Thursday, 15 December 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Medicare To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows- That with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Crowley (from 39 citizens), Giles (from 20 citizens) and Reid (from 604 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows- That, with the exception of the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 40 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia, being parents and other persons concerned about the education of all children, showeth that the present Government has commenced a policy of reduction and eventual abolition in Government funding to independent schools. This policy has been adopted without an appropriate and reasoned consideration of the circumstances of those schools and the parents who choose to send their children to them. In particular the Government, in making its decision, has failed to take into account the impact on the State school system of an increased enrolment of students who otherwise would have attended independent schools in the event that Government funding had not been reduced or abolished. The change in policy overlooks the fact that the cost of educating a child in a Government school is two to three times the cost to the taxpayer of educating the same child in an independent school. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled reverse the decision of the Government and reinstate funding on an equitable basis as has been the case in previous years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 166 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 Senators Peter Baume (from 16 citizens) and Ryan (from 239 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We deplore the unprincipled and self-interested attacks being orchestrated by minority sects and groups against the policies and person of the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Senator Susan Ryan. 2. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own special programs and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Gietzelt (from 103 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 2. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 3. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own special programs and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 4. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Tate (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That every child in Australia is entitled to government financial support for their education whether they attend government schools or non-government schools . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision for the continuation of Federal Government per capita grants payable in respect of all children in non-government schools at a rate calculated as a percentage of Government standard costs at a level not less than that prevailing in 1983. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 73 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to territorial or local government your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of territorial or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 203 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia Concerned about the high and increasing rate of divorce and family breakdown, Convinced that the Family Law Act has weakened marriage by making divorce a trivial matter, the present Act paying scant regard to its own definition of marriage as a life-long union; and Believing that the legal bond of marriage should be strengthened. Humbly petition for the Family Law Act and the Marriage Act to be amended in order to 1. Reject any moves towards divorce by post 2. Restore the former prohibition of marriages between close relatives by blood or marriage 3. Protect the rights and welfare of aggrieved partners of a marriage who are threatened with being divorced against their will 4. Ensure that in divorce judgments paramount attention be given to whatever course will best serve the welfare of dependent children of the marriage 5. Encourage counselling towards reconciliation 6. Restore objective tests to irretrievable breakdown of marriage in terms of: i. intolerable behaviour; ii. desertion for two years; iii. separation for three years. And we pray that you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 34 citizens). To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally importants wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 336 citizens). To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and dissappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 2,776 citizens). To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the post-school education sector has been neglected in recent years . Therefore we call on the members of the Senate to endorse: (1) Increases in TEAS to at least the level of the poverty line. All people should be guaranteed a living wage. (2) Increased funding for campus based childcare. (3) The abolition of the overseas student visa charge, which is grossly discriminatory. (4) Increased funding for student housing. (5) Increased funding for libraries to ensure facilities are adequate. (6) The establishment or supplementation of campus based student loan funds which are interest free and short-term. (7) Increasing the level and number of postgraduate awards. (8) Extending services to part-time, mature age and external students to open access to education. (9) Increasing student representation at all levels. (10) Innovation in curriculum to ensure curriculum is relevant and critical. (11) Increasing education funding to improve existing facilities. (12) Funding quality student health services which help contribute to the successful completion of courses. (13) Expanding enrolments to open access to education. (14) Compensating institutions for the costs of amalgamation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will support the above claims. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 33 citizens). To the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Women continue to suffer discrimination in many areas of employment. In traditional 'male' industries such as steel, the denial of equal rights and opportunities has resulted in disproportionate numbers of women being hired and fired. We therefore humbly request that the government of the Commonwealth of Australia introduce, extend and implement anti-discrimination legislation which includes affirmative action policies to effectively remedy this injustice. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth. That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school 'community' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 49 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should delay the Bill and ask that the Government set up a joint Parliamentary Committee to examine: (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Covention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 103 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia are concerned at the termination of the tax exemption on Defence Force Reserve pay. We are convinced that unequal relativities in pay will occur and the Reserve Force will lose a large number of dedicated training servicemen and women which will make it impossible for the Reserve to meet its commitments to the defence of Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will act to form a Senate Select Committee to inquire into and report on the effect of the removal of the tax exemption prior to the implementation of Government policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 533 citizens). Petitions received. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Durack proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The need for a clear policy statement on access to Australian port facilities by allied naval units in light of the misunderstanding, confusion and ambiguity caused by the Government's handling of the visit by HMS Invincible. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.04) —There could be no more important subject for this Parliament than that of the defence of the nation, and there is certainly no more important issue in regard to the defence of Australia than the state of our alliances and the attitude of our allies to the defence of Australia and to Australia's support and responsibility in relation to our defence arrangements and our treaty arrangements, particularly under the ANZUS treaty with the United States but also the traditional arrangements that we have had with Britain. That is why the Opposition this morning has brought forward as a matter of public importance, indeed as a matter of urgency, the need for a clear policy statement on access to Australian port facilities by allied warships in the light of the misunderstanding, confusion and ambiguity caused by the Government's handling of the visit by HMS Invincible. Those words ' misunderstanding, confusion and ambiguity' are not my choice of words; they are the words used by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) when interviewed on Tuesday morning as he came into Parliament House. He said: The Americans will be sending their local representatives into the Foreign Affairs Department this morning so that any misunderstanding, confusion, ambiguity can be got out of the way fairly quickly. Later in that interview he said that the Americans believed that the uncertainty was unjustified and that the Government was in the process of resolving it or eliminating it in the course of the next few hours. He said that at 8.45 a.m. last Tuesday. It is now 48 hours later, two days later, and still confusion, ambiguity and misunderstanding reign supreme. That is why the Opposition believes it must be cleared up quickly without further delay. The sorry episode-indeed, this deeply serious episode-has arisen from the way in which the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) in particular has handled this matter. I accuse the Government as a whole and other Ministers as well as the Minister for Defence of mishandling this visit by the HMS Invincible to Australia. No wonder there has been such misunderstanding and confusion. That confusion has been caused by the incompetence of the Minister for Defence in particular. The Invincible was clearly coming to Australia-it cut short its visit to New Zealand to come to Sydney-because it was in need of repairs to a propeller shaft. Clearly that visit was being received by Australia for that purpose. Mr Scholes, on the AM program the other day, said that there had been constant discussion with officials of the Department of Defence and the Royal Australian Navy in relation to these matters. We know now, of course, that the Garden Island dockyard has incurred expenditure in anticipation of the dry docking of the HMS Invincible for these repairs. It was quite clear that the Invincible expected to be able to use this facility in Australia as needed. Yet something very serious went wrong. We are entitled to know what went wrong. We have not been told by the Government what went wrong. No clear statement has been made about the circumstances of this matter at any stage by the Minister for Defence or, indeed, by any other Minister. Not only has no clear statement been made to us but also it appears that no clear statement has been made to the British. Even now, despite the great problem which has arisen with our allies, no clear statement has yet been made to the Americans and certainly no clear statement has been made to this Parliament and to the people of Australia in relation to this very serious matter. Let us examine again what Mr Scholes has said and what he has not said. First of all, having admitted that there had been discussions, the other morning he went on to say: . . . the British Government advised us that it would not be taking up the offer of docking in Sydney. Apparently he did not intend to use the word 'offer', although he does not deny that he used it. Clearly an indication, if not an offer, was available. The Attorney-General suggested yesterday that the Minister meant to say 'option'. How could the British have an option of taking up these facilities unless some clear indication had been given to them that the facilities would be available? Certainly there had to be discussions. Certainly arrangements had to be made. A whole lot of matters would have had to be discussed and determined. Clearly the facilities were made available to the British. They had an option, an offer or whatever. At a very late stage the arrangements went wrong, which necessitated the British High Commissioner seeing Mr Scholes. We still do not know clearly what happened at those discussions between the British High Commissioner and the Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, except that as a result the British stated-as they put it, being as diplomatic as they could be, to save embarrassment for the Australian Government-that they would not make a request for docking facilities, for operational reasons. But again we know from a statement by Mr Scholes on the AM program on Tuesday morning that in the course of his discussion with the British High Commissioner he said: I set out what were the Government's requirements, the Government's long standing policies. In answer to questions in the House of Representatives last week it appears that Mr Scholes indicated that he saw those policies as not permitting nuclear weapons on Australian soil and that he saw dry docking of the vessel as tantamount to breaching that policy. Nevertheless, the Minister still refuses to admit that that was the case. Yet, of course, it must be assumed that that is the case from what he has said in various other places at other times. So we have a situation in which the Government knows and accepts the policies of our nuclear power allies, Britain and America, of never to confirm or deny that their ships are carrying nuclear weapons. The Attorney-General has acknowledged that the Government understands and accepts that policy. Knowing that policy, the Minister must have known that problems would undoubtedly arise if he insisted on explaining the Government's policy in the terms in which he put it to the House of Representatives. Yet no proper attempt was made, as far as we can see, to resolve those problems at the time. Some further weak excuse was given to us by the Ministers concerned that a problem would be that the vessel would have to be disarmed-we know now that that was not the proper term, but that is by the way-that the ship had to be de- ammunitioned. But now it is conceded that for the particular repairs to HMS Invincible-they were not major or difficult repairs involving any greater length of time than a few days in dry dock-such action to de-ammunition the ship was not necessary. Senator Hamer made that clear yesterday from his knowledge of these matters. It is not part of policy that a ship has to be de-ammunitioned in those circumstances. Utter confusion, uncertainty and very serious disruption to our allies has been caused by the incompetence of the Minister for Defence. But it does not rest there. It was clear from last week that the problem was facing the Government. The Government allowed the confusion to become even deeper by the way the Minister for Defence answered questions in the House of Representatives. After last Thursday's questioning in the House of Representatives there was no way in the world that anybody could understand what the Minister for Defence had said, what he was doing, what our policies were, what the particular problems were or why this docking did not proceed. It was no wonder in those circumstances that not only were the British embarrassed but also, even importantly, our American allies were deeply worried and confused. That situation was brought to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs or his Department last weekend on the initiative of the United States of America Department of State and resulted in a call by the United States of America Charge d'Affaires on our Department of Foreign Affairs last weekend. Even so, last Tuesday morning the Minister for Foreign Affairs said: There is no confusion in our minds. There does not seem to be any confusion in the American minds. As I said, he was making out last Tuesday morning that it would all be cleared up within a few hours. The matter was serious enough for Mr Hayden to ring Secretary of State George Shultz in Madrid using a facility which we are fortunate to have but which should be resorted to only if there were serious misunderstanding. It was quite clear that the Americans were worried. George Shultz said that the matter had to be nipped in the bud there and then. Yet, confusion and ambiguity still reign. It does not appear that it will be resolved in the simple way that Mr Hayden or the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) would have us believe it could be solved when he answered a question in this chamber last Tuesday. It is now clear from yesterday's statement by the Attorney-General on behalf of the Ministers that the matter will continue to cause problems. He said that the matter was discussed in Cabinet yesterday and that it would be the subject of further consideration in Cabinet. He said that the matter would be the subject of quite detailed consultations with our allies in the period immediately ahead. He referred to some manifest difficulties and obscurities in the situation and in the application of what is said to be the Government's policies. I find it very difficult to understand why there are any difficulties or ambiguities about the Government's policies in providing facilities for ships of our allies when they visit Australia such as those required by the Invincible on this occasion. Last year, Mr Hayden, when he was Leader of the Opposition, had his famous meeting with the Assistant Secretary of State who came to Australia because of the deep concern of our American allies over the attitude of the then Opposition. This attitude was expressed by Mr Hayden, Mr Cain and others in relation to the visits of nuclear armed and powered ships. Of course, Mr Hayden backed down on behalf of the Opposition and accepted that the Opposition's policy would be to accept visits by nuclear armed warships otherwise the ANZUS alliance would be effectively demolished. Mr Hayden said: Nothing I have said here would prevent the use of our ports for maintenance, essential repairs or refits, regular rest and recreation for crews and ships of allies or treaty partners. It seems to be clear from the Australian Labor Party's policy enunciated over a year ago by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, that there should be no problem or confusion in relation to the relatively minor repairs that the Invincible required. If there is to be confusion, doubt, misunderstanding and ambiguity about the availability of such facilities and such repairs as were required by the Invincible, of course the visits to Australia by warships of our nuclear allies will be thrown into real doubt and confusion. If the application of what seems to be a perfectly simple policy cannot be resolved very quickly and very clearly in a situation like this, there is a serious problem indeed in relation to the ANZUS alliance. That is the problem we are facing. As I said, the matter has gone on for several days. Consultations are still going on. The matter has been the subject of discussion in Cabinet. The Australian Government, by its failure to make perfectly clear what its policy is and by its failure to make perfectly clear what the application of it is in a relatively simple situation such as the one we have had with the Invincible, has not only, as I have said, embarrassed our British allies but also confused and deeply worried our American allies. It is of the utmost urgency and importance that the Government make clear and make public to our allies, to this Parliament and to Australia just what our policies are and how they will be applied in a situation of this kind. It is absolutely vital that that be done quickly and clearly. It must be made perfectly clear that in cases in the future similar to that of the Invincible Australian repair facilities will be available without doubt, without confusion. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.21) —Mr President, there is no confusion in the Government's mind as to the matters raised in the matter of public importance brought on by Senator Durack, nor is there any confusion in the minds of our allies as a result of the discussions which have taken place around these matters in recent days. However, to the extent that there is any lingering uncertainty in the public mind because of our natural concern not to make public matters of sensitivity and ongoing consultation internationally, I do acknowledge on behalf of the Government that there is a need now to give a clearer statement of the whole position and the course of events leading up to it than it has been possible to give so far. I will now endeavour to proceed to do so in as succinct a fashion as I can. Let me begin with the basic policy situation. There are a number of different strands in that policy situation, some of which are better developed than others , as I will explain. The first strand of relevant policy here is the proposition that the Australian Government will not allow nuclear arms on Australian soil. That proposition has been enunciated with vigour and clarity by the present Government, both before the last election and certainly during our term of office. It is also, of course, consistent with the policy adopted by our predecessors, the Liberal-National Party Government, at least so far as the B52 bomber issue was concerned. The second strand of relevant policy relates to the visits of nuclear powered ships to Australian ports. Again here, a clear bipartisan approach-perhaps even clearer than in the case of nuclear arms on Australian soil-has evolved over time and there is no question of that bipartisan approach being in any way at risk. The situation here is that nuclear powered vessels will be allowed to visit Australia subject to certan guidelines. Those guidelines were first laid down after some considerable period of discussion and negotiation by the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, in the House of Representatives on 4 June 1976. They have subsequently been slightly modified to take account of later developments including, in particular, the controversy around the proposed visit of a nuclear warship to Victoria in 1982. As they now stand, with only very minor modifications to the original 1976 statement, they are as follows: (a) Visits will be for purposes such as crew rest and recreation and not for fuel handling or repair to reactor plant necessitating breach of reactor containment; (b) Visits will be subject to satisfactory arrangements concerning liability and indemnity and to provision of adequate assurances relating to the operation and safety of the warships while they are in Australian waters; (c) Movement of vessels must take place during daylight hours under conditions where visibility is not less than three quarters of a mile; (d) Navigational controls on other shipping will be applied during the time that nuclear powered ships are entering or leaving ports; (e) There must be a capability to remove the vessel either under its own power or under tow to a designated safe anchorage or to a designated distance to sea within the time frame specified for the particular berth or anchorage and in any case within 24 hours, if an accident should occur; and (f) An operating safety organisation competent to carry out a suitable radiation monitoring program and able to initiate actions and provide services necessary to safeguard the public in the event of a release of radioactivity following an accident must exist for the port being visited. There is no ambiguity or uncertainty about that particular policy statement, nor any disposition on the part of the Government to review or modify it in any way. The third strand in the relevant policy relates to the visits of nuclear armed ships, or ships which may be nuclear armed, to Australian ports. Again, there is a long-standing bipartisan policy initiated by the previous Government and continued by the present Labor Government that we do not ask our allies either to confirm or deny whether nuclear weapons are being carried. The fourth element in the policy network that relates to this issue concerns dry docking of ships armed with conventional weapons. Again, there has been a clear policy in existence for a long period which the present Government inherited from its predecessors. The essence of that policy is that naval ships armed with conventional weapons going into dry dock are to be required to de- ammunition or disarm in the sense in which we discussed it yesterday, subject, however, to waiver or exemption-partially or wholly-depending on the circumstances of the individual case. So much is clear. But as a matter of general statement, how that particular policy is to be applied in a particular case will depend on all the circumstances of the particular case. The next element that comes into the policy equation, however, concerns the dry docking of naval ships armed with non-conventional weapons, or ships which may or may not be armed with non-conventional weapons. The difficulty is that there is simply no established policy in place in this respect. To the extent that there has been a clear policy about dry docking naval ships, that policy was formulated in the context of conventional weapons and it is the case that attention has simply never been addressed previously to what the situation is or ought to be in relation to ships which may be armed with non-conventional weapons, and how that particular aspect of the policy is to be integrated or interrelated with the previous matters that I have mentioned, about no nuclear arms on Australian soil, and about the rules governing nuclear armed ships visiting Australian ports, namely, that we do not ask our allies to confirm or deny. Clearly, a different situation arises with non-conventional weapons than arises with respect to conventional weapons. What needs to be done is to establish guidelines to ensure that urgent needs can be accommodated, and the policy is clearly very much in need of review and development in this particular area. The final policy strand that is relevant and which can be stated as a policy of general application which would, I believe, command ready bipartisan support- although I do not believe that it has been articulated so clearly in the past- concerns the weight to be given to safety considerations when it comes to dry docking or otherwise harbouring warships visiting Australian ports. We have not, as I understand it, clearly articulated guidelines to deal with this in the past . But as the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) has said, and as I have said, representing him in this place, there is no question but that Australia would not in any way endanger the safety of any ship or crew by not accommodating genuine needs that that ship or crew had. What, of course, will constitute a danger to the safety of the ship or its crew will vary quite considerably according to particular circumstances, not least whether the nation is at peace or at war. If the particular disability being experienced by the ship is a breakdown in one of its engines, which means that it cannot cruise or steam at its otherwise maximum speed, that may be of no particular significance at all in a peace time environment but manifestly of very great significance in a war time environment. Clearly guidelines of a fairly specific kind need to be developed in this particular area, again involving the interrelationship of these considerations with all the other policy considerations that I have mentioned. In that respect again the overall policy is manifestly in need of review and development. So to clarify it to the extent that I have not already, when I said yesterday on behalf of the Minister for Defence that a review was contemplated of our policy with respect to the visits of nuclear warships, I was not to be taken as contemplating in any sense that there would be a full review of all the different policy areas that I have now outlined, or that in any way most of those policy areas were in some way at risk. It is only to be understood that a review is necessary in the limited context that I have specifically outlined where it is the case that policy simply has not been clearly formulated in the past and it simply has not been thought through as to how some of the principles of general application are to be applied to the circumstances of particular cases. There is a need for quite a lot of work to be done to develop guidelines for the application of those general principles to particular practical situations. So much for general policy considerations. Let me turn to the particular sequence of events so far as HMS Invincible itself is concerned. It is not possible to be quite as forthcoming as I might wish in giving the full details of discussions that proceeded in relation to this because of the international considerations and Defence policy considerations that are involved. But I think it can be quite succinctly stated what the main events were in the order in which they occurred, and hopefully this will put some of this into perhaps clearer context than it has been up to this point. The situation was this: Before the ship arrived a week ago discussions did take place at both a Service and departmental officer level with respect to the possibility of HMS Invincible being dry docked in Australia. The second thing that occurred was that, arising out of those discussions certain preparations did commence at Garden Island in anticipation that the British Navy might want to use the dry dock facility there . Work that was being done on HMAS Adelaide, which was at that point in dry dock , was rapidly completed and that ship was moved out. That did occupy some workmen in overtime that would not otherwise have been incurred. As we understand it, the overall cost that was associated with those preparations was of the order of $30,000-no more. The third thing that occurred was that on 29 November the Defence Minister, Mr Scholes, had discussions with the United Kingdom High Commissioner, Mr Mason, in the course of which a variety of-- Senator Mason —Sir John Mason. Senator GARETH EVANS —Sir John Mason. I am indebted to his brother in law in this place for correcting the record in that respect. Discussions were held as to the options and possibilities of the Invincible dry docking, given the policies of the Australian Government, to the extent that they have been developed in this area, concerning disarming, de-ammunitioning and all the other interrelated factors that I have mentioned. The fourth thing that occurred was that following those discussions within, I gather, quite a short time thereafter the British Government advised the Australian Government that for operational reasons it would not require to use the Australian dockyard. That is all there was to it so far as the basic course of events with Invincible was concerned. As I understand it, nothing in the nature of any formal request was made; certainly no request was denied by the Australian Government. It was a matter of preliminary discussions at which the various options and possibilities and policy implications were canvassed, following which discussions the British Government advised the Australian Government, I repeat, that for operational reasons it would not require to use the dockyard in question. Finally, may I say something about the other policy and political aspects of this affair and what lies ahead so far as future policy developments are concerned. Let me again make a succinct series of points here. First, it was appreciated right from the outset, as soon as the issue of the Invincible possibly wanting to dock was raised, that there would need to be clarification and a development of Australian policy to cope with this situation, which had not previously arisen. Preliminary discussions were undertaken within the Government at departmental level to begin the process of shaping up appropriate lines of policy to deal with this kind of situation. What happened was that then the matter became a matter of public controversy, largely fuelled by the Opposition and various statements by Mr Sinclair and others to the effect that Australia was actually banning the docking of the Invincible. Those newspaper reports, fuelled as they were by what I might say with all due respect to those concerned were some rather irresponsible statements, did provoke some reaction from the United States, initially at an officer or an official level rather at a high political level. Following that reaction from the United States-again some account of it found its way into the Press-there was the exchange between Mr Hayden and Mr Shultz, the United States Secretary of State, the substance of which discussion I retailed in this place in Question Time a couple of days ago. That discussion was essentially a very relaxed one. It was made clear by Mr Shultz that there was no particular concern being expressed by the United States-just a desire for some clarification. In particular, there was no question of the ANZUS relationship being in any way put at risk by the particular matters in issue. Subsequently-yesterday, in fact-Cabinet discussed the whole question at some length in circumstances which I am not, of course, at liberty to here retail, but arising out of which a number of what I described yesterday as discussion points were formulated around which consultations might then continue with our allies in order to shape up an appropriate set of clear guidelines for the application of policy in the future. Further to that Cabinet decision yesterday and the formulation of those discussion points, discussions took place last night between Mr Scholes, the Minister for Defence, and his counterpart in Britain Mr Heseltine, and in the United States, Mr Weinberger, around the particular issues of what guidelines needed to be developed to deal with these sorts of situations should they arise in the future. My information and advice is that those discussions were again relaxed and amicable, that they were simply designed to contribute to a situation where in due course we would have in place clear, understandable guidelines for the application in practice of those basic principles of Australian policy which remain quite secure. Those discussions at a ministerial level are to be followed by more detailed discussions now at an official level. No time frame has yet been set for those discussions but it would be realistic to anticipate that we are talking here about a matter of months rather than days or merely weeks. Might I say in conclusion that what may have been at one stage, as Mr Hayden said and as he was quoted by Senator Durack, a situation of some misunderstanding, confusion and ambiguity in various people's minds has in the last few days been very much resolved. Delicate and sensitive matters of defence and international relations are here involved and it simply was not possible to clear the air publicly in every respect although at a very early stage the diplomatic air was, I assure honourable senators, well and truly cleared. I hope that in what I have said today on behalf of the Government I have now put on the public record, as requested by Senator Durack-not unreasonably-a clear and unambiguous statement of what the basic policy issues are and to the extent that further matters remain to be resolved in relation to those policy issues I have identified what those matters are and where the discussions are now proceeding. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.41) —I have already heard enough in this debate to convince me that it is indeed a matter of public importance which, for a variety of reasons, cries out to be resolved. That is dependent to a large extent on what I have not heard in the debate so far as well as what I have actually heard. Also, the Australian Democrats believe that this problem will not be resolved quickly or easily. It will not be resolved just by talk. Some action, much of it likely to be unwelcome to some people, is also required. There has also been a lot of quite unwarranted hysteria and politicking over the issue which, I suppose, is to be expected but it certainly does not help. This is a very important issue, involving as it does a careful reasonable compromise between two major objectives. The first objective, and it must be the one of overriding importance, is the safety of our cities and people. That is, or should be, the paramount issue for all of us in this place without any qualification whatsoever. We are Australian members of parliament and our first duty is to Australia and the Australian people. The second major point is that due to inept defence policies in the past we still depend on our more powerful allies substantially and would have to depend on them in time of major war. We have an historic association with them and they have a right to expect some kind of assistance from us especially in time of need. That time of need must include an allied ship in urgent need of a haven, assistance or repairs in time of war. When we look at the matter in that way the problem becomes clearer. Can we do both these things? Can we help our allies in all those circumstances and, at the same time, provide our own people with the maximum degree of security which they have a right to expect from us as members of parliament? Before I go on I will make a preparatory comment to try to place us in a world frame, which has not yet been done by any speaker in this debate. Are we alone in Australia in our concern about having nuclear powered or armed ships in our ports? The answer, of course, is no. The Australian Democrats are greatly indebted to material which was cabled to us this morning from the Centre for Defense Information in Washington. It is a highly reputable organisation, well known and respected, under the directorship of retired United States Admiral Gene Laroque. The information which I will quote comes from that institute. It states: Nuclear Powered ships-- Port visit for nuclear powered warships are cleared by the United States Government on a case by case basis. Some ports, such as the home port for nuclear squadrons have a permanent clearance for routine entrance and exit. All criteria for granting clearance for other ports are not specified, but such factors as population density- I stress that- and harbor characteristics, (tide, depth etc), are taken into consideration along with potential accidents. Using these criteria- I take it that busy ports, on those criteria, are usually avoided- the United States Navy has never requested visits to New York or Boston and those cities have never been visited by nuclear powered ships. I will repeat that sentence because I think it is of basic importance, coming from the absolutely reputable authority from which it comes. It states: the United States Navy has never requested visits to New York or Boston and those cities have never been visited by nuclear powered ships. The obvious reason, of course, being the criterion of population density. The information continues: For foreign port clearance, the US uses the same criteria as for domestic ports . I would have thought that would mean that the United States would apply to Sydney the same standards it would apply to Boston or New York, including population density and busyness of the harbour area. The information continues: US Government provided host government with 'standard statement' that visit safety is guaranteed and the US accepts some liability in the event of a nuclear reactor accident. Again I stress for the sake of the record the word 'some'. It is a qualified degree of responsibility. The information continues: No other clarification is presented. Request to visit certain foreign ports are not initiated because of this criteria. France and Spain will not allow visit by US nuclear powered ships. Nuclear weapons policy is controlled by different criteria. To the best of our knowledge the US Government does not prevent court visits when nuclear weapons are on board. Standard US policy is always to neither 'confirm or deny' the presence of nuclear weapons anywhere. Agreement between US and foreign governments may affect this policy. The US has tacitly agreed to respect the Japanese principles, i.e. no possession, no manufacture, no introduction of nuclear weapons. India has consistently refused to accept the US policy to neither 'confirm or deny'. And for this reason US warships do not visit Indian ports. Approximately 80 percent of all US warships carry nuclear weapons. I stress that point again because this information has come from a highly informed source. Finally it says: It is the right of a sovereign nation to judge and decide whether foreign warships should be accorded access to that nations ports'. I will speak on the final point because I think it is one of fairly considerable importance. I must say something that I think has not yet been said by anybody, that is, that we are a sovereign nation and we are a free people. It is our right and our duty to decide for ourselves what actions we take in this matter. It is not for us to spring to attention and automatically defer to anything required of us by any foreign power no matter how friendly we are with it. If we surrender that ground we forfeit the right to any self-respect or, for that matter, any respect from anyone else. We truly would have reached a poor white trash mentality. I am somewhat concerned about the extent to which Senator Durack, speaking for the Liberal Party of Australia, has approached that point of view. I ask him to remember please that he is an Australian and an Australian senator. If he wants to be a United States senator maybe he would like to go to America somewhere and put himself up for election. That is not an anti-American statement; it is merely a statement that we in this country must resolve this problem ourselves. We are not susceptible to pressure or suggestions from overseas on this matter. Certainly from the point of view of the Australian Democrats, those suggestions and pressures are unwelcome. I suggest the problem will be solved much more easily and much better if we are left to decide it for ourselves. The key to the problem of HMS Invincible is the location of our major naval bases. I made this point yesterday and I will make it again today. The difficulty was that HMS Invincible went into Garden Island. What is Garden Island? Garden Island is a naval base which has been there for a long time and which has continued to exist only because it has always been there-for no other reason whatsoever-right in the middle of Sydney, a quarter of a mile from the Sydney Opera House. It is located bizarrely and inappropriately in one of the world's densest population areas and certainly in Australia's densest population areas. The area of threat around it, if it were ever attacked, would involve death or injury to something like a quarter of Australia's population. It is intolerable that it should continue to exist in its present location. What is the attitude of the previous Government and this Government on the matter? It is to devote huge sums of money, many millions of dollars, to extend Garden Island. In other words, the Government wants to extend the threat to the people of Sydney. Is the Government looking at this matter responsibly? Is it providing a civil defence program along the lines of the Swiss program for the people of Sydney to balance this out? No, it is providing absolutely nothing in the way of civil defence for our people. In 1962 the people of Switzerland-I might say using a citizen initiated referendum-decided, independently of their government, that a quarter of their defence budget was to go to providing proper civil defence for themselves. As a result of that they are one of the best prepared people in the world. Australia does not do that. We sit here and play around with this issue, pit-pat it around as Senator Durack and the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) have done, ignoring these aspects. They say: 'We will decide whether we will allow nuclear weapons to sit regularly in the centre of one of our major areas of population and still we will do nothing for those people. But we have provided a funk hole for ourselves in the basement of the new and permanent Parliament House where we will creep and retreat in time of war'. I will quote briefly from Jim Falk's excellent Penguin book recently published called Taking Australia off the Map, which I urge all Australians who have a sense of responsibility for their own future and that of their families to read. It describes the zones of destruction of a one-megatonne bomb exploded in Sydney. This is the case I want to consider at the moment, because it is possible and quite likely that weapons on board visiting naval ships would be of that nature. It states: Within Inner Circle 5 km Total Devastation (over-pressure more than 10 psi). Everything would be destroyed and everybody killed within five kilometres of Garden Island in all directions, it being a very suitable point for marking the actual physical centre of population and property in Sydney. To continue: Within Medium Circle 8 km High Devastation severe burns to all exposed high winds, fire. (Over pressure more than 5 psi.) Within Outer Circle 20 km Light- High Damage significant blast, flash burn and fire. (Over pressure more than one psi.) That is merely the explosion of a one-megatonne bomb, a typical submarine weapon that might be launched in Sydney. However, what are the consequences if that same weapon is launched and finds as its target, as it might well do, a ship in port carrying a large number of those weapons? Nobody has been able to research this accurately but it is known that because of the vapourisation effect of those weapons-like everything else in that five kilometre zone they would simply be vapourised-the extent of fallout from the total explosion would be greatly extended. It would depend on the number of nuclear weapons actually on that ship at the time of the explosion, but certainly there is no doubt that very little of Sydney would be left and that even people in the outer suburbs, beyond Parramatta, would suffer from radiation sickness and burns which would probably be fatal within a few days. I am saying these things not to shock and horrify people but because it is important that we understand the nature of the risk we are considering here. That is the nature of the risk. It is not good enough to say that it is a small risk and that these weapons are safe there. They are not necessarily safe there. We do not know when some idiot or maniac might gain access to them and somehow be able to create an accident on one of those ships. We do not know whether, if a ship is placed in dry dock in Sydney with nuclear weapons aboard, there will be a welding error with a welding torch with a major fire breaking out on the ship. These are things which have to be considered. I and the Australian Democrats agree that this is a very important matter which should now be the basis of sincere discussions with our allies so that we can do the best we can for them according to the policy guidelines which the Government and Senator Evans have stated and which we, the Australian Democrats, not being the Government, accept. We accept the Government's right to lay down policy guidelines and implement them. We do not accept that the Government has a right to be lazy and slovenly about it and to say: 'We will go ahead and still allow major areas to be at risk'. Of course, the major area at risk is Garden Island, Sydney. Cockburn Sound in Perth is another area with the same kinds of problems, although they are not quite so acute. If our major allies want bases here they should be willing to discuss helping us to finance the relocation of these places. For instance, it has been said to us that the Indian Ocean is the main area needing surveillance. All honourable senators will probably agree with that . Darwin and Sydney are not particularly suitable locations to assist naval and air surveillance of that area. They are not particularly good locations for a ship to seek refuge if she were in difficulties in, say, the northern part of the Timor Sea or somewhere like that in time of war. We have a very large and good airfield at Learmonth. I have said before and I say again that that is where the B52 aircraft should be operating from. It is logical and strategically sensible. If the Government wants to continue its policy of offering assistance to the ships of other countries, we should say to them: 'We have this problem. Go back to the guidelines'. I have quoted them to the Senate. The American Government itself does not send warships into Boston and New York because one of its criteria is population density. The Attorney- General could reasonably say to the United States Government that it has no right to expect of us and of our people things that it would not expect of its own people. I think that is a perfectly rational and reasonable point of view. It is not unfriendly, it is not anti-American. The Australian Democrats suggest that the Government look again at this long term problem. What I suggest can be done readily enough. As I said yesterday, the sale of the real estate at Garden Island would probably substantially finance the moving of the dockyard to a more rational place. I suggest that the sooner the Government gets on with that the sooner this problem will be resolved. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.56) —The Hawke Government had gravely misled both this Parliament and the people of Australia. The Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans), who, along with Mr Scholes, has led in this gross misleading, revealed today an entirely different set of arguments from the ones he has put forward in the last week. I proceed to demonstrate that. For the last week or so the arguments of the Government and particularly the Attorney- General have been that the captain of HMS Invincible decided for operational reasons-a wonderful euphemism-not to dry dock at Garden Island. Day by day the Attorney-General has denied that those decisions had anything at all to do with either Australian Government policies or whether or not we sought the deammunitioning of the ship. He has denied that there was any threat or danger of industrial blackballing. He has said that all those things were irrelevant. He has said that we were of good will but the captain of the ship decided against dry docking, not for operational reasons, not for reasons of maintenance and repair. Not only are the facts against Senator Evans but also what he has said today entirely refutes his previous statement. He asked us to believe this nonsense of his, when in Britain, for example, the defence people were saying: 'We are now gravely concerned about what is happening in Australia and we will be seeking alternative dry docking elsewhere in the Pacific and South East Asia'. Senator Evans asked us to believe that this occurred for operational reasons. Let me just sketch how grave this misleading was. Today we know, as has been said before by Mr Scholes, that the question of the visit to Sydney 'by HMS Invincible has been under active consideration for some considerable time'. Mr Scholes said: I engaged in conversations with the British High Commissioner in respect to the dry docking of HMS Invincible. We know that the Captain Cook Dockyard set aside what is called a window of three to four days-19, 20, 21 and 22 December-to do the dry docking and that preparations costing tens of thousands of dollars were made on that dry dock to receive the Invincible. There was no question of options, no question of some casual discussion, but a determined arrangement to receive the vessel and to repair it. That cannot be denied. That not being denied, the Attorney-General once again has misled this place. Let me take the matter one step further. Who better than the captain of the Invincible to let us know about this matter? The captain of the Invincible said: At one time we thought we would do it here. It would have been fairly attractive to do so. It was investigated and then decided not to do it here. He did not say: 'We decided for reasons other than those concerning repair and maintenance; we decided for operational reasons'. He said: 'We decided to do it here. We investigated and then decided not to do it here'. Was there no question of politics, of the Australian Government being involved? A reporter asked the captain whether he was the ham in the sandwich. Admiral Black said: Yes, but to no great resentment. It is often the story of the military man where governments run military things. Could we have anything clearer than Admiral Black saying that he wanted his ship repaired at Garden Island but that that could not be done for political reasons, and having to use a euphemism in the polite diplomacy of international affairs to disguise the real reasons? Those were the words of Admiral Black; a clear statement that they wanted to repair the ship here. Indeed arrangements were made to repair it here. A window of days was set aside and Garden Island Dockyard was prepared for it to be done there. I repeat: This is what Admiral Black said about this incident: It is often the story of the military man where governments run military things. For political reasons Admiral Black was made the ham in the sandwich by the Australian Government. How grave it is that day after day the Attorney-General yet again misled this place and said that he had nothing to do with these matters at all. What he said today is quite a different story; he said that there were six basic policies that governed the Australian Government. As we know, he said the other day that it was not anything to do with Mr Scholes's statement about nuclear arms being on board that caused this debate. But the policy today, is that everybody knows that we will not have nuclear arms on Australian soil. Of course the Attorney-General has left the chamber; why would he stay here, having gravely misled this place once again? He said that we will have no nuclear arms on Australian soil. He went on to talk about nuclear ships and armaments, and gave a clear understanding that six weighty matters had to be decided. No reason of Australian internal politics or industrial matters caused the Invincible to go. Why then did the Cabinet have to be locked up for hour after hour to make important decisions on this matter? Why did Mr Hayden have to talk to Secretary of State, Mr Shultz? Of course, it had nothing to do with the politics of the Australian Government, nothing to do with the policies of the Australian Government! Clearly it was to be said by the Attorney-General that we were willing to dry dock this ship but the Admiral changed his mind and went. Then why does Mr Shultz want this matter nipped in the bud? Why are the British looking to the rest of the world to get dry docking? Is the situation not really contained in two quite important matters that ought to be mentioned? Suppose one ought to look at what the labour force on Garden Island thought and said about this matter. The president of the Captain Cook Garden Island naval dockyard union, a shop steward named Mike Jackson, is reported to have said that the workers understood that the Invincible work was off because of the armaments she carried. That is an interesting statement. When I asked whether this had anything to do with industrial pressures about armaments that were carried Senator Evans said no. But yesterday, having thought it over, he said something very interesting. He said: Consideration also needs to be given to the possibility that industrial relations questions could arise if there were doubts about the risks entailed in having ammunition and other explosives on a ship being worked in the dry dock. There again was the hint that quite clearly what had happened was a twofold thing; an unequivocal statement by the Hawke Government that we would not have a ship carrying nuclear weapons in the dock, and an understanding that there would be great industrial turmoil and a likely black balling of the ship. The most ugly thing about this situation is not in fact the misleading by the Attorney- General and Mr Scholes, but the absolute silence of the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke . Here is a Prime Minister who has strutted the world saying that we are making strong relations with our allies and that our alliances are to be preserved and strengthened-while, of course, Mr Hayden was busy trying to weaken the Association of South East Asian Nations pact. My goodness, what does ASEAN think of us now, our having taken a different view on Kampuchea and not now being willing to service an allied ship? Mr Hawke, as Prime Minister, had one responsibility. Seeing an allied nation, Britain, wanting a ship serviced, he should have said: 'I, the Prime Minister, will guarantee the servicing of this ship; I will guarantee that it will be repaired in Australia; and I will guarantee that that will be done quickly and efficiently and that the ship will be released'. He absolutely abdicated. If ever there were a craven action by an Australian Prime Minister it was the silence of this Prime Minister, his refusal to accept the responsibility of Australia. What he said to the world was that he , the Prime Minister, could not, in fact, accept the responsibility of getting a job of repair work done in Australia for one of our most precious allies, an ally which is a part of our heritage. He has said to the world that he, as Prime Minister, abdicates this responsibility, abdicates any ability to control the work force, to control the union force in Australia. He sat back and let his mates, the Attorney-General and Mr Scholes, take the odium for this situation. The Prime Minister of Australia should have been the only front runner. The issue got at the very guts of our whole defence security, at the very integrity of Australia in terms of its relations with its allies. How could a Prime Minister stay silent when, in fact, what Mr Scholes was saying to the British Government and to the British admiral was in direct contradiction to what Mr Hayden had said on 22 June. We should not forget that Mr Hayden, after having egg on his face regarding the Port Phillip incident, acknowledged that a failure to accept visits by nuclear armed warships would 'effectively demolish' the ANZUS alliance. After wiping the egg off his face, the Foreign Minister went on to state what was to be the policy of the Government. That policy was quite clear. He said: If we were to require a declaration that ships were nuclear armed, it would make it virtually impossible for the Americans to operate in the context of ANZUS. He went on: Nothing I have said here would prevent the use of our ports for maintenance, essential repairs or refits, regular rest and recreation for crews and ships of allies or treaty partners. What he said clearly on 22 June was that the policy of the Hawke Government, of this Prime Minister, was that if nuclear armed ships came here we would repair them. That statement was not qualified at all. He did not say 'We have to take time off; this is a most difficult, confused and involved situation'-as now the Attorney-General says-'we will work out a policy later'. He said unambiguously, because he was forced to, that if one of our allies came here with nuclear armed ships we would repair and maintain them. The very reverse happened. Mr Scholes said: 'No, it is our policy not to deal with nuclear armed ships'. The situation is not helped by the Senator Masons of this world, who use fear threats. In this world, in which we have peace by mutual terror, in which the only way to have peace is by the use of a deterrent, the fact that ships such as Invincible sail the seas and are equipped to offer a ready deterrent at any time is one of the great factors in ensuring the safety of Australia and of the free world itself. To restrict the right of our allies to provide at any time an effective deterrent, is to work, however unwittingly, to aid our possible opponents and place upon people a fear that is unfair. We should be willing to ensure that while we cannot get total nuclear disarmament the deterrent force will be there at all times. How can we ask a ship whether it is carrying nuclear arms? How can the ship know whenever it has to be ready to act as a deterrent? I have not heard a more serious issue than this in many years in this place. For a Prime Minister to remain silent and not to be able to give a guarantee to his ally because he could not enforce it because of his left wing in the Caucus and the militant industrial unions outside, is for a Prime Minister to abdicate his job. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Lewis) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.11) — I will speak very briefly on this matter. I realise that the matter is very important but we are constrained by time. I will take only five minutes of the Senate's time. It is, indeed, ironical that the issue surrounds the vessel HMS Invincible. Only two years ago this vessel was, in fact, offered to Australia. It was described by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, as a spruce goose. I think time has told that it is a vessel with manifest capabilities. It is certainly not a spruce goose. It is a unfortunate situation that we in Australia and the government of the day allowed the United Kingdom to get away with reneging on the agreement that had been entered into between Australia and the British Government at that time. I believe we should not have done that. We should have stuck to our guns and, if that were the case, Invincible would have been Australia's. We are now in a less defensible position than we would have been in had the government of the day stuck to its guns. I come to the other matter and that is the availability of docking facilities for such vessels of not only friendly allied nations but also of direct parties to the ANZUS Treaty-for example, the United States of America. This controversy has raised concern, rightly or wrongly, in the minds of people in the United States. It has certainly raised concern among those of us in Australia who are most concerned about the defence of this country. Whatever is able to be said about the ANZUS Treaty, one thing can be said, that is, that much depends upon the interpretation of the imprecise terms of the Treaty. Nevertheless, on even the worst interpretation of those terms-that is, the interpretation given by Nixon at Guam, which has now been shorthanded to the Guam Doctrine-there is no doubt that, if Australia were attacked either by proxy or directly by a super-power such as the, Soviet Union, the United States would come to Australia's defence. That is clear under the terms, and even on the worst interpretation, of the ANZUS Treaty. For that reason alone, the ANZUS Treaty is of national strategic importance, given the fact that Australia could not withstand the onslaught of a super-power without increasing tenfold its defence expenditure and, for the information of Senator Mason and the Australian Democrats, without obtaining a nuclear capability. That is what is missing in this debate. It must be recognised by the Australian Democrats, and by the people who may be influenced by the fears being engendered by them, that the alternative option for Australia is to obtain a nuclear capability. I believe, therefore, that it is absolutely vital that what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said and the commitment that he gave when he was in America to the upkeep and the honouring of the ANZUS Treaty must be observed in practice in this case so that an example can be given to our direct partners in the ANZUS Treaty that we are serious about that Treaty, we regard the obligations under that Treaty seriously and that we expect that in the event of the worst coming to the worst the terms and obligations of the other parts of the Treaty will also be honoured. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(11.16) —The matter of public importance raised this morning asks us as a Government to have a clear policy statement on access to Australian port facilities, et cetera. This morning the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) has given one of the clearest statements possible on this issue. He has in 20 minutes managed concisely and in measured tone to give us what the Government policy is and what directions it will be taking in future. As such, I guess the matter of public importance raised by the Liberal Party of Australia this morning has been valuable in that it has cleared up many of the misconceptions that have surrounded this issue. I would like to devote some time, though, to the contributions made by the Opposition. I turn first to Senator Sir John Carrick who first of all made the very serious charge against the Attorney-General of misleading parliament. I do not think Senator Sir John Carrick heard or understood what Senator Evans said today because the very charges Senator Sir John Carrick made here today were met by Senator Evans's explanations. It was a baseless accusation; it was unnecessary. Senator Sir John Carrick went on to tell us what Admiral Black said . He then helped us out further and interpreted what Admiral Black said. Admiral Black is capable of saying what he has to say and so is the British Government. I do not think it is necessary to come into this chamber and say: 'Admiral Black said this but he really meant that'. If we are going to get into that game we can go into all sorts of interpretations. The fact that Senator Sir John Carrick mostly missed is that there has been no formal request for docking in Australia and there has been no formal refusal. Senator Walters —Here we go again. Senator ROBERT RAY —Does Senator Walters wish to debate that? There has been no formal request. Senator Sir John Carrick started to get carried away with his rhetoric when he accused the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, of silence. He went on to accuse him of craven action. I would have thought that if an issue such as this were of some importance a Prime Minister would take the matter to Cabinet. That is precisely what the Prime Minister did yesterday and the matter was discussed there. I do not have any knowledge of the details of those discussions other than the matter that was discussed, as the Attorney-General has explained today. As a throw-away line Senator Sir John Carrick went on to accuse the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) of weakening the Association of South East Asian Nations, et cetera. I think some of these accusations that have been brought up today are getting to the point of paranoia. I think where the misleading is happening is misleading the public and our allies as to the purported position of the Australian Government that it does not hold. The major point that Senator Durack made was that there have been 48 hours of misunderstanding and that we should have cleared up the matter in the first few hours. Senator Durack —This is what Hayden said. Senator ROBERT RAY —This comes from the great stonewaller of the Liberal Party, the Trevor Bailey of politics. He comes in here and wants a misunderstanding changed within a few minutes or a few hours. The Liberal Party took months and years to make decisions. The decision on the visit of nuclear ships and the guidelines to Australian ports took four years to develop. Liberal and Labor Governments took four years to develop that policy. Let us go back and look at what the position is. Firstly, the Australian Labor Party takes the position-we will not change from it-that there will be no nuclear arms on Australian soil. We have had that policy for many years, and we are not likely to change it. We have advocated a nuclear free Pacific and we are unlikely to change that. On the other hand, the Liberal Party seems to have no stated policy. We can only infer what its policy is. When the issue of the B52s arose the Liberal Party decided that there were to be no nuclear weapons on board those planes when they came to Australia. We can infer from that that the Liberal Party almost accepts our position, which is that there are to be no nuclear weapons on Australian soil. The second issue involves nuclear powered ships. It is quite clear that Government policy allows them to visit Australian ports, subject to the guidelines laid down in 1976 and reiterated in 1982. It is the policy of this Government and it was the policy of the past Government to allow nuclear ships to visit Australia. Clearly the implication is the same. Ships carrying nuclear arms are allowed to visit ports in Australia. However, when it comes to the question of nuclear arms on board ships, we adopt a policy that I would have thought the Liberal Party also would have supported, that is, we do not ask our allies to confirm or deny whether there are nuclear arms on board their visiting ships. Some of the difficulty has arisen, I guess, because of the difference between visiting ships entering ports and what constitutes Australian soil. That is what the real dispute or confusion has been about in the last week or so-the fact that many people interpret dry docks as being on Australian soil. When a ship goes into dry dock it is normal that it be de-ammunitioned, to use the correct word. But that is not always the case. We concede that. In certain cases a waiver is granted and ships are not de-ammunitioned when they go into a dry dock. The main reason for that is not really anything to do with our allies. Sometimes it is more dangerous to move the ammunition than, in fact, to leave it on board. There are no clear guidelines, however, on the dry-docking of ships that contain nuclear weapons. The present Opposition, when in power from 1975 to 1983, never developed any guidelines as to whether ships carrying nuclear weapons should be docked. It probably never even considered what was a good or a bad policy on this issue. It had seven years to develop a policy and it came up with nothing. I stress one other aspect. We have made it quite clear that if a ship's safety were at risk it would not matter what the ship was carrying. We would service and maintain that ship. That is, as the Attorney-General pointed out, if an engine or some other major component of a ship were broken, no matter what the conditions were, we would service and repair that ship. There is uncertainty over this issue. The issue is the difference between visiting a port and being in dry dock and visiting a port and being on Australian soil. This has been a matter of concern during the past few days. It will be resolved. We will develop a policy on this matter, and we will announce it. We will not take four years to do so. The new guidelines, however, will take some months to develop. That is clear. The attitude of the Opposition to this issue could be looked at from two different levels. One is a genuine concern for the future of the American alliance, Senator Sir John Carrick's line. Or one could take Senator Walters's line, that is, that this is just a matter to be exploited, to be laughed over, a matter one can use to drive a wedge because there is a genuine view in the Opposition that maybe the Australian Labor Party is a bit weak on defence matters. That is why the Opposition decided to raise this issue today. I feel sorry for the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) because he was placed in a difficult position, a position where policy attitudes were not absolutely clear. On what side did Mr Scholes err? He was given a choice. Should he dry dock a ship that may have nuclear weapons on board, involving safety factors and although only three million Australians-Senator Walters would not worry about that-or should he try to clarify the position and work out a future course of action? I think that, in considering these issues, Mr Scholes did worry about the three million people in Sydney and about the consequences of any nuclear accidents, remote-and I stress this-though that possibility may be. He did consider the interests of the people of Sydney. Some honourable senators opposite seem to think that the American alliance and our allies transcend even the safety of any of our citizens. That just indicates that their foreign affairs policy is based on absolute servility, that one never questions, one never stands up, one never makes an independent decision. Sooner or later one has to do that. There is also the implication that somehow the Australian Labor Party is weak. We have a policy of supporting the American alliance and of supporting our allies; but not right or wrong, absolutely. The Americans never support their allies right or wrong, absolutely. They make considered decisions; and these are considered decisions. As I said, I welcome this matter of public importance. It may well have been justified that the matter be raised. But I suggest to anyone who was not present to hear the Attorney-General's speech that he should read it. It was a clear statement of Government policy and the future direction. Having had the Attorney -General give that statement, I can add little. Therefore, I move: That the business of the day be called on. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.25) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I table papers in accordance with the list already circulated. I ask that the list, with the concurrence of the Senate, be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Capital Territory Health Commission-Interim Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 72 of the Health Commission Ordinance 1975 2. National Energy Advisory Committee-Annual Report 1982-83 3. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism-Annual Report 1982-83 4. States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1981-Report on Financial Assistance Granted to each State-December 1983-pursuant to section 67 of the Act 5. Science and Industry Endowment Fund-statement of Income and Expenditure and Balance Sheet 1982-83 6. A.C.T. Schools Authority-Annual Report 1982-83-and Interim Financial Statements-pursuant to section 63M (1) of the Audit Act 1901 7. Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 38 of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 8. Dried Fruits Research Committee-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 18 of the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971* 9. The Australian Wine Research Institute-Annual Report 1982-83* 10. Agreements Under the Fisheries Act 1952 Between the Commonwealth of Australia and-(A) Australian Southern Bluefin Exporters Pty Ltd-(B) Port Lincoln Tuna Processors Pty Ltd and-(C) D. Lukin and Sons 11. Joint Coal Board-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 20 of the Coal Industry Act 1946 12. Department of Home Affairs and Environment-Annual Report 1982-83 13. Health of Atomic Test Personnel-Report 1983 14. Defence Services Homes Corporation-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 50B of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 15. Government Response to the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking 16. Freedom of Information Act 1982-Annual Report 1982-83-together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relation to the report 17. The Law Reform Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 35 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 18. Parliament House Construction Authority-Final Draft-Annual Report 1982-83- pursuant to section 38 (1) of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979-the Final printed version of the report will be available to senators and members later today 19. Australian Safeguards Office-Annual Report 1982-83 20. The Australian National Line-Annual Report 1983-pursuant to section 39 (4) of the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956 21. The Australian Shippers' Council-Annual Report 1983 22. Office of Australian War Graves-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 13 of the War Graves Act 1980 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Lewis) —I will call the papers in order. Senator Townley —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Presdent. I have just been attempting to get a couple of the documents. I believe that 22 are to be put before us. These are not available for honourable senators to look at before they are tabled, and to consider any comments. As I see it, the situation is ridiculous. I should very much like to comment on two or three of these documents. They are not here yet, and I am expected to comment on documents that are not in front of me. Senator Walsh —They are in the boxes. Senator Townley —How much help is it to me if they are in the boxes? That is of no value to this Senate whatsoever. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! So far I have not been able to see any point of order, Senator Townley. You are raising a matter which is of great concern to the Senate, but I think that there are other ways in which you can raise it. Unless you can come to the point of order, I would ask you to resume your seat. Senator Townley —The point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, is that I asked for these documents to be placed on my desk as soon as possible, yet they are not here and I am expected to have to talk about them. If that is not a point of order in relation to the operation of this Senate, I want to know what is. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! You would well know, Senator Townley, that it is not a point of order. Senator Mason —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. My staff have been combing this place for paper No. 18, which has not been made available to honourable senators. We are told that it will not be made available to honourable senators until it is tabled. It has been tabled now and it is still not available. This is intolerable. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I recognise your problem, Senator Mason. All honourable senators face that problem every time papers are tabled. Senator Mason —It is a form of censorship, Mr Acting Deputy President. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I recognise the matters you raise, Senator Mason. The Minister at the table has advised me that the papers are now in the boxes. Senator Walsh —They are in the Senate attendants' boxes. Interim Annual Report 1982-83 Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted, debate adjourned. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(11.28) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Mr Acting Deputy President, this document has only just come into my hands, but on page 7- Senator Colston —You are up to that page already? Senator TOWNLEY —Yes, I am a very quick reader, but I prefer matters to be quicker than the system that we have at present. Senator Robertson —The system has not changed since you were in government; it is identical. Senator TOWNLEY —The system may be identical, but the point is- Senator Robertson —Why start complaining now, after the years you were in government? Senator TOWNLEY —The point is that it is not a good system. Senator Robertson —Well, seek leave to take note of the paper and speak later. You have the machinery available. Senator TOWNLEY —The point is that if one seeks leave to take note of the paper and tries to speak later, one never gets back to the matter. This is just a very good system on the part of the Government for bringing in documents during the last few days of this Parliament which will never be examined by this Parliament . It is a very effective form of censorship. Why are these documents brought before us in the last few days? Why were they not brought in earlier? We are looking now at the annual report for 1982-83 of the National Energy Advisory Committee. One of the subjects mentioned in this document is uranium. I should like to have had time to read what is said about uranium in this document, because Australia is one of the very lucky countries with uranium. It is one of the minerals that we should be getting and developing, and even using in power stations in this country. Over the last few days we have heard a lot of talk about the aircraft carrier that may or may not have atomic weapons on board. I believe that atomic power stations are much safer than coal burning power stations. Senator Cook —What is your evidence for that? Senator TOWNLEY —One has only to visit some of the countries of the Northern Hemisphere to see the evidence that is so obvious to anyone but an idiot. One can feel the acid rain in one's eyes and one can feel it when one breathes. One can see the effects it is having on some metals- Senator Grimes —It made his hair fall out. Senator TOWNLEY —No, I am sorry; it does not make one's hair fall out. That happened to me well before I ever visited the Northern Hemisphere. Senator Cook —I guess that the people of Three Mile Island agree with you, do they? Senator TOWNLEY —How many people were killed at Three Mile Island? How many were killed in coal mining accidents over the last year or so? In coal mining it is a lot more than have ever been killed by atomic trouble. I know downwind of which kind of power station I would rather live, and it is downwind of an atomic station rather than a coal-fired station. The sooner that honourable senators opposite pull their heads out of the sand the better. They must realise that there are many countries in this world that would very much like to have the uranium with which we are blessed-not by any sweat of our brows but just because it happens to be here-countries throughout the world that need the power. Are honourable senators opposite saying that the people of those countries should freeze during the winter because we will not supply them with uranium for their atomic power? Senator Cook —What are you talking about? Senator TOWNLEY —If the honourable senator cannot understand English, he ought to leave this place. What is important is that this country should be a leader in the matter of uranium and atomic power. It should not be something that we try selfishly to keep and not to supply to the rest of the world. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I should inform the Senate that there are a few copies of each of the reports available in the attendants' box. Any honourable senator who wishes to have them can obtain them by application to the attendants. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.33) —Like Senator Townley, I have a very great interest in this paper and, like him, I look forward to having the opportunity to examine it in more detail. The problem raised by Senator Townley is one that is not new to this Senate. Indeed, there is a quite significant management problem for us. We keep passing Acts of Parliament which say that material should be tabled in this place. Whilst that is a very great safeguard for the public and provides a valuable opportunity for all of us to debate these matters of great public concern, it is clear that the volume of material which comes into the Senate makes it near impossible to give all these important reports, such as that of the National Energy Advisory Committee, in regard to which Senator Townley has moved to take note of, the sort of consideration that they require. When the reports are to hand, either after the list is circulated or just prior to that, obviously it is impossible to have a really sensible debate. The procedure, which is reasonably new, that we should have a fixed time, with the entitlement to contribute for five minutes, and then for the matter to come up at a later time in General Business, was an attempt by the Senate to come to grips with the problem Senator Townley has raised. It is perhaps not my place to respond to Senator Townley but I do think he has raised a continuing problem. I simply say that I am sure that if any honourable senator has a solution the Senate Standing Orders Committee would be very interested in examining an alternative approach to this matter. I want to mention one other problem though which goes beyond the very real difficulty we face because of the volume of matters which are placed before this Parliament. I think that it has been a feature not just of this Parliament but also of previous parliaments that at the end of session we get a rush of reports . Those people who are of a suspicious turn of mind would say that those who are responsible for producing these reports might, with malice, ensure that we get them all at the end of the session so there is little opportunity for sensible public debate within the Senate chamber or within the House of Representatives. The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, which was chaired at one stage by Senator Peter Rae, has done a good deal to try to sharpen up the sense of responsibility amongs statutory authorities and others to produce timely reports. I think we need to address our minds to imposing some sanction on the bodies which are responsible for bringing these reports forward to try to ensure that they report within some reasonable time limit and that if they do not there is some penalty. With respect to annual reports of departments , if we imposed a fine of, say, $100 on all Second Division officers of the department for each week that the report was delayed there would probably be an extraordinary timeliness about the publication of departmental reports. I suspect, however, that this would destroy the good relations which exist between the Parliament and the Public Service so I doubt the Government would want to pursue that as an option. I point out to the Senate that the sort of irritation which has been shown by Senator Townley is an irritation which has been shown by many honourable senators who feel that they are being foisted with matters of great importance but they do not have a chance to respond to them as well as they would like. There is the prospect that these matters can be buried and there is no later chance for discussion. The Opposition Whip advised me that the Whips discussed this matter this morning. The Government has agreed that it will make these reports available for further discussion in the first week of the next session. I welcome that, if that is the Government's position. The arrangement that the Whips made this morning is very sensible. I will not continue my remarks on the National Energy Advisory Committee. I hope that we will find some mechanical ways to overcome some of the problems which have been raised by Senator Townley. I think we should also address our minds to getting these reports fed into the Parliament on a more even basis than has occurred in this Parliament or in previous parliaments. Senator Robertson —Not just this Parliament. Senator CHANEY —I am not suggesting that. That is why I mentioned previous parliaments. I think that would be of great assistance in easing the very real problems that we face on these final days of the parliamentary sitting. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(11.38) —Rather than grizzling about the procedures, I have had an opportunity to read the report of the National Energy Advisory Committee in the last five minutes. Indeed, it is the final report of the Committee which ceased its activities mid-way through this year. It is an excellent report, as would be expected, by these persons who give their time to advising the Government on these matters. It indicates that three reports were prepared. They were entitled: 'Electricity in the Australian Energy Market', ' Transportation of Export Coal' and 'Trade in Energy'. Each of those reports is summarised, in a very helpful form in the first few pages of the report. In the report entitled 'Transportation of Export Coal' it is pleasing to note that it is stated: The Committee concluded that adequate port capacity was either in place or under construction to meet coal exports of up to 100 million tonnes by 1990 . . . The report indicates that attention would need to be given to stockpiling capacity at Newcastle. The Committee looked at rail facilities in Queensland and New South Wales. It noted the major upgrading programs that should facilitate the movement of coal to export markets. It is a most important matter for the generation of wealth within the Australian community that that be the case. I simply wish to take advantage of the presentation of this report to comment on the excellent lead which the Federal Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) has given to the coal industry throughout Australia in the six or seven months that he has been in office and responsible for its arrangements within Australia. I recall that within a month of the Federal Government assuming office Senator Walsh brought about and pleaded for a one month moratorium on further retrenchments in the coal mining industry. The goodwill that was generated by his interest, at that time, flowed through the national coal conference held in Canberra and led to the establishment of the Australian Coal Consultative Council which he chaired at its meeting on 11 November recently. That Council decided, after a very wide-ranging discussion which involved employers, trade unions and government agencies, that it should have a further look at a study of the international factors affecting the market for Australian coal and a study of the social and economic implications of new mine development and how it should be regulated. It is very interesting to see that nice balance between the social implications of new mine development and the recognition of the need to get Australian coal on to the international market to earn wealth for redistribution within Australian society either by way of wages or through the taxation system where it is redistributed by our democratically elected government. It is not only in relation to the coal industry that this Minister has taken initiatives which are of great importance to the development of energy resources throughout Australia. In relation to the absorption of domestic crude oil by the Australian refining industry, once again the Government has tried to grapple with this problem which is extremely difficult. It is quite obvious not only that there are implications for Government revenues but also that it is necessary to assure oil explorers that there will be a market for the oil they find and produce. There is a very important effect on our current account trade balance too, of course, by favouring increased domestic production over imports of crude oil. The Government has taken certain steps in that regard. It is interesting to note-I return to the paper, Mr Deputy President, so as to stay within Standing Orders-that in the third report prepared by the National Energy Advisory Committee for the year under discussion, the report entitled ' Trade in Energy', it is stated that there would be very considerable export opportunities for Australian energy resources in the 1980s and 1990s. Indeed, the Minister took a very courageous decision during the year when he decided to permit the export for spot sale in 1983-84 of new oil produced from Fortescue which is in excess of 18 million barrels, together with old oil produced from the Bass Strait fields which is surplus to domestic refiners' requirements above 385,000 barrels a day. Each export requires specific government approval. But it is quite clear that the industry and governments concerned have reacted very favourably to that particular proposal. It shows that Australia, over a very wide range of energy resources, is taking very seriously its obligations to provide energy resources to other countries. We are trading in an efficient and competitive manner. As I said, with Senator Walsh at the helm, this particular portfolio is being well directed to the great benefit of Australia. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.43) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to comment briefly in complimentary terms on the activities of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, particularly on the new lease of life which it seems to have achieved under the new Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). The proposal for the establishment of a national sports commission is a great leap forward for sport. It will take away from some individuals the power to determine the destiny of sport. I believe it puts into a more democratic structure the channels of influence placed upon the Minister in making his decisions on the development and planning for sport in Australia. I do not want to take up a lot of the time of the Senate in paying tribute to this report. I think the report does justice to the recognition by the previous Government and this Government of the very important role which sport plays in this country and in the health of the people of this country. It is, therefore, a great disappointment to me-and I am sure to a tremendous number of sports people, sports administrators and sports supporters in this country-and an even greater disappointment to people concerned primarily with the health of the nation that yesterday at the annual conference of the Confederation of Australian Sport the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism indicated that he supported wholeheartedly the use of sport, sports people and sports venues by tobacco companies to promote their products. It was my understanding that this Government, along with the previous Government, had some concern for the health of the nation and the ill-health which was being created by the promotion of tobacco products. I believed that the present Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the present Government shared the concern and were endeavouring to take steps to reduce the amount of promotion on the electronic media by tobacco companies using sporting events to promote their products against the law of this country. Therefore, it comes as a disappointment to a lot of people who have been working in this direction to find that the Federal Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism is willing to stand up at a public venue amongst sports people and say that he applauds the continuing tobacco sponsorship of sport. Senator Tate —He is not the Minister for Health. Senator JACK EVANS —As the honourable senator said, thank God he is not the Minister for Health. I hope that the Minister for Health can whisper in his little pink ear not just about the cancer creating effects of tobacco and the heart debilitating effects of tobacco but even more importantly-this might be a little harder for him to communicate because the Minister for Sport seems to have a mind which brooks no argument-I hope that the Minister for Health can persuade him of the psychological impact on children of presenting tobacco advertisements with their sports idols and thus inducing children to take up sport. That is the concern that needs to be recognised by this Minister. It is the one blemish on his otherwise great career as Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, in my opinion. Senator Elstob —That is only your opinion. Senator JACK EVANS —I said that in my opinion it is the one blemish. I suspect it is the one blemish that-- Senator Elstob —Why don't you go for prohibition altogether? Senator JACK EVANS —No, no. I think he is entitled to his opinion of koala bears . But let us face it. He is the Minister who is promoting sport in this country and promoting, in his own words, the good effect of sport on people of all ages. What a shame it is that he allows that to be blemished by allowing sport to be prostituted in this way by the tobacco industry. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(11.49) —I wish to pay yet another tribute to a Federal Minister. Mr John Brown, as Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, has displayed qualities and enthusiasm in discharging the duties of this portfolio which have put him high in the regard of those sports people and administrators right throughout Australia. Australians take a very keen interest in sporting achievements, particularly at international competitive levels, and it has been fortuitous that the Ministry of Mr John Brown has coincided with such great achievements as we have seen over the past eight months since the Hawke Labor Government came into power. I say in particular that the Minister has not merely been an encourager and an enthusiast for sport. He has, within a very tight budgetary situation, actually achieved for sport and recreation a flow of funds which is quite remarkable. A total of $22.5m was allocated to the portfolio for sporting and recreation programs-an overall increase of 54 per cent-in a time of very tight budgetary difficulty. An amount of $6.4m, an increase of 81 per cent, was provided in the specific area of sport, recreation and fitness assistance programs. We have there very tangible evidence of this Government's commitment to provide funds that will increase the availability of sport, fitness and recreation pursuits to Australians generally. The sports development program pursued and assisted by the Government-of course, it is always a matter of supplementing or complementing the very many thousands of hours put in by volunteers and members of sporting clubs and associations right throughout Australia-is developing apace. The main features of its grants over the past year have been a significant boost to funding for developmental projects, with particular reference to junior development, which I am sure we all applaud, increased support for coaching, including a higher allocation for full time coaching directors, and so on and so forth. In relation to the Australian Institute of Sport, which was so favourably commented on by Senator Jack Evans, it is quite clear that the operational expenses of the Institute have been supplemented by an increase of about $850, 000 in the overall grants so the amount for the Institute comes to well over $5m . I know that Western Australian senators have approved of the idea of a more regional concept for the Institute. It is a fact-I see Senator Jack Evans nodding in appreciation-that in Western Australia a branch of the Institute is to be dedicated to hockey, which is a great sport played so well by West Australians. I know that Dr Rick Charlesworth, the Federal member for Perth, a Labor member of this Federal Parliament, is as pleased about this as is Senator Jack Evans. I believe he will shortly be leaving Australia in the Olympic team. Speaking of the Olympics, the national training centre program will greatly assist even sports not resident at the Institute in preparation for the Olympic Games. In the leadup to the 1984 Olympic Games the Government is providing very considerable funds to the Australian Olympic Federation which has the responsibility for the preparation, selection and participation of teams of Australian athletes for both the summer and winter Olympics. This year we have provided $900,000 to complete a grant of $1.4m to the Australian Olympic Federation to assist in the preparation of and participation of teams in both the winter and summer Olympics. It can be seen that in relation to sporting and recreational activities in Australia the Department, whose report I have not had a chance to peruse in full, is obviously giving full support to a Minister whose enthusiasm and whose capacity to get funds in a tight budgetary situation has been well demonstrated. I believe that combination will be to the great betterment of Australian sport and recreation, and is to be commended. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(11.53) —I agree with what Senator Tate has just said. I have always felt that money spent on sport in one way or another is money that might otherwise have to be spent in repairing the results of vandalism or things of that nature. Most of the people with whom I have been associated in sporting areas have turned out to be reasonably good citizens and I believe that those who become associated with sport have a much better chance of learning a little bit more about personal discipline and team discipline than those who are unfortunate enough not to be involved in sport. I am pleased to see the Government recognising the importance of sport. I note that the amount allocated in grants has improved quite considerably. I note also in the report, in the appendix, that sport and recreation grants now available for the disabled are becoming quite sizeable. Those of us who are lucky enough to have the full use of our limbs and so on must recognise that those who are not as lucky certainly deserve our support as much as possible. To that effect I am glad to see the way in which the Government is spending money in the area I have just mentioned. I also want to comment on the Australian Institute of Sport. I believe that as many politicians as possible should go and visit it. I have had the opportunity on a couple of occasions to visit the Institute during the year. I make one suggestion to the Government with regard to the Institute of Sport. I believe the people attending the Institute are paid for accommodation but receive no out of pocket expenses. Their out of pocket expenses are fairly sizeable for some families that have a lot of other incidental expenses for the people attending the Institute. I think we should come to some arrangement with them whereby they could be given some small amount. I do not suggest they should be given a lot. If we are going to treat the Institute with the importance that I think it deserves we should be making it possible for virtually anyone with suitable sporting ability to be able to attend the Institute. I believe that, at the moment, there are some difficulties for some people to be able to manage to do that. At the moment we are dealing with the annual report of the Department of Sport, Tourism and Recreation. However, while I am on my feet, I wish to say that I am still disappointed that the Wynyard Airport which is so important to the north- west of Tasmania-tourism in Tasmania is extremely important-will not be upgraded . I know it is hard for the Government to allocate money to every area when it has such a huge deficit. I think the deficit is much higher that it ought to be anyway. The Government has to recognise the very real disadvantages that Tasmania has in trying to attract industry. I believe, therefore, that the Government should turn its attention to upgrading that airport because of its tremendous importance to the north-west of Tasmania. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that there are 19 more papers to be considered. The time allowed under sessional orders for their consideration ends in two minutes. I understand that the Government has undertaken to re-present these papers in the autumn session. Nevertheless, as no motion has been moved concerning the remaining papers, they would disappear from the Notice Paper. I will run through them briskly and if anyone wishes to have a paper remain on the Notice Paper he can move that the Senate take note of the paper and seek leave to continue his remarks. Senator Martin —On previous occasions where a number of reports has had to be dealt with, one motion has been moved for the remaining reports. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That has caused considerable procedural confusion as a consequence. I am trying to avoid that confusion that occurred in the past. What happened, when there was a single motion, to clarify this matter, was that only five minutes was allowed to talk on all the papers on which that motion was moved. That caused great difficulty for the people who wished to speak on them. I will run through each paper and the opportunity will be given to honourable senators to move a motion that the Senate take note of the paper. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) -I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) -I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator HAINES(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report 1983 Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I move : That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Government Response to Report Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.01) —I seek leave to have the Government's response incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The response read as follows- When, on 31 May 1983, I tabled the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, I indicated that the Government's response to the recommendations made would be announced during the Budget Sittings of Parliament . Following the tabling of the Report, the recommendations were studied by all relevant Commonwealth Departments, and reports were made to Ministers. The Government has now considered these reports, and determined its response to Mr Justice Stewart's recommendations. In his Report, which contained a total of 102 recommendations, Mr Justice Stewart made 91 recommendations applicable to areas of Commonwealth responsibility. A considerable number of those recommendations are addressed to both Commonwealth and State Governments. The New South Wales, Victorian and Queensland Governments have under consideration those recommendations affecting their jurisdictions. There have been on-going consultations between the Commonwealth and those States. Briefly, the statistical picture is that final decisions have been made on 39 of the recommendations, insofar as they affect the Commonwealth, 20 require further consultation with the States, and 21 are being considered in the course of already existing reviews. The remaining 11 recommendations are the subject of further investigation. In his Report, Mr Justice Stewart canvassed a very wide range of areas relating to law enforcement. His recommendations cover both general matters, such as the need for co-operation between police forces and more specific matters, such as forfeiture of profits from drug trafficking. The Report has been of assistance in the preparation of two major Government proposals: the National Crime Authority Bill and the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill. Law Enforcement Agencies Recommendations 1 to 5 deal with co-operation between law enforcement agencies, and, in particular, with the use of joint task forces involving Commonwealth and State authorities. The Commonwealth supports the setting up of joint task forces wherever the circumstances are appropriate. These recommendations have been implemented (recs. 3 and 4) or require further consultation with the States before full implementation can be achieved. Recommendations 6 and 62 concern the setting up of a National Criminal Records Bureau, with access to its information available to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This matter is under discussion with the States in the Australian Police Ministers' Council (APMC). Recommendations 7 and 8 relate to Australia's coastal surveillance system, and are being considered in the course of the present Ministerial review of that system. A number of the changes recommended by Mr Justice Stewart have already been introduced. Recommendations 9 to 11 propose the setting up of a uniformed gendarmerie, referred to by Mr Justice Stewart as a ''National Guard'', to take over the Protective Service function of the Australian Federal Police (AFP). The future of the Protective Service component of the AFP is currently under review. Recommendation 12 proposes that the AFP, throughout Australia, should develop itself as a detective investigational force. The Government's view is that the AFP should continue its role as the primary law enforcement agency of the Commonwealth, co-operating with State police in areas of mutual concern. Criminal Intelligence Systems A number of these recommendations were relevant to the question of the establishment of a National Crime Authority. These recommendations were taken into account in the formulation of the National Crime Authority Bill, which has recently been introduced. Experience of the operation of the National Crime Authority will of course be relevant to those recommendations relating to criminal intelligence systems which are still the subject of examination and consultation with the States. Recommendations 14 and 15 are concerned with arrangements for liaison between Commonwealth and State Bureaus of Criminal Intelligence. Whilst the recommendation as to liaison has been implemented on the Commonwealth side, action by the States is required for full implementation. Recommendations 16 to 21 deal with the interception of telephone communications and face-to-face conversations. A decision on these recommendations must await the conclusion of a number of existing reviews, in particular, Government consideration of the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission on Privacy, and the review of the Criminal Investigation Bill. Recommendations 20 and 27 raise the question of an operational role for the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence (ABCI). In forming the charter of the ABCI in the APMC, all Governments involved (Commonwealth and State) rejected the concept of an operational role. However these recommendations will be taken into account in any future review of the role of the ABCI. Recommendations 22 to 24 deal with the passing of information by police forces to the ABCI. As far as the AFP is concerned, the Government considers that satisfactory arrangements for the passing of information already exist. The AFP is consulting with State police forces on methods of ensuring greater access by the ABCI to State requested Interpol information. The AFP has a continuing need for criminal intelligence analysts, and it is not appropriate that its resources be transferred to the ABCI. Recommendation 28 proposes a scheme of overseas briefings and postings for ABCI officers. The Government agrees that there is a need for these officers to receive overseas briefings. Police Powers Recommendations 29 and 30 contain a lengthy and detailed set of proposals for regulating police powers, and the questioning and searching of suspects. These proposals are being considered as part of the review of the Criminal Investigation Bill, which is expected to be completed in the early stages of 1984. Complaints against Police Recommendations 33, 34, 38, 46, 48 and 51 deal with procedures for the investigation of complaints against police officers. The Government believes that experience with the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 indicates that it is working well and the reporting requirement proposed in recommendation 38 is already provided for by that Act. Recommendations 48 and 51 are already reflected in the approach taken by the AFP in investigating complaints. Recommendation 46 does not make sufficient allowance for the possibility of malicious allegations, and the existing provisions of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 are considered to be adequate. The aims of recommendations 33 and 34 are partially satisfied by the Act, and the Government has referred these recommendations to the APMC, so that the general issues can be further explored. There are 12 recommendations proposing structural and organizational changes to police forces designed to reduce the possibility of police corruption. The proposal to create an Inspectorate of Australia Police Forces (rec. 32) has been referred to the APMC. Recommendations dealing with insistence on command responsibility and accountability (rec. 35), the need for systems of control over seized property ( rec. 36), the introduction of procedures to prevent corrupt practices rendering police operations ineffective (rec. 43) and the divesting of police of unpopular functions, such as policing parking laws, (rec. 44) have been already implemented by the AFP. Recommendations 40, 45, 47, 49 and 50 deal with the rotation of personnel working in corruption high risk areas, the use of uniformed officers and special squads in those areas, and making plain clothes police officers responsible to senior uniformed officers. The Government regards these recommendations as useful proposals, but the possible benefits need to be balanced against the operational efficiency and effective use of resources of other methods of investigation. Recommendations 41 and 42 propose the appointment of senior police officers, including the Commissioner, from outside the appointing police force. The Government considers that the essential criterion should be ''who is the best person for the job''. While the Government sees merit in appointments to senior positions in the AFP being open to officers from other forces, it sees a need for all Australian police forces to adopt a similar policy, particularly as it affects the job expectations of police officers. Recommendations 37 and 39 deal with the training of police officers, and reflect the approach already taken by the AFP. Recommendation 53 proposes a bi-partisan approach to police matters with a view to achieving a political consensus. The Government sees merit in continuing and, where appropriate, expanding existing practices designed to reach such a consensus, and will take this recommendation into account when particular major police issues arise in the future. Deportation and Extradition Recommendations 54, 56, 57 and 65 deal with different types of international agreements. The ''inherited'' extradition treaties listed by Mr Justice Stewart are being reviewed, and a program of negotiating bilateral treaties is about to commence (rec. 56). A review of the Extradition Acts is well advanced, and the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 now applies in relation to narcotic offences as regards all countries which have acceded to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Full records of extraditions are kept (rec. 57). A bilateral law enforcement agency assistance treaty is being negotiated with Switzerland, and a similar multilateral treaty is being prepared by the Commonwealth of Nations ( rec. 65). Officers of my Department are considering the possibility of agreements with other countries for the temporary surrender, for the trial in one country, of prisoners serving long periods of imprisonment in another country (rec. 54). Of course, the Commission's recommendation that the possibility of special arrangements be investigated in relation to Terrence John Clark lapsed with his recent death. The Government does not intend to enact legislation to permit a criminal trial to be held in the absence of an accused, who is a fugitive, or imprisoned in another country (rec. 55). Recommendations 58 proposes measures of assistance which should be provided to officers of Customs engaged on primary line duties. This assistance has begun to be provided, and the newly established Passports Committee is expected to produce further improvements in this area. Recommendations 59 to 61 deal with notification to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of criminal activities and convictions of persons who are not Australian citizens, and suggested amendments to the deportation provisions of the Migration Act 1958. These recommendations have been implemented and the Migration Amendment Act 1983 was enacted earlier in this Session. Financial Investigations Recommendations 63, 64 and 66 are concerned with the greater availability of company information and with banking practices. Some changes are already proposed to the laws relating to the revealing of the beneficial ownership of shares (rec. 63); and the other matters are being considered by the Treasury and the Reserve Bank in consultation with the trading banks and are also being investigated by the National Companies and Securities Commission (rec. 66) or considered by the Ministerial Council (recs. 63 and 64). The Australian Associated Stock Exchanges have been invited to review their regulations with a view to preventing their members from becoming involved in transactions designed to launder money (rec. 67). Recommendation 68 suggests uniform Commonwealth and State laws for forfeiture of property, and the payment of financial penalties, by convicted drug offenders . Existing Commonwealth legislation substantially provides for the penalties and remedies proposed, and the Government will raise the need for State action through the Ministerial Committee on Drug Strategy. Recommendations 69 and 70, dealing with the registration of new names, and the need for an offence of using a false name in connection with any commercial transaction, will be referred by the Government to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Prosecutions Recommendations 71 to 76 were considered in the formulation of the legislation recently introduced by the Government to establish a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The Commission's proposal that there be a combined Commonwealth-State Directorate of Public Prosecutions will be considered after experience has been gained in operating the Commonwealth Office (rec. 74). Recommendations 79 and 80 deal with systems for the monitoring of persons released on bail. Bail legislation for the Australian Capital Territory is currently being considered by the A.C.T. Criminal Law Consultative Committee, and these recommendations will be taken into account in that consideration. Recommendations 82 to 88 are concerned with the granting of indemnities to, and the protection of, prosecution witnesses. The Commonwealth has recognized the need to grant immunities and pardons to persons who have been involved in criminal acts and are willing to give evidence (rec. 82); the criteria for so granting are set out in the published Commonwealth prosecution policy statement. The Director of Public Prosecutions Bill makes provision for the DPP to offer immunities subject to guidelines to be laid down by the Attorney-General (recs. 85 and 86). The possibility of a system for co-ordinating the grant of immunities by different prosecuting agencies will be raised by the Commonwealth in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (rec. 83). In accordance with recommendations 88, the Government has asked the Australian Police Ministers' Council to investigate and report upon a national system to protect prosecution witnesses against reprisals. The remaining recommendations will not be implemented. There is no need to enact legislation to make it compulsory for an indemnified witness to testify, as the existing law is adequate (rec. 84). Nor would it be appropriate to fetter the discretion of a judge when sentencing a convicted offender who has given assistance to law enforcement agencies (rec. 87 ). Recommendations 89 to 92 concern procedures to be followed at narcotics seizures. The review of the Criminal Investigation Bill will consider the possibility of tape and/or video recording at the scene of a drug raid (rec. 92) . Mr Justice Stewart has proposed greatly increased use of forensic chemists ( recs. 89 and 91) both at the scene of a drug seizure, and for re-weighing and re -analysing narcotics prior to destruction. The Government agrees in principle with these recommendations, and they are already complied with in a percentage of cases. Lack of forensic staff has made it difficult for these proposals to be fully implemented. The AFP already has in train measures to implement recommendation 90, concerning destruction of most of a quantity of seized narcotics shortly after seizure. The Government will be raising this in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for further discussion. Amendments to Royal Commission Legislation Recommendations 93 to 96 propose changes to the legislation governing the powers of Royal Commissions, and the rights and liabilities of people appearing before them. These recommendations are to be considered in the course of a separate review of the Royal Commissions Act 1902. Further Investigations By recommendations 100 to 102, Mr Justice Stewart made available to the Commonwealth evidence given to the Commission in relation to three persons, so that further investigations might be made. Appropriate action has been taken. The Government has found the Report useful and constructive. As I have already stated the recommendations range over a significant number of matters important for law enforcement. The Government and the Australian community are grateful to Mr Justice Stewart for this thorough examination of the matters referred to him. In respect of the limited number of recommendations as to which the Government has not reached final conclusions, the Government will now proceed to complete its examination at the earliest possible date. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator HAINES(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1983 Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I move : That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-It is fairly obvious that the procedure that we just followed in relation to the presentation of papers is a farce. I appeal to you, Mr Deputy President, to take the matter up with the Senate Standing Orders Committee. I do not want to enter into or commence a debate on this matter at the moment. It seems obvious that the Standing Orders Committee will have to look at the procedure for the presentation of papers to the Senate and to amend it in such a way that we can have some reasonable debate on the important matters which come before us. Twenty-two papers were presented today. We have reached a situation of absurdity where a variety of honourable senators had to get up and move briefly that the Senate take note of the paper. We ought not to put up with this for much longer. The Standing Orders Committee ought to consider a new procedure for next year's sittings of the Senate. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —by leave-When this matter was being debated a little while ago, some reference was made to the fact that, because there was this long list of papers for presentation today, special arrangements would be entered into for debate at the beginning of the next session. I query whether that is meant to apply to all papers presented this week. A great long list of papers has been presented every day. Scores and scores of papers have come in here this week which have not been debated. I hope the procedure applies to all papers and not just to those that were presented today and those that may be presented tomorrow. I want to make a personal comment as someone who, on Estimates committees, has pursued the subject of departmental reports and their tardy presentation to the Senate. It happens that we are sitting on 15 December which is fairly unusual. I wonder what would have happened to all of these papers that have been tabled this week and that were not tabled in the House of Representatives last week if it had not happened that the Senate was sitting this week. I think it just shows a disgraceful attitude on someone's part. I know that there is a standard excuse given at Estimates committees when one queries the late tabling of reports; that is, that the Auditor-General is at fault. This is something that should be pursued with some expedition because it really makes a mockery of reports to Parliament. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I present an interim report on the funding of superannuation by statutory authorities, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. While many employees in statutory authorities are contributors to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme-the CSS-such coverage is not comprehensive. Some employees do not participate in any superannuation scheme. Others are members of private-that is, non-CSS-schemes to which the relevant statutory authority makes appropriate employer contributions. Evidence provided to the Committee at public hearings confirms there is a complete absence of consolidated comprehensive information on superannuation arrangements maintained by Commonwealth statutory authorities. The Committee took evidence in 1982 from the Department of Finance, the Australian Government Actuary and life offices. In addition the Committee also took evidence from Trans Australia Airlines, the Australian National Line, Telecom Australia, Australia Post and the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority. During 1983 the Committee reheard the Department of Finance and the Actuary and heard evidence from the Association of Superannuation Funds, Mr O. Roach and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This interim report lists the available statistical data on statutory authorities, the extent of employee coverage by superannuation and the number of contributors involved in superannuation in the statutory authority sector. The Committee hopes that this report will stimulate consideration by the various interested parties and facilitate the collection of more comprehensive information for further analysis. The Committee has identified a number of objectives for further work which it intends to examine during 1984: The desirability of the four authorities using the emerging cost method of funding their superannuation liabilities, converting to the pay as you go method ; those authorities being the Australian National Airlines Commission, the Australian National University, the Health Insurance Commission and the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority; the desirability of approved authorities continuing to fund their superannuation liabilities on the pay as you go arrangements; the appropriate contribution by employers assuming the pay as you go method is retained, including whether authorities contribute an average or standard employer contribution or contribute on the basis of an actuarial review; the performance and timeliness of actuarial reviews of statutory authorities including the role of the Department of Finance and the necessity for legislative amendment. This includes questions as to whether those authorities now paying contribution rates insufficient to meet future pension increases should be called upon to increase their contribution rate and whether it is practical, or desirable, to await actuarial advice for each authority. The Commitee points out also that the validity of pursuing differential rates of contribution to the notional fund could also be questioned; the necessity to quantify the Commonwealth's accruing liability for the CSS, bearing in mind the aging population and consequent narrowing of the tax base, the tendency towards earlier retirement and other social security commitments; and the applicability of private superannuation schemes to statutory authorities generally and to particular authorities. The Committee ascertained during its inquiries that the Actuary has been requested to undertake reviews of 15 of the largest authorities. The results of these reviews will form the basis of the Committee's final report on statutory authority superannuation. The Committee was concerned, however, to note that many authorities under review by the Actuary were unaware of that review. In discussions with the Actuary it was revealed that the reviews have not commenced because the Department of Finance and the Actuary have not yet agreed about the parameters for those reviews. The Committee believes that it is unacceptable that the matter has not been resolved and the reviews, urgent as they are, conducted. In this report the Committee recommends that the dispute about the parameters of the reviews be resolved without delay and that the reviews then be expedited. The Committee is to continue its scrutiny of this matter during 1984 and trusts that this interim report will stimulate discussion and a flow of information on authority superannuation. I thank members of the staff of the Committee for their work in assembling the data so far received and the other members of the Committee for their co-operation, especially Senator Robert Ray for chairing the July hearings during my absence. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I present a report on alterations to the list of Commonwealth statutory authorities and authorities' subsidiaries since September 1982. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I present the 219th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-I seek leave to incorporate the first page of my tabling statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Report 219 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance Minute on the Committee's 189th Report-Airport Fire Tenders. The Department of Finance Minute is the formal mechanism used for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee's Report on Airport Fire Tenders was tabled in Parliament on 27 October 1981. The Finance Minute was forwarded to the Chairman of the Committee on 19 May 1983. Further information was requested from the Department on 11 November 1983. Because of delays in obtaining this information the Committee requested Mr C. W. Freeland, Secretary, Department of Aviation to attend a meeting of the Committee on 6 December 1983 to present the information in public forum. The requested information was provided to the Committee on that day. The Committee's Inquiry arose from the Auditor-General's Report for 1978-79. In his report the Auditor-General disclosed serious and costly problems in the order and purchase by the Department of Transport, of 16 ultra large fire tenders from the Walter Motor Truck Company, USA. A further 9 vehicles were also ordered from the same company. Senator GEORGES —In its inquiry the Committee focused on the purchasing procedures and practices of the Department of Transport in acquiring the fleet of 25 ultra-large fire tenders. The major concern of the Committee in report 189 was that a prototype vehicle had not been developed and tested in response to specifications supplied by the Department prior to the order of production units . The Committee was also concerned that Australian manufacturers, some of which appeared to have a healthy record of export of fire vehicles, were disadvantaged . Standing Committee Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts The Committee criticised many aspects of the specification development, tendering and contracting procedures of the then Department of Transport. The Committee was not satisfied with the response by the now Department of Aviation contained in the Finance minute. The Department did not agree that the development of a prototype was necessary and has refused to accept many of the Committee's conclusions. Chapter one of report 219 draws the Parliament's attention to particular concerns of the Committee. The further information requested by the Committee included the service records of the 25 airport fire tenders, the availability of spare parts and details of cyclical reviews within the Department. Information supplied by the Department showed that a number of 'significant defects' have continued to occur in some of the vehicles. The costs of repair have been considerable. However, at the meeting on 6 December 1983 Mr Freeland and his officers assured the Committee that such defects occur in fire trucks generally and that the costs are comparable with other similar vehicles. The Committee accepted the Department's assurances that the serviceability of the Walter fire trucks is comparable with other vehicles the Department has in service. In conclusion, the Committee noted that the Walter fire trucks are now operating to the satisfaction of the Department of Aviation. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I present a report entitled 'Provision of Development Assistance and Humanitarian Aid to the Horn of Africa' dated December 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report from the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee entitled 'The Provision of Development Assistance and Humanitarian Aid to the Horn of Africa' is the first of two reports the Committee is presenting on the Horn region. The second will be tabled in the next period of sittings, hopefully in March or April next year, and will deal with regional conflict and super-power involvement in the Horn of Africa. This report has been produced now so that the conclusions and recommendations in it can be available to the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program before it finalises its deliberations. In fact, the report contains the following recommendation: The Committee considers that the issues raised in this Report in relation to relief aid and development assistance in the Horn of Africa, and their implications for Australia's overseas aid program generally, should be considered by the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program (The Jackson Committee). The Committee will forward a copy of this Report to the Jackson Committee accordingly. The Committee has not addressed the general direction and priorities of Australia's aid program, but has confined its comments to the effort in the Horn of Africa. While some comparisons are made between our aid effort in Africa and Australia's major area of interest-South East Asia and the South West Pacific- the Committee will be waiting the outcome of the Jackson Committee before considering these wider issues. Suffice it to say here that since 1976-77 the percentage of Australia's overall aid effort directed to Africa has increased from a little over 2 per cent to over 10 per cent currently. I hope that the proportion is maintained. While it is reasonable to expect that Australia should spend more of its aid dollars in its immediate region, Africa does deserve our attention. Africa is the only continent where population growth has exceeded growth in food production over the last 15 years. There is a large number of Commonwealth countries in Africa with which we maintain friendly relations. The African bloc is a significant voice in international forums. I now leave aside those general considerations and address myself to some specific recommendations of the report. A major part of the report deals with the allegations that have been made of corruption, misuse and mismanagement of aid in the Horn, especially in Ethiopia. Many of the allegations were based on hearsay while others, although often repeated, could be traced to the same source. Nevertheless, there was sufficient substance in some of the allegations for the Sub-Committee to take them very seriously. The Sub-Committee therefore conscientiously followed them up as far as possible within its means. There were allegations that there was misuse and misappropriation of aid in Ethiopia, including allegations that medical and food supplies are being siphoned off by the army. The Committee has found that aid should not be cut off on the basis of such allegations, as was suggested by some witnesses, and concluded that investigations by the European Economic Community and other bodies justify this conclusion. There were allegations in evidence that the relief and resettlement programs of the Ethiopian Government are used for political purposes to disperse opposition to the central government. It was further alleged that the Ethiopian Government has misled aid donors about the nature of resettlement and returnee refugee programs. Despite these allegations, international bodies continue to assist the resettlement and refugee returnee programs. The Committee does not consider that aid should be cut off on the basis of the allegations made, or because of allegations that Ethiopia has misled aid donors. It is clear that the aid does assist people in very great need of food aid. One allegation which did have considerable force was that aid given to Ethiopia cannot always reach those in desperate need. This is because parts of the country are controlled by separatist forces and national liberation groups-in Tigray and Eritrea, for example. In the case of Eritrea, the Committee notes that aid can be channelled through non-government organisations associated with the Eritrean Relief Committee, and that this is an effective means of getting urgent aid through to people in pressing need. In addition the report states: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government should, in consultation with other sympathetic nations, determine the best method of providing food and medical aid to Eritreans and Eritrean refugees through sources other than the Ethiopian Government where aid channelled through the Ethiopian Government cannot be provided to those in great need. The Sub-Committee received some evidence proposing that Australia assist Somalia in the development of its fishing industry. The Committee is of the view that such help could be best provided by a donor country located closer to Somalia with larger markets for the products. Nevertheless, because our fishing environment in the north and north-west is similar to Somalia's, the Committee is of the view that any requests forthcoming from the Somali Government should be considered sympathetically. A major theme of much of the evidence, especially from non-government aid organisations, was that there was a need for greater emphasis on self-help health care and food self-sufficiency projects. The emphasis until recent years has been on the provision of emergency food aid. The problem is that people, especially refugees, become reliant on food aid donations in the long term. As the report states, such aid: . . . can be very damaging in terms of population growth on a cause effect basis: increasing food aid causes an increase in population through a reduction in mortality rates creating an even further imbalance in food supplies unless food aid is escalated. There is therefore a need to help the Horn countries, and I would add all the drought prone countries of Africa, to increase food production, and thus gain self-sufficiency in food. Australia's experience in dry-land farming is of course where we can provide valuable help, and the Committee made some suggestions in this regard. In relation to health care, it was pointed out in evidence that most diseases suffered in the Third World are easily and inexpensively overcome. This can be done through primary self-help health care programs, such as the one being commenced in Somalia by Community Aid Abroad. The Committee recommends that the Government continue support for this Community Aid Abroad project. There are other recommendations in the report, but it is impossible to mention them all. I hope the report will make a valuable contribution in identifying some of the problems faced by Australia's aid programs to the Third World. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the Committee will be forwarding a copy to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) for him to refer to the Jackson Committee reviewing Australia's overseas aid program. During the Sub-Committee's deliberations on the Horn of Africa reference, a great many thoroughly researched and detailed submissions were received from witnesses in Australia and from overseas. It is not possible to mention each of them here, but I place on record the appreciation of Sub-Committee members for all the assistance we received. One organisation that does deserve special mention is the African Studies Association of Australia and the Pacific. Knowledge of African affairs is very poor in Australia, and the African Studies Association does its best to remedy the situation. Now that the Sub-Committee on Middle Eastern and African Affairs has ceased operations, it should be recorded that the African Studies Association has provided valuable assistance to the Sub -Committee since it was established in 1978 when it undertook an inquiry into developments in Zimbabwe. The Association is an important link between Africa and Australia, and I wish it a long and successful future. I also take the opportunity to thank the staff who helped prepare the report, especially the Committee Secretary, Ron Wiber, and Justine Francis. This is the second report tabled by the Sub-Committee in the last two weeks. The staff have been subjected to an extremely heavy work load and a very tight timetable. They have done an excellent job. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-On 8 December the Deputy President tabled a list of reports to which a formal government response had not been given. Honourable senators will recall that I advised the Senate on 24 August 1983 that the Government had decided that, in future, each parliamentary committee report would be responded to by ministerial statement within three months-halving the time limit the former Government had set itself. I also indicated that because of this reduction in the time limit full responses would sometimes take the form of an in-principle statement of the Government's intentions rather than a detailed accounting of each recommendation , and that interim advice would be provided where a final response could not be made in time. All except two of the reports in the Deputy President's list were made to the previous Parliament, and one of the exceptions was made to the Senate on 21 April. While the Government does not consider that its commitment to more prompt responses could reasonably apply to such reports, a government response can, nevertheless, be expected. Where a full response is not as yet possible, the Government has imposed on itself a requirement to provide a short statement of progress, including what information can be provided without pre-empting fuller consideration where that is necessary. I now seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a schedule in relation to those reports referred to by the Deputy President. Leave granted. The schedule read as follows- OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Australian Capital Territory, Joint Committee-Retail Trading Hours in the A. C.T. Tabled 21 October 1982 This is a complex issue and the Minister has been consulting with all interested parties in relation to the recommendations. Further, the Macklin Report on trading hours in New South Wales, which was commissioned by the State Government, has recommended a number of innovative changes there. Given the '' island'' nature of the A.C.T. within New South Wales, the Minister proposes to await the New South Wales Government's legislative action in respect of the above report before making a decision in relation to the Joint Committee's recommendations. Proposals to Variations of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs. Tabled 25 August 1983 It has not been the practice of successive Governments to respond formally to such reports, as Government decisions are published by the Notices of Variation tabled in the Parliament by the Minister for Territories and Local Government. 2. Constitutional and Legal Affairs, Senate Standing Committee-Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings. Tabled 25 November 1982 A detailed examination of this report has been undertaken. It is expected that the Attorney-General will be in a position to table a full response to the report in Parliament early in the Autumn Sittings 1984. Constitutional Qualifications of Members of Parliament. Tabled 2 June 1981 Two parallel actions are proceeding on this report. In the first place, the recommendations relating to the Constitutional Qualifications were referred by the Adelaide meeting of the Constitutional Convention to the Standing Committee of the Convention and then to the Structure of Government Sub-Committee chaired by Mr D. Lowe of the Tasmanian delegation. In the second place, the recommendations have been under examination by the relevant Commonwealth departments and agencies. Although some delays have been experienced in resolving difficulties, particularly in relation to certain aspects of the report concerning disqualification as a consequence of accepting or holding an office of profit, the Attorney-General expects that a full response to the Report will be tabled in the Parliament early in the Autumn Sittings next year and that those aspects of the Report which are concerned with constitutional change will continue to be pursued in the Sub-Committee of the Constitutional Convention with a view to that Sub-Committee reporting to the Standing Committee of the Convention by the middle of 1984. 3. Education and the Arts, Senate Standing Committee-Tenure of Employment of Academics. Tabled 9 September 1982 This wide ranging report is still under active consideration. While many of its findings are likely to receive Government support, it would be inappropriate to make any responses now. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs hopes to be able to announce the Government's response early in the new year. 4. Finance and Government Operations, Senate Standing Committee-Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth: Fifth Report Tabled 16 September 1982 Report on Certain Annual Reports November 1981. Tabled 26 November 1981 Recommendations relating to annual reports contained in the first six reports of the Senate Committee on Finance and Government Operations and the Report of the Joint Committee on Publications entitled ''Annual Reports of Commonwealth Departments and Statutory Authorities'' were responded to by the then Government on 11 November 1982. Time limits for the presentation of Reports in Parliament by Ministers were incorporated in the Acts Interpretation Act by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1983. The arrangements for the publication of and making available to members and Senators of Reports when Parliament is not sitting were drawn to the attention of statutory authorities by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in January 1983. The Minister for Finance tabled Guidelines for the Form and Standard of Financial Statements of Commonwealth Undertakings on 16 May 1983. In tabling the Guidelines the Minister indicated that the Guidelines reflected the findings of the Senate Committee and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Senator Coates, Chairman of the Senate Committee, commented favourably on the Guidelines on 19 May 1983 (Senate Hansard page 643), congratulating the Government for its response to the Committee's recommendations on accounting by statutory authorities in a number of its Reports. In the Labor and Quality of Government paper, the Government indicated its basic approach to statutory authorities as including the principle that, in the absence of specific and over-riding reasons to the contrary, new functions of government should be carried out by departments rather than by statutory authorities. We also stated, where authorities are created, our approach would be to ensure their financial and administrative accountability, improve their effectiveness and improve public control over them. In keeping with its policy commitment on statutory authorities, the Government is actively considering the issues canvassed in the recommendations contained in the Fifth Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations including creation (taking into account whether the establishment of an authority is necessary in terms of operational effectiveness and public accountability); control (including ministerial control and the role of departments); appointments of, and terms and conditions for, officeholders; the creation of subsidiaries; financial arrangements; and review (including sunset legislation). In this context the Government is taking into account the views and recommendations contained in the Fifth Report and also the Senate Select Committee on Statutory Authority Financing. It is expected that the results of the Government's deliberations will be made available early in the new year. 5. Foreign Affairs and Defence, Senate Standing Committee-Indochinese Refugee Resettlement-Australia's Involvement. Tabled 16 February 1982 The Minister Representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is to make a response today. 6. Government Clothing and Ordnance Factories, Senate Select Committee-Future of the Government Clothing Factory at Coburg. Tabled 14 October 1982 The Minister for Defence Support announced on 29 April 1983 that the Government had reviewed the whole matter and decided that the factory will continue to operate within the Department of Defence Support. A number of measures have been set in train to enhance the effectiveness of the factory as a commercial enterprise, including investment in improved layout and facilities, and an examination of the cost-effectiveness of factory operations. Corporate plans are being developed with the objectives of increasing factory autonomy and a broadening of the workload base. 7. Industrial Relations Legislation, Senate Select Committee. Report. Tabled 26 October 1982 The former Government's legislation, the subject of the report, lapsed on prorogation of the previous Parliament. Accordingly, the Government sees no need to respond to this report by way of a Ministerial statement. 8. National Resources, Senate Standing Committee-Development of the Bauxite, Alumina and Aluminium Industries. Tabled 25 November 1981 The report was tabled during the time of office of the previous Government and made a number of specific recommendations covering energy, taxation, ownership labour, infrastructure and the environment. The report was written at a time when the outlook for the aluminium and energy industries was substantially different from current circumstances. Combined with policy changes since then, the consideration of the matters raised requires a detailed review. When the review is complete, a response in the Parliament will be made in the usual way in 1984. Commonwealth's Role in Rural Research and Extension. Tabled 30 November 1982 The Government is examining the report-along with the Joint Management Review ( JMR) of the administration of research schemes in the Primary Industry portfolio conducted by the Public Service Board and the Department of Primary Industry and relevant recommendations of the Balderstone Committee-with a view to making a full response as soon as possible. Many complex issues are raised by the Senate Committee report itself, but the Government has already acted in relation to one of the recommendations-establishment of a Natural Soil Conservation Program. This decision, and the recently announced development of an Australian Livestock and Meat Research Development Corporation, reflect the Government's positive attitude towards the organisation and funding of rural research and extension. 9. Passenger Fares and Services to and from Tasmania-Senate Select Committee. Report. Tabled 18 August 1981 Further to the interim response made in the Senate 1 December 1983, the Government expects to be able to present a full response early in the Autumn Sittings. 10. Social Welfare, Senate Standing Committee-Another side of the Drug Debate: a medicated society? Tabled 14 May 1981 The Minister for Health is now working on a series of proposals on the supply of pharmaceutical preparations in Australia and intends to use the report as an important resource document when considering those proposals. Homeless Youth. Tabled 17 August 1982 Senator Grimes made a Joint Ministerial Statement-Review of Crisis and Youth Accommodation-to the Senate on 17 November 1983 which, among other things, responded to the report. 11. South-West Tasmania-Demand and Supply of Electricity for South-West Tasmania, Senate Select Committee-Report. Tabled 23 November 1983 In view of the lengthy Parliamentary debates on South-West Tasmania and on electricity supply in Tasmania, the Government does not see a need for a further and particular Ministerial statement to be made in response to this report. 12. Trade and Commerce, Senate Standing Committee-Development of the Australian Fishing Industry. Tabled 21 April 1983 The Government is examining the report with a view to making a full response to the Senate shortly. The report raises issues of significance not only to the Commonwealth but also to the States and the fishing industry. It was a subject of discussion at this year's meeting of the Standing Committee in Fisheries and the recently created Interim Fishing Industry Consultative Branch has set up a Working Group to canvas industry views on the Committee's report. A number of the reports recommendations have already been implemented. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That the Senate take note of the statement. Ministerial Statement Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a statement on the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled 'Indo-Chinese Refugee Resettlement- Australia's Involvement'. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- On behalf of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and other Ministers with an interest in matters covered by the report, in particular the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I take this opportunity to refer to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled '' Indochinese Refugee Resettlement-Australia's Involvement''. The report has been the subject of detailed consideration by this Government and its predecessor. The Committee has performed a most useful task in an effective way, reviewing the progress of the resettlement of Indochinese refugees in Australia and making recommendations for Australia's refugee policy and programs in the future. The Government welcomes the report and broadly endorses both its conclusions and its recommendations. As the report was tabled on 16 February 1982, it is clearly somewhat dated and does not take into account the policy initiatives of the Government elected to office in March this year. Because of the significant passage of time since the report was tabled the Government does not propose making a substantive or detailed response. Nonetheless there is a range of specific conclusions and recommendations which do not have a limit in time and which are still pertinent to current circumstances and the thinking of this Government. The report broadly endorses the management of Australia's refugee program but concludes that the problem of Indochinese refugees and displaced persons in the region has not been resolved. We are dealing with one of the major refugee problems of history. Already nearly 870,000 refugees from this region have been resettled in third countries, not including the more than 250,000 border crossers accepted by the People's Republic of China. At the end of October 1983 there were some 174,000 persons in UNHCR camps or Regional Processing Centres in the region. Of these nearly 46,000 are boat people. This compares with camp populations at the same time last year of some 196,000 with the boat people component amounting to just over 44,000. The outflow continues albeit at a reduced rate. The Committee makes a number of suggestions and observations concerning the refugee situation itself, the Australian response and the adequacy of existing international legal and political arrangements, and goes on to comment on the specifics of the Australian role given our unique situation as a major resettlement country within the region. Mr President, the Government's response to this report should be seen in the context that while there are some significant elements of continuity between the previous Government's approach to refugee policy and our own, there are nevertheless some marked differences of emphasis. The new directions of Government policy will, we consider, have a favourable impact on international management of the Indochinese problem. The report deals extensively with the foreign policy aspects of the Indochinese refugee problem. The complexities of the Indochinese situation and its many dimensions have been elaborated in this place by the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 8 December. The Report notes that Australia's prominent role in resettling Indochinese has raised expectations concerning our role in helping to solve similar problems in other areas of the world. The Government has considered Australia's worldwide refugee role and the expectations arising from our performance in the past with great care. Accordingly, the Government is placing greater emphasis on political solutions to problems facing refugees. We are committed to give increased attention to human rights and humanitarian concerns in our foreign policy objectives. We will be looking at a wider range of approaches to address both cause and effect of refugee outflows. These will include more emphasis on mediation, negotiation and the provision of assistance to alleviate those conditions creating refugee outflows where this is appropriate. Australia has been an active participant in the United Nations and related forums in discussions of durable solutions to refugee situations. There are an estimated 9-10 million refugees and displaced persons in the world today. Australia is prominent among those nations which accept for resettlement people for whom this is the appropriate solution. We have resisted the temptation during a time of recession and serious unemployment to reduce drastically our humanitarian intake. Our policy is to concentrate mainly on family reunion and refugee migration, with a further commitment to policies which diversify the socio-economic background of intended migrants. Our diversification of the source of refugees resettled in Australia is based on the belief that none of the ethnic, religious or regional groupings represented in our population should feel that the Government is ignoring the plight of their fellow nationals because of a preoccupation with our own region. Consequently, the Australian Labor Government is increasing intakes of refugees and other humanitarian cases from areas such as Central and South America, the Middle East and Africa, and we will look at other problem areas as necessary. The Government was interested to see that the Committee recognises the changing nature of the Indochinese refugee outflow and the need to address such questions as ''the phenomenon of the economic refugees''. Consistent with this view, the Government is maintaining the policy introduced in July 1982, whereby applicants must demonstrate, on an individual basis, claims to refugee status as a prerequisite to admission under the Australian program. This procedure is applied without discrimination world-wide. We believe this to be an important element in deterring non-refugee outflows and in convincing Australians that the refugee program is not being abused. It must be recognised that resettlement alone will not solve the Indochinese refugee situation. As the Parliament will be aware, the responsible Ministers have been energetic in fostering dialogue on the political obstacles to the resolution of the plight of displaced Indochinese. The Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs have all addressed the various aspects of this problem in recent visits to South East Asia. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs also attended a conference in Honolulu in August of this year with representatives of other major resettlement countries at which it was agreed that a combination of policies, including voluntary repatriation, was necessary in working towards resolution of the problem. In the light of these considerations, while resettlement and other forms of assistance must continue to be extended to the countries of first refuge which are providing care and protection to refugees and displaced persons within their territory, there is a need to pursue as vigorously as possible non-resettlement solutions to the Indochinese refugee situation. This diversified approach recognises the difficulties which lie in the way of political settlements in the region. Discussion of such issues as the creation of acceptable conditions for voluntary repatriation will be an essential element in this process. With regard to Australia's resettlement program, the Government is pleased to note that in the view of the Committee 'overall, positive measures have been introduced to assist refugee resettlement' and that 'the settlement of Indochinese refugees in Australia is progressing well'. Australia has already resettled over 82,000 Indochinese. Our annual intake rose from 1,135 in 1976-77 to above 15,000 in 1979-80. In 1982-83 our intake was 12, 435. In 1983-84 we envisage an intake of some 10,000. In addition we expect that in the coming year orderly departure arrangements for migration from Vietnam to Australia will provide a safe alternative to illegal departures by boat for some 2,000 people. As regards resettlement and welfare aspects within Australia, the Committee recommends that, to allow the resettlement program to function properly, the Government should continue to provide support to Government agencies and voluntary groups engaged in providing post-arrival services and conducting settlement schemes and where possible, to increase that support. The Senate may be assured that, within existing budgetary constraints, the Government has moved to ensure that settlement programs and services for refugees and indeed all other migrant groups are maintained and, to the extent possible, enhanced. The Government considers that it is essential to ensure that refugees and migrants are able to become fully participating members of Australian society. The Government believes that these measures give tangible proof of its continuing commitment to the development of a truly multicultural Australia. To move to more specific concerns, the Committee recommends that steps be taken to resolve problems in the area of alteration of some refugees' personal particulars and the non-recognition of certain overseas qualifications. With regard to the first matter, I am pleased to be able to say that significant steps have been taken. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has developed a set of guidelines aimed at resolving most cases. The guidelines recognise that many refugees do not possess documentary evidence of their true personal particulars and provide for alternative methods of backing up claims (for example medical evidence and consideration of opinions from professional people closely associated with individual refugees over a period of time). They also take account of relevant existing legislation. Departmental officers applying the guidelines have scope to use their discretion and to request sufficient evidence to enable a judgment to be made on the bona fide of any case. With regard to the non-recognition of overseas qualifications, honourable senators will be aware that a Committee of Inquiry into the Recognition of Overseas Qualifications, known as the Fry Committee, was set up to review the entire question of the recognition of overseas qualifications and to make recommendations on ways to alleviate present difficulties. The Committee's report was tabled earlier in the session, and consideration is currently being given by the Government to the recommendations in the report. Finally, the Committee recommends that studies of the settlement experience of Indochinese refugees and the settlement process be conducted on an ongoing basis . The Government fully endorses this recommendation. Honourable Senators may be aware that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has published a report on the settlement experience of Indochinese refugees in Australia the title of which ''Please Listen to What I'm Not Saying'' is indicative of its imaginative and perceptive approach to its subject. It has also commissioned other major surveys and studies and made wide use of material from academic and other sources. This material provides an important input to policy planning. I have dealt briefly with the major thrust of the report and the fact that it is broadly consistent with the refugee policy directions of the present Government. In conclusion, I would like to commend members of the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs and Defence for their report and to assure Honourable Senators that the Government will continue to respond to the increasingly serious world refugee problem with energy, sympathy and flexibility . Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(12.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence during most of the inquiry in question, before it reported. I do not intend to canvass things on behalf of the Committee, but I indicate disappointment at the response that has been presented today by the Government. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, a moment ago indicated certain things in relation to responses. It does not claim to be an interim response; it claims to be a government response, and it is a very thin document. The Minister says in one part of the statement: As the report was tabled on 16 February 1982, it is clearly somewhat dated and does not take into account the policy initiatives of the Government elected to office in March of this year. Indeed, how could it? He goes on: Because of the significant passage of time since the report was tabled the Government does not propose making a substantive or detailed response. Now that really is an insult. One could certainly say that perhaps there should have been a response by the previous Government, but this Government has had since March this year to give a better response than this one. To use as an excuse the length of time since the report was tabled is about the worst excuse possible. I understood from what Senator Button was saying that in principle general responses to committee reports were, because of a shortage of time, a self-imposed shortage by the Government, reduced from six months to three months . The report on the resettlement of Indo-Chinese refugees was a follow-up study to a study that that Committee had done in 1976. It contained not a very large number of recommendations. It was a survey of the resettlement program and since it was not the first survey it was not numerous in its recommendations, but they were specific. What we have received from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) in response is a very broad statement, including some statements of government policy which are not specifically directed to recommendations of the Committee. One statement of government policy in particular has already been contained in a ministerial statement on immigration made in the first session this year. So that is reiteration which adds nothing to consideration of specifics recommended by this Committee, which spent a very long time on this matter and put a great deal of effort into travelling around Australia and talking to a large number of people, including people who have developed some expertise on the subject of settlement of Indo-Chinese refugees. The Indo-Chinese refugee program is a very important one because it was the first time Australia had embarked on a multiracial program and on one of substantial size. It was considerably experimental. I think that one could fairly say that it has been very successful, and the Government is not the only one which should get the credit for that. There are important issues on the subject of the resettlement of these refugees. It is disappointing that the Minister is not prepared to address himself to the specifics of the report. The statement made by the Minister contains this rather curious statement: Our policy is to concentrate mainly on family reunion and refugee migration, with a further commitment to policies which diversify the socio-economic background of intended migrants. I just wonder what on earth that means. I spoke in the Senate on the statement by the Minister on some variation in immigration policies under this Government. Unless one draws a very long bow, one would be guessing at what part of the Government's immigration policy would cover the statement 'a further commitment to policies which diversify the socio-economic background of intended migrants'. The Minister may have something in mind, but it is not clear to me from the statement the Government has made just what it is. It bears some elaboration if we are to do something about the engineering of people's socio-economic backgrounds. The statement also says: With regard to Australia's resettlement program, the Government is pleased to note that in the view of the Committee 'overall, positive measures have been introduced to assist refugee resettlement.' . . . 'the settlement of Indochinese refugees in Australia is progressing well'. I am very pleased that the Hawke Government thinks that the Fraser Government did such a good job on that. I hope that continues to be the case. The other main aspect of the report was some emphasis on repatriation programs rather than resettlement programs. Certainly that is something I think everybody involved with refugees sees as desirable, if it is practical. I just want to put in a word of warning here. Refugees generally are fairly voiceless people. They are usually not welcome in the country they go to. They may be tolerated and looked after but they are certainly not welcome. There are those who claim that some of the repatriation programs, notably the Laotian repatriation program, have been implemented forcibly. It has resulted in people being repatriated who did not truly want to be repatriated. When people have been repatriated and have escaped again, because they have not gone back to a situation they were promised , people tend to want to turn their backs. Repatriation programs are good if they are implemented in an orderly fashion and if they meet the particular problems of the refugees. If the refugees are in their particular positions because of political or military harassment we should not kid ourselves that by shoving them back into their own countries, no matter in how orderly a fashion, we are necessarily solving the problem. I think that a great deal of humanitarianism has to be brought to bear. The statement rightly says that this program is very much involved with our foreign affairs program. I just hope that refugees never become victims of a foreign affairs program which has objectives different from the humanitarian handling of these poor people who have no country. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.32) —I move: That the Electoral and Referendum Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 274 and made under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906, be disallowed. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document which I have shown to honourable senators. Leave granted. The document read as follows- DISALLOWANCE OF AN INVALID REGULATION On 25 August 1983 Mr President was supplied with an undated opinion of the Attorney-General's Department (copy attached), which is to the effect that it is not possible for the Senate to pass a motion disallowing regulations which have been held to be invalid by the High Court. The Attorney-General subsequently took a point of order to this effect in the Senate, but no ruling was made in response to the point of order, and the notice of motion to disallow the regulations in question was withdrawn. Neither the opinion nor the debate in the Senate adduced any authority to support the proposition that an invalid regulation may not be disallowed, except the argument that because such a regulation is a nullity, there is nothing for the Senate to disallow. It is clear that a resolution of the Senate disallowing a regulation which has been held to be invalid would have no effect on the actual state of the law. A disallowance motion means that the disallowed regulation ceases to have effect from the time of disallowance (sub-section 48 (4) of the Acts Interpretation Act ), and a regulation held to be invalid is one which has had no effect at all. It may be argued, however, that an invalid regulation still has some residual existence, even though it has no force or effect, and that it is, so to speak, ' 'still on the statute book''. A resolution of disallowance passed by the Senate would, in this argument, have the effect of depriving the regulation of that residual existence and ''removing it from the statute book''. If this is so, it would be quite proper for the Senate to pass a resolution disallowing an invalid regulation. There appears to be no precedent for either House of the Parliament disallowing a regulation which has been held to be invalid. Sub-section 48 (6) of the Acts Interpretation Act provides that the disallowance of a regulation shall have the same effect as the repeal of the regulation. If it is possible to repeal an invalid regulation, such repeal having the effect of depriving the regulation of its residual existence, and ' removing it from the statute book', it follows that it is also possible to disallow an invalid regulation, the disallowance resolution having that same effect as the repeal. Cases of regulations made under Commonwealth Acts of Parliament being held to be invalid are not numerous. It is particularly rare in recent years for regulations to be held invalid, partly because the vigilance of the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee ensures that care is taken to see that regulations are in accordance with the Act under which they are made, and partly because Commonwealth legislation of dubious validity is more likely to be contained in Acts of the Parliament than in regulations. Moreover, where regulations are held to be invalid, remedial action other than repeal may be taken. For example, in 1971 the High Court found the Dried Fruits Export Control (Election of Board) Regulations to be invalid (Willcocks v Anderson, 45 ALJR). Subsequently the Act under which the regulations were made was repealed and a completely new legislative scheme substituted. Nevertheless, there have been cases of regulations being found to be invalid and subsequently repealed, which indicates that the executive government regarded those regulations as having some continued existence, notwithstanding their invalidity, which existence was terminated by the act of repeal. For example, in 1951 the High Court found a regulation under the Excise act to be invalid, and that regulation was subsequently repealed (Morton v Union Steamship Company, 83 CLR; SR 1953 No. 86). Similarly, in 1953 the High Court found a regulation under the Patents Act to be invalid and that regulation was subsequently repealed (Martin v Commissioner of Patents, 80 CLR; SR 1954 No. 56) . If the opinion were correct, it would not be possible to repeal regulations held to be invalid, because the regulations would have had no existence; they would, as it were, be blank spaces in the volume of regulations. It is clear, however, that the executive government has not taken this view in the past. It should be noted that the view contained in the opinion has also not been adhered to in relation to Acts of the Parliament; Acts and parts of Acts held to be invalid have also been repealed. Thus in 1975 the High Court held Sections 3, 4, and 12 (a) of the Representation Act to be invalid, and those sections were subsequently repealed (A.G. ex rel McKinlay v Commonwealth, 135 CLR; Representation Amendment Act 1977). It may therefore be concluded that, just as invalid regulations may be repealed , they may also be disallowed by a House of the Parliament, either of those actions, repeal or disallowance, having the effect of terminating the existence of the invalid regulations. AUSTRALIA ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT CANBERRA Motion for disallowance of World Heritage (Western Tasmania Wilderness) Regulations No. 31 of 1983 Attorney-General I understand that this matter is to come on this afternoon. 2. These regulations were made pursuant to s. 69 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. They were declared to be wholly invalid by a majority of the High Court in its decision of 31 July 1983. (Gibbs C. J., Wilson and Dawson JJ. found that s. 69 was not supported in relevant respects by the external affairs power and Deane J. found that the regulations, as amended by s. 19 (2) of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, involved an acquisition of property without provision of just terms). 3. The situation is, therefore, that as the High Court has found that the Governor-General had no power to make the regulations they are of no effect. Therefore, there is nothing for Parliament to disallow. This means that the provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ss. 48 (as amended by Act No. 26 of 1982), 49 and 50 concerning the effect of disallowance have no application. If the Senate were to purport to disallow the 'regulations' its own action would be without effect. 4. Although the motion for disallowance is therefore misconceived, other statutory instruments made pursuant to the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 are in force and subject to disallowance. Except for those instruments held to be invalid by the High Court, these instruments remain in force and are needed to ensure that construction of the Gordon-below-Franklin Dam remains illegal. 5. In case a general debate on this matter should ensue, I attach a copy of your second reading speech on the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983. I have marked some passages that might be relevant to a general debate. These passages concern the new Act and are not relevant to regulations made under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. G. P. M. DABB Senior Assistant Secretary Constitutional and International Branch Advisings Division Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-It is a most unusual course for the Government to concede without debate the disallowance of one of its own regulations. In this instance the Government does so because the regulations are no longer of any force or effect, or at least will not be if the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill 1983 in fact becomes law, as it is intended to. The subject matter of the regulations has been wholly superseded by the subject matter of that legislation. Under those circumstances it would be necessary for the regulations either to lapse or to be repealed. Senator Harradine has chosen the route of disallowance to remove them from the Statute Book. The Government has no objection to that course being followed in these circumstances. Question resolved in the affirmative. Reference to Public Works Committee Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Upgrading of facilities for introduction of F28 Aircraft, Wagga Wagga Airport, New South Wales. Reference to Public Works Committee Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Redevelopment of facilities at Darwin International Airport, Northern Territory. Reference to Public Works Committee Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development of RAAF Base, Tindal, Northern Territory. Debate resumed from 14 December 1983, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.36) —Last night, when speaking on these Bills, I indicated that I generally welcomed the idea behind the Government's move to involve itself, relevant State governments, the industry and the unions in the important changes which need to be made to ensure that this important basic industry improves its general position. Last night I raised some of the concerns of the Opposition with respect to the inadequate response or apparent non-response of the State governments concerned-New South Wales and South Australia-and the doubts that we had about the extent to which the actual commitment of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd represented a realistic assessment of what was required satisfactorily to modernise the steel industry. In that respect, I referred to BHP's own assessment given to the Industries Assistance Commission. I also referred to the failure of the Government and the trade unions to agree on arrangements which could in fact ensure the profitability of the industry. I also drew attention to the fact that the industry in Australia under these arrangements is guaranteeing wage rises to its work force under the general community arrangements-the 4.5 per cent wage increase and full indexation thereafter which have already been granted by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I contrasted that with the situation of the United States steel industry where the unions have in fact been prepared to take a cut in the present salaries of their workers to restore the competitiveness of that major industry. This afternoon I want to touch on only the price surveillance powers which are to be given under this legislation to the Steel Industry Authority and the possible effect of any failure on the part of the principal contributors to the plan to deliver on their commitments. The legislation before the Senate provides that the Steel Industry Authority has power to look at the domestic and overseas prices of steel. However, we have also, of course, seen legislation, not supported by the Opposition, go through this place that ensures that the Prices Surveillance Authority also has the power to inquire into steel prices because of the monopoly situation of that industry. It may be that the price surveillance arrangements in any single case are reasonable. We put our views earlier this week about the Prices Surveillance Authority. However, we are concerned about duplication and the possibility that there will be not just one but two avenues of bureacratic interference in the commercial operation of BHP and its subsidiaries. This is analagous to the duplication that takes place in the oil industry between the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority, which was established by the Commonwealth, and the State pricing authorities which control petroleum prices within a particular State. It is possible that the recommendations of each authority could be in conflict and this, of course, could seriously undermine the situation of the industry and threaten the success of the plan. The Opposition would like to receive assurances from the Government that there will be no conflict of interests between the two authorities and that the Government has some way of ensuring that that problem is removed. The second issue I wish to mention relates to the question of what happens if the unions, BHP, the Commonwealth Government or the State governments fail to contribute to the plan in the way the plan envisages. As far as the Opposition can see, the Government's plan for the industry and the Bills which are before us at the moment do not provide any mechanism to redress the situation where any of the parties fail to deliver on its contribution. What, for example, happens to the steel package if BHP does not invest $800m? We are told that it is committed to $500m firm; it is probably committed to $300m. But what is the situation if that commitment is not met? Surely that would seriously threaten the development of a modern, internationally competitive steel industry. Indeed, as I said earlier, perhaps even greater investment is required. But what is the remedy if that part of the obligations under this package is simply not delivered? Again, what happens if the unions fail to increase productivity in the way in which the package suggests and, so, the industry becomes less competitive rather than more competitive? They are a series of concerns which the Opposition has about this matter. I ask the Government to address itself to those concerns because the Opposition, like the Government, wishes to see a healthy and thriving steel industry in Australia . It is important that Australia should have such a steel industry. We welcome the fact that the Government has brought forward a plan. We welcome certain elements of it. I merely rise to express some of the serious questions which remain in our minds, having considered the package. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Crichton-Browne, I should point out to the Senate that there is an agreement that at 12.45 p.m. we will shift to a first reading debate. Therefore, it would be convenient if Senator Crichton- Browne at 12.45 p.m. sought leave to continue his remarks. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.41) —We are debating the Steel Industry Authority Bill 1983, the Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Bill 1983 and the Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Bill 1983. I notice that the second reading speech accompanying the Steel Industry Authority Bill tells us that in return for the taxpayers' commitment of $350m to the shareholders and employees of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, plus the additional indirect costs of tariffs which were calculated by the Industries Assistance Commission to represent $150m for 1981-82, BHP will spend between $500m and $800m of its own money upgrading facilities. Each decision will, of course, be made on the conventional commercial criteria of reducing production costs and improving productivity, product quality and customer service. That figure is a great deal less than was spent in the four years to 1981-82 without such promises of assistance of taxpayers' funds. For their part, the unions have agreed that wages for the industry's work force will be consistent with the prices and incomes accord. In other words, the unions' contribution towards its share of the $350m is to undertake to honour an agreement previously made. They have further undertaken to increase productivity to levels of man hour output which they have not previously worked, notwithstanding that in the four years to 1982 BHP invested $355m with the primary purpose of improving labour productivity only to see it decline. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) referred in his second reading speech to a target of re-establishing a productivity level of 250 tonnes per employee per annum in the major steel works. I can find no evidence of that level being previously achieved. The essence of the Government's proposal is to continue to prop up an inefficient and technically outdated steel industry which has grown lazy, uncompetitive and incompetent. It is an industry which previously has been happy to lurch along behind the barriers of protection and quotas, ever mindful that it was in a monopoly situation in Australia. Senator Button's second reading speech talks of the steel industry plan reflecting the Government's commitment to the maintenance of a viable and efficient steel industry in Australia. That, of course, is a contradiction in terms. The steel industry in Australia, as has been clearly demonstrated in the IAC report on the subject, is not efficient. In fact, on the evidence given to the Commission and by comparison with other steel producing countries, Australia's steel industry is far from efficient. To suggest that it is viable is absurd. According to BHP, in its submission to the IAC, the minimum protection needs for continuation of the industry were a guarantee of 85 per cent of the domestic market through tariff quotas, with a penalty duty of 150 per cent on imports. That means that, if BHP is to be competitive with overseas producers, imported steel would have to attract duty which would make it 150 per cent more expensive than it would normally be. Mr Deputy President, it being 12.45 p.m., I seek leave to continue my remarks later . Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 8 December 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(12.45) —I wish to take advantage of this opportunity during the Senate luncheon hour to raise for note, and not for elaborate comment , the case of Father Brian Gore, an Australian Catholic priest held under house arrest in the Philippines. Father Gore is a Columban missionary who, with two other missionaries of his order and six lay workers, has been subjected to allegations to do with conspiracy to murder, at various times incitement to rebellion, possession of weapons which were clearly intended to bring about the death of adversaries, and the distribution of subversive literature. All these charges have been levelled at one time or another against these missionaries and their lay workers who, as far as can be judged from this distance, have tried to carry into practical, concrete effect the demands in the social dimension of the gospel. Father Gore is supported by his parishioners. I saw an article in the Canberra Times earlier this week to this effect: A nine-day daytime fast in protest at delays in bail hearing would be held by parishioners of three missionaries and six other people accused of murder, church sources said yesterday. That news item indicates that the Basic Christian Community, the group to which Father Gore ministers, is engaging in a novena up to Christmas Day in order to show its solidarity with his plight. The Australian Government has taken a very supportive and keen interest in ensuring that the due processes of law are accorded to Father Gore in relation to the charges which have been brought against him. As far as I have been able to judge, the due processes of the law have been followed through following the initial rather draconian invoking by military authorities of the charges and assertions against these missionaries. The local bishop, Antonio Fortich, has described the method of arrest and serving of warrants as a malicious act and there is no doubt that the initial movement by the military in this situation on an island of the Philippines was hatched and perpetrated in a way designed to create the maximum amount of terror amongst those with whom Father Gore is associated in order to subvert the very real work which the Basic Christian Community is carrying out. The charge is made that the conspiracy to murder was organised at secret meetings which Father Gore and Father O'Brien had organised and that at those meetings which were infiltrated, it is alleged, by outlawed communist New People 's Army elements, the conspiracy to liquidate a local mayor was perpetrated. Both missionaries have in affidavits asserted that the charge is quite false, fabricated and concocted. As an outsider it would appear that the missionaries' crime has been to arouse within the minds of the sugar plantation workers, the most deprived and depressed segment of the population in that area of the Philippines, an awareness of their plight and the means by which they can liberate themselves from that plight by speaking out against abuses of authority , corruption and land grabbing which have been undertaken for years by the sugar barons in conjunction with army elements as their military and enforcement arm. Father Brian Gore, whom these persons wanted to deport as an undesirable alien, has been able to insist that the due processes of internal domestic law be followed through. He is at the moment awaiting further developments within those processes. I have tried to tread fairly carefully in my description of the situation. A very heartening Christmas card has been signed by most senators in this chamber whom I have been able to contact over the last few days. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator John Button, the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Fred Chaney, and the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Don Chipp, have joined with well over 50 senators from all sides of the chamber in signing a very simple Christmas card to Father Gore. It contains no political message and is not to be used in any propagandist way but I think it is a very heartening expression of solidarity and awareness of the plight of Father Gore. It is very apt that at a time when Australians are exchanging Christmas greetings amongst each other in the spirit of goodwill which prevails during this season so many senators have seen fit to extend overseas that spirit of goodwill towards an Australian who is undergoing such distress and uncertainty. I will be in the Philippines over the Christmas period and hope to deliver the Christmas card to Father Gore on Boxing Day or as near to that day as possible. One hopes that the judicial processes will be brought to a speedy conclusion in order that he and the other missionaries may determine how they will carry through their ministry in the future in that freedom of choice they ought to have in relation to such matters. I simply want to put on the record the concern of so many senators with Father Gore's plight and their extending to him of this message of goodwill which is so appropriate to the season. I imagine that his parents in Perth will be heartened and buoyed up by this expression of non- partisan support. I hope to bring back to the Senate a message from Father Gore in the autumn session. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-I refer yet again to a case I have raised in the Parliament on a number of occasions in the past three years. It is the case of Kenneth Dax who was killed aboard HMAS Tobruk. To recap briefly, the Dax family, after a two-year fight with the previous Government and the current Government, was offered an ex gratia payment of $3,500 from the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes. The Dax family felt that this amount is insufficient to meet the costs it has incurred in its lengthy battle with the Government and it has deferred acceptance in the hope that the amount will be reconsidered. Despite the evidence that is now piling up on the Tobruk-the evidence I refer to here is that contained in the two inquiries into Kenneth Dax 's death as well as the evidence given to the previous Parliament's Joint Committee of Public Accounts and to this Parliament's Public Accounts Committee- I believe there has been a continuing reluctance to accept responsibility in this area. The previous Minister for Defence, Mr Sinclair, virtually ignored the pleas from the Dax family and the current Government was also slow to act. The present Minister for defence (Mr Scholes) in a letter dated 9 May refused to consider an ex gratia payment because he said it would 'circumvent the provisions of existing legislation'. In a previous speech in the Senate in response to that letter I pointed out that that is precisely what an ex gratia payment is all about. The Dax family acknowledged, as I acknowledged, that any payment to them relating to the death of Kenneth Dax was not required by any Federal legislation. I am happy to say that the Minister for Social Security has given an undertaking that the Government is considering bringing in such legislation so that in cases such as this in the future where a person meets an untimely death in a situation that can, in part, be said to be under the responsibility of the Commonwealth, there is legislative compensation. The Government has used the Queensland legislation in this area to work out the amount of money that it believes could rightly be paid. An amount of $3,550 is approximately the amount of money that would be paid in similar circumstances if the matter had fallen under Queensland State Government legislation. I hope the Government has undertaken the exercise that it promised to undertake and that, in the autumn session, there will be legislation which will cover these problems in the future. I am of the belief that the amount of money profferred by the Government is an insufficient amount. The Government has admitted a moral responsibility by paying compensation in this case. I believe in doing so the amount ought to be set at a reasonable level. The Dax family has suffered much distress as a result of the previous Government's actions in this regard and the inability and the unwillingness of the previous Government to accept a moral responsibility that the current Labor Government has at least accepted. The previous Government was quite willing to make unsolicited payments of over $6,000 to athletes who did not attend the Moscow Olympic Games. Yet after two years it was not willing to compensate the Dax family for the loss of their son under circumstances which I believe were the responsibility of the Commonwealth. The compensation is less than half the amount which was offered to athletes not to attend the Olympic Games. I think it is time that the current Government moved beyond the position that it has taken, that it settled this matter at a reasonable level once and for all . Justice should be done to Kenneth Dax's parents by offering a reasonable ex gratia payment. In no way could that ex gratia payment be seen as compensation to the Dax family for the loss of their son. It cannot be seen as satisfying, in any way, that particular element; rather it is directed quite specifically and quite directly at the costs that have been involved in their son's untimely death and to the intransigence of the previous Government and the current Government in accepting fully the moral obligations of the Commonwealth. I believe that next year-as I understand will probably be the case-the Public Accounts Committee will be able to table a report on the Tobruk. Yet again I will probably have to raise this issue. I hope- Senator Georges —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Macklin is referring to a matter that is before the Public Accounts Committee and a matter on which the Public Accounts Committee will report. It has completed its report. I must admit that the Dax matter is very much before the Committee and it will make recommendations. Therefore, I do not think that Senator Macklin ought to anticipate what the Committee will recommend and the comments the Committee will make. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Lewis) —Order! Senator Georges, I think you have made your point without raising a point of order. I call Senator Macklin. Senator MACKLIN —Mr Acting Deputy President, I was not attempting to canvass the decisions or the comments the Committee might make, I was merely suggesting that I will probably be required, the next time the Committee reports, to comment on this matter yet again. I hope in the mean time that the Government may look at this matter so that any further grief and any further injustice to the Dax family will not be committed and that this case may be put aside and settled once and for all. Senator HILL(South Australia)(1.01) —I have said before that for Australia to halt its slide on the per capita wealth table and be able to provide continuing and rewarding employment for its people it will have to become an outward looking, sophisticated, post-industrial society. The lesson should be learned that such wealth will not be created by primary and extractive industry alone. Furthermore, we will not be able to compete in the fields of mass-produced, high labour content manufacture. Our costs will be too high. We must realise we are not a Third World country. We should have passed that stage of our economic development. An economically profitable future for Australia will lie in embracing new technology, in utilising that technology in our manufacturing processes to the maximum and aggressively marketing high value added top quality products. Professor Bill Ford, Professor of Organisational Behaviour at the University of New South Wales, stated: We can't attract industries on the basis of low wages and low skills-we live in a highly educated skilled East Asian world. We have no alternative but to compete with our skills. To date, our technological performance has been poor. We have been slow to maximise the potential for economic growth that new technology offers. We, in the public office, have a responsibility to identify such failings and to urge change when such change is within the capacity of government. Taxation policies oriented to encourage productive economic growth is a subject I have spoken on from time to time. Failings in our industrial research and development is another area upon which I spoke only yesterday. Another area I have already covered is the stifling effect of a lack of venture capital. But the failing I wish to speak upon today in this very short time available is even more basic and more critical if we are to have an increasingly prosperous economy. The subject is the education that is necessary to meet the new technology challenge. I am not only speaking of the education that is necessary to keep up with new technology. Professor Stranks, Vice-Chancellor of Adelaide University, in a recent article stated: In technological change it is better to set the pace than to try to keep up. A key factor in setting the pace is the ability of the education system to adapt to the changing technical and skill needs. Professor Slatyer, President of the Australia and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Conference, has been outspoken on this subject. He has noted the low levels of participation in education in Australia, questioned the effectiveness of the education children are receiving, and stressed the need for retraining of older people as job demands change. Participation, effectiveness and retraining are each subjects on which I wish to touch in this debate. The problem of non-participation is striking. Australia has 65.1 per cent of people between 15 and 19 years of age in the work force compared with 34 per cent in Canada, the United States and Japan. Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development figures for 1980 school enrolments between those ages reveal that, of 23 nations, Australia was ranked fourteenth. Certainly we allow our young people to opt out. The compulsory school attainment level in Australia is 15 years of age, in the United States of America 18 years and in Canada 17 years. Non-participation figures for tertiary institutions are equally concerning, particularly as they relate to younger persons. In 1950 about 4 per cent of Australians entering the labour force had tertiary education. In 1980 it was 8 per cent. This could be compared with Japan, which during the same period progressed from less than one per cent to 39 per cent. We are, therefore, not retaining our children at school, nor attracting the same numbers to tertiary education as are our competitors. With regard to schools, the drop in retention rates is most dramatic in non- government schools. This may suggest an economic rationale. Many are leaving and , as we know, not obtaining employment. If they are leaving to take unemployment benefits, it reflects a very depressing situation. Certainly more financially beneficial unemployment benefits vis-a-vis student support is not encouraging a continuation in the education process. Surveys of children's attitudes to school also paint a depressing picture. The Service to Youth Council in South Australia , my State, carried out surveys and identified problems of school experiences as perceived by children. They were perceived to include disconnection from the real world, continuous negative experiences lessening self-esteem, lack of opportunity to develop social skills, lack of consistency in school rules, needless authority, non-participation in decision-making, poor relationships with teachers and limited career advice. Certainly these would not all be objectively sustainable, but the important thing is that they are children's perceptions; and that is a depressing situation. The reasons for our failure to keep children at school are obviously complex in themselves. I mention only one identified by a number of academics. Professor R. T. Fitzgerald says that schools are too orientated towards candidates for tertiary institutions. Speaking of students who drop out he said: They do not consider themselves candidates for higher education and therefore leave. For those children remaining at school the question is whether the education they are receiving is of a sufficiently high standard. Professor Slatyer reminds us that an inquiry found that more than 30 per cent of 15-year-olds had not mastered the full range of elementary calculating skills needed in everyday living. He said that the same inquiry found that 17 per cent of 15-year-olds could not read well enough to understand simple passages satisfactorily and reminded us that in our future society these people will be just as handicapped as those with physical disabilities were in pre-industrialised society. Of which inquiry he spoke I am unsure because Dr Michael Kurst, Director of the Centre for Educational Research, Stanford University, who tried to do a study of Australian schools, was staggered by the lack of statistics available. We know that for 13 years the United States of America has been monitoring attainment levels in its schools. Surely in the basic fields of literacy and numeracy this should be accepted in Australia. Teacher quality is something we must also face up to in discussing non- participation and insufficiently high standards. According to Professor Chipman, teacher quality is a crucial question in education and perhaps the one least understood. He is particularly critical of the standard of graduates employed in the New South Wales State Education Department in the 1960s and 1970s. Professor Leonie Kramer is of the opinion that teacher unions pay lip service to education standards but are more concerned with political grandstanding and are obsessed with the idea that money solves all educational problems. Senator Martin —And smaller class sizes. Senator HILL —And class sizes. Certainly quantity has dominated the education debate over quality in recent years. Is there any reason why teachers should not accept ongoing evaluation of their competence, as also is the case in the United States where teachers need to demonstrate competence on a points system to maintain registration? Of course, it is hard to demand high teacher quality when Australians do not place a high value on education. Therefore, the problem is that the wider community attitude needs to be changed. Teachers are not held in particularly high esteem but their community responsibility is enormously high, a situation, one might say, which is somewhat analagous to that of politicians. We should recognise the need to select the best educated into teaching, to provide adequate in-service and preservice programs, and also to encourage out of school work experience for teachers. Then these questions can be asked: Is the school education system adapting to change? Is it sufficiently flexible in promoting broad and continuing education? Is it encouraging students to be initiators and not just reactors, recognising that life will be constant education and training but that such a fact of life should be not depressing but challenging? One wonders about the answers to such questions. The question then is whether the post-school education has been sufficiently meeting the challenge. Arguably, universities have been blinkered and too narrow in their approach. Professor Stranks recognises this when he says: The implications of rapidly changing high technology requires that a solid base education rather than a narrow vocational preparation will become more important . Furthermore, they have been too slow to adapt to changing demands. Professor Slatyer reminds us that one university in 1981 had a quota on its computer science course that was so small the entry cut-off point was higher than that for medicine. Whilst that situation has existed, Australia has been training several hundred fewer computer programmers each year than the number needed and has had to rely on migration to make up the shortfall. Clearly we must develop greater flexibility in our tertiary institutions and be able to shift resources promptly in response to such signals. There have been worthwhile achievements within technical and further education establishments and colleges of advanced education which unfortunately I have not time to detail, although there is duplication, empire building, and again insufficient flexibility and vision. Our apprenticeship system needs re-examining. It should include consideration of the length, terms and conditions, and should look to a wider range of occupational areas. Germany is an interesting precedent in that regard. Furthermore, the apprenticeship system tends to perform at the rate which reflects economic conditions. That does not necessarily ensure the skills that will be necessary for Australia's future requirements. Greater institutionalised training may be necessary. Apprentices must appreciate that a trade qualification will not necessarily tie them to that trade. A broader training would seem useful in encouraging flexibility of employment. Industry also must accept its share of the responsibility for our failings. Human resources are more important than ever. In many ways increased technological sophistication has made employers more dependent upon their employees, yet there is still insufficient cross-training and continuing education. One should be reminded of the massive investments made by Japan in industry in developing skills. Mitsubishi heavy industries runs five technical institutions and on the job retraining courses as priorities change and redeployment is required. I cannot understand why the emphasis of union bargaining is not on high skills training rather than on short term wage benefits. That is certainly the advice of Professor Ford who says: The skills of the work force are as important as wages and unions should start to pay attention to the skills of their members as well as their pay packets. We must also aim for a less confrontationist approach, with employees being seen as an investment, a human asset to be conserved and developed. This will, of course, also require a certain responsibility on the part of the employees. We are reminded that Australia spends one-tenth of one per cent of its gross domestic product on retaining and job creation and at least 25 times as much on the protection of declining industries. Obviously, government has a responsibility to direct more energy towards the future rather than the past. It is a challenge that we as a nation are not yet addressing adequately. Many other subjects could be addressed in this short speech. The insufficient link between industry and tertiary institutions, insufficient flexibility in teaching hours at some institutions, more effective and complete education in transition from school to work and more flexible teaching methods to allow particularly those more practically oriented to gain sufficient from the school experience come immediately to mind. Some of the problems upon which I have touched today were dealt with in the reports on participation and equity in Australian schools which were tabled yesterday. My first impressions of the two reports are favourable. In conclusion, serious problems exist for Australia in the failure to retain students in the education process and therefore to give them an adequate grounding in skills required to meet the challenge of a rapidly changing society . They should realise that, as Professor McKinnon has said, the whole base has moved up. The minimum educational level required to keep abreast of other countries has risen. This is a challenge that schools must be prepared to meet. The apprenticeship system needs reviewing. Tertiary and further educational institutions are still not sufficiently meeting their challenge. But probably more than ever the community needs to change its attitude to educational achievements. It needs to have pride in its tertiary institutions yet demand the highest standards. It needs to elevate significantly the status of teachers to reflect more accurately the critical imortance of their role in society. The OECD has proclaimed: . . . intellectual capital-scientific resources and the aptitude for technological innovation-constitutes the major asset of industrialised nations in the new modes of international competition and inter-dependence. It is a message we should heed. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(1.17) —I welcome the presence in the chamber of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) because I wish to discuss a matter that comes within his portfolio. It relates in particular to the Defence Service Homes Corporation. The matter arises from a loan application from Mr and Mrs Morgan of Queensland who have been approved for a defence service home loan. That approval was given in a letter dated 10 January 1983 and they expected to be able to settle this matter probably in January 1984. There has been a number of items of correspondence. The Morgans have now been told that as the house in question is in their names as tenants in common the loan cannot proceed because the Act requires that they be joint tenants of the property. I concede that the small print at the top of the application form discloses that this is a factor but in some ways it is not highlighted as it might have been. The part of the application form that the parties fill in with information does not require them to state that they are joint tenants, and it is something which I think could be overlooked. In any event, that is what has happened. I wish to speak about the consequences of the dilemma. I ask the Minister to give consideration to a change in the Act or the regulations. I appreciate that the property is more secure with two people as joint tenants than as tenants in common, but I suggest that it is not significantly more secure. I think we have to acknowledge that in these days many more people who go through the proceedings for divorce and property settlements then enter into a further marriage and take to the marriage money which is part of the settlement from the original marriage. Many people who do that regard that money as money that should go to the children of the first marriage. For that reason, I suggest , there is an increasing tendency for people to enter into purchases as tenants in common and not as joint tenants, as has been more traditional. This may apply to only a few but I wonder whether this option could be made available to people in the situation in which Mr and Mrs Morgan find themselves. Either the husband or the wife putting money into a purchase may wish to retain the ownership as tenants in common to ensure that the money goes back to the children of the first marriage, which is precisely the case in this situation. I am in no way being critical of the Corporation or of what has occurred. It is a misunderstanding and a mistake that was not noticed for some considerable time after the approval. It is a dilemma for Mr and Mrs Morgan that I ask the Minister to do his best to solve. In particular I ask him to consider an amendment to the Act similar to the one which was passed last year to enable a person who was permanently separated but not divorced to proceed with the settlement. I also welcomed that change in the legislation as recognising some of the changes in the way in which society functions at present. I ask the Minister to pursue this matter and to look into it with a view to finding a solution that may be welcome to a number of other people as well. I wish also to raise a matter about which I have written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). It concerns the adoption of children from Indonesia which I understand has recently been stopped as a result of a decision of the Indonesian Government. No-one can suggest that the Indonesian Government is not entitled to change its rules or change the arrangements for adoptions but I refer to the hardship for the children concerned and certainly for the families, all of whom I think are in South Australia and who are suffering what might almost be described as a sense of bereavement. The proceedings had gone so far that they had photographs of the children. They had, in a sense, got to know the children who were to become parts of their families and suddenly the rules have been changed even for those who had been approved in Indonesia for adoption. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a letter written by the approved adoption agency, ASIAC-the Australian Society for Inter-Country and Children Inc .-to the Ambassador for Indonesia, which sets out more detail than I think is appropriate to read out today. I have not shown the letter to the Minister. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 26.10.83 The Ambassador, Mr Harirustaman, Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia, 8 Darwin Ave, Yarralumla, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Sir, The ASIAC (S.A.) organization wishes to formally register with your Government, through you, our disappointment at the passing of legislation for a three year residency period for foreigners adopting Indonesian children. This legislation drastically intrudes on the humanitarian rights of eligible children . This organization fully supports, and is sympathetic to, the aim of the Indonesian government to prevent mal-practices associated with baby-buying and illegalities in Intercountry adoption, but consider the recent legislation goes far beyond this aim. Since 1976 the ASIAC organization has placed sixty-six Indonesian children into South Australian families. (a) ASIAC has worked in co-operation with the Indonesian National Council for Social Welfare for these adoptions, giving details of, and follow-up progress reports on each of the children placed, to the National Council. (b) Since 1978 ASIAC has placed children only from Indonesian institutions approved of, and affiliated with the National Council. (c) All South Australian adoptive parents held prior written approval from the South Australian Government welfare authority (Department for Community Welfare) to undertake an adoption. (d) ASIAC (S.A.) Adoption Agency is licenced annually by the South Australian Department for Community Welfare to assist with adoption placements, and all placements are oversighted by that Department. All monies pertaining to adoptions, outlaid by parents are submitted to ASIAC (S.A.) and the Department for Community Welfare in a sworn statement, and held in confidential records, by the Department for Community Welfare. (e) Both parents have attended Court hearings and completed all the legal formalities in Indonesia, as per the guidelines set down by the National Council for Social Welfare in Indonesia. (f) All adoptions through ASIAC (S.A.) have been undertaken in a legal, ethical , responsible manner in the interests of the children whom we serve. (g) The paperwork associated with each adoption has been duly legalized by the Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia in Canberra, with whom we have liaised on numerous occasions to promote openness and understanding of our work in Indonesia. The Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia, through Mr I. G. K. N. Sumantera, sought the assistance of ASIAC (S.A.) in August of 1981 in preparing a report to the Government of Indonesia concerning the adoption of Indonesian children into Australia. A representative of our organization travelled to Canberra to assist with this inquiry and to register ASIAC (S.A.) support for the Indonesian Government's attempts to ensure that Inter-country adoption from Indonesia was carried out in an appropriately controlled manner. Letters were also sent to the South Australian Department for Community Welfare registering our condemnation of illegal adoption practices at that time. The ASIAC (S.A.) organization adheres to the philosophy that Intercountry adoption is considered as a 'last resort' for children and is deemed necessary only after all other avenues of maintaining the child in his/her natural family, or adoption by Indonesian nationals have been investigated. As evidence of our adherence to this philosophy ASIAC (S.A.) operates a sponsorship programme in Indonesia, and contributes to the salaries of Social Workers in institutions that promote internal Indonesian adoption, for that purpose. We have observed with satisfaction, the increase in number of Indonesian nationals adopting children through this programme, thus reducing the number of children for whom intercountry adoption is felt to be necessary. In addition, aid projects have been funded in institutions and at a village self- help level. A number of children placed through the ASIAC organization have had medical disorders which had left their future uncertain, and in jeopardy if they had remained in instructionalized care. Marlon, abnormal growth and development, poor eyesight. Subsequently diagnosed as epileptic. Mulyono, mentally slow, diagnosed as epileptic. Hadiah, perforation of the throat, blood disorder requiring special diet. Jumadi, mentally, physically and emotionally retarded, diagnosed as profoundly deaf. Kornelus, suspected heart abnormality. Deddy, severe emotional retardation. Rini, severe lactose intolerance causing digestive disorders. Daniwestri, umbilical hernia. Sugiarti, severe dental problems. Budi, severe emotional retardation. Daniel, intestinal hernia resulting in a failure to gain weight. Siska, Eye deformality, blindness in one eye. Daniel, severely perforated eardrum resulting in extreme hearing loss in one ear . Alberta, suspected hydrocephalous. Susanti, mental and physical retardation and blindness. Through intercountry adoption all these children have received optimum medical care and the emotional security of stable family life through the commitment of caring parents. Such facilities and individual care is not possible within institutions. Our present concern is for seven particular children currently in institutional care in Indonesia who had been allocated to South Australian families prior to the recent legislation. These children have not been adopted because of this organization's endeavours to ensure that all the ethical and legal formalities within Indonesia were strictly adhered to. Consequently, these children, some of whom were cleared for adoption up to ten months ago, cannot be placed in the family environments to which all children are entitled. The prospective parents have undergone extreme emotional stress during this period of waiting for the adoptions to be finalized. All had made a deep commitment to each of these children over a period of time of preparing for the children to enter the families. Their concern for the future of the children has added to their extreme emotional distress of having to break the emotional commitment that each has made to the individual children. ASIAC (S.A.) shares the concerns of these parents and children, as well as the ongoing concern for other children for whom the love and security of a family environment is now no longer possible or available. Whilst we actively support responsible policies to eradicate mal-practice in Intercountry adoption, ASIAC (S.A.) is concerned that the fundamental right of eligible children to a permanent family life which will ensure their physical, mental, emotional and medical needs is being violated. We urge the Indonesian authorities to create a legal and responsible avenue by which the deserving children can continue to be assisted through Intercountry adoption by responsible social welfare organizations within Indonesia and abroad . To absolutely prevent all further adoptions, even of the most needy children, is much too drastic a step to take to remove some of the problems caused by the actions of some unscrupulous persons. With respect, Yours sincerely, Pamela Duffy, Principal Officer, ASIAC (S.A.) Adoption Agency. Brian Harris, President, ASIAC (S.A.) Parent group. for and on behalf of the ASIAC (S.A.) membership. Senator REID —I will not go through the five letters that I have here, but they set out in detail the arrangements which have been made. In all cases the couples concerned had been approved in Australia and Indonesia as adopting parents and had been allocated photographs of the children. One letter stated that all necessary arrangements had been made for passports, injections and travel for the family and their present children to go to Indonesia to collect the baby. Suddenly the rules were changed to apply, one might say, retrospectively. The only things that had not occurred were the actual court proceedings and the final formalities. All the parents were waiting for the date of those proceedings, which were expected to occur quite soon. I have asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs to look into the matter to see whether the adoptions that had been approved could go ahead or at least to obtain from the Indonesian Government some explanation for the problem which has arisen which the parents in Australia would perhaps find acceptable. I telephoned the Indonesian Embassy at the beginning of November and was told that adoptions were possible and that I would be sent the relevant literature. I have not received it and I think that adoptions from Indonesia may in fact have been stopped. To reiterate, I ask that the Indonesian Government give sympathetic consideration to allowing those adoptions that had been approved to continue and to allowing the children concerned to come to Australia. I wish now to raise the future of the Australian Capital Territory Bush Fire Brigade. The Australian Capital Territory Bushfire Council is an extremely important part of life in the Australian Capital Territory. That certainly was the case last summer with the fires in Gudgenby. It seems that the Minister for Territory and Local Government (Mr Uren) may be considering making some changes but they have not yet been publicised and the people in the Southern Australian Capital Territory Bush Fire Brigade are particularly concerned about the changes that they believe are likely to be made. The appointments to the Council expired on 21 November 1983 and, as I understand it, members have not yet been reappointed. In its letter to the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) of 10 November 1983, the Brigade suggests that the Minister: Reappoint the existing Council for a period of 12 months from 22nd November 1983, or if you wish to change some or all of the membership of the Council ensure that the current range of interests continue to be represented in the year commencing 22nd November 1983. Direct that a review of the composition of the Council be undertaken by your Department during the next twelve months, on a basis which will ensure effective consultation with the Council and other interested parties. The Brigade is concerned that the persons to be reappointed will be drawn exclusively from the government sector and that few of them will have had first hand experience in bushfire prevention and control. It is concerned also that rural interests, which depend so heavily on the effective functioning of the Bush Fire Council, may have no guarantee of future representation. It fears that valuable input from specialist reference organisations such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Bureau of Meteorology may be lost. There are other changes that the Brigade fears will weaken the effectiveness of bushfire control if the people who are not having an input into it are those with expertise and experience. I ask the Minister to give this matter his early and urgent attention because I believe it is important that in no way should there be any uncertainty about bushfire control during this coming summer. I am sure that all will have noticed the extent to which grass is around at present in Canberra. The matter is important and I ask the Minister to take notice of it. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(1.27) —I take this opportunity to raise what I believe to be a matter of grave concern to this nation. Indeed, I believe it to be of grave concern to the human race. With the Senate to sit only another day and with a large number of Bills and other matters on our minds, it is difficult to be alert to everything happening in the nation. On Tuesday 13 December the State Government of Victoria gave the go-ahead to all forms of in vitro fertilisation. Although the matter relates to the State Government in Victoria, it is of such grave concern that it must be raised in this chamber before the Parliament rises . In the report of the Melbourne Herald it is stated: The decision affects several hundred women on waiting lists for treatment-and is expected to encourage many more to seek it. The procedure will include the use of donor sperm, ova and embryos. The action of the Government of Victoria follows a report of the Waller Committee of Inquiry on In Vitro Fertilisation. Its report was considered by the State Government and it responded to the report by giving the go-ahead to in vitro fertilisation. I have the greatest sympathy for married couples who are childless. I have sympathy for any married couple unable to have a child because of circumstances of health, physical conditions or other reasons. Notwithstanding my sympathy, I think that in vitro fertilisation as presently engaged in by doctors in Victoria must be looked at from the point of view of sympathy for couples who are unable to have a child. In an article by Aileen Berry in the Age of 12 December it is stated: The limited response from the general public could easily be interpreted as apathy-a refusal to get involved in anything in which it is not personally involved. I understand that allegation, although I suspect that the public has failed to get involved because at the moment on questions such as this it is totally leaderless. The article continues: But it is more likely a tacit acceptance of a scientific medical procedure which, on the surface at least, can only add to the quality of the lives of those who undergo that procedure. The author of this article looks at the lives of those who undergo that procedure and, in effect, say that those people who want to have a child and who are unable to do so are enabled by this procedure to have that child, and suggests that that is a good thing. If that was all there was to it that would certainly be a good thing. I find it very difficult because I do not want to get involved in the enormous emotional arguments which this matter could raise. There is no doubt that the doctors who are involved in these procedures are, in fact, right on the limits. In many cases they are in effect playing the role of God. They are interfering at the precise moment of fertilisation, with the egg, the embryo and the whole reproductive system. They are interfering in that process. The doctors may be doing it with the highest motives, but the people of this nation must become aware of the problems and consequences which might arise as a result of these experiments. Who will stop the irresponsible? The Age article also reported: Professor Carl Wood, the head of the Queen Victoria Medical Centre's in vitro team, believes that the original in vitro technique, using an egg from a woman whose husband provided the sperm for fertilisation, was fairly well accepted. Studies had now shown, he said, that the community attitude towards donated eggs was improving and that opposition to the method tended to come mainly from the elderly and from people with limited formal education. In that event, I am one of the elderly or, alternatively, I have a limited formal education. Of course, that is nonsense. I am 51 and have a Bachelor of Laws degree from Melbourne University. I am desperately concerned about what is involved in these procedures. As I said, who will stop the irresponsible? We have already had the experience in this generation of the Nazis endeavouring to manipulate the human race in Germany. They called upon the women of Germany to have super children. Many of them, inspired by the rhetoric of Goebbels and Hitler, succumbed to that call to produce the so-called German super race. Who is to say that some future leader may not inspire the women of his or her nation to have some sort of specialist child? If some embryo could be established having a particular group of characteristics which the leader of a country sees as desirable, such as simple-minded obedience, superhuman strength and sporting facility, but being limited in intellect and unable to apply the mind to the realities of this world but a simple obedience and mindlessness, who is to say that at some stage in the future another Adolf Hitler may be able to persuade the women of a country to produce children using this technique? These doctors in Victoria are playing with human life. One of the unfortunate problems in connection with this debate is that we get involved in the question of abortion and in arguments as to whether a foetus constitutes a human life and whether abortion is the killing of a human child. That then gets us involved in all sorts of emotional arguments. Surely the people of this nation must be able to see, even if they do not want to get involved in that argument, that where a doctor is able to take a foetus-because that is what it is-or an unfertilised egg out of the womb of a mother, transplant it into another mother and fertilise it at that stage or fertilise it en route, he is playing with the very basics of this race. It is the human race which is being played with. I find it unbelievable that Victoria has come down with a decision to the effect that these experiments may continue and that all of these arrangements will proceed in accordance with the report of this committee. The possibilities are endless. If doctors can perform these experiments on an embryo, ultimately they will certainly be able to play with the genes within an embryo. They will be able to interfere with the mental and physical capacity of the unborn child, and change the unborn child. The Government has adopted the section of the report which says that the social parents of a child will be considered the natural parents of the child. That is fine. What will happen if both of those parents are killed in an accident? What will happen to this child? What will happen if the child perhaps becomes concerned about its actual parents? Will the child at the age of 20 be allowed to find the donor of the sperm or the donor of the egg? The problems that this raises are enormous, but they are factual problems. There is also a fundamental moral problem. The creation of a child is, I believe, a matter which ought not to be allowed to be played with by our doctors. I believe that the leaders of our community should take a stand on this matter. It is time for the leaders of the community to call for a halt. I am not a deeply religious person. In fact I suppose many people would say that I am not religious at all, but I say to the religious leaders of this nation: It is time for you to speak up. It is time that we heard from you. I say to the moral leaders of our community: It is time we heard from you. I say to the political leaders of this nation: It is time you stood up and condemned these procedures and called for a halt to them without delay. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(1.39) —I wish to take the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Radiocommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill and cognate Bills. A first reading debate, of course, enables senators to speak on a variety of topics. I wish once again to bring before the Senate something which Senator Lewis spoke about earlier in the week. I refer to the report concerning a special investigation into the search and rescue activities associated with the ditching of an aircraft in Bass Strait on 17 July of this year. Earlier today I spoke about the difficulties senators have in getting reports and in having time to go through them and to make a comment on them. The other day that was not possible, but since then I have had time to look at the report of the Bureau of Air Safety, and as a Tasmanian who regularly flies across Bass Strait, it causes me grave concern and gives me a lot of worry for all the people who use commercial aircraft in travelling backwards and forwards from Tasmania and the mainland. It seems to me that the history of those involved in search and rescue, particularly with regard to Tasmania, and aircraft or ships which have been lost around Tasmania, has not been good. I think that in 1975 a search and rescue group was trying to find a ship. I cannot remember the name of that ship, but a group of survivors from that ship floated up and down the west and south-west coast of Tasmania for a considerable period before they managed to make it to the shore. All the time they were being looked for, but they were not seen. I believe that part of the provision was that the search and rescue group chose the wrong type of aircraft. The primary thing one needs when looking for people who are on the water is an aircraft from which one can look down easily. I believe that not all of the aircraft that were being used at that time were suitable from that point of view . Senator Crichton-Browne —High-wing? Senator TOWNLEY —No. I think they had some Royal Australian Air Force aircraft which have a very sloping windscreen which makes it hard to see out. As I see this instance, there were two stages, the first being when the aircraft was in the air. Let me read to honourable senators the conclusion on page 16 of the report, which states: The assistance given to the pilot prior to the ditching was adequate in consideration of the short time available. I would like to have the transcript of just what was said to that pilot. Let me tell honourable senators why. I was once flying across Bass Strait, very nearly in the same area but a little to the east of where this aircraft went into the water. I was flying in a light single-engine aircraft with some passengers when all of a sudden the weather came in from the south-east and became very nasty. It was raining. The clouds were down to a low level, and to maintain visibility I had to descend to quite a low level. I was somewhere near Wonthaggi according to the instruments which were in the aircraft, but I could not get to a beach or a paddock or something of that kind on which to land. So I made the decision to return and land at Flinders Island, even though that meant turning into a head wind of about 30 knots and flying at low level with a lot of cloud very low on the water. Senator Crichton-Browne —Did you make it? Senator TOWNLEY —I made it, but not, I must say, due to any help from the Department. Not once was I asked: 'Are you sure that you are heading in the right direction? Have you got any direction-finding equipment that would enable you to make sure you go by the shortest route to Flinders Island?' All that the staff did was to keep questioning me as to what my time of arrival would be, and matters of that nature. It seemed to me that on that day they were very much looking after their own skins in case I went into the water. Not once did they offer any real suggestion. I ask the Minister in charge of this matter about which I am now talking to table in the Senate the transcript of just what was said to that pilot. Was he told anything about changing petrol tanks? Was he told to keep flying as long as he possibly could? As I understand it, that aircraft had plenty of fuel and both engines were operative when it went into the water. Not once was he given any assistance or advice such as: 'Look, you are only a few miles from land; you are only a few miles from fairly large islands. Why do you not try to make it and keep the motors going?' That is not clear in the report. It is covered by one line which states: The assistance given to the pilot prior to the ditching was adequate in consideration of the short time available. Was it? That is a question that the Senate has every right to ask. With the main airlines there would be no doubt about the pilots' ability. Pilots in major airlines do not operate above their ability. I think in this case perhaps the pilot was operating a little above his ability. What on earth will happen if a big aircraft ditches? I used to think it was a great idea to have life jackets in aircraft because I thought there would be some available procedure if a large aircraft went into Bass Strait. I shall read more from this report: The SAR-- That is, search and rescue-- system does not require aircraft to be kept on standby. Suitable resources were available at the time of this accident. The report states 'suitable resources', not 'unsuitable resources'. How can the resources have been suitable when an aircraft was not sent over the area in suitable time? We have to remember that on 17 July the survival time in Bass Strait would have been very limited because of the cold. It is not a matter of having until last light to get a rescue aircraft over the area but getting it there before a person dies of exposure. If one intends people to climb into a raft that may be dropped, one has to get there even more quickly, because it does not take long in the cold of Bass Strait to become so incapacitated as not to be able to climb into a raft without assistance. I have some very grave questions to put before the Senate. Had the right action been taken in this case, at least one of those people would have survived. Perhaps the Department of Aviation should give some thought to trading in one or two of its aircraft for one that would be suitable for rescue. Some of the pilots, who are paid very high rates, on which I have commented before, could be rostered to be available. The Department need not necessarily pay them during weekends, but it could be one of the requirements of their employment that they be available at all times with a aircraft suitable in case something like this happens. An accident need not happen in Bass Strait. East-West Airlines now flies from Sydney to Hobart-down the coast-and its aircraft are over water for a considerable amount of time. We have to be ready for any necessary rescue action . Paragraph 4.12 on page 17 of the report states: The deficiencies in performance which occurred were the result of working under pressure. Surely at a time like this all systems must work, irrespective of the pressure. I hope that no aircraft I travel in goes into Bass Strait. I should be furious with the authorities if I were bobbing around in a lifejacket in the middle of Bass Strait knowing that inefficiency and the lack of a decent system is stopping me from being picked up. Why was a helicopter not thought of first? Why was the usual system not followed? The report states: All recent Dropmaster training in the Melbourne SRR had been conducted on F27 aircraft. In the event that a GA- that is, general aviation- aircraft was required for supply dropping the situation could arise that the pilot had no experience in SAR- that is, search and rescue- operations, the Dropmaster was unfamiliar with supply dropping from the aircraft type and the ground crew were unfamiliar with preparing the aircraft for the supply dropping role. That means that prior to checking out any other aircraft it was decided to get something completely unsuitable because other aircraft did not have any holes through which to drop the rafts. That decision was crazy. On page 10, following on from what I said, the report states: No approach was made to airline operators at Melbourne Airport in respect of the availability of F27 aircraft for support purposes. The SARMC stated that this decision had been based on his past experience with response times for F27s , both in exercises and actual situations, and on his estimate that the response time would have been too long in this case. Later advice from the two operators concerned indicated that each had an F27 on the ground at Melbourne at that time. A crew was also immediately available, having signed on at 1445-- a suitable time-- in preparation for a scheduled departure . . . That would have been all right. The whole system of search and rescue in this country is shown by this report to be faulty. I do not have much more time available in which to comment, but I believe that none of the airline operators would be happy with the search and rescue procedures adopted in this case. I am sure none of the people of Tasmania would want this kind of operation to be in effect if they were involved in an incident in Bass Strait. What is the good of the Department having all its aircraft at millions of dollars expense if there is not to be some system whereby in an emergency at least one of them is available in the areas where these kinds of situations are most likely. I am not at all satisfied with the situation at the moment. I call upon the Department to table in the Senate the transcript of the entire tape recording regarding this incident so that we can form a judgment by ourselves. I also call on the Department to upgrade its search and rescue operations so that they do not become search operations only. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(1.53) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. Mr President, I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983 This Bill is a companion measure to the Radiocommunications Bill 1983. It provides for certain transitional arrangements and for consequential amendments to a number of other Acts, to bring the general scheme of the Radiocommunications Bill 1983 into operation. In particular, Clause 5 of the Bill provides that any licences issued under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 continue in force after the commencement of the Bill. Such licences cannot be renewed and new licences will have to be taken out under the provisions of the Radiocommunications Bill. The Clause also provides that certificates issued under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 can be deemed to be Certificates of Proficiency under the Radiocommunications Bill. Consequential amendments to other legislation are set out in the schedule to this Bill. The most significant of these consequential amendments is the creation of a new section 6A in the Broadcasting and Television Act. This is an offence provision prohibiting unauthroised operation of a broadcasting or television station. Under the existing regime, unlicensed operation of a broadcasting or television station is an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. The new offence provision is closely modelled on the equivalent offence of operating an unauthorised radiocommunications transmitter under clause 23 of the Radiocommunications Bill. The effect, therefore, is simply to create two parellel and specific offences where one very wide offence exists at present. I commend the Bill to the Senate. RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS TAXES COLLECTION BILL 1983 This Bill and the associated Bills which I will introduce shortly will replace the Radiocommunications Licence Fees Act 1982. That Act will be repealed under the provisions of the Radiocommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1982. Fees for radiocommunications services are presently levied under the Radiocommunications Licence Fees Act. It was necessary for these fees to be levied as taxes under that Act in order to place the fees beyond possible legal challenge. This principle also enables the Government to apply a ''royalty'' concept to radiocommunication licence fees. Consequently the financial impact of this Bill and the related tax measures will in themselves be no different to the current situation. A royalty is appropriate because the radio frequency spectrum is a scarce natural resource which is in steadily increasing demand. The cost of using this resource in some cases bears little relation to the value of it to the Licensee. Application of the royalty concept can be used as a pricing mechanism to spread the demand for valuable portions of the spectrum and thus increase the overall efficiency of use of the spectrum. In replacing the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905, the Radiocommunications Bill will provide for the grant of frequency reservation certificates, receiver licences, temporary permits, test permits and transmitter licences. The Constitution requires that laws imposing taxation deal solely with the imposition of taxation and only with one subject of taxation. It is therefore necessary that separate Bills authorise the various charges for services provided for by the Radiocommunications Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the collection of those charges. The Bill establishes clearly that all users of the spectrum including statutory corporations of the Commonwealth or Territories, will be liable for those charges. Regulations may be made under this Bill to specify the manner of payment as well as the remission or refund of tax in certain circumstances. The Government has given consideration to incorporating radiocommunications licence fees in schedules to the minor Acts rather than as regulations as is the current situation. However the Government considers that it is appropriate for fees to continue to be imposed by Regulations because new radiocommunications services are appearing constantly and provision has to be made promptly to authorise the issue of licences and the charging of licence fees for them. To amend the relevant act to cater for this situation would result in needless impositions on the time of the Parliament. Should Parliament have reservations about taxes set by Regulation, I remind the Senate that those Regulations would be subject to disallowance in the usual manner. I commend the Bill to the Senate. RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (FREQUENCY RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TAX) BILL 1983 The issue of frequency reservation certificates to facilitate forward planning in the use of the radio frequency spectrum is authorised by clause 21 of the Radiocommunications Bill. This Bill imposes a tax on the grant of a frequency reservation certificate. Details of the amount of tax for such certificates are to be prescribed by regulation. I commend the Bill to the Senate. RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (RECEIVER LICENCE TAX) BILL 1983 This Bill imposes a tax on the grant of a radiocommunications receiver licence issued under clause 38 of the Radiocommunications Bill. Details of the amount of tax for specified types of receiver licences are to be prescribed by regulation. I commend the Bill to the Senate. RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TEMPORARY PERMIT TAX) BILL 1983 This Bill imposes a tax on the grant of a temporary permit issued under clause 35 of the Radiocommunications Bill. Details of the amount of tax for temporary permits are to be prescribed by regulation. I commend the Bill to the Senate. RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TEST PERMIT TAX) BILL 1983 The issue of test permits for sub-standard transmitters is authorised by clause 10 of the Radiocommunications Bill. This Bill imposes a tax on the grant of a test permit. Details of the amount of tax for test permits are to be prescribed by regulation. I commend the Bill to the Senate. RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TRANSMITTER LICENCE TAX) BILL 1983 This Bill imposes a tax on the grant of a transmitter licence issued under clause 24 of the Radiocommunications Bill. Details of the amount of tax for the many classes of transmitter licences are to be prescribed by regulation. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(1.54) —Before the debate was adjourned I made the observation that Senator Button, in his second reading speech, observed that the purpose of an injection of $350m was to provide for the maintenance of a viable and efficient steel industry. How anybody can talk about the maintenance of viability and efficiency by the payment of $350m of taxpayers's money escapes me. If the steel industry were efficient, it would be viable and would not want open-ended assistance from and at the expense of the rest of the community. At least, by providing bounties rather than tariffs, the Government has had the decency, or perhaps indecency, depending on how you look at it, of spreading the cost of the burden of the failings of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd onto all taxpayers and not just end users. Senator Button goes on in his second reading speech to say: The domestic demand situation was exacerbated by an excess in world steel making capacity leading to a significant increase in import competition and strong price competition which, in turn, placed further pressures on profitability. I draw the attention of the Senate to the expression 'significant increase in import competition'. With the exception of high alloy steel goods since 1980-81, imports have increased their share of the market by only two or three percentage points. It ought not to be forgotten that as at December 1982 local producers supplied about 95 per cent of the local market's requirements of hot rolled flat products, bars, rods and structurals and that their share of most other markets was of the order of 80 per cent, or in most cases slightly above this-with, as I said earlier, the exception of high alloy products, in regard to which the local producers' share represented a little under 60 per cent of total domestic demand . In fact, imports represent only a very minor part of domestic market supplies and considerably less than the volume of the same goods that are exported by BHP . While, of course, the price level of imports will have had some influence on BHP's pricing arrangements, and hence profitability, it is not a significant influence on production levels, which themselves normally dictate unit cost, particularly in such industries as the steel industry, which has enormous fixed capital costs. Besides all the factors relating to its own incompetent performance, the most significant problem for the Australian steel industry is not the levels of imports but the sharp fall in domestic demand. The Industries Assistance Commission report states: In the six months ended December 1982, aggregate domestic demand for goods under reference was more than 20 per cent below that in the corresponding period of 1981. The importance of this decrease in demand relative to the increase in the volume of imports is highlighted by the fact that, even if there had been a complete embargo on all competitive imports of goods under reference in the six months to the end of December 1982 and all domestic requirements had been satisfied by local producers, local producers output would still have been nearly 13 per cent below the levels achieved in the six months to the end of December 1981. The reduction in domestic sales can be overwhelmingly attributed to the decline in total domestic demand. For instance, between the periods December 1980 to December 1981, and December 1982 to December 1983, sales of hot rolled products declined by an estimated 28 per cent because of the decline in total demand, whereas the decline attributable to increased import penetration was only an estimated 2 per cent. The Australian economy seemed to be bubbling along in 1981, with real gross domestic product increasing by about 4 per cent, unemployment falling from 6.2 per cent to 5.3 per cent, inflation dipping from 10.1 per cent to 9.4 per cent and real gross fixed capital expenditure increasing by around 12 per cent. However there were flashing lights on the steel industry horizon which, I would have thought, the local industry should have recognised. If it did recognise them it should have prepared to accommodate the changing circumstances. Perhaps it is unreasonable in hindsight to be critical of those who did not anticipate the world and domestic events which had such an influence on our mining industry in 1981-82 but there were already ominous signs for the steel industry. Some 31 per cent of the steel making capacity of member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development lay idle in both 1980 and 1981. The European Economic Community was particularly depressed, with about 37 per cent of steel capacity idle at the end of 1981, and little prospect of improvement. Employment and profitability in the steel making industry had been falling. More than a fifth of the EEC's steel making jobs were lost in the five years to 1980. Employment in the French steel industry fell by 40 per cent and in the United Kingdom by 33 per cent. Steel employment in the United States fell by 13 per cent, and in Japan, the third largest and most efficient steel producer, it fell by 16 per cent over the same period. Profitability was also down dramatically. I cannot imagine how the Australian steel industry expected to be insulated from such excess capacity, which would inevitably lead to significantly reduced prices, unless there were a view within the steel industry that it need have no concern for real and free outside commercial influences. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 2 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, I call on questions without notice. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government. I refer to the recent newspaper report that the General Assembly of the United Nations has approved a request by the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs for a United Nations mission to observe the Cocos (Keeling) Islands vote next year on its political future. What role will the United Nations play in the act? What method will be used to ensure that the result is a true reflection of the wishes of the people, bearing in mind that there are three options from which they will have to choose? What system of voting will be used? When will the act of self-determination take place? Will Mr John Clunies-Ross and his family be excluded from voting? Does the Government plan to allocate funds to promote acceptance of any of the three proposals? If so, which one? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Reid has raised a number of detailed questions which clearly require specific answers by the Minister for Territories and Local Government whom I represent in this place. Consequently, I will have those matters immediately referred to the Minister if he is in Canberra to see that Senator Reid gets a reply to those questions before the Senate rises. Senator HEARN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of the alarmingly high incidence of train derailments in Tasmania and of the estimates by Tasmanian rail unions that there have been 73 such derailments in the last 12 months? Will the Minister undertake to provide figures on the incidence of derailments in Tasmania? Will he seek to determine the primary cause of these accidents and their cost to the community? Can the Minister also confirm whether log trains are disproportionately involved in derailments in Tasmania? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Hearn has raised a number of questions about derailments which have taken place in Tasmania over the last 12 months. Yes, I am aware of the fact that statements have been made suggesting an alarming increase in derailments in Tasmania. I understand that the Minister for Transport has already expressed his concern regarding this high and above average incidence of derailments and, in fact, made some reference to the matter when the Australian National Railways Commission Bill was debated in the House of Representatives on 16 November last. As the Minister whom I represent in this place indicated, specific provisions in that legislation will give power to the Minister for Transport specifically to require such information from State railway systems, particularly those where the Commonwealth has assumed certain responsibilities as a result of changes in the status of the railway systems in South Australia and Tasmania. The Government will be introducing provisions to strengthen the Minister's authority in these matters. As to the latter part of the question raised by Senator Hearn, I believe that log trains do cause a disproportionately high number of these derailments. The Minister for Transport will be specifically examining that matter. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to his reply to Senator Reynolds at Question Time earlier this week regarding the Greenvale nickel mine wherein he informed the Senate of the Government's decision to exempt the Greenvale project from excise on fuel oil to an amount of $1.5m and suggested that the Queensland Government reduce rail freight to the same amount. I ask: Is the Minister aware that in relation to the Greenvale nickel mine the Queensland Government has assisted the initial construction of the project by agreeing to guarantee part of the capital required; has paid to the project's lenders up to the present time $49.6m under the guarantee debt restructuring arrangements and under the same arrangements agreed to enter into a contingent liability of $77m? Is the Minister also aware that the Queensland Government has supported the oil to coal conversion program of the project under which, in the recent profitable period of the project, funds totalling $45m were directed to further capital works and that the Government has provided direct assistance to the company in negotiations-- The PRESIDENT —Order! A lot of information is being given in the question. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —In view of the fact that the present relief provided by the Federal Government is on an impost imposed by the Federal Government, does not the Minister agree that the concession given is but small bikkies compared with the Queensland Government's contribution? Senator WALSH —The short answer to the question is no. Unlike some honourable senators, I will give reasons why I am saying no. Some honourable senators do not seem to think they are obliged to give reasons for whatever they do here. I am aware that some guarantees given by the Queensland Government have been called upon because the project has not generated sufficient cash flow to meet its obligations. I am also well aware of the fact-indeed I reported it to the Senate-that some $60m was spent by the company in building the 240 kilometre railway, providing the locomotives and the rolling stock and given as a present to the Queensland State Government railways. I think the amounts that the Queensland Government has underwirtten on behalf of the company and what the company has given to the Queensland State Government railways probably balance out fairly well. The Commonwealth excise which will now be waived in one way or another, equal to $1 1/2m at present production levels, was a tax. In conceptually the same way , the Queensland Government imposes a tax on the project through the profit component of its rail freight charges. That, according to the estimates supplied to me, amounts to about $1 1/2m. So, the Commonwealth has removed a prospective Commonwealth tax of $1 1/2m. The Government's view is that the Queensland Government ought to do the same thing and remove its hidden rail tax. It just so happens that the amount is about equal. Senator JONES —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Has the Government received any communications from the Opposition and the Australian Democrats relating to the funding and promotion of the Yes case in the referendum proposed for February 1984.? Senator GARETH EVANS —The only formal communications that the Government has received on these matters are, firstly, a letter of 13 December from Senator Macklin, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, in which he states: I have discussed at length with my colleagues the propositions you put to me earlier today. Our unanimous position is that the funding for advertising campaigns over and above the standard cases prepared by the Electoral Office should be equal for both the 'Yes' campaign and the 'No' campaign. That means no additional funding or an equal appropriation to either the 'Yes' or 'No' campaign. That was followed by the statement: We will be voting in the Senate in accordance with this decision. That, of course, remains as always to be seen. So far as the Liberal Party of Australia is concerned, on 6 December Mr Hawke received a rather more interesting communication from Mr Peacock, the Leader of the Opposition, which read: Thank you for your letter of 5 December seeking my assistance in the process of promoting community awareness about the referendums. To the best of my knowledge and recall joint appearances have not occurred in the past and, after careful consideration, I do not believe they would be of assistance on this occasion. I am planning to promote such awareness but, as I informed the Attorney-General when he approached me on the matter, I do not intend appearing on joint platforms with Government speakers, nor do I wish my photograph, my signature, or my Party's logo to be associated with whatever form of advertising you or your Government may deem to be appropriate. I believe that this is indicative of the co-operative attitude and the constructive commitment to constitutional reform which has been brought to this whole process by the Opposition parties since the outset. The real nature of their commitment to constructive, constitutional reform in this country is thus starkly demonstrated. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister . It concerns support for exporters who wish to exhibit at the Louisiana Exhibition next year. On 29 November I asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question without notice on the Government's intention in regard to support for the Louisiana Exhibition to be held from 12 May to 11 November 1984. In view of the pressing need of intending exhibiters-not to mention the host city-to know what the Government's intentions are, will the Minister provide this important information either now or certainly before the Senate rises? Senator BUTTON —I do not recall the detail of the previous question. I recall that it was asked. I apologise to Senator Archer for not having provided an answer already. I will seek to do so before the completion of this session of the Parliament which I should indicate to the Senate might be some time in the future. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Has the Minister seen the National Times coloured supplement promoting health and fitness which features a photo of a naked woman' s bottom on the cover, which cover could be described as an upmarket and expensive promotion of prurience? In the light of the guidelines to the media contained in the booklet 'Fair Exposure', launched by the Minister and Mr Macphee early last week, could the Minister comment on the unnecessary over- exposure of this cover and its blatant sexism in distracting readers from the serious and significant contents inside the supplement? Senator RYAN —I did see the supplement on health and fitness. I think it is important that- Senator Gareth Evans —Go on, show us. Senator RYAN —Not all of my colleagues share Senator Crowley's assessment of the front cover, I have to say. There seems to be considerable enthusiasm for it on my right. I think it is important that these sorts of supplements are published. I think that they do assist in raising the health standards of the community. Generally speaking, I think it is a useful sort of publication. But I agree with Senator Crowley's view that the cover used part of a woman's body in a way that was unnecessary and not related to the subject of the publication. There are obviously a variety of views about the front page of the supplement. But clearly it is the sort of thing that gives offence to some people, at least, in our community. I will make sure that the National Times has received a copy of the media guidelines 'Fair Exposure'. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I draw the Minister's attention to the Prime Minister's recent statement that the education policy of the Government is the policy which was taken by that Party to the election. Since that policy stated explicitly that moves will be made to phase down and cut out support for some children in some non-government schools, I ask the Minister: Is the education policy of the Government the education policy it took to the election? Senator RYAN —I would have thought that Senator Baume would be as familiar by now as I am with the details of Australian Labor Party education policy. It was the policy that we took to the election to achieve some redistribution within the non-government school sector and to fund non-government schools on the basis of need. Our first Budget represented our first steps towards implementing that policy. But it was also the policy that we took to the election, to establish a new way of measuring the needs of non-government schools by getting the Commonwealth Schools Commission to report on a community standard. Once that happens, the needs of all non-government schools will be assessed in the light of that community standard. So it may well be that all existing non-government schools will still be entitled to some form of support under the needs based policy. But as Senator Baume well knows, until that new way of measuring the needs of schools is established, there can be no specific indication about further reductions in funding. However, wherever a non-government school of any kind falls below the established community standard, it will continue to justify and receive Commonwealth recurrent grants. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The Minister' s answer did not make the matter clear. Did not the policy which the Labor Party took to the election state explicitly that support for some children would be phased out over several years? Senator RYAN —No, it did not state that. It stated that schools that continued to operate at a certain high level would have their funding phased out; but incorporated into that policy statement was a recognition that schools may change the way in which they operate so as to remain within the community standard and continue to attract Commonwealth grants. So there was a very clear implication in the policy that it would be possible for schools to remain within the community standard and to receive Commonwealth grants accordingly. There was also an implication that if schools continued to choose to operate well above that standard, a phasing out process would continue. But those questions have not been answered. They have not been answered by the schools themselves. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In the light of a report in this morning's Age to the effect that following the unsuccessful legal action of a Russian family to stay in Australia, the Government is now proposing to expel them, will the Minister explain the current situation in order to reassure the Senate that no action will be taken which would put the family at risk of human rights abuses? Senator GRIMES —Following the Press articles this morning, I contacted the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who has provided me with the following information: First, it is important to realise that the Feingold family did not come to Australia from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They left the USSR in 1980 and settled in Israel, where, under Israeli law, they were entitled to Israeli citizenship. After eight months in Israel, the family moved to Greece. In May 1982 they applied for entry to Australia on both refugee and humanitarian grounds but were refused by the previous Government after full consideration of their claims. Apparently the Feingold family then decided to take matters into their own hands. They arrived on a Singapore Airlines flight on 9 December 1983 with one-way tickets to Noumea but without visas. They sought permission to enter and remain in Australia, but after an opportunity to explain their circumstances further, permission was refused. The Feingolds then availed themselves of recourse to the Federal Court of Australia and subsequently appealed to the Full Federal Court, but their application was dismissed and their departure from Australia has been arranged, as was reported in the Press this morning. An important aspect of this case is the serious implications for the orderly management of the migration program and Australia's large scale visitor intake. Having been rejected for entry to Australia, the family deliberately sought to circumvent Australia's immigration procedures. A great deal of pressure has been brought to bear on officials and others, through emotional methods and others which are not central to the matters at hand. The Australian Government, and previous Australian governments, have not allowed people in these circumstances to impose their will on Australia. This view was endorsed by the Full Bench of the Federal Court. They could, for instance, have appealed against the earlier rejection while in Athens and, indeed, if there are additional matters which they wish to have taken into account, the way remains open for them to raise such matters from overseas. But the Australian Government, of whatever persuasion, cannot allow people to circumvent our immigration laws in this way. It is for this reason that following the rejection of the Federal Court appeal, the Government has acted in the way that it has. Senator MARTIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Does the Minister recall my asking her a question on Wednesday of last week on the subject of the Australian Film Archive, in which I reminded her that she had made a statement in the Senate on 10 November that a decision by the Government on the future funding and administration arrangements for the Archive was expected shortly? Does the Minister recall that I also asked her whether a decision on this matter had been made and, if not, when it would be finalised, and whether consideration was also being given to similar matters in relation to the sound archives? Does the Minister recall that she said that she would take up the matter urgently with her colleague the Minister and that she hoped to have a reply for the Senate before the end of 'this week', which was last week? Does the Minister have a reply yet? Senator RYAN —I do recall Senator Martin's questions on this matter and my undertakings. I did pursue the matter with the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Unfortunately, I must apologise to Senator Martin because I have not got yet from the Minister the answer she is looking for, that is, a statement about what form the protection of the film and sound archives will take. I am advised by the Minister that at the moment a large number of alternative possibilities are under active consideration. The Minister wishes the Senate to be assured that effective action will be taken to protect the Australian Film Archive and the sound archive. I will continue to endeavour to get a more detailed undertaking than that before the Senate rises. I apologise to Senator Martin that I have not got a more specific statement available yet. Senator COATES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. It has been suggested in Tasmania that wood chip export licences might be extended by the Government without an environmental impact statement being required. Can the Minister assure me that the Government's policy will be strictly adhered to and that we will insist, to the Tasmanian Government and the wood chip industry, on an environmental impact statement before further wood chip export licences are approved. Senator RYAN —The Tasmanian Government has sought the co-operation of the Commonwealth to expedite short term extensions of wood chip export approvals for Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Limited and H. C. Sleigh Limited to assist this important industry in current sales negotiations. Discussions have taken place between the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and the Minister for Primary Industry and also the Tasmanian Minister for Forests. These discussions have been aimed at ensuring that all factors, including environmental and National Estate issues, are taken into account in reaching decisions on both the long term development of the pulp-wood industry and the short term export arrangements. It has been proposed that current APPM and H. C. Sleigh approvals be extended to 1988 and that during 1984 and 1985 a comprehensive examination, including an environmental impact statement, be made of Tasmania's pulpwood industry and associated foresty operations. The environmental impact statement would include consideration of the effect of logging in places listed on the register of the National Estate. This environmental impact statement process would be completed prior to the expiry of the recurrent APPM and H. C. Sleigh licences and would allow recommendations arising from the environmental impact statement to be applied to the renewed approvals if necessary. Ministers from both the Federal and Tasmanian governments are considering this proposal currently, and it is hoped that an announcement can be made soon. Senator LEWIS —I refer the Attorney- General to an answer he gave to a question on 8 December about the decision of the High Court of Australia in relation to the Ananda Marga prosecutions. The Attorney-General in his answer said: It is not my intention to object to the production of any documents that ASIO may prove to have that bear upon the subject matter of this trial. . . . That has always been my position in relation to the production of documents. I ask: Why, in these circumstances and in the light of his position, did the Government decide on or about 1 June to withhold from a Mr David Combe certain most decisive documents and allow others to be seen only by his counsel? I ask the Attorney whether he is able to see any double standards in these actions or is it that the Prime Minister holds a different view from that of the Attorney? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is well known that Senator Lewis's aspirations to legal distinction cannot be great and there is further proof of that in the question he has just asked. There is no proper comparison, of course, between a situation where a court hearing and determining an important criminal matter seeks the production of documents and is prepared to order that, and on the other hand a situation where a royal commissioner chooses, in the exercise of his discretion and in the proper conduct of royal commission proceedings, to make certain sensitive documents not available to one of the parties. It is an entirely familiar feature of court practice for the court itself to determine, when sensitive security documents are concerned, who shall have access to them. As to the matter of my statement about the production of documents to the High Court, I have made my position perfectly clear. I would not rely upon any threshold absolute refusal either to confirm or deny the existence of security documents and, if asked by the High Court to supply such documents in order that the High Court might determine for itself their relevance to the proceedings and determine in turn itself to whom these documents if relevant should be made available, there is no inconsistency whatsoever between those two situations. I am very surprised that Senator Lewis, even with his minimal degree of legal education, experience and practice, is unable to see that point. Senator ELSTOB —My question is to the Attorney-General. It refers to today's news that the New Zealand Government has introduced legislation to stop people avoiding parking fines by registering their cars in their dogs' names. Is the Attorney aware of any similar practices in use in Australia? If so, can he advise whether this practice has bitten into the potential revenue of State governments and whether there is any evidence of any discrimination against any particular breed of dog, such as the brown dog? Would such a situation validate the need for legislation here to allow these dogs right of appeal through an animal rights commission which could perhaps be initiated by Senator Chipp? Alternatively, does the Attorney anticipate legislation being introduced in the States to cover this practice, or could that action be seen as barking up the wrong tree? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will not emulate one of my less distinguished predecessors in this office and say 'woof, woof' in answer to that question. But what do I say? As I am sure the Select Committee on Animal Welfare will establish, even under Senator Georges's chairmanship, a dog's life in this country is not always a happy one although, of course, from time to time there are some splendid moments when the species does get its own back, as occurred recently, of course, in Kingaroy. I took it that Senator Elstob was in fact proposing anti-discrimination legislation for dogs. That kind of legislation is appropriate for the States traditionally rather than for the Commonwealth although being, as I suppose some honourable senators opposite would describe me , a mad dog centralist I would, of course, be receptive to any suggestion, particularly given the state of affairs Senator Elstob described in New Zealand, of entering into a bilateral treaty in order to acquire power under the external affairs power to pass national legislation of this kind. Senator WALTERS —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that with only six working days remaining before the Christmas break, private hospitals have not been notified of their categories under Medicare? Is this information now desperately needed not only by the hospitals but also by their patients? Is the Minister aware that some patients, particularly those insured for the basic table and booked for major operations in private hospitals in early February, are extremely concerned that they could be faced with payments they cannot afford as they have no way of knowing what insurance fund refund or government subsidy will be available for their chosen hospital? Why has the Minister not come to this important decision? Is this an example of the efficiency we can expect in the future under the new Medicare system? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I believe that there are six working days until Christmas. I am not aware whether all or any of the private hospitals have been notified of their categories under the Medicare scheme although, four days ago in Launceston , it seemed that a couple of them were aware because they rang me up to make sure that the category they have been notified about was right. I will find out from the Minister for Health what effect that will have on patients if, as Senator Walters stated, the decision has not been made. I think Senator Walters' s statement about patients all around the country being anxious to know about this is typical of her rhetoric. I doubt whether most patients in the country know anything about categorisation or what hospitals they would go into and what category they are likely to be. All I can say is that the category of the vast majority of hospitals at which people will have the sort of surgery about which Senator Walters is undoubtedly talking will be the appropriate category. People will get a return under Medicare and under the voluntary health insurance schemes appropriate to the procedure to be applied. Senator WALTERS —I raise a supplementary question, Mr President. Senator Grimes has rather ridiculed the fact that patients are interested. Medicare private has informed one patient that it can do nothing about- The PRESIDENT —Order! Can I have a supplementary question? Senator WALTERS —It is. The question I am putting to Senator Grimes is that Medicare has already instructed a Tasmanian patient that it is unable to tell him what his return will be for quite a large operation in a private hospital in Melbourne. The PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a question. Senator WALTERS —Will the Minister please answer the query for this patient? The PRESIDENT —If the Minister considers it a supplementary question, he may answer it. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters asked whether I was aware that the Minister had not made a decision or notified hospitals. My answer to that was no. I will find out the answer. I will find out from the Minister how soon the hospitals which have not been notified will be notified. My answer, with a litle bit of hyperbole, to the rhetorical part of Senator Walters's question would not have been necessary if she had not tacked that part on to her question. Of course I treat this matter as a serious one. Of course I will get the answers to Senator Walters as soon as I can. Senator GEORGES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It concerns a vote that took place at the United Nations. Before I ask the question may I say that I had some difficulty in searching out the information. I rang the United Nations section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and there was no answer on four phones. I trust that the Minister will be able to give me the information that I seek. Did a vote take place at the United Nations on an international conference in search of peace for the Middle East? Is it a fact that four nations voted against the proposition? Was Australia one of those nations? If so, why did Australia vote against such a motion? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised that, together with Canada, the United States of America and Israel, Australia voted against a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for an international peace conference on the Middle East to consider further the Palestinian question. Fifteen other countries abstained. The resolution backed the call for a conference exclusively to the Geneva Conference on the question of Palestine, held in August-September this year, without reference to Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. Australia did not participate in the Geneva Conference but attended as an observer. The resolution laid down guidelines for an international conference on the Middle East in terms which were quite unbalanced and in effect sought to pre- empt matters which would be discussed at such a conference. It also sought to enable the Palestine Liberation Organisation to participate on the same basis as states. It described the Geneva Conference as having made an important and positive contribution to the peace process and sought to have governments endorse the declaration of that Conference. Honourable senators should be aware that there would be many governments which would have serious reservations about endorsing the declaration. If there is to be a serious effort to reach a solution to the Middle East dispute through the mechanism of an international conference, it should be obvious that the enabling resolution should not seek itself to dictate the terms of a settlement. Moreover, the initiative to convene a conference should, in the view of the Government, be supported by all the major parties. In this case it was quite clear that Israel and the United States did not support the resolution in the General Assembly. For these reasons, which indicated that the proposal as formulated in the resolution would not be helpful towards negotiation of a Middle East settlement, the Australian delegation voted against the resolution. Senator MESSNER —I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. It follows the information that he provided to the Senate yesterday after Question Time. During Estimates committee hearings this year did the Minister make it quite clear that special funds for expenditure in relation to Government programs were to be used, at the direction of the Minister for Finance, to pay for the recruitment and training of staff required for the proposed assets test? How is it that at least 369 new recruits, all of whom are from Victoria, are being paid from the principal salaries appropriation of the Department? Can the Minister explain why payments were not effected in the manner he outlined at the Estimates committee? Senator GRIMES —Like previous Ministers for Social Security in this place, I do not attempt to keep a daily or weekly tab on just what appropriation what money comes out of. But I appreciate that the question is an important one and I will attempt as soon as possible to get for the honourable senator, from the appropriate section of my Department and probably from the Minister for Finance, the reasons for the allocation of that amount of money from that vote. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to comments in the Age editorial of Monday, 12 December, suggesting that new foreign ownership and control arrangements proposed for the North West Shelf natural gas project should be accepted by the Commonwealth Government? Have these new equity arrangements been discussed with the Commonwealth by the project joint venturers ? Can the Minister advise the Senate of the Government's attitude towards these proposed arrangements? Senator WALSH —Yes, I have seen the report in the Age newspaper. The second question asks whether the proposal has been discussed with the Commonwealth. In a formal sense it has not but notice of intention, or of the likelihood of proceedings in this way, has been given in discussions with me and I assume in discussions with the Treasurer, as well. Some of the joint venturers have previously discussed with me the possibility of this happening. As to the Government's attitude, that of course is, as Senator Childs suggested by directing the question to me as Minister representing the Treasurer, primarily a matter for the Treasurer to decide but I expect that in a project as important as this the Treasurer will take it to Cabinet anyway. That has not yet been done so I cannot forecast with any certainty what the Government is likely to do. However, given the importance of this project, its size and the likely difficulties of attracting sufficient Australian capital to build up the 33 per cent Australian equity if the proposed restructuring goes ahead and the capital required to build that up to 50 per cent, I think it can be safely stated that the proposal will be viewed very sympathetically by the Government and probably agreed to by it although naturally we would prefer, if sufficient capital could be obtained locally, to have a higher Australian equity in the project. My expectation is that if there seems to be no way that can be achieved the Government will approve the proposal outlined in the Age a couple of days ago. I stress that this is to be taken as my opinion and not as a firm statement of Government policy. Senator MISSEN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the undertaking by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to supply to the Victoria Police the names of 12 Australian Secret Intelligence Service agents who took part in the bungled training exercise at the Melbourne Sheraton Hotel two weeks ago. I ask the Minister, firstly, why has his undertaking not been carried out so that the police can interview those involved and take any necessary action against them if it is shown that there are breaches of the law; secondly, has the Foreign Minister now imposed or proposed some unacceptable and improper conditions on the delivery of such information to the Victorian Government and the Victoria Police; and thirdly, has the Hawke Government now abandoned the long-standing principle that there should be equality before the law and will now provide special privileges for some wrong-doers? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Minister for Foreign Affairs instructed the Director- General of ASIS yesterday to provide to the Victoria Police the names they are seeking of those involved in the Sheraton Hotel incident. In conveying the names to the Victoria Police, the Director-General was asked to refer to Mr Hayden's request that the names be handled by the police on a confidential basis and to the undertaking made in a communication from the Victorian Premier that the names would not be revealed for any purpose other than to enable the police to pursue investigations and to consider charges. I add that there are excellent national security reasons for that confidentiality condition being imposed in those terms, which ought not to inhibit the effectiveness of the law enforcement process. It is not the desire of this Government to inhibit that process in any way. After this instruction was given yesterday, but before it was carried out, legal advice was apparently received by the individuals in question to the effect that persons whose names were to be revealed to the police should be given 24 hours notice of the intention to disclose their identities. Legal advice of that kind was given to them and, I understand, to Mr Hayden. This would allow the persons concerned to exercise such rights as they might have under the law to seek a suppression order in relation to the initial giving of the names to the police. I do not make any comment as to whether such an application for a suppression order would be likely to succeed. Accordingly, in response to that request made on behalf of the individuals concerned, that they have this time to seek an injunction should they be minded to do so, action to convey the names to the Victoria Police has been suspended for 24 hours as from 8.30 this morning. The Chief Commissioner of the Victoria Police has been informed of this position by the Director-General of ASIS. Senator COLEMAN —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen a report in yesterday's Age newspaper that international reserves reached a record level in November; further, that exports rose by $124m last month and that the improvement came from manufactured exports? Would the Minister agree that those figures indicate quite clearly that the success of the Government's economic policies are not due solely to the breaking of the drought? Senator WALSH —Yes, I have seen that report in the Age. I also have some other figures which have been extracted from the original Australian Bureau of Statistics bulletin. The report certainly shows, as the final part of Senator Coleman's question suggested, that the recovery in Australia is much more broadly based than that which has occurred in the agricultural sector; although, on the most recent estimates I saw, if I remember correctly, the agricultural sector alone is likely to add about 2 per cent to total real gross domestic product. But it now seems that real GDP growth-this is on a year on year basis- in the non-farm sector as well is likely to be in excess of 2 per cent. But the only area, on the information available so far, in which a recovery has not yet taken place appears to be private investment. That is not unexpected. Indeed, if history is a guide, it is entirely predictable that private investment will lag behind other indicators of economic recovery and economic growth. Many people will find particularly pleasing the figures in relation to the manufacturing sector, to which Senator Coleman referred. In that sector-these are the figures for the four months from July to October 1983, compared with the same four months in 1982-the value of exports has increased from $1,435m to $1, 721m. That is an increase of almost 20 per cent. Given that it is spread over a four-month period and not just a single month, there is little likelihood of a serious seasonal distortion being involved in that, or one-off events. It is particularly gratifying to see that there has been-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Can the Minister either be offered resuscitation or be asked to speak in a louder voice? We really cannot hear what he is saying. The PRESIDENT —The Minister might keep that in mind. Senator WALSH —I am sorry. I was just saying that the value of manufactured exports for the first four months of the current financial year, compared with the same four months of the previous financial year, has increased from $1,435m to $1,721m. That represents an increase of almost 20 per cent over quite a prolonged period. That indicates a very strong recovery in the manufacturing sector as well, which is something that the Government and I am sure Senator Coleman and the community in general will find particularly good news. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Yesterday I asked the Minister whether investigators of the Commonwealth Department of Health were involved in certain timekeeping activities in the waiting rooms of doctors' surgeries in Launceston. Senator Grimes replied at the end of Question Time yesterday that no Health Department officer had entered a doctor's surgery in any way or behaved in any way in the manner alleged. I now ask the Minister whether the person who is alleged to have carried out those activities was a member, representative or agent of the Australian Federal Police. Senator GRIMES —I sought information concerning the matter raised by Senator Watson. I was informed, and my brief was, that in fact the investigation was conducted by officers of the Australian Department of Health; that no other Department was involved. In the light of Senator Watson's question I will seek further information and check that. If I find that any officer of the Australian Federal Police, or anyone else other than someone from the Department of Health, was involved I will certainly have something to say not only to Senator Watson but also to someone else. But it is my information that in fact the investigation was conducted by officers of the Department of Health and that no other department was involved, but I will certainly check that. Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I refer the Minister to the frequent liquidations of travel agencies and to the consequent loss to and disruption of the holidays of many consumers. I ask: Has the Government received a proposition from the Australian Federation of Travel Agents advocating the inception of a travel industry fund to be available to consumers in these instances? Can the Minister indicate what the Government's response is to this proposal? Senator RYAN —My colleague, Mr Brown, has informed me that there has been considerable effort at both Commonwealth and State level to ensure early implementation of the Government's travel agents policy, which in essence is to encourage the States to introduce uniform legislation for the registration of all travel agents in Australia. This has involved consultations between Commonwealth and State tourism and consumer affairs authorities and the formation of a joint Commonwealth-State working group to propose draft provisions which could be adapted by States or Territories for any proposed travel agent licensing legislation. A discussion paper which was widely circulated by the working group in September proposes uniform State and Territory legislation for the licensing of travel agents with administration being undertaken at the State or territorial level. The Commonwealth would legislate for a national compensation fund to compensate consumers suffering losses as a result of travel agents failing to account. The working group met in Sydney from 5 to 7 December to consider the responses to the discussion paper. Discussions were held between the working group and interested parties, including the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, on 6 December. At the meeting AFTA submitted two proposals which would ensure that the AFTA travellers protection scheme could be up and running and could either function in parallel to a Commonwealth scheme or be adopted by the Commonwealth either in its present or in an amended form and be incorporated into a national scheme. I am informed that the working group has studied these proposals very closely and I understand that officials are continuing to consult on these and other proposals put forward by interested parties and expect to be in a position , within the next few weeks, to finalise a report to Commonwealth and State tourism and consumer affairs Ministers which would include draft legislative provisions. The working group is required to report to these Ministers by 31 December 1983. The Government will be in a better position to evaluate fully the AFTA proposals when the working group's report becomes available. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is directed to Senator Button in his capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will the Minister agree that there is absolutely no requirement whatsoever for the Government even to contemplate holding a general election for the House of Representatives until early 1986? The Government will most probably avoid the referenda because it knows it will not be able to trick the public with its proposals. However, that still does not alter the fact set out in the first part of my question. Will the Minister also agree that if Mr Hawke does not clear the air about this matter now, once and for all, it could destabilise and unsettle the very fragile recovery that is taking place in this country, which would be to the detriment of all Australians? If an election is held in November next year, it will be a premature and cynical election that could easily lead to Mr Hawke becoming a discredited former Prime Minister. Finally, if an election is held in November, it will importantly allow the Government to increase the number of members of the House of Representatives 15 months earlier than otherwise and that, with all the other bits and pieces, would cost about $ 10m a year. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question? Senator TOWNLEY —That is something that no voter would want. It removes the only excuse the Prime Minister could have to hold a cynical election. Senator BUTTON —I suppose I should begin by congratulating Senator Townley on his speech. I should also like to congratulate him on the fact that this is the first time in eight years that I have seen him overcome and concerned by a rash of principles, because in the entire period of the previous Government, even years, he expressed no such concern. In fact, I strongly resent the suggestion that this Government would trick the public or indulge in a cynical exercise about this matter. In fact, it was only two days ago in an article in the Australian that the honourable senator's leader in the Senate accused this Government of what he called 'disarming candour'. The suggestion that we should also be guilty of cynicism, coming so close upon the heels of the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion that we were guilty of candour, surprises and disappoints me. I agree on behalf of the Prime Minister that as at this date, 15 December 1983, there is clearly no requirement for us to fix an election in November or December 1984, but I am sure I cannot bind the Prime Minister in any answer I give to every date beyond 15 November 1983 and prevent him, as well as everybody else, contemplating that issue. I am sure, however, that if I convey to the Prime Minister Senator Townley's passionate concern about the destabilising of the recovery and so on he will take it into account in any deliberations which he makes about the question of an early or late election. Senator TOWNLEY —I ask a supplementary question and I will be very brief. The Minister did not answer the last part of my question. Does he not agree that an early election would enable the House of Representatives to be enlarged at a great cost to this country? Senator BUTTON —I agree that an early election would, in certain circumstances, enable the House of Representatives to be enlarged. Whether it is at a great cost to this country is very much a matter of subjective judgment. I do not see any particular point in offering my judgment any more than I would see any particular point in Senator Townley articulating his. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and concerns the bomb attacks that have taken place recently in Kuwait. Is the Government concerned that these bombings are part of an attempt by pro-Iranian elements to destabilise the Gulf States and therefore threaten a substantial section of the world's oil supplies? Senator GARETH EVANS —As honourable senators will be all too well aware, a number of bomb attacks did occur in Kuwait three days ago, including attacks on the United States and French embassies. They were similar in execution to the terrorist attacks which occurred in Beirut in October. Reports indicate that at least two people were killed and 43 injured in the latest bombings. I have no information whether those responsible were pro-Iranian forces but will seek such further information as the Minister is able to provide. The Government, of course, deplores terrorist attacks wherever they occur and expresses its horror at the intent of terrorists whose purpose is cold bloodedly to inflict damage, injury and loss of life on a massive scale. These acts can be described only as thoroughly and utterly repugnant. The Government is deeply concerned at the escalation and the spread of attacks of this nature in the Middle East. As Senator Sibraa indicated, they can serve only to undermine the peace and security of an already volatile region. Senator HAINES —Does the Attorney- General recall a question I asked him last Friday regarding a Federal Court of Australia decision relating to computer program copyrights, or the lack thereof apparently, in Australia? Does he recall that, as part of his answer, he pointed out that where in Australia protection is left to the patents and designs Acts-not very adequately at that-in the United States the Federal Appeals Court has recently held that all computer programs be copyrighted under the current United States law even if they are an integral part of the computer's circuitry? Does he further recall that he promised that his Department was examining the matter in consultation with the Patent Trade Marks and Designs Office and with affected interests? Given his assertion last Friday that everything done in his Department is treated as a matter of urgency and given the enormous ramifications of the recent Federal Court decision regarding computer programs, can the Attorney-General say what action he or his Department will be taking and when that action will be taken? Senator GARETH EVANS —I well recall Senator Haines's contribution to the subject of the Apple and Wombat litigation and the implications deriving from it for the protection of computer software. It is an important matter. It is hardly one that has been sprung suddenly upon us, however, notwithstanding the anxiety which Senator Haines expresses on this matter because there has been for some considerable time concern that the present law may not be adequate to protect computer software. I have no further information at this point from my Department; but, of course, I sought such further information in the light of Senator Haines's question last Friday. I assure her that delays in my Department are not yet, as a result of this one instance, stretching out to Durack-like dimensions. I am well aware of the problem and I will do my best to see what we are able to do to expedite a solution early in the New Year. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Attorney-General aware of reported inhumane treatment of prisoners at Brisbane Prison where some 35 prisoners are locked in cells all day with only 15 minutes exercise daily? It is reported that this treatment is occurring in cells which have no water or toilet facilities. Makeshift provisions have had to be made which appear to constitute a serious health hazard as prisoners are forced to live and eat in cells which do not have appropriate facilities. As a number of these prisoners have not yet been charged with offences connected with the November rioting at the prison, is the Queensland Government in breach of the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners to which Australia is a signatory? What action can the Attorney-General suggest to ensure that this treatment is investigated so that prisoners are guaranteed fundamental human rights? Senator GARETH EVANS —The standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners were adopted by resolution of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in 1957. Although the rules do not have the status of a binding international instrument, the resolution invited all governments to give favourable consideration to their adoption and application. Australia, of course , supports these rules. It has done and will continue to do all that it can to ensure compliance with them. The rules provide comprehensive guidelines for the treatment of prisoners including provisions dealing with hygiene and daily exercise. All Australian jurisdictions are aware of the rules. I am advised that the Prisons Department in Queensland subscribes to the principles in the rules. The question in practice, of course, may well be somewhat different. Senator Georges —I can vouch for that. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Georges may be in a position to testify. Until Australia has a national Bill of rights, which I hope will be the case relatively early next year, complaints relating to the treatment of prisoners in State prison systems will have to be determined in accordance with State laws and procedures. The Commonwealth is simply not in a position to directly intervene. I will, however, take up the matter raised by Senator Reynolds with the appropriate Queensland authorities. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that the Chairman of the Australian National Line has given notice that it will be advising that it will withdraw the services of the vessel Townsville Trader from the Darwin run by 21 January next year unless a subsidy is forthcoming? While it will be agreed that the Townsville Trader can never be economically viable because it is patently obvious it is the wrong vessel for the job, will the Government give consideration to making up the losses for a period to enable arrangements to be made to procure a suitable vessel that will operate economically? Senator GIETZELT —I will draw that question to the attention of the Minister for Transport and get an early answer to the honourable senator. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Attorney-General. It follows the question that Senator Haines asked last week and the question she asked earlier today. I ask: Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to a call in the media by the President of the Australian Computer Society Inc. for copyright legislation to protect persons who develop computer software? Has the Australian Computer Society made formal representations to the Government on this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, my attention has been drawn to that matter. I believe that such formal representations either have been made or are about to be made although I have not yet seen them come across my desk. I do take note of the point that Senator Colston is making as indeed I did of that made by Senator Haines earlier on. I can assure both honourable senators and the Senate generally that action will be taken as soon as an appropriate strategy can be resolved balancing out the interests of all relevant parties to ensure that there is proper protection in this area because I am sure every honourable senator would acknowledge the desirability of that being the case. Senator BUTTON —On 7 December 1983 Senator Hamer addressed a very detailed question to me about the importation of New Zealand fresh potatoes. I have obtained an answer for Senator Hamer on that topic from the Minister for Health. I seek leave to have the text of that answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Australian potatoes are not free of serious diseases but there are certainly serious diseases in other countries, including New Zealand, which do not occur in Australia. It is for this reason that quarantine action is taken to regulate any importations to ensure they do not constitute a serious pest and disease threat to the Australian potato industry. The golden nematode is one such exotic disease of potatoes which occurs in New Zealand. As a consequence New Zealand potatoes may only be imported for processing under strict quarantine control. The potatoes are permitted only from areas free from golden nematode and other exotic diseases and quarantine supervision is exercised over their transportation, storage and processing. Containers are also cleaned and wastes disposed of under quarantine supervision. New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries officials have made approaches to Australian plant quarantine to relax conditions to permit the importation of potatoes for retail sale from designated disease-free areas. However the conditions will not be relaxed unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure the potatoes do not constitute a serious quarantine risk. Senator GRIMES —On 20 September last Senator Haines asked me as the Minister representing the Minister for Health a question without notice concerning the payment of medical benefits for health screening to prostitutes. I have obtained the following information from the Minister for Health. I apologise to the Senate for the delay. Medical benefits are not payable for the regular routine screening of prostitutes for the detection of sexually transmitted diseases. The primary purpose of the medical benefits scheme is to meet expenses reasonably necessary for a patient's medical care. It is considered that preventive public health measures are more effectively and economically carried out by State public health authorities. Only recently the States have expressed concern to the Commonwealth that all pathology investigations relating to infectious diseases such as sexually transmitted diseases should be performed by State laboratories to ensure effective control over the spread of such diseases. The Australian Medical Association has recently raised the question of the level and availability of sexually transmitted disease services in public clinics and the current policy of non-payment of medical benefits for routine screening for such services if carried out by private practitioners. The Department of Health has asked State health authorities to provide information on their facilities for handling examinations and investigations for sexually transmitted diseases. Their replies are awaited. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 13 December Senator Missen asked a question about Australia's response to the drought in Africa. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following additional information. In response to the continuing very difficult food situation in Africa the Prime Minister announced at the New Delhi Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that additional wheat food aid allocations would be made as follows: Zimbabwe, 9,000 tonnes; Tanzania, 12,000 tonnes and Zambia, 6,000 tonnes. All three shipments are to be freight paid to the relevant African coast ports. This donation will make the total Australian food aid allocation to Africa in the current financial year 164,000 tonnes. The total value of this food aid is $38.2m. In addition, Australia has provided humanitarian and relief aid to African countries through non-government organisations and the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF, to the value of $ 744,316 to date in the current financial year. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 9 December Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me, representing the Minister for Defence Support, a question about tenders for the rework of the air traffic control towers at Richmond in New South Wales and East Sale in Victoria. The Minister for Defence Support has provided the following answer to the honourable sentor's question: Request for tender for the refurbishment of air traffic control facilities at Richmond and East Sale was issued on 25 October 1983 and was due to close on 20 January 1984. Following requests from prospective tenderers for extension of the closing date in view of the holiday shut down the client authority, the Royal Australian Air Force, has agreed to a two week extension of the closing date. Tenders will now close on 3 February 1984. Senator GRIMES —Today in Question Time Senator Messner asked me a question about an apparent conflict between answers I gave at the Senate Estimates Committee proceedings regarding the appropriation of funds for the payment of salaries to staff hired to administer the assets test. I am informed by the Department that salary payments for staff engaged on assets tests are being recorded against the Department's salary appropriation division 560.1.01 which will be reimbursed by funds drawn from division 312 which is the special provision from the Minister for Finance. This is akin to the procedures applying for the use of money from the Advance to the Minister for Finance as foreshadowed during the Estimates committee proceedings. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: DAYS AND HOURS OF SITTING 1. That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and hours of sitting of the Senate from the first sitting in 1984 shall be as follows- (a) during the first sitting week- Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-7 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Friday, 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-4.15 p.m. (b) during the second sitting week- Monday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-7 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. From the termination of the last sitting in the second week, the Senate shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on the third Tuesday after that termination, or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable due to illness or other cause, by the Deputy- President, and that the day and/or hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each Senator and the 4-weekly cycle will then be repeated. 2. That the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day. ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE 3. That, at the terminating time each day, the President shall put the Question- That the Senate do now adjourn-which Question shall be open to debate if the Senate be in Committee at that hour, the Chairman shall in like manner put the Question-That he do leave the Chair and report to the Senate and upon such report being made the President shall forthwith put the Question-That the Senate do now adjourn-which Question shall be open to debate. Provided that if the Senate or the Committee be in Division at the time named, the President or the Chairman shall not put the Question referred to till the result of such Division has been declared and if the business under discussion shall not have been disposed of at such adjournment it shall appear on the Notice Paper for the next sitting day. ROUTINE OF BUSINESS 4. That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders and unless otherwise ordered, the Senate shall proceed with its ordinary business in the following routine: Week 1 Tuesday: (1) Petitions. (2) Notices of Motion. (3) Questions. (4) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64. (5) Presentation of Government Papers and consideration pursuant to Sessional Order. (6) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business. (7) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business. (8) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper. Wednesday: (1) Petitions. (2) Notices of Motion. (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business. (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business. (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper. (6) At 2.00 p.m., Questions. (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64. (8) Presentation of Government Papers and consideration pursuant to Sessional Order. (9) Consideration of Committee Reports, pursuant to Sessional Order. (10) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. Thursday: (1) Petitions. (2) Notices of Motion. (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business. (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business. (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper. (6) At 2.00 p.m., Questions. (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64. (8) Presentation of Government Papers and consideration pursuant to Sessional Order. (9) General Business. (10) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. Friday: (1) Petitions. (2) Notices of Motion. (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business. (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business. (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper. (6) At 2.00 p.m., Questions. (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64. (8) Presentation of Government Papers and consideration pursuant to Sessional Order. (9) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. Week 2 Monday: (1) Petitions. (2) Notices of Motion. (3) Questions. (4) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64. (5) Presentation of Government Papers and consideration pursuant to Sessional Order. (6) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business. (7) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business. (8) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper. Tuesday: (1) Petitions. (2) Notices of Motion. (3) Questions. (4) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64. (5) Presentation of Government Papers and consideration pursuant to Sessional Order. (6) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business. (7) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business. (8) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper. Wednesday: (1) Petitions. (2) Notices of Motion. (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business. (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business. (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper. (6) At 2.00 p.m., Questions. (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64. (8) Presentation of Government Papers and consideration pursuant to Sessional Order. (9) Consideration of Committee Reports, pursuant to Sessional Order. (10) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. Thursday: (1) Petitions. (2) Notices of Motion. (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business. (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business. (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Order of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. (6) At 2.00 p.m., Questions. (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64. (8) Presentation of Government Papers and consideration pursuant to Sessional Order. (9) General Business. (10) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa as set down on the Notice Paper. PROPOSALS PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 64 4. That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the standing Orders, on Fridays in week 1 and Thursdays in week 2 the discussion of any proposal submitted to the Senate pursuant to standing Order 64 shall not exceed one hour. GOVERNMENT AND GENERAL BUSINESS-PRECEDENCE 5. That, on all sitting days of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business shall take precedence of General Business, except that General Business shall take precedence of Government Business on Thursdays after Questions, any proposal pursuant to standing Order 64 and consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order until the expiration of two and one-half hours or until there is no further debate; and that, unless otherwise ordered, General Business, Orders of the Day shall take precedence of General Business Notices of Motion on alternate Thursdays. CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNMENT PAPERS (TO OPERATE ON A TRIAL BASIS AS A SESSIONAL ORDER) 9. That, unless otherwise ordered, and notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and Sessional Orders: (1) On all sitting days of the Senate, after Questions and any proposal, pursuant to Standing Order 64, Papers may be presented by Ministers. Upon the presentation of such Papers a motion may be moved, without notice, that the Senate take note of one, or several, of the Papers. (2) The debate on any motion moved pursuant to this Sessional Order shall be conducted as follows: (a) No Senator shall speak for more than 5 minutes; (b) If debate pursuant to this Sessional Order is not concluded it shall be interrupted after 30 minutes, and the Senate shall proceed to consideration of the Business of the Day; (c) If the debate is adjourned or interrupted by Sessional Order, a motion may be moved for the resumption of the debate either for the Thursday of that week at the time for the consideration of General Business, or for the next day of sitting; and (d) On Thursdays, at the commencement of General Business: (i) when an Order of the Day is called on under this Sessional Order, Senators who have previously spoken may speak again for 5 minutes; (ii) motions without notice may be moved to take note of Government Papers tabled during the current sitting week and in relation to which no such motion has previously been moved: Provided that debate under this Sessional Order shall be interrupted after one hour. (3) Where debates on motions moved under the provisions of this Sessional Order are adjourned until the next day of sitting and are called on in the normal course of business, Senators who have spoken to the motions under the provisions of this Sessional Order may speak again for the time allowed under Standing Order 407A. I also give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) the hours of meeting of the Senate on Friday, 16 December 1983 be 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. (2) (A) That the Senate meet on Saturday, 17 December 1983 from 10 a.m. to 1 p. m. and 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.; (B) that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders, Government Business takes precedence of all other business on that day. (3) that the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time on those days. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Under those circumstances, I seek leave to withdraw the notice of motion that I gave relating to sitting hours. Notice of motion-by leave-withdrawn. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation as I have been misrepresented. In this morning's Press I was misrepresented in relation to the reason that I gave, as recorded in Hansard, relating to the vote in respect of section 3 (12) of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 1982. In respect of this matter I have always maintained a consistent approach based on the principles of certainty before the law and fairness. I indicate that it is one thing to vote against the incorporation for the first time of a measure and a different matter altogether, after that right has been established for 12 months, to vote against that particular provision. I place on record that it was unfair 12 months later to deny to taxpayers their right to relief which under the law they are entitled to expect. I reiterate for the sake of the Press what I said yesterday, as recorded in Hansard on pages 3772 and 3773: The reason I voted against it this time is simply that the omission of section 3 (12) has a retrospective effect in that taxpayers who would be entitled to relief under that sub-section and who have requested that it be applied by the Commissioner of Taxation will now have that right removed and face recoupment tax liability. I emphasise that those words were clearly misunderstood by the Press and, in fact, by the Minister who responded in respect of those phantom cases in which the Commissioner of Taxation may have applied section 3 (12). Therefore, the Acts Interpretation Act does not apply in respect of the reason and stated in the chamber yesterday. Debate resumed. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.11) —It is interesting to note that in 1981, while the overseas steel industry was almost without exception shedding labour, the steel industry in Australia was actually increasing its labour force. Of course, from 1982 onwards there was a major shedding of labour in Australia. However, it was much too late to absorb the dramatic downturn in steel demand. Australia was one of only four Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development countries in which the 1981 employment level was higher than the level in 1974. One can make observations about what appears to be excess labour in Australian industry but perhaps it is more relevant to make comparisons with steel production per person employed. In so doing it has to be noted that it is not easy to draw clear or relevant comparisons. The production figures will be distorted by the varying hours worked in each country, but more particularly by the level of technology and the type of goods being produced. The Industries Assistance Commission report provides a table outlining crude steel production per person employed. That table shows Australia's production per person employed to be less than half that of the Japanese worker and in fact less than that of almost all major steel producers. It is considerably less than that in the United States of America and below that recorded for the European Economic Community countries other than the United Kingdom, and for all OECD countries in aggregate. Of further considerable concern is the fact that the level of productivity in Australia per worker is below that of 1974, for instance when it appears to have been contrary to the trends in productivity in the OECD area as a whole. A number of factors will influence the level of productivity of individual workers, but all other factors are equal, not the least being the staffing levels, work days lost though disputes and, of course, the personal endeavours and good will of members of the work force towards their task and their employers. The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd in giving evidence to the IAC stated that it had been hindered in its attempts to reduce manning levels by the number and complexity of industrial relations issues involved and the fact that some manning provisions are written into awards. The company added that industrial relations matters further influenced productivity through the effect on output of industrial disputes originating from both within and outside the steel industry. For example, in 1979-80 industrial action at BHP's steel making centres resulted in the loss of over 1.1 million man hours of production, or some 2 per cent of total man hours worked. In addition, BHP stated that small stoppages or interruptions in other parts of the production chain, for example in coal mining or shipping, could cause substantial disruptions and lost output in the remaining sections of the industry. It is estimated that industrial disputes accounted for 500,000 tonnes of lost production in the year ended May 1982. BHP added that, in order to cushion the impact of industrial disputes, it must carry a high level of in-process stocks and this can effect its output of finished product and therefore its measured productivity. BHP also stated that decline in output as a result of industrial disputes occurred at a more rapid rate than that at which the company was able to reduce its manning levels, resulting in a fall in labour productivity. The company also said that the position was exacerbated by the recruitment of over 3,500 employees between 1978 and 1981 to accommodate the increased production levels forecast for the early 1980s. Those levels did not eventuate, as I said earlier. These very employees who significantly reduced the productivity and capability of the company, who reduced its capacity to compete and sell its commodities at an attractive level, and who in many respects must be held in part responsible for the present plight of BHP's steel section are now calling for more taxpayers ' money to be consumed by them, not only in direct funding to their employer but also through unemployment programs amounting to over $100m. How many companies can carry 1.1 million man hours of production loss in any one year and expect to provide a product which is not only competitive but is also attractive to domestic consumers? The very people who contributed to the demise of the company and themselves are now to receive relief from their sins through a contribution from all other taxpayers' funds. As I said earlier, their part of the bargain for now receiving these funds is to abide by the prices and incomes accord to which they have already pledged their support. Their further contribution seems to amount to nought. In my view, the steel industry companies cannot stand blameless or be exonerated from fault for the wage blowout of their employees. The 1981 metals industry award of a 38-hour week, accompanied by a significant wages increase, has had serious ramifications for the steel industry . It seems to have been an agreement which employers need never have conceded. For BHP's steel division as a whole, the average cost to produce a tonne of steel increased by over 80 per cent from $203.31 to $367.44 between 1978-79 and 1981-82. As the IAC points out, this increase was well in excess of both BHP's average increase in products prices, approximately 53 per cent, and the increase in the consumer price index over the same period of 34 per cent. It is often claimed that Korea and Japan are the two countries in particular which have significant wage advantages over Australian producers. However, it ought to be acknowledged that Korea's real advantage over Australia is its man- hour productivity. Wages in Japan grew dramatically in the 1970s and that variation no longer plays the significant role it once did. What is more material is the growth of our wages at the expense of profits and productivity. In BHP's case most of the increases in cost within the steel division between 1978-79 and 1981-82 can be explained by increased wage rates and increased inputs. BHP stated that the rise in cost of labour was the major component of the cost increase. Between 1978-79 and 1981-82, hourly earnings of steelworks labour increased by 47 per cent and labour accounted for a little under half, 46 per cent, of the total increase in input prices. If labour costs had moved in line with the CPI, the increase in total costs between 1978-79 and 1981-82 would have been 10 percentage points less than the actual increase. I turn now to the question of technological quality and the state of the art in the steel industry in Australia. I make the observation that BHP has an integrated industry with ownership of energy, iron ore and transport. One would normally assume that with a skilled work force those components would make for an economic and efficient industry. The truth of the matter is that the price of BHP's domestic steel is the highest in the western world, excepting the United States of America. It has been claimed that the cost is even higher than that of United States of America steel, which can be obtained more cheaply at discount. Very few overseas producers enjoy the domestic dominance of BHP. Canada has three major steel producers, Japan five, and the United States of America eight. Only some United States of America and Canadian companies approach the high degree of backward integration that, as I previously mentioned, is enjoyed by BHP. The Japanese certainly have no such integration. In fact, as we all know, they have to buy their iron ore and coal from Australia, produce their iron and steel and ship it back to Australia, yet they are able to do that at a price more than competitive with BHP's steel. It is true that BHP had in recent years invested considerable money in updating and improving the efficiency and productivity of its steel factories. However, it is considerably behind many overseas companies. During the crucial period of the early 1970s when investment should have been undertaken, the directors, fearing, by their own admission, what the Prices Justification Tribunal might do to their increased prices, and at a time of perceived downturn in the industry, withheld new capital expenditure. Much of the evidence given to the Industries Assistance Commission was critical of the size, age and technical efficiency of BHP's plant. It is suggested that these factors were important in explaining the apparent deterioration in the company's competitiveness. The IAC stated: BHP conceded that some of its existing technology is in some ways deficient, the principal shortcomings including the preparation of raw materials and the relatively limited use of continuous casting. For example, BHP estimated that in 1983 some 20% of its output would be produced by the continuous casting process, whereas in many other countries up to 70% of output is produced by this method, with some mills producing up to 100% of total output by the continuous casting process. BHP concede that recent investments have concentrated on rehabilitating or rounding off existing facilities, saving energy and improving product quality and productivity rather than adding to capacity or replacing obsolete facilities . BHP further conceded that throughout the recent period, market conditions and cost factors were such that the replacement of some of the company's older facilities were not economically justifiable. These comments sounded to me very much like the symptoms of a company which has no ambition to make a profit and remains satisfied and warm in the knowledge that it is protected from real overseas competition. Mr Deputy President, a number of end users of BHP products commented on the quality of its goods and made reference in a number of cases to the superiority of overseas products. I do not propose to go through them all. In fact, they gave evidence to the effect that they were purchasing overseas products because of the poor quality or the comparably poor quality of BHP's products, and in some cases because they were not able to get the range of products, which is something for which one cannot blame BHP, but it is a contributing factor towards increasing the importation levels. I am of the view that the assistance which the steel industry in Australia needs, if it is to be given, will not be short term but will be required well into the 1990s, particularly given the enormous world wide excess capacity. Nothing in the steel industry in Australia gives me reason to believe that it will be either efficient or viable, as the Government would have it be. My view is that this assistance will become open-ended and permanent. Nothing in the package or on present or future indicators suggests that the industry will be able to stand on its own feet and be competitive in the near future, short of its having to make harsh commercial decisions, with the directors using shareholders funds for a change. This leads me to the merits of the massive assistance which will be given to the industry by this legislation and to the effect that the assistance will have upon the community, particularly the export industry. One might well ask what benefit is to be achieved from the massive financial support to be given to the steel industry, primarily by way of bounties. If it is to be accepted that the demise in the domestic steel industry is fundamentally as a result of lack of domestic demand, and I have sought to demonstrate that, will the bounty stimulate domestic demand? I am sure that the answer to that has to be no. While the price of steel sold in Australia does and will have some influence on demand , essentially demand is down because of the fall-away in economic growth, primarily due to the world recession. A very modest lowering of the domestic price of steel, which is the most, I suspect, that could be hoped for, will not stimulate demand significantly. It may be argued that the Australian industry will capture a greater share of the import market. In as much as import penetration will have- Senator Button —The export market. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, imports, primarily. Senator Button —The Australian industry will capture a greater share of the import market? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I mean the present imports coming into Australia. In other words the industry will get a greater share of what is ultimately domestic consumption. Inasmuch as import penetration has had little impact on the Australian industries' share of the domestic market, I cannot see that having a great influence on profit. Perhaps at best it may increase volume to a small extent and so reduce unit cost, but with Australia's present levels of efficiency we have a long way to go before we begin to be competitive. I should have thought that perhaps the only benefit the Government's contribution can have is to guarantee a steel industry in Australia which I suspect was never really at risk even without taxpayers' funds. With this, of course, go all the inevitable distortions to the economy which accompany such tariff and bounty decisions. We will see the continuing misallocation of resources of both money and manpower. Senator Button —What tariff decisions are you talking about? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The decision to give $350m. Senator Button —Tariff decisions, I said. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am not talking about the present tariff decisions but prior decisions. Any tariff decision or any bounty decision will have the same influences we are about to see suffered by the community; that is, the misallocation of resources both of a financial and manpower nature. We will see a continuing cost to exporters and to the economy generally. I conclude by quoting the Commission's report of 1975-76 which states: . . . there is little case for the provision of temporary assistance for individual industries if their difficulties are due to economy-wide problems such as cost inflation or a general downturn in the economy, since such assistance is at the expense of other industries including those facing similar difficulties. Considerations of equity and resource use efficiency seem to require that general economic problems should be dealt with by general measures (such as fiscal, monetary and exchange rate adjustments) that do not discriminate between industries. . . . . To selectively assist some industries in a period of recession could worsen the problems of other industries not similarly assisted, contribute to inflationary pressures and inhibit general recovery. Nobody denies that Australia needs a steel industry. There are fundamental arguments that one might put forward in respect of defence, technology and reliability of supply, but it seems to me that by continuing to prop up the industry with taxpayers' money as we have done over the years by way of tariffs and quotas and now by way of bounties that is a rather inadequate and very expensive way of ensuring that industry. I should have thought that to lavish taxpayers' money, which can be ill afforded at present, will add very significantly to the Budget deficit. The Government could have been more enthusiastic about trying to make the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd more economic rather than having it stand over the Government and say: 'If you do not give us money we will close the steel industry down'. That is precisely what it said. It was huffing and puffing. Of course it had no intention of closing the industry. The Government came along and gave it $350m. The real solution for BHP is to separate its oil and gas component from its steel component so that the shareholders and directors can take greater notice of the return on their investment in the steel industry which in recent years has been as low as one per cent. We have now seen net losses by BHP. We ought to look at different directions other than continuing to write out taxpayers' cheques to support the shareholders and employees of BHP. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.29) —I guess that one of the great Australian sports is pulling down tall poppies. The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is the tallest, the largest and, in its own terminology, the biggest Australian poppy. Therefore it gets more than its share of criticism. It earns some of that criticism. I believe it is entitled to it. But it is also entitled to some credit because it is not only a monopoly power but also a great pioneer in this country. For many years it was perceived by most Australians as a backbone industry, as a vital industry and as a very fundamental industry of Australia. I think therefore that the people who helped to build it over the years are entitled to some recognition and some credit for the great industry that they have built. The people I am talking about are not just the directors, not just the managers and executives; they are also, of course, the workers, the people who have been in there with the picks and shovels and tools, helping to create this great Australian enterprise. But, as previous speakers have indicated, for some time BHP has been given a fair bit of assistance by all Australians, through our taxation, tariff and quota systems. It was perhaps inevitable that one day BHP would come to the Australian Government and say: ' Even that is not enough. We are still suffering because of a number of factors, both international and local. We need even more help'. This package of legislation represents that 'more help' that BHP has sought. One of the things that disenchants many people is that BHP came to this new Government and held a gun at its head. I do not believe that anybody could deny that. It was evident in the way that straw promises were advanced of billions to be spent by BHP and threats were made that the alternative, if support were denied by the Government, was that it would simply fold up its camp and walk away, leaving the Government to pick up the tab for the massive unemployment and disruption of industry that would follow. So there was no question that BHP was able to apply extreme pressure to the Government to reach the agreement which has resulted in these Bills. The measures themselves teach us something about the so-called virtues of protection in this country. My understanding, and I believe that of most people, is that the principle of protection is one of helping an industry to become established. One perhaps helps it, particularly if it is a pioneering industry, to grow up. One helps it to grow through the infant stages so that ultimately it will be able to compete on the world scene, in international markets. BHP has grown up and it is time that it stood on its own feet. It is a big boy now but still seems to need help to walk. As a result, the Australian taxpayers will be paying out some $70m per annum-because of the inability on the part of BHP management to create a product that can compete on world markets. We do not blame the Government for giving the proposed assistance. We do not believe that it had an option, given the threat of job losses at a time of massive unemployment, but we believe that it should recognise that, just as BHP had Australia by the short and curlies, the Government also had a weapon in its hand when these negotiations took place. We do not believe that it used that weapon to extract enough control on BHP's future actions, enough guarantees and assurances concerning its future activities in this country. Certain problems arise from this package. They include the inherent contradiction involved in giving protection to an industry in order to make it more efficient. It is not impossible to resolve that contradiction. The Japanese experience should teach us that government assistance can help to initiate industries which ultimately will become efficient and competitive, which do end up contributing to increased employment, economic growth and higher living standards. We can take a leaf out of that book. Unfortunately, however, Australia seems to have become saddled with a series of industries such as BHP which continue to be a drain upon it, which ultimately contribute to the economy as would a cross between a leech and an albatross. I think the Australian Financial Review put this extremely well in an editorial on Friday, 12 August: But can we be certain that it- the reference was to the agreement-- will guarantee the radical restructuring of our steel industry so desperately required? It went on: Indeed, how can this occur if BHP continues to be sheltered from the winds of international competition? For decades we have heard the argument that continuing aid is required to enable Australian companies to get to a grown up stage. BHP . . . is still having trouble walking. Another problem that arises from this agreement which has been reached with BHP is the need for the Government to be prepared sensibly and accurately to monitor BHP's affairs and books. I believe that it will be essential that the Government have access to all of that information, in the same way as does a director or shareholder of any company. Let us face the fact that this Government is in no less a position in regard to funding than is any manager or shareholder of BHP and should be entitled to the same substantial privileges as they, or a director , would enjoy. A third problem that needs to be addressed is that, through the Steel Industry Authority, the Government will have to ensure that productivity gains are made and that they are real gains. The benefit of this payout to BHP should be the creation of an efficient and internationally competitive industry, not just the pouring down the drain of more money for purposes of bare survival. We want to see BHP right up there amongst the world leaders in the steel industry, not begging for handouts year after year for the next 10 or 20 years. The formula that is provided in the legislation does give some incentive. It does provide the Government with the opportunity to reduce its contribution to BHP. Therefore , there is certainly an incentive for the Government to ensure that BHP prospers under the formula. Workers and unions are often blamed for Australia's poor general economic performance and our relative inability to sell manufactured products overseas. It is fair to suggest that when we look at the steel industry management must take some of the blame. A contrast can be drawn between the domestic iron ore industry's performance over the last couple of decades and that of the steel industry, which represents the next stage in the process. While the iron ore industry has grown and blossomed, has been thriving, the steel industry has suffered as a result of the actions and decisions taken by its captains, which have helped to scuttle the boat. The legislation before us is simply a means of helping that boat to stay afloat. However, the Australian Democrats hope that it will provide an example of how government assistance can help to make an industry efficient. We hope that the Government will keep BHP under the microscope. We believe that it should play a bigger role in the planning of the whole Australian economy, particularly in key industries such as the steel industry. But the assistance that the Government gives should be in the form of helping to phase in these industries where that will be beneficial to the Australian economy and helping to phase other industries out. Over the next five years the steel industry must be closely monitored, must be kept under the microscope to ensure that it is a growth industry and not a potential phase-out industry. If it is a phase-out industry, the crunch decision must be made before it bleeds Australia dry. We do not believe that the market mechanism should reign supreme, but neither should we endlessly support industries that can make no long term contribution to increasing our communal wealth. I would like to conclude by posing a couple of questions to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). I am a little uncertain, from reading the Bills, whether the Steel Industry Authority will have the power to control or influence imports of steel. We think that is a vital question, not just for BHP but for all steel users in Australia. What sorts of powers are to be given? What sort of ultimate control and influence in regard to steel imports whether direct or indirect, will the Steel Industry Authority have? Secondly, will the bounty formula result in the Government reducing imports with the object of increasing BHP's productivity and thus, of course, reducing the bounties that the Government must contribute to BHP? That again would obviously be in the Government's interest but certainly may not be in the interests of the steel users of Australia. If the Minister would answer those two questions-he was absent momentarily when I asked the first question, which was will the steel industry-- Senator Button —I heard it. Senator JACK EVANS —He got that. In general, let me make it quite clear that the Australian Democrats support these Bills. They are an inevitable development in this industry. We see that the Government has no alternative but to bring forward these Bills. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.41) —I thank the honourable senators who have contributed to this debate in such tones of fulsome praise. One or two questions were addressed to me in the course of the discussion and I want to advert to those just briefly. Senator Crichton-Browne's speech was, if I might use this expression, larded liberally with quotations from submissions to the Industries Assistance Commission. The IAC report on the steel industry was one of the matters the Government took into account in arriving at the steel industry plan. I do not propose to canvass that ground. I suppose Senator Crichton-Browne will go on doing that for a long period, but it is not strictly relevant to the circumstances which prevail today. I think the burden of Senator Chaney's speech was to indicate that the Opposition did not oppose the package but that it had some concerns about it. I want to deal with those concerns briefly. Senator Chaney, in fact, suggested that the proposals of the Government do not amount to a complete solution of the steel industry's problems. Of course they do not. I have never pretended that they do. The Government has never pretended that this package is a complete solution to the steel industry's problems. Associated with that was a series of questions as to what disciplinary action the Government intended should be taken if the parties to the steel industry agreement do not honour their obligations. Firstly, of course, that is one of the tasks of the Steel Industry Authority-to monitor the performance of the respective parties to the steel plan in respect of the obligations they have entered into. From this Government's point of view the Steel Industry Authority will be reporting regularly to the Government. Those reports will be made public. The purpose of that is that if a party or any parties do not honour their obligations to the steel industry plan and it fails the people of Australia will know why. That is to say, if Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd does not honour its investment obligations and the unions do not honour their obligations in relation to industrial relations matters and productivity, there will be a public accountability in relation to those matters . Secondly, in relation to that let me simply say that it is this Government's view that if the steel industry plan does not work that may well be the end of the steel industry in this country. That is not a result we want to see. But we have made commitments. If those commitments are not respected and the commitments made by other parties are not honoured, the steel industry will be on its own as far as we are concerned. Senator Crichton-Browne said, of course, that that should have been the position from the beginning. I do not know what inside information he has, but I assure honourable senators that wherever he got it from it is substantially incorrect about decisions which were likely to be taken in relation to the steel industry if the Government had not acted in the way it did. Senator Crichton-Browne —I am sorry; I am not talking about inside information. I was saying that, if it- Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator has had his say. Senator Crichton-Browne —If it had taken commercial decisions at an earlier time you would not be forking out taxpayers' money now. Senator BUTTON —That is right. That is an interesting piece of anecdotal history . Senator Crichton-Browne —It is a fact of life which has been ignored by successive governments. Senator BUTTON —Yes, it is a fact of life. Senator Crichton-Browne is on the Hansard record now as saying that if everything had been right in the world in previous years we would not have had all these problems today-a very constructive contribution. Senator Crichton-Browne —No, don't try to simplify it. That is not what-- Senator BUTTON —That is what it is; that is what it amounts to. It is a piece of academic nonsense in the situation of this debate. Senator Chaney asked me some specific questions. The first were the questions of honouring obligations to the steel industry plan. I have already answered those three questions. I think Senator Chaney may have been locked in conversation at the time but the answers will appear in Hansard. The other specific questions he asked me were about the fast track dumping mechanism. That is being developed between the Steel Industry Authority and the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Steel Industry Authority will assist in the collation and provision of information to assist the Department to assess correctly whether there is a prima facie case of injury resulting from imports at dumped prices. That will mean that much less time will be taken in dealing with a dumping complaint. The Steel Industry Authority will be monitoring imports, and through contacts with overseas industries, will be able to supply information much more quickly. I should also draw attention to the fact that on 7 November this year the Government announced a review of dumping procedures which will greatly speed up the mechanisms for dealing with dumping complaints. Such procedures include a time limit of 45 days from acceptance of a complaint for the Department to arrive at a preliminary finding and so on. Those are matters of record to which I referred in my statement of 7 November. They will greatly speed up the process of dealing with dumping complaints. Senator Chaney also asked about the relationship between the Steel Industry Authority and the Prices Surveillance Authority. The Steel Industry Authority will be focusing on all aspects of the steel industry, including prices. Steel is not amongst those matters to be dealt with by the Prices Surveillance Authority but it is envisaged that the Steel Industry Authority should work in close consultation with the Prices Surveillance Authority in relation to steel industry matters. Senator Chaney —BHP will not have to deal with both, will it? Senator BUTTON —No, not at all. It will deal with the Steel Industry Authority. But in relation to general criteria and guidelines the two authorities will work in co-operation. I think those were the major matters addressed to me by Senator Chaney. In relation to Senator Jack Evans's comments, it was very difficult to determine who was holding the gun at whose head in the course of negotations with BHP and the other parties involved in relation to the steel industry. Let me say that BHP wanted much more than it got from the Government. The Government wanted more than it got from BHP. But the investment program BHP has foreshadowed for the next five years is larger than the investment program foreshadowed under the 10-year plan BHP put to the IAC. The IAC investment program over 10 years was larger in the latter half. In respect of the first five years there is more investment than there would have been under the plan put to the IAC in respect of which the company asked for a lot more assistance than it is getting. Senator Crichton-Browne —What certainty to the industry did BHP offer after the 10-year period? Senator BUTTON —The company made commitments to the IAC in terms of investment. But in return for that it sought a much larger market share. It sought larger financial assistance from the Government and a number of other things which it did not get. Senator Evans asked me two questions. He asked whether the Steel Industry Authority has power to control or influence imports of steel. In a strict sense the answer to that is no. The steel industry plan provides that if the steel producers' market share falls below a particular level a mechanism will be activated whereby the Steel Industry Authority reports to the Government and the Government determines whether any further assistance should be provided to the industry. Under the plan, if the share of the market, by product categories, rises above 90 per cent the Authority again reports to the Government which in that circumstance will determine whether the amount of assistance currently available should be reduced. In respect of the question of whether the bounty formula will reduce imports, it is not the intention that that be so. The bounty formula and the import control formula are separate and distinct. I do not think that it is intended that there be any direct relationship between those two. The steel industry in Australia is currently determined to make a success of this plan. It is the only industry in the world which at the moment is in relatively optimistic and good shape. In the United States of America steel workers are currently taking reductions in pay, as Senator Chaney pointed out, of $25 a week. It is expected that some 40,000 will be sacked from the German steel industry in the next few months. This sort of pattern exists around the world. It is not an easy time to be involved in the steel industry. The Government was concerned about two major things: Firstly, that the industry should survive because of its importance to Australia and, secondly, that it should produce steel at the lowest possible cost in respect of down-stream users . The plan is fundamentally directed towards those two purposes. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.53) —I wish to ask a question of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). I did not think his response was very helpful to the debate. We are in the process of appropriating $350m of taxpayers' funds. What I said was that by further contributing taxpayers' funds we were exacerbating a problem which had been perpetuated for years and years by successive governments. I was not saying that everything in the world was perfect and that we would have a perfect world. I was simply saying we were adding to that dimension. I asked Senator Button whether he accepted that the problems the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd faced were primarily due to a downturn in domestic demand and not to a major penetration of importations. I asked: How will the bounty stimulate demand if one accepts that the downturn in demand is due to a world recession, not something that is isolated to Australia's problems? While the bounty may give BHP a capacity to reduce its general costs perhaps in some respect it will attract part of the import market into Australia, which will allow it to produce a greater volume of goods and therefore be able to reduce unit costs. I do not see how that in a material sense is going to stimulate demand. I simply ask: How does the Minister see the bounty assisting BHP other than simply by topping up its books given that there is, as the Minister says, an enormous excess capacity in the world at the present time? The projections are that this may well go through into the 1990s and there is no likelihood of the excess capacity in Australia being taken up. How will the bounty stimulate demand or will it simply make sure that the industry ticks over for another 20 years? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.55) —The bounty is not designed to make sure the industry ticks over for another 20 years. Firstly, a number of factors have contributed to the misfortunes of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd of which the world economic recession and the Australian recession were very substantial factors, but not by any means exclusive factors. Secondly, Senator Crichton-Browne asked: Will the bounty stimulate demand? I do not think it will stimulate demand by itself. The honourable senator should remember that BHP manufactures not only for the domestic market but also for the export market. The first thing I would say about it is that lower prices will in some ways have an effect on demand when people are selecting between various products or various materials. The fact that steel is cheaper will have an effect on the selection of steel rather than some other products in certain areas and so on. The fact that there is an export market is also relevant to that question. The other fact I should point out to Senator Crichton-Browne which seems to be missing from his equation, if I can put it that way, is that the steel plan is predicated on the assumption that we will have a smaller steel industry than we have had in the past. Neither the Government nor the industry has any illusions about that. We are looking for a smaller, more efficient, steel industry. I will make a very obvious point about some of the factors that were absent from the performance of the steel producers in Australia in previous years. Since the steel plan was announced there has been an enormous upturn in the performance of BHP in terms of marketing and in terms of dealing with complaints about quality and quality control. There is no doubt about that. If honourable senators take the trouble to check with any steel users they will make that comment. That is one example of some of the things which were lacking and which are now there. Senator Georges —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. We are at the Committee stage of this Bill. If I recall correctly, you put the question and after the question was put Senator Crichton-Browne spoke. Certain latitude is allowed but surely we are not now going to continue on in the Committee stage when that decision has been made. If we are, I think Senator Crichton-Browne ought to refer to the clause in the Bill to which he is referring otherwise we will be here till midnight. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Sibraa) —There is no point of order because I have not put the question that the Bills be agreed to. I call Senator Crichton- Browne. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.58) —I will say very little else except in response to the point of order that was raised. It is interesting that we can spend 18 hours talking about sex discrimination legislation which will not be passed through the Parliament this session and spend less than an hour talking about spending $350m of taxpayers' money. Senator Georges —Well, stay within the Standing Orders. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am; keep your eye on the ball. With enormous excess capacity overseas, notwithstanding that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd may be able to reduce its prices in a very modest way, surely the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) is not suggesting that it is likely that we will be able to increase the size of our export market when the price of overseas steel is so low. I cannot see any way in which it is likely that we will increase our quantity of exports. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.59) —Australian steel exports are very much on a window-of-opportunity basis. For example, take Whyalla. The vast majority of Whyalla's current production is exported. That is certainly true of some of John Lysaght (Aust) Ltd products as well. It is a matter of finding niches in the world market. The more the steel companies can do that the better. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: INTER-STATE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1983 AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMMISSION BILL 1983 AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMMISSION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 3 November 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate that the Bill be debated cognately? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.03) —I speak to each of the Bills before the Senate; that is, the two Bills covering the Australian National Railways Commission-the Australian National Railways Commission Bill 1983 and the Australian National Railways Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill- and the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill 1983 and the Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill 1983. The Opposition does not oppose any of these Bills. But in respect of both the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill and the Australian National Railways Commission Bill amendments will be proposed calling for an improved level of accountability. In the other chamber, objections were raised to presentations and publication of commercially valuable information. On this occasion, the amendments have been worded to remove that danger. We require that these two major instrumentalities be thoroughly accountable to the community and to the Parliament. I will move those amendments at a later stage. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak for the Opposition because, by any standard, the effects and application of the legislation covered in these Bills can do more to determine the whole economic future not only of my State but also of the Commonwealth than any legislation likely to come before this chamber now or in the future. While to most members of this chamber these Bills are not of great personal interest, I can assure honourable senators that nationally they should be. To my own State they certainly are. Of all the matters involved in this area the transporting of both people and goods regularly, economically and safely counts above everything. We hope that this legislation will do quite a lot to assist with that objective. Firstly, I will deal with the Australian National Railways Commission Bill. The major provisions of that Bill are to put the Australian Shipping Commission on a more commercial basis of operation. My own State exports 3.1 million tonnes of cargo a year. About a million tonnes of that is non-bulk cargo. It is of vital concern that these goods be shipped as economically and expeditiously as possible. By any standards, Bass Strait is one of the most expensive pieces of water in the world. What is necessary and what I hope we can achieve by this legislation is to free up the market forces. If the legislation does that, it will certainly have my support. The Bill aims to improve the management performance of the ANL. I think that in the past we had no arguments that there was not room for that. The Government has already made a significant injection of funds to the ANL which hopefully will improve its productivity and its efficiency. The signs are there. I am very pleased that the signs are that the ANL will become more commercial and that greater attention will be given to seeing that it operates in a truly commercial way. At present the ANL operates in separate divisions. I would like to see separate financial targets set for each of those operating areas so that we can see how each one is going. Bass Strait, of course, is the national highway for Tasmania. It is important that the use of Bass Strait be as uncomplicated and as economical as possible. The fact that the Tasmanian transport question is complicated is only part of the difficulty. The advantages to Tasmania of being an island State are in many respects certainly countermanded by the problems that it creates in matters such as this. The diversification of population, towns and ports-to say nothing of airports-has saved large amounts of money, considering the costs inherent in centralisation. But it has been achieved at a cost to these other items. Dependability of shipping is the keystone. It must be regular; it must be economical, and it has to be strike-free. Over and over again, industries fail in Tasmania or leave Tasmania because of these very factors. It is just too difficult to operate because of the hazards of Bass Strait. I am in no doubt that the monopoly or near monopoly situation that the ANL has operated under in many cases has failed to serve Tasmania well. It has not required hard-nosed competitive decisions or consideration of what may be best for the user as much as what may be best for the server. I am very hopeful that, as a result of this new legislation, some of these elements may change. If it does not, I for one will certainly be following it up very closely. I think everybody is very pleased to see that Mr Bolitho has taken the position of Chairman of the Australian Shipping Commission. I certainly join those who wish him well. I hope that he will be very successful in his job. I quote briefly from a statement attributed to him, dated 10 November. He said: You may expect us for our part to adopt the first position-pay us what it is worth including return on capital and a fair proportion of overheads or we will not do it . . . Subsidised operations are but one of the thousand cuts from which we are bleeding . . . The line has over-manned ships, over-manned terminals and over-manned offices . . . It entered areas of business for prestigious and perhaps political reasons other than profit, and perhaps it lacked government interest and support-it certainly lacked equity input. It has to be much more vigorous in its commercial approach than in the past. It means negotiating harder, it means being tougher with customers. I can but say thank you to Mr Bolitho for taking that attitude. I can assure him that for my part it has my support and, I hope, has the support of users and parliamentarians throughout Australia. The question of finance is important. The financial backing that has now been given to the Australian National Line, we are told, will make quite a lot of difference to its operation. We will certainly be keeping an eye on that aspect to ensure that next year's report does, in fact, reflect the advantages that come from this improved capitalisation. I turn now to the Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill. Firstly, I think I need to say that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has done little, if anything, to clear up the lack of understanding that is so rife in the community and in the transport sector in particular. The Minister, in the distributed copy of his second reading speech, gave great hope to us. On the first page, he states: We see the ISC as an important vehicle for promoting the rational development of national transport policies On page 3 of that same document, he said: Users of transport have no single entity in Australia to which they can take any problems they encounter with anomalies, discriminations and inequalities that exist in our national transport system. At present they can only appeal to operator controlled organisations (both government and private) whose own interests are generally paramount. On page 4, he says: It will have a significant role in keeping each transport system 'honest' . . . But regrettably, in the next paragraph, he goes on to put the biggest proviso of all and says that excluded are: . . . matters covered by the new 1981 Airlines Agreement and the related Independent Air Fares Committee Act. I think that everyone in Australia would feel that these are the areas which should be opened up for a total investigation now. The Parliamentary Library produced a document on the Bill in which it made a couple of very significant comments which I should like to raise. On page 4 it said: There is no provision for investigation into other areas under the more general heading of trade and commerce. The terms of reference have also been narrowed to exclude investigation into overseas transport services. On the next page, it said: This paragraph curtails considerably the investigations of the Commission into domestic air transport, thus leaving only the modes of roads, rail, coastal shipping and pipeline transport for its consideration. It then said: There is no authority given to the Commission to initiate its own investigations nor to make orders upon the recommendations stemming from its investigations. The Commission is empowered only to investigate those matters specified by the Minister in a notice presented to the Commission. Where several matters are to be investigated, the order in which the Commission is to investigate those matters may also be determined by ministerial direction. Upon completion of an investigation, 'the Commission shall furnish to the Minister a report setting out any findings made by the Commission . . . and any recommendations that the Commission thinks fit to make in consequences of those findings'. As a result of these provisions, the Commission is not permitted nor empowered to arbitrate on matters, nor to be requested by persons or States to arbitrate on matters within its terms of reference. With all the things that the Commission holds, it still has these massive gaps in the things that are really important, as we would see it. We have not really been told why the Commission has been regurgitated at this particular time. It has been announced that an investigation into the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme is its first job. It would be desirable for me to mention the fact that that certainly needs to be examined. But if the intention is to put Tasmania in a position no worse than that in which she would be were it not for the lack of alternative transport, there are other considerations than just how cheaply similar goods can be moved by road over similar distances on the mainland. In the past we have had all sorts of formulae on how it is possible to shift timber from one place to another in Victoria, or from Wodonga or other places, and they have always taken into account factors that are not appropriate and not available in Tasmania. Sometimes taken into account were matters involving weekend running, back-loading and all sorts of things that are totally inappropriate. Bass Strait shipping is not like that. The people who have to use it suffer from the constraints that they must ship when the shipping is there. They have to ship within a whole lot of constraints which, if this investigation is to be worth a crumpet, will have to be taken into account. There are too many other factors than just the cost of some alternative, of some route on the mainland. This has never been fully understood in the past. If the Inter-State Commission is to get any credibility, it will have to start by doing a good job on this and seeing that the freight factors between Tasmania and the mainland, in particular , are adequately compensated. If it is to consider the relativity of Tasmania's disadvantages compared with the other States and to see that it is properly provided for, all well and good. But if it is just a way to look at how it can get away with chiselling Tasmania a little more and paying it a little less, I can assure honourable senators that there is likely to be a certain amount of trouble. Senator Georges —That is not fair, is it? Senator ARCHER —It is certainly not fair, because Tasmania has always been chiselled in regard to what has been due to it in matters of transport. I just want to see that in future it gets what it should have. There is a figure involved in this matter which speaks volumes in itself. As I have said, transport across Bass Strait is extremely expensive. The current rate for carrying a 20-foot container from Victoria to northern Tasmania is $1,017.60. This compares with a contract rate for carrying an equivalent container from Victoria to Europe, via a non-conference vessel, of $1,200. That is absolutely ridiculous. It has arisen, regrettably, probably only because of freight equalisation. It is a means by which we have been able to subsidise to the limit of the maximum inefficiency. In relation to the understanding of the Bill, I have also noticed that Mr Webber, for instance, of Mayne Nickless Ltd is not convinced that it will act in the manner laid down and believes that it will only encourage an increase of costs. Even though the Minister has suggested that Mr Webber has sought deliberately to misunderstand the Bill, I feel sure that he admits that Mayne Nickless are the front line troops of the transport business and that it is Mayne Nickless that has to see that the goods get shifted. In regard to the miners, I notice that Mr Hugh Morgan is also less than convinced about the future. Anyway, I am sure that the Minister will be able to give us some more information on that matter, and to give it to some of the people about whom I had intended to speak at greater length had time permitted. But I notice again that the Minister said in a media statement of 2 November: The Commission will investigate and advise Government on allegations of discriminatory practices, inefficiencies and anomalies in inter-state transport. The Commission, when conducting its investigations, will consult with and seek submissions and evidence from private citizens, unions, business, the community, employees, transport users and suppliers and Government. That is very good, but we still do not know what that is to cover or why the Minister is likely to set that up. There is nothing in anything that has been produced by the Government at this stage which clears up any of that. On 26 September, Transport Australia put out a fact sheet. Under the heading 'Powers of the Commission', it said: The Commission has Royal Commission type powers to carry out inquiries into issues relating to inter-state transport. It will operate by investigation, consultation, publication and recommendation. It does not have any judicial or regulatory powers. So it goes on. There is a lot of information which does not get down to the real detail of just exactly what the Commission is to do. When I came to look back over the history of the Inter-State Commission, I found that it was set up in the first Parliament. Over a period, it has started and stopped and been revived and lapsed eight times. I have looked at the things that it has done. It makes me wonder why it has foundered so often. I guess that it is simply because it has not fulfilled the expectations that were originally held for it. It makes me wonder now whether it will be given work to do or whether it will be used for some sort of political purpose and then allowed to gather dust once again. I hope that it can be shown to be a useful instrumentality. I hope that it is able to achieve things. I hope that it will not be used by this Government or any other government just as a means of having a whipping boy that one can blame for decisions that will be electorally unpopular. I come now to the railways. The main feature of the railway Bills is similar to the shipping Bills; that is, to add a bit of ginger to their operation on a commercial basis. The purpose of the Australian National Railways Commission Bill is to repeal the present Australian National Railways Act 1917 and to replace it with modern legislation more appropriate to the Commission's role as a commercial business undertaking. It removes various of the constraints and minimises ministerial intervention, and so on. Again, if it does the things that it sets out to do, it will be quite useful; if it does not do them, there may well be various of us, probably in both Houses, who will be looking to see why that has not happened. People generally are very much inclined to complain a lot about railways. I certainly do not. I see railways as an integral part of the development of the nation. I believe that we have to get a change of mind in relation to the railways. They are not just sinks for public funds. Railways should perform a purpose. They should perform that purpose as quickly and as economically as possible. I note that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills raised a question concerning the exemption of the Commission from providing fencing, which has been a traditional practice. The Committee also recommended that a further clause be left in the legislation. It transferred the liability to the adjoining owners so that, for instance, livestock on the railway line was a major problem for them. The onus of the liability was transferred. I believe that we need some clarification of how quickly this will be enforced and whether there will be any preclusions. While I have the opportunity, I would like to mention that as from 1 March 1978 the Australian National Railways took over the shambles that had been the Tasmanian Railways for many years. I give great credit to the Australian National Railways for the fact that the operation of the railways in Tasmania has improved tremendously in that time. The way the operation is heading at present, it appears that it will be making a profit by about 1988-89. If that can be achieved it will be a great credit to many people involved-the employees, Mr Alistair Maddock, who is the Assistant General Manager in Tasmania and management generally. I think they have done a tremendous job. The Australian National Railways has done a lot to get the old government railways in Tasmania away from the Public Service oriented attitude and to treat the operation far more as a commercial entity. The Australian National Railways has gone a long way to meeting its customers' demands. It has been innovative and responsive in a whole variety of ways. It has learnt to be competitive and it has been able to convince the users of the advantages of the line haul system . It has also disposed of the minor areas of business that were costing a lot of money. It has been able to transfer this business to freight carriers in a very effective way. Tracks and rolling stock have been upgraded tremendously. Australian National Railways has closed 84 stations in Tasmania which is very commendable. It is still working on achieving a reduction in staff. In 1978 the number of staff employed was 1,786. It is now 1,180 and it is still working on reducing this figure to about 650. I think we have to give credit to the way in which it has worked. It is a change to be able to give credit to the railways for the way in which they have operated. I regret very much that, as usual, Bills of this magnitude which deal with a couple of the largest businesses in Australia are being rushed through the Senate at this late stage of the parliamentary sitting. We have spent hours and hours and days and days on absolute trivia. When we come to deal with the important matters we find that the number of speakers is limited. There is nothing in Australia that is as important as transport. In the transport area, there is nothing as important as the operations of ANL and ANR. I foreshadow that the Opposition will be moving two amendments at the Committee stage. One amendment relates to the Australian National Railways Commission and the other relates to the Australian Shipping Commission. They will add to the accountability to the Parliament of the two organisations concerned. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(4.25) —I wish to speak on this group of four transport Bills. I will focus most of my remarks on the legislation to give effect to the development of the Inter-State Commission. This Bill gives effect to an Act which was passed more than eight years ago by this Parliament and which has had no life to this day. The Bill before us today fulfils the election commitment of the Australian Labor Party. It will enable the establishment of the Inter-State Commission early in 1984. In doing so, it will enable Australia to have a body which will help to give a rational, efficient national transportation system. It is very relevant to note that the Inter-State Commission is explicitly provided for in the Australian Constitution. Section 101 refers to the Inter- State Commission having powers of adjudication and administration to execute and maintain provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce. Sections 102 to 104 also relate to the Inter-State Commission. The concept of the Commission to look at trade between the States is linked, of course, with section 92 of the Constitution which provides for freedom of trade between the Australian States. The Inter-State Commission was first established by an Act of parliament in 1912. It existed during the period 1913 to 1920. It was wound up in 1920, effectively as a result of the 1915 so-called 'wheat case' instituted by New South Wales. Re-establishment of the Inter-State Commission was recommended in the 1959 report of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review. It has also been recommended by at least two committees of inquiry into freight arrangements to and from Tasmania. After a gap of some 64 years the Inter-State Commission, as provided for in the Australian Constitution, is to be re- established. The particular Act to recreate the Commission was passed by this Parliament in 1975 under the Whitlam Government after a long debate. The Act, as finally approved by the Parliament, provided much narrower powers for the Commission than under the Constitution and in the original Bill drafted by the Labor Government. It is a strange phenomenon indeed for political conservatives of this country to resist adoption of specific provisions of the Australian Constitution because usually they are the first to invoke the provisions of the Constitution to justify their position. In this particular case the conservatives actually supported a concept narrower than that provided for in that document. Powers over trade and commerce for the Inter-State Commission were explicitly provided for in the Constitution. However, the 1975 Act gives power only in respect of transport, specifically interstate transport. The Commission cannot look at commerce and its various ramifications. It does not have the power of adjudication as provided for in the Constitution. It has no regulatory power and no powers to enforce its finding. Basically, the Inter- State Commission will be an investigatory body with powers of advice to the Government. It can investigate only those matters referred to it by the Government. Its powers will be along the lines of a royal commission to investigate and call evidence. Effectively, it will be a standing royal commission in this transport area. I think that those powers will enable it to gather more information on transport than could be gathered by the current bodies in the field such as the Bureau of Transport Economics which does excellent work. The powers of the Inter-State Commission, as provided, enable it to look at rail transport, road transport, coastal shipping, pipelines and air freight. Of course, many transport problems in Australia are very evident. We have a small and dispersed population and good and efficient transport is vital to the health of our economy. Yet with those factors being well known to the Australian people, for seven years the Fraser Government took no action to proclaim the Inter-State Commission Act to enable us to have an expert body to look into the weaknesses in our transport system and to recommend solutions to them. I believe that interstate transport in Australia is in need of a major overhaul . In fact, interstate transport activity is such that I believe it cannot even be dignified by calling it a transport system. It is really just a collection of transport industries and transport modes. It is high time there was more integration of these modes. Transport costs are a key element of manufacturing costs in this country, and we already have great problems in manufacturing industry because of our small markets. We cannot get the economies of scale that are achievable in other countries. The transport modes in this country compound that problem, and they compound the tyranny of distance which Australia faces. If we look at the costs of manufactured goods in Australia I imagine that the transport cost element is perhaps the highest proportion in the world. In the less populous States of Australia transport costs are extremely significant. The cost of transport of manufactured products to the major markets of this country in New South Wales and Victoria constitutes a major element of the cost of products. That was very evident to me in my former occupation in South Australia . On so many occasions there were plant closures in our State on the ground that the cost of transporting goods to Sydney and Melbourne was too high and the firms were relocating adjacent to those centres. The poor transport system in this country really leads to a centralisation of economic activity and acts against decentralisation. Something must be done about the interstate transport system, and I believe that having an expert body such as the Inter-State Commission will enable us to come to grips with many of these problems. To make the system more efficient we need rational development of transport policies in this country and we need far more co-ordination of our transport modes. I believe that the Inter-State Commission will help to ensure that these much needed improvements occur. The Commission will be an expert body with real investigative powers. It will be independent. It will help to reduce the number of specific or ad hoc transport inquiries that we have in Australia. It is possible to list a great many of those that have been convened in recent years at great expense. I hope the Inter -State Commission will no be an ad hoc body but will exist for a long time so that the expertise gathered in investigating transport matters will not be lost when inquiries finish, as is the case in Australia at the moment. I believe the Commission will help to identify interstate transport weaknesses, that it will lift the efficiency of the system, and that can only benefit the development of interstate transport in Australia. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(4.34) —I want to speak on the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill 1983. This Bill enshrines a five-point plan by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) for the Australian Shipping Commission, which operates under the pseudonym of the Australian National Line. The first point in the Minister's program aims to put the Australian National Line on a proper financial footing. To achieve this, $60m of loan funds were converted to equity in Appropriation Bill (No. 6) and at the same time $30m of new capital was injected into the enterprise and losses are being capitalised. If some action like this had not been taken the ANL would have been bankrupt by the end of this financial year, so I suppose it is reasonable to support this measure. However, it brings up the question of why the Government is or should be in the shipping business at all. Government-run enterprises constantly seem to run into this problem of bankruptcy whereas comparable commercial organisations do not. I have never been persuaded of the desirability of a high cost Australian shipping industry run by the Government being involved in our overseas trade when there is plenty of competitive foreign shipping available to carry our trade at economic rates. Economic rates are of great importance to a trading nation such as Australia. Just in case honourable senators are misled by the profit figures in the last report of the ANL, I point out to the Senate that the ANL made an overall profit in 1981-82 of $2.5m. When we read the fine print, there was at least a $7.2m profit on coastal operations, which means the overseas operations incurred a loss of at least $4.7m. Just to hand today, too late to be debated, is the latest report from the ANL. The news is not good, and I think I should read out to honourable senators a couple of the items contained in the report. At page 4 it states: The result for year was a loss of $26.2m. What did the report state about coastal shipping? At page 10 it states: There was a 25% reduction in coastal bulk cargo. At page 12 it states: Coastal liner trading has experienced a period of severe competition and reduced loadings since late 1982 brought about by the depressed level of economic activity and the resultant surplus capacity in road, rail and coastal shipping. Even before this alarming report, coastal shipping was not in a healthy state. Let us look at what has actually happened to our coastal trade. In 1949 there were 190 vessels in the Australian coastal fleet, but in 1980 there were only 84 , of which 61 sailed between States and 23 were in the intrastate trade. This coastal fleet is dominated by a small number of large single role or specialised ships, mainly tankers and bulk carriers. General cargo ships have declined in number. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the number and types of vessels in the Australian coastal trade. Leave granted. The table read as follows- VESSELS IN THE COASTAL FLEET 1979-80 Total deadweight Number in tonnage Average Vessel type fleet dwt dwt (a) Interstate Crude Oil Tankers 4 296,766 74,191 Petroleum Products Carriers 7 162,213 23, 173 Chemical Tankers 2 16,923 8,462 Bulk Carriers 24 1,080,548 45,023 General cargo 9 59,266 6,585 Bulk Container 1 12,140 12,140 Vehicle Deck 9 44,578 4,953 Ro-Ro (roll on-roll off) 5 54,383 10,877 Total Interstate 61 1, 726,817 28,308 (b) Intrastate Petroleum Products Tankers 2 49,159 24,580 Bulk Carriers 9 270,487 30,054 General Cargo 12 4,230 353 Total Intrastate 23 323,876 14,082 Note: Excludes ships below 150 gross tons. Source: Department of Transport (1981) Sea Transport Statistics 1979-80 ( Canberra AGPS) Senator HAMER —From the table honourable senators will see that there are only 21 general cargo ships in the total fleet of 84 and the total dead weight tonnage for general cargo amounts to only 64,000 dead weight tonnes out of a total of two million tonnes. The Australian coastal fleet is made up of in-house shipping operated by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, mainly in its own bulk carriers. The major general carrier of the rest of the Australian coastal trade is the ANL. The ANL has made profits on coastal services for the last six financial years and is also involved in two very uneconomic services-the services between Tasmania and the mainland and between Darwin and the eastern States. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the ANL profit and loss sectors since 1975. Leave granted. The table read as follows- PERFORMANCE BY SECTOR Liner Trade Coastal Liner Coastal Passenger Coastal Bulk Overseas Bulk 1975* Loss $2m Loss Loss: $1m subsidy ''Modest profit''* Profit 1976 Loss $3.7m* Loss $7m? Loss: $1m subsidy Profit Profit* 1977 Profit Profit $2m subsidy Profit ''Mixed but satisfactory''* 1978 Profit Profit $2m subsidy Profit Loss 1979 Profit* Profit $2m subsidy Net loss* Loss* 1980 Loss* Profit* $2m subsidy Loss? Loss* 1981 Profit* Profit* $2.3m subsidy Profit* Loss?? 1982 Loss Profit $2.3m subsidy Profit Loss * Performance adversely affected by strikes acknowledged. Source: Australian National Line Annual Reports. Senator HAMER —The great proportion of our coastal trade is conducted either by BHP or the ANL in tankers and bulk carriers. I repeat that the kinds of goods carried by tanker and bulk carrier cannot economically or efficiently be conveyed by other forms of transport. It is the non-bulk trade which is a matter of concern. There is not much of it and most of it is between Tasmania and the mainland. As I will point out later, that is the uneconomic area of coastal trade for the ANL and the Federal Government. Senator Archer —And Tasmanians. Senator HAMER —And for Tasmanians, as my colleague Senator Archer points out. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing Australian domestic trade by commodity and mode. Leave granted. The table read as follows- ESTIMATED AUSTRALIAN FREIGHT TONNAGE BY COMMODITY AND MODE 1978-79 (million tonnes) Domestic freight Commodity Road Rail Sea Air Total Govt. Non-Govt. Bulk Liquids 51 3 . . 19 . . 73 Coal and Coke 39 46 7 2 . . 94 Iron Ore 1 1 80 8 . . 90 Other Minerals (b) 293 19 9 10 . . 331 Grain 38 12 . . 0.1 . . 50 Other bulk solids 76 4 19 (c) 2 . . 101 Non-bulk solids (d) 415 25 (f) . . 7 0.27 447 TOTAL (e) 913 111 (f) 114 47 0.27 1,186 Notes: (a) Scheduled operators only, (b) Includes sand and gravel, (c) Sugar cane, (d) Includes iron and steel, (e) Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding, (f) Figures overstated because double counting occurs where freight is transferred between or within railway systems. Source: Bureau of Transport Economics (1981) Outlook for Australia Transport 1981 (Canberra AGPS). Senator HAMER —The second point in the Government's five-point plan for the ANL is to streamline its management. In the 1970s the ANL was grossly overmanaged. Not only were there too many crew members but also there were far too many head office staff. I have been told that the head office staff has been cut by 20 per cent, but from the figures provided in ANL reports it is very difficult to verify that. If it were true that there were cuts in 1981 there are ominous signs in 1982 that numbers in administration are on the rampaging increase rather than showing any consistent decline. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing terminal technical and administration personnel numbers in the ANL over the last few years. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 4 ANL: PERMANENT STAFFING LEVELS AT 30 JUNE: TERMINAL AND ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 Terminal staff (Superintentant and Assistants 283 272 238 169 135 126 122 110 Waterside workers 632 627 592 504 464 . . . . . . Clerks 17 19 13 12 11 . . . . . . Watchmen 30 30 33 22 24 . . . . . . Painters and Dockers 46 47 47 52 51 47 48 48 Storemen 9 9 9 9 10 11 11 11 Technical, Marketing, Administration 621 576 573 570 606 579 516 492 Total 1,638 1,580 1,505 1,338 1,301 Senator HAMER —This Bill proposes a restructing of the Australian Shipping Commission and allows for a part time chairman and a chief executive officer. The latter, the chief executive officer, is the crucial appointment because he will be the head of the executive and a member of the Commission. It will be up to him to rationalise staff structures within the ANL so it will operate with comparable commercial staff levels. At present, staff numbers in the ANL are such that no commercial operation could possibly tolerate the number of staff employed in ANL management. I suppose these new arrangements for the ANL are sensible if the Government is to remain in a business it should be out of. The third point in the five-point plan is aimed at improving the industrial relations climate. ANL ships are still grossly over-manned. On any given vessel the ANL would have the biggest crews in the world. What is more, these larger crews do less work than the smaller crews on comparable overseas vessesl. A typical example is an identical ship manned on Australian scales, British scales and Scandinavian scales. There would be 37 crew members on the ANL ship, 33 on the British ship and 28 on the Scandinavian ship. I repeat: The larger Australian crews do less work than the smaller crews on the Scandinavian ships and, therefore, more has to be done by dockyard repair people. Not only are the wages high on the Australian ships and there are what are called 'more generous working conditions', which means crews do less work and the work they do not do has to be done by someone else, but also most Australian ships work a two-crew system whereby crews work 26 weeks a year, that is, six months on and six months off. A typical Scandinavian ship operates on a two-voyage on, one-voyage off system so that crews work 34 to 35 weeks a year. I do not think that anyone can say that the working conditions on Scandinavian ships are unreasonable. All this results in greater requirements of personnel. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing ANL sea-going personnel since 1975. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 4A ANL: Permanent Staffing Levels at 30 June: Seagoing Personnel 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 Masters 66 61 62 59 60 66 65 65 Chief Engineers 69 69 66 71 60 65 71 62 Deck Officers 225 232 220 228 213 218 217 192 Engineering Officers 391 351 369 366 391 397 388 355 Apprentice Deck Officers 54 51 49 39 55 49 49 41 Apprentice Engineering Officers 56 52 51 48 53 51 45 39 Stewards and Cooks 498 439 426 464 477 478 547 s. 381 c. 183 Seamen 900 789 789 775 756 715 786 757 Shipwrights 40 40 38 35 35 38 37 41 Pursers 4 . . 3 3 4 4 4 5 Total 2,303 2,084 2,073 2,088 2,104 2,081 2,209 2,121 Senator HAMER —One of my worries about the Crawford report when it was tabled last year was that people tended to talk in crew numbers as if that was the only problem. What we must look at is total crew costs including the two items I have just mentioned-how much or how little work crews do, shipboard maintenance and so on-and how many crews are needed to run a ship throughout the year. We seem to be moving with glacial slowness towards some reduction in the numbers of crew members on board each ship, but the problems of having six unions and demarcation disputes and skill limitations because of the separate unions make this a very slow process. For instance, there are eight cooks, stewards and crew attendants for a crew of 37. The reduction in any or all of the crew categories depends on negotiations and agreements by all of the unions involved. I have said here before and I repeat it now that there is an urgent need for an amalgamation of those six unions so that more sensible and economic crew arrangements and cross training of crew members might be developed in this country. However, I do not think that we want to get too carried away with how much crew reduction will save in overall freight costs. We might be able to make savings of perhaps 20 per cent in our crew costs, but it will take some time for this to be reflected in the decreased capital costs of new ships and the effects on running costs overall will be of the order of only 4 per cent or 5 per cent. This is still a saving worth making because shippers, and ultimately the community, pay this increased cost. It will not make a permanent turnaround in the economic efficiency of our coastal shipping. The fourth point in the Minister's plan is to make ANL more commercial by freeing it from bureaucratic interference in its day to day running. I agree with this, although the way to make ANL truly commercial is for the Government to sell it. But while it remains the property of the Government we must see that there is proper reporting to the owners, that is, the people of Australia and this Parliament as their representatives. The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has done a great deal of work in this area. But I do not think it would claim that the arrangements are at all satisfactory for the parliamentary supervision of government commercial bodies. The Opposition's amendment to be moved at the Committee stage-my colleague Senator Archer mentioned it-makes for better reporting from the ANL to the Parliament. I support this amendment although it is a second best to the Government getting out of this sort of operation which it is peculiarly ill-fitted to conduct. The fifth point in the Minister's plan is to have a conducive climate for further growth in shipping. I am all for this as long as the growth is economic growth and not forced uneconomic growth. I have discussed already the problem of crew costs as opposed to crew numbers. I know that there will be further legislation to give effect to the recommendations for the accelerated depreciation allowance contained in the Crawford report. I will reserve judgment on that issue until I see what the legislation entails. If we are looking to our shipping as a means of improving transport within Australia, we have to be very clear what the economic benefits would be to the whole of Australian business and industry. If we are looking at overseas trade we have to be very clear we are not imposing a cost on the whole of the Australian community through increased depreciation allowances merely to featherbed a badly run industry. I turn now to the decline in the Australian coastal shipping trade. Even in the subsidised Tasmanian trade, the most astonishing things seem to be transported by air because of the inefficiency of our coastal shipping. The first point we must consider is the competitiveness of coastal liner shipping with other forms of transport. I leave bulk carriers out of the discussions. Bulk goods will continue to be moved by sea as the only sensible way to move them. But for coastal liner services there are some serious problems in improving the competitiveness of our shipping. Road and rail transport services are at least 100 times more frequent than the shipping services. The road and rail services are faster. The shippers can identify their cargo much more clearly with the road or rail carrier who is conveying it. Shippers believe there is a much higher reliability of goods reaching their destination. Road transport provides a shipper with a door to door service whereas sea transport involves other forms of transport as well as ships. Every time the cargo changes its mode of transport there are additional costs and the possibility of loss and pilfering. If these disadvantages are not offset there will not be any coastal liner business. It has already diminished considerably this year as the latest report shows. The advantages of road and rail-I have mentioned matters such as the reliability and the identification of cargo and the avoidance of change of mode of transport-could and should be offset by ships being able to move goods more economically. But do they as far as the Australian coastal trade is concerned? Is our coastal liner shipping economic at present? I have mentioned already the increased costs through overmanning. I should mention also the very high costs of our inefficient ports which will have to be made at least adequate if we want to have a viable coastal shipping system. There is also the question of better depreciation allowances for the capital involved in coastal shipping to consider. Those two factors alone-reducing the crew costs and improving depreciation allowances-do not seem likely to reduce the cost of coastal shipping by more than about 10 per cent. Would such a reduction of 10 per cent in shipping costs be enough to improve the competitiveness of our coastal shipping in view of the disadvantages of using ships as compared to road or rail? I suspect not. That certainly seems to be the view of shippers. The cost advantage of coastal liner shipping just is not sufficient to overcome the other disadvantages. Perhaps we should look instead to see whether the cost competition between the various transport modes is fair. Are not subsidies built into road and rail transport while sea transport is required to pay its full costs? I think it is fair to say that cost recovery from shipping is 100 per cent; that is, the services provided by the Government-lighthouses, port facilities and so on-are fully recovered from the people who ship their cargoes by sea, with the exception of course of the overt and deliberate subsidy for services to Tasmania and Darwin. I am leaving these out of the discussion for the moment. Senator Watson —What about the subsidies on services to Tasmania? Senator HAMER —I will come to the subsidy to Tasmania in a moment. Although there is full cost recovery for shipping services, this full cost recovery is certainly not true for rail transport, which has a heavy built-in Government subsidy. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the Government subsidy to offset the operating losses of Australian National Railways. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS Government subsidy to offset operating losses* $m 1977-78 63.6 1978-79 63.8 1979-80 58.1 1980-81 56.0 1981-82 70.4 1982-83 106.0 1983-84 (Appropriated) 85.0 * Including Government assistance for interest costs. Source: Budget Papers. Senator HAMER —The Senate is debating the Australian National Railways Bills cognately with this Bill and I will leave further comments on railways to my colleagues. Full cost recovery for governments is also not true for road transport. The annual expenditure on roads in recent years has exceeded the yield from fuel taxes, vehicle registration and drivers licence fees by 30 per cent. Damage to road surfaces accelerates with heavy axle loads. Cars and other light vehicles do virtually no damage to road surfaces but heavy vehicles do damage well beyond the proportion of higher fees the heavy road transport vehicles pay. It would seem that a rational pricing policy for transport should result in an increase of about 18 per cent in road freights and over 40 per cent in rail freights. Whether such increases would be politically feasible is another question. I am sure we all remember the 1979 truck operators blockade. One would also have to examine the effect on the whole Australian economy of this kind of attempt at rationalisation, making the various modes of transport compete on fair bases, bearing in mind the other objections of shippers to using the coastal trade reliability of service, costs of changing from ship to truck or rail, pilfering and so on. Those objections that they have to using the shipping service are not entirely connected with price. I have left out of this discussion the question of defence, because I have argued before that the present size of our commercial shipping fleet is well in excess of any foreseeable defence requirements. Therefore, I do not consider defence a relevant argument for special subsidies for coastal shipping. Would there be any advantage in eliminating cabotage which effectively excludes foreign ships from the Australian coastal trade? Cabotage was achieved by the 1912 Navigation Act which reserved coastal shipping for vessels licensed by the Australian Government. Licences are granted only for vessels with Australian crew levels and wage and accommodation levels. As no foreign vessels are crazy enough to do this, coastal trade is effectively reserved for Australian flag ships. There is one exception to cabotage. Single voyage permits may be given by the Department of Transport to foreign vessels where there is no suitable Australian vessel available. For example, foreign liquefied petroleum gas ships were used before there was a suitable Australian carrier. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing single voyage permits in the Australian coastal trade in recent years. Leave granted. The table read as follows- SINGLE VOYAGE PERMITS IN AUSTRALIAN COASTAL TRADES, 1978-79 to 1980-81 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Shipments carried Shipments carried Shipments carried Total 82 33,625 84 626,395 107 701 419 of which, crude oil . . . . 9 584,890 9 593,715 LPG 62 28,079 59 34,223 69 45,913 as % of total coastal traffic 0.07 1.3 n.a. Source: Department of Transport (1981) Australian Transport 1980-81 (AGPS: Canberra) Senator HAMER —I return to cabotage. The advantages of opening Australian coastal shipping to foreign ships are obvious. Low cost shipping subsidies by foreign governments, using cheaper labour with shorter holidays, would clearly make shipping more competitive and cheaper but I do not believe that such a proposal is possible, for political and industrial reasons. Finally, I want to talk about the costs to the Government of subsidising Australian coastal shipping. I accept, but I deplore, that it may be necessary for us to continue to subsidise shipping for Tasmania and Darwin, although I think that we should be working to eliminating the problems which make these subsidies necessary. Let me explain briefly why subsidies exist for Tasmania and Darwin. The ANL offers the only regular service between Darwin and the east coast ports. It used to operate monthly sailings in the ingeniously designed Darwin Trader. Nowadays that ship operates in the trans-Tasman trade and the Townsville Trader operates in and out of Darwin. In 1979 the then Minister was advised by the ANL to remove the service from Darwin because it was uneconomic. In 1980, temporary-I stress temporary-federal financial assistance was provided for this service to cover losses. Since then the temporary assistance has continued and has even increased. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the Budget items relating to the Darwin shipping service provided by ANL . Leave granted. The table read as follows- Subsidy for the Darwin/East Coast Service ($000) Year Appropriated Expended 1980/1 1,500 1500 1981/2 1,500 1500 1982/3 1,500 1500 1983/4 2,000 n.a. Source: Budget papers. Senator HAMER —Honourable senators will observe from this table that the subsidy has increased in this financial year to $2m. From the annual report of the Australian National Line tabled today, it will be clear that this subsidy will not go very far towards covering the losses incurred in the Darwin service. It suggests that the loss will be about $2.5m. Why should this service continue at such enormous cost? The only answer is a political one. There is no economic reason why the Government should continue to subsidise the Darwin shipping trade to the tune of $2m. The service is intrinsically unprofitable. The ANL would like to withdraw its service; only the subsidy restrains it. In the case of Tasmania, the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme was introduced by the Commonwealth Government in 1976 because there were no, and obviously cannot be, road or rail links between Tasmania and the mainland. The report of the Nimmo Commission of Inquiry into Transport to and from Tasmania recommended that a maritime route to Tasmania be equated with a similar distance land route on the mainland and a subsidy provided which had the effect of equalising the sea route with a comparable land route. That sounds very fine in principle but there are a number of problems with the scheme and some very serious criticisms have been levelled at it, which I am sure most of my colleagues from Tasmania would accept. First, sea routes are not the same as land routes. The unit cost of travel by sea falls sharply with distance so that longer hauls from Tasmania to Adelaide or Sydney are, in fact, over-subsidised. Secondly, the scheme provides no incentive to shipping companies to become more efficient and reduce their costs. The scheme reduces their expenses but provides no incentive to improve profits. Thirdly, Tasmanian shipping is expensive because there are too many ports, and Tasmania continues to support all these ports because anyone who recommends a premier port is quickly outvoted by the others. Fourthly, subsidies seem to invite scandals. One scandal involved peas which were shipped on a discount rate but the subsidy was paid on the full freight rate. The ANL seems to charge excessively because it has a monopoly of the trade and rips off the shippers between Tasmania and the mainland. Fifthly, as a result of the freight subsidy there is excess capacity on the Tasmanian route. There are 11 ships operating on the route whereas it is possible for all Tasmanian trade to be efficiently accommodated in a two ship service. All of this, in my view, confirms my earlier statement: The Government should not be in the business of shipping. Our coastal trade was profitable up to this year, but only with heavy government subsidies. It would be run more economically and more effectively and at less cost to the consumer if the Government got right out of it. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.00) —The Australian Democrats will support the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill, the Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill, the Australian National Railways Commission Bill and the Australian National Railways Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. Despite the fact that we do have some reservations in certain areas, we see them as being a very worthwhile step forward in giving not only autonomy but, far more importantly, much more responsibility, to the respective bodies in the planning and conduct of the national rail and national shipping areas. Taking the Bills individually, the Bill concerning the Railways Commission has a couple of problem areas for us. We acknowledge that the Commission will have additional autonomy. It will report to the Minister for Transport on its operations or on any other information that the Minister requires. I understand that in turn it will report through the Minister to the Parliament in the normal course of events. As a statutory body, it is my understanding that that is a requirement. The Committee on which I serve-the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations-investigates any facets of the reports of statutory bodies after, of course, they have been perused and commented on by the Senate as well as the House of Representatives. The setting of targets by each of these bodies is a desirable move. I am sure that in the past they have worked to some sort of short term and long term plan. But the setting of and agreeing on financial targets, general management targets, is an interesting aspect introduced into the legislation, which ensures that they work to proper managerial requirements. The Parliament, as a result of this measure, does not necessarily control the National Railways Commission in the direct sense in its day to day operations. In fact, it tends to minimise ministerial interference. But the Minister still has the power and the authority to direct the Commission, with his reasons for direction being placed before the Parliament. One of the things that create a little uncertainty, the Prices Surveillance Authority Bill having now been passed, is the fact that the Minister may determine the principles for charge setting. This may clash with the authority of the PSA, particularly if one assumes that being a major price factor in this country's economy, the Treasurer might feel inclined to keep the railways' operations under constant surveillance. We are not sure what will be the effect of two Ministers directing their respective authorities to survey the pricing principles that are being set or being used. We see potential problems in that regard. It would help if the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) were to give us an indication of what would happen in the event of both Ministers wanting to poke their fingers into this area. I think it is important, if the Australian National Railways Commission is to function as a competitive body-it is competing, if not with other railways, certainly with other modes of transport-for it to have a greater degree of autonomy over its pricing and for it to answer not only to its own Minister, but to a prices surveillance authority which is more of a market-place authority than that controlled by the Minister who has responsibility for the profitability of the enterprise. A difficulty that we are experiencing-it is interesting to note that it has been raised in another area-concerns clause 74 of the Bill which reads: Notwithstanding any law of a State or Territory to the contrary, the Commission is not required to fence, or to maintain any fence erected in connection with, any railway operated by it. This clause replaces the previous section 87 of the Act, which read: The Commission shall not, unless the Minister so directs, be required to fence any portion of the railways, but it may erect and maintain such fences in connection therewith as it thinks proper. I suppose it may depend on the reading of the new clause. But my reading of it indicates that from now on it will not be the responsibility of the Commission to erect or maintain fences alongside any railway line operated by the Commission. If that is the case, it will create havoc across Australia wherever the Commission has railway lines, because suddenly there will be no responsibility for existing fences or for newly required fences. If I have misinterpreted that clause, I believe it is important for the Senate to have an interpretation, an assurance or whatever we can glean from the Minister, that the Commission is not precluded from erecting or maintaining fences under this new lgislation. It was not precluded under the previous legislation and we can see no reason for its being precluded from erecting or maintaining fences under the new legislation. I turn to the Australian National Line, the shipping area. Again, it is a good step forward in ensuring that under this legislation corporate planning will be effected, will be responsible to the Minister, and that the Australian Shipping Commission will develop its policies and report to the Minister every 12 months on those policies. I would like to have an assurance from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs who is at the table, that the reporting to the Minister will be followed by the tabling of that report in the Parliament in the normal way and that the Parliament will have an opportunity each year to review the activities of ANL. Again, I think that as this body is being established more and more as an independent, more autonomous and more competitive organisation, it is important that the Parliament be informed, but not necessarily be in direct control; nor should the Minister be in direct day to day control. The officers of the Commission should get on with the job and if they are not capable of doing so, they should be replaced by those who are capable of competing profitably in an open market. Price setting again comes into that category. If they are to compete, they need to have the ability-given certain guidelines-to control prices, to set prices and, as I said earlier in talking about the Railways Commission, to have the overview, if it is needed, of the Prices Surveillance Authority. I turn my attention now to the Inter-State Commission, which has had a very chequered history since 1912 when it first commenced to operate. It is interesting to note, as has been mentioned earlier, that it is a requirement of the Constitution-certainly, it is embraced and suggested by the Constitution- that there be such an Inter-State Commission. When it was introduced legislatively in 1912 it operated for three years. But a High Court challenge in 1915 to the exercise of the judicial powers of the ISC meant that it was then allowed to lapse until in 1975 an Act was passed in this Parliament, but not proclaimed until 27 September this year. This Bill picks up the principles of that legislation and ensures that we have an effective Inter-State Commission. It will still be left to the Government to give it the tasks and to ensure that it does play a role in ensuring that we do have free and open trade, that we do not have the sorts of problems that are created by those, particularly at a State level, who would interfere with the free trade between the States and who would interfere with the ability of organisations to operate internationally on the best possible terms. One of the difficulties that we envisage as a result of this legislation is that there is potential for duplication with the Bureau of Transport Economics, with the Transport Industries Advisory Council, with the Industries Assistance Commission and with the Trade Practices Commission. But I guess there will be a settling down process, and if there is overlapping nature will take its path and the role for the Inter-State Commission will ultimately be more accurately defined. It has only an advisory capacity and that is a safeguard. It means it will not be rampaging around the country upsetting State Premiers and others and its recommendations would need to be put into legislation if they were acceptable to this Parliament. Of course, there is the safeguard of the Constitution to prevent the Parliament from going overboard. The Commission may function just from time to time, but it certainly has the potential for an ongoing role. I think it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate whether he sees it having an ongoing role and whether he believes it would be better for it to have such a role rather than be an ad hoc operation. I think one of the things the Commission would need to be concerned with is the tendency towards increasing centralisation. It is to be hoped that that is not going to be one of its objectives. In our view, its objective is to smooth the path for easy co-operation rather than to increase centralisation. The role of the Inter-State Commission in investigating the causes and effects of industrial disputes is something that I would like to see it take on board. I think that for far too long the Commonwealth Government has turned its back on industrial disputes which affect States other than the State in which the dispute arises. For instance, it is all very well for the airline pilots to say 'Let's close down Canberra and sort out these politicians', but that does have an effect on other States, not just on the people of the Australian Capital Territory. I think one of the potential functions of this body will be to look at that sort of dispute, to look at the effects a local flare-up in the New South Wales railways could have across the Australian mainland, and try to judge whether there are alternative methods of ensuring, where practicable, that such disputes do not arise to the point that they affect States other than the State which is directly concerned with the dispute in question. In general, the Australian Democrats, as I indicated earlier, support this package of Bills. We believe that it is a step in the direction of making the bodies more autonomous, more responsible and therefore giving them not only the right and the power but also the requirement to plan and to function as corporate bodies would function under similar circumstances. We commend the Bills. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.15) —I wish to say a few words about the Inter- State Commission Amendment Bill 1983, which amends the Inter-State Commission Act 1975. I appreciate that we are not able to canvass the provisions of the principal Act, although in reality we are debating the matter a second time. The principal Act was passed in this Parliament in 1975; however, it came into operation on only 27 September of this year. So this gives us, in this chamber, an opportunity of expressing a view about what is not a potential operation of the Inter-State Commission but what is likely to be an actual operation of the Commission. Because the Government has indicated that the first task of the Commission will be the investigation of transport to and from Tasmania as it relates to the freight equalisation scheme, of course it is important for honourable senators from Tasmania to be aware of the possibility of problems which the Commission may confront and which may result from its work. Let us hope it can recommend the tidying up of certain of the anomalies and problems that are being experienced in the freight equalisation scheme. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), in his second reading speech, said: The Commission we shall establish will in fact investigate and advise government on allegations of discriminatory practices, inequalities, inefficiencies and anomalies in interstate transport. Later on he said: The . . . Commission will be required to carry out wide ranging investigations covering economic, social, institutional and legal-constitutional issues affecting interstate transport. Mr Deputy President, in your contribution you referred to shipping to and from Tasmania, which of course is all part and parcel of a consideration of freight equalisation. You mentioned the existence of a number of ports in Tasmania. It may be that the Inter-State Commission could suggest that in its terms, as listed by the Minister, this an inefficiency. But it also has the responsibility to carry out wide ranging investigations covering the economic, social, institutional and legal-constitutional issues affecting interstate transport. Clearly, a number of people in Tasmania consider that the existence of viable ports throughout the length and breath of the State is a matter of considerable social concern for the State of Tasmania. How much weight, for example, will the Inter-State Commission give to that view? How will it balance that against its possible consideration of the inefficiencies that may derive from the fact that there are these viable ports in various parts of Tasmania? What weight will the Commission give to the desire amongst many Tasmanians to see decentralisation in practice. What weight will it give to the principle of subsidiarity? These are all questions which have not been answered. Perhaps they have not been addressed or asked until this stage. Maybe it is not possible for the Minister to answer them. Maybe that is what the establishment of the Inter-State Commission is all about. If that is so, it is very important to ensure that the final balanced judgment is made by the elected representatives of the people. I notice that this Bill does not seek to amend the principal Act in a way that I believe it should, and that is to give more say to a State parliament and a State government in respect of decisions that may flow from considerations undertaken by the Inter-State Commission. I would have thought it would have been in the interests of the upkeep of constitutional responsibility for reports of the Inter-State Commission to be forwarded, immediately on receipt by the Commonwealth Minister for Transport, to the relevant State Ministers for Transport for tabling in the relevant State parliaments. After all, we are dealing with a commission which was envisaged and provided for in the Constitution. Senator Evans mentioned a moment ago that perhaps the Commission might give consideration to questions of industrial disputes which have effect beyond the borders of one State. This is a matter on which, of course, the Commission would have to tread very warily. After all, the provisions of section 51 (xxxv) of the Constitution are clear. They provide for the establishment of machinery for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State. The Parliament has determined that that machinery will be established in the form of, for example, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. So just how far is it intended that the Inter-State Commission will cut across the powers and the responsibilities of bodies such as the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the State industrial tribunals, the Industries Assistance Commission, the National Companies and Securities Commission and the price surveillance and trade practices areas? These are questions that, in my view at least, really have not been adequately addressed in the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes ). It may well be that we will have some clarification from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) when he responds at the end of the second reading stage or during the Committee stage. The other aspect, of course, is the question of exclusions. The exclusions contained in the Bill include matters relating to the former Airlines Agreement, the new 1981 Airlines Agreement and the related Independent Air Fares Committee Act. However, the Minister says that as domestic air freight is no longer regulated through the Airlines Agreement it will now come within the ambit of the Inter-State Commission. It is going to be pretty awkward for the Inter-State Commission to consider what is justifiable and what is not justifiable in the carriage of air freight when it cannot see the picture as a whole. I know, and those who were on the Senate Select Committee on Passenger Fares and Services to and from Tasmania know, that a large volume of freight is carried on regular airline passenger services to and from Tasmania. It is all very well for me to pick holes in something that has been prepared with thought and recommendations have been made. I do not want to be negative about this because it may well be that the Inter-State Commission is the body that is required to have the ongoing responsibility for surveillance of all of these matters. My worry, however, is that this arrangement could become a bureaucratic nightmare, not only to transporters but also to manufacturers, miners and business generally. In particular it could be somewhat of a nightmare to those who are charged with responsibilities in the various States for areas that are likely to be covered by the Inter-State Commission. Therefore, I would like to know from the Government what steps have been taken to ensure that the Commission has appointed to it people who not only have the expertise that is mentioned in Part II of the principal Act to investigate such things as the freight equalisation scheme but also have empathy with and understanding of the geographical areas that are under consideration. Mr Deputy President, I will not canvass the other matters that have been raised, in particular those raised by your good self, because that can remain for a later time-probably the occasion of the presentation to the Parliament of the first report of the Inter-State Commission will be that time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.29) —The four Bills that the Senate is debating are part of the Government's total approach to the transport problems that exist in this country. The Government is looking to see that our transport industry not only is commercially viable and efficient but also is able to carry out in a cost effective way its basic role in a modern economy. Of course, to do that effectively we need and we recognise the role that has to be played by both the public and private sectors. The Government believes that this package of Bills will have the effect of meeting those objectives. We are confident that the passage of the Bills through the Senate will enable a great improvement to be made to the efficiency of our transport industries throughout Australia, not in a dictatorial, bureaucratic or authoritarian way but through consultation with the States. That is where the responsibility lies for a big portion of the public transport sector. Other publicly owned transport instrumentalities are associated with the Commonwealth. So we are looking for co-operation, consultation and some understanding of the role that needs to be played by the two sectors. It has to be accepted that transport has come a long way since Federation. At the time when the Constitution was written people could never have envisaged the great changes that would come across the transport system or the role that private transportation would play in a modern economy. We did not envisage and could not have envisaged the national highway system which we now have and which we are still trying to improve. The purpose of the legislation is to take all these matters into account in a system based on co-operation and consultation with all the authorities, the State governments, the private sector entrepreneurs and the instrumentalities that have been established at the Commonwealth level over the years. It was suggested that I should sum up in about 10 minutes the Government's position. In the wide-ranging debate that has taken place that is rather a tall order. I am required to answer a number of questions which I believe flow from some confusion about what is the Government' s intention in the legislation. I remind the Senate that the Inter-State Commission has been around for a very long number of years. In the years that have elapsed since the Constitution was written it has not been effective. There are probably good reasons for that, such as the occurrence of World War II. We should look at the various ideological trends that exist within Australian political thought. Conservative governments have tried on at least two occasions to resuscitate and make more effective the Inter-State Commission. A royal commission looked at transport problems in 1929 and called for the reintroduction of the Commission. In 1959 a joint parliamentary committee saw the need to reactivate the Inter-State Commission. The need for such an investigatory body was seen by all shades of political opinion in the Parliament. The Nimmo Commission of Inquiry into Transport to and from Tasmania, as Tasmanian senators have said, inquired into the basic problems of transportation in regard to that State. A Senate standing committee also suggested the reconstitution of the ISC. There is an abundance of empirical evidence to show that the Government is not on some wild capricious enterprise but that rather it is taking into account all the non-partisan evidence of the need to reactivate and reconstitute this body and give it new vigour. Similarly, the Government has, in its few brief months in office, injected funds into the Australian National Line. It considered that the under- capitalisation of that organisation was affecting its efficiency and its competitive role, which was referred to in the debate. The important role that the Australian National Railways plays in our modern transport system has also been referred to in debates in times past. The Government has the concept that the legislation will allow it in consultation, not confrontation, to reach a rational decision on all aspects of the transport industry. That, of course, includes transport costs. We hear a great deal in debates in the Parliament about the need to reduce unit costs of production. Rarely is the need to reduce the cost of services referred to and transport, of course, assumes an important role in that respect. So the Government, whilst not denying the need to have a more efficient industry, industrial and commercial based, also recognises the need to apply the same principles to transportation. In a country as large and as diverse as Australia, in a country in which we have public and private competition and regulation, it must surely be accepted that we do not necessarily have a cost effective transport industry. The role of the Inter- State Commission is not to impose its will-it was never intended that it would have that role-but rather to have an investigatory, advisory and consultative role to highlight some of the deficiencies that clearly exist in the transport system in Australia. I am sure that honourable senators who have indicated general support for the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill will be aware that the Bill is an essential ingredient in the decision of the Government not only to make funds available but also to establish a five-point plan to arrest the decline that has been apparent in the ANL for some time. It will provide the Commission with more commercial freedom, allow it to become more market oriented and free it from bureaucratic restraints. One would expect, therefore, that honourable senators in the Opposition would be highly delighted with that approach because it is part of the Opposition's day to day rhetoric that we hear in debates in the Parliament. With the injection of $90m in capital the Government is putting its money where its mouth is. It has undertaken initiatives to seek the co-operation of the seagoing unions and the Commission has generally accepted the brief to establish a more efficient organisation based on productivity and competitiveness. We believe the legislation we are asking the Senate to approve will see a revitalisation of the Commission itself. That is our confidence, our hope and our objective. Obviously, these are only the first steps to improving the Commission's fortunes. Continued co-operation, therefore, will be sought from all those interested in the future of the Commission. We believe the Commission will be well placed to take advantage of any improvement in world trading. Of course, it has a role, as has been suggested in the debate, in that respect. I now turn to the Australian National Railways Commission Bill. The Federal Government, quite clearly, has a major interest in improving the efficiency of railways in Australia's national transport system. We think the performance of our railways can be improved by the introduction of a more flexible and commercial management system and a more consistent national transport policy, which the Government believes is inherent in the legislation that is being debated. It provides the Commonwealth Railways-Australian National-with the flexibility to operate as a commercial organisation while retaining proper accountability to Parliament. Who would challenge that concept? Of course, it must be said that we desire, at all times, to have these instrumentalities accountable to Parliament. The new legislation provides Australian National with a modern legislative charter which clearly defines its powers and removes many of the anachronisms. The legislation naturally flows from learning from the deficiencies of yesterday. At the same time, the Government expects Australian National to be dynamic and expansive in its approach and to look for new traffic in extending its business operations. We need to take a national view of Australian railways because with such adequate investment and improved efficiency we believe the Australian railways will play an essential role in the development of Australia for the rest of this century and beyond. The Government sees the Inter-State Commission as an important step in fulfilling an election commitment. We believe that it will be a significant instrument in the Government's policy for developing a rational, efficient, national transport system and will provide a means of investigating discriminatory practices-I do not think any honourable senator can deny that-and preferential practices that do exist in the conduct of interstate transport. But , as I pointed out, it has no regulatory or judicial powers and will not interfere in matters unrelated to interstate transport. But, certainly, it will have a role to play in looking at interstate transport. No existing permanent body is empowered to conduct the breadth of investigation required to assist the Government in its national transport goals. The provision for such a body is made quite explicit in our Constitution. Therefore, we see the ISC as part of our Federal system. It is not a dominant part, but part of a system which is based on co-operative federalism-a phrase that we have heard at great length over the years. It will have the authority and the independence necessary to perform this vital role. In the few moments that I have left, I will deal with some of the points that we raised in the debate. Senator Archer understandably raised a number of points that he felt needed some clarification. He pointed out that he saw the ISC as being very limited in its charter. He was critical of the fact that the airlines agreement was not to receive attention, that the ISC could not initiate its own inquiries and could not look into overseas transport. The honourable senator also said that in doing his homework on the Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill he found in the Press release of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and the Department's information sheets that there was very little detail of what the ISC was going to do. He drew attention to what clearly is a disadvantage which exists in Tasmania with transport. I remind Senator Archer that the very powers that he mentioned as being deficient in the legislation were the powers that were removed from the Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill 1975 by the very same coalition Government which is responsible for the contribution of members of the Opposition today. The honourbale senator must be reminded that once legislaton is passed, the ISC is established and reference is made to the Commission, details will then be made available. I assure the honourable senator that all the different parties that I have referred to in the debate will be consulted. Senator Archer has foreshadowed amendments that he will move in the Committee of the Whole. I might as well deal with this matter now to save dealing with it later. It has to be said that the Government cannot accept the amendments even though I can appreciate that there has been some change in the wording of the amendments proposed to be moved in the Senate compared with the amendments which were moved in the House of Representatives. The honourable senator must appreciate that to make information available to the Parliament, which has been suggested in the amendments, would be commercially very damaging to the Australian National Line. If that information is left out of the information which is provided to the Parliament, I am advised that it would not be of much value. It is not just a question of the Minister having the power to delete certain portions of that information. The document would become fairly unimportant and unintelligible if the deletions were made and if it were just left to the whim of the Minister of the day. I point out to the Senate also that, if we were to adopt the amendments, it would have the effect of delaying the legislation certainly until the last week in February. I am advised that this would be very detrimental to the operations of the ANL, would be very detrimental to the establishment of the ISC and certainly will not assist the aims of government, which are to get on with the job concerning transport costs and transport efficiencies. For those reasons, we will oppose the amendments in the Committee of the Whole. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.47) —I have listened to what the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has had to say, but I will still proceed with my amendments. These amendments were moved in another form in the other chamber. The objection was only on the basis that the disclosure of certain items may have an adverse effect on the financial interests of the Inter-State Commission, that is, on intimate operating matters. I believe that my amendment to this Bill takes that into account quite adequately. I believe it should attract support not only from the Government but also from the Commission. I think it would be quite right for the Commission to appreciate the assistance that this could give it, as it should give assistance to the Government at the same time. We have been advised in the speeches that have been made and in the provisions of the Inter-State Commission Bill that the organisation is to become more professional and more commercial. I believe that the production of commercial information is not unreasonable. I will not be looking for further information than what we obtain from other commercial organisations. I believe that it is desirable to have better figures and better trading and operating information than is currently available. The Commission, with its new commercial image, will be able to perform any role and will welcome an addition to the program it has at the moment. Therefore, I move: Page 13, sub-clause 8 (1), at end of proposed new section 19B, add the following sub-sections: '(6) The Minister shall cause a copy of every report furnished to him by the commission under sub-section (3) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is received by him. (7) Notwithstanding sub-section (6), if the Minister is of the opinion that a report furnished to him by the Commission under sub-section (3) contains a matter the disclosure of which would have a substantial adverse effect on the financial interests of the Commission, the Minister shall cause the report to be amended to exclude the matter, and shall cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is received by him, the report as amended, together with a statement that the report has been amended in accordance with this sub-section.' Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.49) —I think I indicated in the second reading debate that the Government will oppose this amendment. We believe that we are dealing with a commercial enterprise which is accountable to the Parliament; it is also accountable to the Minister. It would be regressive to put it into a disadvantaged position by adopting the amendment. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a third time. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.53) —I move: Page 14, clause 22, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clauses: '(6) The Minister shall cause a copy of every report furnished to him by the Commission under sub-section (3) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is received by him. (7) Notwithstanding sub-section (6), if the Minister is of the opinion that a report furnished to him by the Commission under sub-section (3) contains a matter the disclosure of which would have a substantial adverse effect on the financial interests of the Commission, the Minister shall cause the report to be amended to exclude the matter, and shall cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is received by him, the report as amended, together with a statement that the report has been amended in accordance with this sub-section.'. This amendment is identical to that which I moved in relation to the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill. I move it with the same argument and, I guess, the same result. Amendment negatived. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.53) —I gave an undertaking to a constitutent to raise two questions. Both of these questions have been raised in other forums. The constituent is Mr Partridge from Launceston who has taken quite an interest in Australian National. He asked that separate statistics be included in the annual report on a State basis and as to cause and, secondly, whether it would be possible to have separate accounting for the various activities of Australian National. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.54) —It would be inopportune if we let this occasion go by without saying that all those who have referred to Australian National today could well receive nasty letters from a certain ex-senator from South Australia who would not have approved. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.55) —I repeat my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). He may now have had an opportunity to compare the old legislation, the Commonwealth National Railways Act, with the new legislation, the Australian National Railways Commission Bill which we are now considering. Section 87 of the old Act says: The Commissioner shall not, unless the Minister so directs, be required to fence any portion of the railways, but he may erect and maintain such fences in connection therewith as he thinks proper. The Bill before us simply says: Notwithstanding any law of a State or Territory to the contrary, the Commission is not required to fence, or to maintain any fence erected in connection with, any railway operated by it. There is a serious omission in the new Bill. It implies not only that there is no requirement but also that there is no ability to fence railways under the control of the Australian National Railways Commission. I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to the reason for that change if that is a change which is about to be implemented. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.56) —I apologise to Senator Jack Evans for not answering, but I was under some constraints with respect to time. I am advised that nothing in the legislation would prevent the fencing of railways, except the cost involved as most of our railways pass through remote areas. I suppose that Australian National and the Government would take the view, as I hope the Parliament would, that fencing is not needed in those areas which are largely in very remote parts of the Commonwealth. However, where railways run through urban areas, I am advised, Australian National does have a policy of maintaining its fencing. Australian National is prepared to discuss difficulties which arise with particular land owners and, where appropriate, contribute to the cost of maintaining such fencing. In the earlier debate the honourable senator referred to clause 78. I am told that that clause, which concerns penalties for endangering safety, will be invoked only if deliberate action is taken which endangers safety. So, there is an appreciation of the problems which exist. I understand that the legal advice given to Australian National is that a person would not be in contravention of this clause by taking no action. I give the example of a land owner who does not fence a particular property. Whilst we appreciate the honourable senator's concern, the matter has to be looked at from the point of view of cost. If a problem affects a particular area or land owner, that is a matter for negotiation and consultation between the appropriate parties. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.58) —Can I get a little more clarification because the Minister's remarks as they will appear in Hansard will record existing policy before the Bill is passed? Can I have his assurance that that policy with regard to fencing will continue, that nothing will change with regard to the policy on fencing vis-a-vis the Australian National Railways Commission? Senator Gietzelt —I can give that assurance. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 8 December 1983. House of Representatives Message- Message No. 183 MR PRESIDENT, The House of Representatives returns to the Senate the Bill entituled A Bill for an Act to amend the 'Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906', and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has agreed to Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 12 made by the Senate, and has disagreed to Amendment No. 4 , set forth in the annexed Schedule, and for the Reasons shown therein. The House of Representatives desires the reconsideration by the Senate of the Bill in respect of the amendment disagreed to. H. A. JENKINS SPEAKER Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.01) —I move: That the Committee does not insist on the amendment of the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed. If the Committee defeats this motion and if it insists accordingly on the amendment being retained, the effect will be to deny the Government the capacity to spend any money on promoting the referendum campaign; that is, any money over and above the $5m already being allocated for the preparation and distribution of the even-handed Yes and No cases required under the electoral legislation. The effect of defeating this motion would also be, of course, to require the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill to go back to the House of Representatives which does not propose to meet again until after the proposed referendum date, 25 February. The Government has made it clear that for a variety of reasons it and those supporting the Yes case must be able to spend a substantial sum which we have estimated to be $1.25m on the promotion of the Yes case if the referendum is to be worth pursuing. Those reasons are partially set out in the message sent to us from the House of Representatives. They have also been spelt out in some considerable detail in public discussions on this matter over the past few days. I will not burden the Senate with wearisome repetition because the arguments are well known. However, they are essentially as follows: First, the general point is that the No case in that referendum campaign starts with a general advantage when one takes into account the inevitable complexity of the matters and the inevitable degree of apathy so far as voters are concerned on matters which they do not perceive to be immediately and directly related to the government of the country. The way in which voters traditionally respond to any degree of controversy in matters of public life when referendums are concerned tends to be in the form of a No vote. The second point-a more specific one-is that in the context of this referendum campaign the No case has a particular advantage because of the very overtly expressed willingness of Mr Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland to run it as a full election style campaign and the very precisely stated intention of Mr Gray in Tasmania to spend taxpayers money in that State to support the No case, whatever the rationale of the No case may be. There is no doubt that, whether derived solely from Mr Bjelke-Petersen and Mr Gray or whether from other familiar sources in Western Australia, there will be massive No case expenditure in the pivotal State of Western Australia in particular. It is equally the case that unless money is forthcoming from the Federal Treasury to counter that massive expenditure on the No case, targeted particularly as it will no doubt be in Western Australia, there will be no other funds available of the necessary significant scale. The third point is that the particular justification for the Yes campaign expenditure and this case lies in the extraordinarily, by referendum history standards, consensual character of the proposals that are being put forward. As I have said on innumerable occasions, they represent the product of either substantial majority or unanimous support at successive meetings of the Australian Constitutional Convention over the whole period since 1973. They also reflect massive support in this Parliament. It may be that in the case of the Australian Democrats, as they have continually sought to make clear, that in some instances that support for the conduct of a referendum is not to be construed as support for the particular substantive content of the proposal in question. Notwithstanding that, there has been, as the figures amply demonstrate , an overwhelming preponderance of parliamentary support for these proposals. The No case proponents by contrast represent little more than a raggle-taggle rump of the whole body of parliamentarians in this Parliament. Senator Crichton-Browne —That is what has got you into trouble so far, Senator Evans, and it will continue to get you into trouble. Senator GARETH EVANS —To make that point perfectly clear, had I thought that any more decorous an approach to Senator Crichton-Browne would produce any more rational response, I would be a model of charm and grace. Senator Archer —You pompous drip. Senator GARETH EVANS —Pompous what? Senator Archer —Pompous drip! Senator GARETH EVANS —That is better than what I thought the honourable senator said. I thought it was a little more alliterative, but never mind. I cannot, accordingly, ask the honourable senator to withdraw. Senator Peter Baume —It is better than a spoonerism you once used. Senator GARETH EVANS —A shining wit, as Dr Spooner might have said. Senator Peter Baume —I think that is unfortunate, Mr Chairman. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Baume asked for that contribution. I noticed Senator Chipp's description of him the other day as a ball of fire in this place . I revert to the point I was making. The nature and the quality of the opposition is not revealed by the statistics but certainly the quantity is. I seek leave accordingly to have incorporated in Hansard a table demonstrating, amongst other things, that 93.7 per cent of parliamentarians have voted for one reason or another for the Yes case and 6.3 per cent of the whole Parliament has voted against it. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Voting in the Federal Parliament on the 5 Referendum Bills; YES % NO % TOTAL Simultaneous 146 90 16 10 162 Terms 155 95.7 7 4.3 162 Powers 157 96.3 6 3.7 163 Opinions 144 89.4 17 10.6 161 Provisions 154 96.9 5 3.1 159 756 51 807 93.7% 6.3% 100.0% Voting in the Senate on the 5 Referendum Bills; YES % NO % TOTAL Simultaneous 43 78.2 12 21.8 55 Terms 51 92.7 4 7.3 55 Powers 53 94.6 3 5.4 56 Opinions 45 83.3 9 16.7 54 Provisions 50 96.1 2 3.9 52 242 30 272 89.0% 11.00% 100.0% Senator GARETH EVANS —The final point to be made is simply that the amount of expenditure involved, $1.25m, in absolute terms is quite small and in relative terms, by comparison with the cost of referendum conduct itself-$21m-is again very small. Nonetheless, small as it may be, the amount in question is absolutely crucial in our judgment to match the kind of opposition expenditure one can expect from the No case supporters, given in particular the selective way in which that expenditure will undoubtedly be targeted. Senator Walters —Why do you not spend the money on something else instead? Senator GARETH EVANS —I hear the sound of the nightingale but I shall not respond. Against this background the Government decided and yesterday announced the following decision which, of course, has received a certain degree of notoriety in the public prints since that time. The Government's decision was to the following effect: If, when this matter goes to the vote, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats-I do not want to exclude Senator Harradine from this but the decision was in these terms-continue to insist first that the Government can spend nothing on promoting the Yes case or, secondly, that the Government must spend an equal amount on promoting both the Yes and No cases over and above the $5m which the Government is already committed to spending on preparing and distributing the statutory Yes-No pamphlet, the proposed referendums will not proceed on 25 February. That remains the Government's position. There is still time, of course, for a majority of the members of the Senate to accept the Government's position and to appreciate and acknowledge the force and, I hope, the genuineness of the arguments which we are advancing. There is perhaps still time for some kind of compromise proposal to emerge. Many such proposals have been floated in discussions around this place in the last week or so. I believe that at least one was seriously floated as recently as last night. It appears however on the information available to me a few moments ago that there is simply no mood for the accommodation elsewhere in this chamber, certainly not among the Liberal and National parties and, apparently, not now so far as the Australian Democrats are concerned. Finally, more genuinely with sorrow than anger at this stage, I say that if that is so, let the responsibility for the failure of these referendums to proceed at this stage rest squarely upon the shoulders of those who have demonstrated their commitment to constitutional reform in this country as being, notwithstanding a great deal of rhetoric to the contrary, paper thin. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.10) —The Opposition is opposed to the motion that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has moved. The Opposition insists on the amendment which I moved and which the Opposition, the Democrats and Senator Harradine supported last week. The Attorney-General and the Government are asking us to abandon the principle which is stated in that amendment with the rather strange threat that Senator Evans has been conveying to us on behalf of the Government for the last 24 hours or so. But the Opposition is committed to the principle that no money should be expended by the Commonwealth in respect of presentation of the argument either for or against a proposed law other than through the provisions that already exist in the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act or in respect of the matters which have been mentioned in the amendment which specifically excludes the travelling expenses and accommodation expenses of members of parliament who engage in the campaign. For a long time the position under the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act has been that there is to be an even-handed expenditure by the Commonwealth Government in respect of referendums. Under that Act, the Government has the obligation to fund the Yes and No cases. The funding is not based upon any percentage of support for the Yes or No case in the Parliament or anywhere else. It is a fundamental principle. It is a perfectly correct and fair principle that there ought to be equal expenditure of government moneys so that the arguments for and against a proposed change to the Constitution should be available to the electors. This Attorney-General persuaded the Government, in his utter overweaning enthusiasm for his program of constitutional reform, to commit- Senator Collard —Obsession. Senator DURACK —Yes, perhaps that may be so as well. He has persuaded the Government to commit an additional $1.25m to the presentation of the Yes case only and not for the No case. The principle of the Act on which referendum campaigns have been conducted by governments in the past would be subverted by this proposal without any authority of this Parliament and without the funds being included, as they could well have been, in the Appropriation Bills. Had they been so included, the Parliament could at least have had discussions on the matter. That is the point we are discussing, and the Opposition is opposed to any further government funds, other than those that are provided for under the Act and those which parliamentarians will expend if they take part in this campaign, being spent on a referendum campaign. We have not suggested that funds should be provided or that the $1.25m should be equally divided between the Yes and No cases or divided in any other way. Our amendment is confined to the principle that there should not be these sorts of government expenditures. We insist on that amendment and hope that the Senate will insist on it. These sorts of expenditures on presentation of the case in the media are for those who will promote the Yes case-the Party organisations, other organisations, members or others who are concerned in promoting either the Yes case or the No case. The Government's expenditure should be confined as it is in the existing legislation to the Yes and No cases in an even-handed way. The Attorney-General has said that this expenditure is justified because the Yes case would start from scratch and therefore there has to be expenditure of a large sum of money to equalise the chances. I suggest that that is an absurd argument. In fact, there have been successful referendums in the past. As recently as 1977, three out of the four proposals were passed without any government expenditure of this kind promoting them. Indeed, the fourth proposal which was not passed, as Senator Evans told us earlier today, attracted 62 per cent of the total vote. It is really quite absurd and an insult to the Australian electors to suggest that they cannot understand a Yes and No case which is presented to them. They can and they do vote for proposals that they see to be worthwhile. In 1977 the electors accepted three out of the four proposals and 62 per cent supported the fourth proposal. Therefore, all the proposals were supported by a majority of the people; so they can quite well understand. It was not only in 1977 that this occurred. In 1967 the referendum to give this Parliament the power to pass laws with respect to Aboriginal people was passed. That referendum was passed with the overwhelming support of the Australian people. So the Attorney's argument is absurd and is completely refuted by experience of the facts. That is the only argument the Attorney-General uses to justify this totally unjustifiable expenditure of public moneys in a totally unfair way. For those reasons, the Opposition will maintain its views and principles in regard to this matter. If the Government then wants to act like a spoilt child and say, 'Well, we are not going to go on playing the game any longer because we cannot get our way', the responsibility for calling off these referendums is fairly and squarely on the Government and the Attorney-General's head. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.18) —The amendment which has been returned from the House of Representatives deals with a proposition which we discussed last time the Bill was before us. It relates to this Senate's requirement that no money over and above the amount set aside formally be expended. I indicated on behalf of the Democrats at that time that if the Government wished to expend additional moneys we would support it, provided those moneys were spent in an even-handed fashion. The reason for taking that view is that there is a reasonable case for saying that the presentation of these propositions, or any proposition to change the Constitution, ought to be able to use the most up to date media services. When this legislation was first drafted television did not exist. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to suggest that there should be some television advertising but that that ought to be done in an even-handed fashion. There has been quite a deal of comment in the media in relation to this, most of which has been directed at the Australian Democrats for one reason or another. I will outline why we will support the Opposition's amendment and our basis for supporting it. I think there is some rather interesting material floating around that is based upon the notion-I do not know whether the Attorney has put it out, but it was picked up by one newspaper-that the Attorney can be compared to Sisyphus-- Senator Chipp —He did it himself. Senator Gareth Evans —Give me credit for it. Senator MACKLIN —I would refer the Minister to the book by Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, which doubtless he has read. The myth which has been propagated by the media and probably by the Attorney-General himself is that in this package we have great constitutional reforms. The first two reforms came from Mr Fraser. I would draw the attention of the Attorney-General to a very interesting speech he made in this House last year in which he thoroughly bucketed the previous Prime Minister. He did a very good hatchet job on him and on the notion that he was a constitutional reformer. He is now touting around the two things which Mr Fraser put up. The simultaneous election proposal is nothing more than an attempt to give the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) additional powers. Why one would see a four- year term rather than a three-year term as a great advance I do not know. At least when Mr Wran did this, he reduced the length of time of the Upper House. The Attorney-General proposes to increase the term of the Upper House. I would like to hear his explanation as to why that is a great breakthrough in electoral , political or constitutional reform. The other three schemes the Attorney thought up all by himself. These are really very interesting in terms of constitutional reforms. The first one will do nothing more than allow the referral of powers from one State to the Commonwealth or back again, if they so desire. Section 51 of the Constitution already allows State governments to refer powers to the Federal Parliament. If anybody is interested, every State has done so and the States are listed. If the Federal Government wants the States to do anything it finds it very easy to persuade them by providing the financial resources. The rest are not likely to effect anybody in this country one way or another. Certainly, none of the electors will be terribly interested in whether they are passed or not because they will not effect them. The next reform is to allow the High Court to make judgment on a Bill of the Parliament before it receives royal assent rather than after. Presumably that will be terribly important to the electorate. The last reform means that every time the Constitution is printed we will use less paper. That is all it means. It proposes to remove outmoded clauses. The reason I mention these five questions is because the Attorney said they had to be put in lieu of some other reforms which could have been put. He said other reforms could not be put because we had these five reforms. Another reform I could mention relates to fixed terms. Senator Chipp —Which he voted against. Senator MACKLIN —The Attorney-General voted against it. That would be a massive constitutional reform if put to the people. It would be a good constitutional reform, and the Attorney-General voted in this place against it going to the people. Senator Gareth Evans —What about giving us some of your private views which you have retailed to me in the last few days instead of this party line? Senator MACKLIN —The Attorney has a chance to do it and I will retail some of his. The next reform that I propose in this House, and which the Government supported, related to breaking the nexus. That proposal could have been put in in place of the last one. Whether one agreed with it or not, it would be a significant reform. The last reform was moved by Senator Mason on a number of occasions. I refer to the citizens initiative. Whether one agreed with it or not , if it were put to the people it would be a significant reform as distinct from the whole package which has been put by the Attorney-General. This is not, I repeat, a package of amazing constitutional reforms. I would like to raise a separate issue now and that is the way in which the whole debate has been conducted. If the Attorney-General had not wished to win every brownie point, to paste people in corners and to have the last word, we may very well be in a different situation now. I would like to read an interesting bit of history. I refer to something which happened yesterday. I issued a Press release which said: Senator Michael Macklin (Democrat Queensland) today drew attention to a section of the Constitution that the Attorney-General may have overlooked in his willingness to drop the referenda scheduled for February 1984. Section 128 of the Constitution reads, in part: ''This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors . . . I went on to say: Given that the five referenda proposals were passed by an absolute majority of each House of Parliament, how does the Government propose to avoid the implied obligation in the words ''shall be submitted''?. With these Bills being passed by both Houses on November 17, 1983 they would have to be submitted prior to May 17, 1984 otherwise the Bills would have to be presented to parliament again before they could be submitted to the people . . . I thought that was a reasonable approach and it raised a question. The Attorney' s Press release in response to my statement was: 1. If the referendums scheduled for February 1984 are dropped, it will be because of the intransigence of the Australian Democrats and the coalition parties in the Senate, and not because of any willingness on my or the Government's part to abandon them. 2. Section 128 of the Constitution serves one function and one function only: to lay down a set of requirements which must be complied with if a valid referendum is to be held . . . 3. Senator Macklin's understanding of the Constitution is clearly as slight as his commitment to allowing the people to have a say in modernising the Constitution. That may seem funny, but I go back to 9 March 1966, when the question of the application of section 128 was discussed. Mr Calwell asked a question in the other place of the then Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt. He asked: I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Does not section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution provide that a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution shall be submitted to the electors in each State not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses of the Parliament ? Is not the Government, in abandoning the referendum to have been held on 28th May, flouting not only the mandatory provisions of the Constitution but the clearly expressed wish of both Houses? Those were the words of the Leader of the Australian Labor Party at that time. I think that my proposal was slightly more moderate. Senator Robert Ray —Read out the answer. What was the answer? Senator MACKLIN —I will now read the response of the then Prime Minister to that question and honourable senators might compare it with the Attorney's response. The then Prime Minister said: The Government examined the legal position very closely before coming to the decision that was recommended by me to the House last night and to which public reference was made some time ago. I can assure the honourable gentleman that the advice of our own legal authorities was to the effect that it was within the competence of the Government to refrain from the issue of the writ. In other words, he gave a reasonable and straightforward answer to a question. We could have got one also from the Attorney-General. I refer the Attorney- General to The Constitution of the Commonweatlh of Australia Annotated by Lumb and Ryan, with whom I know the Attorney disagrees. Nevertheless, they are two reasonably eminent constitutional lawyers. Their comment on the 1966 action was: The propriety of the earlier non-submission is open to criticism. In other words, they saw at least a doubt there. The Attorney, wanting to engage in his childish operations, would not even address himself to the issues which are genuinely raised by this debate. We have before us a relatively simple proposition which, if put in other than these terms, may not find favour even with Labor Party supporters. I think that essentially the existing proposal illustrates the paternalism of the approach which has to be taken to get this operation to ride. The Attorney-General and possibly the editors of the Australian Financial Review and of the Age, and others who join with the Attorney, believe that the electorate consists of numbskulls who do not know what they are doing when they vote on a constitutional matter. To fix that problem the Attorney-General proposes that we should, by a series of operations, spend a great deal of money to bludgeon the electorate into accepting that he is correct. It is a technique which doubtless goes down well in the Caucus but I suggest it is a paternalistic operation in regard to the electorate. The electorate is quite able to make up its own mind, as it has done on many occasions. I believe it is an impertinence and paternalistic to say that the Attorney-General is the only one who is right on this issue and that therefore he ought to be allowed to spend the extra money becuase everybody else is wrong and they have to be taught their lessons. The propositions should be put in the way in which every government has ever put a referendum to the people since Federation, that is, even-handedly. It is not, in terms of the article in the Australian Financial Review, a pathetic argument. I admit there is an argument and one can argue whether it is right or wrong. But to argue as the editor of that paper did that it is a pathetic argument suggests that he knows nothing about what has happened since Federation . Every government which has ever put a referendum to the people has done so even-handedly. That seems to me to be a reasonable argument. One can then go on to argue whether it is right or wrong but at least it is a reasonable argument. I believe it is a fair and reasonable way of conducting ourselves in relation to questions put to the Australian public. I hoped that these questions would be put. I believe, as does my Party, that additional moneys should be evenly spent on this issue. It is unfortunate that the Attorney-General has decided not to put them. I do not believe that if the referendum were held on 25 February all the questions would have been carried. However, for what it is worth, I believe that at least three or four questions could very well have been carried in an even-handed way, in a reasonable debate and in a genuine attempt to change the Constitution. The Government is responsible for taking these questions away. It is in its hands to put the questions or not as it will. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(6.34) —I wish to make one or two comments following what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said earlier in the debate. One thing that annoyed those of us who voted against one or more of the proposals was the arrogance with which the Attorney-General approached the matter of constitutional change. Senator Chaney —It even annoyed those of us who voted for it. Senator JESSOP —Exactly. He referred to those of us who voted against the proposals as the parliamentary rump. He said that the overwhelming majority of the Parliament was in favour of the propositions that he so vehemently put forward. I can assure the Attorney-General that many people in the Opposition parties who tacitly went along with the Yes proposition assured me that they would campaign very strongly against the proposals. There are some of us who recognise the importance of the ability of people in this place to say no to the propositions put forward so arrogantly by the now discredited Attorney-General. Not everyone in the community realises that unless someone in the Parliament goes against the proposition there would be no opportunity to present the No case. That would make the Attorney-General's life very much happier. I was incensed, when I read of the Attorney-General launching the Yes campaign in Sydney and subsequently in Canberra, to learn that $1.25m had already been appropriated-I like to think it was misappropriated-from the Advance to the Minister for Finance, that Advance supposedly being for urgent and unforeseen purposes. Those of us who listened to, and studied, the Governor-General's Speech in April know that these propositions were foreshadowed, that the Government had in mind bringing down legislation for constitutional change, so there is no way in which the appropriation of $1.25m for the exclusive promotion of the Yes case would be an urgent and unforeseen matter. Senator Gareth Evans —But the dates were not settled; be fair. Senator JESSOP —I am being very fair to the Attorney-General but he has a paranoid attitude to constitutional change. He became so obsessed with it that he wanted to snow the electorate by appropriating taxpayers' funds for an exclusive additional provision with which to put before the people the Yes case. He had the confounded impertinence-actually I thought it was quite amusing-to say that the Government was getting a little bit cold on the idea of conducting the referenda because-perhaps I had better quote what, according to today's Australian, he said on the subject because it made interesting reading: Senator Evans said State Labor premiers and the Labor Party machine in the States had been unable to step in to bridge the gap that would have been left by the defeat of the extra funding. He went on to say that the Queensland Premier intended to conduct a campaign against the proposals. I think he insinuated that the Premier intended spending Queensland's money on it. That has never been his intention. Certainly he will campaign, as he should, being the Premier of a small State, when the States House is placed under some threat by propositions advanced by this Labor Government. I am very pleased to say that the Liberal Party and the National Party Opposition in the Parliament recognise the unfairness of what is proposed and, with urging from those of us who supported the No campaign, have offered the amendment that we are now discussing. I think it is a very fair amendment. Certainly the Australian Democrats realise its fairness. I am really amazed that the Attorney-General can suggest that a mere rump of members and senators is involved. I believe that 21 members of the Senate and House of Representatives certainly do not constitute a Parliamentary rump. One must also regard the Liberal Party organisation in Western Australia as being substantially against the propositions. The Liberal Party in Queensland is totally opposed to them, as is, of course, the Party in Tasmania. I suggest that the majority of Liberal Party and Country Party supporters in South Australia would be equally opposed. I just wanted to put on record my appreciation, with that of my colleagues who are vehemently opposed to these propositions. I might say that I started by being opposed mainly to the simultaneous elections question, because it is a furphy. The question involves not having simultaneous elections-one can have them anyway-but half the Senate being dissolved by the will of the Prime Minister, whether he happens to be a Labor Prime Minister or a Liberal Prime Minister. That is what simultaneous elections- that deceptive title-are all about. It is a matter of the Prime Minister of the day being able to dissolve half the Senate at a time which is electorally favourable to him in order to gain control of the upper House. That is what it is all about. I object to that. I objected to politicising the judiciary by asking its advice on laws before they pass through this Parliament. The Chief Justice and all the judges-even Justice Murphy-are opposed to that. It is politicising the High Court of Australia. I am very much opposed to that. I have talked quietly about the interchange of powers. I have had my doubts. I am now totally opposed to that. I am also totally opposed to the proposition of four-year parliaments. The style of address to the electors is: 'Do you believe we ought to have four-year parliaments?'. That is great, but the Government does not mention the eight-year term for senators. The Government wants to put a snare and delusion before the electors of Australia-even on the outmoded provisions. It might be trite to say that every country's Constitution is an historical document and that there is no harm in leaving it as such. People without a history and a heritage are people without a future, so I am opposed to that. Honourable senators opposite can call me a troglodyte if they want to. None of the propositions would make an iota of difference to the running of this country. The sooner we kick out this Government the better. The sooner we get back a Liberal-National Party government the better. I repeat: None of the propositions would make an iota of difference to the running of this country. I am glad to see that we have persuaded the Government not to proceed with the referendum. Senator Durack said quite correctly that this business is the responsibility of the Government and the Government should not try to hive off that responsiblity to anybody else. I suggest that the Attorney-General is largely responsible for the whole fiasco and charade that has been carried on over the last few weeks. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.43) —I will confine my remarks to the message from the House of Representatives in respect of the disagreement the House has with our amendment relating to finance. I want to say very simply that the attempt of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to use public moneys to pay for an unprecedented glossy media campaign in favour of only the Yes side of the referendum was, and he admits it, a calculated attempt to sabotage- Senator Gareth Evans —Do you condemn Robin Gray for spending taxpayers' money in Tasmania? Senator HARRADINE —Robin Gray does not consult me. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you condemn him in this chamber? Senator HARRADINE —I would say that his premature statement was an embarrassment to the No campaign at that stage. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you condemn him for that? Senator HARRADINE —No, I do not. I do not deny the right of a State to determine what attitude it might take in respect of the matter. Senator Gareth Evans —That is not a double standard? Senator HARRADINE —No, because it is a matter of constitutional powers and of the powers of the Commonwealth versus the powers of the State. I suggest to the Attorney that if Mr Burke in Western Australia felt strongly enough about the Yes campaign he might well have considered campaigning with the support of the Western Australian State Parliament. I am talking about the State Parliament. As far as Tasmania is concerned, I believe Mr Gray ought to get the approval of the State Parliament. I believe it is not a matter for the Government to determine. We are not talking, are we, about a referendum-led recovery for Western Australia? What we are talking about is an amendment which we made but which the House of Representatives refused to accept. All of this has been brought about by the Attorney-General's attempt to use public moneys to pay for the unprecedented glossy media campaign for the Yes case. That was a calculated sabotage- Senator Gareth Evans —To get constitutional reform, which has been agreed upon for 10 years. Come on! Be honest about it. Senator HARRADINE —I am trying to stick to the point. That was a calculated sabotage of the careful balance given to the Yes and No cases under Commonwealth legislation dealing with referendums. On 22 November, the very day the Attorney- General made his statement, I branded it as a mockery of the fairness provisions in the legislation and suggested that the Parliament hold up the Representation Bill 1983, the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 or the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Amendment Bill to ensure that that principle of equality and fairness were upheld. Senator Evans's plan has now exploded and hopefully has sabotaged for the next 10 years any prospects of having those referendums adopted by the people. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(6.46) —I raise the matter of the expenditure of the money. I am amazed at the attitude of some sections of the media towards the Government's stance on this matter. I do not refer to the Australian Financial Review because I never make a practice of reading it. Senator Robert Ray —But you did this morning. Senator CHIPP —No, I did not read it this morning. I would far prefer to read the Illawarra Mercury any day if I am looking for standards of journalism and fact in terms of politics. I refer to those responsible people in the Press gallery and the responsible journalists of this country who are not outraged by this preposterous proposition to put all the money towards one case and nothing towards the other, that is; of the extra money that is being spent. I do not know of many more outrageous suggestions put by a politician in my 23 years in politics than that put by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evens) and supported by the Government. It has been said that the Press, the media, is the Fourth Estate, the protectors of the people. It offers the kind of protection that a repressed or oppressed people can look to in the face of oppressive governments, governments that want to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people. We have a situation in which a government is putting forward a proposition to change the very document which governs our existence, the Constitution. The Government says that it will spend $1 1/4m extra on the Yes case. Senator Gareth Evans —To balance up the books, which you concede is a good idea. Senator CHIPP —I wonder what Senator Evans would say if I put to him an analogy which I think is fair. Let us assume that a State government decides to fluoridate its water supply and that it is necessary to change the constitution of that State for that to be done. Let us assume that all politicians of all parties in that State agree that the water should be fluoridated. Senator Gareth Evans —And they would be right. Senator CHIPP —Senator Evans says-I thank him for walking into the trap-'and they would be right'. Senator Evans ascribes to politicians a monopoly on wisdom that I do not. On many occasions politicians have been wrong on fundamental issues and ordinary people have been absolutely right. If he thinks that simply because there is substantial agreement among politicians in this place, that simply because they voted to have a referendum, that justifies spending none of the extra money on a No case, that is a rather queer sense of humour and logic. To use the analogy I gave, what would he say if the State of Victoria spent $10m on the Yes case to fluoridate the water supply and said: 'We will not allow any money to be spent on the No case'. What would happen? Senator Gareth Evans —You would probably need to do that to beat the fruit cake brigade on fluoride. You really would. Senator CHIPP —There we are. A judgment has been made that anybody who disagrees with the fluoridation of water is in the fruit cake class. Why are they in the fruit cake class? Because Senator Evans says they are. I wonder why the media does not grasp hold of the outrageous concept that is being put forward-as my friend, Senator Macklin, says-for the first time since Federation. Let us assume that we needed a referendum to approve the export of our uranium. Let us assume that all political parties in this place agreed that uranium should be exported. Would Senator Evans then say that therefore there is no need for money to be spent on the No case? That is a logical extension of his judgment. As it happens now, the Australian Democrats-I will not canvass the argument about uranium now- is the only political party in this whole Parliament that opposes the export of uranium. If one takes Senator Evans's point, it means that five members out of 180-odd members of this Parliament oppose the export of uranium. Following Senator Evans's most generous concession, if $20m were to be spent on the referendum about exporting uranium, only five one-hundred-and-eightieths of that money could be devoted to the No case because the politicians, in whom there seems to reside a monopoly on wisdom, according to Senator Evans, have said so and that makes it right. What an outrageous, preposterous suggestion he makes. In regard to changing the Constitution, I take a rather absurd example, but one that might strike home to some people. Let us assume that we needed a change in the Constitution to make the salaries of politicians exempt from taxation. Senator Lewis —There would be unanimous support for that here. Senator CHIPP —Senator Lewis helps me by suggesting that there would be almost unanimous support for that concept among politicians. Would that make it right? If we were to go to the people with a referendum on that basis, would that mean that we should give no money to the No case? I conclude with the fact of the hypocrisy of this Government. Who was it who, during the election campaign and before it, talked about real constitutional reform? It was Senator Evans. Who was it who denounced Malcolm Fraser on the several occasions when he called early elections for his own opportunistic ends? It was Senator Evans and Bob Hawke. Look what has happened. We had a very responsible, respectable, attractive package for constitutional reform. Senator Evans talks about the committee for constitutional change of which I am pleased to be a member and a patron together with Senator Evans, which proposed that package. We said it was time we stopped politicians politicking for their own political parties' ends by calling elections when it suited them. Therefore, the package called for fixed terms of Parliament of four years; a good idea. Who voted against fixed terms as constitutional reform? Senator Evans voted against fixed terms. Now he comes into this place and says that we are not interested in constitutional reform. I just wonder about the bounds of hypocrisy to which this Government will go. After it denounced Malcolm Fraser for going to the people prematurely, we now have Senator Evans and Mr Bob Hawke on radio and television and calling Press conferences, saying: 'Now the Democrats and the Liberal Party have caused an early election'. This Government has not been in office for a year yet, and Senator Evans is talking about an early election, putting the whole economy into instability. Senator Evans thinks that he sees a cheap, nasty little issue upon which to go to the people and he cannot wait to get to a microphone or a camera and say: 'Unless we get our way on this particular thing, there will be an early election'. What does he think that does to every small business in the country, or to big business which is trying to recover from a recession? Senator Gareth Evans —That is fantasy. I have said nothing of the kind. Senator CHIPP —Senator Evans should listen to his Prime Minister, on every radio session that he has been on today, talking about fixed terms. On the one hand, they berate us for saying that parliaments should last for four years, but they have been in power for eight months and they are talking about an election next November. I will let the people judge what sorts of double standards come from the Government side of the House. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(6.57) —I will not delay the Committee for long. We have heard a couple of vintage grandstanding performances from the Australian Democrats this evening. One of the first things that Senator Macklin did was to taunt the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) by saying that he is not a great constitutional reformer. That is typical of the Democrats. Whilst probably the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party recognise politics as the art of the compromise, for the Democrats politics is the art of cuckoo-land: What they pretend may occur will occur. They have a sort of childish belief in the way in which politics can develop in the future. They had better look at why we had to ditch four-year fixed terms, or fixed terms as such. The reason is historical: One cannot get through a referendum proposal in this country when more than one of the major political parties oppose it. That is the reality. In 1977 three of the referendum proposals went through when all major parties supported them. In 1973, when the parties were split, the referendum proposals went down the drain. Again, in 1967, even with both parties supporting both referendum proposals, only one proposal got up. There are not many people on the Government side of the chamber who oppose philosophically fixed terms of parliament, so honourable senators opposite should not come here bleating that we are going to the people early, or something else. The reason that we had to ditch the fixed term proposal is the intransigence of those opposite. Honourable senators opposite, in general, do not support any reform. They believed that they would rule for ever, and they wanted to be able to manipulate the election date for ever. That is the reason why we had to give it away. Senator Chipp —What are you doing now? Exactly that. Senator ROBERT RAY —We are not going to spend $20m on a proposal that will go down straight off, and Senator Chipp knows that. He says that he has been in the Parliament for 23 years. I wonder what he has learnt in those 23 years. He must have sat here and learnt nothing from history. Senator Macklin says that we should go on fixed terms. I have explained why we cannot do that. Others, such as Senator Jessop, say that eight-year terms are wrong for the Senate. There is not much disagreement on this side of the chamber about that, because what we would prefer is four-year terms, and that both chambers come out at the same time. But the moment that one suggests that, what do honourable senators opposite do? They run a mile away from it, and then try to shoot down those proposals. We had some interesting constitutional debates here a few weeks ago in which the Liberal Party gave lip service to support for these referendums. We all know that the Liberal Party is badly divided on every issue, including referendum issues. The Liberals cannot carry their own party on any of these proposals. They are a divided rabble. The Liberals on the other side of the chamber are leaderless. They cannot agree on anything. They would have gone into the referendum campaign with half the Liberals giving lip service support, the other 49 per cent opposing and Senator Withers going on a holiday. He was not going to at all. That is the situation we were facing. There is a lot of talk here about the enormous amount of money involved-$1.25m. I would not have thought that that was enormous compared with the cost of most election campaigns. Most election campaigns cost in the order of $10m. So $1.25m is not an enormous amount. Senator Chipp went on to say that he was rather disappointed with media reaction to the position adopted by the Australian Democrats. I would have thought, first of all, that he should have been pleased that he got some coverage at last, albeit bad. The Australian Labor Party has been the victim right through the 1960s and 1970s of bad editorials. Senator Chipp knows that. The Australian Democrats have just to cop it. It is no use Senator Chipp getting up here and whinging about it. He should stick to reading the Illawarra Mercury or whatever else gives him pleasure. It is not much use coming into this chamber with made up examples of fluoride or made up examples of some other trendy issue that are just red herrings. We are addressing ourselves to whether we can improve the Constitution to make parliamentary democracy work better. Parliamentary democracy would work much better indeed-- Senator Chipp —Senator Robert Ray from Victoria says that uranium is a trendy issue. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Chipp will cease interjecting. I call Senator Robert Ray. Senator Chipp —Lying bastard. Senator ROBERT RAY —The point I am making, and I am not responding to anyone, Mr Chairman, is that-- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Chairman, I ask that that remark be withdrawn. The CHAIRMAN —I ask Senator Chipp to withdraw that remark. Senator Chipp —I withdraw it. Senator ROBERT RAY —The point I am making is that democracy will be served in this country by proper constitutional reform. Senator Chipp might listen to this : The one thing on which I agree with him is that the constant speculation about whether there will be an election does this country no good in the future. But we were not responsible for putting elections for the Houses out of kilter. We were not responsible for calling an early election on 5 March this year. We did not go to the people prematurely in 1977 requiring the Houses now to be brought back into kilter. We did not go to an early election in 1975. Has Senator Chipp forgotten that? We were thrown out by the stooges opposite. The fact is that in 1963 Menzies took these two chambers out of simultaneous elections. There is no example of the Australian Labor Party being responsible for making the Senate and House of Representatives elections go out of kilter. We are going to spend $ 20m of public money on these referendums. I might point out to those listening that that includes $2 1/2m for the No case. If we are going out and facing people like Premier Gray and others who are spending public money, we believe we are entitled to spend that amount of money which is not a large amount of money. In summing up, I say this about the future of referendums: Unless we can get a far greater bipartisan attitude to referendums we might be right in that we are facing no changes in the next 10 years. That may suit certain people but we do not accept the blame if we are forced to an early election next year because we cannot get simultaneous elections then. We do not necessarily want to go to an early election. But I think most people would concede that if elections for the Houses get out of kilter, we should take action. The Australian Democrats are not talking about $1.25m; they are talking about four half Senate elections held by themselves in the next 10 years and the costs associated with that. Senator Gareth Evans —At a cost of $68m. Senator ROBERT RAY —The Attorney has indicated to me that at current day prices the cost would be $68m. There is no doubt that anything else which we say tonight will not change anyone's mind on this particular issue. Nothing that was said here tonight will change anyone's mind. The one thing, at least, we have been enlightened about is the sort of grandstanding engaged in by the Democrats. The sort of attack they have made on the Attorney-General has been unjustified. They will never change. They will always be in cuckoo land, in fairy land, in relation to these particular issues. I suppose this particular proposal should go to the bottom of the harbour where it belongs. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(7.05) —Mr Chairman, I will be brief. Senator Cook —Heaven save us. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —If Government senators had been a little more patient, a little more alert and on the ball they would not be in the trouble that they are in now, least of all the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). This Bill has been sitting in this chamber since August of this year- Senator Macklin —May. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Since May, that is right. It was not as though this amendment was sitting here as some sort of ambush waiting to knock over the Government. This amendment was conceived very recently when the Government announced its intention to fund only one side of the case. The Attorney-General talks about his department doing everything instantly. If it had done everything instantly on this occasion we would not have this amendment. This amendment was conceived ten minutes before this Bill was due to come on. Senator Robert Ray —You have done your homework. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —He is damned right I have. My original amendment was to fund both sides. Surely it is impertinent and arrogant for the Government to presume that money ought to be spent on only one side of the argument. Surely if $1.25m were to be spent on the Yes case, the Yes case would be reasonably presented. Surely if $1.25m were to be spent on the No case, that position would be clearly understood. The Attorney-General suggests that most people in Australia are shrouded in darkness and ignorance and unaware of the arguments, and that that is why they tend to vote no. But to allocate money to both sides would have enlightened those people. They would have been in a position to make a judgment. But that was not to be the case. The Attorney-General wanted to ensure that the No case was submerged and smothered, that the Yes case was put and the No case censored, and that the media would not be able to- Senator Gareth Evans —Were Joh and Gray going to spend it evenhandedly? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —They represent presumably the view of their States and their States invariably have voted against such proposals. If members of the community by and large in the smaller outlying States vote no, it is because they feel comfortable with the Constitution as it is. They do not have this blind passion to change the Constitution for the sake of change. They are not dedicated to having a new constitution by 1988. They feel comfortable with it as it is. I do not believe that the No case necessarily starts in front. If it does , it is because people tend to be suspicious of politicians and wonder why they want change. It is not without significance to note that it is Western Australia , Tasmania and Queensland that vote no to most proposals because most proposals seek to reduce the power of the Senate and of the smaller States, and these people understand that, which is why they vote no. I think it reasonable and sensible for the Attorney-General to agree to equal funding. Senator Gareth Evans —You have got it, to the tune of $2.5m. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Oh, come on! The Attorney-General admits that people do not read the small print. Why does he need money if he believes that they can get all the arguments out of the letter box? He knows that they cannot. He wants to distort the argument by having $1.25m spent on the Yes case to smother and submerge the No case. I put it to him that it would have been a much more sensible compromise if he had agreed to fund both sides equally. My original proposition was that we should have equal funding. But no, the Attorney-General could not have that. The fall back position that others agreed with was that there be no money. As a result of his incapacity to compromise, he has no referendums. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(7.09) —Very briefly, I wish to put a bit of balance into the shouting and the tumult. I would like the opportunity next February to support in Western Australia four of the five amendment proposals. I would like to see those four amendment proposals carried. I believe that the effect in Western Australia of the Government taking the unfair action which it has taken to tell the people in Australia that this will be a distortion and that for the first time in Australia only one side of a referendum question will be put by the government of the day, and not the other side with the same publicity glare, will be to damage the case in favour of the referendum proposals. I regret that the Attorney-General has seen fit to damage the case which he purports to represent with those proposals. Question put: That the motion (Senator Gareth Evans's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O. Giles, P. J. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John Macklin, M. J. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Withers, R. G. Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C. Robertson, E. A. Rae, PeterMcLelland, Douglas Haines, J. Question so resolved in the negative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Ministerial Statement Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-On a number of occasions reference has been made in questions without notice and in statements to allegations of financial improprieties and improper conduct by officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and of the Australian Federal Police. I inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, has received a letter dated 14 December 1983 from the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor J. E. Richardson, concerning these and other allegations. The Ombudsman's letter sets out the results of his investigation into allegations by Mr D. W. Witheford, an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs, against officers of the Australian Federal Police. The Ombudsman notes: Matters raised by Mr Witheford have become public knowledge by reason of reference to them in the Parliament and the media. Further, Mr Witheford's allegations have constituted a source for trenchant criticism in the Parliament not only of the Department of Foreign Affairs but individual officers of that Department. Again, that criticism has attracted attention in the media. I consider it to be in the interests of the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Foreign Affairs as well as in the public interest that I provide you with a statement setting out the results of my consideration under the Complaints Act of Mr Witheford's complaint. The Ombudsman finds Mr Witheford's complaints against the Australian Federal Police to be unsubstantiated. As to allegations alleging criminal action by officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Ombudsman finds as follows: While I did not investigate the actions of the Deprtment of Foreign Affairs, I am satisfied from my review of the reports of the Department of Finance and the AFP investigations that Mr Witheford's primary allegations did highlight a number of administrative deficiencies, but not criminal misconduct or misdemeanours. The relevant Commonwealth agencies have since acted or propose to act to remedy those deficiencies. I table the Ombudsman's letter for the information of the Senate. I present the following paper: Department of Foreign Affairs-Ministerial Statement, 14 December 1983. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(7.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement and paper. I had this tabling statement with the paper delivered to me a little over an hour ago but I have not had a chance to read them very closely. I appreciate the fact that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has brought the papers into the Parliament before Parliament rises. This matter has had some renewed interest because of the further allegations made by Senator Primmer in the Senate more recently. Clearly, Mr President, the letter which has been tabled highlights the reasons why we have been concerned about Senator Primmer's more recent activities. I find at page 17 of the Ombudsman's letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, reference to the complaints which were made in earlier debates in this place and which were apparently based on the allegations which were made by Mr Witheford, allegations which have been generally found not to be valid. At page 17 the variants of Mr Witherford's complaints are set out, as they have found expression in what the Ombudsman refers to as the Hansard debate. On page 18 the Ombudsman states: I do not need to comment at any length on these variants of Mr Witherford's complaints. My analysis of the complaints (a) to (f) leads me to reject matters (i) to (iv) as having no evidence to substantiate them. Matter (v) is somewhat different- He continues: There is . . . no basis for linking (v) with any of the preceding variants-that is, as part of a general course of misconduct by the AFP investigators designed to further the alleged coverup. The letter concludes: If I may summarise, then, I found Mr Witheford's complaints to be unsubstantiated. This was after thorough examination of a large volume of evidence and lenthy discussions with Mr Witheford. The point which I wish to make is that there is a very significant gap in time between the making of the allegations in the Parliament and this further and, indeed, most detailed refutation which has been tabled today by the Attorney- General. It is that sort of gap which highlights the wrongfulness of making allegations of this sort in the Parliament without having first ensured that every possible effort has been made to deal with matters of complaint outside the Parliament by the proper avenues of police inquiry, administrative inquiry, representation to Ministers and so on. For those who have been defamed in the Parliament there is a very long wait for this sort of exoneration. I do not believe that that sort of long time gap justifies using parliamentary privilege in the way in which we have seen it used in the Senate of late. I do not wish to labour the point. We have a great deal to do and the hour is late. But I thank the Attorney for introducing these papers. I think it is very appropriate that they should be brought into the Parliament now. I notice that the letter from the Commonwealth Ombudsman is dated 14 December. I think that degree of promptness is most appropriate. I acknowledge that prompt action on the part of the Government. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the sixth report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —by leave-I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement concerning the cost savings resulting from the review of distribution of parliamentary papers. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Honourable senators may recall that the Joint Committee on Publications, under the Chairmanship of Senator Archer, in its report entitled Inquiry into the Purpose, Scope and Distribution of the Parliamentary Paper Series, made a number of recommendations concerning the free distribution of principal parliamentary publications, excluding Hansard. In their response to the Joint Committee's report in November 1979, the Presiding Officers accepted the recommendation that the free distribution list for principal Parliamentary Publications be revised. The Joint Committee on Publications was advised last year that the first part of the review, that part concerning Notice Papers, Journals, Votes and Proceedings and Bills had been completed and resulted in savings approximately $ 75,000 per year through a substantial reduction both in the quantity of documents distributed and in the number of addressees. The Publications Committee was recently advised by the Presiding Officers that the second and final part of the review concerning the distribution of Parliamentary Papers has now been completed. This review resulted in significant savings through a reduction of the number of free Parliamentary Papers issued, by approximately 54%. Reductions in print-runs have already been effected and the estimates provided by the A.G.P.S. indicate that, in 1982 terms, the revised Parliamentary Paper distribution will result in a saving of over $215,000 per year. The complete review has resulted in overall savings in the order of $300,000 per year. The Joint Committee on Publications has also been advised by the Presiding Officers that the distribution of Parliamentary Papers and the other Publications will be kept under review on a regular basis. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Publications I would like to place on the record the Committee's appreciation of the co-operation of the Presiding Officers in this matter and of the officers of the Department of the Senate and the Department of the House of Representatives who have undertaken the work of this review. Northern Territory Criminal Code-Presentation of Petitions Motion ( by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(7.23) —I will be brief. On 18 November a question was asked of the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, regarding the Northern Territory Criminal Code and he spoke at some length in answering the question. At the same time he tabled a letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and addressed to Mr Paul Everingham, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. In that letter the Prime Minister indicated several concerns regarding the Northern Territory Criminal Code. The letter, which was tabled, caused some considerable comment once the media took it up. The matter has been debated at some length. Today a letter has been sent to the Hon. Bob Hawke, the Prime Minister of Australia, from Paul Everingham, the Chief Minister. It is a lengthy letter regarding the Prime Minister's concern about the Northern Territory Criminal Code. I ask that the letter be incorporated in Hansard so that those people who are interested in the matter will be able to see the response from the Chief Minister. I would like to point out that the Chief Minister is most keen to see that the discussions between the two governments continue. At the beginning of his letter it will be noted that he says: At the outset let me say that I hope my letter will not be the end to discussions between our Governments if you consider there are areas of concern. At the end of the letter he says: As stated at the outset, I would not like this to be an end to our discussions on this matter if your concerns remain . . . In the meantime, a very careful watch will be kept and if anomalies are discovered proper use will be made of the executive discretion to remove any possibility of injustice arising from them. I have taken the opportunity of showing this letter to the Minister in charge of the House at the moment, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), and I now seek leave to have this letter incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- December 15 1983 The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, A.C., M.P. Prime Minister Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Prime Minister I refer to your letter of the 18th November relating to the Northern Territory Criminal Code. At the outset let me say that I hope my letter will not be the end to discussions between our Governments if you consider there are areas of concern. Reasoned criticism as provided in your letter and as provided by Mr Woltring in his discussion with Territory officers is appreciated. Unfortunately, a considerable amount of the criticism from other sources has not been well informed and reasoned, nor, for that matter, was it forthcoming at the time when the Code was being drafted. Having said that, I express my concern that your letter formed the basis of a political issue during the Territory election campaign. I would hope that my reply may lead to a more constructive and consultative approach. When my Government was fixing the policy issues with respect to the Code the very grave problem of alcohol related crime in the Territory had to be faced. We have a homicide rate six to ten times the national average and an incidence of serious assault at a similar level. For your information I enclose copies of drafts and statistics prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology relating to these matters. According to the Institute's report the Territory also has a far higher incidence of sexual assault than any other jurisdiction. Add to this fact that over 80% of violent crime in the Territory is alcohol related and you will understand that a Government that ignored these matters would be failing in its duty. I accept that the application of the criminal laws is not the complete answer to the problem of alcohol related, violent crime. Of course other measures are needed to combat alcohol and drug abuse and you will be aware that my Government has done more than most others in promoting the awareness or alcohol abuse in the community. Considerable efforts have been made and are still being made to provide treatment to persons who are suffering from alcoholism. However, and without losing sight of that, the criminal laws must provide proper deterrence to people who will not exercise restraint in the use of alcohol and drugs and concerning their conduct when they are intoxicated. With considerable justification I feel, many people are claiming that in the past too little notice has been taken of the victim's interest and the public's right to protection under the law. Given this level of alcohol related crime it is obvious that the anomalies that appeared in the law as the result of the rule propounded in R v. O'Connor (146 CLR 64), which a number of the judges of the court deciding that case themselves emphasised, had to be corrected. As Sir Harry Gibbs pointed out, the law would leave the community virtually unprotected against the person who kills another whilst under the complete mastery of alcohol or drugs: page 93. See also Murphy J. at page 112. The anomaly referred to by Sir Harry Gibbs has been corrected by section 154 of the Code. It would mean that a person who killed in the circumstances considered in R v. Lipman (1970) 1 Q.B. 152 (by strangling a girl when he was under the influence of LSD because he thought he was fighting with a snake) would, if acquitted of murder and manslaughter, be convicted under section 154 and liable to imprisonment for 14 years. An alternative to the provisions in the Territory Code which follows the rule in O'Connor, but with the anomalies corrected, would be to legislate for the ''Majewski'' rule (1977 A .C. 443). This would have brought the Territory Code into line with the Queensland Criminal Code and the Tasmanian Code. However, the effect of this would have been to deny to an accused person a defence based upon intoxication when the offence charged did not specifically include an element of intention. You refer to discussions between Mr Woltring of the Attorney-General's Department, Mr Sturgess of the Queensland Bar and Mr Conran of the Territory Department of Law. You would appreciate, as I understand was noted at the time, that any final decisions relating to the Case would be matters for the Government and that no assurances could be given. With respect to amendments to section 383 or its replacement, that will be considered after my Government has had the opportunity to see how things work in practice. Section 383 addresses another anomaly that appears as the result of the rule in O'Connor. The rule also would exempt from criminal liability anyone who has damaged or destroyed properly whilst under the complete mastery of alcohol or drugs. Sir Garfield Barwick recommended a new statutory offence to deal with the situation: p. 87. Much the same matter was also considered in the Butler Committee's report on mentally abnormal offenders where similar recommendations were made: Cmnd. 6244, Chap. 18.51 et seq. My Government considers that the problem may be able to be met by calling on the person responsible for drunken conduct that leads to damage to or destruction of property, in proper circumstances, to pay compensation to the victim and even the community that has to bear the costs of the prosecution of him. You should understand that section 383 is on trial, as it were, and if it should appear that this section does not provide a satisfactory answer to the problem, then the advice of Sir Garfield Barwick and Lord Butler may be acted upon. Mr Woltring raised the matter of a discretionary life sentence for murder in the case of a convicted child. It was taken up immediately and a suitable provision was included in the Juvenile Justice Act (section 39 (2)) passed by the Legislative Assembly during its October, 1983 sittings. Contrary to the belief held in some quarters, the Territory government is willing to consider reasoned criticism of the Code. The criticism of provisions dealing with the control of sexual instincts again is a matter that will be considered when the operation of the Code is reviewed next year, but I do not consider it to be a matter requiring urgent attention at this stage. I now propose to deal with more specific matters referred to in your letter. 1. Intoxication-''Reversal of Onus'' I assure you that the principal draftsman of the Territory Criminal Code Mr Sturgess, is well aware of the decisions quoted by you and their implications. He needs no instruction in that regard. As I stated earlier, unless the anomalies were addressed, my Government considered the rule expounded in O' Connor's case inappropriate in the Territory. Mr Sturgess was given firm instructions in this regard. You criticised the presumption and state it has no place in the criminal laws of Australia. Section 7 (b) creates a rebuttable presumption and, in the view of Murphy J., represents existing law: O'Connor pages 114-147. So far as my Government is concerned it also makes good sense. It only applies when the prosecution has proved conduct, i.e. activity the accused person has ''lead'' himself to engage in the natural and probable consequence of which is the proscribed act or event. It is, as Murphy J. pointed out, a ''practical intellectual instrument''. One also must understand that in today's times and given the ready availability of drugs, it is very easy for a person, who is spoken to for the first time about an alleged offence some days after the happening, to claim falsely that he was, at the time in question, ''high'' on drugs and that it is a very difficult, often impossible, task for the police, with their limited interrogation powers, to refute. My Government believes that this is a perfectly sensible and just law: if a person is proved to have engaged in conduct, the natural and probable consequences of which is that he will kill or injure and he does so, and his only excuse is that he was too intoxicated to know that that would happen, it is for him to persuade the jury or the magistrate, on the balance of probability, that that, in fact, was his condition . My Government does not accept that this will present some impossible task to him. If, in truth, he was in such a condition that he can remember nothing of the occasion the subject of the charge then he can say so. He can also give an account-it will probably be fragmented, but this will increase its credibility- of when he began to drink and when and with whom, or in the case of drugs, the drugs he remembers taking. The knowledge of all such matters, usually, will be peculiar to him. I do not agree with your comments in relation to the presumption of innocence and fair trial guaranteed by Article 14 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. In relation to Article 14 (2) the report made by Australia to the Human Rights Committee had the following to say (paragraphs 249-250): ''It is a fundamental precept of the Australian system of administration of justice that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution in criminal trials has the persuasive burden of proof and must prove its case ''beyond reasonable doubt''. Where a defendant has a defence available to him, he must produce evidence of it, but except in the case of the defence of insanity and reasonable mistake of fact (where his burden of proof is persuasive and he must prove the defence ''on the balance of probability''), the standard of proof is evidentiary only. ''This common law rule has been displaced by statutory provisions that shift the evidentiary burden of proof to the accused under certain limited circumstances. Such provisions apply only in situations where it would be extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove facts known to the accused, and where it is considered that the interests of the public outweigh the interests of the accused (e.g. presumption under the Prohibited Drugs Legislation that the possession of certain amounts of a prohibited drug is possession for the purposes of sale or supply to another person, unless the contrary is proved). The provisions referred to do not reverse the presumption of innocence-they make the existence of certain situations, which are first to be proved, presumptive evidence of guilt only. The burden of proof in these circumstances is the civil standard of proof ''on the balance of probability'', i.e. a lesser standard that the proof ''beyond reasonable doubt'', which applies to the prosecution''. 2. Intoxication-''Aggravation of Penalty'' I have already dealt with a number of the matters you raised in this section of your letter and I shall not repeat them. Section 154 has, as it were two functions. First, it removes one of the anomalies created by O'Connor. This has been discussed. Secondly, as the result of section 31 inadvertent negligence, however gross, is excused. Were it not for section 154 the very drunken motorist who kills or injures, unless he sees the risk and deliberately runs it, would be exonerated. In other words, to give the totally subjective flavour to section 31 that has been given, section 154 becomes necessary in order to proscribe seriously negligent behaviour. The section recognises a number of aggravating features one of which is intoxication . Where or not in the circumstances of a particular case intoxication, in fact, will lead to an increase of penalty is entirely a matter for the sentencing judge. In practical terms it all means that the drunken motorist who, through gross negligence, has killed a number of persons will face one charge in which the maximum penalty is 14 years. It is not without interest to note that in Queensland section 328A of its Criminal Code (dangerous driving) has been amended to provide that intoxication is a circumstance of aggravation that adds two years imprisonment to the maximum penalty. Also, the sentencing policy of the courts recently has seen an increase in the sentences imposed upon the drunken motorist. In Queensland again, the Court of Criminal Appeal recently increased the sentence imposed upon a drunken motorist who had killed two persons as the result of ignoring red traffic lights by increasing his sentence to 10 years imprisonment. You quoted Muirhead J in Jabanunga's case. We could trade quotes for ever. One of the isues that most concerns me is the protection being afforded to members of the community from persons who commit these violent acts. Particularly, I am concerned with the plight of Aboriginal women who are, most often, the victims of violent behaviour by Aboriginal men. The Territory has seen too much of this type of violence. I refer you to page 25 of the transcript of Jabanunga's case where the trial judge had this to say: ''. . . speaking for myself, I would not be prepared to pat them on the head and say 'I do not think this will happen again' because I am beginning to wonder whether we are giving any protection to Aboriginal people''. 3. Abolition of Dock Statements I have already discussed this matter with the Law Reform Commission and I can do no better than quote exactly what I there wrote: ''With respect to the abolition of unsworn statements, you will be aware of all the arguments both for and against their abolition. The decision to abolish unsworn statements from the dock was taken in light of all those arguments and also in light of the infrequent use of unsworn statements in the Territory. In making this decision the Territory is now brought into line with the majority of common law jurisdictions throughout the world. I note, in particular, that unsworn statements have been abolished in Queensland and Western Australia where there is a significant Aboriginal population and it has not been suggested that this has resulted in injustice. I am sure if one were to suggest that unsworn statements be introduced in those jurisdictions, the call would be rejected. ''I understand the argument that Aborigines, especially traditionally oriented Aborigines, may have difficulties in giving evidence in criminal trials. This argument can, of course, be extended to include migrants and, indeed, any persons who have difficulty in expressing themselves clearly. I consider, however, adequate protection can be afforded to defendants who subject themselves to cross-examination. Indeed, the judges of our courts in the Territory have shown particular solicitude in that regard. Further, I had faith in the jury system and believe juries are quite capable of making a proper assessment of a defendant and appreciate and allow for the difficulty some defendants face in giving evidence. Finally, the fact is inevitably stressed by both counsel for the accused and trial judge, as should be the case. ''In addition to those matters, the Government in making its decision also considered that on the infrequent occasions such statments were made in the Territory, they were often abused, not by people who may have difficulty in expressing themselves clearly, but by defendants who were more than capable in their control of the language. My Government is not just concerned with the abuse directed towards the police; it is particularly concerned with attacks on innocent victims of crime and innocent witnesses. You will appreciate that as an elected government we must consider all relevant matters. In this instance, my Government has chosen to abolish the unsworn statement. I appreciate your views, but in this regard my Government must disagree with you.'' You refer to the Anunga rules. I do not accept this as a good analogy. The Anunga rules are guidelines provided by the court for the police when interrogating suspects. Police interrogations are quite different from interrogations conducted in the courtroom under the supervision of a judge. You would also know that the trial judge has the power to prevent and control cross- examination. 4. Mandatory Life Sentence I have provided you with details relating to the Territory's violent crime statistics. My government considered this issue very closely, but in the light of those statistics a discretionary sentence was thought inappropriate. It was decided that murder must be deeply stigmatised and set apart from all other offences. In relation to this matter there are two possible approaches. One is to provide a discretionary penalty; the other is to provide certain defences that will reduce murder to manslaughter and retain the mandatory penalty. In the Territory we have chosen the latter approach, hence the defences of provocation, diminished responsibility and coercion. Such defences provide, I believe, a degree of compassion not generally available in other jurisdictions. They show compassion for the beaten spouse, compassion for the tribal and non-tribal Aborigine and compassion for the provoked. Such persons will not bear the stigma of a murder conviction. I consider that to be important. You express concern in relation to Aborigines convicted of murder where there may be a customary or tribal basis for the act. The defence of coercion was deliberately fashioned so that the Aboriginal pay-back killing can be treated as a manslaughter. The Attorney-General has made a number of clear statements to the effect that in such matters it will be recognised that a defence of coercion exists and the charge will be manslaughter. As to the defence of diminished responsibility let me again quote from my letter to the Law Reform Commission: ''In 1981 a Queensland case in which a young Cape York Aborigine, Alwyn Peter, killed his girlfriend when drunk attracted considerable national publicity. The defence intended to raise diminished responsibility, but at the last moment the prosecution accepted a plea of manslaughter. However, much of the information that would have been used to support the defence was then used in the proceedings relating to penalty. The persons giving such information were distinguished in the fields of anthropology, transcultural psychiatry, psychology and social science. My reason for mentioning this case is that it showed in a very public way the utility of the defence of diminished responsibility in the case of an Aborigine who has killed when he is drunk and depressed''. Generally, in relation to punishment, I draw your attention to the provisions of section 392 of the Code which, so far as I know, are unique in Australia. Any person convicted of any offence other than murder, in appropriate circumstances, may be discharged without record of conviction. 5. Attempted Suicide Your comments on this subject disappoint me. It has been clearly announced that the purpose of this offence is not to prosecute people who attempt suicide. It is there to protect them. It is a serious error to suggest that every person who says he is going to suicide is mentally deranged. To start with, not a few of them are merely making a gesture, but at the time it is not easy for those who have to deal with them to discriminate between those who are making the gesture and those who are not. Then there are those who are quite sincere in their intention and who are perfectly sane and, in fact, in possession of a good reason for ending their lives. I believe that in all cases where people announce an intention to commit suicide the community rightly expects the police to step in and do something about the situation. The police have to be equipped with adequate powers to do so and they also need to have the power to subdue and detain. There are many lonely places in the Northern Territory that are far from medical assistance. For the same reasons other jurisdictions also have created an offence of attempted suicide. It is simply untrue for anyone to allege that in enacting this offence my Government was minded to punish people who would attempt suicide. It is all designed to protect those persons. You have my word that so long as my Government stays in office there will not be a prosecution for attempted suicide and I do not believe that any other Government of the Territory will act differently. 6. Terrorism and Proscribed Organisations First, if there is a Commonwealth law to deal with an act of terrorism that is the end of it; it will be dealt with by that law. However, there are acts that are not and cannot be the subject of Commonwealth law. An example would be if a person threatened to set off explosions in public places unless a demand-such as the release of a prisoner-was complied with. I cannot understand how anyone can seriously question a law that would proscribe such conduct. You have expressed concern about the provisions of sections 51 and 52 of the Code and the use of the word ''propensity''. My dictionaries tell me that propensity also means ''proclivity'' or ''bent''. Using these meanings, for the exercise of the power given by section 51 (1) the members of the organisation must have ''demonstrated'' a ''proclivity'' or bent to use violence of a kind that causes, or is likely to cause, the death of, or grievous harm, to a person. Immediately upon the exercise of that power the Legislative Assembly must review the decision-section 51 (2) and (3). With respect, I find the concerns (I appreciate you do not suggest they are yours) referred to in the penultimate paragraph of your letter, that the provisions may be in conflict with international obligations to ensure freedom of expression, the right of freedom of association and the right of peaceful assembly, to be absurd. It is true that no right of appeal to the courts from the decision of the Legislative Assembly is given and I would regard such a right as an extraordinary, novel and dangerous precedent. My Government believes that responsibility for action in this area, where urgent decision may well be called for, belongs with the legislature; not the judiciary. The provisions in question were considered by the Criminal Law Sub-committee of the Law Society of New South Wales acting as a committee of the Law Council of Australia which had this to say: ''We know of no other State which has legislation covering a similar area. In principle, these provisions do not seem inappropriate and it may well be this area is deserving of consideration by other States.'' As stated at the outset, I would not like this to be an end to our discussions on this matter if your concerns remain. With respect to the criminal laws there will always be areas of difference of opinion. The production of a criminal code is a very large undertaking. My Government has been told to expect, and it does expect, that almost certainly amendments will have to be made to the Code after 12 months of its coming into effect as the result of the experience gained in that period. In the meantime, a very careful watch will be kept and if anomalies are discovered proper use will be made of the executive discretion to remove any possibility of injustice arising from them. Yours sincerely Paul Everingham Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(7.26) —I will not detain the Senate for long, but I just want to refer to a matter which has been raised with my by constituents who are members of the Right To Life Association of Western Australia. Those constituents wrote to me because they had forwarded petitions to an honourable senator from Western Australia asking him to present petitions to the Senate regarding the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983. I might say I have also received a significant number of petitions from that organisation and those petitions have been lodged. This most recent batch of petitions were sent to me as the honourable senator concerned refused to present them because he disagreed with the Right To Life Association's stance on the Bill. I thought it was worth raising this matter on the adjournment because the general tradition in this place as I understood it was that we did not, when our constituents sought to have us present petitions on their behalf, pick and choose between them on the basis of our views as to what the petitions contained . I have had a number of petitions sent to me, not by that particular organisation as it happens, where I have disagreed with the content. Indeed I have even had organisations write to me and say: ''Are you prepared to transmit our petitions and present them on our behalf to the Senate?''. I might say I have never sought authority for it, but it seemed to me that the apppropriate course was to accept them. I simply draw the Senate's attention to the fact that, having now looked at Odgers's Australian Senate Practice, there does appear to be a fair body of precedent that suggests that honourable senators should present petitions even though they may have personal views and feelings which are contrary to those of the petitioners. I refer to page 209 of, I think, the most recent edition of Odgers. I do not intend to read it. I think the statement of the principle is clear enough. The gloss that I would put on Odgers would simply be to say that I believe that, were we to adopt any other practice in this place, we could reach the situation in which substantial bodies of citizens who simply could not find a senator who agreed with them could be denied their constitutional right to petition this Parliament. I do not think any senator would in fact put constituents in that situation, but I do think it is undesirable that the practice we have had in the past of presenting petitions on behalf of our constituents, without identifying ourselves necessarily with the views of the petitioners, is one that we should seek to uphold. I raised this matter on the adjournment so that that practice and that particular statement of past Senate practice is drawn to the attention of honourable senators. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(7.29) —I believe I am the senator to whom Senator Chaney referred. I believe that because someone from his office this afternoon indicated that Senator Chaney might raise this matter on the adjournment. I thank him for that politeness. What he did not do, and what that person from his office did not do, is seek an explanation of the circumstances. I think if that explanation had been sought it would have satisfied Senator Chaney and this matter might not have arisen. But since it has risen in these terms I would like to make a few comments on it. I have taken my responsibilities here as a senator very seriously, and as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Standing Orders I do not in any sense shelter from any potential argument about the Standing Orders and procedures on the ground that I may be a novice senator. All honourable senators are equal whether they are experienced or not. I think that that has to be said because I do not in any sense pretend that it is because of inexperience or any other actions on my part that I did not immediately present the petitions that were lodged with me. It is my view that any person or organisation properly constituted in Australia that wishes to address itself by way of petition to either House of the Parliament should be able to do so by way of petition. That is a fundamental right. I too have looked at Odgers's Australian Senate Practice , and that view is repeated in the expressions of several distinguished previous senators and/or constitutional lawyers. It is a right that I accept and, in fact , believe is fundamental. On this occasion, however, the Right to Life Association of Western Australia wrote to me on 28 October and enclosed a petition which it asked me to lodge in the Senate. The Association went on: We believe the Sex Discrimination Bill is an obnoxious piece of legislation after receiving advice from our legal counsellors and ask you to oppose it on the grounds of the dangerous implications which will certainly flow from it in its present form. That letter was signed by Peter O'Meara who one presumes is a properly constituted officer of the Right to Life Association. I wrote back on 12 November returning the petition to Mr O'Meara. In my letter I said: I write to acknowledge receipt of your letter and petition concerning the Sex Discrimination Bill. As I am a firm supporter of this piece of legislation, I suggest that you lodge your petition with a Senator or Member whose views are more in accord with those of your organisation. I wrote that letter not to deny the Right to Life Association or Mr O'Meara the opportunity to lodge the petition but because I believed that since the Right to Life Association is well known to me and me to it, and Mr O'Meara to me and me to him, it would be more consistent if the Association lodged the petition with an honourable senator who was more sympathetic to its cause. I did not decline to lodge the petition; I simply suggested, in terms of the letter I read into the Hansard, that it might be lodged through some other source. I think that is an important distinction. If the Right to Life Association wishes me to proceed with the lodgment of the petition it should refer its petition back to me and I will see that it is lodged properly. However, I think that it is somewhat odd, given our public positions, that the Association should seek to lodge its petition through me. It would be more appropriate and compatible to the Association's organisational aims and philosophy if the petition were lodged through someone else who was more appropriate. However, in public life one understands and expects that these things may occur. I think when they do it is reasonable for honourable senators to suggest an alternative course. If an organisation wishes to persist it is reasonable that honourable senators should proceed in accordance with its wishes. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(7.33) —Senator Kilgariff raised some matters concerning correspondence between the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Everingham, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I will make sure that Senator Kilgariff's views on these matters are made known to the Prime Minister. Senator Chaney raised the question of whether senators had an obligation of some kind to lodge any petition which was presented to them by a constituent. Senator Cook, in reply, made clear that he was aware of the convention in this respect but that he took a particular course of action for reasons which he outlined to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.34 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders 1983- MS3-Contract Requirements-Shipping of Meat to East Coast of North America and Gulf Ports, U.S.A. MS4-Contract Requirements-Shipping of Meat to West Coact of North America. Australian National University Act-Statutes- No. 170-Faculties (The Faculties) Amendment Statute No. 18. No. 171-Faculties (The Faculties) Amendment Statute No. 19. No. 172-Academic and Ceremonial Dress Amendment Statute No. 10. Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Bed Sheeting) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Berry Fruits) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Books) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Drilling Bits) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Metal-working Machine Tools) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Non-Adjustable Wrenches) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Paper) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Penicillin) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Printed Fabrics) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Refined Tin) Act-Return, for year, 1982-83. Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Ships) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Steel Products) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Phosphate Fertilizers Subsidy Act-Return, for year 1982-83. Public Service Act-Determinations 1983-No. 23. Ship Construction Bounty Act-Return, for year 1982-83. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 393 Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 4 October 1983 : (1) Is the Minister for Aviation aware of problems involving Trans Australia Airlines' excursion 45 scheme where computer failures have caused people to miss out on seats despite the fact that seats are available. (2) Will the Minister investigate this matter to ensure that the scheme is operating effectively and efficiently. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) TAA has advised that the airline has no record nor any reports of computer failures causing excursion 45 booking requests to be rejected while registrations are still open. Traffic results indicate the booking system is operating smoothly but in the light of the honourable senator's question, TAA has intensified its monitoring system. Question No. 427 Senator Teague asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 12 October 1983: (1) What is the current area, in hectares, within Australia of both native forests and other native tree plantations capable of being harvested. (2) Does the rate of harvesting of these trees compare with the Australia-wide programs for replanting and if not, what is being done to ensure that our timber resource is not being eroded more quickly than it can be grown. (3) What is the current area, in hectares, within Australia of both non-native forests and other non-native plantations capable of being harvested. (4) Does the rate of harvesting of these trees compare with the Australia-wide programs for replanting and if not, what is being done to ensure that our timber resource is not being eroded more quickly than it can be grown. Senator Walsh —The Acting Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The area of productive or potentially productive native forest in Australia is currently estimated as 40.8m hectares of which 15 million hectares are managed for wood production. Native tree plantations or Araucaria and Eucalyptus species amount to 85,000 hectares. (2) Yes. The harvest rate of native forests is currently of the order of 10.5 million cubic metres per annum, indicating a removal rate of 0.7 cubic metres per ha/annum from forests managed for wood production. The current removal rate is lower than the growth rate of native forests. The mean annual increment of managed native forest in Australia which includes reforestation and natural regeneration is in excess of 1 cubic metre per ha/annum. The moist eucalypt forests like alpine-mountain ash and karri show growth rates in excess of 6 cubic metres per ha/annum. (3) There are no exotic forests in Australia. Exotic plantations mainly of coniferous species amounted to 736,149 hectares as at 31 March 1982. (4) Yes. The harvesting rate of exotic conifer plantations is currently four million cubic metres per annum anticipated to increase to a capability of about 23 million cubic metres per annum in the year 2020 based on the current annual plantation rate of 36,000 hectares and average growth rate of 16 cubic metres/ha /annum. Question No. 444 Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 October 1983: Does the Government intend to pursue and support the aerodrome local ownership plan with a view to transferring as many airports as possible to local owners. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: It is the Government's intention to pursue and support the aerodrome local ownership plan (ALOP) with a view to transferring as many aerodromes as possible to local authorities. However, acceptance of ownership of Commonwealth aerodromes under the Plan will be voluntary and on a mutually agreed basis and the ALOP cost effectiveness is currently under review. The result of that review may affect the future direction of the ALOP. Question No. 445 Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 October 1983: At the time of commencement of the airport local government ownership scheme, how many airports owned by the Commonwealth were eligible to be transferred to local ownership. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: At the time of commencement of the aerodrome local ownership plan in 1958, 116 aerodromes owned by the Commonwealth were assessed eligible to be transferred to local ownership. The number was subsequently increased to 152. Question No. 446 Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 October 1983: Since the commencement of the airport local government ownership scheme, how many airports have been transferred to local ownership. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Since the commencement of the aerodrome local ownership plan 105 aerodromes have been transferred to local ownership. Of these 81 remain as licensed aerodromes participating in the plan. The balance were either re-classified as authorised landing areas at transfer, or were de-licensed since transfer and hence no longer participate in the ALOP, or are not presently eligible for grants under the plan. Question No. 448 Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 October 1983: (1) How many local ownership applications since the commencement of the airport local government ownership scheme have been rejected. (2) Which ones are they and for what reasons were they rejected. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Negotiations between my Department and local authorities regarding the transfer of Commonwealth aerodromes, or the entry to the aerodrome local ownership plan of aerodromes developed by local authorities, have lapsed at various times over the 25 years in which the plan has operated, generally due to a loss of interest by the local authority or to the inability to reach mutual agreement between my Department and relevant local authorities regarding operating arrangements and justifiable works expenditures. There has never been a rejection of an ALOP participation submission by an eligible local authority on grounds other than the inability to agree works for which the Commonwealth would provide grants, that is, to agree that the aviation need for the works has been demonstrated and the association expenditures justified. Question No. 449 Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 October 1983: Based on aircraft movements, and excluding the capital city airports, how many of the 20 busiest airports are not now under local ownership and which ones are they. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Based on aircraft movements and excluding the capital city airports, 11 of the 20 busiest airports are not now under local ownership. In descending order of aircraft movements they are: Townsville Launceston Coolangatta Rockhampton Wynyard Alice Springs Mackay Mt. Isa Derby Coffs Harbour Port Lincoln Note that Townsville Airport is under the administrative control of my colleague the Minister for Defence, and as such is not available for transfer to local ownership. Question No. 474 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 3 November 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Communications aware that a racket involving the sale of imported and illegal telephone equipment has been flourishing on the Gold Coast, aided by the fact that many consumers failed to identify false approval stickers attached to the equipment. (2) Has the Department of Communications, or Telecom Australia, taken measures to ensure that approval stickers on telephone equipment offered on open private sale are impossible, or at least difficult, to forge. (3) Does the Minister consider: (a) that such measures are worthwhile; and (b) that advice on correct identification of authorised approval stickers be sent to consumers with telephone accounts to minimise the extent of communications interference from sub-standard instruments. (4) Are consumers who, unwittingly or otherwise, purchase illegal telephoe equipment liable for a penalty; if so, what is the penalty. (5) Have any Telecom technicians been involved in the installation of unapproved telephone equipment on the Gold Coast or are these instruments being installed by owners to avoid detecion. (6) Does owner-installation of telephone instruments constitute an offence. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice received from the Department of Communications and the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Yes, the Department of Communications issued a Press Release on 28 October 1983 drawing attention to the fact that unapproved cordless telephones were causing serious interference to telecommunications in the Gold Coast area and that persons buying a cordless telephone should ensure that it is a type approved by both the Department of Communications and Telecom. (2) and (3) (a) Telecom requires that suppliers shall attach to a permitted telephone in a prominent position a metallic Mylar plate of dimensions 40 mm x 25 mm. However, there is no cost-effective or fool-proof way of ensuring that permit stickers cannot be forged. Nevertheless, Telecom is concerned with the number of non-approved telephones available, particularly from the viewpoints of the electrical hazards to the public and its staff and the detrimental effects on the performance of the telephone network. This matter is being considered further by Telecom and the relevant departments. The banning of non-approved cordless telephones has been under separate examination by my Department and Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, prohibiting the import of cordless telephones which do not meet Telecom standards, are in the process of being drafted. (3) (b) A bill insert called Telecom Topics is used by Telecom to draw attention to the need for customers to ensure that telephone instruments offered for sale have a Telecom permit identification. The matter is also drawn to the public's attention by the use of press advertisements and brochures which are available from Telecom business offices. Telecom is not aware of any cases where false Telecom approved stickers have been used. (4) No. However, Telecom has the power to prohibit the connection to the telephone network of private equipment which does not meet its specified standards. (5) Telecom is not aware of any of its technicians being involved in the installation of unapproved equipment. (6) Owner-installation of telephone handsets is permitted if the equipment has a Telecom permit authorising owner connection or is purchased from the Telecom sale telephone range. Standard Telecom rental telephones may only be installed by Telecom staff. As mentioned, Telecom has the power to prohibit the connection of unauthorised instruments. Question No. 501 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 14 November 1983: (1) Does the Prime Minister still agree with an article he wrote for the Courier Mail on 8 September 1977 which states in part: 'I would hope in the next few weeks to convince . . . the people of Australia and the Government that the A.C.T.U. Executive decision to seek a referendum on the uranium issue is the overwhelmingly proper course to take . . . We are saying that the people should speak'; and also stated that he could see no argument for refusing to hold a referendum on the uranium issue. (2) Does the Government have any intentions to poll the views of the people of Australia on the issue of uranium mining at a referendum. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The article to which the honourable senator refers appeared under quite different circumstances to those which now prevail. At that time, the Fraser Government had undertaken to allow wide public study and debate of the second report of the Ranger inquiry before making decisions on the uranium industry. Yet within weeks of public release of the report that Government proceeded to make decisions on new uranium contracts. In the ensuing six years Australia's involvement in the uranium industry has developed as have our international commitments. There has now been extensive public discussion of the issues and the weight of public opinion is decidedly in favour of development and export of uranium for peaceful purposes. Question No. 509 Senator Jack Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 15 November 1983: (1) Does the Western Australian Chip and Pulp Co. Pty Ltd have approval to export 900,000 tonnes of woodchips from Western Australia per year; if so, when was the export quota increased from 750,000 to 900,000 tonnes. (2) Was an environmental impact statement prepared for the additional 150,000 tonnes; if not: (a) why was one not prepared; and (b) will the Minister for Primary Industry direct the preparation of an environmental impact statement before the company is permitted to export any amount beyond the initial 750,000 tonnes. (3) Will the Minister table a copy if an environmental impact statement was prepared. (4) What species of woodchips may be exported as part of the additional quantity and from where are they to be derived. (5) For what duration was approval granted to export the additional quantity. (6) Were any conditions imposed in relation to the approval granted to export the additional quantity; if so, what are the conditions. (7) What were the conditions under which approval was granted to export the initial 750,000 tonnes. (8) What quantity of woodchips has the company exported each year since it began operations. (9) What percentage of the quantity exported each year was (a) karri, and (b) marri. (10) Has an environmental review and management program ever been prepared for the project; if not, will the Minister direct that one be prepared; and if so, will the Minister table a copy. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes; the export quota was increased from 750,000 tonnes to 900,000 tonnes on 1 January 1980. (2), (3) and (4) An environmental impact statement was not prepared, on the advice of the relevant Commonwealth and State authorities. I am advised that an environmental impact statement was not considered necessary by either the then Commonwealth Department of Science and the Environment or the Western Australia Department of Conservation and Environment because the additional 150,000 tonnes of woodchips was required to be derived entirely from jarrah sawmill residues, that is, waste that would have otherwise been destroyed. (5) The approval extends from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 1990, the termination date of the primary licence. (6) The following conditions are part of the company's approval to export the additional quantity. (a) The woodchips are to be derived solely from jarrah sawmill residues defined as wastes associated with genuine sawn timber production consisting of slabs, offcuts, dockings, and boxed hearts rejected in the normal sawmilling operation. (b) In the event of the volume of sawmill wastes available to the company yielding less than 150,000 tonnes of chips in any one year the shortfall shall not be made up by operations of a different nature without the prior approval of the Minister. (c) The approval is not to be construed as conferring on the company in any way the exclusive right to any material from which woodchips may be derived. (d) The approval is subject to review in the event that the requirements of existing or future wood using industries can be satisfied only by access to material currently exported. (e) If required, summary reports showing amounts and origin of woodchips, are to be provided to the Department of Primary Industry on request. (f) Feasibility studies on the further processing of the material in Australia are to be undertaken at agreed intervals and submitted to the Commonwealth. (7) The company was granted approval to export woodchips in accordance with the Western Australian Woodchipping Industry Agreement Act 1969-1973 and in terms of the agreement signed between Western Australian Chip and Pulp Co. Pty Ltd and its overseas buyer. The company was also required to observe any environmental requirements arising out of the work of the inter-departmental working party on the economic and environmental implications of the woodchipping industry which it would be reasonable to require the company to take into account. No such requirement arose. (8) It is not Government policy to reveal information which has been provided by Australian manufacturers on the basis of commercial confidentiality. However, I understand relevant statistics are published in the annual report of the authorities controlling the port of Bunbury. (9) The proportion of karri and marri logs accepted for chipping by Western Australian Chip and Pulp Co. Pty Ltd from State forests since financial year 1976-77 is as follows: karri marri 1976-77 34 per cent 66 per cent 1977-78 24 per cent 76 per cent 1978-79 22 per cent 78 per cent 1979-80 22 per cent 78 per cent 1980-81 24 per cent 76 per cent 1981-82 30 per cent 70 per cent The actual proportion of karri and marri in woodchip exports would have been affected by the admixture of chips produced from sawmill residues and the quantities of logs derived from private property. (10) This project has been considered in the past by the Commonwealth and Western Australian Environmental Authorities and the Western Australian Department of Forestry, all of which have agreed that an environmental review and management program was not necessary for either the original 750,000 tonnes or the additional 150,000 tonnes. The company's present approvals are not subject to review until 1990 which will be the next opportunity for the Commonwealth to consider its position in respect of environmental reviews under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. Question No. 534 Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983: (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being, appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) New authorites, committees, bureaus, or other such groups established by and within the Department of Housing and Construction since 5 March 1983, are : Joint Consultative Committee on Development at Royal Australian Air Force Tindal. Inter-departmental Committee on Community Employment Program. Experimental Building Station Review Committee. Inter-departmental Committee on Renegotiation of the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement. (b) No new authorities, committees, bureaus or other such groups are proposed by or within the Department of Housing and Construction. (2) (a) No additional staff have been appointed to the above newly-established bodies, but two staff have been internally seconded for five months to the Experimental Building Station Review Committee. (b) No additional staff are proposed to be recruited for the above newly- established bodies. Question No. 549 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) Are people in the situation where a woman who has never owned a house marries a divorced man who has relinquished his house to his ex-wife and children entitled to a first home owners grant; if not, why not. (2) Would the people in the above situation be eligible to receive a first home owners grant if the position was reversed and the man bought a house in his name ; if so, why does this difference exist. (3) Will the Minister investigate this area and take measures to ensure equity is achieved in these situations so that unnecessary hardship can be avoided. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. Previous home ownership by any applicant involved in a home acquision and not simply following a divorce/remarriage situation, is a bar to the payment of assistnce under the first home owners scheme to all of the people joined in the application. (2) No. See answer to 1 above. There is no difference in treatment between men and women; all partners must join in the application and each must be a first home owner. (3) The payment of assistance in particular cases where there has been previous home ownership would require the exercise of some discretionary power to take account of the degree of hardship arising from loss of the first home, and of the amount of benefit, direct or indirect, derived from its ownership. the difficulty is that few of these factors are readily, if at all quantifiable. The Government is very conscious of the difficult position of many people attempting to establish another home. However, the fact remains that our priority has had to be to help those who have never had the opportunity to own their own home. Question No. 574 Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: (1) Why is the disability pension classified as income for those on a social security pension and not for pensioners on a service pension. (2) Does the Minister for Veterans' Affairs consider this to be an anomalous sitution; if so will he recommend a change when the Repatriation Act is reviewed next year. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The disability pension is not counted as income for service pension purposes under the provisions of the Repatriation Act. The Social Security Act does not contain a similar provision and, therefore, disability pension is considered to be income for age and invalid pension purposes. (2) I do not intend to recommend any change to the Repatriation Act on this matter. It is my view that the disability pension should continue not to be taken into account for service pension purposes. Question No. 575 Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: (1) Is the Department of Veterans' Affairs fulfilling the Secretary's statutory obligations outlined under section 24AB (1) of the Repatriation Act; if not, why not. (2) Under what circumstances is a medical report or a specific incident mentioned by the claimant in support of his claim not 'a matter to which the claim relates'. (3) Are departmental medical officers aware that they are required under section 48 of the Repatriation Act to report on doubts that the condition claimed is not caused by the claimant's war service. (4) Have departmental medical officers been instructed not to write these reports in an adversary manner. (5) Will the Minister for Veterans' Affairs ensure that all claimants are given legal aid to help them prepare the initial appeal if the proper procedures are not adhered to. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) It is not possible to give a specific answer to the question as posed. Whether or not a specific issue is a 'matter to which the claim relates' will depend in each case on the nature of the claim and the relationship of the particular issue to the claim. (3) Medical practitioners reporting in terms of section 48 are required to indicate any doubt concerning any matter upon which they are required to report under sub-section 48 (1). This is a wider requirement than that mentioned in the question. If the practitioner does not have doubts as to the opinions expressed, he or she is not required to say so. All Departmental medical officers reporting under section 48 have been made aware of the requirement under section 48. (4) Yes. I am forwarding for the honourable senator's information an instruction to medical officers forwarded by the Chief Director, Medical Services, on 29 April 1982. (5) This is a hypothetical question. I point out to the honourable senator that there is a range of ex-Service organisations providing advice and assistance to veterans lodging claims or appeals. Senator Grimes —On 6 September 1983, (Hansard, page 327) Senator Reynolds asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the apparent anomaly which presently prevents the Bush Nursing Association from receiving Federal Government financial assistance on the same basis as that given to the Blue Nursing Service in urban areas. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: The Queensland Blue Nursing Service receives funds from the Federal Government under the home nursing subsidy scheme. The Government introduced the scheme in 1956 specifically to encourage the growth and development of home nursing services in Australia. Assistance is provided directly to approved home nursing organisations by paying a subsidy based on the numbers of eligible nurses employed. It is a condition of the Scheme that the State and/or local government must also provide at least matching assistance. In order to encourage the expansion of the organisations already in existence in 1956 it was decided that only the additional nurses they employed over and above the number employed in September 1956 would be eligible to attract subsidy . However, to ensure some equity between pre-1956 and post-1956 organisations, a two tier subsidy arrangement was introduced at the inception of the scheme and the arrangement is still effective. The subsidy rates are based on the salary rates for a domiciliary nurse and are regularly adjusted in line with increases in the award rates. Currently the rates are: for organisations established before September 1956-$17,180 per annum for each additional full-time nurse employed over and above the number employed in September 1956. for organisations established after September 1956-$8,590 for each full-time nurse employed. The Queensland Bush Nursing Association, QBNA, is a pre-1956 organisation and unfortunately in the ensuing years it has not employed more nurses than the seven it employed in 1956. Consequently it has not been eligible for Commonwealth subsidy up to this time. Were it to employ more than seven nurses it would, of course, be eligible to apply for subsidy at the higher rate for the eighth and subsequent nurses. However, my Department is currently reviewing the dual subsidy rate arrangements to see if it is practicable to introduce a more equitable uniform rate of subsidy for all nurses employed including the number employed prior to September 1956. If and when such an amendment is introduced the QBNA would be able to apply for subsidy on the basis of its existing nurse numbers. Senator Button —On 9 November 1983 (Hansard, page 2361), Senator Robert Ray asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, the following question without notice concerning advertisements which appeared in the media featuring recently retired Federal politicians: (1) Is the public being accidentally misled into thinking that financial ventures advocated by ex-politicians are Government backed, and (2) Will the Government consider a code of conduct that would exclude such activities, especially as the Parliament has provided such generous retirement benefits? The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator' s question: (1) and (2) I refer the honourable senator to an answer provided in another place by the Treasurer, the Hon. P. J. Keating, MP, to a question asked by the honourable member for Casey on 15 November 1983 House of Representatives Hansard , page 2661.