over the past eighteen months. An increase in profitability from last year's historically low level will be a necessary part of any broadly based recovery. Prices surveillance will not be used to impede such a development. Recognising this need, the approach to price surveillance envisaged in this Bill is selective. The Bill establishes a broad framework for surveillance of prices set by corporations and public authorities, but the selection of goods and services subjected to surveillance will focus on areas where effective competitive disciplines are not present and where price or wage decisions have pervasive effects throughout the economy. Generally, both conditions will have to be met before a body is made subject to surveillance. As a result, the great majority of Australian businesses will not be subject to surveillance. In deciding which industries or bodies need to be covered the Treasurer will consult with the Authority which, in turn, will liaise with the Trade Practices Commission as appropriate. This will be one of the first tasks of the new authority. Initially, the new Authority will undertake surveillance of wholesale petroleum product prices which is presently carried out by the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority. The latter Authority will be abolished by the present Bill. In addition major Commonwealth public authorities will where appropriate be subject to surveillance. We intend that Telecom Australia and Australia Post will be brought under surveillance from an early stage in respect of their principal charges, subject to suitable directions to the Authority regarding the matters to which it should give special consideration when examining those charges. The Bill does not apply to State authorities. However, as pricing guidelines are developed for application by the Authority, particularly in relation to public sector prices, we will consult with the States on the desirability of major State authorities observing similar guidelines. The Government intends that other Commonwealth authorities that are not directly subject to surveillance should also apply those guidelines where appropriate to their own pricing or price regulatary decisions. As with the present Petroleum Products Pricing Act and the former Prices Justification Act, there are no penalties in the Bill for failure to comply with the Authority's findings. Penalties attach only to failure by declared organisations to observe the required procedures for the notification of price increases or for the provision of information and evidence, or in relation to the freezing of prices during inquiries. The Government expects that bodies subject to the Authority will abide by its decisions. While compliance will be voluntary, consistent with the consensus approach on which the prices and incomes policy is based, the force of public opinion and companies' recognition of their public responsibilities will be powerful factors ensuring compliance with the findings of the Authority, as past experience here and overseas indicates. The Government does not wish to inhibit normal business operations. Every effort has been made to keep the costs of surveillance to business to a minimum. The Bill itself, which affects the rights and interests of individuals, is of necessity somewhat detailed. But our intention is, as far as possible, to keep the procedures simple, speedy and non-legalistic. Turning to the main features of the Bill, its broad thrust is, as I have indicated, to provide a capacity for price surveillance and inquiry which will be exercised selectively and with an emphasis on reducing as far as possible the amount of legalism in procedures. Thus, whilst the ambit of the Bill includes the supply of any goods or services by foreign, trading and financial corporations and Commonwealth authorities, referred to as 'persons' in the Bill, the notification procedures will apply only to those goods or services and those persons that have been declared under section 21. Declared persons supplying goods or services will be required to give prior notice of a price increase and to wait a statutory period before implementing the increase. The authority will normally have 21 days to examine a proposed increase, although this period may be extended with the consent of the notifying person. Where the authority objects to a proposed increase it will be able to suggest a lower increase to the person concerned or, where necessary, recommend an inquiry . Whilst the notification procedures will apply only to declared persons, the Authority will be able to inquire into prices charged by any person subject to the Act and will be able to conduct general price inquiries not necessarily tied to the justification of prices charged by a particular supplier. Inquiries, however, will only be held at the direction of the Treasurer or with his approval. The Treasurer will also determine limits for the duration of inquiries, which will generally be no longer than three months, and he will be able to direct the Authority regarding the conduct of inquiries and matters to be taken into consideration. Where an inquiry relates to the supply of goods and services by particular persons, prices charged by those persons will be frozen during the course of an inquiry, subject to a provision empowering the authority to grant interim price increases. Reports on inquiries will be made public, as also will the outcomes of price notices dealt with outside of inquiries. Selection of areas and persons to be brought under price surveillance will be by the Minister, or by the Authority subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill does not stipulate criteria for selecting goods and services or persons for surveillance. I have already made clear, however, the principles on which that selection will be made. The Bill incorporates legislative guidelines which require the Authority, in exercising its powers and performing its functions, to have particular regard to the following matters: (A) the need to maintain investment and employment including the influence of profitability on investment and employment; (B) the need to discourage a person who is in a position substantially to influence a market for goods or services from taking advantage of that power in setting prices; and (C) the need to discourage cost increases arising from increases in wages and changes in conditions of employment inconsistent with principles established by relevant Industrial Tribunals. These guidelines will ensure that the Authority's approach to price surveillance both conforms to and supports the Government's broad economic strategy. They are subject to any additional directions that the Minister may give to the Authority under Section 20. The overwhelming majority of unions have undertaken to comply with the new wage indexation guidelines by undertaking to make no extra claims during the currency of the wage system. We are heartened by this development. However there is also a need for a comparable supportive mechanism on the employers' side. Section 17 (3) (C), which I have just quoted, provides this by requiring the Authority to have particular regard to the need to discourage cost increases arising from settlements that are inconsistent with principles established by relevant Industrial Tribunals. This approach thus places an obligation on business to comply with the wages side of the prices and incomes accord which matches the commitments already given by the overwhelming majority of unions. The Government recognises that, where a company has clearly and strongly resisted attempts at breaching the wage system, it should not be subject to a second possible penalty and in these circumstances it is not intended that the Authority would disallow cost increases. If necessary, where it is clear that a company has taken all reasonable steps to resist a breach, a ministerial direction under Section 20 will be issued to the Authority that the resulting cost increases should not be disallowed. But where a company has not so resisted, or has offered wage or other increases to suit its own purposes in disregard of the national economic interest, it cannot expect that the costs involved will be accepted by the Authority as justification for price increases. As I have already indicated, the legislative guidelines under Section 17 (3) are supported in the Bill by a provision (Section 20) for ministerial directions to be given to the Authority. This will ensure that the operations of the Authority remain within the framework of Government policy, including Government policies on pricing by Commonwealth authorities. This provision will also allow, upon ministerial direction, the Authority to have particular regard to other matters which may be of special concern, such as the use of non-market transfer pricing, if there were indications that these were being used to circumvent the intentions of the prices and incomes policy. The Authority will consist of a Chairman and three other members who may be appointed on either a full time or a part time basis. Whilst the members will not be representative of particular interests, it is intended that one of the members will have a background in the trade union movement and another in business. The Bill provides for the appointment of associate members for the duration of particular inquiries. This will enable the authority to be assisted where necessary by persons who have special expertise in areas subject to inquiry. The Authority's secretariat will be located in Canberra but, as a transitional arrangement, staff of the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority, whose operations will be subsumed by the new authority, will remain in Melbourne as a branch of the Authority. The Bill provides for repeal of the Petroleum Products Pricing Act and for transfer of the records of the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority and the former Prices Justification Tribunal to the new Authority. Provision is made in the Bill to protect information and documents provided to the Prices Surveillance Authority. Establishment of the Authority will add only marginally to Budget Outlays in 1983-84 but its operations are estimated to cost around $1.5 million in a full year. This estimate is based on the proposed coverage of major Commonwealth authorities and assumes some increase in surveillance in the private sector beyond the present surveillance of oil company prices by the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Bill (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Restriction of Standing Orders-Safety Provisions in Australian Uranium Industry- Wilfred Burchett-Absence of Ministers from Chamber The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m. I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(7.31) —I rise to speak to a matter on the adjournment debate which more properly would have been addressed yesterday when papers were presented. The annual report of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region which dealt with radiation safety standards in the Northern Territory was not able to be discussed and debated in this place because of the custom we have whereby a set time is laid down for discussion of papers. The Government can reasonably judge that a paper will not be dealt with on the day it is presented by the position in which it is placed on the list of papers for that day. Additionally, since a motion to adjourn the debate on the paper was carried debate was effectively stifled and the matter was placed on the Notice Paper until it comes forward for debate. This in effect, whether intentionally or unintentionally, amounts to a situation in which debate on the paper was not possible yesterday and it will not be possible in the indefinite future. Standing Orders prevent me from making any further reference to the paper, which is regrettable because it reveals that what has been suspected in the past is now clearly apparent. There is a serious breach in the safety provisions of Australia's uranium mines. There is probably some awareness of this, although a subdued one, on the part of the scientists who make these reports and who, reading between the lines of this report, are eloquent in the problem. In order to clarify some certain obscure matters which occur in that report and which include incidents at Ranger in which people were exposed to overdoses of radiation as a result of-(Quorum formed) I reiterate that I am dissatisfied with the system by which we deal with reports in this place which effectively censures discussion on at least half the papers that are presented every day. I want to draw attention further, in view of the fact that I was not able to discuss the report on radiation safety standards of the Supervising Scientist, to a document that has come into my hands. I refer to a letter from Mr D. T. Woods, the General Manager, Operations, of Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd to the Director, Mines Division, Department of Mines and Energy, Minerals House, The Esplanade, Darwin-that is the Northern Territory Government. This internal house document elucidates quite clearly one of the incidents. I feel it is in the public interest that it should be made public and I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The Director,Mines Division,Department of Mines and Energy,Minerals House,The Esplanade,Darwin, N.T. Dear Sir, RE: JOHN B INHALATION OF YELLOWCAKE DUST John B is an employee of Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd who was involved in an incident on 5 July 1982, in which a spill of product occurred in the ranger product packing facility. As a result of this incident, it was evident that he and a workmate (Paul T) had both inhaled and ingested an unknown quantity of yellowcake dust. Samples of urine and faeces were obtained from each of the two men and were analysed for Uranium. The results of the analyses confirmed that some yellowcake had been ingested by both men, but indicated that Mr B had probably taken in considerably more than Mr T. Whole body counts were performed on both men by Mr L. Kotler in the whole body monitor operated by the Australian Radiation Laboratory (A.R.L.) in Melbourne on 11 July 1982. The results of this test were inconclusive to the degree that the lung burden for each man was below the detection limit available from the machine, (e.g. 43 mg of U238). Further whole body counts were carried out on both men by Mr Kotler using the A .R.L. equipment and by Mr Parsons of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (A. A.E.C.) at Lucas Heights on 9 and 10 November 1982 respectively. In the meantime, improvements had been made in the A.R.L.'s technique to lower the detection limit. In each case the lung burden carried by Mr T was below the limits of detection, but that of Mr B was descernible. The A.A.E.C.'s measurements were, however, not inconsistent with the results of calculations made by our Radiation Safety staff using the other bioassay data and extrapolation from dust concentration measurements and estimates. It was concluded that Mr B had received close to the authorised annual lung dose-equivalent specified in the 1980 Code of Practice for the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores. As Mr T's lung burden was too small to detect, testing was discontinued in his case. Further whole body counts were carried out on Mr B at the A.R.L. on 2 February 1983 and at the A.A.E.C. on 3 February 1983. Results obtained by the A.A.E.C. were on this occasion consistent with the results obtained by the A.R.L. The results as communicated to us are as follows- Australian Radiation Laboratory: 25 + 8 mg natural uranium Australian Atomic Energy Commission: 25 + 18 mg natural uranium (Note: That this represents Mr B's lung burden as at 2 and 3 February 1983). Considerable interpretation of these results is required to estimate the original lung dose inflicted on Mr B. To do so assumptions must be made and I.C. R.P. philosophies and models must be accepted. The attached internal reports by our Radiation Safety staff address this problem from two directions: One approach uses the 1980 Code of Practice to estimate a lung dose-equivalent and the other uses I.C.R.P. 30 to estimate the Effective Dose-equivalent. On the basis of calculations which follow the 1980 Code philosophy, Mr B's dose approximates to 78% of the relevant annual limit. However, using the changed philosophy and models of I.C.R.P. 30 (which have not yet been implemented in the Northern Territory), the same dose would be approximately 4 times the relevant annual limit. However, the Effective Dose- equivalent is a committed dose for the 50 years following intake. In making these estimations, assumptions have had to be made in regard to certain factors which are not well known. One of these is the value attached to the AHAD which in the absence of better data is taken as 1um. In the circumstances of this incident, it is unlikely that the A.H.A.D. would be so small. The other factor is the biological half-life of the deposit in the lung. In this connection, it is planned to carry out further whole body counts on Mr B at intervals of 6 to 9 months. The observed decrease in motivity (if any) will provide data relevant to the determination of a biological half-life. With these comments, we commend to you the following internal company reports for your consideration: 1. Technical Report Product Spill 5.7.82 involving Mr J. B and Mr P. T Revised May 1983 O. S. Bowson 2. Addendum to Technical Report Product Spill Incident 22 April 1983 Whole Body Counting of Mr J. B Latest Estimates O. S. Bowson 3. Medical Examination Records-J. B and P. T If there are further developments pertaining to this incident, we will keep you informed. Yours faithfully,D. T. Woods, General Manager Operations Encls. EVENTS-PRODUCT BIN UNBLOCKING 5/7/82. TIME 08H00 Packing of yellowcake commenced and the blockage was noticed immediately. The operator notified the foreman who then requested a fitter. Successful unblockings had been carried out previously and the usual method involved inserting a steel bar up into the spool and physically ''breaking-up'' the hardened product. This method requires that the spool piece be removed and and that the sliding gatevalve and the rotary valve below the cone of the product bin be opened. Refer Figure 1.1 Usually the gate valve is closed and slowly opened while the steel bar is inserted, but in this particular instance the gate valve was jammed about 75% open. 10H40 The fitter arrived and attempted to close the gate valve but he was unsuccessful . He then removed the bolts holding the spool piece in place but he did not remove the spool piece at A's request. This operation took approximately 10 minutes. 10H50 A, with B's assistance, commenced the unblocking operation. The spool piece was removed and no product was observed to fall out after its removal. A steel conduit was inserted and a very hard substance was encountered which could not be penetrated, even with repeated ''poking''. The conduit was withdrawn and the bin vibrator started. Nothing fell out of the product bin and this sequence was repeated several times until finally the blockage gave way and a steady stream of product fell from the bin. This poking and vibrating procedure was estimated to take about 5 minutes. 10H55 Product flow continued for approximately 5-6 minutes before A was able to replace the spool piece. The quantity of dust generated by this product flow was so great that both men lost sight of one another. It is believed that during this period the men actually removed their masks so that communications could be established. B reported that he lost his mask during this time and left the room instantly. A remained in the area until he had stopped the product flow. It took approximately 10 to 15 minutes before the dust had visibly settled. 11H10 Radiation Safety Section notified of incident. Radiation Safety sent A and B to shower and placed a security guard at product packing to prevent unauthorized access. Both operators reported that they were sick and that they regurgitated substantial amounts of product whilst showering. RANGER URANIUM MINES PTY LTD (A Subsidiary of Energy Resources of Aust. Ltd.)Incorporated in N.S.W. Ref: DIW:ABMCI:OT:0361:0361-1 Address reply to: General Manager-Operations Energy Resources of Australia C/ oRanger Uranium Mines JABIRU N.T. 5796 May 26, 1983 The DirectorMines Division,Department of Mines and Energy,Minerals House,The Esplanade,DARWIN N.T. 5794 Dear Sir, I refer to your letter (Ref: 83/22) in connection with the B T incident. I enclose an up-dated report and covering letter which had been prepared for you prior to receipt of your letter. We are also in receipt of a similar letter from the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health who wishes to be informed on this. The attached report covers most of the points raised in his letter also. With reference to the particle size of the product to which B and T were exposed, we are unable to obtain the data from the period you suggest. Unpulverised samples are not retained for more than 2 months. Samples retained for longer periods are all in the pulverised state and hence useless for determining particle size. We have, however, sizing analysis for typical product which were made early in the history of production and we propose to carry out further tests on current or near current production. This will give a better estimate that the assumption of 1mm. With regard to emergency procedures, I draw your attention to the procedure presently employed for all non-routine work in the PDP area. When a non-routine task becomes necessary, the preparation of works permits is initiated by the person responsible for initiating the work. This may be a mill supervisor or an engineering supervisor. It is then passed on to the other supervisors involved in the work and to the Radiation Safety Officer, the Safety Officer if required, and Security. The supervisor responsible for the workers involved nominates the workers by name and they are required to attach their signature. The Radiation Safety Officer specifies the precautions to be taken and the protective equipment to be used. The permit is displayed in the area while the job is carried out and is cancelled at the end of the job. An example of a typical permit is attached. This procedure has effectively prevented the occurrence of unplanned exposures since its introduction some six weeks ago. If further information comes to hand, it will be made available to you as soon as possible. Yours faithfully,sgd D. T. Woods General Manager Operations Encls. Senator MASON —The document is headed 'Inhalation of Yellowcake Dust'. I think this is one of the more important aspects which have not appeared in other material. It appears from information that we have received from the report and from this letter that no effort is being made to protect miners against what is recognised world wide as probably the most dangerous form of radiation to which they could be exposed. The report points out time and again that exposure to radioactive dust and its inhalation into the lungs is a regular occurrence but that monitoring and control is undertaken only in relation to gamma radiation. I wish to make this point to honourable senators because I think it is of immeasurable importance. Long range radiation which can penetrate even relatively large thicknesses of lead is, of course, gamma radiation. However, alpha radiation is much more dangerous in its effect although its range is very short. At this stage I would like to make an essential technical point by quoting from page 627 of volume 1 of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's draft generic environment impact statement on April 1979. The report states: The alpha-emitting isotopes of the U-238 decay series- and U-238, of course, is uranium- are generally weak gamma emitters and can contribute relatively little to external exposure. The point continues: However, when they- that is, the alpha emitting isotopes- enter the body and come directly into contact with living tissue, their alpha radiation will deliver substantial dose equivalents compared to that imparted by equal concentrations of beta/gamma emitters. Because these radionuclides are present in mill effluents, it is important to analyse the pathways by which they might become deposited in human beings . . . The two major pathways to be considered are inhalation of airborne material and ingestion of food contaminated with radionuclides. The basic point appears to be that at Ranger we are assessing danger to people which is coming from the ingestion or the inhalation of radioactive dust by taking a body count of gamma radiation from the exterior. It seems that no effort is being made to protect, monitor and control the much more dangerous and insidious alpha radiation present in dust and its associated radon gas. The basic point is that we are allowing practices in our uranium mines that are almost certain to result in accelerated and possibly massive cancer rates among workers. As with the asbestos industry in Western Australia, this country will rue that day because in 20 or 30 years time somebody-presumably the Government- will have to pick up the tab for cancers caused by alpha emissions in the lungs of uranium miners just as we are paying $120,000 to each person in Western Australia who has contracted lung cancer as a result of asbestos emission. This problem is analogous; it is one of similar proportions. The situation is being covered up by statements. The official paper refers to an accident that occurred earlier this year. It states: Significant radiation exposure in excess of the regulatory limits occurred, but adverse effects as a result of the radiation dose are unlikely. That is an actual quote from the paper. That is irresponsible and criminal rubbish. It is universally recognised in the rest of the world that alpha radiation presents a major risk and that large and unpredictable health hazards, mainly cancerous, exist for uranium miners if there is a failure to cope with that problem. This involves, among other things, absolute and total control of dust, that is, dust of any mineralised nature or any ore or substance among the known alpha emitters. I believe that this is a matter the Government ought to look at more carefully; it is something that ought to be checked immediately. I understand that there is a committee of some kind somewhere looking into the question of radiation effects and means by which these could be improved. Until that happens I think it is an urgent matter that the Government impose in uranium mines in Australia much more stringent controls on dust and radon than it has done in the past. We will ignore this at our peril; the peril is not so much us in this chamber but to the health risk of the men actively engaged in this industry. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(7.40) —On 8 November I made some remarks in an adjournment debate in relation to the late Wilfred Burchett and, especially, I mentioned some remarks that had been made about him. This afternoon Senator Jessop raised the same matter and made some comments about the remarks that I made on that evening. I mentioned to Senator Jessop that I was going to make some remarks tonight, so he was aware that I was going to do so. I would like to make a few points about what I said on that particular day, as recorded on pages 2318 and 2319 of Senate Hansard of 8 November, and perhaps about what Senator Jessop mentioned today. The first thing that I would like to mention is that the matter that I raised was not broadcast. It could not have been broacast because it was raised in the adjournment debate. I have not seen Senator Jessop's Hansard pink, but I did get the impression that he said he thought it might have been broadcast from this place. It may have been broadcast on the radio by way of a news item. I certainly did not put out any Press statement about it but it may have been picked up and broadcast on radio. However, it was not part of a parliamentary broadcast. The only other thing that I would like to mention is that I still hold the views that I expressed on 8 November. When I concluded my remarks on that particular date I said that Brigadier Greville and the Pacific Defence Reporter should be aware that often there is dignity in silence. Taking my own advice, I will not say any more. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(7.42) —I wish to mention a couple of matters. The first is that raised by Senator Mason. I noted his tender regard for the Standing Orders and I understood him to feel that he could not refer to the report of the Supervising Scientist which is an order of the day. That is probably a rather too tender regard but it is nice to see someone bending over backwards to respect the Standing Orders. I have read the material that he has had incorporated in Hansard and that he very kindly circulated to give us notice that he was going to seek to do so. I note the sort of point that he made out of it-that difficulties were experienced in July 1982- and I note that one of the letters he provided for me also includes information about the changes which have been made to meet the problem which arose in July 1982. The only other point that I wanted to make with respect to that is that the uranium industry is unusual in that it is subject to a much greater degree of control and screening than is almost any other industry. I was intersted the other day to look at some statistics about fatalities in the coal industry. I found that in one year, in a limited number of countries, there were something over 1,600 deaths directly caused by coal mining. So one ought to take into account the fact that in the alternative energy sources with which we deal there are also significant hazards to life. I think that there would be an extraordinary public outcry if even a tenth of the actual deaths were occasioned in the mining of uranium that appear to be occasioned in the mining of coal. At the same time, I do not wish to minimise the importance of the sort of care which is taken and I appreciate Senator Mason's major interest in the subject, but it is worth noting that the incident which he has mentioned and documented in the adjournment debate this evening has been the subject of not one but two detailed reports which have come to this Parliament and which are available to us for our perusal and examination. I think it also does demonstrate the extent to which there is public supervision and public disclosure of the difficulties of the industry. We have the Office of the Supervising Scientist. That was established by the previous Government pursuant to the recommendation of Mr Justic Fox. I think that even Senator Mason would agree that beyond question we have had these issues exposed to us very fully and fairly. Senator Mason —Not on the alpha radiation one. It is not even in the index of the report. Senator CHANEY —I do not wish to show a less tender regard for the Standing Orders than has Senator Mason but I must say that in my examination of the report there does appear to be a clear expression of both concern and description of the problems which seems to be coincidental with the material that Senator Mason has put into Hansard tonight. The only other point that I wish to mention relates to the slight display of irritation that I showed earlier in the adjournment debate and which caused in turn some irritation on the part of the Government Whip. I would simply want to observe that on two occasions today-that was one of them-I found myself in the chamber with no Minister present. I recall that Senator Grimes made the point earlier today that he would see that it did not happen again. I say that it is quite reasonable for us to expect a greater regard for the program than has been shown today by the Government. I am sick of being called sanctimonious by the Government but I raise the matter without apology. I believe we are entitled to that and I simply give notice that in such circumstances I think I should continue to do as I have done today-call a quorum or take some action until we have a Minister in charge of the chamber. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(7.46) —I appreciate the seriousness of the matter that has been raised by Senator Mason. I did not have the opportunity to refer to the reports and papers that he tabled. As is is a serious matter I will refer it to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) and get a considered reply if that is needed. Senator Colston spoke about something that he had said a month ago and to which Senator Jessop had referred today, but he did not tell us what it was. He then said that he was going to maintain the dignity of silence. Senator Colston —I did, I referred to Wilfred Burchett. Senator GRIMES —I know that he was referring to Wilfred Burchett but he did not say what it was that he had said about him, so I will leave the matter until I have looked it up in Hansard. I take the point that Senator Chaney made, that we had a couple if disasters today as far as Ministers not being present is concerned. I remind him, as I did this afternoon, that it is not the first time that it has happened in this Parliament; it happened in the previous Parliament. It should not happen. As I said today, I will try to ensure that it does not happen again. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.48 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal No . 1 of 1983-List of Names and Addresses of Manufacturing Establishments for Bureau of Transport Economics. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders 1983- The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 422 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 12 October 1983: Are there any figures available on the percentage of America's uranium which goes into nuclear weapons production each year; if so, what are such details. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: No. Information on the amounts of uranium used for weapons production in the United States is highly classified and is not publicly available. Question No. 425 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 12 October 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Transport aware that on 23 September 1981, Senator Elstob was advised that the Department of Transport's plans provided for the automation of 12 lighthouses. (2) Can the Minister supply the names of these lighthouses and also provide information on what is the current range, intensity, flash length and character of each of these lights and what is the expected range, intensity, flash length and character after automation. (3) What is the expected cost of automating each light on the list. (4) What has been the capital and operating cost of each of these lights in each of the last ten years. (5) Does any of the expenditure outlined in (4) relate to the proposed automation. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The lighthouses referred to in response to Senator Elstob's question without notice of 23 September 1981 (Senate Hansard page 898; and Senate Hansard 18 November 1981, pages 2339-40) were: Dent Island Swan Island Lady Elliot Island Eddystone Point Cape Capricorn South Neptune Island Sandy Cape Althorpe Island Green Cape Moore Point Deal Island Cape Don The current range, intensity, flash length and character of each of these lights and the expected range, intensity, flash length and character after automation are shown in the following charts. Intensity Flash Character* x 1,000 Range Length Station . . ., sec. candelas n miles Sec. Existing Dent Island F, 5 1.3 10 1.0 Lady Elliot Island F, 7.5 80 19 0.3 Cape Capricorn F, 5 1,000 26 0.5 Sandy Cape F, 10 1,000 26 0.1 Green Cape Gf2, 15 1,000 26 0.05 Deal Island Gf3, 20 1,000 26 0.1 Swan Island F, 7.5 780 25 0.08 Eddystone Point Gf2, 15 1,000 26 0.05 South Neptune Island Gf3, 50 1,000 26 0.07 Althorpe Island F, 7 1,000 26 0.1 Moore Point Gf2, 13 1,000 26 0.05 Cape Don F, 10 260 22 0.17 After automation Dent Island F, 5 1.3 10 1.0 Lady Elliot Island F, 7.5 80 19 0.3 Cape Capricorn F, 5 1,000 26 0.5 Sandy Cape F, 10 1,000 26 0.1 Green Cape Gf2, 15 150 21 0.2 Deal Island* n.a. Swan Island F, 300 22 0.1 Eddystone Point Gf2, 15 1,000 26 0.05 South Neptune Island Gf3, 300 22 0.1 Althorpe Island F, 5 30 18 0.1 Moore Point Gf2, 1,000 26 0.05 Cape Don F, 10 260 22 0.17 * F = Flashing. Gf = Group or multiple flashes. * In the event of automation, Deal Island light would be discontinued and replaced by two smaller lights on adjacent islands (North East and South West). These lights would have an intensity of 2,000 candelas and a range of 10n miles. (3) The estimated cost of automating each light for unmanned operation is: $ Dent Island 44,000 Lady Elliot Island Automated Cape Capricorn 160,000 Sandy Cape 160,000 Green Cape 70,000 Deal Island 155,000 Swan Island 200, 000 Eddystone Point 20,000 South Neptune Island 205,000 Althorpe Island 120,000 Moore Point 44,000 Cape Don Automated (4) Due to the changes in the Government's administrative arrangements for the transport portfolio reliable costing information is not available. However, the Department has estimated the costs associated with each lightstation as a manned or unmanned operation. These indicative costs (expressed in 1983 prices) are included in the table below: Manned Unmanned Dent Island 128,000 11,000 Lady Elliot Island 105,000 40,000 Cape Capricorn 111,000 40,000 Sandy Cape 112,000 40,000 Green Cape 101,000 14,000 Deal Island 177,000 10,000 Swan Island 138,000 13,000 Eddystone Point 95,000 9,000 South Neptune Island 149,000 17,000 Althorpe Island 130,000 14,000 Moore Point 38, 000 9,000 Cape Don 170,000 25,000 (5) No. Question No. 475 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 November 1983: (1) Has the Minister for Health seen an article in the British Government publication Survey of Current Affairs, Volume 13, Number 9, page 312 of September 1983 headed 'Asbestos', which reveals that the British Health and Safety Commission has decided that the import, manufacture, marketing and use of blue asbestos, and products containing it, should be prohibited and that brown asbestos should be similarly treated. (2) Is the Minister also aware that the Commission recommended that control limits for asbestos that were introduced in January 1983, be further reduced from 0.5 fibre to 0.2 fibre per millilitre for brown asbestos and from 1 to 0.5 fibre per millilitre for white asbestos and with the possibility for further reductions in this limit in the future, and 0.2 fibre per millilitre for blue asbestos. (3) Are there similar limits on concentrations of asbestos in Australia; if so, how do they compare with these figures; if not, why not. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Yes. (3) Yes. The National Health and Medical Research Council Occupational Health Guide 'Threshold Limit Values' includes recommendations on control limits for occupational exposure to asbestos. At its 96th session (October 1983), the Council endorsed a revision of the threshold limit values for asbestos which will reduce the recommended acceptable occupational exposure level for amosite (brown asbestos) from 1 to 0.1 fibre per millilitre, while leaving the limits for chrysotile (white asbestos) and crocidolite (blue asbestos) unchanged at 1 fibre per millilitre and 0.1 fibre per millilitre, respectively. This change is recommended to come into force on 1 July 1984. The Council also recommended that importation to Australia of amosite be prohibited as from 1 July 1984. Prohibition of the importation of crocidolite was recommended by the Council in June 1981-'Report on the Health Hazards of Asbestos'. The limits recommended by the Council are more stringent than those proposed in the United Kingdom for brown and blue asbestos. These types of asbestos are widely recognised as constituting a significantly greater health risk than white asbestos. While the limit recommended for white asbestos is higher than the UK, it compares favourably with other Western nations. The recommendations proposed by the Council are not mandatory: their incorporation into appropriate legislation is a matter for consideration by the individual State and Territory governments. Question No. 500 Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 November 1983: (1) Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen a recent newspaper report concerning the practice currently undertaken in Iran of draining the blood of individuals condemned to death and about to be executed, in order to boost the dwindling supplies of blood available to wounded Iranian revolutionary guards. (2) Does the Minister agree that Australia should not be seen to be condoning this incredible example of fanaticism and dehumanising barbarism. (3) What action has the Australian Government taken to make its displeasure known to the Government of Iran and what further action does it intend to take. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am aware of newspaper reports to this effect. (2) and (3) Australia would condemn a practice such as described in the newspaper reports. The Government of Iran has publicly denied the allegation contained in the reports. The Australian Government has not raised this issue specifically with the Iranian authorities, although Iranian officials have denied the reports in conversation with Australian officials. The Government continues to monitor closely the human rights situation in Iran. When it is convinced that serious human rights violations have occurred, it has made clear its concern to the Iranian authorities, either separately on its own account or in joint approaches with other countries. Question No. 505 Senator Hearn asked the Minister for Resources and Energy upon notice, on 15 November 1983: (1) How much money was made available by the former Government to the Uranium Enrichment Group in Australia during the years 1980; 1981; 1982; 1983. (2) What benefit have taxpayers had from this money. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is: (1) Nil. (2) Not applicable. Question No. 408 Senator Maguire asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice , on 5 October 1983: What would be the annual cost to the Government if the age for independent eligibility under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme was reduced from 25 to 18. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: It is estimated that such a change in conditions would increase the annual cost of TEAS from its current level of $227.5m to about $550m. Question No. 552 Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: (1) Has the Australian Government made known to the Government of Turkey its views on the proclamation of a Turkish pseudo state called the 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'. (2) Will the Australian Government publicly condemn this action, which ignores United Nations resolutions for a unitary, independent and undivided Cypriot State, but is nevertheless supported by the Turkish Government. Mr Hayden-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I refer the honourable senator to the response by the Prime Minister to a question from the honourable member for St George in the House of Representatives on 16 November 1983. Senator Walsh —On 13 September 1983 (Hansard, page 593 Senator Watson asked me a question, without notice, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. His question concerned the recent levels of sheepmeat imports from New Zealand and the impact of the increased imports on saleyard prices in Australia. He also asked if such increases under the closer economic relations agreement could be expected to continue. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Imports of sheepmeat from New Zealand over recent years have been: 1980-81 - 16 tonnes 1981-82 - 82 tonnes 1982-83 - 445 tonnes In the first three months of 1983-84 844 tonnes of New Zealand sheepmeat have entered Australia. There were no imports in the same period last year. These quantities are insignificant compared with the average Australian production of around 520,000 tonnes per year and it is not considered that they would have any significant impact on domestic prices. Although statistics are not presently collected which would enable a breakdown of imports between lamb and mutton it would appear from the low unit value of imports that New Zealand has been shipping to Australia mainly mutton for manufacturing. The Government is concerned at the depressed state of the lamb market. On the basis of information available it would seem that factors within the Australian industry are the primary cause of low prices. The decision of producers to retain large numbers of last season's lambs for fattening when the drought broke together with an earlier than usual turnoff of this season's lambs because of favourable seasonal conditions has resulted in an oversupply reaching the market . In respect of the honourable senator's suggestion that the increase in imports is in some way attributable to the closer economic relations trade agreement with New Zealand, I would point out that the position of sheepmeat under the Agreement is no different to that which applied under the earlier Australia-New Zealand free trade agreement. Finally, I would point out that the Government is aware of the concerns held by some Australian producers that possible increases in imports of New Zealand lamb may cause, or threaten to cause, injury to the Australian industry. In recognition of the sensitivity of the issue the New Zealand Meat Producers Board has given an assurance to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation that lamb or beef will be exported to Australia only to meet genuine market shortages and they would discuss with the AMLC any future exports of lamb to this country before shipment is made. Furthermore, the New Zealand High Commission has advised that prices of any lamb sold in Australia would not be supplemented by the New Zealand Government. In addition the Department of Primary Industry has set up a monitoring system with the Sheepmeat Council of Australia for imports of New Zealand sheepmeat. Should the Australian industry feel that imports from New Zealand are causing, or threatening to cause, injury to the Australian industry, it is open to the industry to apply to the Department of Industry and Commerce seeking an anti- dumping investigation under the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Act. Senator Walsh —On 10 November 1983, (Hansard, page 2487) Senator Macklin asked me a question without notice concerning safeguards inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. I undertook to provide further details for the honourable senator's information . The International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, which is responsible for the application of international safeguards, reported that at the end of 1982 it had 132 inspectors and 854 facilities under safeguards. Safeguards agreements provide the IAEA with the legal right to inspect facilities. Inspection frequency varies with a number of factors including type and amount of nuclear material and the type of facility. Thus a mixed oxide uranium/plutonium, fuel fabrication plant, or a reprocessing plant, which would handle large amounts of nuclear material, may well attract continuous inspection ; whereas a small research reactor involving a small amount of nuclear material may be subject to only one or two inspections annually. The IAEA's working languages are English, French, Spanish and Russian. Plant operating records and reports to the Agency are kept in one of the Agency's working languages. The Agency runs intensive language classes for its inspectors in seven languages including the four working languages. Much of the language of safeguards is mathematics. Non-proliferation treaty safeguards agreements provide that for routine inspections of facilities containing plutonium and highly enriched uranium a minimum of 24 hours' notice of inspection is required; for all other facilities a minimum of one week's notice of inspection is required. These agreements also provide that a portion of routine inspections may be carried out without advance notice. Additional special inspections may be carried out for purposes specified in those agreements. NPT safeguards agreements provide for a country to reject a proposed inspector without giving a reason. The IAEA has advised that it has proposed, and Iraq has accepted, the designation of inspectors from France, Hungray, Switzerland and the Soviet Union. Safeguards are a system of technical measures within the framework of international non-proliferation policy and rendered in international agreements negotiated between the IAEA as the international safeguarding authority and the member states in which the safeguards are to be applied. It is necessary for those agreements to be considered and approved by the Board of Governors of the Agency in order to ensure that the provisions of the agreements would enable fulfilment of the purposes of safeguards, namely: To assure the international community that States are complying with their non- proliferation and other 'peaceful use' undertakings; to detect and thereby deter; the diversion of safeguarded nuclear material to the production of nuclear explosives or for other military purposes, and the misuse of safeguards facilities with the aim of producing unsafeguarded nuclear material. The Board of Governors also has a special statutory responsibility in respect of ensuring compliance with those arrangements. Question No. 53 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's area of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The tables below set out the actual and proposed expenditure figures for the Department of Administrative Services, for the period 1975-76 to 1985-86. The actual expenditures from 1975-76 to 1982-83 include those for components of the department which were recently transferred to other departments, in particular to the Department of the Special Minister of State, as a result of the revised administrative arrangements. The proposed expenditures from 1983-84 onward relate solely to the Department of Administrative Services under the revised administrative arrangements and are based on current information and existing plans. (a)- Hardware and Software $ 1975-76 24,000 1976-77 220,000 1977-78 191,000 1978-79 294,700 1979-80 1,942,600 1980-81 3,117,500 1981-82 3,968,700 1982-83 4,497,300 1983-84 1,769,000 1984-85 2,250,000 1985-86 368,000 (b)- Repairs and Servicing $ 1975-76 37,000 1976-77 114,000 1977-78 207,000 1978-79 345,500 1979-80 243,200 1980-81 634,700 1981-82 885,200 1982-83 1,212,900 1983-84 598,000 1984-85 809,000 1985-86 900,000 (3) A list of major purchases which are now obsolete or will be in the next five years, is set out below: 3 Digital PDP11-45 2 Digital PDP11-05 2 x IBM 360-65 Mainframes 2 x IBM 2365 1/4 meg storage units 2 x IBM 2065 Central processing units 2 x AMS 1 1/4 meg storage units 2 x IBM 2860 Selector channels 2 x IBM 2848 Display controllers 8 x IBM 2260 Display units 2 x 1052 IBM Hardcopy consols 4 x 2701 IBM Communication controllers 2 x 2803 IBM Tape drive controllers 5 x 2401 IBM Tape drive units 9 track 1 x 2501 IBM Card Reader 1 x 2671 IBM Paper tape reader 2 x 2401-v IBM Tape drive units 7 track 2 x 2314 IBM Disk drive control units 2 x 2313 IBM Disk drives 8 x 2312 IBM Disk drives 2 x 2914 IBM Switching units 1 x 3704 IBM Communication controller 3 x 7803 ITEL Disk drive controllers 20 x 7330 ITEL 100 meg disk drives 2 x 1403 IBM Line printers 1 x 3705 IBM Communication controller. An IBM 360 computer and some of the peripheral equipment listed above has been transferred to the Museum of Australia. Question No. 132 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 5 May 1983: (1) Has the Minister for Communications received representations to request the Australian Broadcasting Commission to promote stimulating and informative daytime television programs for women at home and for other house-bound people. (2) Has the Australian Broadcasting Commission any plans to introduce such daytime television programs. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice received from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: (1) Yes. (2) The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's present resources preclude an extension of its daytime service beyond the programs now presented. The matter will, however, be kept under review as and when additional resources become available. Question No. 440 Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 October 1983: (1) What is the current number of members of- (a) The permanent defence forces; (b) the defence reserve forces; (c) (if available)-school cadets; and (d) sea and air cadets. (2) What were those numbers as at 30 June 1983. (3) What is their projection as at 30 June 1984. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In regard to the current numbers of the permanent Defence Force and the defence reserve forces, the honourable senator's attention is drawn to the Defence Force employment statistics, a document issued monthly by the Government. For numbers in the permanent Defence Force and the defence reserve forces as at 30 June 1983 and the projections for 30 June 1984, the honourable senator's attention is drawn to the Department of Defence Explanatory Notes-Appropriation Bill No. 1 1983-84, pages 20, 21. The following information on cadets is provided. 30 June 30 Sept. Cadet strength as at 1983 1983 Naval Reserve Cadets 2,917 2,677 Australian Army Cadet Corps 20,317 19,910 Air Training Corps Cadets 5,442 5,294 Future strength figures cannot be accurately projected however, the approved ceiling strengths for 30 June 1984 are as follows. Naval Reserve Cadets 3,083 Australian Army Cadet Corps 21,000 Air Training Corps Cadets 5,300 Question No. 497 Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 9 November 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware that the recently formed Queensland Committee for International Year of Youth contains 15 members all of whom represent the Brisbane region; if so, will the Minister investigate ways in which the views of young people from regional areas can be represented on this committee, in view of the Government's commitment to decentralisation. (2) Will the Minister consider either enlarging the committee to ensure representation from rural and provincial city areas or establishing satellite committees in regional areas. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The International Youth Year Planning Committee in Queensland has been established by the State Government in Queensland and its composition is therefore the responsibility of that Government. From information provided by the Queensland representative on the National IYY Co-ordinating Committee, I understand that the Planning Committee comprises 26 members representative of a range of government and non-government sectors. I also understand that this Committee will be setting up sub-committees and an extensive network of regional committees to ensure that young people in country and outback areas can be included in the planning. The national planning for IYY will be placing emphasis on the maximum involvement of young people, including those who are disadvantaged geographically or in other ways. Question No. 498 Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 November 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Defence aware of reports emanating from Lavarack Barracks in Townsville indicating that the dismantling of the North Queensland Army Band will commence next week when affected personnel are given leave to commence the transfer procedure. (2) Does the operation negate the public announcement by the Minister on 2 November 1983, that 27 January 1984 would be the date of dismantling. (3) Will the Minister request an immediate report on the situation; if so, and in view of the extensive resistance to this decision as evidenced by in excess of 15,000 petitioners and direct approaches from local government authorities, will the Minister undertake to review this decision in the light of the overall cost to the Federal Government of maintaining its military bands in capital cities and the Government's commitment to North Queensland which hosts 100 per cent of Australia's operational deployment force. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) No. The date for the disbandment of the North Queensland Band remains 27 January 1984. (3) A report was requested and received from the Department of Defence Army Office. It stated that the North Queensland Band would be available to meet all its previously arranged public commitments until 27 January 1984. After that date, the Band's present function in North Queensland will be taken over by unit bands in the area, supplemented when necessary from Brisbane. In order to do this, the Regimental Band of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment-1RAR will be built up forthwith to the level of competence of the North Queensland Army Band. A bandmaster will be provided and the total strength of the Band will be increased, as will the number of Band Corps members in it. The Pipe Band of the 2nd/4th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment is also to assist. As 1RAR is part of the Australian Army Operational Deployment Force, it will be necessary for the 1RAR Band to exercise with its battalion from time to time away from Townsville. On such occasions the Band of the 1st Military District in Brisbane, or the 2/4 RAR Band, could be made available to assist in meeting important North Queensland engagements. These arrangements should prove adequate to meet deserving requests for support . Question No. 524 Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus or other such groups (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being, appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) Only one committee has been established since 5 March 1983. In April 1983 the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced that a high-level committee, under the chairmanship of Mr Gordon Jackson, would undertake a major review of Australia's overseas aid program. It is expected that this Committee will complete the review by February 1984. (b) No other authorities, committes or bureaus are proposed at this stage. (2) (a) The Jackson Committee involves the secondment of existing public service staff. An administrative officer and a journalist have been employed on a part-time basis to assist this Committee. (b) It is not proposed to recruit any other additional staff.