Friday, 9 December 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Wynyard Airport, Tasmania To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 219 citizens) and Walters (from 692 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 194 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. That passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill re-affirms the commitment of the Government in ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against women through: 1. Recognition of the dignity of all humans through equal rights for men and women. 2. Supporting the rights of women to choose education, employment and lifestyles beyond the traditional stereotyped concepts of the roles of men and women. The legislation in no way denies the validity of any particular role including traditional parental roles. 3. Providing legislative protection against discrimination to women living in States which have no existing discrimination legislation. 4. By acknowledging the discriminatory nature of sexual harrassment and occupational health hazard which seriously affects many women in employment. We the undersigned believe that passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983, will provide a legislative base to honour the principles of equality incorporated in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against women. Your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senate will support the legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 26 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 UN 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 UN Convention. The terms of reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 15 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 years allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 10 citizens) and Scott (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Rae (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned staff, working in all departments within Parliament House, request that the Presiding Officers take note of our concern in regard to certain proposals involving the Non-Members Bar and the Cafeteria. Any amalgamation of the two areas is strongly opposed by all those whose signature appears below. We also strongly oppose the proposed loss of the area in the Non-Members Bar used as a dart playing area. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate urge the Presiding Officers to ensure that the staff of Parliament House are given opportunity to express their views before Joint House proceeds with the proposed alterations to the Non-Members Bar and Cafeteria. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Townley (from 149 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That the following matter be referred to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings for inquiry and report- A suitable schedule of broadcasting arrangements of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on the proposed new days and times of meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives which will ensure a fair division of broadcast time between the Houses. (2) That the Committee, for the purposes of its inquiry, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (3) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives requesting its concurrence in the foregoing resolution. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate directs that the Senate daily Hansard of Friday, 2 December 1983, be amended by leaving out 'always' from the following extract from a response by the Attorney-General, recorded at page 3232, to a question without notice asked by Senator Sir John Carrick- Of course, it is a question of interpretation, in all the circumstances of a particular case, of what is a major blunder of real importance to Australia and no doubt some anxious consideration will always be given to the proper application of that criterion by the Ministers concerned. Ministerial Statement Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —by leave-I seek leave to incorporate the text of the statement in Hansard. Where a personal pronoun appears, it refers to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Leave granted. The statement read as follows- This House is well aware of the main features of my Government's approach to foreign policy. While pursuing an independent and self-respecting foreign policy based on an objective and hard-headed assessment of Australia's genuine national interest, ours is also a policy which recognises and accepts the constraints on our capability and the limitations of our influence. Without being prepared to sacrifice principle, my Government's approach is guided by considerations of realism and relevance. In this regard we have consistently said that the highest priority will be given to our relations with our neighbours of the Asian and Pacific region, and to the major industrialised countries with which we share significant relationships, especially the United States and Japan. This approach and this emphasis was given further substance by my visit to Bangkok between 20-22 November and to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings in New Delhi between 22-29 November. I was accompanied on the first leg of my trip by Foreign Minister, Bill Hayden, who subsequently visited Burma and Indonesia. I take this opportunity to again pay tribute to the outstanding contribution he is continuing to make to the conduct of Australia's international relations. Mr Speaker, My Government has made clear from the outset its conviction that both Australia 's geographical location and the economic dynamism of the region require that we have balanced and productive relations with the members of ASEAN. I regard this as axiomatic and was therefore concerned when, following Australia's decision to support but not cosponsor the ASEAN resolution on Kampuchea at the UN, the differences in perspective involved came to be exaggerated to the point where our fundamental identity of interests with the ASEAN countries was obscured. During my recent overseas visit, for which I was accompanied by the Foreign Minister in Thailand, I met with Thai Prime Minister Prem and Thai Foreign Minister Siddhi and with the Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kwan Yew and the Foreign Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia, Dhanabalan and Ghazalie Shafie, in New Delhi and Goa. Bill Hayden met separately with Indonesian Foreign Minister Mochtar (Chairman of ASEAN) in Jakarta on 26 November. I am pleased to inform the House that following these meetings such misunderstandings as may have existed between Australia and ASEAN have been clarified to our mutual satisfaction. We recognise that in the future there will be differences of emphasis and approach between us, as is entirely appropriate and what one would expect between sovereign nations. But on the fundamentals we are in full agreement, and this has subsequently been publicly confirmed by the Prime Ministers of both Thailand and Singapore. The substantially sound relationship that exists between Australia and the ASEAN countries has not only been confirmed, but strengthened. As to the substance of these discussions I repeated what both Bill Hayden and I have said consistently in this House and elsewhere. Namely: condemnation of Vietnam's invasion and continued occupation of Cambodia; that there should be a phased withdrawal leading to a total withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia; and that there should then be an act of self-determination for and by the Cambodian people, and the creation of conditions which would permit displaced Cambodians to return to their country and formal relations to be resumed between Vietnam, China, the ASEAN countries and the international community at large. I indicated that Australia attached very considerable importance to ending Vietnam's present political and economic isolation and her growing reliance on the Soviet Union which was, in our view, entrenching great power rivalry in the region. But as Australia saw it, that isolation reflected a choice of Vietnam itself; it was not something imposed on it by the ASEAN countries. I further indicated that Australia, while intending to proceed with an offer of disaster relief assistance to Vietnam necessitated by recent typhoons, had taken no decision in practical terms to resume development assistance to Vietnam. I also pointed out that while Australian aid was continuing to be directed to displaced Cambodians in the Thai/Cambodia border area, we remained of the view that meeting the needs of returnees inside Cambodia was also necessary. I made very clear in these discussions Australia's very great concern at the possibility of any return to power of a regime as brutal as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Out of these discussions it emerged very clearly that Australia and the ASEAN countries are agreed on the essentials of the Cambodian situation and on their implication for peaceful relations among all the countries of the South East Asian region. Australia and the ASEAN countries will continue to work in the closest possible contact and communication on these matters of mutual interest. This I believe is an entirely satisfactory outcome. When Prime Minister Prem said at the State Dinner on 21 November that: ''Thailand regards Australia as belonging to the Asia-Pacific nations. We value you as a member of the family-a family member especially close to us, Thailand and ASEAN. The future of peace and stability of South East Asia therefore rests also on Australia's contributions'', he, Prime Minister Prem, was charging our country with an important responsibility. With the significant coincidence of interests between Australian and the ASEAN countries we are confident that Australia will fully live up to the Thai Prime Minister's expectations and those of his fellow ASEAN countries. We shall do so in a forthright and principled way-by putting views independently formed, but views directed to the realization of our shared objectives. The implications of this approach do not begin and end with the Kampuchea issue . While in Bangkok I suggested that the countries of our region apply their full and united weight to the achievement of an appropriately structured round of multilateral trade negotiations-negotiations that should go to issues of great importance to countries of the region; specifically the reduction of non-tariff barriers to trade in industry and agriculture, primarily goverment subsidies. If it should not be possible to initiate a new round of multilateral trade negotiations on a basis satisfactory to the countries of the region, then I suggested there would still be scope for negotiations on trade expansion among countries within our own region, on a non-discriminatory basis, but focussed on commodities in which countries in this region are the most competitive suppliers . The modesty and realistic scope of these proposals distinguishes them, as does their focus on common regional economic interests. I am gratified to have received a letter from the leader of the National Party since my return from overseas fully supporting the views that I expressed. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his own efforts to achieve trade liberalisation in the Western Pacific region. In this regard I indicate that my Government intends following this matter through in close consultation with the countries of this region in the months ahead, including during my own visit to the countries of North Asia and to Singapore in February. For its part the CHOGM Meeting was valuable in a number of ways. It provided an opportunity for me to establish personal rapport with a number of Commonwealth leaders. Lee Kwan Yew has already referred publicly to the value of our contacts at CHOGM. The Meeting also provided the occasion for bilateral discussions with a number of regional Heads of Government, as well as the Prime Ministers of Great Britian and Canada, and a number of African and Caribbean leaders. Second, the Meeting enabled me to put Australia's views on the Grenada situation, and to participate actively in debates on Cyprus, the Middle East and Southern Africa. On Grenada I was impressed that the position agreed by the Commonwealth, rather than indulging in recriminations about the past, looked instead to the future. I made clear that Australia, although not prepared to participate in a peacekeeping force, was willing to consider providing other forms of civilian assistance should that be deemed necessary by the countries of the region. On Cyprus I put the view strongly that the Commonwealth should do all it could to restore the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus, as well as to safeguard the legitimate interests of the two communities on that island. The decision of the Meeting to establish a Commonwealth five country action group including Australia is a useful, practical step designed to pursue whatever action possible alongside the United Nations to bring an end to the unhappy and potentially tragic situation on Cyprus. On Lebanon I was particularly concerned to ensure that the Commonwealth adequately addressed the realities of the tragic situation that has been unfolding in that ravaged country. As I have already indicated to the House I urged that the Commonwealth call for the withdrawal from Lebanon of all armed forces other than those present at the express request of the Lebanese Government, including in that call the forces of both Israel and Syria. This I believed went to a matter of principle-namely the right of a sovereign government to determine which foreign forces it wished to have or not have on its own soil-and with the support of many countries from the Caribbean, Asia, Africa, the United Kingdom and Papua New Guinea, the point I was making prevailed. I should say to the House that the position taken by Australia on this issue at CHOGM has since been widely supported by our Lebanese community. I put the Australian position on Southern African issues firmly to the Meeting. I commended the Fraser Government's position on Southern African issues-a stance which I would suggest had its origins in the fundamental reorientation of Australia's African policies under the previous Labor Government. I indicated that my Government saw room for still stronger policies in this area and had acted accordingly. I made clear Australia's rejection of both the linkage concept and of the apartheid system as a whole. I rejected the South African constitutional proposals as a sham and charade. I reported to the Meeting on the measures taken by my Government to strengthen Australia's policy on sporting contacts, and on how both SWAPO and ANC had been invited to establish a permanent presence in Australia. I also indicated that a scholarship program for South African blacks had been initiated and that a program of visits to Australia by prominent opponents of apartheid was being introduced. Finally, I observed that a review of Australia's aviation links with South Africa had been commenced. This presentation was widely welcomed by both African and Asian leaders. President Kaunda, for example, noted that robust anti-apartheid policies like Australia's helped governments such as his own to contain the inherent feelings about white-racism that African populations possessed. Sam Nujoma, President of SWAPO, was particularly appreciative of our decisions to allow a SWAPO presence in Australia. The third way in which the Meeting was useful was in providing a forum for me to put Australia's views on disarmament and international security views, and on international economic issues, and to debate these matters with leaders of aligned and non-aligned, developed and developing countries. In the discussion of disarmament and international security issues, I sought to bring a balanced and realistic perspective to the debate, and particularly to take issue with the tendency of some countries to attach almost exclusive responsibility to the United States for present East-West tensions, and the apparent breakdown in dialogue between the super powers. Australia's disarmament approach was, I said, guided by three general principles. First, the security of all states at the lowest possible level of armament; second, stability in the nuclear balance; and third, adequate verification of disarmament agreements. In line with these objectives I stressed that we attached particular priority to efforts to secure nuclear disarmament through reductions in the nuclear arsenal. We regarded the upholding of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the complete cessation of nuclear testing as particularly important steps towards this. Accordingly it was with particular satisfaction that I was able to report to the meeting that on the previous day, 23 November, a resolution co-sponsored by Australia, had passed First Committee of the General Assembly, which I am hopeful will open the way to the commencement in 1984 of negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. I argued strongly that the NPT must remain the cornerstone of other international treaties to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. The gravity of the risks associated with horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries such as South Africa was at least as great as the dangers associated with vertical proliferation. It was a matter of disappointment to me that the Goa Declaration on International Security, while adverting to this point, did not give it much greater emphasis. In the context of this discussion of nuclear proliferation, I acknowledged that Australia, as a producer and exporter of uranium, had an obligation under Article 4 of the Treaty to facilitate the participation of other countries, particularly developing countries, in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In this regard Australia accepted that it had a particular responsibility to secure improved international safeguards against the diversion of uranium supplied for peaceful purposes into use for the manufacture of weapons. Australia was also, I said, pressing ahead with a number of other initiatives, including the development in Australia of more effective monitoring and verification facilities, the strengthening of existing conventions regarding chemical and biological weapons and the promotion of the concept of a South Pacific nuclear free zone. The seriousness of the problems confronting the international community in securing long-term economic growth and development naturally commanded the close attention of the CHOGM. I put it to the Meeting that ultimate progress towards these objectives hinged on measures being adopted which would contribute to long-term solutions. As such , four essential preconditions had to be satisfied: (a) The domestic economic policies of the major industrialised countries had to be compatible with sustained economic recovery; (b) A free and open international trading system had to be established; (c) Existing international financial institutions had to be strengthened; and (d) The primacy of appropriate domestic economic policies had to be recognised. On this basis I suggested that five major tasks should be tackled, namely: (a) The promotion of growth in both developed and developing countries; (b) The revival of trade; (c) The promotion of the adjustment process in debtor countries; (d) The reduction of exchange rate fluctuations; and (e) The facilitation of lower interest rates. I stressed that Australia was especially sensitive to the dangers posed to the international trading system by the increasing resort to protectionist measures, and to the fact that trade and financial policies were closely interrelated both domestically and internationally. I expressed particular concern that the aggressive use of subsidies and credit arrangements by the EC and the United States, as well as the tendency for the majors to settle trade disputes on a bilateral basis ignoring the interests of smaller trading nations, have evoked particular concern in countries such as Australia. I also told the Meeting that Australia recognised the international financial institutions had already played a crucial role and must continue to play such a role in the adjustment process through providing a critical backdrop, as well as a channel for the devising of co-operative arrangements between debtor nations and both creditor nations and major banks. I suggested in this regard that the vital bridging role of the major international financial institutions depended importantly on the capacity of these institutions to exercise their mandated role. In my Government's view those institutions have shown a striking degree of adaptability in recent years, and I put it to the Meeting that the emphasis, rather than being on new institutions or systematic reform, should be on continuing to improve and enhance their operation. The real task was to marry the dimensions of the problems with the capacities of the institutions. To concentrate on increasing the effectiveness of existing institutions-if necessary through the provision of additional resources-stood the greatest chance of securing the necessary support and involvement of the major powers. The realism of this approach was, I believe, appreciated by other Heads of Government and was reflected in the terms of the decision of the CHOGM to establish a Consultative Group to promote an international consensus on the issues involved. Quite correctly that decision takes full account of international consultations already underway, and is directed at establishing the most effective way of securing action. Demonstrable progress was achieved-largely at Australia's behest-in some important areas of functional cooperation between Commonwealth countries. It was agreed, for example, that a Meeting of Commonwealth Ministers responsible for Women's Affairs should be held in 1985 on the eve of the UN Conference being held to review progress in the UN Decade for Women. This should not only provide useful background to the latter Conference but should also serve to see Commonwealth activity in the field of Women's Affairs given impetus . It was also agreed, in line with an increasing awareness on the part of Commonwealth Heads of Government of the importance of labour and employment matters, that the Secretariat should designate a permanent capacity to deal with such matters. In this regard the value of Commonwealth Trade Union Council activities was recognised. It was agreed that priority should be given to those activities-especially those concerned with trade union training. Finally I should mention that there was informal discussion between regional Heads of Government about the future of the CHOGRM's. It was decided that no formal summit would be held in Port Moresby next year. Most Heads of Government, honourable members will appreciate, will have met only a couple of weeks beforehand on the occasion of the South Pacific Forum. It is nonetheless possible that those Heads of Government in Port Moresby at the time for the opening of the Papua New Guinea's new Parliament House will meet briefly to consider any matters that might normally have arisen under CHOGRM auspices. Mr Speaker, It will be apparent that the character of foreign policy under an Australian Labor Government is now well established. Our priorities and preoccupations are clear. We bring an independent, principled and realistic perspective to issues in a way that is gaining increasing respect for Australia in countries throughout the world. But as both Bill Hayden and I have observed since the time we assumed office we recognise the limitations on our influence, and we shall not indulge in international grandstanding. Within these constraints we shall make every effort, as the people of Australia would wish us to, to foster international conditions of peace, security and prosperity. I believe such an approach serves Australia well. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted, debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That, unless otherwise ordered, any matter received by the President this day pursuant to standing order 64 be dealt with by the Senate at 11 a.m. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.06) —I both query the meaning of that motion and oppose it if the meaning is as it appears. Looking at the red order of business sheet which has been distributed without notice to the Opposition-- Senator Button —Or anybody. Senator CHANEY —Or indeed without notice to anybody apparently, it would appear that it is proposed to vary the order of business that was established by the Government itself for Friday sittings and to require any matter of urgency or matter of public importance to be brought on at 11 a.m. which would, of course, put it in conflict with Question Time at noon. If that is the intention of the Government, I think it is objectionable and it is certainly objected to by the Opposition. During this parliamentary sitting there has been some experimentation by the Government and some extension of the days and hours of sittings. Those extensions have all been accepted by the Opposition, although we have drawn attention to the difficulties which these changes give rise to and, in particular, to the lack of coincidence of meal breaks which has made the normal operation of party business very difficult and has led to a growth of party committee meetings during sitting times. That has been damaging to the conduct of business in these chambers. Indeed, it has been evidenced by the very poor attendance in the chamber, particularly by Government senators and even, on occasion, by Ministers. In adjusting to the changes, however, the Opposition has asserted the view that there should be the normal opportunities for non-government business on these additional sitting days. That was not at first supported by the Australian Democrats. They did subsequently support it and I acknowledge and thank them for doing so. The point was made that in a sense the proof of the pudding would be in the eating. The question would arise as to what use was made by the Opposition of the opportunities available to it. In the last week of sittings there were no matters of public importance brought forward by the Opposition; precedence was given to Government Business. This week, no matter of public importance was brought forward by the Opposition until today, although pursuant to an arrangement with the Democrats it was agreed that such matters should have priority on the Wednesday sitting day. There has been a great deal of accommodation by the Opposition to the Government's program and a readiness not to utilise time for non-government business, which sits very starkly with the figures for the last period of sittings when the present Government was in opposition. If, as it appears, what is proposed by this motion is that there should be either a cutting of the time available for the matter of public importance which has been submitted by the Opposition to one hour, or a loss of Question Time, I believe that is unfair and objectionable, particularly in light of the amount of time which has been spent on Government Business. I can assure the Government that it will not gain anything if it follows that course. I ask the Government to indicate very clearly its intentions in respect of this matter and whether it intends to follow the course which it appears to be following and which I have endeavoured to outline. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(9.09) —in reply -That was a cri de coeur, I suppose, which had very little to do with the question of when we should deal with business today. Senator Chaney has an armoury of miscellaneous complaints which he always raises in dealing with a particular point in relation to the procedures to be followed in one day. But the only question before the Senate is whether we deal with the matter of public importance at 11 o'clock today. There was no intention on the part of the Government to bring on the MPI at that time with the view that Question Time would abbreviate the length of the MPI, because it does not do that; it only interrupts the MPI. That might be a merciful relief for everyone, because it is such a trivial topic. It is not suggested that it be brought on at 11 o'clock for that purpose. If the debate is not very productive, it is always open to an honourable senator to move the gag; it does not matter when it is brought on. It is not the Government's intention that Question Time should operate in that way. I do not know what the objection to this course is; but that is the Government's intention. Senator Durack —Mr President, I raise a point of order in relation to this motion. I refer to standing order 64. As I understand it, it has always been the case that matters of public importance or urgency are brought on immediately after Question Time. I raise that as a point of order. Senator Robertson —Where does it say so? Would you read the relevant section? Senator Durack —Standing order 64 (3) states: If the President deems a proposed matter of public importance or urgency to be in order, he shall read it to the Senate after Petitions have been presented, Notices given, and Questions seeking information have been asked, and before other business of the day is proceeded with. Senator Bolkus —On that point of order, Mr President, following up the literal application of standing order 64 (3) as raised by Senator Durack, I put it to you that if one were to apply the principles as suggested by Senator Durack, it is not in order for the Senate to proceed with this urgency motion today because the opportunity for it has passed. If the Opposition wants to be pernickety about applying standing orders, as Senator Durack and Senator Chaney have been this morning, having managed to mess up matters this morning, on applying their own principles, they just cannot go ahead with it. Senator Missen —On the point of order, Mr President, what has just been said is sheer nonsense. The time has not passed. Senator Bolkus talks about the literal application of the standing order. It is just an obvious meaning of the standing order. It means after those things have been done, after petitions, notices of motion and questions seeking information have been asked and before other business of the day is proceeded with. So it obviously does not operate until questions are finished. Putting it down at 11 o'clock is a blunder by the Government, as far as the Standing Orders are concerned. It cannot be passed off by saying that it is literal or that the time has passed. Clearly it would be in breach of the Standing Orders to proceed with the Notice Paper as is now proposed. The PRESIDENT —The advice that is given to me is that there has been a resolution already agreed to by the Senate setting out the order for Friday sittings, which said that notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the order of business for Friday sittings would be such and such. There has not been any order of the Senate other than to that effect. Therefore, that resolution of the Senate still stands and this motion, as moved by the Leader of the Government, is in conformity with that sessional order as determined by the Senate. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave I have just dashed down to my room to get the list of urgent Bills that the Government wishes to put forward before Christmas-- Senator Chipp —You are out of condition, aren't you? Senator HARRADINE —I am; it is a long way to my room. I wish simply to raise my objection to the program that is before us today. I do not suggest that there should not be a reduction perhaps in the time that is allowed for the matter of public importance but that sort of thing ought to be done by mutual agreement between the proponent of the matter of public importance and the other parties in the Senate. Senator Lewis —A point of order, Mr President. Can we have a copy of the motion which we are endeavouring to debate. I find it extraordinarily difficult having, like Senator Harradine, rushed in here as the Government seemed to me to be pulling some sort of swiftie, and I do not have a copy of the motion. There are none available and I have asked the Clerk whether I can get a copy. He is unable to supply me with one. There does not seem to be one on the table before you or the Clerks and I cannot see how this debate can continue until such time as honourable senators know what we are trying to debate. The PRESIDENT —I call Senator Button on the point of order. Senator Button —I do not know whether I am speaking on the point of order but the intention of the Government was merely to rearrange business in order to expedite it, as one does in these circumstances. Clearly, that will not happen. I have never heard so much stroppy nonsense from Senator Chaney so in the circumstances, not out of the situation of in terrorem but in order to allow the Senate to proceed with the legislative program, I seek leave to withdraw the motion I moved for the rearrangement of business. Senator Harradine —I take a point of order, Mr President. I was on my feet addressing the motion before the Chair. A point of order was raised by Senator Lewis. Senator Button rose to intervene on that point of order. But, in my view, he cannot now seek leave to withdraw the motion at least until after I have concluded my remarks. The PRESIDENT —I uphold the point of order. I call Senator Harradine. Senator Harradine —I am concerned about the fact that members of the Senate have been dragged back over the last two months on Tuesday nights and that the sittings have been extended into Fridays in order to get Government Business done. We have bent over backwards to attempt to achieve this and apparently the Government now is attempting to change around the order of business, not only that contained on the Notice Paper but also that contained on the list of priority Bills for passage through Parliament before Christmas. On that list is the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill which has yet to be finalised in this place, the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill 1983 and the other Bills dealing with education, the Taxation ( Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 4), the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the steel industry package of Bills. There are in that package three Bills. The Notice Paper also includes the prices surveillance legislation, the remuneration and allowances legislation, the live- stock slaughter legislation and the bounty (room air-conditioners) legislation, the Australian Shipping Commission legislation, the Inter-State Commission legislation, the Australian National Railways Commission legislation, the Sex Discrimination Bill and matters relating to the Public Accounts Committee report . The other Bills to be debated include the Postal and Telecommunications Amendment Bill, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill, the insurance and life assurance legislation, eight Bills associated with radiocommunications and the Liquid Fuel Emergency Bill. Those Bills are on the short list. There are innumerable other Bills also on the Notice Paper. It concerns me that the Senate has been asked to give an unhealthy concentration to sex over the last couple of months. Seriously, we have been brought back every Tuesday night to discuss sex. We now have a motion to rearrange the business on the business sheet. We are to debate the education package and then the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill. We will then be asked to drop those matters this afternoon. If we have not finished the education package, or if we have, we will then debate the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill. However, at 2 p.m. we are being asked to drop those Bills and return to the debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill. That is most extraordinary. It goes to show how fair dinkum the Government is about unpaid company tax when it puts sex before it. The irony of this is that even if the sex discrimination legislation were adopted by this chamber it cannot possibly pass the House of Representatives because members of the House of Representatives got up and shot through last night. There is absolutely no chance of the Parliament, as a whole, finalising this matter. I feel that the Government should examine its priorities to see whether it has an unhealthy preoccupation with that subject and proceed with business as it is set down on the Notice Paper. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave- withdrawn. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-Mr President-- Senator Robertson —Did you note that, Leader of the Opposition? We did not refuse leave. Senator WALTERS —Senator Robertson is taking up my very short time. Senator Button has not addressed himself to Senator Harradine's main concern. Could he address that, in all seriousness? The Sex Discrimination Bill is not needed to be passed by the Government this session because it cannot be passed by the whole of the Parliament. If we postpone debate on that Bill it would give us more time to get through more Government legislation which the Government needs to be passed. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Button has sought leave to withdraw his motion. Leave was granted. [COGNATE BILLS: STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) BILL 1983 STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 8 December 1983, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(9.25) —in reply-Mr President, I conclude my remarks on the second reading debate of the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill by saying that the Government will not accept any amendments to this legislation. They are money Bills and it is important for them to be completed forthwith. I foreshadow to the Australian Democrats the Government's intentions with regard to strengthening the appeal procedures. The Australian Democrats suggested to the Government that we should consider making decisions of the Commonwealth Schools Commission with regard to categories of schools and income testing appealable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, having discussed this matter with the Schools Commission and with Senator Macklin, we have now decided that a more appropriate, more effective strengthening of the existing appeals procedures would be to establish within the Schools Commission an independent tribunal, independently chaired, similar in character to the tertiary education assistance scheme tribunal or the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Such a tribunal would provide expertise in the matters under consideration and would be an avenue of appeal other than that currently available to the Commission itself. There is already a very extensive appeals mechanism in place, and appellants who are dissatisfied with that form of appeal can seek the protection of the Ombudsman's Act and the Federal Court of Australia. Senator Macklin has indicated on behalf of the Australian Democrats that he supports this concept of independent appeals. Once this matter is approved by the Cabinet the Government can proceed forthwith to set up the tribunal and the necessary legislative action can be taken early in the new year. That matter is foreshadowed, but I conclude my remarks by indicating that no amendments will be accepted by the Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.27) —Mr Temporary Chairman, the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill is the first of the three Bills in this package. The Opposition will be proposing no Committee stage amendments to that Bill. I first say to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) that it is quite ridiculous for her to assert that these Bills are not capable of amendment. The Constitution provides in relation to increasing appropriations that the Senate can move only by way of request, but to say that these Bills are not capable of being amended is ridiculous. Senator Ryan —I did not say they were incapable of amendment. Senator PETER BAUME —The Minister said in her summing up that because she regarded the Bills as money Bills she would not consider accepting amendments. The Minister may think she has some special position but she is answerable to this Committee and to the Parliament, and none of her legislation becomes effective until it is through the Parliament. She should not start telling the Parliament when her Bills can be amended or when changes can be made. If we think it is not appropriate legislation, we will move that way. That is in relation to matters to come later. Whether she accepts them is something she can answer for to a wider Australian electorate. I want to ask a few questions in relation to the participation and equity Bill, which really involves the school to work transition program plus $20m. We appreciate the Government providing that $20m. which, we think, if properly used , will be of help to children, and which we applaud. Let us be quite clear about that. We applaud what the Government is trying to do, but we do not understand some of the provisions or why they have been drawn up in a certain way. First of all, the Bill has an objects clause which is not quite clear. Am I correct in assuming that part (a) of the objects clause is simply to encourage a number of things to happen, and that therefore almost anything that happens under the program, provided it can be said to be encouraging it, will be judged to have been successful in terms of the objects? That is not a very good or testable objective. I say to the Minister in a constructive way that surely if she wants people to participate in education or training until they have completed a secondary education or an equivalent course of training there is a more disciplined way to express that objective. Perhaps it would be better 'to have achieved a greater participation by youth in education or training until they have completed a secondary education'. The words of the Minister in the objects clause are really a soft cop out. She says that all she is trying to do is encourage. Almost anything she does will be, in terms of evaluation, successful against that very soft objective. I ask the Minister: Is it adequate just to say 'to encourage'? I think what the Minister is out to do is more than to encourage. She is out to get results, and the Government wants results, and should not that be put into the objects clause? Secondly, under paragraph (b) of the objects clause, the Minister says a number of things which I find need some clarification. What is the meaning of the term 'more equitable outcomes' as it is included in that objects clause? What does she mean by it and what will she be doing? What are the kinds of things that will actually be done in pursuit of this objective that the Government has set down? Will it in fact give less opportunity to some people in trying to produce what she regards as more equitable outcomes in education for all young persons? Can she explain, in terms of the objects, just what she is about? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(9.32) —The meaning of the word 'encourage' in the objects clause of the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill means just that. We believe that about 70 per cent of young people have been discouraged from completing their secondary schooling or undertaking appropriate education or training in the post-compulsory years by a number of factors. They have been discouraged by inadequate curriculum; they have been discouraged by a school organisation which has been unsuitable for older adolescents and they have been discouraged perhaps by teachers who have not been appropriately prepared or trained to assist them in those years. We believe that the kinds of programs which will come about in secondary schooling and other educational institutions as a result of this legislation will encourage people. There will be a whole range of programs which will be funded under this allocation. I should point out to Senator Peter Baume that the Commonwealth Schools Commission report on the participation and equity program will be tabled next week and will set out in considerable detail exactly how the program will work, the way in which State governments, non-government school authorities, teachers and parents will be involved in developing new programs for the post-compulsory years. Many of Senator Baume's more detailed considerations will be met then. But it is very clear that there have been many discouraging aspects for many young people in the way secondary schooling has been organised, and those aspects go to a very large extent to explain the fact that on a national average about only 30 per cent of our young people complete secondary schooling. I would not have thought any honourable senator in this place would find that a satisfactory situation. I would have thought that anybody who was concerned with the plight of unemployed youth, with the underskilled character of many sections of the work force, with the high unemployment rate, with the need of this economy for new skills, new industries and new activities, would realise that some changes, particularly in the post-compulsory years of schooling, are needed . Of course this Bill will help to make some of those important changes come about. Senator Baume questioned the phrase 'more equitable outcomes'. He seems to have difficulty in grasping the fact that outcomes in schooling are very unequal and very inequitable. I repeat the statistic: 70 per cent of young people leave school without having completed their secondary education, not competent to proceed to higher education or training and not able to get jobs. That is an unequal outcome. That is an outcome which is inequitable because those young people are having an unequal share of educational resources spent upon them. In contrast to those young people there are other young people who complete their secondary schooling and who go on to university for several years, or to some other form of higher education, and who have very successful outcomes in terms of further qualifications, access to the job market and high and secure incomes for the rest of their lives. While 70 per cent of the population have very minimal outcomes from schooling and 30 per cent of the population have very successful outcomes the situation is inequitable. That situation is unsatisfactory as far as this Government is concerned. Hence, we have funded and planned, in co-operation with State education authorities and non-government school authorities, a program which will help to change the outcome so that a much higher percentage than 30 per cent of students who finish their secondary schooling are competent to go into some other form of education or training or compete successfully on the job market. That is what we mean by 'more equitable outcomes'. In no sense will we, in providing more and better opportunities for the vast majority of young people , be reducing opportunities for others. Those who already have many, many opportunities will not have their situation impaired by the fact that some opportunities will be extended to children whose needs have not been addressed in the past. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.36) —I would like to follow up what the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) just said. Can I put to the Minister the situation of two high schools in Sydney of which I am aware- Killara High School, which is close to my home, and Leichhardt High School, which I had the privilege of visiting recently. The teachers at Leichhardt High told me that the completion rate of students might be something like 13 per cent to 15 per cent. Of course, I agree with the Minister, that that is a very worrying situation. The teachers, who are trying to assist, relate many of the problems faced by students to a whole range of difficulties which lie outside the school. The outcomes at Killara High School are very satisfactory. The completion rate to year 12 would be 70 per cent to 80 per cent. Both of those schools are within the government system. One is performing at a very high level ; the other is performing at a level which requires improvement in terms of the kind of outcome the Minister is talking about. In trying to produce more equitable outcomes, how will the Government approach that kind of problem? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(9.38) —I am grateful for the honourable senator's question because it highlights exactly what the participation and equity program is about. It is about overcoming the inequities, be they within a system, as Senator Baume has pointed out, between the outcomes at Killara High and the outcomes at Leichhardt High, or the outcomes across systems. The administration of this program will involve the targeting of programs to those schools which have very poor outcomes in terms of completion rates and other matters. As the report to be tabled next week will show, there will be an opportunity for schools with very low retention rates, such as Leichhardt High, to receive extra assistance. This program is not a per capita program. An exactly equal amount or percentage will not be given to every government school or non-government school. The money and the programs will be targeted to give assistance, in the first instance, to schools such as Leichhardt High which have very low retention rates and poor outcomes in many respects. This objective and this way of bringing about more satisfactory outcomes in education is exactly what the Opposition, by implication, has been saying for some time we ought to be doing. The Opposition has raised again and again the fact that there are unequal situations within the government school system. It has been asking for some sort of response to these inequalities within the government school system, just as we respond to inequalities within the non- government school system. This program will do that. That is not to say, though, that the participation and equity program will be available only to schools with low retention rates. I am sure that even at Killara High there are improvements that parents, teachers and students might like to see in the range of curriculum offerings. We believe that the curriculum reform aspect of the program will have benefit to all students, even those in government or non-government schools with very high retention rates and, generally speaking, very satisfactory outcomes. So the program will be very broad. Its main emphasis, particularly in the first year-and I remind the Committee it is a triennial program-will be to make resources available to schools or groups of schools within or across systems. The students are the objects of our concern. Whether they are in government or non-government schools is not of consequence in terms of this program. Their needs are what is of consequence. Schools such as Leichhardt High will benefit directly. We hope in the first year to be able to see some changes and improvements. However, the benefits should go across all systems. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.40) —I am grateful to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) for that answer. I am glad that the Opposition and the Government are as one in wanting to see within the government system a response to need. If the Minister is going to talk about needs-based programs in education let us have them across all systems, let them not be confined just to a consideration of non-government schools, as some of us feared was going to happen. I now move to some other aspects of the Bill on which we need advice. I refer the Committee to clause 23, under which the Minister is to establish advisory committees in each State. I have had input from some of the States expressing a concern that, although these committees will be established in every State to advise on expenditure, the States will not be able to appoint the members. The Minister will have complete power of veto over State nominations and must approve nominees. I understand that in the end, when the recommendations come up , the Minister will have to approve each program. Why is it her desire to have also a power of veto concerning the people who are to go on the committees? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(9.42) —I point out that the responsibility of the Commonwealth Minister is set out in sub-clause (2) of clause 23. The Minister has a responsibility to ensure that an appropriate range of organisations is represented and that such representation shall be of an appropriate size. We have not actually determined what is to be the final number; we are still seeking views from the States on that. The reason the Minister should have a power of veto is that this is a Commonwealth program and a Commonwealth initiative. The Commonwealth wishes to retain a close involvement in it. We wish to know whether our objectives under the program are being pursued appropriately. The relationship between me and the State Ministers will be one of close co-operation and consultation. If we were not to have a close role, such as is set out in the legislation, the character of the program would quickly change from being one which, as a result of a Commonwealth initiative, is pursuing objectives that the Government has for all Australians, to one involving a fragmented series of State and territorial initiatives. In order to keep the Commonwealth character of the program clear and to enable the Commonwealth to monitor the program, there will be a requirement of ministerial approval of the range of organisations and the number of people on committees. The identity of the people making up the committees will be for State Ministers to decide. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.43) —Let me make clear from the outset that the general objectives stated by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) are laudable and ought to be pursued. My questions relate, however, to the capacity of the Bill to enable that to be done. I notice that in the Minister's second reading speech she said: The Program is directed towards bringing about wide ranging changes in schools which will enable them to give all students, and especially those from a disadvantaged backgound, a rewarding, useful education through to the end of secondary schooling. The program will be directed particularly to secondary schools with low retention rates. No one could argue with the principle involved. No one could argue that at this moment, particularly in the secondary schools-many times I have learnt this from principals-there is a concern that resources are insufficient to provide the kind of pastoral care, the kind of counselling, the kind of specialised programming in crafts and technical subjects that might excite the minds of people. No one can deny that in these schools there are unduly early leavers who believe, however wrongly, that school is not relevant to them. So I accept the basis of need for reform. I come now to a matter on which I am in a little dilemma. The Bill deals with generalities and not specifics. We are told that next week, presumably after this Bill has been passed, there will be a Commonwealth Schools Commission report on participation and equity. That seems to me to be the wrong way round. It seems to me that what ought to have happened in the first place is that a Commission report should have been prepared. There should have been discussions with the States and some kind of understanding between the States and the Commonwealth as to specifics and not generalities. One should not simply say: 'I have $20m to put some berley on the waters. I hope I catch some fish'. I talk not in any destructive fashion at all. In my own time as Minister I was very eager to establish the transition from school to work and the retention programs . Indeed, I explored the tragic situation of unduly early school leaving, the belief in irrelevance of education to some. What puzzles me in this whole situation is that we do not know what are the specific intentions. We cannot know, therefore, whether the States will accept or reject them. It is no good the Minister saying, as she did to Senator Baume: 'This is a Commonwealth program, therefore we must have control'. The fact of the matter is that she knows very well indeed that any moneys provided under grants such as this must be determined after consultation with the Australian Education Council. To put this matter in perspective, the Government says that the money will be provided largely for secondary schools, and I think also for technical and further education institutions. I am not knocking an extra $20m, but this money would not provide for the full maintenance of half a teacher in each of the institutions concerned. With all the best of will in wanting to support grand terms, the program is directed towards bringing about wide-ranging changes in schools. It is important to say at this moment that the amount of money is minuscule to tackle such a problem. Far be it from me to knock back the smallest amount of money which is to go into the system. It is good and commendable, and I would not knock it back. But I am trying to put into perspective what this means. It might mean that there is a start of two things: A much more massive injection of money into this system by both the Commonwealth and the States, and a massive acceptance by the States that inside the primary and secondary schooling systems of the States there is a failure that needs reassessment and re-evaluation. I can only say, as a former Minister, that, having devoted a considerable amount of time to reforming the post-secondary schooling system, I came to the conclusion that the real needs for reform in Australia lie basically within the sovereignty of the States. At the moment primary and secondary education is lacking some essential qualities that are needed to provide the motivation, the exciting of the curiosity of the individual, the pastoral care which helps people, which encourages them and beckons them and, specifically in the early childhood stages, gives them the stimulation to learn. In the secondary schooling system in particular there is in many cases a lack of counselling, of pastoral care, of seeking out those in danger of unduly early school leaving and a particular lack of encouragement to people who may be inclined towards crafts and skills of that nature. In fact there is a very serious deficiency in the whole system. There is a need to look at and to challenge, but to challenge constructively, whether this generalist stream of education that now takes some 60 per cent of people to year 11 and some 36 per cent of people to year 12 is really the right thing, or whether we should not build into it as we widen the base of people going forward some particularities that will encourage people. I rise to say this in no way to be destructive of the system. I hope the system succeeds. Anything that can get meaningful retention of people in schools and not simply hold them in an 'agistment' situation would have our blessing. If we are to achieve this we must, first of all, define the magnitude and the specifics of what we are doing. Nothing like that has happened. The Minister is unable to come to us at this moment and say: 'Here are the specifics of what we are recommending'. She says that next week we may get a report. She is unable to come to us and say: 'We have taken the specifics to the States and this is the result: The States are unwilling to say yes. Even though primary and secondary education are within our sovereignty, we are willing to co-operate in these various ways'. At the moment we have a round sum of money. The Minister, therefore, has some form of bargaining power for the future and perhaps she is taking with her the Commission's report hoping to get some of these kinds of games. I repeat: I have personally reached the very firm view that there are grave defects in Australia inside the primary and secondary system. It was no encouragement to me to find that there had been, by academic research, the relevation that, of all 14-year-old children in Australia, 25 per cent are incapable of independent reading and 15 per cent are incapable of independent, simple figuring. This is the gravest indictment of our State education systems. It is an indictment of us all that we have not directed our thrusts and energies towards where the real defects lie. If we have not given to our children the hunger to learn these kinds of basic skills, how can we talk further on the matter? There are worse statistics than the ones I have just mentioned. In Australia, of all 15-year-olds to 19-year-olds, 60 per cent are either in the work force or unemployed; that is, they are out of schooling. In other words, in that critical period, they are not acquiring skills; they are either working or unemployed, on the dole. That compares with two major competing countries in the world: In Japan only 24 per cent of 15-year-olds to 19-year-olds are in the work force; the remainder are in the education stream. In the United States of America only 26 per cent of 15-year-olds to 19-year-olds are in the work force; the remainder are in the education stream. So, basically, we have a peril in Australia. As other countries are coming into higher technology and higher skills we are lagging back. Those statistics are strongly presented by objective academic researchers. Those are the facts. If any honourable senator disagrees with that, these facts were brought before the Australian Education Council repeatedly in my time. They have been published as academic research and have been accepted as academic research. I make these points not in a destructive way. If we are to move further into this situation as a Commonwealth of trying to get co-operation with the States to reform fundamentally primary and secondary schooling in Australia, let us, firstly, have a specific blueprint before us of what we mean. What do we mean? What are we aiming to do? Secondly, let us have before us the results of detailed conferences between the Commonwealth and States and the goals to which the Minister can go. At this moment what she says are grand things. How can anyone say that it would be wrong for the program to be directed towards bringing about wide-ranging changes in schools? Does any State say that it will permit the Commonwealth to intervene to bring about wide-ranging changes in its schools? Let us have the information. It would be valuable. It would be a valuable breakthrough. I rose to speak not in a destructive way but to look at the basic objectives of the Bill and at what can be done with the small seeding funds it provides. Fundamentally, if one wanted to do one thing in the 1,200-odd high schools one would need at least a couple of extra people-a vocational counsellor who could advise and direct the students and certainly a person or persons who could give the kind of pastoral care that would give people a feeling that someone was concerned about them. When I brought in the education program for unemployed youth I sought to expose the defects of the secondary system to provide the sorts of figures I am now giving. The reports of EPUY research are available for all to see. Many thousands of students have now passed through its courses. Time and again they said to me: ' Why are you interested in me?' I said: 'Why not?' They said: 'Because no one is concerned about me'. The reports of EPUY, which are fundamental to this program, said: 'Yes, the basic skills are not good, but something far more fundamental than basic skills is wrong. In every batch of students that we have dealt with we have found two things. Firstly, the students have unduly low self-esteem, have undervalued themselves'. What a horrible thing that the Australian society is creating tens of thousands of people who have unduly low self-esteem and who feel that nobody is concerned about them. Secondly, the reports said that they had unduly low motivation, primarily for that reason. Nothing would excite me more than an adventure into an operation which would find those people at risk, which would lift them up, which would beckon them on, which would show our concern and which would give them greater interest and encouragement for the future. This legislation contains generalities. I do not criticise it for that, but I want to know a very great deal more before we can evaluate it. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(9.58) —These Bills, the main function of which is to appropriate the money for the programs, of course set out generalities. I draw Senator Sir John Carrick's attention to the appendix to the program which was attached to the funding guidelines. I assure him that I am aware that for such changes to succeed there needs to be very close co-operation with State Education Ministers . Anyone who has been a Commonwealth Minister for Education knows that the Commonwealth, without the co-operation of the States, can do very little indeed to change education. However, I am happy to report that such co-operation exists . I have been in constant communication with my State ministerial colleagues over this program, since even before the guidelines were announced. The report which will be tabled next week will set out in great detail the kinds of programs or the kind of curriculum, counselling, support or whatever for a school which will be funded. I should also tell Senator Sir John Carrick, because he is obviously not aware, that at the Australian Education Council meeting held in Adelaide a couple of weeks ago there was very thorough discussion of the participation and equity program and endorsement of it by all State Ministers. Similarly, at the historic first conference of Ministers with special responsibilities for youth, held in Canberra last week, there was again extensive and detailed discussion of participation and equity, with different State Ministers suggesting different ways in which the program might be implemented in their States. There is a high degree of consultation and co- operation which, as Senator Sir John Carrick's remarks implied, is absolutely essential to the success of the program. I should say too, that the program is not one that will be prescribed by the Commonwealth for the States. That is not suitable in our very diverse country with its very diverse problems as between city schools, country schools, schools with low retention rates and schools with better retention rates. There is no one way of changing and improving secondary education that the Commonwealth will lay down. The whole character of the program is that it will be worked out in co -operation first all with State bodies and non-government school authorities and then at the school level, we hope with a very high degree of parent, teacher and student involvement in individual schools. So in one school it may be the case, as Senator Sir John Carrick has suggested, the real need is for improved pastoral care and counselling. In other schools, different kinds of needs may be addressed under that program. It is a very flexible program. Its objectives are certainly laid down by the Commonwealth but the ways in which those objectives will be reached will be worked out by a series of co-operative arrangements with the State committees having a guiding role. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.01) —I thank the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs for her remarks. I notice-I can understand it-that the second reading speech indicates that the thrust will be directed mainly and predominantly at secondary schools. My own dilemma was that as I moved backwards I found that the real accident occurred further and further down the scale. I suggest that we all have to be terribly careful, whichever government is in office, that we do not simply use palliatives down the way. We may very well find that the primary accident occurs in early childhood, both in the home and in the schools, and that, if we are to get this kind of remedial or prophylactic situation working, we have to direct our primary thrust to the earliest age of education and to get our best teachers there, because there is abundant evidence that motivation and excitation of curiosity are born or not born in very early childhood. If they are born, a child can survive an even mediocre education and triumph but if they are not, all the palliatives along the way may well fail or not reach full fruition. I am not trying to preach a sermon; I am simply trying to say: Will the Minister, the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission be willing to look the whole way down the scale and not simply move backwards towards the primary cause of the accident? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.03) —I would not argue against what Senator Sir John Carrick is saying. Anybody who is interested in the education process is aware that the earliest years are the most crucial and the most critical. If we have problems with secondary retention rates and unsatisfactory schooling in the later years, clearly that implies that there are defects in some primary schooling situations as well. I do not argue with that. I agree that that is something that all governments must address. However, in this program we are trying to address with some urgency the particular problem of low retention rates. We cannot abandon the 15 and 16-year-olds now and say: 'We will start with the primary schooling, and in 10 years time we will not have this problem'. We have to address their problems, but I agree that the outcomes of primary schooling require attention too. I am hopeful that in the next Budget we will be able to make special funds available to address those special problems. I should point out that although we know that the results are not as good as they should be in many cases I do not think the Commonwealth Schools Commission, for example, is entirely clear at this stage as to what the problems in primary schooling are. We are now having a joint review for the first time-the joint character is a first-by the Schools Commission and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission of pre-service teacher training. We want those two commissions to look at the pre-service and in-service training, but particularly the pre-service training, of all teachers and especially primary school teachers to see what the relationship is between the way in which teachers are prepared to go into the schools and the situation they face when they get there. There seems to be some disjunction between those two situations. There seems to be many teachers who are not being appropriately prepared, particularly in primary schooling, to deal with the range of educational needs which they will face. I think that when we have the results of that review, we will have clearer directions as to how to improve and upgrade primary schooling. It may be that we will want to change or extend pre-service preparation of teachers. It may be that we will want to change the nature of their training. Many specialists in the education area-and I am not a specialist-believe that teacher training should incorporate a lot more in-the-classroom training and that a greater proportion of a trainee's time should be spent actually in the classroom working with an experienced, skilled, mature teacher rather than the current case where most of the time of a teacher trainee is spent in a college focusing on theoretical aspects of education. That may be one of the results of that review. Until we have the results, I do not think that we will have a clear enough indication of exactly how to bring about improvements in primary schooling. I will say in conclusion to my answer to Senator Sir John Carrick's question that funds for this program can be used for some primary projects, particularly those which have to do with the transition from primary to secondary schooling, which is not always a successful transition. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.06) —I was greatly interested in the Minister's statement that a review of pre-service training is in progress. I was disappointed in the report of the Auchmuty National Inquiry into Teacher Training, and I feel that there is a need for pre-service training. I wonder whether the Minister would be able either now or in the early future to give the Senate some details about who is to conduct the review, its terms of reference, its nature and whether it will call for submissions. I share with her the idea that pre-service training is fundamental. It is true, that many youngsters who go into teaching regard it as a lesser thing to go into the primary area. Indeed, salaries and wages are so graded. So we start from what I think the Minister and I would agree is a basic fallacy, just as we are starting from a basic fallacy if we think that we do not necessarily need to train teachers in secondary schools in a fully integrated course but that we can have an end-on course. It is a fallacy to think that we can take a person with a degree and within a year teach him to be a teacher. That must be a fundamental fallacy. It may well be due to having subject masters and mistresses rather than teachers trained in pastoral care. Without being too wordy, I enthuse about the idea of a review but I wish to know its nature. I hope that it achieves full results and that it will look at all the fundamentals , including salary scales and creating incentives which would beckon people towards working in the area of early childhood. I take it that when the Minister talks of the primary area, she is talking of early childhood as well and the upgrading of those areas. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.08) —I think it would be most satisfactory for Senator Sir John Carrick if I were to make available a short statement next week. I do not have all of the details available today, because all of the details have not been established. I can tell Senator Sir John Carrick, for example, that the Commonwealth Schools Commission group, which will be participating in the review , will be headed by Dr Frank Coulter. Senator Sir John Carrick may know Dr Coulter. He is the Director of Teacher Training at the Canberra College of Advanced Education, and he is independent of the Schools Commission. I think it is important that reviews have an independent element so that people do not feel that they have to be unnecessarily defensive about the prevailing situation. I am not sure whether the Tertiary Education Commission has reached the stage of actually setting up its group which will participate in the review. I know that that is in process, but I think that rather than give a partial description of the review now, before the Senate rises I will make available as complete a statement as possible to Senator Sir John Carrick and other interested senators. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.09) —I have two other matters which I need to raise with the Minister, one of them is fairly brief. I refer to the relation between the existing school to work transition program and the new participation and equity program. The Minister may be aware that some of us have received a large number of representations asking whether programs which are funded presently under the existing school to work transition program will qualify for funding. I understand that the Minister could very well say to me that they are going to be put up by the States. She cannot anticipate what might be recommended. I think that is a proper approach to take. But the question that arises is, either under the interim arrangements-1984 having been designated by the Schools Commission as an interim year-or later, will the Minister say whether any activities, which were carried out under the school to work transition program and which have been funded, would not be suitable? If we know that some of them might not be suitable for funding under the participation and equity program that in a way answers the questions that have been put to me. Does she know of any programs or is it possible to give any of the activities which have been funded, which made up part of the school to work transition program and which, by their nature, might not qualify for funding under PEP either during the interim year or later? The second part of that matter is-I just mention the equal opportunity provision which has been written into this Bill-do any parts of the school to work transition program offend the principles the Government has laid down for equal opportunity for people of either sex? In fact, have there been any examples of programs under the school to work transition program which have discriminated against people of one sex? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.11) —Senator Baume has been very interested in this matter which he has raised now for some months. In fact, he raised the same question on the Senate Estimates committees. I can say only this: Particularly in the case of the interim year, we are in the hands of the States with regard to the continuation of transition programs. Those which the States wish to continue will be continued. The matter was very thoroughly discussed at the Australian Education Council meeting in Adelaide. Ministers made it quite clear that they would make the judgments about which programs they wished to continue. Some programs, because of their nature, were available for only one year. Programs were set up in a trial sense and if the school or the administrators of the program did not find that it was satisfactory or that it involved the interests of the students they would not wish to continue that. I cannot specify those programs because we are leaving these decisions to the States-as I have said, particularly in the interim year. We did not wish anything that was constructive to be withdrawn or stopped. The State Ministers understand and accept this. I believe that those successful initiatives-there were many of them under the transition program-will continue. I think those that did not engage the interests of students or improve participation will not be included by the State Ministers in their submissions on this matter. As to the equal opportunity aspect, I think anybody who has spent time in schools, particularly those with low participation rates, would have been told by teachers and would have been able to see for himself or herself that girls are not, generally speaking, being engaged in the most useful educational activities. There may be programs in, for example, computer education; computing is very important now with the dramatically increased role of computers in the work force. If one goes into a computing program it is quite typical in a co- educational school to see a large number of boys and very few girls. I know there are exceptions to that. Senator Baume or Senator Sir John Carrick might like to point out exceptions. Of course there are exceptions. But I think we are very well aware that in these sorts of subject choices girls in particular-I am generalising-are still sheering away from technical subjects which would enable them to go on and take apprenticeships or do computing or mathematics. I do not think any State Education Minister would say that there was not a necessity to try to persuade girls, particularly, of course, those girls who are early school leavers, to do a wider range of subjects. These kinds of disadvantages are always compounded for the early school leaver. With the high achieving girls who stay on and go on to university I think there is still a bias towards a particular group of subjects, which is not in the best interests of those girls. The problem relates particularly to early school leaving girls. Even under the transition program there were sex biases which continued the problem of girls not choosing a wide enough range of subjects. I would not like to imply that everything is entirely satisfactory with the range of subjects that boys choose, particularly again the early leaving boys. If the shadow Minister wants to know why we have put in the equal opportunity provision, it is out of recognition-not just the Commonwealth's recognition but by States, teachers and parents-that either deliberately or unconsciously these kinds of bias exist. They are particularly damaging for the early school leaving girls. We hope that by putting in the general provision-it will not involve a great deal of monitoring-we will remind people, as they develop these programs, to take account of the existing bias in the kinds of subjects that girls do and try to design new programs in such a way that they will thoroughly involve the interests of girls. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.16) —I am still not sure whether any of the school to work transition programs would qualify. I will not press the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan); she is not willing to tell me. Some programs may not be recommended, and I accept this, but that was not the question. The question related to whether any of them would not fit within the guidelines. The Minister will have to approve the programs. All that the State Ministers will do will be to recommend, and the Minister will then have to determine whether she will approve the programs. I remember that this year I refused to approve one program put up by the State of Victoria. The Government wanted to give a substantial amount of money, allegedly under the rubric of school to work transition, to the extremist radio station in Melbourne , 3CR. The Minister reversed my decision when she came to office. That was her decision and her right. She wanted to give the money to 3CR, but that money was to be given under the school to work transition program, proposed by the State Minister. Of course, as Commonwealth Minister I had to approve or not approve that money. The Commonwealth Minister will still have to determine whether programs come within her appreciation of the guidelines. That is why it is important to know whether anything within the school to work transition program would not have satisfied her on that ground. Senator Ryan —I will let you know when it happens. It has not happened yet. Senator PETER BAUME —The Minister will let us know when it happens. I have been very impressed by some of the things I have seen recently in high schools. At Cheltenham Girls High School I saw an enormously good, active computer program and a strong mathematics stream. At this girls' high school there was a strong program in the very things the Minister is worried girls are not participating in sufficiently. I mention Leichhardt High School and Bulli High School. In both of those places I saw girls taking part in manual arts courses, as they should be able to, and I saw young men who had chosen home economics and cooking as electives. If that is what we are after-and I approve-why not? Senator Macklin —It will be useful to be able to cook. Senator PETER BAUME —I hear some comments from my left. I am not sure whether they were serious or whether they made fun of the matter. It is important for people to have the widest possible experience. If that opportunity exists in our high schools, I am delighted. In my own days in high school that was never a possibility, and I remember that those who wanted to take subjects that were considered to be subjects for the other gender were frowned upon. I now raise the other significant matter that has not been raised in relation to the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill; that is, what we consider to be the inequitable distribution of funds as between sectors. The Bill provides for the expenditure of funds as between technical and further education institutions and schools. I will not argue that distribution. That is a decision of government, and it is a decision which had to be arbitrary as between technical and further education institutions and schools. My argument will relate to the distribution of funds-I think they total $44.2m; I hope my arithmetic is accurate-which have been made available for schools. The fact is that about 23 per cent of children attend non-government schools and about 77 per cent attend government schools. Those figures are within a percentage of being correct. It is also true that of those who attend non- government schools six out of seven are in schools in the Catholic systems. Non- government schooling in Australia, in terms of its numbers, is Catholic schooling and the distribution of funds, in effect, will be a distribution between government schools and Catholic schools. The small number of independent schools have about 3 per cent of children. The Minister talked about retention rates as evidence of outcomes. The retention rates in the Catholic system, while significantly better than those in the government system, are not what the Catholic education authorities want them to be. The Catholic education authorities would be anxious to participate and co -operate in this program, to make maximum use of it and to use it to do the very things which are set down in the objectives. To do that they should receive a fair share of the money. If the retention rates in government schools across the board, allowing for the differences we have already set out today, are of the order of 30 per cent or a bit less, if the retention rates in Catholic schools across the board are of the order of 45 per cent and if the retention rates in the other independent schools are of the order of 75 or 80 per cent, it is not correct, it is not fair, to say that the Catholic system does not need pro rata help. It can use the program. The Minister will know that a lot of the Catholic schools in some of the developing areas of the major cities are in areas where this program will be particularly helpful to them if they get their fair share of the money. However, what is being provided is anything but fair. Some $44.2m will be provided for schools of which, if my arithmetic is accurate, $4.5m-just a little over 10 per cent-will be going to the whole non-government sector. That simply implies that even if all the money goes into the Catholic system-I imagine that it would not; some would be going to the other schools where there were particular needs or projects-it is not an adequate, fair or equitable distribution of the money. I want the Minister to explain the equity of giving to the Catholic system, in terms of this participation and equity program, only $4.5m out of the $44m or $ 45m which is going to be available to schools when quite clearly their share of pupils might have suggested that they should have received something like twice this amount of money. Even if their completion rates are 45 per cent they are not satisfied in terms of the objectives of this Bill. They have a lot to achieve within their system to do their part in meeting these objectives and the distribution of funds is simply not appropriate and not fair. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.24) —I will explain thoroughly to Senator Baume why the decision we have made about the allocation of funds is a fair decision. In order for Senator Baume to understand that he has to focus not only on the particular distribution of funds under this program but also on the approach to funding as a whole. First of all I should point out that non-government schools will not only have the money available under this program but also they will have access to technical and further education for link courses at no charge or at minimal charge. So there will be more than simply the money appropriated under this legislation for non-government schools available to non-government schools. In approaching the Budget we had a number of things to consider. A number of needs in both systems had to be addressed. We had to attempt to overcome a number of defects caused by various distortions in previous Commonwealth Budgets . Senator Baume will recall that in the recurrent funds available to the non- government and government systems there was a bias in favour of the non- government system. There has been a great deal of discussion and debate, of course, about the level of recurrent funds for non-government schools and our decision to engage in some redistribution of those funds. What Senator Peter Baume has not referred to, I think, is our allocation of recurrent funds for government schools. We gave government schools, in their general recurrent allocation, only the same money in real terms as last year, whereas to category 3 schools in the non-government sector, as Senator Baume would be very well aware-the non-government sector, of course, has about 90 per cent of Catholic schools in it-we gave a 3 per cent real increase. So, comparing recurrent funds, the government schools received the same real money and the non-government schools received a 3 per cent real increase. We then distributed the participation equity funds in favour of the government schools because the non-government schools had received very favourable treatment under the recurrent funding decisions. Senator Baume and, I am sure, Senator Sir John Carrick will be interested in the reasons for doing this because they have both been Commonwealth Education Ministers and they will be very well aware of the problems in this area. In fact, Senator Sir John Carrick pointed out today that it is difficult for the Commonwealth to achieve changes in government schooling because government schools are run by State governments. So the provision of no-strings attached resources achieves changes and improvements only if State governments make certain decisions. We do not control what State governments do with general recurrent funding. However, we can exercise some influence by Commonwealth programs. We wish to make available additional recurrent resources to the government sector, as opposed to the non-government sector-to which we just gave a 3 per cent real increase-to address the very many needs in the government sector. We did not wish to do this all by way of general recurrent grants because we do not influence how that money is spent. We wished to improve the general recurrent resources usage in the government schools through a targeted Commonwealth program. I hope that Senator Baume has been following this. I am asking him to look at the pattern of funding as a whole across systems. He will see, in fact, that there is no distortion in favour of the government system. There is certainly a higher proportion of funding under the participation equity program-a Commonwealth initiative which we will be involved with-but as far as general recurrent resources are concerned government schools received only the same real increase. I ask Senator Baume to consider this program and the funds made available to the Catholic sector under it along with the significant extra recurrent resources that we have made available to it. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.28) —I will speak but briefly 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. I made some points during the second reading debate about the fact I wish the program well but I have serious doubts about its capacity. I think two other points that have arisen during the debate are worth mentioning. One relates to pre-service teacher education. In fact, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) says that an inquiry is under way. There was reference to the Auchmuty report entitled 'National Inquiry into Teacher Education'. I think the Auchmuty report was a failure because it focused on pre-service teacher education. All the research that has been done in this area in recent times points to the fact that the socialisation of teachers takes place in the first two years when they teach and not in the pre-service courses. The real effect on teachers and their capacity to teach comes from other teachers in the teaching situation and not from what is done in teachers' colleges or in unversities. If we are to concentrate yet again on pre-service teacher education it might be useful, in fact, if it could be broadened to at least include the first year or two of teaching. The other point raised by Senator Sir John Carrick was simply that the proceedings are being broadcast and people might be making decisions about whether they will go into secondary or primary education. Senator Sir John Carrick said that primary school teachers were paid less than secondary school teachers. I am not sure that that is necessarily the case. It is my understanding that in a number of States-I could not say this of all the States- the teacher scales are based on the degree structure of the teachers. They are based on whether the teacher has a three or four year degree and the years of training. The only differentiation, certainly in the government school system, in relation to salaries, comes from the fact that they are different systems. One relates to possible incremental leaps, in relation to subject masters, which are not always available at a primary school. I hope that people who are listening do not make their decisions about which area they go into on the basis that the pay structures may be different. My understanding is that they are identical and that they depend on identical criteria. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.31) —It might be appropriate to intervene now because I do not wish to prolong the Committee's consideration of this Bill. I comment briefly on what Senator Macklin has said. My concern about the report of the Auchmuty National Inquiry into Teacher Education was different . It was a concern about the structure and process of the whole investigation, the way in which the investigation was structured and written and my belief that there was a lack of a single coherent philosophical thread so the inquiry really was predisposed to failing to deliver the goods and study phenomena. I do not think the report really set down a direction. I turn to what the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) said to me in terms of funding. This is the first time that anyone has suggested that the distribution of funding for participation in equity, which we think is inequitable, has to be regarded alongside and perhaps as part of the recurrent funding for schools. I find that really quite extraordinary. This program should stand on its own. It has particular objectives within education. I think that many school authorities can be very worried by the explanation which the Minister has given. I do not question it. It is the Government's program and it is the Minister's explanation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.33) —I question the Minister's explanation. I am sure that Senator Baume also questions it in his own mind. Presumably what he means-- Senator Peter Baume —I do not question her right to do it. Senator HARRADINE —He cannot question her right to do it, but of course that is the reason we are considering these Bills. It is important to refer to the guidelines which were presented to the Schools Commission by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). I refer to the guidelines which were detailed in this Parliament on the participation and equity programs. The guidelines clearly indicate that the Government will establish a new participation and equity program in 1984. The guidelines state: . . . to encourage young people to participate in useful and fulfilling education activities will be the centrepiece of the overall framework of youth policies which are being developed by the Government. Presumably the Minister became selective. The question of which youth will benefit from this program will depend on which schools they happen to have gone to. That is discriminatory. Having said that in her guidelines to the Schools Commission, she is now asking us to take account of 'the pattern of funding as a whole'. Let us look at the pattern of funding as a whole. Let us look at the Australian education budget as a whole-if the Minister wants to look at that-and not merely Commonwealth funding. Let us look at the program of education funding as a whole, at what the States pay and how they distribute their money between government schools. I know of a number of government schools which are concerned about the fact that they do not get a fair share of the distribution of State government moneys whereas some of the more well-off government schools are getting a lion's share of the funds. Without naming any schools, I know of one government school that has everything that opens and shuts. Another government school and an independent school not far away are very concerned about that. Those two schools wish the other school well, of course, but they are concerned that they do not appear to be getting a fair share of the educational expenditure. The Government has said-these are the words of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs-that it will look at the 'pattern of education funding as a whole' . I would be in that like a shot. I think it is an excellent idea to look at the pattern of education funding as a whole. I think we should look at the pattern of the State governments funding of the well-off government schools and the not so well-off government schools. But that is not really an excuse for the discrimination in this measure between those children who have gone through government schools and those who have gone through non-government schools. The statement made by the Minister today is most enlightening. It indicates that at least the Minister has not thought through the logical conclusions that must be drawn from her statements. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.37) —I am surprised that Senator Baume and Senator Harradine should think it is an unsual suggestion to look at the pattern of education funding as a whole. Of course we have to do that. Of course any government has to look overall at what it is trying to achieve in education and at how different parts of the education budget are co-ordinated so that those objectives can be achieved. I see nothing remarkable or new in that. I would have thought that when Senator Baume and Sir John Carrick were Ministers for Education they would have addressed the question of what their Government was trying to do overall. Senator Peter Baume —It would not have done this. Senator RYAN —No. Obviously there was a failure of imagination when it came to this area, and the previous Government did not do it. But we are doing it. Senator Peter Baume —It would have shared it out equitably. Senator RYAN —I suppose this argument will rage in the chamber for years to come . Senator Baume seems to think that being equitable means giving the same to everyone per capita, regardless of their needs. We believe that being equitable is addressing the needs that are extremely diverse and addressing them in whatever way they need to be addressed. We are not looking at a simple mathematical computation and saying: We have this number of children and this number of dollars, we divide the two and share out the funds; that would not achieve anything in terms of overcoming special diffculties. We do not proceed in that way. In this education budget or in any other program of this Government we look at needs and we address those needs. Senator Harradine —But even on your own criteria it does not measure up. Senator RYAN —That is Senator Harradine's view. The Government's view is quite different. I think that any talk of discriminatory funding is entirely inappropriate. I have pointed out that non-government schools in their recurrent funding are getting significant additional funds. They are also getting additional funds under the participation and equity program. They have different needs with regard to retention rates from those of the government schools with very low retention rates. Senator Harradine drew attention to decisions of State governments with regard to their allocation of funds. Of course, that is something of interest to us all , but it is not something that the Commonwealth controls. State governments make decisions as they see fit with regard to their education budgets. We in the Commonwealth take decisions which we believe will assist us to achieve the objectives with which, I am pleased to say, most people agree. Senator Macklin raised the question of the importance of what happens to teachers in terms of their effectiveness once they get to the classroom. I agree with Senator Macklin and I point out to him that our review of teacher training will encompass in- service as well as pre-service training. I am confident that the participation and equity program will benefit all systems with particular needs in a fair and equitable way. We would have liked to have spent more money on this program. That money was not available. But we believe that the amount allotted is a significant additional resource for schools and that we will see very significant improvements as a result. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.40) —I query very briefly the question of the determination of what schools are the needy schools and what schools are not. As I understand it-I think I am at one with the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) in this-we are looking primarily at the question of children at risk; that is, children who for whatever reason are finding schooling and the school journey not meaningful and not fruitful and who , therefore, are early dropouts or unskilled. I suggest to the Minister that there is no necessary correlation between the particular resources of a school and the percentage of students at risk. For example, in my State quite commonly these days one will find at some of the schools with considerable resources, even in affluent areas, that as many as 35, 36 or 37 per cent of children are from single parent families. This state of affairs presents an enormous problem to the teachers and the school and bears no relation at all to the sub-economic or sociological stratum of the area concerned. In order to face this problem we will have not simply to look at some kind of category 1, category 2 or category 3 situations; we will have to look at an enormous sociological and psychological problem that cannot be measured by such a scale. I rise simply to ask the Minister to assure us that in any discussion with the States the key will be children at risk, whether they be in government schools or non-government schools, in affluent or disadvantaged areas. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.43) —I can give Senator Sir John Carrick that assurance. It is certainly the understanding of the States that we are concentrating in the first instance on children at risk. They exist in all schools in all systems, although obviously there are concentrations of them in disadvantaged areas. I do not suggest that there is a necessary inevitable correlation between the resources available to a school and the effectiveness of its programs, but there are some connections. Certainly, when we are talking about changes and improvements we are talking to some extent about additional resources. I would be very pleased to think that some of the changes that we would like to see would be changes that would take place without significant additional resources; changes in school organisation, in involving parents more and so forth, do not necessarily involve more money. They involve ideas, enthusiasm and participation. We hope that the seeding money-I think it is appropriately so described-under this program will spark off some new ideas and enthusiasm, not all of which will require extra resources. As Senator Sir John Carrick himself has pointed out, it may be the case that more counsellors or more people able to give partial care are required; that, of course, is a resource problem. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Debate resumed from 30 November 1983 on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.45) —During the second reading debate, I foreshadowed an amendment I would move to the second reading on this Bill. It has been circulated in my name. I just indicate to Senator Macklin that, attracted by the force of his argument in relation, I think, to the word ' absolute' in one place, we amended the wording that he had seen previously. Therefore, I move: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for its many dishonoured promises to Australian secondary students; (b) reaffirms the right of all children to receive guaranteed government support for their education; (c) insists on the right of every Australian child to receive support for his or her schooling at a level which is predictable and related to educational costs in Government schools; (d) supports the principle of freedom of choice in education and the right of all parents to be supported in that choice; (e) deplores the restriction on the free development of non-Government schools as an expression of the will of parents; and (f) condemns the Government for the unexplained and arbitrary cuts to some Schools Commission Programs and, in particular, to the Professional Development Program'. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.46) —Speaking to the amendment moved by Senator Baume, the Australian Democrats are happy to condemn the present Government for its dishonoured promises, as we did the previous Government on the way in which promises in education made to the electorate have been dishonoured; we condemn Senator Baume as Minister and Senator Ryan as Minister. The second paragraph of the amendment states: reaffirms the right of all children to receive guaranteed government support for their education; That would suggest that the Bill does not do that. The Bill does guarantee to all children government support for their education. Paragraph (c) states: insists on the right of every Australian child to receive support for his or her schooling at a level which is predictable . . . The level of funding to Australian school children has never been predictable, under the Liberal-National Party Government or under this Government. It is related to a whole range of factors which are unpredictable from year to year. If it were wished to have the ability to be predictable, one would have thought that the previous Government's Budget might have got somewhere near target; it did not. The ability to predict in these matters does not exist. Paragraph (d) states: supports the principle of freedom of choice in education and the right of all parents to be supported in that choice; This is not possible. It was never possible under the previous Government. It could not possibly be so under this Government. No government, under its accountability procedures, can give an open cheque to anybody. Paragraph (e) of the amendment states: deplores the restriction of the free development of non-Government schools . . . There have always been restrictions on the development of schools, government and non-government. The previous Minister restricted it in certain ways by the way in which funding was provided. These are regulations and criteria which all schools must fulfil. Therefore, we cannot deplore restrictions on the development of schools that the present Government uses or the previous Government used. We would certainly support paragraph (f) in terms of the arbitrary cuts to some Schools Commission programs and to the professional development program. I am not sure that they are unexplained. I had an explanation. I did not accept it. I would be able to support paragraphs (a) and (f), but the others I think, are simply nonsense. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.49) —I am somewhat bemused by the Australian Democrats' attitudes. At first I thought that they would not support paragraph (a) on their argument that basically, because the previous Government had broken some promises it had provided a precedent and, therefore, this Government could break promises. Clearly, if one looks at the specific promises on which this Government was elected to office, one realises that it has broken very significant promises indeed. Senator Macklin —I said that we supported that; you did not listen. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, I did. Senator Macklin —Don't misconstrue what I said. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let the Democrats resent as they wish. If Senator Macklin had listened, he would know that I said that during his argument one could have been forgiven for reaching a particular conclusion. Senator Macklin —If you can reach that, that is your problem. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Macklin can become angry. Every time it is exposed that in the main parts the Democrats simply reflect the decisions of the Australian Labor Party, the Democrats get hostile. But, of course, more and more - Senator Macklin —You should have asked the Prime Minister about that last night. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Indeed, but the fact is that the Hansard and the Democrats' voting patterns are a clear record of where they stand. This is a classic. Senator Macklin —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have raised before the matter of misrepresentation of votes of the Senate. The votes of the Senate are for divisions and votes taken on the voices. There is a clear direction, and indeed a statement from the previous President, in relation to our votes. A misrepresentation of our votes is going on. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —There is no point of order. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The fact is that the Democrats, by not supporting paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e), are in fact contributing to the erosion and the destruction- Senator Macklin —Oh, it does nothing; it is a pious attachment to the second reading. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —If Senator Macklin wants to interject, I will draw the attention of the listening public to the fact that the Democrats are angry today because they find themselves in a position where they are going to be exposed as supporting the Government in its erosion of and attacks on the independent schools. Senator Macklin —Oh, you tried that last year. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Macklin can grumble like a volcano in the corner if he wants to. The fact is that this Government came into office and set about destroying the basic principles of the dual stream of education and no one can deny that. It set about attacking the basic grant in a solid concept. No one can deny that, and this amendment says that. This Government took away the fixed percentage grant which gave every school the certainty, the guarantee, that it could predict next year and the year after what funds would come in. It has in fact said to every one of those independent schools: 'You, the most needy schools cannot in future be guaranteed your funds'. It is very clear that those who do not support paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) are saying that they believe in this attack, that they believe in this erosion of the dual stream of education, that therefore those people who are protesting throughout Australia today are wrong and that they are opposed to the protests. I simply rise to put in place what this amendment means. This amendment speaks with the voice of the people throughout Australia who are saying that they are concerned about the quality of education and that they are protesting about the Federal Government's erosion of policies in education and its breaking of promises. It is quite clear where the amendment stands. The Opposition will, of course support the amendment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.53) —I support the amendment. The amendment as now drafted is unexceptionable. One could be tendentious about some of the aspects. For example, Senator Macklin has indicated that the Australian Democrats will not support paragraph (e) because it deplores the restrictions on the free development of non-government schools as an expression of the will of the parents. He says he will not support that because one cannot have unrestricted establishment of schools. But the restriction here refers to the restriction in this Bill. The restriction in this Bill locks in students not only at non-government schools but also in government schools in established areas and denies the right of large groups of people who, for perhaps conscientious reasons, will not have the opportunity of expressing their right to choose the type of education best suited to their children. Let us say, for example-I suppose this is something that could be raised in the Committee debate-a group of Muslims wanted to establish a small school in an established area based on the rights of parents to choose the type of education most suited to their children and family environment. Under the restrictions contained in this legislation, they would not be able to do so if the establishment of the school in some way significantly affected either the other non-government schools or the government schools in the area. That is the sort of restriction that we are condemning. The Government can argue why the amendment cannot be supported, but the word ' restriction' refers to restrictions in the legislation. The other matters have been adequately canvassed in the second reading debate. Senator Baume said, during his speech in moving his amendment, that he would not recanvass those issues and nor will I, but I thought I should at least raise that question to indicate that the amendment really applies to the measure that is now before us. I support the measure but if it fails I have another amendment to move at an appropriate stage to embrace whatever consensus we can get in order to make the Government honour its promises. Senator Macklin —Is it a Committee stage amendment? Senator HARRADINE —No, I am foreshadowing that if this amendment is defeated I will move an amendment to the motion for the second reading motion which condemns the Government for its many dishonoured promises to Australian secondary students and for the unexplained and arbitrary cuts to some Schools Commission programs, in particular the professional development program. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Scott, D. B. Crichton-Brown, N. A. Teague, B. C. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. (Teller)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 Ryan, S. M. Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Withers, R. G. Childs, B. K. Rae, PeterGiles, P. J. Messner, A. J. Grimes, D. J. Hamer, D. J. Robertson, E. A. Martin, K. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.05) —I move as a further amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time the following words: At end of motion, add: ', but the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for its many dishonoured promises to Australian secondary students; and (b) condemns the Government for the unexplained and arbitrary cuts to some Schools Commission Programs and, in particular, to the Professional Development Program.' In order that honourable senators can follow my amendment, the words are before them in paragraphs (a) and (f) of the previous motion. I move that on the understanding that we have a good deal of support for that at least. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.06) —Mr President, while we were disappointed that the amendment we moved could not be suppported by the Senate we are grateful to Senator Harradine for identifying two parts of our amendment which he has moved as a separate amendment on its own. Tho Opposition will be supporting Senator Harradine's amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Harradine's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator The Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. Hill, R. Baume, Peter Jessop, D. S. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Kilgariff, B. F. Boswell, R. L. D. Lajovic, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Lewis, A. W. R. Chaney, F. M. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Evans, Jack Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Haines, J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. 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. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Withers, R. G. Childs, B. K. Rae, PeterGiles, P. J. Messner, A. J. Grimes, D. J. Hamer, D. J. Robertson, E. A. Martin, K. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.12) —I would like the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) to explain something in the explanatory memorandum which was circulated with her authority. The following statement appears at page 2: ''approved authority''-in the existing legislation has been re-expressed in sub- clause (18). Can she please tell us where in sub-clause 18? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.13) —I am advised by an officer that there is an error in the explanatory notes. The wording should have been 'sub-clause 17'. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.14) —On behalf of the Opposition, I move: (1) Page 3, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of ''developing area'', lines 19 to 21 , leave out the definition. This amendment really is consequential upon the Committee agreeing to other amendments. It may or may not suit the Committee to consider this amendment now. We could come back to it after we determine the series of amendments which relate to restrictions upon the development of new non-government schools. I am in the hands of the Committee. However, I indicate that this amendment is consequential upon other amendments. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.14) —I have indicated that the Government will not accept amendments at the Committee stage. Therefore, Senator Baume can proceed in a way he judges most suitable to him. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.15) —I thank the Minister for her indication. I therefore move: That consideration of clause 3 be postponed. Question resolved in the negative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.15) —The Opposition opposes the attempts being made to contain and restrict the development of new non- government schools. Our amendment seeks to delete a definition which is a part of the structure being put in place to contain the development of new non- government schools. Perhaps I may explain to the Committee that the Government, by drawing a distinction between established areas and developing areas, and by placing on the development of non-government schools conditions that are different, as between the two areas, hopes to put in place its restrictive policies on the development of new schools. The Opposition believes that it is necessary to remove that definition as part of an attempt to remove these restrictive provisions. There may be very good reasons why parents may wish to establish a new school in any area. It may be an appropriate time to identify part of the Opposition's argument. I will take a concrete example which uses the situation to which Senator Harradine has referred. In the St George area of Sydney, and the surrounding district, there has been a big influx of Arabic speaking people, many of whom practise Islam. There can be no doubt that it is an established area but its demography has changed. The people who have moved into it represent a difference in demography. I am aware that some of them wish to establish a new Islamic school. Since it is an established area, the Bill will impose restrictive conditions, in terms of the impact statement that must be sought. If the development of the school would have an adverse effect upon government or non-government schools in the area it is possible that it may be refused funding support by the Government . We simply think that that is wrong; that in fact there is no reason why we cannot continue to rationalise the use of resources. That is just one example which might justify the development of a new non-government school in an established area. I repeat, our amendment seeks to remove certain words which are part of a package of provisions in the Bill which will make it more difficult for new non-government schools to be established. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.18) — This particular Opposition amendment, as Senator Baume has pointed out, relates to several others. Indeed, if the words proposed to be taken out were taken out we would also have to take out of sub- clause 11 (f) of clause 3 the words 'situated in an area other than a developing area'. The reason the Democrats believe that that part only would have to be taken out is that it is its policy that impact statements should be required in relation to the development of any school in any area. The Government has taken the lesser position of stating that such impact statements need only be prepared in respect of developed areas, so the policy of the Democrats in this regard is certainly tougher then that set out in the Bill. Therefore, we believe that, if these words are taken out, it would be essentially detrimental to the private schools, in the sense that Senator Baume talks about, in the developing areas. If one looks at the Bill-I raised the question previously with the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) as to why developing areas were there -one discovers that the type of issue raised by Senator Baume and Senator Harradine is incorporated in other parts of the Bill. It is possible for a school such as a Muslim school to be established. I am quite sure that, if the type of preconditions that Senator Baume suggested occurred, that is, there was a significant ethnic component change in the population, the types of reasons would well exist under this Act for the provision of such a school. I think Senator Baume's case is taken care of by this. There may be other cases but I think the case raised by Senator Baume is probably the starkest type of case in that it is accommodated under the Act. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.21) —I am grateful for Senator Macklin's comments because they do clarify the situation. There is nothing in the new provisions that would inevitably prevent a school, such as the possible Muslim school, being established in an area where there was an influx of people of the Muslim faith who wanted that sort of a school. In fact if there were an influx that in itself , as Senator Macklin has pointed out, would change the demography of the area and so there would be a justification. All we are seeking to do here is to ensure that resources are used rationally. This is very much in the interests of non-government schools, as non-government school administrators in many cases have admitted or acknowledged to me in my discussion with them. It is simply misleading for Senator Peter Baume to suggest that we can have a totally libertarian situation with regard to the development of schools. It would be irresponsible of a Commonwealth or a State government to say that anyone can set up a school of any character wherever that person may like and there will inevitably be funding regardless of how much community effort has already been put into schools in that area. The decisions, of course, are not made directly by me. Ultimately they are approved by me. The State planning and finance committees, whose work Senator Baume will be very familiar with, examine priorities for new schools. They make decisions. On those State planning finance committees are representatives from non-government schools, parents, teachers and administrators. They are very representative committees and they establish the priorities for the development of new schools in any State. We are giving guidelines to them, particularly in regard to developed areas, because there can be particular problems in developed areas. In answer to Senator Macklin's question about why we did not require the same kind of impact statement from developing areas, we have confidence in the State planning and finance committees procedures in developing areas. We work in close co-operation with the non-government sector. The non-government sector knows that it is in its interests too in new areas to have the planning worked out as soon as possible. So if we know there is to be a new area developed out in the western suburbs of Sydney, the State planning and finance committees know from the earliest stage that, for example, the Catholic Education Commission will be interested in establishing a school there. The ratio is usually about 1:4; say, four government primary schools to one Catholic school. The committees know that they will need to put a school there. There does not seem to be the disruption that one can get in a developed area. Similarly, if there were to be a school of another character in a developing area, that school's resources can be planned in a rational way because the school knows that it can start, get its capital loan and so forth. But in the developed areas it is simply not a responsible approach to administration to say that, regardless of how many schools exist, regardless of how many resources are being put into schools in an area, any school, without investigation of the impact, can automatically be set up. But where there is a genuine case for a school of a different character, where it can be established that there will not be serious disruption-in the case of the possible Muslim school I do not believe there would be disruption if the Muslims are coming newly into that area-then I presume that the state planning and finance committees would give their approval to such a school and I would certainly endorse that approval. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.25) —Quite clearly the Government's purpose in putting in new provisions requiring impact statements is to create circumstances under which some non-government schools may find it more difficult to be registered and to get funding. The situation that has existed up to now has been an almost libertarian situation: Provided schools have been non-profit organisations and provided they have had registration from the appropriate State authority as meeting the educational requirements, they have qualified automatically for funding. People must understand that what is being proposed is a movement away from that situation to a potentially more restrictive-the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) may say 'potentially more restrictive-situation. The only purpose in requiring impact statements is that sooner or later some proposed school somewhere will be found, on an impact statement, not to deserve funding. We are concerned because the clause has that capability and because there is a possibility of the Minister being required to make a determination that a school not get funding on the basis of an impact study. By way of illustration the Minister mentioned Muslim children. Quite clearly if within an established area there were a movement of several hundred children from government schools to, perhaps, an Islamic school it would have an effect upon the established government schools-of course it would. But that is no reason to put barriers in the way of the establishment of that school; it is a difference of philosophy. There are those who favour system efficiency over individual parental choice and thre are those who favour parental choice and see it as being something that needs to be responded to. Let me make it quite clear that we do favour the right of parents in forming a school-provided they meet educational requirements and can obtain State registration, and provided they meet the condition that the school would be non-profit-to have access to funding . Of course we endorse co-operative planning. I think mention was made of Aberfoyle Park in South Australia, where there was close co-operative planning, and on one campus four schools were established. Of course we applaud that. That is just good, common sense. We are not against that. We are concerned because we see, in this clause, the establishment of a systematic barrier to some school, some time, somewhere being established and getting funding. I will return to the amendment. We are concerned about the definition of ' developing area' as it is set out. There is no indication of what a developing area is or what areas are developing. They are those areas which the Minister says are developing areas. The Minister-I am taking an extreme example-could make a decision that the only developing areas in Australia are in the middle of the Simpson Desert. I am simply saying no criteria whatsoever are laid down as to what constitutes a developing area. Senator Macklin —It is a later part; we will come to that later. Senator PETER BAUME —No criteria are identified later. Senator Macklin —You have an amendment on that. Senator PETER BAUME —We are trying to make it clearer what a developing area needs to be. It is totally within the discretion of the Minister to determine what is a developing area. Because this definition may have significant resource implications for people wanting to establish schools, we believe the Minister has to be quite clear-if she is going to put it into the legislation-on exactly what the criteria are which will determine whether something is a developing area or an established area. We do not have that at the moment and very serious consequences can flow to the planners of new schools if in fact determinations are made that something is an established area which they would have thought was still a developing area. For example, a battle is going on at the moment in Manly-Warringah, where some people want to establish a new Anglican non- government school. Mr Temporary Chairman, I imagine you would have some interest in this matter. There is strong pressure from the New South Wales Teachers Federation not to allow that school to be established or to be funded. It may well be that the provisions in this Bill will be used to make it difficult or even impossible for that school to be established and funded. It may not. We want to change a number of things. One of them is the very vague and unspecified definition of 'developing area', with all the implications of that for planners of new schools. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.30) —Senator Baume displays remarkably little confidence in the decisions and competence of the State planning and finance committees. The criteria for the developing areas will be gazetted early in the New Year. The Schools Commission is working on those in consultation with the State planning and finance committees, but State planning and finance committees have been making decisions about developing areas for years. One of the things they do is to plan new schools for developing areas. I have total confidence that I will be appropriately advised by those State committees. I have confidence that State Education Ministers throughout this country know what is a developing area and what is not a developing area. I have confidence that those committees will resist any mischievous attempt to designate inappropriately an area as developing or developed. As Senator Baume knows very well, the Commonwealth does not engage in the detail of these decisions. We have confidence in the work of the State planning and finance committees. They go about their work in, it seems to me, a satisfactory way. Certainly all systems are happy with that arrangement. I have received no representations that we should change the nature of State planning and finance committees. People are always happy to co-operate and to accept membership of them. They will be the main sources of information and advice about developing areas, but the more detailed guidelines for the application of this provision will be gazetted by the Schools Commission after substantial consultation in the New Year. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.32) —This is a very important matter because it impinges upon the rights of parents to choose the type of education best suited to their children. It is all very well for the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) to say that the criteria will be gazetted in January, February or whenever. That is not good enough. Presumably what will be gazetted is the definition of a developing area, or such matters. Clause 3 says: 'developing area' means a geographical area that is, in accordance with criteria determined under sub-section (20), a developing area for the purposes of this Act. What are the purposes? The purpose of this clause is to restrict the establishment of non-government schools. This will be the criteria determined under clause 3 (20), which says: The Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette determine criteria for the identification of a geographical area as a developing area for the purposes of this Act. Quite frankly, I think it is quite legitimate for honourable senators to ask the Minister, in the Committee stage of the debate, what she means and what is intended to be determined as a developing area, before we vote on the matter. Senator Macklin gave the example of people who follow the Islamic faith in, say, an inner suburban area of a major city and who want to establish a school. Under that sort of criteria they would not be able to do so. Senator Macklin says they would be able to do so because it would involve demographic changes. Senator Ryan responded by saying: 'Well, I am glad Senator Macklin explained that to us' . It certainly has not explained it to me. What does the work 'demographic' mean ? It deals with the births, deaths, marriages and diseases of population. What has that to do with the price of fish so far as the example we gave is concerned ? It has nothing to do with it. Senator Macklin —The important thing now is to deal with the shift in population . Senator HARRADINE —That is the whole point. If we are talking about a shift in population, that does not pay regard to the rights of the parents to choose the type of education best suited to the child. Does this mean shifts in population from one geographical area to another? If that is what it means it is a very dangerous criteria indeed because it excludes the example that was given by Senator Baume. It would most certainly exclude that example. It would lock those children of the Islamic faith into a government school, a Catholic school or another non-government school in a given area. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.36) —It might assist honourable senators if I table the administrative guidelines for 1984-I thought all honourable senators would have examined them-which have been sent out by the Commonwealth Schools Commission to school administrators. Several pages in those guidelines describe the nature of development in established areas. They cover many more things than Senator Harradine has suggested they might cover. They cover population patterns, housing development, existing infrastructure, land use and so on. They are quite extensive. I will table them now for the assistance of honourable senators. I must resile from any suggestion that seems to be being beaten up in this Committee debate that we are trying to restrict the development of schools of a particular faith, for example the Muslim schools. There will be no unnecessary restriction but any person who thinks responsibly about the rational use of scarce resources must agree that some sorts of planning procedures and impact statements are a necessary part of responsible administration. I now table the guidelines. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.37) —I do not know whether those guidelines were made available previously to parliamentarians. Senator Macklin —Yes, they have. I have them. Senator PETER BAUME —That is all right, but they are not contained in legislation. The fact that Senator Macklin has them does not mean that all parliamentarians have them, because he is a spokesman on education. I do not know that they have been tabled in the Parliament. It is all very well to say that the guidelines are contained in a document, but we are now trying to put into legislation some principles which can be used and which the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has said will be used possibly to restrict in some way the development of some schools. The Minister said it is necessary to do so. That is precisely what we are worried about. It is not a question of the particular example that the Opposition used. We used it as an illustration. It is interesting that these criteria which the Minister says are contained in the document are not contained in the legislation. They are not contained in subordinate legislation which has to come before the Parliament. Any criteria could be laid down and the Parliament would have no chance to make any input into them. It is not satisfactory. I ask the Minister another question. She keeps coming back to the role of the planning and finance committees. Is it not true that, in restricting the development of new schools, the right of those people to draw recurrent funding in respect of their children may also be put at risk, and that a school that has not passed, as it were, the impact statement test not only may have its access to capital funding restricted-that is where the planning and finance committees come in very directly-but also may have its access to recurrent funding interfered with? If a school has been registered by the State as meeting certain criteria and as a non-profit organisation, is it possible, if it has not passed the impact statement test, that it could be denied recurrent funding? Is this not something that should worry all parents and all school systems? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.39) —Of course it is not something that should worry parents and schools and of course there is always some sort of planning and administrative procedure. When Senator Baume was Minister for Education there were planning and administrative procedures. We are refining those to some extent in a rational way. Once schools are established, according to both the Commonwealth and the States, of course they have rights to recurrent funding. Registration procedures will be improved in all States. All State Ministers endorsed the working party report on registration. I believe that rational planning will now be carried out to a much greater extent by the States as a result of that decision. The Commonwealth of course, will make recurrent funding available to schools which are properly established. Senator Baume keeps positing this totally libertarian situation as if it prevailed previously, when it did not, as if it would ever prevail in the future under any administration, which it would not. Senator Baume cannot say that should his Party get back into government it would have no interest in the planning effects of new schools, that it would have no interest in the sorts of standards under which the schools would operate and that his Party would simply say: 'It is a school. It has funding. There is no accountability. We are not interested in any effects that school will have'. If he likes to say that, no one will believe him because the business of administrating government funds is a very serious responsibility. We have to be able to account to the public for the way in which public funds are spent under the education budget, as under all budgets. We are simply establishing a more rational way in which the development of new schools can be facilitated. I say 'facilitated' because I believe it is in the interests of communities wishing to establish new non-government schools that there be proper and rational procedures. Senator Baume will be aware that many schools which started without proper planning, perhaps because of some parental enthusiasm or a desire to exercise a choice, as Senator Harradine would say, have collapsed six months later because of inadequate planning. How disruptive is that for the children? How disruptive is that for the parents? How wasteful of resources is that? If Senator Baume is saying that those developments are of no concern to him, he may say so. But this Government is concerned with accountability, with rational planning and with facilitating parents being able to make choices which will turn out to be effective and will provide stable education to their children. To suggest that we are improperly trying to restrict the exercise of choice is totally erroneous. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.42) —The Minister, in her explanation 10 minutes ago, emphasised the role of the State planning and finance committees . I ask the Minister again: What role do they play in giving access to current funding? Is it not a fact that the proposed provisions will put at risk recurrent funding for certain schools? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.43) —The State planning and finance committees do have a role in establishing rights for recurrent funding. They recommend the appropriate category for a new non-government school and those recommendations, of course, go to the Commonwealth Schools Commission. Senator Peter Baume —And the decision is made by whom? Senator RYAN —Ultimately the decision is made by the Minister, but it would be a decision which may be delegated to the Chairman of the Schools Commission. Some of the powers of the Minister are delegated. The process would be that a State planning and finance committee would make recommendations, advice would be given to the Schools Commission, then the Schools Commission would give advice to the Minister. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.44) —The Minister has made excuses for certain measures in the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill. We are in a difficult position because we are talking about the definition of 'developing area' on page 3 of the Bill, whereas we ought really to be talking about clause 24 of the Bill. I am really flying in the dark. The Minister said a moment ago as an excuse for these provisions, words to this effect: 'Should there not be some planning for new schools?' As she said in a previous contribution to this Committee debate, there has always been some planning and the State planning and finance committees have worked very hard. I have worked with at least one of them and I know some of the work that they do. Now we find that in this legislation it is being attempted to impose other criteria. I have just received the tabled document produced by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. This is the first time that I have seen it. I am apparently on the black list of the Schools Commission. Senator Peter Baume —Not on the inside running list. Senator HARRADINE —I am not on the inside running list of the Schools Commission . I must say that I intend to keep the Schools Commission under a great deal of scrutiny, as far as possible. Certain members of the Schools Commission have a set position against non-government schools and it is quite an odd situation. Senator Ryan —Which one? Senator HARRADINE —The Minister asks: 'Which one'? There are a number of them but, if she wants to know, Van Davey is one who has already put forward, as was publicly stated, the zero funding option. That is one of the Minister's appointees to the Commission. However, I hope to get at least some of the documentation on the Schools Commission and if I find I have not I will be raising the matter in the Parliament. This document has some 15 to 20 pages. I will not read it here, but it is relevant to this debate. The Opposition spokesman on education and other honourable senators have not been given the document. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.46) —I indicate that we will seek to divide at appropriate places throughout the Committee stage. I will be interested to see how the vote goes on this definition, but we will not necessarily divide on this amendment. Amendment negatived. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.47) —I move: (2) Page 10, sub-clause 3 (9), lines 13 to 30, leave out all words after '' systemic school'' (line 13). This amendment raises another part of the unsatisfactory provisions which are being introduced. This sub-clause seeks to provide arrangements to allow the Minister to review the status of a school if it has undergone a substantial change in character. The document the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) has just circulated-she chided me, in a way, for not having some knowledge about it-says that a change in character of an existing school from a profit making to a non-profit making character would be sufficient to bring that school within this provision. It provides that the school, if it changes its character, will need to undergo certain review procedures for consideration by the Minister. This may mean that a school which falls within that definition ceases to be a systemic school-this is the section relating to systemic schools-and may be removed from the system. It is possible for part of the school, the whole school or none of the school to be redeclared a systemic school, depending upon the change which has taken place. Of course, that will affect the recurrent support the system can attract for application on behalf of the children at that school. These are quite worrying provisions. If a school, which has been a primary school, starts a secondary stream it may be quite proper for the Minister to say in respect of that secondary stream: 'We want to have some negotiations and to talk'. But this provides an unfettered capacity for the Minister if she so wished. It does not matter what advice the Minister receives. In the end it is her decision to declare no part of a school as being a systemic school and in fact to declare none of the school for purposes of recurrent funding. The uncertainties in this clause as it is written are giving grave concern to some non-government school authorities and representatives. The clause refers to a substantial change-a substantially different body of students attending the school. What does 'substantial' mean? It means what the Minister thinks it means in the end. The clause also refers to an announced plan for the school. What is a plan for the school? Does it mean that every new school that is developed will immediately put out a plan covering its development from kindergarten to year 12 to guard against the possibility of being caught not having included in some plan its possible extension to a broad and comprehensive educational provision? What constitutes a public announcement in terms of the clause? The difficulty about this clause is that established schools which may wish to alter, upgrade or improve what they are doing are placed at risk. We think that one of the purposes of this provision is to prevent existing schools, particularly existing Catholic schools, from expanding their capacity, the number of places they offer and their offerings in certain districts. I moved around Sydney and visited government schools and non-government schools. Among the non-government schools I visited Catholic systemic schools. I have yet to go to a Catholic systemic school that is not bursting at the seams because of the number of children. I have yet to go to a Catholic systemic school that is not desperate for the opportunity to offer more places-they have long waiting lists-and I have yet to go to an opening at which the bishops do not advise me of the large numbers of people who are unable to get admission for their children into the Catholic school system. Parents in many areas feel cheated because they cannot find places in the parochial school system. They want the schools to expand and to add new streams. They do not like the idea that when their children get to sixth grade, for example, in a Catholic parochial school there will be no Catholic high school available to them. I am reminded of a visit I made to Marayong recently, which is in the Chairman's and my electorate. I went to a very good parochial school there and talked to the sisters. Adjacent is the regional Catholic high school which is bursting at the seams. There is a worry emerging that next year, the year after or very soon it will not be possible to offer automatic progression to those children in the primary school-children already in the system. I move the amendment to take out all the words after 'systemic school' because the words that follow in clause 3 (9) impose restrictions upon the schools' opportunity to expand. It is our belief that we should encourage them to expand, and we should facilitate their expansion. We think that because of the uncertainties, the vaguenesses and the imprecision of some of the words, and because they give unfettered discretion to the Minister, the words following ' systemic school' should be struck out. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.55) —Clause 3 (9) of the Bill places in doubt the legislation's effect on the systemic schools in respect of recurrent grants. The classification of a school as a systemic school will be as contained in this provision and the systemic schools will be gazetted but, to characterise the wording of the legislation, if the Minister is satisfied that a school's character has substantially changed the school is automatically removed from the list of systemic schools. We cannot foresee the effect of this provision on the systemic school system simply because we cannot foresee what will be in the Minister's mind in two months time, let alone what is in her mind now. A substantial change in a school's character can occur in a number of ways. As is detailed in the legislation, a school could have a change of location, thus having a substantially different body of students. As has been explained by Senator Baume, it could provide education at a different level. It is entirely up to the Minister whether or not that is a substantial change in the school's character. It is certainly a change in the school's character. If in the Minister's mind it is a substantial change, of course the Minister alone can decide whether that school obtains recurrent grants. I know there are problems about all of these things. I understand an amendment is coming down the track for an appeal mechanism in respect of decisions taken on these matters. Senator Ryan —An appeals mechanism already exists. Senator HARRADINE —From Caesar to Caesar. What we require is an easily recognisable system in which everybody knows where he is, and that cannot be achieved by the provisions in this Bill. If the Minister can tell us what is her definition of a substantial change, at least we can get somewhere towards understanding the legislation about which we are supposed to make a decision. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.59) —I am surprised that Senator Baume is showing such familiarity with the situation in which Catholic schools in his electorate need expansion. I am surprised that he has not acknowledged the advances we have made to assist them to expand by way of the increases in the capital program and the forward committing of capital for those schools. In answer to Senator Harradine's question as to what is in my mind, what will be in my mind is the advice I will receive from the State planning and finance committees and from the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The Government does not accept the Opposition's amendment. Progress reported. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that Senator Walsh will be absent from Question Time today. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Walsh can be directed to me. Senator DURACK —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence. I ask: Is it a fact that the British aircraft carrier HMS Invincible has been refused dry dock facilities at Garden Island in Sydney because the British Government has refused either to confirm or deny that the ship is carrying nuclear weapons? Is it not standard practice for the navies of Australia's major allies not to declare which ships are and which are not nuclear-armed for the very good reason that such information would be of great value to potential enemies? Have any ships of allied nations been denied facilities before? What effect will this refusal have on visits by ships from other allied nations which may need to use Australian repair facilities? Senator GARETH EVANS —A visit to Sydney by HMS Invincible meets the normal criteria for routine visits by the warships of our allies. While HMS Invincible has a technical difficulty which may have necessitated it going into dry dock, the British have now decided that the ship will not be docked at this time. I am advised that the change to HMS Invincible's program was made by the Royal Navy for operational reasons. It is for the Royal Navy to comment on the nature of those operational reasons. As to the question of the carriage of nuclear weapons , it is the case that, again for sound operational reasons to which successive Australian governments have agreed, our major allies neither confirm nor deny the carriage of nuclear weapons on board their warships. Accordingly, this Government is not in a position to confirm or deny whether HMS Invincible had nuclear weapons on it. I add-in case the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not caught up with it yet-that in the House of Representatives yesterday the Opposition made it clear that its policy would permit the placing of nuclear weapons in the Central Business Discrict in Sydney. That is not something which the Government finds an attractive proposition. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I was really seeking to find out the real basis of the decision of the British authorities not to make use of the dry dock facility. Was it conveyed to them by this Government that unless they answered queries by the Government they would not be allowed to dry dock? Were any queries made by this Government to them in relation to the carriage of nuclear weapons? Was the attitude of this Government in relation to this matter a factor in the British authorities' decision? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have already indicated in my first answer that it is for the Royal Navy rather than the Australian Government to comment on the nature of such operational reasons it may have had for the taking of the decision it did. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the new assets test telephone information service which has been established. I ask the Minister: Is information available on how many telephone calls have been received by the assets test hot line service set up in each State and Territory? What are the main items queried by people who are using the telephone service? Can the Minister say what proportion of callers to the assets test information service appear to be unaffected by the assets test on pensions? Has an evaluation been done of the effectiveness of the service? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Maguire has said, a telephone hotline service has been set up in each State so that people and organisations can inquire as to how they may be affected by the assets test if and when it is established. The number of people ringing up has been considerable. I do not have the exact number in front of me at the moment. Most of the inquiries have been as a result of mistaken views and mistaken apprehensions of people because of the mixed quality of some of the comments made on the assets test. As would be expected from the figures, the majority of people in fact have found that they will not be affected by the assets test. Many of the inquiries, I think also understandably, are about the exemptions for things such as holiday homes and the leisure package, as it has been called. That is understandable because the debate in the media seems to have concentrated on this area rather than on the more equitable redistribution of funds which would result from the reintroduction of such a test. Before the end of Question Time I will obtain for Senator Maguire and the Senate the exact details of the number of people who have used the service and a breakdown of the sorts of inquiries we have received. I believe such a service is a sensible way of providing information for people about proposed government programs. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I refer the Attorney-General to the allegations made in the Senate yesterday by Senator Primmer concerning the head of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, Mr John Ryan. I ask: Is it true that Senator Primmer, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, was called in and reprimanded by the Prime Minister for his deplorable outburst? Will the Attorney-General state in the clearest possible terms the Government's condemnation of the persistent and baseless allegations which Senator Primmer has been making about officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs for such a long time? Does the Attorney agree that a clear statement of Government attitude is very desirable, especially in view of comments made yesterday by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs when he strongly supported Senator Primmer's right to go on making such attacks? Does the Attorney-General support Senator Gietzelt's statement? The PRESIDENT —I assume the question was asked of Senator Evans in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Senator Sir John Carrick —Not only in that capacity. I asked the question of the Minister in his capacity both as the Attorney-General and as the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr President, as you may well recollect, a security link is involved in the question. Yesterday during the debate on this matter the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation was mentioned. The PRESIDENT —I call Senator Evans in both ministerial responsibilities. Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the first part of the question, the answer is no. As to the latter parts of the question, I indicate that both Mr Hayden in the House of Representatives and I in this place, speaking both on behalf of Mr Hayden and on occasion, like yesterday, on behalf of myself, have made clear our distaste for allegations being made under the cover of privilege if, in fact, they prove to be without foundation. In replies to earlier allegations from Senator Primmer , those points have been made, and made with some vigour, both by Mr Hayden and by myself on his behalf in this place. As to Senator Primmer's contribution to the debate yesterday, I indicated in my personal explanation yesterday that the Government would wish to have something in the nature of further hard evidence from Senator Primmer before being willing to regard his allegations as other than both offensive and unbelievable. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr President, to seek some clarification I ask a supplementary question. The Attorney-General said that the answer to the first part of the question was no. Do I understand that he means it is not true; that the newspaper report that Senator Primmer was summoned by the Prime Minister and reprimanded is untrue? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is correct. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government aware that Father Brian Gore, an Australian priest who has worked for many years amongst the poorest and most oppressed people on Negros Island in the Philippines, is still under house arrest whilst serious criminal charges against him are pursued? Has the Government aided Father Gore by way of representations generally or in relation to the trial itself? Can the Government say what its understanding of the present stage and integrity of that trial process is, particularly given the evident deterioration of the governing capacity of the central Government of the Philippines? Senator GARETH EVANS —The case of Father Brian Gore remains of deep and continuing interest to the Government which is continuing to monitor the situation very closely. As both Mr Hayden and I, on his behalf, stated earlier this year, the Government will give Father Gore all appropriate assistance to ensure that he has the opportunity to clear his name in accordance with due process of Philippine law, such as that may be. Father Brian Gore was arrested, it will be recalled, on a murder charge on 6 May this year together with Father O'Brien, an Irish priest; Father Dangan, a Filipino priest; and six lay workers. President Marcos ordered the release of the three priests into house arrest on 7 May. The six lay workers, though, remain in custody. Following lodgment of bail petitions on 10 May, Father Gore and the other priests were formally arraigned on the charge of multiple murder. On 17 May all pleaded not guilty. The formal bail hearings concluded on 6 July. Consideration of the petition on its merits by the presiding judge could not formally commence until the newly appointed prosecution lawyers had submitted a memorandum summarising the prosecution case. That memorandum was received, we understand, by the court on 7 November. The next step is now for the court to give its written decision. Our Embassy in Manila, I am advised, is maintaining daily contact with Father Gore's attorney. Available evidence indicates that due processes of law are being followed to this point. Father Gore has requested no additional assistance beyond that which is now being provided to him. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I refer the Attorney-General to reports that the Labor Caucus yesterday established a five-man group to consult with him and work on a submission to the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. I ask the Attorney-General: Is the setting up of this working party a reflection of Caucus unrest over the Government's handling of recent incidents concerning national security, namely, the Combe-Ivanov affair and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service raid on the Sheraton Hotel? What status will this submission enjoy? Will it represent a Government or merely a Caucus-Labor Party organisation view? Does the Attorney-General believe that the submission should first be presented to him for Government consideration before going to the Commission? Senator GARETH EVANS —The decision to establish a committee to work up a submission to Mr Justice Hope in respect of the latter part of his inquiry is not a reflection, in any sense, of Caucus unrest, as Senator Crichton-Browne puts it, with recent developments. There was indeed an endorsement by Caucus yesterday of Mr Hawke's statement and the terms of the report accordingly. There is, however, a continuing concern within the Government Party and the Government about the operation of Australian security services. That concern is reflected in the Party platform and it was certainly reflected in the pre-election policy statements for which I was responsible so far as the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation was concerned. We do believe, as I have said on numerous public occasions, that the accountability mechanisms in relation to ASIO need to be improved in a number of ways which I have spelt out in detail in this chamber, particularly in debates on the ASIO legislation in 1979. We also believe that there need to be additional avenues of redress for organisations and individuals who may be prejudiced or think they are prejudiced by reports of the security service. So much was recommended in general terms by Mr Justice Hope and so much is very much a Government commitment. There is also a case clearly for reviewing aspects of the operation and administration of ASIO other than in a legislative sense. That action will certainly be taken in consultation with the organisation concerned. So, putting all that together, there is clearly a case for a submission to be made to Mr Justice Hope who is considering these and other matters. So far as possible it is desired to present a co-ordinated submission reflecting the views of the Australian Labor Party in accordance with its platform. In the event that it does not prove possible to reach complete agreement as to what the contents of such a party submission will be, I will put in on behalf of the Government, as I have always intended to do with the Government's approval, a submission reflecting the Government's view. But at the moment, as I understand the situation, there is very little, if any, difference between the Government's view and that of the Party, not that the latter's view is any business of Senator Crichton-Browne or anyone else in this chamber. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that under the present health care arrangements doctors who bulk bill have experienced in some cases quite considerable delays in receiving payment from the Commonwealth? How will this problem be addressed under Medicare? Will the Minister spell out how doctors will be paid under the new bulk billing arrangements? Senator GRIMES —Under the present arrangements doctors have experienced difficulties with bulk billing. Primarily this arises out of the fact that bulk billing arrangements at the moment involve fairly complicated steps. In the case of those with health care cards and pensioner health benefit cards the numbers must be matched not only by the Department of Health but also by the Department of Social Security. This involves considerable delays. Under Medicare everyone will have a Medicare card and number and will qualify for the Medicare rebate. As a result, those doctors who bulk bill will be able to have their bulk billing claims processed very quickly because there is no necessity for matching, no necessity to go to the Department of Social Security, for instance, to work out who is eligible and who is not or whether a person is still eligible. Therefore, under these arrangements the processing time will be reduced considerably. The difficulties under the existing system did create problems. The Government recognised this and the Department in recent times has overcome these problems so that now processing times and delays are down to a fortnight or a bit more. Under Medicare the Health Insurance Commission hopes to get the processing time down to five days. Universal coverage will be of great advantage to doctors who bulk bill. As has happened in similar systems overseas, I believe that as the years go by a greater percentage of doctors will take advantage of bulk billing. It will be of advantage to not only themselves but also their patients. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Now that the House of Representatives has returned the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill, is it the Government's intention to pressure the Senate into dropping its amendment blocking the $1.25 Yes advertising campaign by threatening to deprive Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory electors of their vote at the coming referendum? Senator GARETH EVANS —As the matter is now in the hands of the Senate, no doubt it will be debated when the Bill comes on. Senator COLSTON —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: How many Japanese nationals are employed on the Iwasaki project at Yeppoon in Queensland? What type of work are they performing? What type of entry visa were they given when they entered Australia and what are the conditions attatching to that type of visa? Senator GRIMES —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has informed me that currently 13 Japanese nationals are employed by Iwasaki-Sanyo at Yeppoon. Of these, six are to leave Australia permanently in February 1984. There is a Japanese managing director, two contracts liaison managers, one nursery manager, two contract landscapers, four botanical supervisors, and three engineers. All 13 expatriates entered Australia as temporary residents and, as such, must be sponsored by the employer who must provide evidence of having thoroughly searched the local labour market for suitable staff before the sponsorship is approved-there must be a shortage of nursery managers in Queensland. In addition , the sponsor may be required to introduce appropriate training programs to give local staff the opportunity to acquire the particular skills or expertise possessed by the temporary residents. Temporary residents are admitted for a specific purpose and they may not vary their occupation or change employer without the prior approval of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and they must depart from Australia at the end of their authorised stay. So, six of them are to leave permanently by February 1984. I gather that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs at some stage must have ensured that the conditions attached to that particular type of visa, which I have gone through, applied in those cases. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is the Attorney -General aware of a recent ruling made in the Federal Court of Australia that computer programs are not entitled to copyright protection? Is he aware that this judgment was apparently based on the fact that computer programs are not considered to be literary works within the meaning of the Copyright Act? Given the work that goes into a computer program and the extensive use to which it can be put, does the Attorney-General believe that computer programs should be treated on a similar basis to literary works? If he does, what does he propose to do about it; and, if he does not, why does he not? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am familiar with the Federal Court case to which Senator Haines referred. It involved a challenge by Apple computers against the distributor of Wombat computers. Mr Justice Beaumont, in deciding the case, noted that the Copyright Act 1968 extended protection to such technological developments as cinematograph films but did not mention computers, which were then already well known. He inferred that Parliament intended, as a result, to leave protection of computer software to other legislation, such as the Patents and Designs Acts and made his judgment accordingly. On the other hand, the trend of judicial interpretation in the United States has been different, where the Federal Appeals Court has recently held that all computer programs can be copyrighted under the current United States law, even if they are an integral part of the computer's circuitry. In Australia, the question of copyright protection for computer programs, which now assumes immediate importance in the light of this development, has been raised already in submissions to the current departmental review of audio-visual copyright laws, which is in an advanced state of progress. All that I can say, though, at this stage, is that the Department is examining the matter in consultation with the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office and with affected interests. Senator Haines —Urgently? Senator GARETH EVANS —Naturally, Senator. Everything happens as a matter of urgency in my Department. Senator CHILDS —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. How many submissions have been received by the Handicapped Programs Review? Has the 25 November deadline been extended? What arrangements have been made for telephone or Porta-Printer facilities for people who may be unable to prepare written submissions? Senator GRIMES —At last count we had received over 1,000 submissions to the Handicapped Programs Review, which is a very pleasing result. About 200 of those were oral submissions, using the special telephone line which was established for that purpose. We have extended the 25 November deadline because we realised at the time that we would certainly receive notification from some individuals and organisations that they would be making a submission but would not submit it in time. We shall still receive submissions that have come in after that date, at least up until the end of the year. The telephone line, which is a toll-free number, will continue to be used. Porta-Printer facilities were established, also on the toll-free number, enabling disabled people with hearing and speech impairments to make their submissions. Perhaps I may take the opportunity for a commercial and say that people can do this by dialling the toll-free number, which is 008-026218. They can, therefore, make their submissions despite their disabilities. We are very hopeful that as a result of this fairly free method of people putting in submissions and the free way in which people will be able to express themselves, we shall be able to get a different perception from that which has been possible in the past through the formal submission structure that has been used. As a result of that, we hope that the Department and the Parliament will have a better idea of what people think of the handicapped persons programs which exist now and give us a better idea of how they should be modified. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Has the Attorney-General obtained, and if not will he obtain, an opinion as to whether a national referendum would be valid if the people of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory were denied voting rights? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have not obtained an opinion from anyone else, but I am sufficiently confident of my own capacity to read section 128 of the Constitution as amended in 1977 to appreciate that a referendum which did go forward without making provision for Territory voters would indeed be invalid. Senator HEARN —I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In a recent speech the Minister said that estimates suggested that at least $6 billion a year was wasted through loss of production and other costs caused by injury and ill health stemming from occupational hazards. Occupational health and safety are matters of concern to workers using computers because of the many repetition injuries and eye problems which are occurring. Will the recently announced Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission be looking at the precautions needed for people working with computers? Senator BUTTON —I will have to direct that question to the Minister and obtain a detailed answer in due course. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to today's Reserve Bank of Australia announcement of the suspension of trading in overseas currencies by Australian banks. What are the reasons behind the Government's decision to take such action ? What is it expected to achieve. Senator BUTTON —I am not able to answer Senator Kilgariff's question in great detail, but I will answer it as best I can by describing the circumstances leading up to the decision by the Reserve Bank to suspend dealings in foreign exchange. I am advised that there has been a substantial excess of capital inflow into Australia so far in December. Yesterday there was a particularly substantial daily inflow amounting to about $350m and there was an expectation that today's amount could be even greater. In those circumstances the Government is considering its options in relation to capital inflow and the implications that has for economic policy. The Government took the view, in consultation with the Reserve Bank, that it was unwise to leave the exchanges open today. Today is being used to consult with the Government's advisers on the appropriate response to this current problem. The Government will make a statement at an appropriate time. Senator FOREMAN —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, been drawn to a recent market survey undertaken by Qantas Airways Ltd which shows that the number of overseas tourists coming to Australia is growing more than twice as fast as the number of Australians going overseas? Can the Minister outline what measures are being implemented by the Government to enable this trend to continue, particularly in regard to increasing the number of tourists from Japan and the United States of America? Senator RYAN —I am advised by my colleague Mr Brown that he has not yet seen the results of a recent market survey undertaken by Qantas which are contained in a draft document which at this stage is for internal distribution only. There has, however, been liaison on the matter between Qantas and the Australian Tourist Commission. The Minister is gratified by the results as reported. They confirm the wisdom of the Government's strong support for the promotion overseas of Australia as a tourist destination, as evidenced by the 95 per cent increase in the Australian Tourist Commission's budgetary allocation from $10m in 1982-83 to $19.5m in 1983-84. This allocation included a specific appropriation of $2m to capitalise on Australia's Americas Cup victory. The Australian Tourist Commission proposes to spend $17.3m, that is 88.7 per cent of its budgetary allocation on marketing activities. The Australian Tourist Commission has expanded its Tokyo office to include a new product promotion centre. The underlying objective of this centre is to convert general consumer interest in Australia into definite knowledge sufficient to allow informed buying decisions. In conjunction with the travel centre the ATC has introduced a mobile display vehicle called the Youth Market Roadshow which will enable it to mount promotions in any part of the country. The first 10-week operational program incorporated visits and promotions to 21 universities and other venues. The main promotion in Japan this financial year will, however, be the 'Friendly Australia' campaign involving upwards of 2,000 agencies. Qantas and Japan Air Lines are co-partners with the ATC in the 'Friendly Australia' campaign. In the United States of America, a program of just over $4m has been mounted. This major campaign comprises television and radio advertising, research, distribution supportive materials and publicity. Forty-two American publicists for whom Qantas will provide transport will be visiting Australia at a net cost to the Australian Tourist Commission of $34,500. Co-operative advertising to a value of $330,000 is envisaged with industry contributions totalling an additional $200,000. Qantas will contribute $80,000 of this figure. Amongst other ATC-Qantas activities has been a special hour-long feature on Australia on the Eye on LA television program. To enhance access to product information about Australia, the ATC is also planning additional tourism product promotion centres in North America. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Support. I understand that the Department of Defence Support has called tenders for the rework of the air traffic control towers at Richmond in New South Wales and East Sale in Victoria. I further understand that the tenders for these projects close on 20 January. A number of would-be tenderers are concerned at the closing date in view of the holiday shutdown. Will the Attorney refer this matter to the Minister for Defence Support to see whether there is any possibility of an extension of time for the acceptance of tenders for these projects? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will follow innumerable precedents set by the honourable questioner and do exactly what she requests. Senator JONES —Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to the statement in this morning's Press that the President of the Rainforest Conservation Society of Queensland, Dr Keto, has claimed that the action to construct a road from Cape Tribulation to Bloomfield was illegal and unconstitutional? Dr Keto further claimed that no action had been taken to allow construction of the road and that in accordance with the procedures laid down, the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service should have made a written request to the Governor-in-Council followed by a proclamation published in the Government Gazette, or, failing that action being taken, revoking of part of the national park by the State Parliament of Queensland to allow construction of this road. I ask the Attorney-General for his view in relation to the claim that construction of the road is illegal and unconstitutional. Has any written request been made by the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service? Has his Department been notified of any action taken by the State Government of Queensland to revoke part of the park to allow construction of the road? Senator Peter Baume —I raise a point of order, Mr President. Part of that question seeks a legal opinion from the Attorney-General and is clearly not allowed under the Standing Orders. The PRESIDENT —I was about to remind the honourable senator that a portion of the question sought a legal opinion. In that respect, it is not an eligible question. The other parts of the question are eligible to receive the attention of the Attorney-General. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, there seems to be a principle applied with some flexibility in this place. Senator Bjelke-Petersen's question earlier on may well have satisfied- Senator Chaney —It asked whether you had an opinion. Senator GARETH EVANS —I did, indeed, have an opinion. Regrettably I do not have an opinion on this one so even if it were permissible for me to offer one, I would not be able to do so. I will, however, seek further information on the very important matters to which Senator Jones referred and see whether it may not be possible to assist him with further information and advice. Senator BOSWELL —My question is fraternally addressed to Senator Comrade the Attorney-General. Can the good comrade advise-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the honourable senator not use that language in his question. Senator BOSWELL —Can the Attorney-General-- Senator Georges —'My good comrade'. Senator BOSWELL —Can my comrade advise me whether I am using the correct salutation to him and is the term to apply to all the Hawke Ministry? Is this form of greeting, together with the Government's commitment to remove the Queen' s name from the oath of allegiance, discard the Victoria Cross, abolish the Queen's Medal and attack States' rights by using United Nations Treaties, leading Australia into a socialist republic? The PRESIDENT —Order! Insofar as the Attorney-General does not regard the question as being a facetious one, I shall allow it. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not appropriate for Senator Boswell to refer to me as 'comrade'. There are a number of reasons for that but the most obvious of them is that it is a term of mutual endearment between people of the democratic socialist faith and however much I might be inclined to give Senator Boswell the benefit of the doubt on other matters I do not think he approximates that status . No doubt Senator Boswell is referring to the peculiarly po-faced memorandum that was written in very nicely deadpan style by a member of my Department following a suggestion from me and my staff that an appropriate way of overcoming various anti-sexist dilemmas in dealing with correspondence from members of the Party might well be to employ the familiar salutation that is employed traditionally within the labor movement. It is a salutation that I have always employed, not only when I have forgotten the name of the comrade in question, and I will continue to do so because I regard it, in common with most of my colleagues in the Labor movement, as being a fine and dignified expression and one that is wholly within the democratic socialist tradition. I appreciate that Senator Boswell's reading will not have extended so far but he ought to be aware that there are many strands in the democratic socialist tradition and the particular strand to which the expression 'comrade' owes its origin is in fact the co-operative socialist strand that originated in Britain and France in the early nineteenth century and which long pre-dated the Russian Revolution. It is a most unfortunate state of affairs that the Russian communists chose to take over a salutation which has a far more distinguished history than that and it is to that history that the continued use of the expression 'comrade' in the Labor movement owes its origin and its force. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In the Australian of today, 9 December, there is a column by Senator Fred Chaney addressing the problem of unemployment that essentially says that the wages-employment nexus, where real wages are maintained at the cost of jobs, not only is a problem this Government is failing to address but also is a policy to which it is ideologically committed. He also makes claims about this Government's 'callous deceit' with regard to youth unemployment, claiming that youth unemployment is the extreme example of the wage-employment nexus-as wages rise many employers will put off those whose productivity is less compared to their wages. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask her question. Senator CROWLEY —Yes, Mr President. He also makes some ill-placed references to Mr Willis and his Department. In the light of the Opposition's seven-year record of mismanagement of the economy and ever-increasing unemployment-- Senator Boswell —Where is the question? Senator CROWLEY —The honourable senator should not be impatient. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr President. I was somewhat distracted by the fact that I was enjoying the extensive reference to my article but the length of the question and the references seem to go well beyond the norm. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have already drawn the attention of the honourable senator to the length of the question. She is now in the course of asking her question. Senator CROWLEY —Thank you, Mr President. In the light of the Opposition's seven -year record of mismanagement of the economy and ever-increasing unemployment, can the Minister put yet again to the Opposition this Government's position and record with regard to jobs, wages and unemployment, and can he refute Senator Chaney's clearly disgraceful imputations against Mr Willis? Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I have read Senator Chaney's article in this morning's paper. The thing that sticks in my mind is that he accused this Government of disarming candour. First of all, let me say that we have tried to be candid and if it disarms people, including Senator Chaney, I suppose there is some merit in that. But the argument which the article deals with is of course a question which has been debated peripherally in the Senate from time to time and will continue to be debated. It goes to the heart of this Government's strategy and, of course, one would hope it would go to the heart of any alternative strategy that the Opposition might see fit to develop over the next few years in relation to these matters. Senator Crowley's question, of course, goes to the matter of any confidence that the people of Australia might have in any alternative strategy that might be developed on the basis of experience. Certainly the experience of the last few years, when the Fraser Government was in power, does not suggest any great confidence. As I have said on a number of occasions in this place, the Labor Government is committed to the maintenance of the real value of wages over time. I just make the point that before the election we were committed to that and we have maintained our commitment to that in terms of the maintenance of the standard of living of the Australian people. Because the question is in issue I would like briefly to refer to the relevant passage in the prices and incomes accord which refers to: The maintenance of real wages is agreed to be a key objective. It is recognised that in a period of economic crisis as is now applying that this will be an objective over time. I ask the Opposition if it has any objective different from that in terms of the maintenance of the standard of living of the Australian people, because if it has, it ought to get out there and articulate it. That is something it has very carefully chosen not to do. The alternative to articulating that view is to refer to the wage freeze which was put in place by the previous Government and which was lifted, of course, a few months ago, because apart from-- Senator Chaney —It has worked, hasn't it? Senator BUTTON —I have no worry about conceding that the wages pause had some beneficial effect in terms of inflation and employment. The measure of that effect of course is very difficult to assess, but the fact is that at a certain time the wages freeze had to end, and one of the reasons why it had to end is that the previous Government could not reach any agreement with the State governments about the duration of that wages pause. That is something which the Opposition glosses over because it cannot maintain a wage pause of that kind without the agreement of the State governments. That is a constitutional difficulty and reality in Australia which the previous Government was not facing up to at the time it went out of office. I concede that the wage freeze had some beneficial effects, but of course it was a piece of ad hockery plucked out of the air in a time of sheer desperation by the previous Government in trying to deal with rapidly rising unemployment in this country and at the same time rapidly increasing inflation. I think it was the answer, was it not, to Michael Baume's suggestion about the need to be seen to be doing something? That was how the wages freeze arose. To suggest that as a serious basis for policy formulation is, of course, absurd. I just make a couple of points: The Government is committed to the maintenance of real wages over time. Of course as each quarter passes by, as each consumer price index comes out, there is in fact a lead time under the present system of wage indexation before the effects of that CPI increase are implemented through the wages system. Of course we would all prefer a comfortable world in which there were no wage increases because that would have a beneficial effect on inflation, on profitability, on competitiveness and so on- Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —And jobs. Senator BUTTON —And jobs; I concede that. That would be terrific, but of course there are a number of factors to be taken into account, including the position of low wage earners in this country. In spite of the worst prognoses of the Liberal Party in government and in opposition, locked in as it was to the wage freeze as a solution to the world's problems, I was able in an answer at Question Time yesterday to point to a considerable improvement in the unemployment figures. I do not want to go through those figures again, but there has been a considerable and significant drop in unemployment and a growth in employment. Senator Walters —As a result of the wage pause. Senator BUTTON —These people, this collection of Rip Van Winkles on the other side of the chamber, will be talking in 1988 about the wage pause as their greatest triumph. Not only has there been a substantial improvement in employment and a substantial drop in unemployment, but also the national account figures published yesterday were the best national account figures published in this country since 1978. Senator Archer —As a result of the wage pause. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator said: 'As a result of the wage pause'. As I said, the wage pause will become one of those memorable 'it seemed like a good idea at the time' things. In spite of that, the other important-- Senator Gareth Evans —Order! Senator BUTTON —I am sorry-I apologise to Senator Evans. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the Leader of the Government direct his answer through the Chair. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I apologise. I also must apologise to Senator Evans. However, the need to be seen to be doing something has the same flavour about it, and that was the origin of the so-called wage freeze. In spite of the worst prognostications of the Opposition, there has been an improvement in all the economic indicators-- Senator Chaney —No. Senator BUTTON —Other than investment, which was discussed yesterday. There is nothing new about that, Senator Chaney. It has been a bad scene for 10 years. If the honourable senator wants to argue about that, that perhaps is the subject of another question. Some of the things which, quite apart from the indicators in the national accounts, have to be considered include, for example, the rise in consumer confidence in the community, and that is related to the standard of living. Senator Chaney —It is government expenditure. It is government consumption that has gone up. Senator BUTTON —I was talking about the rise in confidence amongst consumers. Mr President, Senator Chaney wants to have a debate about all those issues next week. The PRESIDENT —It is not appropriate to do it at Question Time. Senator BUTTON —I agree. I conclude on this note: It is extraordinary that Senator Chaney, raising serious issues as he did in his article in today's Australian under the heading 'The Trauma of Unemployment'-- Senator Chaney —Not my heading. Senator BUTTON —It is not the honourable senator's heading? The article directs a whole lot of questions to debating points upon which this Opposition has no policy position at all. By way of interjection in the Senate today in the course of my answer to this question, the apparent policy position of the Opposition is that it would advocate a deliberate reduction in living standards amongst the Australian people and a return to the wage freeze. That is the best the Opposition can do. Senator CHANEY —My question, which I address to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows the invitation to debate. I ask whether the Leader of the Government agrees with the following quotation of Employment and Industrial Relations Minister, Mr Ralph Willis, in the Business Review Weekly published today: . . . Ralph Willis says there is unlikely to be any substantial inroads in to the level and rate of unemployment before 1984-85. It is commented that the Government's advisers believe this to be optimistic. Does the Minister agree that there is a continuing serious problem of high youth unemployment in Australia and that relief from that is not in sight? Further, is the Minister familiar with the report which was given to his Government entitled 'Youth Wages, Employment and the Labour Force', which deals with one of the matters I touched on in my article-the relationship between youth wages and employment? What consideration has been given to that report by the Government? Does the Government believe that there is any nexus between the rate of youth wages in this country and the comparative rates in overseas countries, and the very high rate of youth unemployment in this country as against the rates in countries such as Germany which have rather lower rates of youth wages? Senator BUTTON —The Leader of the Opposition has asked a number of questions. I am first asked whether I agree with a comment by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, as reported in this week's issue of Business Review Weekly . Yes, I think I probably do agree with that and said so yesterday in answer to a question. We have to be very cautious about undue optimism about the employment situation. I do not think any Government Minister has said anything different from that. That is probably what Senator Chaney is referring to in his article as 'disarming candour'. Secondly, I agree that youth unemployment is a very serious problem. Thirdly, I am not familiar with the publication, 'Youth Wages, Employment and the Labour Force' to which Senator Chaney has referred. Senator Chaney —Mr Willis has had that and he should have had it before your Government. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney says by way of interjection that Mr Willis has had that. I am speaking in my capacity as Minister representing Mr Willis and I personally am not familiar with the document. I will make myself familiar with it because I think it is a very important document but, insofar as Senator Chaney directs specific questions about that document to me, I will refer them to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and obtain an answer. I am, finally asked whether I agree that there is a nexus between youth unemployment and youth wages. I suspect that probably there is a nexus and I personally suspect that it is probably marginal in relation to youth unemployment. For example, if I were asked whether I thought there was a nexus between youth unemployment and the education system in this country I would say yes. Again, I would think that it would be marginal but it would undoubtedly be there. I do not retreat from any of those positions. Senator Chaney concluded by implying that Germany had a better youth unemployment situation than does Australia because of the difference in wage patterns. I think that the problem that the German economy faces at the moment in terms of unemployment is horrendous. It is of about the same order as ours, probably worse, and is rising rapidly. A number of factors relate to unemployment in Germany and it is impossible for me to take the comparison any further. Perhaps, if one looked back to the situation 10 years ago I could have given a much more certain answer; yes, there was a nexus between youth unemployment in the two countries and wages, but I am not prepared today to give any answer based on certainty. Senator COOK —My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, is again a good news question and I would ask Senator Chaney not to piggyback if he would not mind. I ask: Is it true that, according to the statement of national accounts issued yesterday, the implicit non-farm product deflator has increased by only 6.7 per cent on a September to September basis, or less than half the rise of a year earlier? Does the Minister agree with a comment in parenthesis in a report in today's Age that the non-farm gross domestic product deflator is 'a much broader and reliable method of measuring price rises than the consumer price index'? Does this mean that there has been a remarkable fall in real inflation, consistent with the Government's policy of fighting inflation and unemployment simultaneously? Senator Sir John Carrick —Tell Mrs Dolan that. Senator BUTTON —I am invited to tell Mrs Dolan something as well as answer the question. The PRESIDENT —Order! I am trying to ensure that as many questions as possible can be asked and answered in the short time available. I ask the Leader of the Government to answer Senator Cook's question. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I agree with the question. As I said yesterday, a legitimate conclusion, on examination of the national accounts figures published yesterday is that all the broadly based measures of inflation show a substantial and significant improvement. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Following criticisms of Australia's ability to exploit our development in high technology, science, communications and other great potential trade areas because of a relatively low standard of management and marketing in Australian enterprises, will the Minister advise the Senate of the present status of the implementation, modification or even abandonment of the recommendations of the report of the Ralph Committee of Inquiry into Management Education in Australia, particularly at the universities and institutes of technology? Senator RYAN —The recommendations are certainly not being abandoned. They are under active consideration by the Tertiary Education Commission now. Any funding proposals that come out of them will be incorporated, I expect, in the next triennium budget. I point out that the problems to which Senator Jack Evans's question drew attention in terms of the incapacity of our work force to move into the new technologies is not only related to deficiencies in managerial skills-there are those certainly-but also to the kind of education and training available for large sections of the work force. We are taking a number of initiatives, such as the computers in schools program and the upgrading and extension of post-graduate research facilities at universities, in order to be able to improve the capacity of our work force to move into new technologies. But certainly management skills are needed and the Tertiary Education Commission is giving active consideration to those recommendations. Senator ZAKHAROV —Can the Minister for Veterans' Affairs provide to the Senate a summary of the implications for his Department of the recently ratified 38-hour week agreement covering employees of the Department of Veterans' Affairs in repatriation general hospitals and elsewhere? Senator GIETZELT —Following some exhaustive negotiations the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ratified, on 6 December, a 38-hour week agreement between the Department, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia, the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia and a number of other industrial organisations. The agreement provides for a 38-hour week for all departmental employees in hospitals who presently work a 40-hour week to take effect from 5 December last. The nature of the agreement covers the majority of the departmental workers who formerly worked a 40-hour week. The recruitment of additional staff will commence from 1 March 1984. This will assist in reducing the cost impact in the current financial year. To further minimise the cost impact a range of cost offsets amounting to $2.35m for the full year was negotiated as part of the agreement. I would like to place on the public record the degree of co-operation by the ACTU, the unions and the staff who assisted the Department in the reduction of costs involved. I pay tribute to those involved for the co-operation that was afforded in the negotiations. It is an indication of the Government's attitude to industrial relations-co-operation rather than confrontation. Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2 p.m. Matter of Urgency The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 9 December 1983, from Senator Chaney: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- 'That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Attorney-General to live up to the duties of his office'. Yours sincerely, F. M. CHANEY Senator for the Senate of Western Australia Is the motion supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.00) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Attorney-General to live up to the duties of his office. The Opposition brings forward this motion in the immediate context of the duties of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) with respect to a case which is no ordinary case. It is a case which involves one of the favoured sons of the Labor Party, the Hon. Mick Young. Of course, we raise it in the context of the Attorney-General having no ordinary duty in this matter, but a very special duty indeed. We raise it in the context of the fact that the Attorney-General, unlike other Ministers, has a duty to act as the guardian of the public interest. We believe it is essential that the Attorney-General both live up to that duty and be seen to live up to that duty. We also bring it forward in the context of a performance by the Attorney-General over the last six months which has certainly left us full of doubt about his having the qualities which are required for the office of Attorney-General. We think he failed to demonstrate that degree of distance and objectivity, the qualities of objectivity and detachment which are classicly the requirements of the office of the Attorney-General. We believe that he has shown himself not to be the guardian of the public interest, but a jealous guardian of his own position and of his Government. We raise those matters because we regard them as being extremely serious and we believe that they warrant the consideration of the Senate. Ever since the Government became a government the Attorney-General has been the subject of criticism and controversy. He has notched up a very impressive range of achievements in that sense. He started with the spy flights and the most recent matter of controversy is his refusal to consider the position of Mr Young following the report of the Mr Justice Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. There is also a very considerable range in the seriousness of the matter which have been matters of default by the Attorney -General. There is an enormous difference between the importance of issues such as those I have mentioned; that is, the use of the Royal Australian Air Force in the case against Tasmania, the refusal to consider the position of Mr Young and the comparatively minor matter, such as making an addition to his Hansard record when the words did not quite express the meaning that he says he had intended to convey. There is a common thread in those things separated, as they are, by distance and by gravity. The fact is that the Attorney-General has consistently shown, by his actions, a lack of judgment, a lack of objectivity and a lack of detachment. They are serious deficiencies in someone who holds the office of the First Law Officer of the Commonwealth. There have been consistent queries about how the Attorney-General has gone about his business. I suppose one of the most notable examples of that was his performance with respect to the telephone tap records. He came into the Senate, he answered questions with confidence and he told us that he was answering of his own knowledge. The key point is not that it later came out that he had spent 20 minutes on 700 pages of transcript, that he had read a few pages carefully and scanned the rest-we all know what 20 minutes on 700 pages means-but the key point is that nothing resulted from the examination by the Attorney-General of those 700 pages of transcript, absolutely nothing except an inquiry in New South Wales that, in turn, produced absolutely nothing. Yet the same pages in the hands of a journalist produced questions that brought about the immediate resignation of a New South Wales Minister. What more graphic demonstration could one require of a lack of application, a lack of taking seriously the responsibilities of his office than his coming into this place and saying that, of his own knowledge, he could answer on the contents of those tapes which were in the hands of a mere girl whose qualities as a reporter he disparaged and the examination of which tapes produced questions that brought about the resignation of Mr Jackson. It would be possible to go on about the deficiencies of the Attorney-General, but it is important to explain to the Senate why we bring forward this motion in this form. We do so because it is important to remember the role of the Attorney -General, a role quite different from that of any other Minister, even the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Government in the Senate. We are not dealing here with a mere politician. Different standards are expected of the Attorney-General from those standards expected of those who owe allegiance to the Government merely as Ministers rather than owing allegiance to the public as guardians of the public interest. In a previous debate in this place I quoted the views of a former Attorney-General of England in a Labour government, the Rt Hon. S. C. Silkin, QC, MP. In an article published in the Parliamentarian he expressed the view that the Attorney-General was 'guardian of the public interest'. At that time Senator Evans seemed to embrace that role for himself. Senator Gareth Evans —I still do. Senator CHANEY —I am glad to hear that he still does. Of course, that is essential, because the people of Australia have to rely on the Attorney-General' s judgments in important areas. Only this week we passed the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill. That was a typical piece of legislation in that it vested the Attorney-General with discretions and required him to be satisfied before information was provided by the Commissioner of Police. It gave him the power to direct the Commissioner of Police. It is typical of the sorts of functions vested in the Attorney-General, functions which are seen not as functions of a political nature but as having some higher quality. We have to rely upon the present Attorney-General to live up to those responsibilities. He has to demonstrate that we can rely on him. I affirm that we believe in the independence of the Attorney-General. There are many functions in respect of which it is not the place of the Opposition, the Government or the Parliament to instruct him in what he has to do. He has that independent role which is so important. Mr Silkin in the same article went on to say: Parliament must therefore be trusting and tolerant and exercise a prudent self- restraint. But in return it is entitled to ask of the Attorney-General that he will, both by his words and by his actions, show that he is worthy of that trust and tolerance and that he is entitled to the exercise of that self-restraint. In a sense those words sum up the complaint which I make about the Attorney- General and the matter which I draw to public attention in this debate. We believe we are entitled to ask of the Attorney-General that he will, by both his words and his actions, show that he is worthy of that trust and tolerance and that he is entitled to the exercise of that self-restraint which is cast on his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who cannot direct him in his duties, and on us as parliamentarians, who cannot direct him in his duties. The absence of the qualities of prudence and self-restraint has been the most evident deficiency of the Attorney-General over these recent months. I emphasise again that we do not seek to direct the Attorney-General in what he should do or to express a view as to what conclusions he should draw about Mr Young or anybody else. That is his function and his function alone. But we raise doubts about the propriety of the Attorney-General declining his responsibilities, declining to reconsider Mr Young's position following the findings of Mr Justice Hope, and finding a change in the circumstances which applied when he gave his original opinion. I refer there to the change of attitude about Mr Young's return to the Ministry. That again is central to the case we raise here today. The Attorney-General has a duty to make it clear that he is prepared to consider these matters, that he has considered these matters and that he has come to a conclusion on the facts as they are known now and in the circumstances as they are now, not merely to brush things aside, as he did in response to questions from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Durack, and Senator Scott in the Senate on 8 December. We see that as being his clear duty and we see him clearly as failing in that duty. From what the Attorney-General has said in the Senate or elsewhere, we see no indication that he is currently prepared to play his role as guardian of the public interest in this matter. The role which he is supposed to play in this particular and difficult case is a role which other Attorneys-General have been called to play and have been able to live up to. I refer to a publication which would be well known to the Attorney-General, Law Officers of the Crown, which is published by a well-known legal publisher and written by Mr Edwards. That book refers to the precedent which was established- Senator Gareth Evans —D. E. Edwards? Senator CHANEY —No, J. W. J. Edwards. The example of Lord Shawcross is cited on page 297. I wish to read from that book because there are parallels with the present circumstance which I think reflect on the way in which the present Attorney-General has faced his task. It states: That it has . . . become generally recognised that the first duty of the senior Law Officer of the Crown, when . . . an inquiry is set up by Parliament to consider the public interest, which must override consideration of loyalty to the government or to any ministerial colleague who might be the focus of the inquiry, is largely due to the example set by Lord Shawcross. . . . Lord Shawcross wrote that it was wrong to suggest that the Attorney-General should be excluded from matters which affected his political colleagues, but he said: . . . it was of the utmost importance from the public point of view to maintain the position that it was the duty (however personally unpleasant) of His Majesty 's Attorney-General to represent the public interest with complete objectivity and detachment, and that to refuse to discharge that duty in a particular case in which the public interest might be suspected to conflict with the interests of certain of his friends or of his political colleagues would be tantamount to saying that the office itself was inadequate to represent and protect the public interest against whosoever might challenge it. It was in many ways a very distasteful decision to have to make . . . Here Lord Shawcross was referring to decisions which could affect his political friends. He went on to say: . . . I hope it helped to consolidate the Attorney-General's right and duty-and that is what I emphasise in these matters-the duty-to be wholly detached, wholly independent and to accept the implications of an obligation to protect what he conceives to be the public interest whatever the political results may be. They are the sorts of principles which we ask the Attorney-General to live up to at this time and we see from his denials yesterday that he is prepared to reconsider this situation as a denial of those principles. Quite clearly, we are dealing here with Senator Evans's political friends. A quite effusive statement of the value of Mr Young to the Australian Labor Party has been made by the Prime Minister and that statement was repeated, although not quite as effusively, by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button. Let us see what the Attorney-General has been asked to consider. He has been asked to consider the position of a man who was described by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on 6 December in these terms: . . . we are not dealing with an ill-intentioned man. We are dealing with a good man and, in my judgment, a very good man, who has made a mistake which he now regrets. The Prime Minister went on to say-and these are critical words: He has spent 30 years working in and for the Labor movement. So many of those latter years have been specifically directed at helping to achieve a Federal Labor government, with the totally legitimate expectation of being an important member of that government. Very clearly, when we ask the Attorney-General to consider this matter we are asking him to consider in the best traditions of this office a matter which is sensitive and critical and which affects his political friends. I believe that those facts, those circumstances, provide all the more reason for obvious objectivity and for proper consideration obvious to the public by the Attorney- General. Instead, we have had from him a blanket refusal to admit the possibility of reconsideration. I ask: What sorts of standards are being maintained when the Government can describe the treatment meted out to Mr Young as being the same as the treatment being meted out to Mr Combe. That was not a claim of the Attorney-General. That was a claim of the Prime Minister. I would have thought that the absurdity of that claim would have been evident to members of the Australian Labor Party who sit opposite, just as it is evidently absurd to the members of the public who heard that statement. Does anybody doubt that if it had been established by the Royal Commission that Mr Combe was possibly in breach of the Crimes Act that the Government would have said: 'We do not have to consider that matter. We have given it consideration in the past. That is not a matter of concern to us'? The total lack of even- handedness surely stands as one of the indications to the public and to the Opposition, which can go only by the outward signs in these matters, that there has been less than an even-handed application of the sorts of principles that I outlined earlier. If one looks at the circumstances which now face the Attorney-General, it is quite clear that there is a need to reconsider the matters which have already been considered by the Attorney-General and stated in the opinion to which he has referred so frequently over recent days. He relied on his decision that the Government should not proceed with prosecution on a series of views which are set out in his opinion. He relied on the obscurity of the law. He relied on the need for deterrents. He relied upon the seriousness of the offence and the degree of culpability, and he relied on the fact that there was a political sanction which was even more serious than the criminal sanction which could follow prosecution. In all respects those views have been illuminated if not qualified by the report of Mr Justice Hope. I do not have time to go into those matters in detail, although I will touch on them now, but I hope that Senator Durack will have time to expand on my comments. Let us look at the question of the obscurity of the law. Clearly Mr Justice Hope has put down some statements which show that the elements of the particular section of the Crimes Act have been met by Mr Young in his behaviour. On the need for deterrents, we find the Attorney-General says in his opinion that the appropiate sanctions for Ministers are not those of criminal law but the political sanctions of resignations or dismissal. It is quite clear that the sanctions which were applying to Mr Young have now been lifted by the Prime Minister, and that will no doubt be formalised by the Caucus. We find reference in the Attorney-General's opinion to one of the reasons for not prosecuting Mr Young. The Attorney-General said: Nor was there, obviously, any intention to harm Australia's defence security or international relations. Does the Attorney-General not agree that Mr Justice Hope has put a quite different interpretation on the situation of Mr Young? Mr Justice Hope has pointed out that it is the potential damage to Australia which is critical, not the question of actual damage. Mr Justice Hope in his report has made it quite clear that we are dealing here with major matters which could affect Australia's security and that the potential danger to Australia was very real indeed. So in those areas there is a clear departure, when one looks at the comments of Mr Justice Hope, from the factors which were critical to the Attorney-General's decision-making of a few months ago. In particular the political sanction on which he placed so much weight has been lifted; the political sanction has gone. We say that it is his duty not to determine that there should be prosecution; that is not our function and we do not seek to exercise it. We say that quite clearly it is the duty of the Attorney-General at least to reconsider the views which he formed and on which he gave advice to the Prime Minister in light of the gloss which has been placed upon his views by the report of the Hope Royal Commission and by the changed circumstances which have been introduced by the Government and by the Prime Minister with his changed attitude to the readmission to the Ministry of Mr Young. I will deal with the facts as they are known to all Australians. We all know that it was the judgment of the Prime Minister that the political sanction should not be lifted. It is common knowledge that the lifting of the political sanction followed a decision by the majority of Caucus that it should be lifted. The matter has been taken out of the hands of the Government. In fact Caucus has taken over control. I believe that in those changed factual circumstances there is a new duty upon the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has left us doubtful about his capacity to do this task over a period of months because he has adopted attitudes which fly in the face of the qualities which I have tried to indicate are required from an Attorney- General. That view has been expressed not just by Opposition members-members of the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia. It is a view which has been expressed quite recently by the Australian Democrats who I believe will not be participating in this debate today. Their response to Senator Evans in debate on the National Crime Authority Bill is a useful reminder of the sorts of qualities Senator Evans has displayed of late. We find him described by Senator Chipp as providing childish, churlish abuse. We find him described by Senator Chipp as a man whose petulance overcomes the very great ability we all know he has. Senator Robertson —Is that the Attorney he is talking about? Senator CHANEY —It is the Attorney who is being talked about. We say that the Attorney-General is not living up to his duties. We say that he has not demonstrated the objectivity and detachment which is required of his office. We believe that he should mend his ways. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(2.21) —I spoke a few days ago of the political, intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Opposition under the leadership of Senator Chaney. We could have no more perfect demonstration of that than this urgency motion moved today. If Senator Chaney really believed that I had failed in the performance of my duties as Attorney-General, whether in relation to the matter of Mick Young or otherwise, that I was no longer worthy to hold this high office of the first law officer of the nation, it was open to him to move a censure motion, to test this House on the ultimate sanction this House and this Parliament can apply in a debate where there are no holds barred. But, of course, he has not moved a censure motion. Rather he has, in that pompous, petulant and peculiarly humourless style Senator Chaney has made inimitably his own, uttered a series of half-hearted, time-wasting, political grizzles under cover of a motion of stunning banality: The need for the Attorney-General to live up to the duties of his office. Of course there is a need for the Attorney-General to live up to the duties of his office with the particular responsibilities that office carries with it. There is a similar need for the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt ), the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) or the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) to live up to their duties and responsibilities. There is a need for Whips in this place to live up to their responsibilities and there is a need for the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) to live up to his duties and responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is, of course, to bring a probing spotlight on to matters of real public importance on to this Government's performance on the issues that really count for the millions of Australians whom we are trying to serve. I can understand that the Leader of the Opposition felt the urge for a diversion coming over him when he opened this morning's newspapers and saw the headlines, when he saw that growth was up by 4.4 per cent this quarter; when he saw that unemployment was down below 9 per cent; when he saw the Age headline ' Growth boosts job hopes: Economy bounces up'; when he saw the Sydney Morning Herald headline 'At last: the economy accelerates'; when he saw the Canberra Times headline 'Budget targets beaten'; and when he saw the headline in even the Australian 'Yes, the recovery is here: Growth up, jobless down as recession ends '. How does the Leader of the Opposition respond with news such as that and with evidence such as this that the Government is proving to be spectacularly successful in what it was elected to do? Well, if you are Senator Chaney how you respond, of course, is to go on to the attack on the time honoured principle that that is the best form of defence. But you do not do only that. You get down on your hands and knees and start rummaging in the political and personal garbage bin for every tidbit of malice, innuendo and misrepresentation you can find. You do it about a Minister whom you know inherited an unholy mess from his predecessor, about a Minister whom you know, if you are Senator Chaney, has embarked with vigour and energy not only on reshaping that administration, not only on doing all the numerous jobs that were left undone by that unholy, messy predecessor, but also on setting in train the most far-reaching and innovative program of law reform initiatives that have been seen in this country for many years. If one is Senator Chaney one says it about a Minister whom one knows has brought in a new style of frankness, openness and honesty, including a willingness, which some would describe as naivete, candidly to admit mistakes when mistakes have been made; an approach, Mr President, which, if one is Senator Chaney, one simply does not know how to handle. I do not claim that my performance in office since I have been a Minister has been without flaw. I could not make any such claim and I would not make any such claim. It has been an extraordinarily gruelling year, measured by, among other things, a work load which has been more than double that of my predecessor, measured by any available means. In my eight months in office this year I have dealt with, I am told, 6,140 submissions and over 8,000 items of specific ministerial correspondence. The average since June has been about 740 submissions a month compared with 327 for my predecessor. In the course of dealing with that work load, which Senator Chaney himself described in his contribution to the Estimates debate on 10 November as a quite impossible one, I have not got through every piece of legislation I should have liked to get through. I have not set in train or completed every executive or administrative reform I should have liked to. But the record, I believe, speaks for itself. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a summary of that record with its 14 major pieces of legislation passed in this chamber, its three other major pieces of legislation introduced for debate, its 12 other major pieces of legislation initiated or announced and approximately 25 major executive and administrative changes achieved in those eight months. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S PORTFOLIO: MARCH-DECEMBER 1983 1. LEGISLATION (a) Passed World Heritage Properties Conservation Act and Regulations: prohibit work on Gordon-below-Franklin Dam Family Law Amendment: implement major reforms recommended in 1980 Freedom of Information Amendment: implement policy commitment to effective FOI legislation Interstate Transfer of Prisoners: uniform exercise with States to enable prisoners to serve sentences in home States Director of Public Prosecutions: to conduct and co-ordinate Commonwealth prosecutions Constitution Alteration Bills Simultaneous Elections Parliamentary Terms Interchange of Powers Advisory Jurisdiction of the High Court Removal of Outmoded and Expended Provisions Companies and Securities Amendments: significant reforms to national companies and securities scheme legislation Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment: to enable Attorney-General to consider requests from Cross Inquiry for information obtained by interception of telecommunications Racial Discrimination Amendment: to preserve operation of NSW anti- discrimination legislation following High Court decision in Viskauskas Family Law (Legal Aid Costs) Amendment: introduce uniform national scale for legal aid costs in family law matters (b) Introduced Insurance Contracts: reform and modernise, on a national basis, the law relating to contracts of insurance Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction): consolidate and expand laws to protect Australian trading interests and policies against extraterritorial enforcement of foreign laws Sex Discrimination (with Senator Ryan): outlaw discrimination on grounds of sex and marital status (c) Initiated/Announced Human Rights package Australian Bill of Rights Bill Human Rights Commission Amendment Racial Discrimination Act-review Trade Practices Act Part IV-proposed reforms announced 23.11.83, exposure draft before Christmas Cheques: major reforms announced 28.8.83 Defamation: uniform law exposed for public comment Offshore Legislation package: review Residual Constitutional Links: progress towards finalisation of legislation with States and UK Government Insolvency: early implementation of Australian Law Reform Commission Report ( 1977) on Regular Payment of Debts 2. EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATIVE Attorney-General's Department Complete review and reform of Department structure, to take effect from 1 February 1984 Family Law Maintenance Enforcement and Collection Inquiry Matrimonial Property Inquiry established Two new Family Court judges appointed (Townsville, Parramatta) and full-time Judge at Newcastle New Family Court Registry at Dandenong early in 1984, major upgrading of Townsville Registry from 1.3.84 Legal Aid Funding: 15 per cent increase in real terms Community Legal Centres: funding doubled Human Rights Establishment of Human Rights Task Force to review human rights legislation ( above) and machinery International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: review of reservations and declarations on Australia's ratification Ratification (28.7.83) of International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Copyright Copyright Law Review Committee established First public statement (11.11.83) of Government position on audio-visual (home taping) copyright Australian Law Reform Commission New references: Contempt of Court; Insolvency (corporate and individual- reference requested since 1977) Establishment of A.C.T. office of Commission Business Law Companies and Securities Law Review Committee: Chairman appointed-to commence 1 .1.84 Government approval of Centralised Scrip and Accounting System (CENSAS) and of legislation to regulate futures industry Standing Committee of Attorneys-General Artificial Insemination and In Vitro Fertilisation: agreement on uniform law Computerised Legal Information Retrieval: agreement by Commonwealth to make available its data base to enable establishment of national retrieval system Trans-sexuals: major review of legal issues A.C.T. Law Reform Major reform and modernisation of criminal law: new Ordinance implemented Appointment of consultant to review all outdated statutes for purpose of repeal or modernisation Censorship Film festivals: all restrictions on imported films lifted Videotape censorship: uniform classification system agreed with States Other Law Reform Accident Compensation: advanced discussions with N.S.W. towards co-operative national no-fault scheme National Law Reform Advisory Council: discussion paper circulated, agreement from law reform agencies Senator GARETH EVANS —It was also part of Senator Chaney's attack that there was something less than dignified or decorous about my approach to and conduct of the office of Attorney-General. This has always been one of Senator Chaney's major gripes about the conduct of my portfolio. I acknowledge that on occasions I have been less than decorous in some of my responses to the provocations of Senator Walters, Senator Lewis and others of the Cro-Magnons who sit opposite. But if provocation is a good enough defence to reduce murder to manslaughter it ought to be enough to justify the odd snap at people like Senator Chaney when his behaviour is most odiously sanctimonious. But enough of questions of style. What about the matters of substance in the attack? What is on the charge sheet for today? I anticipated a rather lengthier charge sheet. In fact I drafted a much more substantial response in preparation for this debate. Of course, we did not hear anything about it. We had some repetition of the references to Hansard in which respect I might put into the record for the sake of the record, because they have not been put there already, some extracts from Mr Weatherston's book, Commonwealth Hansard, which is, as I understand it, the reporter's bible in the way that Odgers used to be the bible of all honourable senators in this place. In that book it is stated: A member of the Commonwealth Parliament is entitled so to correct his proofs as to clarify his meaning, realising that by the printed word he is thereafter to be bound, but he is not allowed to alter his meaning. That, of course, is the principle I fully accepted. Mr Weatherston went on to state: On many occasions Ministers have corrected their proofs to make their meaning clearer. He gave numerable illustrations, spelt out over several pages, culminating in a rather splendid quotation from a Welshman whom I have much admired in some respects except for his relations with the Australian Labor Party, Mr William Morris Hughes. In the House of Representatives once upon a time he said: Alterations in form but not in substance are properly allowed, because, when an honourable member is addressing the chamber, he is so torn by conflicting emotions and troubled with interjections that his delicate equilibrium is disturbed and he recovers himself only with difficulty . . . That has been well understood in the past as one of the reasons it has been traditional, necessary and appropriate for the odd emendation to be made. It is a very tired old reference that Senator Chaney dragged out in this matter again today. We had a reference to the New South Wales Jackson tape transcripts affair . I make no apology whatsoever for responding as I did to the approximately three weeks of questioning on this matter that I received from Senator Chaney and his cohorts. I believe that I behaved with honour and good sense in the way in which I responded to the particular challenge before me, that is, to determine the validity or otherwise of the kinds of allegations or charges that were being made and whether or not there was not something more serious than that which was alleged. I simply remind Senator Chaney in that respect when he refers to a journalist securing Mr Jackson's resignation in a way that was beyond the capacity of the Commonwealth Government in the knowledge of this material, that that resignation flowed not from the revelation of any of the substance of this material; rather it flowed from the fact that Mr Jackson, in answer to a specific question to the Parliament after this affair broke, was subsequently shown to have misled the Parliament, to have deceived the Parliament, and was, of course, required to resign as a result. The other apparently remaining matter in the bill of sins for today is my conduct of the Mick Young affair, if it might be so described, and in particular the opinion which I wrote on 29 August as to the state of the law as I understood it and conveying also my decision, as the first law officer of the nation, that whatever the findings of fact might prove to be, whether it was the worst case or the least worst case that emerged, I did not believe that a prosecution ought to lie in this matter and would not so allow a prosecution to proceed. In that respect I made it clear in the text of the opinion that I was relying on the principles laid down in a rather splendid little publication called 'Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth' presented to the Parliament in December 1982 by the then acting Attorney-General, Mr Neil Brown, QC, on behalf of the then Attorney-General, Senator Peter Durack, QC. In particular, I was relying upon the admirable summary in paragraph 17 of that publication under the general heading 'The decision to prosecute' and following a preliminary analysis of the way in which questions of fact should be addressed. It went on in these terms: The second major consideration is whether, in the light of provable facts and the whole of the surrounding circumstances, the public interest requires the institution of the prosecution. It has never been the rule in Australia or in the United Kingdom that all offences brought to the knowledge of the authorities must be prosecuted. Regard must be had by those responsible for a prosecution decision to many factors. These include the seriousness of the offence, the youth, age or special infirmity of the offender, the degree of his culpability in connection with the offence, whether or not he is a first offender and the need to provide a deterrent to similar offenders . . . Obscurity or obsolescence of the law in question is a further possible consideration. The more minor the offence, the greater the attention that should be paid to mitigating circumstances. On the other hand, regard may properly be had to the possible prevalence of the offence. No one of these considerations is overriding; in a particular case all relevant considerations must be taken into account. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the opinion, letter and decision which I communicated on 29 August. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 29 August 1983 The Hon R J Hawke AC MP Prime Minister Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Prime Minister, On 14 July you requested my opinion as to whether the conversation on the evening of 21 April 1983 between the then Special Minister of State, the Hon M J Young, and Mr E J Walsh, may have involved the commission of an offence under the Crimes Act 1914. On 18 July I wrote to you stating that in my view-with which the Solicitor- General, Sir Maurice Byers QC, concurred-the only relevant provision of the Crimes Act was s.79 (3). I said that the possibility of a contravention of that sub-section could not be excluded, but that it was not possible to give any concluded opinion on the matter until more information as to the content of the conversation came to light, and that for all practical purposes that would not occur until the relevant witnesses had given their testimony before the Royal Commission. The situation now is that the relevant testimony-from Messrs Young, Walsh and Matheson-has all been given and made available to me. (The last of the publicly released parts of the transcript did not become available until 22 August; on that day Mr Justice Hope also made, on the application of Government counsel, an order releasing to me, the Solicitor-General and certain senior officers of my Department the relevant parts of the ''in confidence'' transcript.) As a result of certain conflicts in that testimony, however, the factual situation remains less clear at this stage than I thought it would be when I wrote to you on 18 July. Because of that uncertainty, there is much to be said for my further opinion to you awaiting the findings of His Honour on this issue. But because of the time which has already elapsed and the natural desire of everyone concerned to have the question of criminal liability clarified as soon as possible-so far as it is within my capacity as Attorney-General to do so-I have felt obliged to give you, without further delay, the opinion you sought on the basis of the material now to hand. My task, you will appreciate, has not been an easy one. The Facts It is common ground that Mr Young conveyed certain information to Mr Walsh on the evening of 21 April. Mr Young has given evidence that he informed Mr Walsh that: the Government had that day been looking at a problem involving Messrs Matheson , Combe and Ivanov (or ''a Russian''), and that he (Mr Walsh) ought to be careful in his dealings with the Commercial Bureau of Australia; and at the Ministers' meeting in question, some antagonism had been expressed toward Mr Matheson. Mr Young was asked in cross-examination whether he had said that there had been ASIO tapes or transcript at the meeting; he replied that he was unclear on that and could not recall making mention of it. He was not specifically asked whether he had said to Mr Walsh that Ivanov (or the Russian) was to be expelled. Mr Walsh's account of the 21 April conversation was to the same general effect as Mr Young's but added three specific matters of significance, viz. that Mr Young had said: ''it had been an important meeting and a Russian was going to be expelled the next day''; ''Combe appeared to have had an association with the Russian who was to be expelled''; and ''there were tapes and everything there, ASIO-I think he said ASIO-tapes''. Mr Matheson gave evidence as to what Mr Walsh had told him on 24 April as a result of what he (Walsh) had learned at a ''drinks meeting'' on the evening of 21 April: this account is similar to the account of the Young-Walsh conversation in Mr Walsh's evidence, but adds in turn further matters, e.g. that the Director -General of ASIO, Mr Harvey Barnett, was present at the Ministers' meeting. For present purposes, however, I have set aside Mr Matheson's evidence. Not only would it be technically inadmissible in any proceedings against Mr Young (I share the view of the Solicitor-General in his appended Opinion in this respect, although a contrary view based on the principle stated by Knox CJ and Dixon J in Morgan v. Babcock and Wilcox Ltd (1929) 43 CLR 163, at p. 173, is possibly arguable), but it would appear to be in any event of little probative value: by the time Mr Walsh spoke to Mr Matheson, Ivanov had been expelled and Mr Combe had himself spoken to Mr Matheson, and Mr Walsh acknowledged in cross- examination that it was ''highly probable'' that what he had told Mr Matheson was a combination of what Mr Young had said plus inferences or conclusions drawn from this. In ascertaining the facts of this matter, a choice is ultimately forced between Mr Walsh's account, which would certainly be admissible as evidence, in any subsequent proceedings, and Mr Young's account, which would be admissible to the extent that he chose to make it so. Either the conversation was, as Mr Young recollected, very general in its terms-mentioning the characters involved in the ministerial deliberations and little else-or, as Mr Walsh recalled, it went into specifics, at least as to the imminent expulsion, the existence of an association between Mr Combe and the Russian, and the existence of ASIO tapes. On this difference, as will appear below, a good deal may well depend when it comes to the application of s.79 (3). I should add that I have also noted, as possibly relevant to the final determination of these factual questions, Mr Young's evidence that he told Mr Rod Cameron (and this was confirmed by Mr Cameron's evidence) before lunch on 22 April that the Government was going to ''kick out a Russian'', and repeated this to the luncheon group-including both Messrs Cameron and Walsh-during the lunch itself. This, however, cuts both ways in its implications for the conversation of 21 April: it may be thought to assist Mr Walsh's account to the extent it makes more likely some reference by Mr Young to the expulsion, but it also assists Mr Young's account to the extent that it suggests Mr Walsh may well have confused the two occasions in his later recollection. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for me to weigh, balance and endeavour to decide the factual matters in issue. For present purposes, I shall proceed on the basis that findings in accordance with either Mr Young's account or Mr Walsh 's account are open. The Law I remain of the view that the only possibly relevant provision in the Crimes Act is s.79 (3). This reads in relevant part as follows: ''79 (3) If a person communicates . . . prescribed information, to a person, other than- (a) a person to whom he is authorized to communicate it; or (b) a person to whom it is, in the interest of the Commonwealth or a part of the Queen's dominions, his duty to communicate it, or permits a person, other than a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), to have access to it, he shall be guilty of an offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for two years.'' ''Prescribed information'' is defined, in turn, in s.79 (1) in relevant part as follows: ''79 (1) For the purpose of this section . . . information is prescribed information in relation to a person, if the person has it in his possession or control and- . . . . (b) it has been entrusted to the person by a Commonwealth officer or a person holding office under the Queen or he has made or obtained it owing to his position as a person- (i) who is or has been a Commonwealth officer; (ii) who holds or has held office under the Queen; . . . . and, by reason of its nature or the circumstances under which it was entrusted to him or it was made or obtained by him or for any other reason, it is his duty to treat it as secret; . . .'' The crucial legal question is whether Mr Young can be said to have had a ''duty' ' within the meaning of s.79 (1) (b) not to disclose to Mr Walsh what he did disclose. As to the other legal tests that would have to be satisfied, it seems clear (though not necessarily completely beyond argument in every case) that what was communicated was ''information'' within the meaning of the elaborate definitions in s.77 (1); that Mr Young had it in his own possession owing to his position inter alia, as a person holding ''office under the Queen'' within the meaning of that expression in s.79 (1) (d) (ii); that Mr Walsh was not someone who fell into either of the exceptional categories of recipient spelt out in s. 79 (3) (a) and (b); and that by being communicated to Mr Walsh, albeit in confidence, the information in question was not being treated ''as secret'' within the meaning of s.79 (1) (b). The duty to treat information as secret in s.79 (1) (d) is one which arises for a person ''by reason of its nature or the circumstances under which it was entrusted to him or it was made or obtained by him, or for any other reason''. The language here, which directs attention to the particular context in which information is acquired, is in marked contrast to that which appears in s.70 (1) of the Crimes Act: ''70 (1) A person who, being a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, except to some person to whom he is authorized to publish or communicate it, any fact or document which comes to his knowledge, or into his possession, by virtue of his office, and which it is his duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.'' Professor Sawer has argued in a recent newspaper article (Canberra Times, 10 August 1983) that the duty referred to in s.70 must mean a legal duty, i.e. one clearly imposed by some other statutory provision or rule of common law. He suggests that criminal courts would be very reluctant to construe an offence punishable by two years in gaol as extending to situations where the duty is merely a ''moral obligation arising from convention, reasonable expectation and honourable relations between colleagues''. This argument seems to me compelling in relation to s.70, where the direction to the courts to determine whether or not a duty exists is stark and unadorned. But it is rather less so in relation to s.79, to which Professor Sawer does not refer in the article cited. The difficulty is that in the latter section the courts are specifically directed to take account of, inter alia, ''the nature of the information'' or '' the circumstances under which it was obtained''. It may be possible to read down s.79 and confine it to situations where there is some explicit pre-existing legal duty on the person in question, whether derived from particular statutory prohibitions, public service regulations, employment relationships, express or implied contractual obligations, fiduciary duties or something of that kind (as Professor Sawer has elsewhere suggested). But while the section so read down would still have some scope for operation, such a reading would give little or no effect to the statutory language requiring the court to look at the circumstances of the particular case. There may well be public policy considerations which should be weighed in the balance in determining whether s.79 could ever have been intended to apply to Cabinet Ministers in respect of Cabinet or Cabinet Committee business. Some of these are spelt out by Professor Sawer in the article mentioned. But while these may constitute additional grounds for concluding that the expression '' Commonwealth officer'' in s.70 is not intended to include ''Minister of the Crown'', I believe they have much less force in the context of s.79, where the reference to those holding ''office under the Queen'' is certainly broad enough to include Cabinet Ministers, but where the direction to the courts to take account of context in determining the existence or otherwise of a ''duty'' is also flexible enough to accommodate the kind of public policy concerns that naturally arise if Cabinet Ministers are to be within the scope of the section. While it would be clearly nonsensical-not least because of the array of other sanctions that operate in Westminster parliamentary systems-for Ministers to be subjected to two years gaol for, say, the premature disclosure, inadvertently or even deliberately, of some statutory appointment, it is difficult to see an overriding public policy reason why a Minister should not be as criminally liable as any other recipient of secret information for disclosing the location of a convoy in wartime. In my view, then, although the matter is by no means completely beyond doubt, information given to Cabinet Ministers in that capacity may be such as to create a duty not to disclose it, breach of which may be punishable under s. 79 (3): but everything depends on the nature of the information, and the circumstances in which it is obtained. The language elsewhere in s. 79-for example, the reference to purposes ''prejudicial to the safety or defence of the Commonwealth '' in sub-section (2)-suggests that the kind of information most likely to attract the operation of the section would be sensitive material directly related to defence and security. Applying this approach to the present matter, the significance of the difference between Mr Young's account and Mr Walsh's account of their conversation should be readily apparent. If the conversation was as limited in scope as Mr Young's recollection suggests , then it would be difficult to argue that s. 79 (3) had application. The problem involving Messrs Matheson, Combe and Ivanov could well have been merely abut some trade matter, and in that case the significance of the information passed on would have been commercial or economic rather than having anything to do with matters of national security. While the disclosure of information of this kind might or might not properly attract other sanctions, criminal penalties would hardly appear appropriate. It is likely that a judge would hold, as a matter of law, that s. 79 (3) had no application to such a situation; and if the matter did go to a jury, an acquittal would be overwhelmingly probable. If, on the other hand, Mr Walsh's account were to prevail, the question of the application of s. 79 (3) would be, in my view, much more finely balanced. As a matter of law, it is possible that an offence may have been committed. The information in question would be seen to squarely relate to national security and foreign affairs matters of great delicacy and sensitivity, and of such a nature that its premature disclosure would put at risk ongoing security and intelligence operations. While obviously still not in the same extreme category as the ''convoy in wartime'' example, nonetheless it would be much more difficult for either judge or jury to dismiss the existence of the necessary '' duty''. In formulating the above views, I have had the benefit of consultations with, and a formal written opinion from, the Solicitor-General, who has, in turn, discussed the legal issues with Mr M. Gleeson QC, senior counsel for Mr Young. Sir Maurice's Opinion, with which I generally concur, is appended to this letter . The Decision to Prosecute The decision as to whether or not to institute a criminal prosecution always depends in the first instance on the sufficiency of the evidence: whether it is such that it is more likely than not that the prosecution will result in a conviction. If the evidence in the present matter went no further than Mr Young' s own account, there would be no sufficient basis on which to proceed. Mr Walsh' s evidence, however, makes it necessary to consider the matter further, and the following discussion proceeds, as it must, on what from Mr Young's point of view is this ''worst case'' assumption. In my letter of 18 July, I emphasised that merely because criminal proceedings could possibly lie in a particular case, it does not follow that they should be instituted. I retain as Attorney-General a discretion as to the conduct of all Commonwealth criminal prosecutions, and may decline to prosecute if in my view the public interest so requires. Moveover, in the specific context of prosecutions under Part VII of the Crimes Act, my consent is required before any proceedings can be instituted (s. 85). In considering this question I have had regard, as I foreshadowed in my previous letter, to the guidelines document, Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth, tabled in the Parliament in December 1982 by the Hon. Neil Brown QC on behalf of the then Attorney-General, Senator Peter Durack QC. These guidelines state that it has never been the rule in Australia or in the United Kingdom that all offences brought to the knowledge of the authorities must be prosecuted, and identify a series of factors that can properly be applied in determining whether or not to prosecute. The most obviously applicable of these factors (I exclude for present purposes such considerations as ''youth, age or special infirmity'') are the following. (a) Obscurity of the Law. 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. (b) Need for Deterrence. Criminal prosecution becomes less necessary to the extent that other sanctions of deterrent value attach to the behaviour in question. In the official secrets area, sanctions that have been traditionally regarded as applicable and appropriate to Ministers are not those of the criminal law but the political sanctions of resignation or dismissal. The sanction of resignation has already, of course, applied in the present case. It is worth noting in this respect that in Australia no prosecution has ever been instituted under the official secrets provisions of the Crimes Act against a Minister or ex-Minister. The same is true in Britain: no prosecution under the Official Secrets Act has ever been instituted against a Minister or ex-Minister (Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors on Ministerial Memoirs (1976, Cmnd . 6386)). It has been stated, moreover, that the obligation of Cabinet secrecy has often been disregarded with impunity (Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th ed., vol. 8, p. 702). No similarly weighty authority for this latter proposition is available in Australia, but nor would it appear to be needed. (c) Seriousness of Offence and Degree of Culpability. 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. One other factor which I have felt it proper to take into account, particularly in the context of any exercise of my statutory role under s. 85, is that a conviction under s. 79 (3) of the Crimes Act, which is punishable by two years imprisonment, would result, even if no actual gaol term were imposed, in Mr Young's automatic disqualification from the Parliament. This follows from the draconian terms of s. 44 (ii) of the Constitution: ''Any person who- (ii) . . . has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced , for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer: shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or member of the House of Representatives.'' This gives further weight to the argument that the traditional political sanctions are the appropriate ones for all but the most extraordinary and dangerous ministerial breaches of official secrecy. Taking all these considerations into account (and also bearing in mind, in turn , their likely impact on a jury in the event that a matter did go to trial), I have concluded that the case is not one in which criminal proceedings would be appropriate in the public interest. To the extent that issues of larger public interest are involved in this matter , they are already being examined by His Honour Mr Justice Hope pursuant to his present terms of reference. While it may be that some of the issues I have had to consider, following your reference to me, will also be considered by the Royal Commissioner, my decision on the particular question of criminal prosecution-for which, as Attorney-General, I have the ultimate constitutional, and in the case of s.79, statutory, responsibility-should not be regarded as in any way pre-empting His Honour's findings on the matters in issue before him. Certainly my response to your request has not been so intended. Yours sincerely, GARETH EVANS Senator GARETH EVANS —I thank the House. I made clear that I was relying systematically, in that part of the opinion which is addressed to the discretion to prosecute, on those very factors set out in the particular thoroughly worthy, thoroughly admirable document authored by my predecessor Senator Durack. In doing so I believe that I have acted in a way that is quite beyond any rational or reasonable challenge. Indeed, so much emerged in the course of Question Time yesterday which was characterised, as so many question times in this place are, by an utter inability on the part of the Opposition, despite its huffing and puffing, to draw attention to any matter of substance by way of a peccadillo or misbehaviour on the part of the Government. I made it perfectly clear that the application of these criteria was made on the basis of what I described on page 7 of my letter, from Mr Young's point of view, as the worst case assumption. In other words, the judgment about the decision to prosecute was based on the worst case assumption, the worst possible interpretation of the available evidence from Mr Young's point of view. As we all know, Mr Justice Hope found against Mr Young on the disputed matters of fact. He preferred Mr Walsh's account to Mr Young's account. So be it. That matter was anticipated precisely in the terms of the opinion I wrote. There is no basis, no foundation, for a reconsideration of the decision that was thus reached. It is said that when a man starts protesting his integrity it is time to count your teaspoons. I appreciate the force of that proposition, but I protest my honour, my integrity, in the face of the imputations levelled against them today . I acknowledge, as Senator Chaney spent much time emphasising, that the job of Attorney-General is peculiarly difficult. It is difficult because it carries with it peculiarly difficult and different responsibilities from those which are shared by other members of the Ministry. One is part of the government. One is part of the political machinery of the governing party. At the same time one does, as Attorney-General, have an obligation to stand above the political process when it comes to the administration of justice. I grasped that nettle with both hands in the context of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation affair, the matter of David Combe, and the matter of Mick Young, and it hurt. Clearly it hurt having to grasp it in that way, but the job was done, I believe, with honesty and integrity because the job had to be done. The capacity to analyse the worth of that job is there for everyone to see because the reasoned basis for it is on the public record with the letter that has long been public but which I incorporated again today. I have grasped that nettle because I have had to in a series of other very difficult, anguishing, national security matters including, for example, the proceedings against the National Times newspaper. That was very hard indeed, politically, for someone in my position, but that job was done because it had to be done, and it was the only way I could honourably discharge the duties of my office as Attorney- General. I have grasped that nettle again in dealing with a series of individual cases involving prosecutions and the like that have come before me, harrowing cases such as the Australian Capital Territory mercy killing case, difficult public policy cases such as the question of the prosecution of brothels in this Territory, sensitive political and industrial cases such as the summary prosecutions of strikers and picketers in the Builders Labourers Federation matter, sensitive industrial and political matters involving the granting of legal aid. I believe that in each of these cases I have done the job with all the sensitivity, integrity and, where appropriate and necessary, the compassion of which I am capable. I have grasped the nettle in the appointments I have recommended to Cabinet, appointments to the Bench and to a variety of administrative bodies and tribunals which have not always satisfied some of the constituencies that in politics demand to be satisfied on these occasions. Those appointments have been made in each case on my genuine judgment of who would be the best person for the job or how the public interest would best be served. Of course there is a need for me as Attorney-General to live up to the duties of my office and the terms of this motion, just as there is, as I have said, a duty for every Minister and office-holder in this place to do the same. To that extent, the motion before us is a motherhood and apple pie motion and it does not need to be opposed, even though it might be said that its language could be improved, as Senator Chipp said, I think, by the insertion of the word 'always' so that the motion would read: 'The need for the Attorney-General always to live up to the duties of his office'. To the extent that the motion, on more than its face, conveys the inferences spelled out by Senator Chaney in his speech that I somehow have not lived up to the duties of the office of First Law Officer of the nation, that somehow I have not apparently matched the high standards of performance of my predecessor in that office, I reject it utterly and I treat the hypocrisy involved in the moving of that proposition with the contempt that it deserves. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(2.39) —We heard a very typical speech in defence from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in relation to the motion moved by Senator Chaney this afternoon which seeks the expression of opinion of the Senate that the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Attorney-General to live up to the duties of his office. The Attorney-General has sought to deflect that motion by a rather typical piece of humour referring to a throw-away comment he received from Senator Chipp that the motion would be improved and made more applicable if the word 'always' was added to it, thus rendering it: 'The need for the Attorney-General always to live up to the duties of his office'. I think that undoubtedly the Attorney- General has shown that he has clearly seen the point of the motion by making that comment. The reason we brought forward this motion as a matter of urgency-that is what it is; it is a matter of urgency at the moment; it is a matter about which we are concerned-was that there is an indication that the Attorney-General in particular, in regard to the Mick Young affair, may have been falling short of the duties of his office. We brought forward this matter of urgency so that he can be reminded by the Senate that always he has the need to live up to the duties of his office. We are not singling him out as having to live up to the duties of his office more than other Ministers. Of course we are not. We are simply saying that it is urgent at present, in view of recent circumstances and particularly in view of the attitude which he took yesterday to the report of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, that he be reminded very much of the urgent need to reconsider the duties of his office in relation to that matter. Principally that is what I want to speak about today. Senator Evans, in defence of his record in answer to this motion, referred to his record generally. He incorporated in Hansard a schedule of activities, of legislation passed, introduced, announced or which is under consideration together with some administrative actions that he has taken. He has been in office now for nine months. Naturally he would have had to make a large number of decisions of an administrative kind. We are not saying that he has fallen by the wayside in those respects, but I refer to his great claims for law reforms. That is where he wants to be judged. He wants to be judged as a law and constitutional reformer. Therefore, he put at the forefront of his defence the number of pieces of law reform legislation that he has had passed through the Parliament. I have had something to say about the list before. Only one or two matters have been added to it since I commented on the Attorney-General's record in law reform in debate on the Appropriation Bill. I want to say one thing about his record in law reform. He came into this office with two very major pieces of immediate law reform that he regarded as absolutely central to his policy and that of the Government, namely, to get rid of what he regarded as the blot on the freedom of information legislation, the blot of conclusive certificates. He has not achieved that. He has been defeated and rolled on that by his own colleagues. I notice that on this list there is a freedom of information amendment. There are some worthwhile additional amendments. But he has failed in the central point of his law reform on that subject. He has also listed here his constitutional proposals. What was the great constitutional reform that he sought to achieve? It was the fixed term parliament proposal. We know what happened with that; he was rolled again by his colleagues. The Attorney-General has failed in the two principal achievements which he sought as a constitutional and law reformer. He replaced the fixed term parliament proposal with the proposals of the Fraser Government, the proposals which the former Prime Minister announced his Government would introduce if it were re-elected, that is, the simultaneous proposal and the four-year term parliament proposal. So much for the Attorney's defence as a law reformer in the performance of the duties of his office. We have not brought forward this motion today to complain about the Attorney- General's law reform activities or about the fact that he seems to think he has had a great achievement in dealing with twice as much paper work as I dealt with . I think that is a great failure. For an Attorney-General to keep on being buried under more and more paper is a dismal failure. We did not bring forward this motion to complain about that. We brought this motion forward because we were concerned about the major duties, the prime duties, of an Attorney-General. Those duties are as the first law officer of the Crown. Senator Evans has accepted those duties. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) clearly enunciated them in the statements of the two former Labour Attorneys-General in England, Mr Samuel Silkin and Lord Shawcross. The Attorney-General has accepted that those are the main duties of his office and it is a difficult role. I am very well aware of that and I have a great deal of sympathy for a number of the decisions that Senator Evans has had to make and will have to make. What I am concerned about and what the Opposition is concerned about is the extent to which he seems to have fallen short of exercising those responsibilities in relation to the Mick Young affair. That is why this matter of urgency has been introduced. That failure has just been revealed and it is that failure that we are debating today. Let me illustrate what happened in this affair. The issues that have become part of the Mick Young affair were referred-it was not known at the time that this action would be taken-to Mr Justice Hope in May. One of the issues to be investigated was whether there had been any unauthorised or improper disclosure of information by anybody of the decision of the National and International Security Committee of Cabinet. It became known publicly in the middle of July that in fact the possibility existed that such disclosures, breaches of the Crimes Act, impropriety or whatever, had been committed by Mr Young. When that became known and Mr Young resigned, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wrote to the Attorney-General on 14 July and asked him for his opinion as to whether Mr Young had committed a breach of the Crimes Act. The Attorney-General wrote back and said that it was premature-I think it certainly was premature-to give an opinion at that stage. It was premature for the Attorney-General to give an opinion at all in relation to this matter until Mr Justice Hope had completed his inquiries , found his facts and reported to the Government. Senator Evans, in the opinion that he gave on 29 August, obviously had some concerns about that issue because in the last paragraph of that opinion he talked about whether he may be thought to be pre-judging the findings of Mr Justice Hope. That is just what he did do. After he gave his opinion on 29 August I asked the Attorney-General a question in this Senate about the effect of that opinion in relation to Mr Young. He referred to Mr Young's conduct as a 'technical offence'. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have said, on the version of the facts that Mr Justice Hope has now found to be correct, that it certainly would be open to a jury to find that there had been a breach of the Crimes Act. Maybe there could be, in certain circumstances, a technical offence in breach of the Crimes Act but this breach of the Crimes Act, Mr Justice Hope found, was a disclosure related to a matter of national security. That is the very fundamental of Mr Justice Hope's findings. Mr Justice Hope stated: I am also of the view that the potential, rather than the actual, damage to the national security is what must be considered in determining impropriety. If an unauthorised disclosure by a Cabinet Minister gives rise to a real risk of damage to national security, then the fact that little or no damage results does not diminish any impropriety in the disclosure. Senator Evans had approached this whole subject as though it were a technical offence. I have indicated what Mr Justice Hope found it to be. That puts a very different complexion on the whole matter than the view which Senator Evans himself seems to have had. His whole opinion was permeated and influenced by the view that it was just a technical offence. The view of the Solicitor-General was that it may well be a quite serious offence because it was open to a jury to find, as Mr Justice Hope found on his version of the facts, that there had been a breach of the Crimes Act. Thus this Attorney-General approached the giving of an opinion to the Prime Minister with a completely wrong view and approach to the matter. Then he sought to rely on a number of factors to justify why, even if there had been a breach of the Crimes Act, Mr Young should not be prosecuted. It was of course his decision that in any event Mr Young should not be prosecuted. He relied on a document which I authored and tabled in the Parliament last year. He referred to such matters as the obscurity of the law in this matter. That is certainly no basis at all, as can be seen from the Solicitor-General's opinion and, indeed, that of the Attorney-General. Mr Justice Hope made it quite clear that there was nothing obscure or difficult about the application of this section of the Crimes Act to the facts of this case. So that ground falls by the wayside. He then considered the seriousness of the offence and the degree of culpability of Mr Young. In his opinion, the Attorney-General said that of course Mr Young did not intend any harm to national security. I think that observation is to be accepted. He also said that it did not appear that any damage had occurred. In relation to this matter Mr Justice Hope said that the important thing was the ' potential, rather than the actual, damage to the national security'. That is why he found that there was impropriety in Mr Young's action. Mr Justice Hope also said that he had taken into account the fact that Mr Young was only trying to help a friend and that he did not intend to breach national security. However, he said that those considerations did not in his opinion: . . . diminish what I regard as the impropriety of the disclosures. It is also relevant that Mr Young had been a minister for a period of less than six weeks and that this was his first experience of such a case. I have concluded that . . . it should have been apparent to Mr Young that he should not make the disclosures. Those are the findings of Mr Justice Hope, a distinguished man and judge chosen by the Prime Minister to determine all the issues in this matter. He has determined them and I have outlined his findings of fact and the judgments he has made. Yet the Attorney-General has refused, despite the fact that we gave him the opportunity five times during Question Time yesterday, to reconsider the opinion he gave long before these facts were found by Mr Justice Hope, long before these conclusions and judgments were made. Those decisions having been made by Mr Justice Hope, it is clearly the duty of the Attorney-General to reconsider his opinion in the light of those decisions, particularly in light of the fact that Mr Justice Hope has formed a very different view of the facts and, to some extent, of the law, than that expressed by the Attorney-General in his opinion. The law is not obscure. The facts are serious facts. Breaches of national security have occurred. The offences are not technical in nature and, as Senator Chaney has already pointed out, the political sanction has now been lifted. It is certainly the duty of the Attorney-General, a duty to which he has not lived up, to reconsider his decision and his opinion. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(2.54) —Whilst in the library this morning, I happened to come across a passage in a book called A Generation of Judges, an 1886 publication. Senator Lewis —Just browsing, were you? Senator TATE —I was just browsing and the publication happens to be very apt to the occasion this afternoon. The author said of the office of the Attorney- General: It is probably the most laborious post in the three kingdoms, providing exceptional temptation for that disregard of health which is not unknown in any branch of the profession of law. I believe that in relation to the present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans ), the holder of that high office in Australia among this federation of six States and Territories, that is a very apt description of the office which my colleague discharges so well. The fact is that it is also a temptation when somebody attacks his office with the zeal of the present incumbent to those in the Opposition or those who take a contrary political view to hang around and wait for that apparent small lapse of judgment at the margins and then take it and blow it up into a completely distorted caricature of the discharge of duties by that Attorney-General. That is exactly what we are faced with today; a little bit of sniping at some apparent alleged lapses or errors of judgment by the Attorney-General, which, of course, he has refuted in the substance of the allegation but which has taken up so much of our valuable time this afternoon. The fact is that on a scale of one to 10 in the procedures available to this chamber to condemn a Minister for failing to discharge the duties of his office, this urgency motion, so-called, rates about 2 1/2. Senator Crowley —Too high. Senator TATE —Perhaps 2. There is not much more to this motion than a schoolmasterly admonition, a little bit of chiding of the Attorney. This chamber has this afternoon been distracted from a very important legislative program. We have been impeded, and that distraction, that failure to consider legislation, has a nice ironic twist. What was on the Order of Business circulated this morning for this time of the day? It was the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 4), by which this Government is still attempting to undo the effects of the gross maladministration by the previous Attorney-General of his particular office, during which the previous Government permitted the defrauding of the revenue to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Some honourable senators have the cheek to come into this chamber and bring forward this urgency motion rather than deal with the repercussions of that particular maladministration by the previous Attorney-General. However inconsequentially expressed, this is nevertheless an important debate. One would have expected that when an indictment such as this is brought against the chief law officer of the Crown, the particulars of the offences would have been laid out so that we could give due consideration, as any person is entitled to do when a charge which affects his whole office and his reputation within the community is being laid. But we find nothing. The motion states: The need for the Attorney-General to live up to the duties of his office. There are no particulars of offence. There is nothing laid out in order to enable some deliberation or consideration of charges or particulars of offences that might be listed. Is this the Star Chamber of the Tudors and the Stewarts or is it the Senate chamber of the Australian Parliament? We ought to have had the particulars of offence laid out if such an indictment were to be laid. But even though our Federal Constitution provides for trial by jury on indictment for serious Commonwealth offences, that protection afforded to the citizens of Australia was not afforded to the Attorney today. It falls poorly from the Opposition's lips to mount such an attack without particulars of offence. If the Opposition had provided particulars of offence, we could have gone through the matter point by point. The one particular of offence on which the Opposition chose to dwell, the supposed partiality of the Attorney-General towards Mr Mick Young, fell to the ground-I could not take it seriously-after Senator Chaney, in order to prove the state of mind of the Attorney, quoted the state of mind of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the other chamber, in relation to the question of the readmission of Mick Young to the Ministry. I should have thought that the meanest, most obscure magistrate in the most far-flung jurisdiction of Australia would have laughed that out of court-trying to establish the state of mind of one man by reference to the state of mind of another. I could not take that seriously, and it is quite clear that the Australian Democrats could not take it seriously because it was not until I rose to speak that one of them even came into the chamber. Any impartial observer looking at this urgency motion would have looked for perhaps the bringing into the chamber of evidence of neglect or indifference by the Attorney to the duties of his office. We all know that the facts are utterly to the contrary of any such evidence, which could not be proffered anyway. One may look for evidence of ill-will distorting or perverting the carrying out of the duties of the office. Malice toward none is an absolutely cardinal principle . There could be no evidence of any perversion or distorting of the discharge of the duties of office by the Attorney in that regard. Was there any evidence of partiality towards one part of the Attorney's portfolio rather than another? No; right across the board there has been a tremendous range of matters which he has addressed, and not only the administering of the Department, which was in such a woeful state and which, as I say, led to the defrauding of the Australian revenue of hundreds of millions of dollars. The fact is that there has been a multitude of appointments and a strengthening of judicial resources-judges, courts and tribunals-so necessary for the provision of justice to the Australian people. He has been involved in that and also with projected reform in areas of the law, both Commonwealth and those requiring Commonwealth-State co-operation. He has put into place an assault on organised crime and official corruption throughout Australia. Added to this, we have a very zealous commitment to our democracy, to the constitutional foundations and bases and sources and strength of our democratic way of life. He has invited the Australian people to join in a referendum in the process of changing that constitutional basis for the bettering of our democracy . In all these ways the Attorney-General has discharged over such a wide panorama the duties of his office. If the Australian people were asked, as a reflex action, whom they would identify with law reform right across the whole range of issues, on a national scale, such as might challenge or unsettle them, they would say Mr Justice Kirby and Senator Gareth Evans. The public has faith in those two men-not that they agree with them every time, not that there may not be some dissent from some particular assessment or judgment that either of those men make; but the public knows that with them the legal system is in good hands. There may be some lapse of decorum; we have all been the subject from time to time of some barbed remark or of the calculated insult in which the Attorney takes such mischievous pleasure. But all that proves is that we have as an Attorney a human being, not an automaton. Finally, it is a measure of the grudging admiration of those on the other side of this chamber that they came into the chamber without a censure motion, without a vote which, if carried against the Attorney, would have led to his resignation. There is nothing in this matter which is by any stretch of the imagination required to be taken as a vote of no confidence in the Attorney. Opposition senators could not come in here and seek to censure him because they knew they did not have the facts to back up such a charge. They know in their hearts that a dozen venial sins do not amount to a mortal sin; that in fact there is nothing in the way in which the Attorney has discharged the duties of his office that in any way puts him in jeopardy of losing the confidence of this chamber. They have failed to demonstrate in any way that he has failed and I believe that this proposition brings no discredit on the Attorney but rather on those from whose lips it has fallen. I believe that the motion ought to be tested as quickly as possible and therefore, in order to see it defeated as it deserves to be, in order to make the matter a matter of test straight away, I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Bolkus, N. 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. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. 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. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. McIntosh, G. G. MacGibbon, D. J. Richardson, G. F Withers, R. G. Giles, P. J. Rae, P. E. Grimes, D. J. Messner, A. J. Childs, B. K. Hill, R. M. Walsh, P. A. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Button, J. N. Hamer, D. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. 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. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Bolkus, N. 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. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Withers, R. G. Giles, P. J. Rae, PeterGrimes, D. J. Messner, A. J. Childs, B. K. Hill, R. Walsh, P. A. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Button, J. N. Hamer, D. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That intervening business be postponed until after further consideration of Government Business, order of the day No. 10, Sex Discrimination Bill 1983. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.13) —I oppose this motion. I do so because just now we witnessed Senator Tate use the gag motion to gag anyone who wished to participate in the matter of urgency. That motion having been successful, the opportunity was not available to anyone-me, for example-who disagreed somewhat with some of the thrust of the Opposition's move relating to the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) in respect of Mick Young, to express concern about the Attorney's actions relating to the referendum matter. I am concerned that the forms of this House are being used to restrict legitimate debate, and they are being used with the support of the Australian Democrats, who helped gag the debate. There are provisions in the Standing Orders which enable matters of public importance and motions of urgency to be debated for a full two hours. I understand that a matter of public importance or an urgency motion has not been put forward by the Opposition or me for some considerable time. In fact the last occasion on which a matter of public importance was put forward it was put forward by the Australian Democrats, and we certainly did not move the gag on that matter. What is occurring in this chamber is that those of us who are attempting to work out our program on the day, in accordance with what is in the Standing Orders, are suddenly faced with a move to truncate those Standing Orders. Senator Gareth Evans —It mucked up your filibuster, did it? Senator HARRADINE —No, it did not muck up any filibuster at all. In fact you are the loser on this matter because I was not going to vote for that motion at all. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator please address his remarks through the Chair. Senator Chipp —How did he lose your vote? It is irrelevant. Senator HARRADINE —I wish my vote were irrelevant on some occasions then I would not have to study and read extraneous material as I do at the moment. Mr President, as I mentioned this morning there is a list of urgent matters to be considered by the Senate before Christmas, and it includes matters which can be considered and determined by the-- Senator Chipp —How many voters does he represent? He has 0.28 per cent of the vote but he takes up all the time of the Senate. Senator HARRADINE —I will respond to the interjection that Senator Chipp just flung up. Senator Ryan —Filibuster. Senator HARRADINE —Oh no, I need to respond to it because he spoke directly into the microphone. I will push it around to him directly and then he can speak into it. The interjection was that I received 0.28 per cent of the vote of Australia. I am sure the electors of Tasmania will be most interested in the view that Senator Chipp and the Australian Democrats take of them. As a matter of fact, in the last half Senate election I received 21.4 per cent of the votes of the people. Senator Chipp —Of Tasmanians. Senator HARRADINE —Of Tasmanians, yes. Senator Chipp refers to the persons living in my State in a snide and derogatory way. It is no wonder that the Democrats get very few votes in Tasmania. We are now being asked to vote for a proposition to bring on the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 before all the other urgent measures, including the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 4)- Senator Walters —Education. Senator HARRADINE —Including the education legislation. We should bear in mind that the education debate was to continue. The people who are listening to this broadcast expected to hear the education debate after the matter of public importance. Now they are going to be denied that. It is clear that the Government wants the education Bills to go through the Parliament, and so do the rest of us. They can go through the Parliament, but what cannot go through, of course, is the very Bill that we are going to talk about next, and that is the Sex Discrimination Bill. The reason for that is that members of the House of Representatives have drawn stumps and gone home for Christmas. There is no way that they are going to be involved in discussing the sex discrimination legislation. I would like to know from the Attorney-General who moved this motion why it is that there is such an inane concentration on this measure when it cannot possibly get through the Parliament until after the New Year. I would like to know the reason. Frankly, as I said this morning, I believe it exhibits an inordinate and unhealthy concentration on sex which is not fitting for Government members or anybody else. I feel that the order of business being proposed by the Government reflects its priorities and indicates to me that it is not fair dinkum about the so-called bottom of the harbour legislation. If the Government were fair dinkum about that , it would have brought back the bottom of the harbour mark I legislation. It did not. It brought in bottom of the harbour mark II. I thought that the Government would bring down bottom of the harbour mark II. It did not. It has brought in bottom of the harbour mark III. There have been no explanations. The Government obviously feels that the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 is more important than bottom of the harbour legislation. It is just not fair dinkum about the bottom of the harbour legislation. I will wait until the debate on the bottom of the harbour legislation to present something which will be most interesting to Government members. I oppose the motion. Frankly, I hope it is genuinely opposed by those who are concerned, firstly, to see legislation dealt with that can be passed by the Parliament and, secondly, are concerned about the priorities of the Government. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.22) —I would like to indicate that the Opposition will not oppose this motion. We had understood that the order of business would be as is now proposed by the Government. I want to indicate that this is the reason for our attitude on this matter. The Government, of course, must set its own priorities and the public will judge whether or not it agrees with those priorities. This is not a matter for me to debate now. I wanted to indicate that the reason we will not support Senator Harradine's view is that it was our understanding always that the Government would bring this legislation on. The only other matter I want to touch on concerns some complaint about a matter of urgency being brought on for debate. I point out that in the last eight sitting days I think the matter of urgency moved by the Opposition this afternoon was the only one in the last sitting days-a very unusually long break between such motions. That is because we have chosen to give priority to debate on legislation. Obviously, at the end of the session with a good deal of important legislation still to be considered, generally our view would be that such legislation should be dealt with. Given the very great restraint we have shown in bringing forward matters of public importance, I regret that the Government saw fit to gag the one remaining Opposition speaker. On behalf of the Opposition, I indicate that I do not believe that this action encourages us to show restraint in bringing such matters forward. I want our position on this matter to be quite clear. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.23) —I just want to draw to the attention of back bench Government senators who, of course, have all vacated this chamber, that I could now use the forms of this chamber to make the speech in respect of which I was gagged today. It would be simply a matter of my saying to you, Mr President: 'I have been prevented from making a speech and, if I had been allowed to make the speech, this is the speech I would have made'. I could have then gone on, under the forms of this chamber and made that speech. I am just saying to the Government that I will not do that in order to assist it to get through the business it wants to get through today. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.24) —I just want to utter four sentences. The first is: There are innumerable precedents for the Government in the life of the last Administration gagging urgency motions of the kind that was before the Senate this afternoon. I could quote the examples of 26 November 1980 and 27 August 1981 just for starters. The other three sentences are all in response to the remarks of Senator Harradine, who wanted reasons why the Government seeks to bring on the Sex Discrimination Bill. It is because the women of Australia want the Sex Discrimination Act, which the Labor Government is proposing. It is because they voted for the Australian Labor Party to deliver it. It is because the Government wants the Bill ready to go in the House of Representatives, at the commencement of the autumn session, when the business load is otherwise slack. Question resolved in the affirmative. (No. 2) Debate resumed from 6 December 1983, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Upon which Senator Durack had moved by way of amendment: ', but the Senate, whilst welcoming the intention of the Bill to remove discrimination against the people on the basis of their sex, marital status or pregnancy, is of the opinion that: (a) the Bill should not rely on the external affairs power as a head of power; (b) Australia's signature to the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women should be used to extend the powers of the Commonwealth; (c) the removal of discrimination against people on the basis of sex should be recognised as not obliging anyone to enter the paid workforce or alter their view of their responsibilities towards their spouses or children; (d) no decision or action by any educational or child care or other body established for the education of students or the care of children in accordance with the doctrines of a religion or creed or in accordance with stated principles should be affected where that decision or action has been taken in good faith to enable the body to conform with those doctrines or principles; (e) nothing in the Bill should be taken as approving those articles of the Convention which are not implemented by the Bill; and (f) the clauses of the Bill should be re-drafted accordingly'. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.26) —I have only a quarter of an hour left to speak in the second reading debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill and I wish to remind the Senate that when I last spoke I wondered aloud why, in view of the fact that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) had said this was one part of the legislative package, and that the other part would follow after the Green Paper was delivered, we have not been treated to a consideration of that Paper. It was promised as far back as September of this year, or even earlier. The latest on the matter is a statement in the Australian Financial Review, in reviewing the year to 1 December 1983. The statement, which is by Barbara Drury and is on women's affairs, discusses the Green Paper and reads: Green light for affirmative action paper It states: Once the Green Paper is released in January (a summary will be available from the Australian Government Publishing Service in major cities) Senator Ryan's office will concentrate on publicising its recommendations and fostering public awareness. What that means is that this Green Paper, which is most important to a full consideration of this measure, is to be denied to the Senate before it votes on the measure, but almost immediately afterwards the Paper will be released to the public. That is deceptive. I feel that honourable senators should read the Australian Financial Review of 1 December and note the statement there that the Green Paper is to be released in January. This Bill still does not pick up some of the real problems that are seen to be of great concern to a large number of people. I acknowledged that, as a result of the work of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the meetings he has held, and the meetings that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has held, some of these matters of concern have been picked up, but they have not been completely solved. This Bill is not in a form which could attract my support. I believe that it ought to be in a form that should attract support from those who have a commitment to abolish discrimination against women and to cherished values, community standards and right to life issues. On right to life issues, such as abortion, I point out that this Bill, even as amended, does not specifically exclude this question. It should be excluded as it has nothing to do with the question of discrimination against women on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy. I wonder what is the Government's objection to coming straight out and saying that nothing in the Bill creates any obligation to perform or to do any act, including the supply of goods or facilities, that would facilitate or assist the performance of abortion or sterilisation? Such a provision would be additional to that dealing with the services that are capable of being provided to one sex only. There is a difficulty in the wording. Its nature is such that it can be applied only to one sex. Of course I will raise that matter in the Committee stage. But let us deal with the question of the supply of goods. As far as the supply of goods is concerned why is this a matter of some concern now? The reason for that is found in a question that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, who is seated at the table, asked when she was in opposition of the then Minister representing the Minister for Health in this chamber, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. I refer to the Hansard of 24 May 1978 where Senator Ryan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health: Has the Minister received an application from the manufacturers of the suppository drug, Prostaglandin E2 . . . She goes on to say: . . . if so, what was the Minister's response to the application. If no such application has been made, will the Minister assure the Senate that any decision on whether to approve the marketing of the drug will be based on its merits, and that he will not allow the opposition of the Right to Life Association to impede the development of this beneficial medical procedure. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle indicated that the answer to that question was: No. Advice has been received from the company concerned that they have no present plans to make an application for the suppository formulation. Let us take clause 32 of the Bill. That clause is insufficient in its current rewording. I have explained that there are problems about the wording and I will raise that matter in the Committee stage. Furthermore, it does not cover goods and services. For example, a pharmacist might be asked to supply a good to which he or she has a moral objection. Senator Ryan —They do not supply it. They do not have to supply it. Senator HARRADINE —If that is the case, well and good, Senator. I suppose that this is not the area in which to raise this matter. Senator Ryan —We will do it in the Committee stage. You will be reassured. Senator HARRADINE —I am reassured by the Minister's response to that issue. I thank her for it. I now wish to come to the question of education. There is a problem with the rewording. Whilst the rewording might be useful to non- government schools that are also church schools, it is not useful to other schools and it makes no concession to parents in respect of discrimination that might be desirable to achieve an educational objective. That is another point I wish to raise in the Committee stage as it is probably not appropriate to raise it in the second reading debate. Again, I reiterate what I said about de facto spouses. I believe that the definition of marital status should not contain a provision relating to de facto spouses. It is all very well to say that administrative procedures in the social security and taxation areas do cover de facto spouses, but in those particular areas it is in the shape of benefits to the taxpayers or to the welfare beneficiaries. This Bill, for the first time in Commonwealth legislation as such-I am talking about Commonwealth legislation; I am talking about tertiary education assistance scheme regulations or anything else-is placing a de facto relationship on the same level as a bona fide married relationship. Some people might say: 'Oh well, fair enough.' I do not happen to share that view. But the legislation is going further than that; it is requiring the public to accept that view under penalty. That is the matter which is disconcerting, for example, in the area of the supply of goods, or services or accommodation. Again, I would like to raise that matter in the Committee stage. I would like to raise a number of other matters in the Committee stage as it would be better for me to raise them then. They refer to the operations of the Human Rights Commission and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. There is the odd situation whereby the Human Rights Commission can refer matters to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner who, after investigation, if she cannot properly deal with the matters, can refer them back to the Human Rights Commission. That seems to be something of an oddity. One of the other oddities is contained in clause 104 which deals with the delegation powers of the Human Rights Commission and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. I believe that these powers are far too wide. The Government ought to have a look at those powers to see whether they cannot be tidied up. I am not sure whether the Government intends the broad delegatory powers to cover the problems that have been raised with the Government from both employer and union sources about the current operation of the discrimination committees. As the Senate will be aware, those committees have long since been established and they have worked very well. The reason that they have worked very well, in a conciliatory and objective fashion, is that they have been tripartite in character. They have had representatives of the employers, representatives of the unions and representatives of a government appointed chairperson. They have worked well. Everybody recognises that they have worked well although, under the legislation, they have not had the teeth that some people would have liked them to have had. Nevertheless, they have worked well under the provisions of International Labour Organisation Convention 111. It may be that the delegatory powers are to cover a situation in which those committees will be given those sorts of problems. If that is so, the Government ought to amend that provision to say so. If it does not, it will lose control of the situation because the Human Rights Commission and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner will determine to whom the power is to be delegated. Obviously the Sex Discrimination Commissioner can delegate only to a member of the staff, whereas the Human Rights Commission can delegate all those powers to other bodies approved by the Commission. That could be anybody. It could even be the complainant, although that is a long shot. But once it goes in that form the Government has lost control. More importantly, the Parliament, if it ever had any control, will lose any scrutiny of what occurs in those areas. The Bill places a tremendous amount of power in the hands of the Human Rights Commission and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, a non-elected and non-judicial organisation and person respectively. That to me is disconcerting. I will be raising that matter too at the Committee stage. Finally, I accept that there has been a genuine attempt to overcome certain problems. Those problems I have mentioned are still outstanding, as is one of the major areas of concern; that is, there is nothing in this legislation which will cover the genuine conscientious beliefs of individual citizens or protect them. I will be moving an amendment, which I hope will be passed by the Senate, to protect those people. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.42) —We are debating the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983. No one on this side of the chamber is opposed to the proposition that there should not be discrimination within the work force simply on the grounds of sex, whether against men or women. One will find no argument with the general proposition that there should be no discrimination against women in areas of education, accommodation, the provision of goods, services and facilities, the disposal of land and the whole range of activities which this Bill seeks to cover, simply because they are women. In the same way, one can only condemn discrimination involving sexual harassment in the work force, education or anywhere else, There is no place for sexual prejudices in our community. However, my objection to this legislation is its naive or perhaps wilful misrepresentation of the application of these fundamental principles. The real intention and purpose of this legislation, which enshrines a United Nations Convention, by the abuse of the spirit of the Constitution through the external affairs powers, is to redefine and to restructure the role of all women, more particularly the family unit within society. It is a not too subtle attempt to destroy the structure, the fabric, the values and the intrinsic role of the family unit which for centuries has been the foundation of our orderly and disciplined society and culture. Of course, the wording of the relevant United Nations Convention is subject to a great deal of wide interpretation. What the general phrases in the Convention mean becomes very much a matter of subjective judgment. If the interpretations given in the various speeches made within this chamber in this debate are an honest reflection of honourable senators' perceptions of the words and phrases in the Convention, they mean a great many different things to different people. I refer to Article 5 of the Convention which, in part, states: State parties shall take all appropriate measures: (a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on . . . stereotyped roles for men and women; I refer the Senate particularly to the words 'shall take all appropriate measures' as they relate to the words 'elimination of . . . practices . . . based on . . . stereotyped roles for men and women'. The words are not 'may', or 'in certain circumstances', or 'in some cases may be appropriate', for 'the stereotyped roles of men and women as they relate to the family unit may be suitable or appropriate or may suit certain men and women within their marriages and families'; the meaning of the words is: Shall on all occasions eliminate. In my view that can only be seen as a direct attack upon the historic structure of the family unit within the Australian community. In my view the vast majority of Australians feel strongly that the family structure and the various functions and customary roles of each partner, which have been practiced for generations, are thoroughly suitable and appropriate. The traditional functions and roles played by each partner are as the great majority of both men and women would have them. That is not to say for a moment that those functions and roles are either appropriate or suitable for all families-that is a choice for the partners to make jointly; it should not be the subject of a unilateral determination and pronouncement imposed on the community and marriage partners by a government. I have no doubt that a great many wives and husbands perceive, embrace and practice what the Convention and this legislation describes as stereotype roles. It is their mutual choice to do so and it is their right to so determine. Equally, it is the right of others to choose differently. Article 5 should be read in conjunction with the preamble to the Convention, which states: . . . that a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women. Senator Martin —Which Article is that, Senator? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It is in the preamble. As I said earlier, the roles of both partners are absolutely matters for the partners mutually to decide and not for the Government to pronounce. Yet the explicit proposition in this legislation is that women and men can be equal only if there is a change in the traditional family role of men and women. That to me is the height of impertinence, arrogance and disregard for the values and judgments of partners who happily function in what this Convention describes as the traditional family role. A great many women in particular feel that they are-in fact they are- thoroughly equal to their spouses. One could well draw the conclusion that the Convention, which is in the Schedule to this Bill and which reflects the philosophy of the Bill, is telling those women that they are not equal and that they will have to change their role in the family unit to become equal. In the same way, it is implicit in this Bill that men can make themselves equal only by changing their role in the family unit. I would be grateful if at a later time Senator Ryan would explain to all of those couples who are living in blissful happiness in the inframework of the traditional family unit, undertaking their separate and in part interchangeable roles, why and how they are unequal and how this new enlightened view of marriage and the family unit will make them equal. It smacks to me of the expression: 'We will make you happy and we have ways of ensuring that you are'. As I say, I have no doubt that the majority of husbands and wives living in the traditional family are perfectly happy and perfectly equal. There are countless married women who enjoy the role of wife and mother. They do not go out to work. They do not wish to go out to work. They fulfill the conventional functions of a wife and mother. They have chosen the role which they have undertaken and are perfectly happy and perfectly equal. Many married women go out to work an also undertake certain family duties and responsibilities which they believe are best undertaken by a wife and mother. They are also perfectly happy and, in their own minds, they believe they are perfectly equal. It is interesting that Article 5 of the Convention states in part: . . . it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases. I thoroughly agree with that statement. Yet in Article 11 the Convention states that State parties should: . . . encourage the provision of the necesary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public life, in particular through promoting the establishment and development of a network of child-care facilities. While it may not be the view of Senator Ryan or of this Government, a great many parents take the view that the fundamental consideration of children in not served by placing them in child care facilities. There are those who take the thoroughly respectable view that having children and then placing them in child care centres while both parents pursue public life is not in the best interest of the children or is not properly fulfilling parental responsibilities which should be inherent in choosing to bring children into this world. I do not presume to make judgments for other people as to what they consider suitable arrangements for the functioning of their families. I do not make a judgment on which parent should have what responsibility and how they manage their lives to provide the best upbringing for their children and which allows either parent or both parents to work and participate in public life. But the United Nations Convention which is attached to the Bill by way of a schedule, by its very statements, may be reasonably interpreted to make such a judgment. It seeks to assert that many women who consider themselves to be both happy and equal in their roles as mothers and wives are not happy, and that the steps set out in the Convention requiring a change in their roles are necessary to make them equal. The Convention in effect belittles the vital role of these women and consequently the role of their husbands. It ought not to be forgotten that this Sex Discrimination Bill will not be the final say of this Government on the matter of equality between the sexes. Senator Ryan has made her position abundantly clear. She is a fervant supporter of affirmative action. I will be very keen to read the Green Paper when it is ultimately circulated. We might ask ourselves now what is intended. Is it to be as described in Article 4 of the Convention which calls for 'accelerating de facto equality between men and women'? Will that not be considered discrimination? Is it to be, as the Convention describes it, discrimination against men? Will we find that irrespective of the number of men and women applying for positions in the work force that women will have to be allocated 50 per cent of the vacancies? Will we see legislation introduced which demands that half of all schoolteachers, for instance, must be women, irrespective of the ratio of men and women applying for such positions? Will it apply to the Public Service and other Government instrumentalities? Will we have a situation where qualifications are no longer thoroughly relevant and employers are compelled to accept applicants on the basis of their sex and not their merits? My guess is that the paramount consideration will be the applicant's sex and not his or her suitability for the position. The legislation now before us, I do admit, is a far cry from the first Bill. Some 51 amendments from the Government alone have been put forward, not to mention the 23 amendments from the Opposition and numerous others which will be moved by the Australian Democrats and by Senator Harradine. What ought to be observed is that the majority, if not all Government members, spoke on and in favour of the original legislation prior to the great many amendments now contained in this contemporary legislation. Many of the original clauses which have now been amended or removed were of a draconian nature and not only took a scant regard for civil liberties but also, in some cases, actively took from Australian people their rights and liberties. The burden of the onus of proof was transferred to the so-called defendant. What I find remarkable about that is that Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Michael Tate, who both publicly gave their unqualified support for that reversal of the onus of proof provision in this Bill, were members of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which addressed the matter of the onus of proof. At that time they were both very strongly opposed to the reversal on to the defendant. That stated position is contained in the Committee's report on that subject and it had the full support of all the Committee members, including Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Michael Tate. Many other obnoxious provisions were contained in the original Bill, such as a departure from the conventional standards of proof; compelling a defendant to provide self-incriminating documents and evidence which could have been used against him; defendants would not automatically have the benefit of legal representation without the explicit approval of the Human Rights Commission; and government schools were and are to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill but private schools, including church schools, were and are to be included without exemption irrespective of whether the teachers whom the schools were to be compelled to engage under the provisions of the Bill, had a marital status, a lifestyle or views totally incompatible with the religious beliefs or teachings of the school. It may well have been that certain church schools would not have found it desirable to engage teachers or boarder masters who perhaps lived in a de facto relationship or who might have been homosexuals or lesbians. However, under the provisions of the Bill originally presented to us there appeared to be no relief for exemption for those church schools. I mention but a few of the original provisions to indicate the type of legislation which this Government was proposing and which had the unqualified support of certain sections of the community. To me it is not without a certain touch of irony that those decent and honest people who dared to question and doubt the wisdom and virtue of the original Bill were attacked in such a vicious and intemperate way, and were very often accused of being bigots and sexists by the people who themselves now stand condemned for their prejudices, biases and jaundiced views of life. There were, of course, those who did support the original Bill who did so in good faith without perhaps fully understanding or having full knowledge of its contents and implications because the Government chose not to enlighten them of its full ramifications. I want to touch on a few aspects of the Bill to which I find objection. The present wording of the section relating to sexual harassment in the work force is capable of placing both employer and employee in quite an intolerable position. The present provisions are capable of providing that an employer may, for instance, make advances to an employee to which the employee, for all intents and purposes, gives no indication of objection and, in fact, may well be perceived by the employer as encouraging the advancement. Yet, at a later date the employee may lay a complaint against the employer for sexual harassment, charging that she-presumably, for the great part, we can assume that the complaints will be female-did not resist or object to the advances because she felt that to do so may disadvantage her in connection with her employment or, to use the words of the Bill, in her possible employment. The employer may have had every reason to believe that his advances were welcomed and encouraged and may well have not had the slightest idea that they were not welcomed. In fact they may have been thoroughly welcome at the time. Under these proposed provisions, an employee may happily accommodate the advances and at a later date complain that she did so because of the alleged fear for her employment, to which I previously referred. The complaint will simply turn. What the employee claimes to be her state of mind at the time has no bearing in any way upon what may have been in the mind of the employer at the time. It is no defence for the employer that he clearly had every reason to believe his advances were welcome. There need be absolutely no indication of either a verbal or physical nature by the employee that the advance was unwelcome. It ought to be understood that the advance need not be of a physical nature; it may simply be of an oral nature. The provision as presently worded frankly provides for a great deal of harassment by employees of employers. It takes little imagination to see what havoc can be caused by a mischievous or vindictive employee seeking either before or after the event to cause trouble and anguish to an employer. The scope for what may be described as set-ups is almost unlimited. I have no doubt that sexual harassment goes on in the community and in the work force in probably far greater dimension than most of us would imagine, and there ought to be proper and adequate protection for employees. However, this Bill, in my view, is not the sensible solution to that problem. Without tracing through the same arguments, the same position holds for sexual harassment in education. Naturally, we can presume that the matters which are likely to arise will relate to universities and tertiary institutions. Again it is not difficult to envisage the ramifications of the legislation in its present form. While we may presume its intention is to protect students from sexual harassment, the effect can be to introduce blackmail of innocent teachers and lecturers or ultimately the destruction of their careers. As though these provisions are not damaging enough as they stand, the alleged harasser does not have automatic right of legal counsel to appear on his behalf before the Commission and may do so only with permission of the Commissioner or if the Commission itself so chooses to have legal counsel assist it. Inquiries shall be held in public unless the Commission chooses to the contrary. One can readily see how, with a combination of these provisions, innocent people can and no doubt will be persecuted and denied natural justice. Turning for a moment to definitions, the definitions of sex discrimination and discrimination on the ground of marital status do not provide relief for employers which, in certain circumstances, may be totally reasonable. There may well be an employer who is seeking an employee on a long term basis and the initial period may be one of investment by the employer in the employee without expecting any immediate or medium term return. An employer may interview a young married woman with excellent qualifications and, on inquiry, learn that she is looking forward to starting a family in the months ahead. It would, on my reading of this legislation, be discriminatory if he were to decline her application on the basis that she could not reasonably expect to maintain continuity of employment for a reasonable period of learning and return for the employer. An employer may have a small office staff-perhaps of two-and his current employee may be an excellent female secretary who has some difficulty in working closely with other females. Under this Bill he could find himself in breach of the sex discrimination provisions if he were not to engage the best and most qualified applicant to fill the remaining position, notwithstanding the fact that it may create considerable disruption to his office and its smooth and efficient functioning. Finally, perhaps in the broader sense, the most objectionable and obnoxious feature of this legislation is that it seeks to use the external affairs powers of the Constitution which were never intended, never envisaged, and even in contemporary times never imagined by the great majority of Australians and members of parliament to be so used to provide a framework and a method for legislation of this nature to be afflicted upon all Australians. To me it is another example of the ambitions of the Australian Labor Party to centralise all power in Canberra and to continue to dilute and dissolve the power of the States . Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(4.05) —The second reading debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983, Mark II, is drawing to a close. I am the last speaker for the Opposition. After the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) has replied we will start looking at the Bill clause by clause. There has been quite a long debate and a very wide variety of contributions. In speaking at the end of the second reading stage of the debate I am almost replying for the Opposition. It was originally my task to open for the Opposition but I was unavoidably absent from the Senate on the appropriate day. We have had a wide variety of contributions and I want to make a contribution. I want to make a general observation about the debate and the variety of contributions particularly in the light of the last two speeches. The Government must accept that all the contributions to this debate have been entirely genuine . This is a controversial Bill, probably more controversial than it deserves to be, because so much of the comment on it has been tied up with comment on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. I reiterate at the outset what was stated by Senator Durack who led for the Opposition at the beginning of the debate. The Opposition supports sex discrimination legislation and it supported the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Conceptually, we are at one. The Opposition has had a number of differences with the Government in terms of the detail of the Bill. This Bill has had an extremely long passage. The Government laid it on the table, I think, on 2 June this year. The Minister then indicated that it would be brought before the Senate at the end of the autumn session so that the community could comment. I am sure the Minister has not been disappointed by the volume of the community's comment. The Opposition has also commented and at times we have had a fairly long list of amendments. When we move into the Committee stage of the Bill we shall outline in detail the specifics of what we see to be the remaining flaws in the Bill. Nevertheless, the Minister has made extensive amendments to it. The subject of amendment of the Bill has been a matter of small acrimony, one must admit, from time to time. However, the Opposition has welcomed a number of the amendments to the Bill. It has welcomed the fact that the Government has taken note of a number of the suggestions that it made in the form of amendments. Nevertheless, we will be pursuing a number of items in some detail. I would like to make some general comments about the Bill. As I said a couple of minutes ago, the Opposition supports anti-discrimination legislation; it supported the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Of course it did not support the ratification of that Convention totally without reservation and I believe that if we had still been in government this year we would certainly have kept the commitment which we gave last year that ratification of the Convention was close . We might have put some different reservations on the Convention but that is history now. Nevertheless, the reservations would not have been such to deny the import of the Convention. I now come to the Bill. At the end of last year the Opposition announced that it would enact anti-discrimination legislation in relation to the Territories and those organisations that came under Commonwealth jurisdiction. The number of jobs that were covered potentially by that legislation was 402,000. I am not surprised that there is a general community unawareness of the fact that that was the then Government's intention. As far as I am aware only one newspaper reported the statement by the then Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Tom McVeigh and the Acting Attorney-General, Mr Neil Brown. Nevertheless, we had a commitment to anti-discrimination legislation. However, there is a major difference between our commitment and this Bill. This Bill by the Hawke Government involves, of course, the question of jurisdiction and the use of the foreign affairs power in particular to implement certain aspects of it. I was sorry for a number of reasons when the High Court of Australia turned down the challenge to the Bills in relation to south-west Tasmania. My reasons for that are on the record because I spoke at length on the Bills in this chamber. I felt a sinking in my heart because I had a terrible feeling that that decision by the High Court would give the Government an opening to give us a foreign affairs power in relation to anti-discrimination legislation and that it would give some people a stick with which to beat the principle of anti-discrimination legislation. So as far as this Bill relies on the external affairs power, the Opposition will oppose it. That is no surprise I am sure to anyone. It is a constitutional matter. It is unfortunate, however, that some people have sought to throw out the baby with the bath water on these grounds. The Opposition will oppose those parts of this Bill which rely on the foreign affairs power for their application and implementation. We will oppose them firmly and at all stages. However, it should not be taken from that that opposition to those aspects of the Bill is in any way opposition to the principle of the Bill. I have already stated our support for the principle of the Bill and the actions we took when in government to implement that principle of equality and equality of opportunity. In contributions to the debate by a very large number of speakers there has been wide-ranging comment on the subject of discrimination in Australia and most particularly discrimination against women. The Bill applies to men as well as women. The subject of discrimination against women, however, is a rather more burning and long-standing issue. From the attitudes of those who have debated the Bill, it is very clearly the eradication of this form of discrimination which is most needed and most apparent. However, I emphasise that the Bill applies to men as well as women. Some men in our society are discriminated against and are looking forward to some legislative protection. I welcome the fact that, as I understand it, nearly all of the Bill will apply to men as well as women. As I understand it those clauses relying on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women will not necessarily apply to men as well as women. Australia has come a long way in the last 10 years. I would not have thought 10 years ago that, voluntarily, we would have come as far as we have. But we have. There have been major changes in Australian society in the last 10 years in attitudes towards women and in areas of discrimination. Nevertheless, there is a hard core of opposition to equality for women in our society. This is demonstrated daily in the lives of many women. In some cases this is demonstrated spectacularly. It is demonstrated spectacularly in the issue of discrimination against female members of certain turf clubs, football clubs, golf clubs and so on-whatever you like. It is an affront to the dignity of humanity that half of humanity has to take this sort of labelling as necessarily inferior or in an inferior position. I welcome the fact that that affront will be outlawed. The hard core of straight opposition to equality remains. Some of the other opposition to this sort of legislation and these sorts of moves such as moves in recent years, has been of a different nature. It was thought in the past that there were good reasons for discriminating against women, particularly married women, in the work force. That is the traditional form of discrimination. There was a belief that women were inferior employees to men because of statistics, hard cold facts in relation to comparative rates of job turnover between men and women and absenteeism between them. We can thank the technological revolution and, to go a little further back, ever since the changes in industry since World War II, for getting rid of those shibboleths. The assembly line has done a lot to get rid of traditional prejudices against women as employees. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 4.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.15 p.m. The following papers were presented: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 284. Apply and Pear Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 287. Apple and Pear Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 288. Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 274. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 296. Copyright Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 293. Defence Act- Determinations 1983- No. 26-Bounty Payable to Members of the Emergency Reserve. No. 27-Uniform Maintenance Allowance. No. 28-Special Action Forces Allowance and Others. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 281, 289. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 290, 291. Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 294. Family Law Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 280. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 285. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 292. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 282, 283. Overseas Students Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 286. Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 295. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1983-No. 57-City Area Leases (Amendment) (No. 2). The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 363 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: (1) Has concern been expressed by the Central Commission of Catholic Bishops of the Government's Education funding guidelines. (2) Will the breaking of the nexus between the cost of educating a child in a non-Government school and the level of recurrent grant undermine the capacity of non-Government schools to plan. (3) Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware that the Central Commission has expressed concern that the reduction in the basic recurrent grant to some students may lead to the complete exclusion of a student from a basic grant; if so, is this concern warranted. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) While the Central Commission of Catholic Bishops expressed concern on two aspects of the Government's funding guidelines, there has in fact been very sensitive, thoughtful and responsive support for the guidelines from many parts of the non-government sector, particularly for the overall increase of 1.5% in real terms in per capita grants. (2) and (3) The Government has discontinued the previous automatic nexus between government schools standard costs and per capita grants to non- government schools because it did not redistribute resources sufficiently between schools on the basis of need and had not closed the gap between low resource schools and those operating at or above government school standards. Under the previous arrangement there was never any certainty in advance of trends in standard costs and therefore about future levels of grants. For 1984, the Government has reduced grants to only 41 non-government schools. These schools will still receive $270 per primary student and $428 per secondary student in 1984. For 1985 and beyond, these and all other non-government schools will be subject to the provisions of a new scheme which the Government expects will include new approaches to measuring needs and standards and will give non-government schools a basis on which they can plan securely for their future. The States and non- government school authorities will be fully consulted as policy options for the new scheme are being developed. Question No. 376 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 21 September 1983: (1) Which Australian lighthouses have been automated over the last ten years. (2) What was the character, range, intensity and flash length prior to and after automation for each light. (3) On how many occasions since automation have these lights been out, and for how long. (4) What has been the cost of maintaining each light since its automation. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The lightstations automated over the last ten years are: South Solitary Island, Tasman Island, Eddyston Point, Low Head, Cape Northumberland, Troubridge Shoal, Cape Willoughby, Eclipse Island, Cape Leeuwin, Cape Naturaliste, Cape Don, North Reef, Lady Elliot Island and Dent Island. (2) The character, range, intensity and flash length before and after automation for each light are as follows: Approx. Intensity Character * range candelas Flash length Lightstation (. ., seconds) n. miles x 1000 (seconds) Before Automation South Solitary Island F, 4 26 1000 0.3 Tasman Island F, 5 26 1000 0.4 Eddystone Point Gf2, 15 24 500 0.3 Low Head Gf3, 24 24 600 0.2 Cape Northumberland F, 5 24 630 0.08 Troubridge Shoal F, 7.5 24 480 0.1 Cape Willoughby Gf3, 30 26 1000 0.2 Eclipse Island Gf3, 20 26 1000 0.3 Cape Leeuwin F, 7.5 26 1000 0.3 Cape Naturaliste Gf2, 10 26 1000 0.2 Cape Don F, 7 26 1000 0.05 North Reef Gf4, 20 25 640 0.2 Lady Elliot Island F, 5 18 58 0.3 Dent Island F, 2.5 18 58 0.3 *F = Flashing Gf = Group or Multiple flashes After Automation South Solitary Island F, 5 15 15 0.1 Tasman Island F, 5 19 64 0.15 Eddystone Point Gf2, 15 26 1000 0.05 Low Head Gf3, 30 26 1000 0.1 Cape Northumberland F, 5 23 310 0.2 Troubridge Shoal F, 10 9 1 1.0 Cape Willoughby Gf3, 30 23 370 0.2 Eclipse Island Gf3, 12 8 0 .50 0.3 Cape Leeuwin F, 7.5 26 1000 0.2 Cape Naturaliste Gf2, 10 26 1000 0.01 Cape Don F, 10 22 260 0.17 North Reef Gf4, 20 19 83 0.2 Lady Elliot Island F, 7.5 19 80 0.3 Dent Island F, 5 10 1 .3 1.0 *F = Flashing Gf = Group or Multiple flashes (3) Since automation there have been no outages of the lights at Troubridge Shoal, Cape Willoughby, Cape Leeuwin, Cape Don and Lady Elliot Island. The performance of the other lights are as shown below: Outages Time taken to Station No. of Occasions repair (days) South Solitary Island 2 3,2 Tasman Island 4 4,2,2,3 Eddystone Point 1 1 Low Head 3 1,1,1 Cape Northumberland 1 2 Eclipse Island 2 11,11 Cape Naturaliste 1 2 North Reef 7 2,3,5,3,4,5,9 Dent Island 1 2 (4) The following are the indicative annual costs (expressed in 1983 prices) of operating these stations: Date of Indicative Station State Automation annual cost South Solitary Island N.S.W. December 1975 20,000 Tasman Island Tas. May 1977 20,000 Eddystone Point Tas. October 1981 9,000 Low Head Tas. July 1981 9,000 Cape Northumberland S.A. January 1980 5,000 Troubridge Shoal S.A. February 1981 8,000 Cape Willoughby S.A. September 1977 10,000 Eclipse Island W.A. December 1976 9,000 Cape Leeuwin W.A. December 1982 11,000 Cape Naturaliste W.A. October 1978 9,000 Cape Don N.T. June 1983 25,000 North Reef Qld September 1977 45,000 Lady Elliot Island Qld January 1981 40,000 Dent Island Qld March 1982 11,000 Details of individual expenditures in the form requested are not readily available and I consider that the resources required to ascertain this information can not be justified. Question No. 455 Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 October 1983: What was the cost in 1982 of administration of the: (a) Tertiary education assistance scheme; (b) Adult secondary education assistance scheme; (c) Secondary allowance scheme; and (d) Post-graduate award scheme Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Estimated expenditure during financial year 1982/83 on the respective schemes is as follows: (a) $5.337 million (b) $0.26 million (c) $1.819 million (d) $0.656 million Question No. 457 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of allegations made by the Aboriginal people of Swan Valley in Western Australia accusing the recently formed Aboriginal Land Inquiry in Western Australia of bias? (2) Is the Minister also aware of literature distributed by Christian groups to Western Australian Aborigines warning them of the dangers of inalienable freehold title and urging them to write to either the Land Inquiry or the Western Australian Government? (3) Will the Minister investigate the composition, terms of reference and jurisdiction of the Western Australian Aboriginal Land Inquiry and make these findings public? (4) Will the Minister ensure that Aborigines are adequately represented on the Inquiry and that the findings reflect the true wishes of the Western Australian Aborigines. (5) Will the Minister investigate the distribution of anti-land rights literature to the Western Australian Aborigines to ensure that this propaganda does not adversely affect the fair operation of the Land Inquiry. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: (1) Yes, the Minister is aware that the Swan Valley fringe dwellers have accused the Aboriginal Land Inquiry of bias. (2) The Minister is also aware that certain groups have distributed literature to Aboriginals, warning of the dangers of inalienable freehold title. (3) The Minister draws the honourable senator's attention to an advertisement in the Australian of 28 May, on page 11, which gives details of the terms of reference, composition and jurisdiction of the Inquiry. (4) The Minister understands that the Liaison Committee established by the Committee of Inquiry is headed by Aboriginal State parliamentarian, Mr Ernie Bridge, and consists of both Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals. (5) The Minister is concerned about reports of anti-land rights literature being distributed. While it is quite appropriate that interested parties with legitimate points of view should put their views to the Inquiry in the interests of a balanced presentation of issues, it is not acceptable that material which is irresponsible or racist in nature should be circulated. Although it is primarily the responsibility of the Western Australian Government to take action in regard to matters which bear on its Inquiry, parties offended by such material may have recourse to the Racial Discrimination Act. The Commonwealth will, however, be watching the situation to see whether there is a need for it to take particular action in the light of developments.