Friday, 16 December 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Education 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 Senators Peter Baume (from 38 citizens) and Lajovic (from 25 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 Childs (from 99 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 programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 35 citizens), Durack (from five citizens) and Lajovic ( from 345 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of local governments in Australia shows that: General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Hill (from 87 citizens) and Robertson (from two citizens). We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, pray that the Australian Senate: Does strongly condemn the unilateral action of the Turkish Cypriot Community leader Mr Denktash, in declaring the Turkish-occupied northern part of Cyprus, a Turkish republic, and for the encouragement and recognition given by the Turkish Government. We urge the Australian Government to take all possible measures for the immediate withdrawal of the Turkish declaration and occupying troops from Cyprus , and to support the initiatives of the United Nations Secretary General in accordance with United Nations Resolutions for a just solution to the Cyprus problem. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hill (from 319 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —At the request of Senator Grimes, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the Senate- noting that, in 1967, an overwhelming majority of the people of Australia voted to amend the Constitution so that this Parliament would have the power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the people of any race for whom it was deemed necessary to make special laws; noting also that the change to the Constitution was made to enable the national Parliament to discharge a national responsibility to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia; and bearing in mind that the Senate unanimously adopted the following resolution on 20 February 1975: 'That the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people, and introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for the dispossession of their land': (1) acknowledges that- (a) the peoples whose descendants are now known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia were the prior occupiers and original owners of Australia and had occupied the territory of Australia for many thousands of years in accordance with an Aboriginal system of laws which determined the relationship of Aboriginal responsibility for and to the land to which they belonged; (b) from the time of arrival of representatives of King George III of England, and the subsequent conquest of the land and the subjugation of the Aboriginal people, no settlement was concluded between those representatives and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; (c) as a result of the colonization of the land by Great Britain the rights of the original owners and prior occupiers were totally disregarded; (d) since the arrival of European settlers in Australia, the original inhabitants have been dispersed and dispossessed with the result that their descendants are, as a group, the most disadvantaged in Australian society; (e) this disadvantage persists, despite measures taken by State, Territory and Australian Governments, and by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves, so that further measures by Australian society as a whole, and by the Parliament of the Commonwealth in particular, will be required to ensure real equality and advancement for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; and (2) considers, therefore, that the special measures which must be taken include action in the following main areas- (a) The development of effective processes of consultation with Aboriginal people in order that the Aboriginal people may assert control of all aspects of their lives, having regard to the National Aboriginal Conference's responsibility to represent and present the views of Aboriginal and Islander people throughout Australia; (b) the recognition by this Parliament of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's rights to land, in accordance with the following five basic principles: (i) Aboriginal land to be held under inalienable freehold title; (ii) protection of Aboriginal sites; (iii) Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land; (iv) access to mining royalty equivalents; and (v) compensation for lost land to be negotiated; (c) the continuation and acceleration of programs designed to ensure Aboriginal equality of opportunity in fields including health, education, housing, employment and welfare; (d) the development of programs by all appropriate means to enable Aboriginal people to take part in economic activities for their own advantage; (e) the promotion and protection of Aboriginal cultural identity, in ways considered appropriate by Aboriginals, including measures designed to: (i) codify in writing Aboriginal languages, and assist in recording oral history; (ii) preserve and protect Aboriginal sites and objects; (iii) restore to Aboriginal people sacred objects relevant to their history, tradition and culture; (iv) enhance the development of traditional or contemporary art forms; and (v) provide interpreter services; (f) restoration of the rights of Aboriginal families to raise and protect their own children by means of uniform laws and procedures in respect of child custody , fostering and adopting; (g) respect for, and in appropriate circumstances, the application of, Aboriginal customary law and related practices as part of the law of Australia; and (h) the development of improved community relations between Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal Australians, which requires a growing understanding on both sides by means of: (i) public education programs; and (ii) fostering the study of Aboriginal history, language, anthropology and archaeology in Australian schools and institutions of learning; and (3) is therefore of the view that- (a) the Australian people will be truly free and united only when the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of this nation are free of the distress, the poverty and the alienation that has been their lot; and (b) the Bicentennial year of 1988 provides an immediate focus point towards which all Australians can work together to achieve the objectives set out in this resolution. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: (1) That Government Business notice of motion No. 1 be postponed until the next day of sitting; and (2) That notice of motion No. 2 be postponed until a later hour this day. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.05) —The effect of Senator Button's motion is not to go ahead with his plan of having a meeting of the Senate for the whole of today and for tonight. Senator Button —Not true; that is not the effect of it at all. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry; I must have misunderstood. Question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILLS: RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS TAX COLLECTION BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (FREQUENCY RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TAX) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (RECEIVER LICENCE TAX) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TEMPORARY PERMIT TAX) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TEST PERMIT TAX) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TRANSMITTER LICENCE TAX) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 21 October 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.05) —This is a truly bipartisan piece of legislation which the Opposition has much pleasure in supporting. It has been apparent for some years that the Wireless Telegraphy Act has been unsatisfactory and the Hon. Neil Brown Q.C., a former Minister for Communications, began work in 1982 and late last year produced a piece of legislation. The draft Bill was issued late in 1982 not only for public comment but also to get public discussion on differences which the Bill contained from the report of the Davidson Committee of Public Inquiry into Telecommunication Services in Australia. A seminar was held soon after the change of government in April 1983 and the Labor Government has picked up the Bill which was prepared by its predecessors, has advanced it into the Parliament and presents it now for the approval of the Parliament. The Bill, which deals mainly with transmission through the radio waves, is a necessary updating of the legislative framework. It is something which the Opposition is pleased to have had a role in preparing. We endorse it and we wish the Bill a speedy passage. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.06) —in reply-I thank the Opposition for its support of this Bill. As Senator Baume has said, Mr Brown, the former honourable member for Diamond Valley and Minister for Communications, had a lot to do with the preparation of this Bill. Now that he is no longer in the Parliament, I feel quite capable of paying him a tribute. We wish the Bill a speedy passage. It is bipartisan and is a Bill of a very technical nature. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.07) —Concern has been expressed about some of the search provisions and the orders which may be obtained from magistrates. The Opposition does not believe that they are necessarily unduly onerous, but we shall watch the operation of the Bill to see how the provisions in some of the clauses do operate. We may wish to discuss this matter with the Government later if the application of some of these provisions is in any way inappropriate. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS TAX COLLECTION BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (FREQUENCY RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TAX) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (RECEIVER LICENCE TAX) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TEMPORARY PERMIT TAX) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TEST PERMIT TAX) BILL 1983 RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS (TRANSMITTER LICENCE TAX) BILL 1983] Consideration resumed from 15 December 1983, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bills be now read a second time. Bills read a second time and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 17 November 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator HILL(South Australia)(9.11) —The purpose of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, if one takes it from the last annual report, is to encourage Australia's export trade in goods and services by providing a specialised range of insurance guarantee and financing facilities not normally obtainable from the commercial market. It is worth remembering that the Corporation was first set up by a Liberal government to ensure that Australian exporters were not disadvantaged in terms of the facilities available to their overseas competitors. This obviously requires a change from time to time in the powers of the Corporation in response to changing international trading circumstances. The first paragraph of the second reading speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) indicates that the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill proposes essentially technical amendments. However, as one reads further it becomes apparent that that is very much an understatement. In fact, the Government plans a very different charter for the Corporation. Most importantly, the Government has decided to remove the restrictions which generally limit EFIC services to those not normally available from the private sector. Thus in its export bank and insurance function it can be expected to compete with the private sector in future. Furthermore, as stated by the Minister, exporters will no longer be required to demonstrate a need to meet competition when seeking concessional export finance. Rather the EFIC, subject to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development undertakings, will take the initiative in determining appropriate credit terms. In other words , the Corporation will be able to give concessional finance to facilitiate developments of what are described in the Minister's speech as 'worthwhile trade development prospects'. The Bill therefore raises all the difficult questions concerning the role of government and public money in trade development. The Government claims to have accepted a challenge to revitalise our export sector and clearly sees for itself an important role. Not only do we have this Bill but also we have in mind the Government's intentions in relation to an overseas trading corporation. Furthermore, the Government is placing an emphasis upon the export of manufactured goods, which raises the whole question of past policy and public funding being primarily orientated towards import protection in this sector rather than export development. Therefore, as I indicated at the commencement of my contribution, the Bill is important and raises important decisions. The structural changes that have taken place in Australia's trade over the last decade are well known. Briefly I remind the Senate that the rural sector currently represents about 42 per cent of total exports compared with 80 per cent in the 1950s. This decline in the share of rural exports has in turn been matched by strong growth in exports of fuel and minerals which has accounted for the bulk of Australia's export growth in the last three decades. In 1980-81 fuel and mineral exports accounted for 40 per cent of Australia's exports, compared with less than one-tenth in the 1950s. Similarly in direction there has been a major change with a significant decline in the importance of the United Kingdom market and the diversification of exports to the expanding markets of the Western Pacific region and to the Middle East. What is less well known is our relatively poor export performance. First, in both volume and value terms, Australia's trade performance has been below the annual average rate of growth for the world as a whole. Through the 1970s our share of total world trade fell from 1.69 per cent to 1.18 per cent. In fact, of the 33 largest exporters for which data is available, all but three achieved higher export growth rates than Australia. During the 1970s, Australia's international purchasing power increased by only 7.4 per cent. The increases for some countries broadly comparable to Australia were significantly greater: Canada, 66.3 per cent; New Zealand, 27.1 per cent; South Africa, 78.4 per cent; and Brazil, 128.5 per cent. Available International Monetary Fund data indicates that the only country to do worse than Australia during the 1970s in terms of improved purchasing power was Sri Lanka. Secondly, although export markets have expanded in absolute terms, Australia has fallen back in its market share in many of its principal export markets. For example, Australian import penetration into Japan reached a peak of 9.39 per cent in 1972 but by 1979 it had declined to 5.69 per cent. Australian production as a percentage of all United States imports was 1.53 per cent in 1973, but by 1979 it had fallen back to 1.09 per cent. Over the same period, while Australian exports to China, Italy, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and the Association of South East Asian Nations have increased in both volume and value, market pene- tration has fallen. This dissappointing export performance appears to reflect Australia's declining standard of living relative to that of many of our trading partners. Given our small domestic market, an improved export performance would appear to be obviously critical in reversing that trend. A number of reasons for our poor trade performance appear obvious. First, the relatively high concentration of exports in primary products. Not only have Australian primary products been one of the slowest growth sectors in world trade over recent years, they have also been concentrated in slow growth areas of North America and Europe. Agricultural trade has, of course, been subject to extensive trade barriers and export subsidies most evident in the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community countries. Secondly, Australia has not been able to compete with the industrialised nations of South East and East Asia in ensuring exports markets in manufactured commodities. Australia's industrial policy has remained of the same character over the last 30 years, as I said, essentially one of import replacement rather than export orientated. The result has been the development of a broadly based manufacturing sector which, while initially import competitive, has been increasingly unable to withstand import competition. Thirdly, we have seen a declining competitiveness of the Australian trade sector with high domestic labour costs, prohibitive transport costs, and at times poor exchange rate management and inappropriate taxation policies. Australia retains a high ranking in primary and extractive commodities because of an obvious competitive advantage. That competitive advantage can be undermined by inappropriate policies such as high tariffs on imported plant and equipment and uncompetitive shipping rates. However, a further comparative advantage we have is our location in the Asian-Pacific region. We are located in the most rapidly growing, economically speaking, region of the world and a region of dynamic economies based on outward looking trade orientated industrialisation strategies. We have a clear contrast with some western European economies which have stagnated. Projections of their future have been dominated by a preoccupation with policy directed at the stabilisation of incomes and economic structures, which has resulted in slower gross domestic product growth. Australia's approach to its economy has been of the industrialised West European mould, and with a similar result. Our reaction to the economic dynamism of our region has been one of despair rather than recognition of the tremendous trade opportunities which that gives us. High growth rates and trade orientated development strategies within our region are expected to continue. By the end of this century, the Asian Pacific region will encompass an immense economy, certainly, far from fully integrated but with high degrees of interdependence in many spheres. Market opportunities for Australia will be great, but it will require different attitudes if we are not only to protect our natural competitive advances in relation to primary products but also to maximise the opportunities presented by this regional economic growth. It will be the manufacturing sector which will face the greatest challenge. Peter Vidler of the economics and commerce group of our Parliamentary Library, in a recent paper, said: While there will continue to be a demand for Australian mineral resources from Asia, the challenge arising from the growth of Asian countries lies in the implications for manufacturing industry. As countries such as Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong move to more advanced stages of development, their import demand will also change from predominately natural resources, to include semi processed material and items of capital equipment. Australia's economic opportunities will be maximised if it can reorient its manufacturing sector away from its domestic market orientation to meet this new demand. It is obvious that the traditional labour intensive Australian manufacturing sector will be incapable of sustaining any significant competitive presence. It must shift away from its concentration on high labour input and low value-added production towards more capital intensive high value-added products, which can find market niches in the expanding Asian economies. We must build on the comparative advantages of our resource and energy endowments. Senator Harradine —What about work? What about employment? Senator HILL —That is right, but the question is whether one can create employment by continuing with the policies of the past or whether one has to look in a new direction. I am suggesting that a new direction will be essential. I am saying that we must not disregard the comparative advantages which we have; we must build upon them. Those comparative advantages, obviously, are resource and energy endowments, and to date a relatively well-educated work force. Technology intensive industrial activities offer major opportunities for generating more wealth and increased employment. In the key technology areas, particularly in the fields of electronic technology, communication technology, biotechnology, computer software, lasers for medical technology, to name only a few, opportunities abound. I remind Senator Harradine that we have shown that we can build on our comparative advantages in computer control, mining processes and high technology dry land farming techniques. We may not be able to compete in the manufacture of microchips, but we can compete in the development possibilities spawned by the new technology. These are new, different goods, systems and services which would be not only import competitive but also export seeking. The report of the panel which reviewed the Australian Trade Commissioner Service was released only a few weeks ago and stated in part: Product and market opportunities in some traditional areas are declining while new opportunities, for example in skills and services, are emerging. Other nations are already responding to these world developments and Australia needs to move quickly if it is to take advantage of new product and market opportunities. The panel reminded us that such changes are most graphically evident in our major trading partner, Japan. Traditional Australian exports face static or declining markets in Japan. Yet changing industry structures and consumption patterns are creating substantial new and rapidly growing markets in a segment of the Japanese market that Australia has barely broached. To retain Australia's trading status in Japan and generate employment in Australia we must find a way into the growing segments of the Japanese import market, and this will require a more substantial and imaginative commitment to the market than has been mounted to date. For Australia to meet this challenge it will require outward-looking entrepreneurs, a dedicated work force, the production of high quality, imaginitive- Senator Harradine —You have got a dedicated work force already. Senator HILL —If Senator Harradine does not think a dedicated work force will be necessary, I am surprised. Senator Harradine —I do. We have got it already. Senator HILL —We will need the production of quality, imaginative, yet practical products and aggressive export marketing. Senator Georges —You should apply the Standing Orders. You will always get trouble when senators read their speeches. Senator HILL —Mr President, I know some people think it would be better if we spent all day debating the Sex Discrimination Bill. There are some in this chamber who think there are other subjects that are at least as important. However, this will require the right policies from government. These will include not only the right macro-economic policies affecting the competitiveness of Australia's exports, for example exchange rate, fiscal and monetary policy, but also specific policies, for example export credit to which this Bill relates and export market development grants, which we debated last year. The panel identified a number of specific areas in which government policy can make a positive contribution to an improved trade performance. The first area related to offsets. The panel mentioned the fact that offset opportunities amounting to some $1.5 billion are currently outstanding against existing contracts. Senator Elstob —Can't you incorporate it? Senator HILL —I know that some honourable senators are in a hurry to get home. They have all day to debate four Bills, one of which has already been dealt with . Senator Coleman —Stop reading your speech and give it to us from the heart. Senator HILL —It would take longer if I did that. I was about to refer to a number of specific suggested areas in which government policy can make a positive contribution to an improved trade performance. The first I mentioned related to offsets. I reminded the Senate that offset opportunities amounting to some $1.5 billion are currently outstanding against existing contracts at a time of underemployment in the Australian economy. I should have thought that that would be of particular interest to the Senate. The panel supports a greater focus of attention being placed on non-defence offsets and a correspondingly closer role for the Minister for Trade in the development and implementation of the offsets program. Secondly, the panel believed that greater emphasis should be placed on the utilisation of Australian goods and services in support of the Australian aid program. Thirdly, the panel noted the value of government purchasing and the promotion of industries with export potential, particularly in areas such as high technology and consultancy contracting. Fourthly, the panel noted the number of companies in Australia-some 900-which are subject to export franchise restrictions covering some 5,400 exportable profit areas and suggested that perhaps a policy of incentives should be provided to encourage multinationals to liberalise franchise restrictions. I should have thought that that would be particularly important to those on the other side. Fifthly, the panel felt that greater emphasis should be given to Australian investment overseas which would allow the investor to take advantage of expected growth in the host country market, overcome tariffs and other import barriers and gain access to markets adjacent to the host country. Sixthly, the panel raised the problem of State- Commonwealth relations and stated: The competition among States in areas of promotion of exports, state government purchasing and offsets programs is costly, has resulted in fragmentation of industry development in Australia and has created confusion in the minds of overseas governments and business as to the respective roles of the Commonwealth and States in external trade. Seventhly, the panel raised the interesting subject of the marketing of public sector skills. It said that in areas such as health, education, power generation , and agriculture there are skills and expertise within Australia which have the potential to be marketed overseas. These are the different directions for which I presume Senator Harradine was searching. However, what comes out most clearly from the report is the lack of a long term, external commercial strategy for Australia, a lesson that should be learned from the Government-determined goals of Japan. I gather from the agitation in the chamber that the Senate is very anxious to proceed with the Sex Discrimination Bill. If I might return to the Bill before us and the expanded role that it gives the Government in relation to trade credit, the Minister used a number of times, in his second reading speech, the word 'aggressive'. I think there is a need for Australia to become more aggressive in its export performance. For too long we have followed rather than led. Therefore, I support the extension of favourable credit terms to allow new market opportunities to be seized, rather than simply to combat the competition of others. With regard to the extension of services that may be otherwise obtainable from the commercial market, I remind the Senate that the support of the Campbell Committee for the Corporation seems to be based largely on the fact that it fills what is at present a market gap. For the Corporation to go further and duplicate services that are offered by the commercial sector would appear to offer nothing further, or better, than currently exists. There are sufficient challenges for the Government in the area of trade development without duplicating what already exists. However, in general I welcome the updating of the Corporation, the recognition by the Government of the importance of an export manufacturing sector and the contribution that it claims to be willing to make towards more aggressive marketing. I trust that it will give further attention to the deficiencies identified by the panel to review the Australian Trade Commissioner Service, and recognise the urgent need for an export policy that is based on the challenges of the future, not of the past. The PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Harradine, I draw the attention of Senator Hill to standing order 406. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.33) — Senator Hill indicated in his speech that perhaps some of the things he had mentioned were what I might be searching for. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that long before he got into this act I had been involved in the industrial area and developing policies both nationally and internationally on these very matters. I suggest that he take a look at some of the things that I have written about the matters that he addressed. I take exception to the implication that I am anxious to have today devoted to the Sex Discrimination Bill. I would have thought he would have known that I am most anxious not to have it devoted to that subject, as I have expressed the viewpoint that it is not necessary that the Bill proceed through this chamber now because it cannot become law, the House of Representatives having risen for Christmas and being unable to receive it until next year. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.34) —in reply-I thank the Opposition for its support of the Bill. Senator Hill made a speech which was a mine of refreshing information on the topic. I am sure everybody will read it avidly, as he did. The Government is grateful and hopes that the Bill will have a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. [COGNATE BILL: INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 1 December 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.36) —The Senate is debating cognately the Life Insurance Amendment Bill and the Insurance Amendment Bill. The Opposition supports each of these Bills. Because of the pressures of time I will restrict my comments to the Insurance Amendment Bill. The main features of that Bill are designed to strengthen the financial standards imposed on general non-life insurance companies. These strengthening provisions are aimed at two principal areas-to increase the paid-up capital and solvency requirements. The motivating forces which have caused the Government at last to act in this area are the recent collapses in the insurance industry of companies such as Palmdale Insurance Ltd and Bishopsgate Insurance Australia Ltd, in addition to a number of collapses of brokering firms. Over the years a number of people have recognised that the crux of the problem in the insurance industry can be sheeted home to two principal areas. Firstly, both the Insurance Act and the Insurance Commissioner have been toothless tigers . In addition to that, there has been no attempt to control brokerage operations within the industry. The main thrust of the Insurance Commissioner's reports on the general insurance industry in recent years has been directed towards the failure, firstly, to lodge returns on time. In certain circumstances when some of the returns are received by the Commissioner there has also been the question of the ability of the Commissioner's Office to interpret the financial thrust of some companies. Remedial action has therefore been required in this area. The same problem arose in the United Kingdom with the Board of Trade having a similar problem. One can cast one's mind back several years to the collapse of Vehicle and General in the United Kingdom. The problem was predominantly not located until it was too late. There appear to be similar sorts of difficulties in Australia. But unlike the banking industry, where the Federal Government determines what overseas banks can operate in Australia, over the last decade insurance interests from overseas have entered the market in Australia with certain detrimental effects upon the whole industry. The advent some decades ago of overseas insurance in the Australian market was the signal for a price-cutting war, the responsibility for which must largely be accepted by the insurance brokers of Australia playing one insurance company off against another and eventually finding the weak reeds within the industry. At last the Federal Government, in its attempt to stabilise the insurance industry for the benefit of the consumers, has decided to act. The amendments in clause 16 of the Insurance Amendment Bill provide some limitations on what is deemed to be proper to include as assets, for example, a limit on outstanding premiums. Clause 16 places some limitations on the extent to which outstanding premiums can be brought into account as assets. Proper registration of brokers with the insurance industry in Australia would go a long way towards returning stability to the industry. I welcome the introduction of a Bill, perhaps in the autumn session of Parliament, to fulfill this need. All brokers should be registered and the condition of their registration should be such that it would bring about a stability which would ensure a better result for the industry generally. Historically one of the weaknesses within the insurance industry is the granting of credit. This problem is highlighted particularly with major companies whose insurance program is handled by brokers. It is a commonly accepted fact that the due date is reached before negotiations take place with the insurer. This means, in effect, that they are buying time. There is probably a period of negotiation of two, three, four months or even longer before the final terms and conditions are agreed upon for the policy year. The result of this is that the broker does not receive premiums, nor are they passed on to the company, for up to six to nine months. This must be a disability for the insurance industry generally. No one would deny that the law of insurance requires clarification. It is also clear that with rapidly changing technology, not only in industry but also in commerce, the insurance industry has been under great stress to keep pace with these changes. But it is not enough on its own to clarify the law of insurance, to clear up issues regarding policy wording and contracts for the benefit of the consumer. It goes much deeper than that. The whole financial structure of the industry must also be streamlined in order that people's interests are protected at all times and that company collapses can be minimised. The main concern of the insurance industry should be financial stability so that the client is protected at all times and is not faced with the prospect of his policy being worthless. It may well be that, apart from the annual returns that are submitted by companies to the Commissioner, there should be some form of quarterly return. I welcome the improvements that are in this Bill. I, on behalf of the Opposition , support both of these Bills. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.43) —I thank Senator Watson for his support, on behalf of the Opposition, of the Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1983 and the Insurance Amendment Bill 1983 which he has indicated and for his observations, which I am sure will be taken into account. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 1 December 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. (No. 2) Consideration resumed from 13 December 1983. Clauses 5 and 6. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.47) —When the Committee was last dealing with clauses 5 and 6 of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2) Senator Ryan gave me a set of words relating to the period an employee should be available to fulfil the responsibilities of the job. The question I was asking, because I think it is relevant and will be of a great deal of interest to many employers, is this: Is it an offence for an employer, in his or her naivete, to ask an employee whether she is married and whether she is planning to have a family in the immediate future? The question is being asked because the position is such that it would require considerable training for the employer to receive any benefit, reward or return for the investment in the employee, and an employer would require an employee to spend considerable time in the position. The question is: Is it an offence to ask either of these questions? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(9.48) -It would be an offence to refuse a person employment or promotion in employment on the ground of marital status or pregnancy. It would not be an offence for an employer to seek information concerning an employee's availability, which may include information about that person's marital status or many other things. It would not be an offence to ask any questions. It would not be an offence to refuse an employee a job on the ground that he or she will be unavailable for any reason to fulfil the terms of the employment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.49) —To refresh the memory of the Committee, the provisions of clauses 5 and 6 outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status. The amendment that has been moved by the Opposition is to incorporate the words 'and the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances'. I draw the attention of the Committee to the comments that were made by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) on Tuesday evening when we were last discussing this matter. The Minister, in her responses to the questions that were asked, used the word 'reasonable'. Quite clearly, that is the only way that these measures can be truly anti-discrimination measures; in other words, to ensure that these measures are not used for ulterior purposes. The example I gave of the possible operation of clause 6, which deals with discrimination on the ground of marital status, has not been properly answered by the Minister. Because the definition of martial status includes the de facto spouse of another person, and because that then in turn places marital status, for the purpose of this clause, at the same level and on the same status as a bona fide marriage relationship, it creates and will create problems. As I indicated on the previous occasion, the United Nations Convention was not intended to do that. It was not intended to palce a de facto relationship on the same basis as a bona fide marriage relationship. I draw the Committee's attention again to the possible effect of this clause on , for example, an owner of a hotel in a country town in which there may be two hotels. In a number of towns I know, there are more hotels than residences; but I just take as an example the more typical country town, perhaps, in which there are two hotels. Those hotels are the centre for the social life of the community . Let us say, for example, that the hotel-keeper wanted to go away and wanted to ensure that his hotel was properly cared for and was properly run as the social centre of the town and that he gave the hotel charge to a manager. Let us suppose that the manager is a married man in the town and that whilst the hotel- keeper is away, he shacks up with a barmaid. Under this measure, the hotel- keeper cannot, in those circumstances and for that reason, sack the manager. Senator Georges —The licensing authority would, though. Senator HARRADINE —No; the licensing authority cannot, under this measure. Senator Georges —The licensing authority has a right over what happens in that hotel. Senator HARRADINE —Oh no. The licensing authority, under this measure, is covered by this measure. That is the point. The Crown is bound. In those circumstances, the hotel-keeper, under this measure, would not be able to sack the manager. The licensing authority could do nothing about it, and the hotel- keeper would lose his business because all the locals would go down to Jack Ryan 's to engage in their social life there. Surely this is not a matter with which this Bill was designed to interfere; not with those sorts of rights and responsibilities. That is one of the reasons why I sought to have deleted from the definition of 'marital status' the aspect of a de facto spouse. Unfortunately, I received no support from the Opposition, the Liberal Party or the National Party. Senator Haines —You did not get any from me, unless you meant to include me in the Opposition. Senator HARRADINE —No, I certainly did not get any support from Senator Haines or the Australian Democrats. I did not expect it. But these are the aspects of the measure that have not been fully considered. When I was attempting to explain the situation, I am afraid that the Committee was discussing matters individually with other people and not a great deal of attention was being paid to the matters that were raised at that particular stage. In particular I refer to the matter that I alone can raise in this chamber because I was the only one from this chamber who was present-that is, the matter relating to the development of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the drafts of the United Nations Convention. No mention was made of de facto spouse being given the same status as married spouse under the marital status provisions of the United Nations Convention. I again raise that matter. To retrieve the situation somewhat, it is necessary to support the Opposition's amendment. I do support the Opposition's amendment. To retrieve it further, it will be necessary subsequently, although it will not overcome the whole problem because of the matters that have just been raised, to place in a conscientious objection clause not specifically for the de facto situation but, more importantly, for greater and graver issues that will arise as a result of this legislation. I support the proposal by the Opposition to add at the appropriate parts of clauses 5 and 6 the words 'and the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances'. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(9.58) —I thank Senator Harradine for his support of our amendment. I also thank him for reminding the Committee of the points he was making at the end of the debate on Tuesday night. I respond to the statement of Senator Harradine when he said: Whilst I believe that the Opposition's amendment is probably adequate, I would have picked up what the Minister said and used the words 'reasonably relevant in the circumstances' rather than 'reasonable in the circumstances'. I say two things: First of all, I think the phrase 'reasonable in the circumstances' carries with it relevance. If we are talking about a particular situation, we are talking about whether something is relevant. However, if the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) were to indicate that she would prefer the amendment to read 'reasonably relevant in the circumstances' and the Government were to accept that amendment, I would be quite happy to change our amendment to that wording. I want to make one other point. I made some reference on Tuesday night to clause 30 (2). The Minister in debate pointed out that clause 30 (2) reads: Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1), it is a genuine occupational qualification, in relation to a particular position, to be a person of a particular sex (in this sub-section referred to as the ''relevant sex'' if- . . . (h) the position is declared, by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph, to be a position in relation to which it is a genuine occupational qualification to be a person of a particular sex. This follows a number of paragraphs which are exemptions in a sense to this section on prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sex and to which we seek to add the words 'reasonable in the circumstances'. I indicate to the Government that, whilst paragraph (h) of clause 30 (2) may well pick up a number of the sorts of things that people have in their minds when they are attracted to our amendment, it is not desirable in my opinion for these things to be done by government regulation. It would be better to give the Commissioner the right to make that judgment in individual cases. The Commission will become very experienced in the matter and I am sure that it will embark on the implementation of this Bill in the way it is meant to be implemented. But I am also sure that there will be some cases that come to it, which will be difficult for it, where a fairer and more acceptable decision could be made on the matters of sex discrimination and marital status if the words 'and the less favourable treatment is not reasonable in the circumstances' were there and the Commission did not have to rely on perhaps making some report to government about some regulation that may need to be made in a certain situation that has been overlooked in paragraphs (a) to (g). Of course, in the meantime, even if the Government accepted that and regulated accordingly, the Commission would have had to rule against someone, even though its ruling may be not entirely reasonable. I reiterate that the Opposition is not attempting to water down the Bill. It is trying to make the Bill more acceptable and fairer. The CHAIRMAN —The question is 'That the words proposed to be added to clauses 5 and 6 by Senator Martin's amendments Nos. (1) and (2) be added'. Those of that opinion say aye, against say no. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.01) — Mr Chairman, is not the Minister going to say whether the scenario that I put forward is covered by this proposition? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(10.02) —Senator Harradine is very well aware that he raised that example the other night. I answered that example the other night. I have also indicated to the Opposition that we believe that its amendments are begging the question of what discrimination is, whether it is reasonable to treat people differently under particular circumstances. We have made exemptions or indicated that further exemptions can be made. Therefore, the Opposition's amendments are not acceptable. The question of the rights of employers who are running businesses to treat people differently on the grounds of their marital status has been dealt with by my remarks the other day. Senator Harradine simply repeated the point he made the other night. I repeat that his views are not acceptable to the Government. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Martin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Giulfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Harridine, B. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, F. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Withers, R. G. Ray RobertRae, Peter Zakharov, A. O. Teague, B. C. Richardson, G. F. Lajovic, M. E. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.08) —I foreshadow amendments that will clarify the amendment I will move in a moment. Senator Georges —What are you doing? Senator WALTERS —The first amendment which I will put forward will not clarify the intention of what I am attempting to do; so I thought I would foreshadow two further amendments to clause 40 (1). I am simply refining the definition of marital status because the most obvious discrimination against non-working spouses is in the income tax laws. If a spouse is considered dependent then, according to the Australian Taxation Office, she is not entitled to any of her husband's income. This is commonly called splitting of incomes. That will clarify the situation for Senator Georges. I believe that a husband and wife are a partnership. It is only through the work of the wife in the home and the fact that she does run the home and look after the children that the husband is able to earn the income that he does. I believe that the Australian Taxation Office discriminates against the non-working spouse. Let me give some figures, though I do want to be brief. The husband of a couple earning half the average weekly income-$8,899, which is a very small income-pays $395 in tax each year. That is a gross injustice. I believe that if he has a dependent spouse he is able to earn his income only because she does as much as she does for him. They are in partnership. They should be able, if they so choose, to split their income. If that were permissible and if the wife were not discriminated against in that situation that family would not be paying tax at all. I do not believe that a couple on that sort of income, particularly if they have children, should pay tax at all. If the average weekly wage of $17,000 is earned the husband pays a considerable amount of tax, totalling $3,121. If the splitting of income were allowed the husband would pay $1,358, the wife would pay the same and there would be a saving of $405 in the tax bill for that family . For Senator Georges's information I am suggesting that if the wife is at home, looking after dependent children and doing normal household chores, if her life is one of supporting her husband, she is in effect in partnership with her husband and should be entitled to the tax free area that other people are entitled to. We discriminate against her by not allowing her that tax benefit. I am suggesting that the Bill ought to fix that discrimination, and I will attempt to do this with my additional clause 6(3). Later I will move other amendments to rectify the injustice whereby non-earning spouses are discriminated against. If the Government believes that this Bill will create justice and do away with discrimination in all areas except, as it has already said, the social welfare area-of course the taxation area has not been mentioned -I believe that we must, in all justice, go the whole way. I do not intend to speak any further on that, Mr Chairman. I hope that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) can explain the Government's position to me. I now move: (1) Page 7, after sub-clause 6 (2), add the following sub-clause: ''(3) Where a person who is married and who is not engaged in remunerated employment is, by reason of those conditions, treated less favourably, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, than another person to whom either of those conditions does not apply, that first-mentioned person shall be taken to have been discriminated against on the ground of the martial status of that first-mentioned person.''. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.15) —I rise very briefly to say that the Opposition will not support Senator Walters's amendment. We do not believe that the amendment is appropriate to this Bill. Senator Missen —It goes beyond the scope of the Bill. Senator MARTIN —As Senator Missen indicates, it really does go beyond the scope of this Bill. It is something that ought to be looked at for example in relation to the Income Tax Assessment Act which is mentioned in the subsequent amendment. For that reason we will not support the amendment. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(10.15) —The Government cannot accept Senator Walters's amendment for the same reasons that Senator Martin has just explained as to why the amendment is unacceptable to the Opposition. It is well beyond the scope of this Bill to start to make changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Government has the matter of taxation under review through the operation of the Economic Planning Advisory Council and Senator Walters is welcome to put to that body her views about desirable changes in taxation arrangements. It is totally inappropriate to attempt to bring the operation of the taxation Act into the scope of this Bill. So the amendment is not acceptable. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.16) — What the Minister has said is not substantiated by the fact that the Bill already specifically excludes the Department of Social Security. It does not exclude the Australian Taxation Office; it only excludes the Department of Social Security. If the Government says that it is beyond the capacity of this Bill to apply it to other departments, there would have been no need for the Government to have made the exclusions that it has made. The fact that it has excluded the Department of Social Security indicates very clearly that other departments are not excluded. Indeed, there is a direction that the Commonwealth departments are to abide by this Bill. It is not outside the scope of this Bill; it is very clearly within the scope of this Bill. I would like to hear the Minister's comment on that, because she has given an indication throughout the debate on this Bill that Government departments must abide by it. She is very concerned that Commonwealth departments should abide by the sex discrimination, marital and pregnancy clauses. Just because she is not particularly keen on my amendment, she says: ' It is outside the scope of the Bill'. It is not an excluded department, as is the Department of Social Security, and it is therefore within the scope of this Bill. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.17) —No. I briefly say that, unfortunately, Senator Walters has not come to a logical conclusion with regard to her argument. Senator Georges —She has moved an amendment and spoken twice. Is not the debate closed? Senator MISSEN —If I may interrupt Senator Georges, it is one thing to accept the fact that under the Bill certain departments are excluded. It does not go on to change the law in respect of those departments by saying that the Department of Social Security will do various other things. But in this case the amendment would create a new provision in the income tax law. I put it that not only does it not follow that because we exclude some departments we can do what we like about any other departments and change the tax law in a Bill such as this, but also this is a Bill which, by its long title and other provisions, concerns the matter of discrimination. It does not change the tax laws of the Commonwealth. So far as the amendment is concerned, however sound the idea might be, I suggest it is beyond the scope of the Bill and is therefore out of order. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.18) — I rise to support the amendment and I do so after an examination of the provisions of the Bill. Article 1 of the Bill's Schedule states: For the purposes of the present Convention, the term 'discrimination against women' shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. Senator Missen —But that is the Convention-- Senator HARRADINE —Yes, that is the Convention. Senator Missen —It is not part of the Bill; it is in the Schedule. Senator HARRADINE —I am being enlightened here. Senator Missen says that it is not part of the Bill. I am reading from the Schedule to the Bill. Senator Missen —The Bill does not implement all of the Convention; it implements only part of it. Senator HARRADINE —Yes. I wish the Minister would further enlighten us on some of these matters, which she has not done so far. The objects of the Bill are: . . . to give effect to certain provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; to eliminate, so far as is possible, discrimination on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy in the areas of work, accommodation, education, provision of goods, facilities and services, the disposal of land, the activities of clubs, and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs . . . I am the first to admit-the Minister has recognised and stated this-that the Bill does not attempt to implement all of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. But let us take the case of people who work. The people about whom Senator Walters is speaking are not parasites, they are workers. This Bill binds the Crown. It binds the Australian Taxation Office. It is a recognition, as it were, of the work that is done in the home that ought to be raised in the consciousness of the Parliament at this time-it is appropriate to do so-and it is for the Parliament to express its view as to how this legislation ought to operate. There are many ways in which proper recognition can be given to the women at home who are doing the most important job that a mother can do, and that is raising the family. Frankly it is appropriate that this matter be raised here. If this legislation goes through I am not too sure what effect it would have on the Taxation Office or whether we would perhaps be imposing a burden which we cannot impose under clause 57. Presumably the mover of the motion has checked out all of those matters. Nevertheless, if there is some problem in that regard obviously it can be sorted out between now and next February or March or whenever the House of Representatives pursues this matter. I am happy that Senator Walters has raised this matter. There are additional ways in which mothers, who are doing this most important job, can be recognised in the financial sense, such as a homemaker's allowance, split incomes and a number of other ways. But at present it should be recognised that they are, as Senator Walters said, discriminated against. I congratulate her for raising the matter in the form that she has. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(10.24) —Mr Chairman-- Senator Georges —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Walters moved an amendment, admittedly within the Committee stage. Having moved the amendment the matter is therefore open to discussion, but then Senator Walters spoke a second time. I take it that at that second time she was in reply and therefore closed the debate. Senator Peter Baume —Come on, George. Senator Georges —Wait a moment. If it is not correct it ought to be correct. All I am saying to honourable senators is that when we are in the Committee stage the movement of an amendment or a motion comes within the scope of the Standing Orders that apply. If we do not follow the Standing Orders we will get into terrible difficulties here because we are debating an amendment to which Senator Walters has responded. Normally that would have closed the debate but we have a series of other speeches now. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Georges, according to standing order 407 honourable senators may speak as many times as they choose during the Committee stage. A reply by someone who has moved an amendment does not close that debate, because that would precisely counteract standing order 407. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I can assure Senator Georges that I am not going to make a long speech. I only want to say a few words in support of Senator Walters's amendment. Whether my remarks are appropriate or not remains to be seen. Nevertheless the aim of this Bill is to eliminate discrimination against women. Senator Georges —Take it up under the tax laws. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I would like to. I have taken it up previously in debate. I must admit that nobody to this point has agreed with my suggestion that splitting incomes would help families. I am sure it would. Senator Harradine —I agree with you. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Thank you, Senator Harradine. I feel that the present tax laws discriminate against women who stay at home. If this Bill eliminates discrimination against women, I certainly feel that Senator Walters's amendment is a very good one. In fact, in my speech during the second reading debate I suggested that each partner of a two-income family should be allowed to earn $4, 000 tax free each year. That means that a two-income family would receive $8,000 tax free each year. I think that with the very small spouse rebate that is now being paid and with costs they are these days, it is really no wonder that married women feel they have to go out to work. I think that the woman who stays at home to rear a family certainly works very hard. I am glad that Senator Walters has decided to move her amendment. I have much pleasure in supporting it . Amendment negatived. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 7 and 8-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 9 to 11-by leave-taken together. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —by leave-I move: (3) Page 8, sub-clause 9 (10), lines 32 to 35 leave out the sub-clause. (4) Page 10, clause 9, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: ''(21) The prescribed provisions of Part II shall not have effect except as aforesaid and shall not otherwise rely upon the Convention for their effect and application.''. (5) Page 10, sub-clause 10 (1), lines 8 to 10, leave out the sub-clause. (6) Page 10, sub-clause 11 (1), lines 35 and 36, leave out the sub-clause. These four Opposition amendments all relate to the same issue; that is, the very highly controversial use of the external affairs power in the Sex Discrimination Bill. We debated at some length the use of this power in a Bill which related to South West Tasmania. We discussed the rights and wrongs of the Commonwealth extending its power into areas which have traditionally been the responsibilities of State governments through the use of the external affairs power. Since that debate the High Court of Australia has ruled by a majority decision of four to three that the Commonwealth was entitled to use that power. I said in my speech on the Sex Discrimination Bill at the second reading stage that I was dismayed, altogether not surprised, by the judgment of the High Court for a number of reasons. I feared that the Government would not be able to resist the temptation to proceed with the Sex Discrimination Bill with a reliance on that power. I also feared that those who really just did not want any legislation outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sex in this country would use that use of the external affairs power as a stick with which to beat this Bill. The Opposition has said freely that there are a lot of good things in the Bill. However, we believe some improvements can be made. The legislative powers of the Commonwealth are already quite extensive in the areas that the Bill covers. They are outlined in clause 9. They are very numerous. The application of the external affairs power is in itself deficient. Because it depends on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women it gives the Commonwealth the power, if it seeks to use it, only in matters which relate to discrimination against women. It does not extend to discrimination against men, which is a deficiency. One of the strengths of the Bill is that it is a Bill to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sex, whether it be discrimination against men or women. The fact, as it will emerge, that some parts of the Bill are limited because they apply only to women will, I think, affect public acceptance of the Bill. The very use of the external affairs power will certainly affect acceptance of the Bill. The Opposition supported ratification of the Convention. It was our policy when in government to ratify and there were many statements on the record at the end of last year that the Government expected to ratify early this year. An election intervened and, as it happened, it was the Hawke Government, not the Fraser Government, which was in power when the Convention was ratified. We support the Convention and its ratification but we do not think it should be used in this way. We took this view in government but that in no way took away from our support for the principles of the Convention and our intention to implement the relevant areas in Australia. Also, we were aware when in government that a government could try to avail itself of the external affairs power in a number of ways, so it has long since been known that the potential was there. It was not until a government actually legislated and was tempted, as the Hawke Government was tempted in relation to South West Tasmania, and the matter was tested in the High Court of Australia that the issue was settled. It was not settled as clearly as some people seem to think. Some people think that because the High Court upheld the use of the external affairs power in the case of the Tasmanian dam, the Commonwealth Government can sign any international treaty and then take whatever powers it might assume flows from that. The actual decision was a little more complex than that. Nevertheless, it symbolised the transferring of a lot of power. The fact that the decision was as close as it was shows that it is an area of some disputation and doubt. That is a position of which we were aware when in Government. Senator Georges —You are questioning the High Court decision. Senator MARTIN —I am not. Will Senator Georges please be quiet. He has not made any worthwhile contribution to this debate. In a few minutes I expect he will be complaining about people wasting time. Senator Georges —You thought of it first. The CHAIRMAN —I ask Senator Martin not to reply to interjections. She has the call. Senator MARTIN —I would rather that sort of interjection were not made, Mr Chairman, with respect. The Fraser Government was well aware of the potential to use the external affairs power although it was not absolutely certain which way the High Court would rule. I expect that would depend on the circumstances of the case. In the case of South West Tasmania, the external affairs power was not the only power the Commonwealth relied on. It was a linkage of that power with other powers and other factors which led to the upholding of the legislation. The effect of our amendments will be to take out whatever reliance there is on the external affairs power. Nonetheless, there would be wide ranging powers for the Commonwealth to legislate. There would be areas in which it could go which some people might find obnoxious, but the Commonwealth would have that power without doubt. I think that it would also take away some of the fears and objections to the Bill which now centre on the Convention. We do not object to the Convention being in the Schedule and we will not oppose it, but there clearly is a potential for extension of this Bill through decisions of one kind or another. Senator Harradine pointed out those potentials in his speech during the second reading debate. That would be to the deteriment of the Bill. In conclusion, I think that with a Bill like this, one is touching on some pretty basic feelings and attitudes in the community. The second reading debate illustrated that by the number of people who felt that they ought to speak and put their views on the record although they might have been reiterating views that had already been expressed. They were not speaking just for the purpose of expressing a point of view but because they thought it necessary to express their point of view. This is fairly typical of debate on Bills which are of a basic social nature. This Bill is of that nature. It will affect quite a few people. It is social in that it will affect people's attitudes towards other people, attitudes which may be based on their sex, marital status or state of pregnancy. As such, it is a Bill that will take a little acceptance as did, for example, the Family Law Act when it was passed. That was an Act that I supported at the time. So I say to the Government that I move these amendments with the best intentions. I hope this Bill will be accepted and that in its implementation those who now fear it will see that they did not have so much to fear. There is, as the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) would be well aware, very strong passions on the subject of the use of the external affairs powers on behalf of certain State governments. It is not necessary to use the power. The non-use of the powers would diminish the Bill very little, but I think that it would enhance the acceptance of the Bill very much. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.38) — I support this measure. I do not intend to canvass what I said in the second reading debate. I believe that the Government is and will be in difficulties in regard to this provision, but it is the decision of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and, frankly, the Minister may have to live with it. When I raised, in the Committee stage, the matter of the definition of 'marital status' she indicated that whilst I might be right in my views on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, there was no intention on the part of the proposers of the Convention to include 'de facto spouse' as part of the definition of marital status and that the Parliament had power under the marriage power of the Constitution. It would be very odd indeed if that power were relied upon to place de facto relationships on the same level as a bona fide married relationship. For the information of the Committee I will read the comments that were made by the Department of Foreign Affairs when this matter was being discussed in the United Nations General Assembly committees and in the working party. In the supplementary brief of the Department of Foreign Affairs, UNGA 32/Item 85, entitled 'Draft Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women', the Department said: The major difficulty, for Australia and perhaps for other states which are federations of one sort or another, is that many articles of the Convention require legislative guarantees of women's rights in areas of law which are the responsibility of the states. I ask the Committee to consider that very carefully. It says that those who negotiated on behalf of Australia the draft of the United Nations Convention on which this Bill is based were told that the legislative guarantees were in areas of law which are the responsibilities of the States. Of course, that was before the Koowarta decision and the Tasmanian dams decision. The whole ball game has changed. I remember quite clearly, when I raised in New York some of the problems that I am or will be raising here, that I was told: 'Don't bother about that, Senator. The States will knock that off'. Of course, those who were negotiating that treaty believed that was the situation. The nature of negotiations that take place at this level is such that, in the words used to me : 'You can give way on certain things knowing full well that they will be knocked off in the States'. That was the understanding of the constitutional situation at the time. I think members of Parliament would also have had that understanding of the Constitution. They would understand that we did not have the power in many of the areas in which we say we have it now. We did not have the power to impose the view of the Commonwealth Parliament on the parliaments of the States by invoking international treaties of this character. Clearly, the Department of Foreign Affairs did not have that power, because this is its document. I will read it again and leave the matter at that: The major difficulty, for Australia and perhaps for other states which are federations of one sort or another, is that many articles of the Convention require legislative guarantees of women's rights in areas of law which are the responsibility of the states. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.43) — The Opposition has relatively few amendments left to move and I believe that the one before the Committee now is the most important of them. It strikes at the very basis of our Constitution. Senator Harradine —I didn't regard it as the most important amendment to come, though. Senator WALTERS —I believe that this has other connotations apart from the Sex Discrimination Bill. That is why I believe it is so important. I believe the Government has secured this power under false pretences. It has altered the Constitution by a backdoor method. The Constitution should rightly have been altered by the people of Australia. It was not altered by the people of Australia; it was altered by the Hawke Government in trying to take over the rights of one of the small States. That State, of course, is Tasmania, which challenged the Government through the High Court of Australia. As has already been said, I think by Senator Martin, the fact that the margin in that judgment was so close points out more clearly than anything I could say that the alteration of the Constitution in such a major way has relied on the opinion of seven men, not on the opinion of the Australian people. Senator Peter Baume —You are not reflecting on the Court though, are you? Senator WALTERS —I am not reflecting on the Court. The Court was put in an invidious position, one in which it should never have been put. It should never have been asked to alter the Constitution in such a major way. The judges were forced to come up with a decision. The Constitution was altered by the decision of four of those seven men. It was four versus three. Before the decision came down, everyone guessed as to how such and such a judge would vote. We all knew that Mr Justice Murphy was a centralist judge and believed in centralist government. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, you must be careful here. You must not criticise the judiciary. Senator Georges —You are questioning the integrity of the Court. Senator WALTERS —I am not doing that. I am saying that we knew the way Mr Justice Murphy would vote. I am not saying that the way he voted was incorrect. Because of his centralist ideas, we knew which way he would vote. This knowledge applied to every judge. Senator Georges —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. You ought not to allow Senator Walters to question the integrity of the judges. If the Opposition is going to waste time, in its determination to go all day, I may as well raise this point of order because it is important. Those remarks were questioning the integrity of a High Court judge. It is a tradition of the High Court that, no matter what a judge's background may have been, once he becomes a High Court judge he lifts himself above his previous positions and attitudes. I do not think Mr Justice Murphy's integrity ought to be questioned in that way. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, I did not understand your remarks to be questioning the integrity of the judges. It is not appropriate to discuss this judgment in that form because it is not relevant to the Bill before us. I would be grateful if you would keep off the subject of the views of the judges. Senator WALTERS —I was certainly not querying their integrity in any way, Mr President. If Senator Georges took it that way, I am sorry for him. As the Chief Justice of the High Court has said, there is no area in everyday life, now that that decision has come down, to which those powers cannot be extended. Every area of everyday life of the people of Australia has been influenced by the extension of the powers of the Commonwealth Government. It now has the power to take the rights that every Australian believes were those of the States. This decision was never put to the Australian people as it should have been. But we have learnt that that is not the way in which this Government acts. It is not something the Government believes the people should have any say about. If this Government is forced to consult the people, it believes that the people should be brainwashed by allotting extra money to make them see the Government's side of it. We have proof of the Government's attitude in Mr Hawke's history. His Boyer Lectures are proof enough that he believes that all power resides in Canberra. He believes that the external affairs power has nothing to do with the States and is something that he should have. He believes that he should be able to say that the States will accept this. He has already said in his Boyer Lectures that the States are superfluous. He has already said that Canberra should have the ultimate power. We have learnt, in our State particularly, to regret his coming to power. He has attempted to push a republic through the back door. I am extremely opposed to this particular provision that the Minister is putting forward. I appeal to the Australian Democrats to support us in opposing the centralising of power, which these clauses give. Senator Georges —You do not know what you are talking about. You are trying to fill in time. Senator WALTERS —Senator Georges is really not making much sense, the way he keeps on interjecting and delaying debate on this Bill. I do not intend to speak at great length. It seems to me that if we do not knock these clauses out, we lay ourselves open for every piece of legislation that has anything to do with international convention to be foisted on every State of this Commonwealth. I believe that would change our Constitution and be a disaster for the people of Australia. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.51) —I am sorely tempted to deal with some of the matters which are raised in the remarks of Senator Harradine and Senator Walters , but I will resist temptation in the spirit of the time and in the hope, of course, that this Bill will go through. Senator Crowley —Congratulations, Senator Missen, for resisting temptation. Senator MISSEN —I thank Senator Crowley. I will be voting for the Opposition's amendments in accordance with the Opposition's decision. My views on the use of the external affairs power are well known and unchanged. I made that very clear during the second reading debate speech which I made, actually not on this Bill but on its predecessor, on 8 November 1983. The reasons I gave then for my views still stand. I did not speak during the second reading stage of the substituted Bill. The substituted Bill is, of course, a much improved Bill with a lot more amendments and it picks up many of the civil liberties worries which the Opposition has. I believe the Opposition has a lot of very sound amendments, most of which I will not speak to today, if any, because I believe it is important that this Bill complete its passage through this chamber in this session and that it be available for the House of Representatives early in the new year. I want to say that in view of the fact that there was agreed action on the part of the Opposition, which I will comply with, I will be voting for the amendments. I am aware of their fate. I am quite reconciled to that situation, but I am not be taken in any way to be agreeing with some of the fanciful propositions which Senator Harradine and Senator Walters have made about the external affairs power, how the Constitution will change, or any of that nonsense. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.53) —The use of the external affairs power in the Sex Discrimination Bill is, as Senator Walters has said, clearly an obvious example of the ambitions of the Federal Labor Government to centralise all power in Canberra. It makes me ask myself what power the Government sees as being appropriate for the States and what power it sees as being appropriate for itself. I really cannot see that the Government draws any distinction between the two, and I am compelled to the view that a Federal Labor Government would take unto itself all power that is available to the States. This Bill is another example of the ambition of the Federal Government to impose its own, perhaps in some ways in the spirit of the Bill, myopic and jaundiced views upon the Australian community. This sort of use of the external affairs powers in this case, in my view, is the result of an assumption on the part of the Federal Government that whatever it can do constitutionally, it may do. The merits, the honesty, the fair dealings and the integrity of the legislation were not relevant to the Government's inquiries, as if the external affairs powers should be used in absolutely all cases. We see no spirit of State-Commonwealth co-operation or goodwill or of seeking to work in a way that will ensure that the structure and the fabric of federalism will continue. I see the use of the external affairs powers in this case as a corruption of the constitutional powers which were intended by the framers of the Constitution. I have no doubt that if the use of the external affairs powers in this sort of case, as in the case involving the South West Tasmanian dam, were put to the people by way of referendum, it would be overwhelmingly defeated. I fear that in the future the Commonwealth-I am sure this was the intention behind its advisory opinions proposal in the recently aborted referendum legislation-that the Government will seek to use the High Court of Australia as a way of by-passing the people through referenda and so distort the Constitution and ignore it in a way that was never intended, as though it and the views of the great majority of people are irrelevant. If the Federal Government really wanted to test people's views about the use of the external affairs power-it talks about consensus-I dare it to put the proposal to the people of Australia by way of a referendum. There is no doubt that the individual States have the capacity to introduce and implement legislation of this nature, as they have done on a number of occasions . I do not see this as legislation which necessarily has to be imposed from Canberra. I do not see this as legislation in the nature of the companies and securities exchange legislation. It is legislation that should be introduced by the separate States and implemented in such a way as not to cause contradictions or problems between the various States. The Federal Government is concerned that States such as Queensland and Tasmania will not introduce legislation. Surely that is something for the States to decide. At the appropriate time the people of a particular State will be able to pass judgment upon a State government that did not introduce legislation. This legislation is but one small step forward in the abuse and by-passing of the Constitution and the politicising in many respects of the High Court. I seriously question how long the fabric and structure of the Federal system as we know it will continue as long as there is abuse of the external affairs powers in this way. As Senator Walters quite clearly and in an articulate fashion put forward, the external affairs powers can be used in many ways. It really saddens me to see a Federal Government that has no concern for States rights or responsibilities but lunges forward, unfettered, with unbridled ambition to impose its view upon the people of Australia, disregarding and having no concern for the States. This just is another example of such a practice. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(10.58) —The Government obviously cannot accept the Opposition's amendment in this case . I think it is clear from Senator Martin's remarks that there is a clear policy division between the Government and the Opposition on the appropriateness of the use of the external affairs power. In the Government's view this is a legitimate use of the external affairs power. Of course, the Government is committed to the protection of all Australians, and in doing so will make use of the powers available to it. I should point out, though, that the Bill contains adequate protection for State laws and practices. Clauses 10 and 11 preserve State anti- discrimination laws. The Government leaves open the option for those States which currently do not have such laws to proceed to enact them. When a State does not enact such legislation the Bill will apply. The State laws are preserved by clause 40 for a period of two years, and thereafter regulations made under the legislation can continue this exemption. State employees are not covered by this legislation. We are not seeking to make maximum use of the external affairs power and cover state employees in Queensland and Tasmania. At this stage we have left that area of employment to the States. It is quite wrong to try to characterise this piece of legislation, as Senator Crichton-Browne did, as very intrusive. It is true, as Senator Martin pointed out, that the Convention is concerned with discrimination against women and measures to attain equality for men and women. However, it is from women that the majority of complaints come. Accordingly, in the residual areas to which the application of the Convention is relevant, the Bill will have significant impact. It is our view that that significant impact would be seriously eroded should the Opposition's amendment be accepted. Consequently, we cannot accept it. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.00) —I regret the decision of the Labor Government to embark upon a rampage of handing over a wide range of powers to external authorities. It is doing so in such a manner that the whole basis of not only our federal system and States' rights but also the family unit is at stake. Therefore, I very much regret the insertion of these clauses in the Bill. It is rather unfortunate because I believe that, had it not been for the inclusion of these powers, many of us would have supported the legislation. Everyone on this side of the chamber is certainly in favour of overcoming all forms of discrimination against all people, including women. However, as a Tasmanian, I see very clearly the impact that an external affairs power can have on a sovereign community. I just wonder how far this can go, particularly if these external affairs powers can interfere with normal domestic and family arrangements. The implications, although unwritten, are potentially far reaching . Therefore I am in favour of what is proposed by Senator Walters. Also, I regret that, much as I support the principle of abolishing all forms of discrimination, I cannot support the Bill because of its far-reaching provisions . Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.02) —I ask the Minister whether sub-clause 15 of clause 9, which deals with banking, would apply to a situation in which a husband and wife were seeking a loan from the Commonwealth Bank. At present that bank will give a loan based on the husband's income only, even though the wife is herself earning a substantial income. Will the Bill, if adopted, apply to that form of discrimination- against the wife's income being taken into account in regard to ability to repay a loan? Also, where a loan has already been taken out, will the parties be able to reapply to have that discrimination done away with? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(11.04) —The Bill covers banking other than State banking-thus it would apply to the Commonwealth Bank-and would prevent the adoption of discriminatory practices with regard to the giving of loans on the basis of sex, marital status and possible pregnancy. If a situation can be defined as discriminatory within the terms of the legislation, a person receiving such treatment would be able to make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. If it cannot be so defined such a person would not. It is not clear from the example given by Senator Walters whether she is talking about discriminatory practices but, for instance, the Commonwealth Bank could not refuse to give a loan to a person simply on the basis that that person was or was not married. The normal kinds of considerations that banks take into account, such as a person's income, capacity to repay the loan and so on, would not be affected by the legislation. The legislation would say that it is unlawful to refuse a loan simply on the basis that a person is married or unmarried. It would not interfere with the normal criteria that a bank uses when assessing whether it will give a loan or, indeed, the terms and conditions on which the loan is given. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Martin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Harradine, B. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 12 and 13-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 14 (Discrimination against applicants and employees). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.11) — I will be very brief in speaking to this clause because my next amendment is the most vital one. Clause 14 (3) states: Nothing in paragraph (1) (a) or (b) renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person, on the ground of the other person's sex, in connection with employment to perform domestic duties on the premises on which the first-mentioned person resides. I move: (4) Page 12, sub-clause 14 (3), line 12, after 'sex', insert 'or marital status '. I point out very briefly that the exemption that is contained in that sub-clause is too narrow as it is confined to the acknowledgement of an entitlement to discriminate on the grounds of sex. I ask the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) whether the exemption would permit discrimination against a person living in an open de facto relationship, bearing in mind that this is in the nature of employing people to perform domestic duties and that this legislation, for the first time in the Commonwealth, is placing a de facto relationship on the same basis as a married relationship and forcing individuals to accept that situation. Clause 30 is headed 'Certain discrimination on ground of sex not unlawful' and states: . . . being a position in relation to which it is a genuine occupational qualification to be a person of the opposite sex to the sex of the other person. How would the exemption in that clause relate to genuine occupational qualifications? How would the exemptions in clause 35, that is, the residential care of children provision, apply bearing in mind the situation that if one employs people to perform domestic duties in a house of which the owners of the house or of the institution have the responsibility of residential care of children? Finally, how do the exemptions operate in respect of clause 38 ' Educational institutions established for religious purposes'? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(11.15) —The Bill provides that it is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of marital status in the case of employing a couple to do a range of domestic and perhaps maintenance duties in a home. It is the view of the Government that, if a person is applying for employment, his or her capacity to do the job in hand is what is relevant and not marital status. However, as Senator Harradine has pointed out, there are exemptions under clause 35. These apply where: the duties of the position involve the care of a child or children in the place where the child or children resides or reside; Clause 35 (2) (b) grants an exemption where: it is intended that the spouse of the occupant of the position would also occupy a position as an employee or contract worker of that employer or principal. That is the area which is exempted. Otherwise marital status would be irrelevant in considering the application for employment in those sorts of domestic duties. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.17) — In those circumstances I insist on the amendment. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.17) —I indicate that I support Senator Harradine's amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 15 to 21-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 22 (Goods, services and facilities). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.18) — I move: (5) Page 15, after sub-clause 22 (1), insert the following sub-clause: '(1A) Nothing in Division 1 or 2 renders it unlawful for a person- (a) to refuse to carry out or participate in carrying out the termination of a pregnancy; (b) to refuse to provide goods or make available facilities for the termination of a pregnancy; or (c) to refuse to provide goods, services or facilities for or in relation to the performance of any medical or surgical procedure which that person genuinely believes to be morally wrong.'. This is a most important-probably the most important-amendment I have. (Quorum formed) Clause 22 relates to the provision of goods, services and facilities. My amendment seeks to add a new sub-clause (1A). As I say, this is a most important measure. I have circularised honourable senators with a letter, dated 14 December, which indicates that there needs to be accepted in the Committee stage certain clarifying language, and that, as far as I am concerned, that needs to be accepted and is necessary to be accepted for me to honour my commitment both to anti-discrimination measures and to pro-life issues. I acknowledge that what the Government has said is that this measure is not designed to be able to be used for the pro-abortion lobby or for persons to make certain demands which would be conducive to the provision of abortion goods, services or facilities. Clearly, the Government has seen the logic in the argument that in some other areas-for example, in the United States of America-similar types of legislation have been invoked by the pro-abortion lobby to enforce its views on the community in general and on individuals in particular. As far as the provision of services is concerned, the Government, by its amendment in clause 32, has recognised that fact. Clause 32 is headed 'Services for members of one sex'. It states: Nothing in Division 1 or 2 applies to or in relation to the provision of services the nature of which is such that that they can only be provided to members of one sex. I shall come to that when we reach that clause. I believe that that is inadequate. But this Bill is aimed at eliminating discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy. As has been stated and, indeed, as has been accepted, in regard to the provision of services, facilities or goods to a woman who, for example, is seeking an abortion, that woman may argue that a doctor does not refuse a non-pregnant woman a service, such as curettage or any other gynaecological procedure or service. That is open to argument that, therefore, that a woman, if she is then denied an abortion, can claim discrimination. Obviously, the Government, as far as services are concerned, has accepted that situation; but it has not done so concerning the provision of goods or facilities. That is the purpose of this amendment. In circularising honourable senators I also circulated a document that had been prepared by an eminent lawyer and provided to me. That eminent lawyer has asked a number of questions. He said: It has been claimed that the Government's proposed amendment to clause 32-- which I have read- of the Bill will remove any possibility of the Bill facilitating abortion practices. Then he went on: Clause 22 provides that it is unlawful discrimination to refuse to provide ' goods' 'services' or 'facilities' on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy. The proposed amendment provides that it is not discriminatory to refuse to supply 'services' the nature of which are capable of only being supplied to members of one sex. As I have said, clearly the amendment does not apply to exempt the supply of goods or facilities. A number of questions must be put to those who consider that the Bill does not in fact allow to occur in the future the situation which has been suggested. In my view the Bill should express in unequivocal language and make it clear that none of its provisions confer rights or impose obligations in relation to the termination of pregnancy. The Government has accepted the question of services. In respect of the provision of goods or facilities, these are the questions which have to be asked: Do the people who say there is nothing wrong with this Bill now concede that goods in clause 22 would include abortifacients such as prostaglandins used for mid-trimester abortions? If the answer to that question is yes, do they agree that it would be discriminatory on the grounds of sex or pregnancy to refuse to supply abortifacients to pregnant women who request them? If the answer to the first question, that is, do they concede that goods in this clause would include abortifacients, is no-they have to answer either yes or no-on what basis is it claimed that abortifacients are not goods? If the answer to the second question is no, if they have said yes to the first question that they agree that abortifacients are goods, do they agree that it would be discriminatory on the grounds of sex and or pregnancy to refuse such abortifacients to a pregnant woman who requests them? If they say no, on what basis is it said that the refusal is not discriminatory? I have dealt with goods . Another question is: Do they concede that facilities would include the provision of equipment or the physical means for doing something, for example, the provision of suction curettage machines and instruments used in abortions as well as operating theatre availability for the purpose of abortions? If they answer yes to that question-they must answer yes to that question-do they agree that it would be discriminatory on the grounds of sex and/or pregnancy to refuse to make such facilities available for a pregnant woman who requests them? If the answer to that question is no, on what basis is it said that the refusal is not discriminatory? It may be suggested that the refusal to provide such goods or facilities may be based on the grounds of conscience or law. On what clause or legal decision is this suggestion based? It may be said that the law is the law; it is there. I want to know which law. What is the law to which those people refer? That would promote a very interesting debate on various judgments that have been made in respect of these particular matters. The same question could be raised about the provision of goods. On what basis can a person claim a conscientious objection under this Bill? A number of other matters relating to this issue can be raised at a subsequent stage, but those are the questions that must be answered. If they are not properly answered, why can we not in precise language adopt an amendment such as mine, which would exclude the possibility of this measure being used for purposes for which it was not presumably designed? Senator RYAN(Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(11.32) —We are now dealing with what has been the greatest red herring in this whole debate. It was never the intention or a possibility under the legislation as it was drafted that it could affect in any way current laws regarding access to abortion or to sterilisation operations or to the purchase of abortifacients from pharmacies. It was clear from the definition of discrimination in the Bill that the Bill is concerned with less favourable treatment to persons on the grounds of their sex, marital status or pregnancy. Therefore, it was clear from the start that the Bill could cover only services or goods which in their nature could be available to both sexes. One cannot say that it is discriminatory to refuse a man an abortion since in the nature of that service it is not able to be offered to a man. We are being involved in a very confusing red herring which, of course, has gone on to raise some genuine anxieties in the community. However, in order to clarify what was already in the Bill, an amendment to clause 32 was incorporated which clarifies that the Bill does not apply to services the nature of which is that they can be provided only to people of one sex. I should make it clear, because there has been some discussion about this, that sterilisation is a procedure the nature of which can apply only to one sex. Although it is possible for males and females to have sterilisation procedures, those procedures are, of course, entirely different. Senator Peter Baume —So each procedure applies only to one sex? Senator RYAN —Yes. Senator Harradine —What about goods and facilities? Senator RYAN —We will come to goods and facilities. Facilities are already covered because clause 32 uses the words 'or in relation to the provision of services the nature of which is such that they can only be provided to members of one sex'. So if the concern is that abortion be clearly excluded and facilities which could be used for an abortion procedure also be excluded, those words cover that. For goods, it is a separate question. For goods-abortifacients is the example used by Senator Harradine-the point is that if people do not wish to sell such goods they do not sell them. Abortifacients are goods. A pharmacist has the choice of not stocking them at all or, when selling them, he can warn people and , indeed, should warn customers of the dangers involved in their usage. There is no way the criterion of pregnant or non-pregnant in relation to the customer seeking to purchase the abortifacient could be incorporated in this legislation in the way that Senator Harradine requires. If a pharmacist sells an abortifacient he has no way of knowing who will use it. He could sell it to a man who might then give it to a woman who might wish to use it. We cannot contain what would happen to that good once it was sold by seeking a change to this legislation. The simple solution is that, if a pharmacist does not wish to stock such goods, there is no obligation on the pharmacist to stock them at all. If a pharmacist refused to stock those drugs, the pharmacist would not commit an act of discrimination under the legislation. The essence of discrimination in clause 5 of the Bill is less favourable treatment on the ground of the sex of a person. A pharmacist who does not stock particular goods is not in a position to supply them to any person, so the sex or marital status of the customer is irrelevant. A further consideration in the refusal by the pharmacist to stock goods could be because of his concern about the nature of the goods and not about the sex of any potential customer. I hope I have clarified that. Senator Harradine raised concerns about the sale of abortifacients by pharmacists. Senator Peter Baume —Which abortifacients? Senator RYAN —He has not said which ones. I hope I have made it clear that a pharmacist can choose not to sell those goods at all. Such refusal-it could be on the grounds of his moral objection to them-would not constitute discrimination under the Bill. Services and facilities are covered in clause 32 which clarifies that the Bill does not cover services or facilities to or in relation to such services which, in their nature, can only be delivered to one sex. Clearly there are no grounds on which the Government can accept this amendment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.37) — The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women ( Senator Ryan) has not responded to the questions that I raised in presenting this matter. I raised a series of questions to which she has not responded. In the first place, she indicated that this issue was a red herring. This is not a red herring at all. The Government acknowledges that it is not a red herring by reason of the fact that not only has it amended the original Bill- Senator Ryan —It is a clarification. Senator HARRADINE —All right, a clarification-but also in respect to the comments which the Minister has just made. She acknowledged that, in the circumstances that arise, there could be a situation whereby this drug could be used for the purposes for which it was not designed. Under those circumstances, why does she not allow this amendment- Senator Ryan —You do not sell it at all. If you have those worries, you do not sell it at all. Senator HARRADINE —That is the point; one does not sell it at all. A pharmacist may wish to stock certain drugs, He may wish to stock contraceptives. It could well be that a country pharmacist may not wish to provide on conscientious grounds, say, interuterine devices or contraceptives. Is the Minister suggesting that IUDs are not potentially an abortifacient? Senator Ryan —No, I am suggesting they are not sold by pharmacists. My understanding is that they are not. Senator HARRADINE —Whether they are sold by pharmacists or provided by doctors makes no difference to this clause. Senator Tate —You are talking about pharmacists in country towns. Senator HARRADINE —All right, let us talk about doctors in country towns if Senator Tate is interested in the question of conscientious objection. If a doctor has a conscientious objection to the provision of an IUD and if he has a conscientious objection, say, to the provision of contraceptives to a single person, then where does he stand under this legislation? That is the question that one has to ask, and it is not answered. In fact, the other aspect has not been answered as well. Senator Ryan says that this point is a red herring and then she says that the Bill is not designed to alter the current laws on access to abortion. What are the current laws? I would be interested to hear from Senator Ryan what are the current laws in respect of access to abortion. Senator Ryan —States and Territories each have their own. Senator HARRADINE —I understand what the Minister is saying, but what are the current laws and what are the current interpretations of those laws? Senator Ryan —It is not relevant to this debate. Senator HARRADINE —It certainly is relevant to this debate. It should not be relevant to the Sex Discrimination Bill and that is why I have designed the amendment-to cover those matters in detail. If neither the Minister nor the Government or any member of it will not support clarifying language, will she give an assurance that nothing in this clause would make it unlawful for a person to refuse to carry out or participate in carrying out the termination of a pregnancy, or to refuse to provide goods or make facilities available for the termination of pregnancy, or to refuse to provide goods, services or facilities for the performance of surgical or medical procedures such as sterilisation, which many people regard as morally wrong? I ask that because the Minister referred to clause 32, and I ask it notwithstanding what is contained in that clause. It is not enough to concede that interpretations are arguable or not arguable; what the Committee needs and certainly what is important for the people of Australia and those who are likely to be affected is an assurance as to how the clause will operate. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.44) —Mr Chairman, I have been listening carefully to the debate as it has progressed and to the responses of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, to Senator Harradine. The Opposition will support Senator Harradine on this amendment. There are some important issues not covered by the Sex Discrimination Bill, although it might have been meant to cover them. I accept Senator Harradine's contention that clause 32 does not cover all the eventualities he outlined, particularly contraception. Some people-doctors and pharmacists-have a moral objection, for example, to providing the contraceptive pill or whatever to single people. Even if that is not the general community attitude, there are some people who hold that view very firmly and they hold it for moral reasons. Senator Harradine made the point and I do not think the Bill meets that point. There would be a division of views in the Senate on the subject of termination of pregnancy. But I think there would be very little dispute as to whether somebody had the right-let us say a doctor-to refuse to carry out an abortion if the doctor had a moral objection to it. I am sure there would not be any objection to the principle that a nurse who had the same moral objection to abortion refused to participate in or be a part of that procedure. So whatever our individual views are on the subject of whether abortion should be illegal, I would expect virtual unanimity-I think it was something that Senator Ryan tried to move towards in the Bill-on the fact that there are a large number of people in our community who believe abortion is morally wrong. I am not one of them, but I respect the point of view, and I respect the grounds on which that view is held. Nevertheless, I doubt that anyone who is of my persuasion-I have outlined in the Senate on previous times that I do not hold the same moral objection to abortion-would disagree with Senator Harradine's amendment; that is, that those who do hold that moral view have a right not to be forced, by the force of any law relating to discrimination, actually to participate in something which morally is utterly unacceptable to them. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.47) —I will be extremely brief. Like Senator Martin, I too have listened very carefully to this debate because it is one which particularly interests me. I think my views on abortion are fairly well known. I have certainly always made them clear to the women's movement in South Australia. I am totally opposed to abortion as a form of contraception, unlike Senator Martin, who appears not to share the belief that abortion under any circumstances is morally wrong. However, having said that, I would like to diverge from Senator Martin's other point; that is, I am totally convinced by the Minister's statement that the amendments to clause 32 will satisfy the objections that Senator Harradine put forward in his amendment. It is therefore not the intention of my Party-notwithstanding my views, but because I accept what Senator Ryan has said-to support Senator Harradine's amendment. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(11.48) —I indicate that I will not support the further clarification in wording sought by Senator Harradine. I will explain the basis for that. The fact is I believe that those who are listening to this debate ought to understand what is going on. The Government laid open the Bill for public discussion and comment over the winter months. At the end of that period of discussion many representations were made, including those by Senator Harradine and other groups, concerning the question of the possible effect of the Bill in relation to procedures for the termination of pregnancy, and I shared some of those concerns. Whilst not always agreeing with the particular tactics or political strategies of the right to life movement in Australia, I am a member of the Tasmanian Right to Life Association and I consulted with Margaret Tighe, who is well known to members of the Federal Parliament in relation to her championing of this particular social issue. Indeed, I know, as Chairman of the Caucus legal committee, that during the final discussion of the representations received over the winter a declaratory clarifying clause was inserted into the Bill to become, I think it was then, clause 20 (1A) in order to clarify and declare the situation to make it clear what was already clear, that the Bill did not provide for a situation where it would be unlawful to refuse to provide an abortion to a woman who requested it. That issue is decided on other grounds in relation to other values and laws. This particular Bill had no particular effect on that question. I was nevertheless pleased to see that the Government made yet another more clear statement of that point in what is now clause 32 of the Bill to say that in relation to the whole of Divisions 1 and 2 nothing: . . . applies to or in relation to the provision of services the nature of which is such that they can only be provided to members of one sex. Indeed that particular form of language has been the subject of legal advice to the Right to Life Association and Mrs Margaret Tighe has authorised me to table, if that is what honourable senators wish, the legal advice by a leading member of the Melbourne Bar which that particular Association obtained, and which has satisfied itself that indeed this declaratory clarifying section within the Bill does make it quite clear that the Bill does not render the refusal to perform an abortion an unlawful act. Indeed the opinion which has been provided is very striking not only for its sympathetic concern with the issues raised but also for its absolute rejection of the very strange interpretation which has been offered by those who have this concern as a deep moral and conscientious question. Without going through the actual legal steps, step by step-as I say, I am prepared to table the opinion-counsel says at paragraph 2.8: I have read a number of articles which fear discrimination might arise in the way that is set out in some of the arguments by Senator Harradine and others-but I find their reasoning quite unconvincing. That is the conclusion of counsel for the Right to Life Association. Senator Harradine —What date was that? Senator TATE —That was in relation to the then clause 20. Senator Harradine —What date was it? Senator TATE —Well it has been forwarded to me over the last two days. Senator Harradine —What date? Senator TATE —The date is 30 November 1983. Senator Harradine —Yes, well, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. Senator TATE —The only water that has flowed under the bridge, Senator, is that as counsel anticipated as a possibility, the Government has gone further than clause 20 and put it in a more embracing context in clause 32. I just indicate that for the benefit of the Committee. Therefore I find it quite unnecessary further to concede to the arousing of fears and misgivings, which Senator Harradine's further amendment I believe sets out to achieve. I believe that the Bill, as it stands, does not in any way permit it to be said that the refusal to provide an abortion to a woman is rendered unlawful by the Bill. I find that the continual attempt to embarrass the Government, to try to put the Government on the defensive and to embarrass Senator Ryan in particular, is a political exercise rather than one that is concerned with the very real issue of whether the Bill does facilitate the termination of pregnancies. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.54) — Mr Chairman, I object strongly to that comment made by Senator Tate. It comes from a person who accepted the original Bill in its entirety, which left it open-- Senator Tate —That is a complete lie. That is a lie! Senator HARRADINE —He accepted the original Bill. Senator Tate —That is a lie! The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Tate, you must withdraw that remark. Senator Tate —Mr Chairman, in deference to the Chair I withdraw that remark. Senator HARRADINE —Mr Chairman, Senator Tate accepted the original Bill when it came into the chamber. I am talking about the original Bill which went through Caucus. He accepted that, and furthermore he claimed that persons were concerned about that legislation and their concerns have now been understood and recognised, even by the opinion which in fact is outdated. However, what did Senator Tate do? As far back as 27 October an article headed 'Truth lost in hysteria, says Senator' stated: The distortion of the Sex Discrimination Bill by some interest groups had contributed to an hysterical atmosphere in which the truth was finding it hard to be heard, Senator Michael Tate said yesterday. Senator Tate . . . made the comment after supporting the bill in Parliament. 'The bill makes no impact on the question of abortion in Australia whatsoever,' . . . According to the report, Senator Tate went on to say: 'To make this division crystal clear a declaration has been inserted in the bill stating that nothing in section 20 applies to services, the nature of which is such that they can only be provided to members of one sex.' I was the one who raised this issue in the first place. I was aware of the fact that it had been used in the United States of America for this purpose. My contacts in America, of whom I have a large number in the pro-life field, had warned of this possibility because the equal rights amendment in the United States had been similarly used. I raised this matter by writing to every senator in this place, including Senator Tate. What Senator Tate is suggesting now is that he and Margaret Tighe got into the act. Margaret Tighe did not even get into the act until I had written to honourable senators. She apparently came up here to lobby and then settled for an arrangement with Senator Tate. That, by definition, even the Government recognised was inadequate because it left hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory, including the Calvary Hospital, open to charges of discrimination under this legislation. Quite clearly, the limiting of the exclusion, such as it is, to the then section 20, was not sufficient. The Government has recognised that because it has in fact amended the legislation, after being pressed by me and others, by inserting new clause 32 which seeks to provide an exclusion for members of one sex in respect of services referred to in Divisions 1 and 2. Senator Tate says it was his view-presumably he maintains it is still his view- that this issue of abortion is one of the matters that, to use his words, 'are determined in accordance with other values and under particular laws'. He has not answered the questions that have been prepared by legal counsel. He has not answered the questions that I placed before the Senate previously. It is quite clear that this legislation can be used by a person to claim, on the grounds of sex or pregnancy, that he or she has been discriminated against by the refusal to provide certain goods, facilities and services, the nature of which is such that their supply would contravene the conscientious objection of the providers. I know that this gets on to the question of the conscientious clause which I will propose later on and which does not deal precisely with the clause that is currently before us. However, the questions which have been raised, and which have remained unanswered by either Senator Ryan or Senator Tate, are relevant to that clause which we will deal with later. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Progress reported. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that Senator Gareth Evans will be absent from Question Time today. In his absence I will take any questions which would normally be directed to him. I also inform the Senate that at 12.30 it is my intention to suggest to the Senate that further questions be placed on notice. It is also my intention to move that the Senate sit through lunchtime today and, at the same time, to move that the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2) be declared an urgent Bill with times allocated to particular clauses. I also indicate that all Ministers have agreed that the answers they give to questions will be as short as possible in order to maximise the number of questions asked. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I do not wish to waste the brief time that we have for questions and other business before the Senate. Just before Question Time, however, Senator Button advised me of his intention to guillotine the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2). In those circumstances I have agreed, on behalf of the Opposition, that we will go along with a shorter Question Time on the clear understanding from Senator Button that that was not to be taken as any sort of precedent and that he would not seek to use it as a precedent. Secondly, we agreed to sit through lunch time . Thirdly, we said that we were opposed to the guillotining of the Sex Discrimination Bill. I made those concessions because the Opposition was told that the Government had the support of the Australian Democrats and therefore the motion for the guillotine would be carried. In those circumstances it is the clear wish of the Opposition that there should be an opportunity to debate the very contentious amendments before us and the Opposition seeks to maximise the time available to us for debate on the Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-What has been suggested about the guillotining of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2) should not go without challenge. This is not an urgent Bill in its nature. It cannot be finally enacted before the House of Representative deals with it. Senator Button has given notice of a motion-it is on the Notice Paper-for the Senate to sit tonight and tomorrow if necessary. He has now apparently withdrawn that notice or is suggesting that this Bill be guillotined, with the support of the Australian Democrats. That undermines the rights of the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Order! The matter Senator Harradine is raising is a matter for debate on the guillotine motion. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to Senator Button, both in his capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate and as Minister representing the Prime Minister and also in his capacity today as Minister representing the Attorney- General. I remind him of a statement made by the Attorney-General yesterday in the matter of public importance. The Attorney said that the difficulty is that there is simply no established policy in place at the moment with regard to the dry docking of warships which may be armed with non-conventional weapons; that discussions were set in place between the United States and our British allies in regard to this matter; and that the discussions he was contemplating would take months rather than days or weeks. I also refer Senator Button to statements reportedly made by the Prime Minister on a radio program last night. He said: I would think in respect of the United States the matter is resolved-they understand, and there'll be no problem there. There's a bit more discussion going on with the UK. How can these statements be reconciled? What is the true position? Are the talks continuing with the United States as well as the British Government, as indicated by Senator Evans yesterday? Senator BUTTON —As I understand the matter, there have been discussions with both governments. According to the latest information I have, they have been expedited and probably will not take as long as Senator Evans foreshadowed in his speech yesterday. I am unable to provide precise details of the discussions with the United States, but I think it is probably true to say that they are resolved or reaching a point of finality. I know that further discussions have taken place with the British Government. I am instructed that the Minister for Defence, as at yesterday, was having talks with the British Minister for Defence about this matter. But on the basis that those discussions are not finally completed, I am not in a position to add any more by way of enlightenment in respect of this matter. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. In view of the fact that in 1981 women in Australian universities constituted only 19 per cent of staff at the level of lecturer and 2 per cent at the level of professor, can the Minister comment on the publicly stated opinion of Dame Leonie Kramer that 'the most important academic procedures-selection and promotion-are, in intention and overwhelmingly in operation, scrupulously equitable'? Is it reasonable to suggest, in the words of Dame Leonie, that women who wanted to raise a family could not then expect to reach the highest rungs of the academic ladder? How could such a prominent and highly qualified woman hope that the campaign for women's participation in academic life will not be too successful? Senator RYAN —The views of Dame Leonie Kramer, as they were reported in the media , have been drawn to my attention. I can only express my disappointment that a woman in such an eminent academic position as Dame Leonie should express her wish, if indeed she has, that our policies of making universities and promotions within universities more accessible to women of appropriate qualifications and expertise should fail. The implications of Dame Leonie Kramer's remarks are quite disturbing. If she believes that there is not any structural discrimination against women academics , one must infer from her expressing that view that she also believes that the current situation in which only 2 per cent of professors are women reflects the real capacity of women. That is certainly not my view. It is not the view of any organisation representing women academics, be it the Australian Federation of University Women or the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations, or any other organisation that has high membership of university women. It is the view of those organisations that in the past a great deal of direct and indirect discrimination has prevented women of very high qualifications of outstanding scholarship and teaching experience from receiving promotion to the most senior levels within the academic hierarchy. I refer honourable senators to a study made of women within universities called 'Why so few' which was published last year and which documents very convincingly the kinds of employment policies, promotional policies and circumstances that have prevented very able women from being made professors. For example, I recall that at the Melbourne University an outstanding woman academic, Dame Margaret Blackwood, was denied a chair for many-- Senator Chaney —Short answers. Senator RYAN —Sorry. Senator Chaney reminds me I should be giving a short answer . Dame Margaret Blackwood was denied a chair for many years, despite the fact that the entire academic community and her academic peers considered her to be the most outstanding person in her field. I am reminded by the Leader of the Opposition that we have an agreement on short answers. I simply express my disappointment and my disagreement and can only hope that Dame Leonie has been inaccurately reported. Senator JESSOP —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who I think is representing the Attorney-General. I refer to the question I asked the Attorney-General on Tuesday this week concerning the expenditure of funds for the promotion of the Yes case from the $1.25m allocated by the Government for this exclusive purpose prior to the disallowance agreed to by the Senate yesterday. The Attorney-General undertook to try to give me an idea of the money that had been expended prior to our disallowance. Is the Leader of the Government in a position to provide the Senate with the costs of the information kits that were paid for prior to the debate in the Senate? I note also that some 10,000 booklets were published. Is he able to provide any information about that? Also is he able to inform the Senate of the costs incurred with respect to the consultation with advertising agencies and the market surveys that were conducted? Will the Leader of the Government table all the documents, including the booklet to which I referred in the Senate today? Senator BUTTON —There are a number of parts to the honourable senator's question and I am not surprised that the Attorney-General has not been able to answer them between Tuesday and Thursday. I understand the information has been sought and will be provided to Senator Jessop as soon as possible. I regret that that is the only undertaking that I can give at this stage. Senator JESSOP —Mr President, very quickly, I ask a supplementary question. Am I to take it from that answer that the Leader of the Government will be giving me a written reply? Senator BUTTON —I am sure that a written reply-I am not sure that it will be adequate for Senator Jessop-will be provided. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to the latest monthly figures on retail sales, which indicate a substantial increase in sales in the month of October, and to recent predictions by the Australian Retailers Association of a bumper Christmas shopping season. I ask: In what way have the Government's economic policies contributed to this massive boost in consumer confidence? Can we expect this increase in activity in the retail industry to flow through to other sectors of the economy in 1984? Senator WALSH —There is no doubt that the stability which the Government has provided to economic policy is a major factor in the recovery in the various sectors to which Senator Foreman has referred. I gave a detailed answer to a similar question, I think about three days ago, and in view of the constraints which have been requested about short answers I refer Senator Foreman to that answer for more detail. Senator CHIPP —I was looking forward with relish to asking the Attorney-General this question but in his absence I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister stated in the Australian Labor Party's campaign speech of last February that the very circumstances of the calling of this panic election reek of fraud and deception, and went on to question why the election was being called eight months before time? Why now, only nine months after being elected and nine months after making that scathing attack on Mr Fraser for his political expediency in calling an early election, is the Prime Minister speculating on calling an early election, 16 months before it is due? Does not the Prime Minister's claim of a recalcitrant Senate reek of fraud and deception, given that out of the 169 pieces of legislation presented to the Senate all but four have been passed or remain intact to be passed? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chipp in other circumstances has reminded me that he was a member of parliament when I was still at school, or something like that. Senator Chaney —He was at school for a very long time. Senator BUTTON —Seven years in fourth form, yes. I think Senator Chipp will recall that frequently these statements are made, particularly at this time of the year when the Senate blocks or otherwise delays particular pieces of legislation. I think they are always made by politicians of various political persuasions. I do not think they can be construed as speculation about an early election. I concede in part Senator Chipp's observation that the Senate, except with particular Bills, has not been a highly recalcitrant Senate. I do not know, but it is just possible that the Prime Minister might have speculated about an early election in order to help the economic recovery even further, because speculation about an early election carries with it speculation about the prospect of the alternative government succeeding in that election. That would be a great stimulus to the people of Australia to follow the Government's economic policies which are leading to such success. Insofar as I am unable to answer parts of the question, I will address them to the Prime Minister and obtain an answer. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to a story in today's Age describing recent oil discoveries in the Naccowlah block in south-west Queensland by Claremont Petroleum? Can the Minister advise the Senate as to the significance of these discoveries? Is it feasible for the oil produced to be piped through the Moomba pipeline to the Stony Point terminal in South Australia? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report in today's Age which is headed 'New oil find could yield 450m barrels'. I am advised that the reference to 450m barrels is not soundly based and is not even close to an accurate figure. The proven reserves in that entire area amount to about 50m barrels. I am not in a position to allocate blame, but somebody has shamelessly talked up the figure for whatever reason. The evidence available today can confirm only 50m barrels. There are a number of other misleading statements in that story. Tinpilla has not yet been declared an oil discovery. Jackson oil is being trucked to Moonie at present and is not piped to Adelaide. The map in the Age incorrectly shows Jackson as located in South Australia. So it is a highly unreliable story, to say the least. As to the final part of Senator Maguire's question as to whether it is feasible that oil from the Jackson field which, I stress, is in Queensland and not in South Australia, as the map in today's Age shows, could be piped to Adelaide, that certainly could be done. I understand that Santos Ltd originally wanted to do that. Senator Elstob —Was that because of the peanut curtain, Senator? Senator WALSH —That is right, yes. It could not penetrate the peanut curtain. The pipeline was not allowed to pass the peanut curtain into Queensland and as a result a very much more extensive investment in the pipeline to Brisbane had to be made. If a rational approach to planning for the development of the whole area had been applied, unimpeded by interstate jealousies, the oil that has been discovered so far could have been delivered by pipeline to Adelaide. Senator WALTERS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. It follows Senator Jessop's question about the money already spent on the referendum cases. Have the kits that have been produced been distributed? If so, how widely? Senator BUTTON —I believe that the kits have not been widely distributed, but I am unable to give a more precise answer. Of course, as I indicated to Senator Jessop, I will make sure that Senator Walters gets an answer to this question. Senator COOK —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Since the Senate may rise today, and in a week Christmas will be upon us , does the Leader of the Government have a message for the growing thousands of individuals and their families who, on Amnesty International figures, have been imprisoned or tortured, have disappeared or been murdered in over 60 countries of the world for exercising their basic human rights? Could the Leader of the Government also express the Government's attitude to the fundamental and shameful economic injustice in that at least one-fifth of the world's population lives in poverty and that inequality between the rich and the poor is still rampant? Senator BUTTON —I share Senator Cook's concern about this matter. The Brotherhood of St Laurence recently estimated that some two million to three million people in Australia could be described as poor. The World Bank report of 1978, which was the last report of the World Bank to deal with this topic, indicated that 800 million people in the world live in absolute poverty and almost one-fifth of the world's people-three billion people-can be described as poor. I do not know what message I can deliver on behalf of the Government to those people except to express concern, which I feel is shared by all honourable senators, and the hope that Australia will be able to make an enlarging contribution to relieving this problem in the future. That, of course, depends on our priorities and our capacity to have this economy generate greater wealth, some of which might be contributed to those purposes. Senator BOSWELL —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the recent elevation to the inner Cabinet of his colleague Mr Kerin, the Minister for Primary Industry. Since Mr Kerin has had most of his submissions on behalf of primary industry knocked back, and is travelling rural Australia saying sadly to primary industry 'I agree with you, but Cabinet won't listen,' will Senator Button use his considerable clout in Cabinet to allow Mr Kerin a small face- saving win on some minor submission to restore his self-confidence, which has been absolutely destroyed? Senator BUTTON —First of all, it is not correct to say that the majority of Mr Kerin's submissions to Cabinet are knocked back. I think the burden of Senator Boswell's question really is that Mr Kerin is a highly successful and well regarded Minister for Primary Industry. If the National Party finds that unpalatable, I am sorry. That is bad luck. Senator BOLKUS —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, concerns the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill debated in this place on Wednesday. I ask the Minister: What is the correct position in respect of the Acts Interpretation Act and its effect on taxpayers who may have requested exemption from tax liability pursuant to the provisions of this legislation? Senator WALSH —The correct position is that before anyone could request exemption from tax liability under section 3 (12) of the present Act, that person would have to be in receipt of an assessment or make such a request during the subsequent objection period. That is in conflict, of course, with the reason that Senator Harradine gave on Wednesday, when he voted against precisely the same proposition which he had voted for last year. Senator Harradine claimed, and repeated yesterday, that he voted in the way he did because of the retrospective effect. He said: . . . 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. As a matter of law, pursuant to section 8 of the Acts Interpretation Act, Senator Harradine is wrong. Anybody who made such a request would be exempt from liability whether section 3 (12) remained in the existing Act or not. In other words, there is absolutely no substance in the reason which Senator Harradine gave for reversing his vote and no substance in the claim he made yesterday that he had been misrepresented on this issue by the Press. Senator Harradine could have got that information at any time before Wednesday by means of a simple telephone call to the Australian Taxation Office. There is one other matter I wish to raise before completing the answer. I note that on Wednesday last Senator Harradine said: Does the Government want me to move an amendment to amend this Bill in precisely the same terms as the first Bill? If it wants me to do so, I will test it out and I will do it . . . that is, move an amendment. Subject to Senator Harradine confirming, either in the Senate or in writing, that undertaking which he gave on Wednesday and adding that he would vote for such an amendment, having moved it-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I remind the Minister that the answer is getting a bit long. Senator WALSH —I am almost finished, Mr President. If Senator Harradine moves an amendment effectively to enact the original May Bill, I will take his guarantee to the Treasurer and/or to Cabinet and suggest that the Government act accordingly. Senator CHANEY —My question is also directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to his repeated promises to release a Green Paper on resource rent tax before Christmas. I ask: Is it still his intention to release such a paper before Christmas? If not, when does he expect it to be released? Could he indicate shortly whether the delay in releasing the Green Paper indicates that the Government has realised that the proposal has very real practical problems as opposed to the pure economic theory on which the tax is based? Senator WALSH —It is still my intention and hope to release the Green Paper before Christmas. Senator Chaney or anyone else who is interested is entitled to know that a draft has been prepared. That draft is satisfactory to me; but, prior to releasing it, I need to check that it is satisfactory to the Treasurer and to the Prime Minister. Subject to the Treasurer having time to look at it between now and, say, the middle of next week, I hope to release it in the middle of next week. I do not believe the Treasurer will have any problems with it. The second question Senator Chaney asked has been partly covered but I will make one brief comment. There are certainly some technical problems in implementing the proposal. I have never attempted to deny those problems; but the Government has not dropped the proposal because of those technical problems, nor does it believe that those technical problems are insurmountable. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Minister representing the Special Minister of State aware that there were a number of problems with mobile polling during the Northern Territory election? In particular I refer to the lack of a notification period before a change of poll site or visit time, lack of thought given to location and duration of mobile polls and problems associated with mobile polls being placed on pastoralists' properties. Will the Minister investigate these problems in order that they do not occur during the next Federal election? I remind the Minister that this could now be a matter of urgency following the decisions made yesterday. Senator BUTTON —Those complaints about the Northern Territory election are a matter of public knowledge. Attention has been drawn to them in the Press. I will convey the contents of Senator Sibraa's question to the Special Minister of State. I am sure he will look into the matter and provide an early answer. I will also look into the matter in respect of the Commonwealth situation following general reviews which are taking place as a result of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Senator MASON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. I ask: Will any Australian television network broadcast the United States produced television film depicting the effects of nuclear war, The Day After? In particular, has the Australian Broadcasting Corporation sought to obtain this program and, in terms of my question on notice No. 545, show it in prime time nationally and with adequate publicity? Senator BUTTON —I am indebted to Senator Mason for his question. I recall the previous question which he asked me. I am able to supply him with an answer. The answer is that exclusive television rights to the film are being purchased by the commercial network, Channel 10. The time of screening is for that network to determine. I am further advised that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation tried to obtain television rights to the film but was unsuccessful. I also understand that cinema rights for Australia for the film are being held by Roadshow Distributors Pty Ltd, which plan to commence box office sales in February 1984. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate who is representing the Attorney-General, concerns the Human Rights Commission education course entitled 'Teaching Human Rights-Activities for Schools'. Can the Minister say when the course will be taught in schools on a national level? Can he also advise whether non-government schools are likely to include the course in their curriculum? Senator BUTTON —I am not able to supply that information but I will ensure that the Attorney writes to Senator Elstob concerning it as soon as possible. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, by referring him to the package of steel legislation that was passed in the Senate yesterday. In the course of the debate he made the observation that the bounty, in itself, would not stimulate demand and went on to say that the steel package was predicated on the basis that we would have a steel industry of reduced capacity and size. I assume, since $350m of taxpayers' money has been funded to the shareholders and employees of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, that careful feasibility studies have been undertaken. I ask: Where will the reduction in capacity take place? By what percentage will the capacity be reduced? What percentage of the work force will be shed to provide the steel industry with what one might describe as perhaps the optimum operating capacity? Senator BUTTON —I did not say that the bounty would in itself stimulate demand. What I said was that it would assist in stimulating demand, particularly in relation to the substitution of other products for steel and a more general use of steel, but I did not attach great significance to that. The capacity of the steel industry a few years ago was of the order of 9 million tonnes a year. I think I am correct in saying that the projected capacity now is of the order of 6 million tonnes a year. There have already been sizable reductions in the work force. Further reductions, if they are necessary, will be achieved by a process of attrition, not by the processes that have been followed in the past. Senator COLSTON —Can the Minister for Resources and Energy advise the Senate whether progress has been made in gaining co-operation between researchers in Australia and those in other countries in the development of technologies for the management of high level nuclear waste? If so, what are the details of that progress? Senator WALSH —While I was in London some three weeks ago I met Mr Waldegrave, the United Kingdom Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. As a result of that meeting a memo of understanding between the United Kingdom Department of the Environment and the Australian Department of Resources and Energy was signed in London yesterday and I believe was announced in the House of Commons by Mr Waldegrave. Amongst other things, as a result of that agreement to co-operate on further research into synroc having been signed, synroc will be tested in the United Kingdom with active fission products in it. Such testing cannot be carried out in Australia because the required active fission products are not available. This should be seen, I believe, as a significant potential step at least, towards a final solution on the disposal of nuclear waste, a subject that very rightly has concerned many people in the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. I think even a number of people in the Liberal Party also have been concerned about the ultimate and safe disposal of nuclear waste. While it cannot be guaranteed that this will be achieved, what is proposed has the potential to make a significant step towards achieving that objective, about which all sensible people ought to be deeply concerned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented in an answer given by Senator Walsh. The PRESIDENT —The honourable senator may proceed. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Walsh, in an answer to a dorothy dix question at Question Time, said that I had not understood the operation of the Acts Interpretation Act. It is not I who does not understand the operation of the Act . It is obviously Senator Walsh who does not understand. It is also obviously Senator Walsh who does not understand-nor has he read, presumably-what I stated in the Senate. I have maintained a consistent approach based on certainty before the law and fairness. It was one thing last year to vote against the inclusion of a clause which conferred certain rights to expect certain treatment in accordance with let-out or innocence provisions; but it is entirely another matter, 12 months later, to deny to taxpayers their right to relief which, under the law, they are entitled to expect. They are two different questions altogether. I remind the Senate of what I said about section 3 (12). The reason I voted against that section this time was 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-that is, that right to have it applied by the Commissioner-removed. They will face tax recoupment liability in accordance with other provisions of the legislation. Where the Acts Interpretation Act applies is in respect of those-- Senator Georges —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Harradine is now going into the area of debate and beyond the area of misrepresentation. I think he ought to be brought to order. The PRESIDENT —I think his personal explanation is involved in this matter, but I remind Senator Harradine that he is not eligible to debate the matter. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr President. I will be brief. I am trying to say that the Acts Interpretation Act would be involved, of course, in relation to those taxpayers in respect of whom the Taxation Commissioner has actually applied section 3 (12). Quite obviously, they are protected by the Acts Interpretation Act. All those other taxpayers to whom I referred in my speech would not be so protected. In fact, although they may have requested that the Commissioner apply section 3 (12), had section 3 (12) been excluded, quite obviously the Commissioner would not have been able to apply section 3 (12) in their cases. The other aspect is clearly that Senator Walsh did not give any indication to the chamber whether the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen)-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is debating the matter now. He is supposed to be making a personal explanation. Senator HARRADINE —This is the personal explanation-whether the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister or Treasurer agree that the first Bill should come back. The PRESIDENT —Order! I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard an answer to a question from Senator Crowley on 7 December relating to women apprentices; an answer to a question Senator Chaney addressed to me on 9 December relating to youth unemployment; an answer to Senator Reid regarding the cost of the publication and record of government; an answer to Senator Archer relating to the Louisiana Exhibition; and an answer to Senator Missen relating to the execution of criminals in Indonesia. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- EMPLOYMENT: WOMEN APPRENTICES On 7 December 1983 Senator Crowley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question without notice concerning employers attitudes to women apprentices. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided me with further information on this matter. I am advised that the grants for the study of employer attitudes to employing women apprentices in traditionally male trades, referred to by the honourable senator, were approved by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and funded through the Bureau of Labour Market Research. The BLMR exercise is being undertaken because there are no Australian studies of employers' attitudes towards women apprentices in non-traditional areas. I understand that the attitude of employers towards female apprentices is only one of the factors that has limited the number of female apprentices in training today. Other important factors which influence female participation in the trades include: lack of awareness by females of the career and educational opportunities associated with the trades. misconceptions of the working environment which is traditionally male-dominated . community prejudices, family and peer pressures against female participation in the trades. secondary education not oriented for entry into the trades. In so far as Government action is concerned, in an attempt to overcome some of the barriers related to the willingness of females to participate in the trades and to demonstrate to employers that females have the ability to undertake trade work, Government labour force programs in the trade area have as part of their objective the provision of employment and training opportunities for females. Two such schemes are the Group Apprenticeship Scheme and the Government's recent initiative to fund an additional 3,000 trade-based pre-employment course places in TAFE in 1984. In negotiating with State and Territory Governments the range and levels of Federal Government assistance under these programs, the Government actively seeks to maximise opportunities for females. Honourable senators will recall that the National Economic Summit Conference agreed that the move towards greater equality and independence for women should be encouraged and that there should be equal access to job creation programs, to employment, training, retraining and education, and measures designed to break down occupational segregation and discrimination. The Sex Discrimination Bill which has recently been debated in the Senate will render discrimination against women in the spheres of education, training and employment unlawful. The Affirmative Action Green Paper will include information to assist employers in the formulation of equal employment policies within their organisations and enterprises. The National Labour Consultative Council has previously published ''Guidelines for Employers on Equal Employment Opportunities for Women'', which provides some advice for employers intending to implement such a policy. The Women's Bureau in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has produced several videos promoting career opportunities for women in a range of non-traditional occupations. The most recent video entitled ''Technically Speaking'' has been produced in two parts, one of which is intended for viewing by employers. YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT Senator Button —On 9 December 1983 Senator Chaney asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations a question without notice concerning youth unemployment. The question referred to a report by the Bureau of Labour Market Research (BLMR) entitled ''Youth Wages, Employment and the Labour Force''. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following additional information relating to the BLMR report: This report indicated that there was a relationship between youth wages and youth unemployment. However, although the direction of the relationship is quite clear, the magnitude of this effect is uncertain. The report emphasises that a major factor contributing to high youth unemployment has been the slow growth of economic activity since the early 1970s . Recruitment practices and changes in industrial structure have also been important contributory factors. The BLMR is currently considering commissioning additional studies to corroborate its findings. RECORD OF GOVERNMENT Possible question Who was responsible for the publication 'Record of Government'? How much did it cost? To whom was it distributed? Is it proposed to produce further editions of this publication? Suggested answer The 'Record of Government' was produced by the ministerial media group. It describes the achievements of the Government between March and September 1983. 10,000 copies of the publication were printed and were widely distributed to the media, business organisations, trade unions and libraries. The cost of printing it was $11,250, which was met by my department. It is proposed to revise the publication regularly, and responsibility for this will rest with the National Media Liaison Service, which will also meet the cost of printing and distribution of future issues. Background Senator Reid was critical of this publication in a question to Senator Button on 30 November 1983. Costs of printing and distributing the first edition of the 'Record' were met by the Department because the Ministerial Media Group has no funds for such activities. In future, all costs will be met by NMLS. It is proposed that future editions be tabled in the Parliament before distribution to the media and non-government organisations. Contact Officer: J. M. Malone Telephone number: 70 2923 Name of Branch/Division: Information Co-ordination Branch Date: 7 December 1983 LOUISIANA EXHIBITION Senator Ryan —On 29 November 1983 (Hansard, page 2904) Senator Archer asked Senator Button, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the Louisiana Exhibition. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government did not provide any funds in this year's Budget for Australia to participate in this exposition and accordingly there is no development to report in regard to this project. EXECUTION OF CRIMINALS IN INDONESIA On 2 December 1983 Senator Missen asked a question concerning the killing of criminals and suspected criminals in Indonesia by mysterious death squads. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer: I am aware of reports of a major campaign against crime in Indonesia and that it is alleged that the campaign is officially condoned. According to some estimates, between 2 ,000 and 3,000 people involved or alleged to have been involved in criminal activities have been shot without trial by so-called ''death-squads''. The campaign is alleged to have started in Yogyakarta in May and subsequently extended to other important urban areas in Java, Sumatra and Kalimantan. On my instructions, the Australian Ambassador in Jakarta made representations about the allegations to the Indonesian Government on 16 August. The issue has also been raised on a number of occasions with Indonesian officials. Australia is concerned about outbreaks of lawlessness but could not and would not condone summary executions which would be in clear contravention of the fundamental human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Government has consistently taken the view that Australia has a strong interest in seeing internationally accepted human rights observed and respected, and believes that in all situations the due process of law should be followed. Our representations to the Indonesian authorities are in keeping with this interest. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Yesterday Senator Reid asked me a series of questions in respect of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I seek the leave of the Senate to incorporate the answers in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Question 1: What role will the United Nations play in the Act? Answer 1: The United Nations will have observers present. Australia has been reporting to the United Nations since the Territory was placed under the authority of the Commonwealth in 1955 concerning its responsibility to create conditions under which the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands will be able to determine freely their own future in conformity with resolution 1514 (XV) as well as other relevant resolutions of the General Assembly. Question 2: 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? Question 3: What system of voting will be used? Question 4: Will Mr John Clunies-Ross and his family be excluded from voting? Answer 2, 3 and 4: These matters are still being examined in conjunction with the United Nations, the Cocos Malay people and the Australian Electoral Office. Question 5: When will the Act of Self Determination take place? Answer 5: It is expected that the Act will take place in the first half of 1984 . Question 6: Does the Government plan to allocate funds to promote the acceptance of any of the three proposals. If so, which one? Answer 6: No. The Government's concern is to ensure the Cocos people fully understand the options put to them, and the procedures for voting. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-I shall stick to the facts and not debate the issues. Senator Harradine said on Wednesday and repeated yesterday that 'those who have requested' exemption under section 3 (12) of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 1982 'will have that right removed if section 3 (12) is deleted'. Only those who are in receipt of an assessment can make that request. The interpretation of the Acts Interpretation Act given to me by an officer of the Australian Taxation Office-I believe it was also given to Senator Harradine-is completely in conflict with what he has said. Today he claimed that the people to whom the Commissioner of Taxation applied section 3 (12) will be protected. If I understood him correctly those who have requested the Commissioner to apply the exemption, as distinct from it having been applied, will have that protection removed. That is not true according to the interpretation of the Acts Interpretation Act which I have received. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate sit between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. this day. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) 12.42)-For the reason outlined at the beginning of Question Time the Opposition does not oppose that motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation . The PRESIDENT —Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented? Senator HARRADINE —Yes, I again claim to be misrepresented. It is only those taxpayers in respect of whom section 3 (12) of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 1982 has been applied that the Acts Interpretation Act refers to. As I understand it, there have been very few, if any, persons in respect of whom section 3 (12) has been applied by the Commissioner of Taxation. I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh: How many people does that section refer to? The PRESIDENT —Order! Question Time is over. Consideration resumed. Clause 22 (Goods, Services and Facilities). Upon which Senator Harradine had moved by way of amendment: (5) Page 15, after sub-clause 22 (1), insert the following sub-clause: ''(1A) Nothing in Division 1 or 2 renders it unlawful for a person- (a) to refuse to carry out or participate in carrying out the termination of a pregnancy; (b) to refuse to provide goods or make available facilities for the termination of a pregnancy; or (c) to refuse to provide goods, services or facilities for or in relation to the performance of any medical or surgical procedure which that person genuinely believes to be morally wrong.''. Declaration of Urgency Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.43) —I declare that the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2) is an urgent Bill. I move: That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Harradine, B. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Ray, Robert Withers, R. G. Zakharov, A. O. Rae, PeterRichardson, G. F. Teague, B. C. Elstob, R. C. Lajovic, M. E. Evans Gareth Townley, M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.48) —I move: That the time allotted for the consideration of the remaining stages of the Bill be as follows: For the consideration of the remainder of the Bill in Committee of the Whole, the total time required by the following allotment of time and that the clauses of the Bill be taken together in the manner indicated- For clauses 22 to 26, 15 minutes; for clauses 27 to 29, 20 minutes; for clauses 30 to 37, 15 minutes; for clause 38, 15 minutes; for clauses 39 to 42, 20 minutes; for clauses 43 to 64, 30 minutes; for clauses 65 to 81, 30 minutes; and for clauses 82 to 116, the Schedule and the Title, 30 minutes. Any new proposed clause to be dealt with in the time allotted for the preceeding clause. For the remaining stages of the Bill, five minutes. I have moved the allotment of time in that format to enable all honourable senators to have an equal and fair opportunity to put their case for the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2). I think it is relevant to point out to the Senate that already some 13 1/2 hours have been spent on the Bill. It is clearly the intention of this motion to enable the Bill to be completed around 4 p.m. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.49) —Perhaps only one thing has been said in these last few minutes with which the Opposition would agree: That is, we want to see full and fair consideration of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (No. 2). We do not believe that the motion moved by the Government does, in fact, fit in with that objective. The Government has declared this Bill to be an urgent Bill and there can be no debate on that motion. Clearly, that is a piece of nonsense. In no way can this Bill be described as an urgent Bill. There is no suggestion by the Government that the Bill will be dealt with by the House of Representatives before the Parliament resumes next February. So in no way can it be said that it is a matter of urgency that this Bill be dealt with by the Senate. In fact, the only result of the Senate passing this Bill will be that the Bill will be in limbo between the Senate and the House of Representatives for several months before it is dealt with by the House of Representatives, and, perhaps, dealt with in a rather peremptory way by that chamber if this is any example of the Government's attitude. We dispute the assertion that this is an urgent Bill. We do not believe that it is urgent, for the reason that I have indicated. What is urgent is that the inconvenience of the Bill should be removed from honourable senators opposite, because the Bill has been the subject of a great number of representations from around Australia and I have little doubt that Government senators want to see the matter off their agenda before they go away for Christmas. I suspect that that is the reality that lies behind the motion. I have at all times made it clear to the Government, and I have had a number of discussions with the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that we could not agree to the guillotining of the Sex Discrimination Bill because we regard the legislation as of considerable social significance and we think that it is essential that there be full and fair opportunity for debate. We have a Bill which the Government itself has amended over 50 times. It has introduced over 50 amendments. There are over 30 amendments being put by the Opposition. A small number of those have been dealt with. We are now in a situation in which we have to debate the remaining 27 amendments which have been put forward by the Opposition, by the Australian Democrats and by Senator Harradine. The fact of the matter is that there is no urgency about the Bill. We are being given a little over three hours in which to deal with 27 amendments. That is about eight minutes per amendment. Even if there is some grouping of amendments, there will be very little opportunity for a substantial debate on issues of some moment. We are still to debate amendments to the harassment provisions and to the education provisions, and amendments to the administrative arrangements which are being put in place on such questions as the rights of people to have a lawyer, the extent to which schools are to be exempt, and the extent to which there should be a conscience provision in the Bill. We face a very difficult task in dealing with what are complex amendments on a matter of very wide public interest within the sort of time frame which has been laid down by the Government. One can understand the Government wanting to clear its legislative program and a lack of concern because it has given the matter internal consideration. No doubt members of the Government believe that the legislation is in proper form and are asking themselves why they should be worried about further parliamentary time. One can understand that. One can understand the Manager of Government Business, Senator Grimes, saying: 'After all, the Bill has already had 13 1/2 hours'. The fact is that most of that time has been taken up in second reading debate. We have had very limited time in Committee. The fact is that this is a Bill which has excited great public comment and on which serious issues of principle have been raised. The surprising thing is not the Government's attitude. Governments in the past have moved the guillotine. I was once a Whip, and I managed to get a few Government senators at that time to support the guillotine. I concede that, although I would mention that Senator Sir John Carrick, when Leader of the Government in the Senate, never once, I think-- Senator Sir John Carrick —Once. Senator CHANEY —Once; used once the procedure that is now before us. But the surprise card in this pack is not Senator Grimes. It is my friend Senator Chipp, because Senator Chipp said to the Australian people that one of the great advantages of electing Australian Democrats to this place is that there would be no more gags and no more guillotines. That is a view which I have often heard repeated in this place, and I am sure that Senator Chipp and the Democrats remember that famous statement of Senator Chipp's. I guess that it goes to show that what a politician says in one circumstance will not necessarily be applicable to another circumstance in which he finds himself. The limitations which are being placed on this debate are being placed on it by the Government, and they are also being placed on it by the Australian Democrats, who indicated that under them, that would not occur. Obviously, the people of Australia cannot rely on the Democrats to ensure that there is an opportunity for full and fair debate in this place. Perhaps I may say something which I hope will strike a wider chord of agreement in the Committee, because whilst I am sure that Opposition senators agree with what I am about to say, it is clear that neither the Government senators nor the Democrats agree with it. I believe that there is no point-no doubt we shall hear from the Democrats-in debating for the next hour the issues which are before us now. I think the time that is available to us should certainly be spent on the Committee stage of the sex discrimination legislation. I would like to make it clear that we have agreed to forgo the lunch break and we have agreed to the shorter Question Time because it is the view of the Opposition that there should be the maximum opportunity to consider the issues of principle which have been raised and, importantly, to vote on the clauses as they arise. I wish to acknowledge that in the representations that I made to the Government there has been a response in that the form of guillotine which has been put down does break up the time and should give us some hope that the actual amendments which are being put forward can be put to a vote. I think it is important that that should be so. The Opposition will do its best to ensure that the proceedings of the Committee operate in a way which will enable that to happen. I acknowledge that one virtue in the form of guillotine which has been put down by the Government. A guillotine in gross would have had the effect whereby all divisions might have been taken in one vote and those honourable senators who might have wished to vary their position on the different aspects of this legislation would have been denied that important right. I wish to express the concern of the Opposition that, in a situation which is devoid of real urgency, in a situation where the Bill cannot in fact be dealt with totally by the Parliament until well into next year, the Government has seen fit to put this limitation on the time which is available for debate. I wish, in the firmest possible terms, to make known the total objection of the Opposition to the procedure which is before us. Motion (by Senator Button) put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. McIntosh, G. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Ray, Robert Withers, R. G. Zakharov, A. O. Rae, PeterRichardson, G. F. Teague, B. C. Evans, Gareth Lajovic, M. E. Elstob, R. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Question so resolved in the affirmative Original question resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 22 to 26. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(1.02) — In view of the disgraceful situation that occurred just a moment ago, I move: (6) Page 17, after sub-clause 26 (1), insert the following sub-clause: ''(1A) Nothing in this section renders it unlawful for a person- (a) to refuse to carry out or participate in carrying out the termination of a pregnancy; (b) to refuse to perform any function, exercise any power or fulfil any responsibility if the performance of the function, the exercise of the power or the fulfilment of the responsibility would facilitate, or contribute to, the termination of a pregnancy or the performance of any medical or surgical procedure which that person genuinely believes to be morally wrong.''. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(1.03) —Just before Question Time Senator Tate was talking about the fact that he belonged to the Right To Life Association in Tasmania and in the same breath was talking about Mrs Tighe. They belong to different organisations altogether. I am not sure whether Senator Tate is aware of that. The Right To Life Association in Tasmania has nothing to do with Mrs Tighe's organisation in Victoria. He may not be aware of that but that is a fact . He came into this place as a lawyer and quoted one other legal opinion brought to him by Mrs Tighe. There would not be another lawyer in this place who would be prepared to quote just one lawyer and say that that is fact. Legal opinions vary considerably on this issue; that is fact. I am not saying which side is correct. I am saying that legal opinions vary considerably on this issue and that is fact. It shows the difficulty of what this Sex Discrimination Bill is trying to do. I take at face value Senator Ryan's statement that it was never the intention of the legislation to interfere with the existing situation. I do not believe it was the intention, but it certainly forced the Government into amending various areas. Indeed, this Government has been forced by the Opposition to accept about 80 amendments. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) promised me that she would get me the information I sought before the debate finished and I hope she is in the process of doing so. I ask her if she will get me the information I sought relating to clause 3 of this Bill. This points out a particular difficulty. If, as the Minister said, she has no intentions of interfering with the present situation regarding abortion, why does she not accept the amendments of Senator Harradine? What harm would it do for the Government to accept Senator Harradine's amendments? Indeed, if she believes that there is an area of disputation between lawyers on this issue- Senator Tate has now indicated by a nod of his head that there is-if indeed its intention is honourable and is not to interfere with the abortion situation as it stands, why does the Government not accept the amendments put by Senator Harradine? Senator TATE(Tasmania)(1.07) —I rise more in sorrow than in anger. The anger I expressed earlier which led to an unfortunate unparliamentary expression by me has passed. But I must say that Senator Harradine's assertion that I accepted the Sex Discrimination Bill in its earlier formats or stages is completely and utterly untrue. Senator Harradine —Didn't you vote for it in Caucus? Senator TATE —No, I did not. What happened was this. I will go through the history of the presentation of this matter to the Parliament. When the matter was a private member's Bill introduced into the Senate by Senator Susan Ryan, Caucus did not approve the clause by clause form of the Bill. What Caucus does in relation to a private member's Bill is give permission for the Caucus member to introduce it into the chamber. In no sense does that bind Caucus members. Senator Ryan then became Minister for Education and Youth Affairs within the Government and the Government had a Bill drafted, substantially along the lines of Senator Ryan's private member's Bill. That was introduced into the Caucus earlier this year. There was widespread discussion in Caucus and Caucus committees and, in the midst of that Caucus debate, I was responsible for moving an amendment which effectively permits the armed services to refuse to allow women to serve in combat zones. That is the famous combat related duties clause. I was very conscious of the various ramifications of this Bill and took steps to ensure, as was my right as a member of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, that the Bill did not in that particular instance provide for women to serve in combat zones. That was my point of view and it was carried in Caucus. I also have a point of view that the Bill should not in any way provide any justification for the provision of abortion services. I believed in absolute good faith and on a fair reading of the Bill that it did not in any way confer such a right on a person to insist on the provision of termination of pregnancy services. That was my legal opinion. It happened to be shared by the Government after a thorough investigation of the matter. It was the opinion of the Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans) as provided to the Caucus committee. Therefore I did not see an absolute need for any clause within the Bill to state, declare or clarify that point. I was aware of the United States of America court decisions to which Senator Harradine referred. I have done my damnednest to get hold of the actual reports of those cases from the various United States jurisdictions. It has proved incredibly difficult, in fact impossible, for either the library of the High Court of Australia or the Parliamentary Library to provide me with copies of the actual reports. Nevertheless, I accepted the precis of them which has been made available in various Australian and United States publications. On the basis of that, within the Caucus committee, I carried out several negotiations which led to that committee, under my chairmanship, accepting a formula of words to clarify to declare the situation as those of us, who in good faith, believe it to be in any case. That clause emerged as clause 20 (1A) of the Bill when it was brought into this chamber for debate earlier this session. The Government has made a further clarification in moving that clause into another section so that it embraces a wider range of sections throughout Divisions 1 or 2. I recall that, on the night that the Caucus legal committee made that decision, I saw Senator Harradine and informed him of it as part of the spirit of negotiation and of keeping him informed and in trying to act in a reasonably civilised manner. Simply because I could not agree with his further remaining misgivings about the adequacy of that legal procedure, I was pilloried in the Tasmanian Press for being a lackey of the Minister, Senator Ryan, when all that there was was a decent difference of opinion as to the legal expression of a common concern. I think that if it were put on that basis it would help to moderate a lot of the argument that has been rather heatedly exchanged around the chamber so far. The concern is held in common. The concern is acknowledged by the Government. It has found its legal expression in that clause which I judge to be adequate. Others may not judge it to be adequate. I believe there is good faith on both sides. My view therefore remains that no further clarification or declaration is required. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(1.12) — The position is clear. Senator Tate, prior to chairing the Caucus legal committee, had the benefit of a letter from me which had been distributed to all honourable senators. For him now to suggest that in some way this had emerged from him and that he, in some way, is the sole judge of what ought to go into this legislation is ludicrous. For him to say that just because I differed with his view on this matter I pilloried him in the Press as being a lackey of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) is also untrue. I said that he was a lackey of the Minister over his support of the Government breaking the nexus of educational funding for non- government schools. That is what I said. I said that only after some of us had expressed concern about this abortion issue and Senator Tate had made a quite critical accusation that we were being hysterical. He was the first to raise the matter in the Press. I know that time is on the wing. I say simply to Senator Tate and to the Minister that if there is doubt about these matters, if some legal opinion says one thing and another legal opinion says another-I have quoted from that legal opinion and answers have not been given-what is wrong with accepting the clarifying language that is contained in the provisions that I have put forward? What is wrong with that? Finally, am I to understand from the Minister that my amendments are not needed because my concerns as expressed in the amendments are unfounded? Am I to understand that? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(1.14) -I endorse Senator Harradine's last remark. The amendments are not needed because they are not needed, but there is one exception. Certainly, his concerns about abortion and sterilisation facilities and all of those things as expressed in the amendmentd are not needed. I give that assurance. However, he raised in passing the situation of a pharmacist who would sell contraceptives but choose not to sell them to a single person. That situation is covered in the Bill. If a pharmacist decides to provide contraceptives, the Bill renders it unlawful to refuse that good to one section of the population on the grounds of sex or marital status. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(1.15) — Under those circumstances I will continue with my move to amend this legislation. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Harradine's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Harradine, B. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Button, J. N. Grimes, D. J. Childs, B. K. Haines, J. Chipp, D. L. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, D. J. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Withers, R. G. Ray, RobertRae, Peter Zakharov, A. O. Teague, B. C. Richardson, G. F. Lajovic, M. E. Evans, GarethGuilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A. Jessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Townley, M. McClelland, Douglas Question so resolved in the negative. The CHAIRMAN —The time allotted for the consideration of clauses 22 to 26 has expired. Clauses agreed to. Senator Harradine —Mr Chairman, how are we to know when the time for consideration of a clause has expired? The CHAIRMAN —I will announce the time allotted when I put the clause. Senator Harradine —I do not have a watch. The CHAIRMAN —These timings have been circulated. Senator Harradine —How are we to know? The CHAIRMAN —You look at the clock. I will draw attention to how much time there is for debate when the clauses are brought on. In the case of the next group of clauses, it will be 20 minutes. You will have to note the time on the clocks. The clocks at the side of the chamber show the speaker's time, not the time elapsed on the clause. Senator Walters —I would also like some clarification on the procedure that we adopt for the guillotine that the Government has applied to the Sex Discrimination Bill. We have been allocated 20 minutes for the next group of clauses, clauses 27 to 29. Each honourable senator can speak for 15 minutes. It seems to me that I could speak for five minutes or for two minutes, Senator Harradine or Senator Martin could speak for two or three minutes, and the Minister could take a quarter of an hour and so close off the debate. We could then not ask her any more questions. Can some sort of procedure be agreed to or at least some practice adopted that would give us the opportunity of debating these clauses as closely as possible to what I believe would be a just way to debate the Bill? The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, the arrangement is that the time allotted for the clauses has been agreed by the Committee. The time for which honourable senators may speak in Committee is laid down by Standing Orders. If people want to exact their full rights the situation you postulate might arise. This will work only if there is co-operation between honourable senators. I appeal for that on everyone's behalf. Clauses 27 to 29. The CHAIRMAN —Before we discuss these clauses, I announce that 20 minutes is allotted for their consideration. That time will expire at 1.44 p.m. Senator Martin —Mr Chairman, I seek some clarification. If at the end of 20 minutes we still have not voted and it is necessary to vote, do we vote on all the clauses or is there a vote on the amendments that have been moved? The CHAIRMAN —When the time expires I will put any amendments that have been moved in Committee and when they have been resolved I will put the clauses which are the subject of consideration at that time. Senator Martin —The amendments moved will be voted on separately? The CHAIRMAN —No, if you move them together they will be voted on together. Senator Martin —We will have a case where there are different amendments in a group. The CHAIRMAN —In that case amendments moved separately will be put to the Committee separately. Amendments that have not been moved will not be put at all . Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(1.27) —by leave-I move: (7) Page 18, sub-clause 28 (3), lines 27 to 40, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: ''(3) A person shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken to sexually harass another person if- (a) the first-mentioned person makes a sexual advance, or a request for sexual favours, to the other person, or engages in other conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the other person; (b) the other person takes reasonable steps to communicate to the first- mentioned person that the advance, request or conduct is unwelcome; and (c) (i) the first-mentioned person makes it reasonably appear to the other person that a rejection of the advance, a refusal of the request or the taking objection to the conduct would disadvantage the other person in any way in connection with the other person's employment or work or possible employment or possible work; or (ii) as a result of the other person's rejection of the advance, refusal of the request or taking of objection to the conduct, the other person is disadvantaged in any way in connection with the other person's employment or work or possible employment or possible work.''. (8) Page 19, sub-clause 29 (2), lines 8 to 22, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: ''(2) A person shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken to sexually harass another person if- (a) the first-mentioned person makes a sexual advance, or a request for sexual favours, to the other person, or engages in other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the other person; (b) the other person takes reasonable steps to communicate to the first- mentioned person that the advance, request or conduct is unwelcome; and (c) (i) the first-mentioned person makes it reasonably appear to the other person that a rejection of the advance, a refusal of the request or the taking objection to the conduct would disadvantage the other person in any way in connection with the other person's studies or the other person's application for admission to an educational institution as a student; or (ii) as a result of the other person's rejection of the advance, refusal of the request or taking of objection to the conduct, the other person is disadvantaged in any way in connection with the other person's studies or the other person's application for admission to an educational institution as a student.''. These amendments refer to the sexual harassment provisions of the Sex Discrimination Bill. I reassure Senator Walters that in moving any of my amendments I intend to take the minimum time that I think is necessary to state the Opposition's case and to avoid unnecessary elaboration. I am sure that is the spirit of all speakers today. Amendment No. (7) seeks to amend clause 28 (3) by substituting a new sub-clause (3) to provide that a person would be guilty of sexual harassment of someone else in the following circumstances: (a) the first-mentioned person makes a sexual advance, or a request for sexual favours, to the other person, or engages in other conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the other person; (b) the other person- presumably the person being harassed- takes reasonable steps to communicate to the first-mentioned person that the advance, request or conduct is unwelcome; and (c) (i) the first-mentioned person- that is, the alleged harassor- makes it reasonably appear to the other person that a rejection of the advance, a refusal of the request or the taking objection to the conduct would disadvantage the other person- the harassee- in any way in connection with the other person's employment or work or possible employment or possible work; or (ii) as a result of the other person's- the harassee's- rejection of the advance, refusal of the request or taking of objection to the conduct, the other person is disadvantaged in any way in connection with the other person's . . . I think the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, knows what I mean, and I am sure the Committee knows. We seek to put a provision here that it should be clear that the harassment, whatever form it takes-whether it is a request for sexual favours or whatever, but something of a sexual nature-is not welcome. I know we get into the difficult situation where some would say it could be alleged that sometimes through fright or fear, a young woman might just freeze, emotionally, and not know how to handle the situation, particularly if the person doing the harassing is someone who is older, more senior or perhaps the boss. Therefore the woman involved might appear to encourage the person making the sexual advance by, say, smiling, which is something that people do on occasion in nervous fright-it is possible-or perhaps try to ignore the problem, hoping it will go away. I know that that is one argument. The alternative, where that distaste for the sexual advance, or the annoyance or fear that may be felt by that person in relation to the sexual advance, is not expressed in any way, could well lead to the classic defence used down through the ages: 'But I thought she liked it'. I think there is a grey area. It is probably difficult for certain men on occasions, unless they are given an indication, to realise that they are not being encouraged. It is difficult for some men, even if someone hits them on the head with a lump of wood, to be discouraged. But that is an aside; it has nothing to do really with sexual harassment. There could genuinely be a man who is attracted to someone with whom he works, someone who may be junior to him, who makes a sexual advance and believes that he has been encouraged. He does not make the sexual advance with menace or with the thought that 'I will use my position of superiority to have my evil way with this young lass whether she wants it or not'. The difficulty of the present Bill is that it leaves this element in the mind of the person being harassed and, to a certain extent, of the person doing the harassing. I think it is necessary that the person who would make a complaint under this clause should give something that can be taken as an indication. It would not necessarily be taken as an indication, as I said a few minutes ago, by that particular individual. It may be that the girl would say: 'Keep your rotten hands to yourself'. As I said, there are some men who would take that as encouragement because of the saying that some men like to believe that, when a woman says 'No' she really means 'Yes' and who would proceed on that assumption. But if the girl did say that, or if she has done something to indicate that the advance is unwelcome, it is no defence for him to choose to misinterpret that indication. This is probably the most aggravating clause of the Bill. That has been clear from the second reading debate and it has been clear from a lot of the nonsense during the second reading debate. A man opening a door for a woman was one example of harassment that one senator gave; and there were other such examples. Clearly, many men do not have any idea of what is harassment. That was shown in the second reading debate. This will be an area of the Bill that will cause a great deal of agitation and worry. The hope of the Opposition in moving these amendments is that we will be able to take out of the Bill something which appears to be of a one-sided nature. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(1.33) —I have been asked by the Opposition to indicate at each clause whether the Australian Democrats intend to oppose or to support the amendments, in order merely to clarify things for the Opposition when it comes to calling divisions. I assure you, Mr Chairman, that this in no way cuts across our signalling system. But it is a matter of convenience for the Opposition. I say on these two amendments that the Democrats will not support the Opposition. We will not support the Opposition because, no matter what Senator Martin says, these two amendments significantly weaken the sexual harassment provisions of the Bill. It took some of us some considerable effort in the first place to strengthen the provisions in the original Bill. In plain English, what the Opposition appears to be saying in these two amendments is this: Sexual harassment is when a person makes an explicit sexual advance of some sort; the other person then takes 'reasonable' steps to communicate that the advance or conduct, et cetera is unwelcome; and the harasser must make it 'reasonably' clear that the rejection of the advance would disadvantage the person in connection with that person's employment or that, as a result of rejection of the advance, that person would be disadvantaged in connection with that person's employment. That, of course, makes nonsense of Senator Martin's example of a man who is operating with no malice, because, if he is operating with no malice, quite clearly he has no intentions of prejudicing her employment or her advancement and, therefore, has no case to answer under the Act. So I am a little puzzled as to why Senator Martin brought up that particular example. The other question that needs to be raised, of course, is what exactly is ' reasonable'. Senator Martin, I must admit, pointed out that there is a problem in this regard. What is reasonable to one person is not reasonable to another. As Senator Martin said, some men have to be hit over the head with a lump of wood before they can be persuaded that one really does not like them. In essence , however, the major problem with these amendments is that sexual harassment appears to be seen as an accepted art form, or piece of human behaviour, or at the very least they are saying: 'OK, have a go and see how far you get'. It perpetuates the power games that we have all been trying to end, in which first the oppressor does the harassing, the oppressed person reacts and then the power goes back once more to the oppressor, because, of course, it is the harasser who is given the right in this circumstance to decide whether the advance will affect the other person's job or future. Most importantly, these two amendments by the Opposition beg the whole question: If a woman believes that by not acceding to an advance she will be disadvantaged in her employment by the person making the advance, she will hardly believe that communicating the fact that she does not like the advance-or that the advance is unwelcome, that she does not like the person, or that she is not feeling like it today-or whatever-will not also disadvantage her. So the whole question is totally begged by the two amendments and the Democrats will most definitely oppose them. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(1.37) —Firstly, I ask Senator Harradine whether he would also like to speak on this matter, because my judgment is that we have a few minutes left. Senator Harradine —Yes, I support the amendments; that is all. Senator WALTERS —I want to share the time and I certainly want the Minister to have time to reply. The Government has said that it is up to the woman to decide whether she has been sexually harassed. The Government is not abiding by the Victorian legislation. Indeed, our amendments follow word for word the Victorian legislation. I do not understand why the Government will not accept our amendments because they have been set out in accordance with the provisions of the Victorian legislation. They say, purely and simply, firstly that the woman must demonstrate to the man who is supposedly sexually harassing her that his advances are unwelcome-that is all we ask; that she tell him that they are unwelcome-and, secondly, if there is some sort of hold over the woman as regards her job, that it also be indicated that she is concerned about the hold over her job. All I can say is that, if a woman is not prepared to indicate verbally that the advances are unwelcome, I do not believe she has a right to accuse him at a later date of sexual harassment. It cannot be in the mind of the woman alone, as this Bill indicates. We cannot legislate for thinking alone, and to attempt to do so is ridiculous. The Government can at least view the situation in Victoria. The amendments we are adopting follow the Victorian legislation. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(1.40) -Mr Chairman, the Government does not accept the amendments moved on behalf of the Opposition by Senator Martin for the reasons really that I think were set out very clearly by Senator Haines. The added responsibility that a woman complaining of sexual harassment should have made clear her views, I think, does misrepresent the nature of sexual harassment. Many of the women we are hoping will be protected by this legislation are women who may be migrants and have a poor command of English, or be very young or be in a very inferior position in the work force and would not be in a position to articulate in a way that the harasser found reasonable her objection. Senator Martin agrees that this is often a very difficult thing to do, even when extremely articulate women are doing it. So I think Senator Haines's point about the difficulties this would create for women is our view also. But I would point out too that in both of the clauses to which Senator Martin has moved amendments it is required that the other person has reasonable grounds for believing that a rejection of the advance would disadvantage that person in connection with his or her employment or in connection with his or her education. So it is not just social sexual harassment, it is harassment in connection which would cause disadvantage in employment and education. Obviously a man, or maybe a woman-but it is more likely to be a man-who was doing that, knowing that he could cause disadvantage to that person's education or employment could not be acting innocently in that situation. So for those reasons the amendments are not acceptable to the Government. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(1.41) —Mr Chairman, could the Minister say in whose opinion? Would it be in the mind of the person being harassed or in the mind of the employer? I am asking the Minister if she could let us know how it can be distinguished what goes on in the mind of either the employer or the woman in this case? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(1.42) -An objective test would be applied as to whether the person had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her employment or education would be disadvantaged. That would be the test of what a normal person would judge to be reasonable or unreasonable in the circumstances, and that matter would be sorted out at the conciliation procedure by the Human Rights Commission. The CHAIRMAN —The question is 'That amendments Nos (7) and (8) moved by the Opposition to clauses 28 and 29 be agreed to'. Those of that opinion say aye, against say no. I think the noes have it. Senator Martin —Mr Chairman, I indicate that the Opposition wishes it to be recorded that it voted for amendments (7) and (8). Senator Harradine —Mr Chairman, I also wish it to be recorded that I voted for amendments (7) and (8). Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(1.42) —Mr Chairman, I just want to get into the record a very brief statement of why we are using this form. We have a guillotine on the debate which does not include time for divisions. I am told by the Whips that the time for a division in the Senate is approximately eight minutes. The bells are rung for three minutes and then for several minutes we are actually counted. This Opposition, even with its grouping of amendments in moving more than one at a time, if it was to divide on all of those groups it would call for five divisions. There are some of Senator Harradine's amendments that we are supporting and some that we are not. If we were to divide on those we would obviously be here until really well into the evening. Now for reasons that are obvious to all honourable senators it was thought a more sensible arrangement, where we are clearly not going to win a division, to use this form of the Senate. That is just by way of explanation of why I am going to be moving that motion and why we are not calling for divisions. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 30 to 37. The CHAIRMAN —The time allotted to these clauses is 15 minutes so the debate on them will end at 1.58 p.m. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(1.43) —Mr Chairman, may I make a personal explanation first? The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted? Senator Walters —You are taking our time. Senator TATE —It is relevant to these clauses and an allegation made about me about 10 minutes ago. Senator Walters —Yes, but do it at the end of the debate. The CHAIRMAN —Order! If it is relevant to the clauses you may speak to the clauses, Senator. Senator TATE —Thank you. Rather than speak to the clauses- Senator Walters —That will take our time. Senator TATE —I do not intend to do that and therefore I am taking the advice of the Chair, not Senator Walters. The CHAIRMAN —As long as it is relevant to the clauses. I must warn the Committee that there are four amendments which have been foreshadowed by Senator Harradine. I think it would be appropriate if he were left time to move them. Senator Tate, you have the call. Senator Martin —I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. Do I understand you to say that if Senator Tate makes a personal explanation it does not take away from the 15 minutes? The CHAIRMAN —No, he is not making a personal explanation, he is speaking to the clauses. Senator TATE —Mr Chairman, rather than deal with the matter I was going to, and rather than make a long speech, I seek leave in relation to clause 32 to incorporate the advice on the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 provided by counsel to the Right to Life Association of Victoria. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted for the incorporation of it in Hansard? Senator Martin —Mr Chairman, may I make a brief statement on this? The CHAIRMAN —The question is whether leave is granted. Senator Martin —I want to give an indication about the granting of leave. As far as I am concerned he can have leave but he is not conforming with the forms of the Senate, and that is to pay certain courtesies to other people and show them the document before it is incorporated. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted? Senator Harradine —No. He can table it. Senator TATE —Mr Chairman, in that case I will speak to clause 32 and draw on the legal opinion which I sought to have incorporated and in respect of which Senator Harradine has refused leave. Senator Harradine —You can table it. Senator TATE —I will table it. I offered to table it earlier but nobody asked me to. Senator Harradine —Well, all right. If you want to incorporate it, incorporate it, but you should have asked us beforehand and shown it to us beforehand. Senator TATE —Mr Chairman, in relation to clause 32 I simply want to say that in its form it is the same as clause 20 of the Bill that was introduced at the beginning of the August session of the Parliament. In relation to that clause legal opinion indicates that it does indeed do what the Government set out to do , that is, clarify and declare that this Bill in no way brings about a situation where it could be declared to be unlawful to fail to provide a termination of pregnancy on the request of a woman. I will not go into the reasoning there because I have now been given, as I understand it, permission to incorporate it. Senator Harradine —No, we have not seen it. Senator TATE —Well, the debate can go on. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Tate is tabling it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(1.46) —Clause 30, which deals with certain discrimination on the grounds of sex 'not unlawful', talks about the genuine occupational qualifications of persons. Would the preference of a women to a man as principal of a girls' boarding school be permissible under this clause on the basis that for the particular position it was a genuine occupational qualification for the appointee that the appointee should be a woman? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(1.47) -Yes, I understand it would be not unlawful to make the decision that it was a genuine occupational qualification, particularly at a boarding school. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(1.48) —I move: (7) Page 20, clause 32, lines 33 to 35, leave out the clause, insert the following new clause: ''32. (1) Nothing in Division 1 or 2 applies to or in relation to the provision of services that can be provided only to members of one sex. (2) Nothing in Division 1 or 2 renders it unlawful for a person to refuse to provide to another person goods that are designed, or are intended, for use by members of only one sex.''. A number of these matters have been clarified previously. I had intended, but time will not permit me, to canvass the question down the track of how this measure will affect persons involved in the in vitro fertilisation program. I have some fall-back positions with respect to conscience which I will advance later. Without delaying the Committee and hopefully catching up on some time so that we can have further time for other clauses, I simply move this proposition. Everybody is aware of what I mean by it. I guess we have debated the subject enough and unfortunately we are stuck for time. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(1.50) —Mr Chairman, Senator Harradine has taken a liberty. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I do not entirely understand what amendment (7) is about. I am not clear whether it is no different from amendments (5) and (6) or whether it covers a different area. Rather than asking Senator Harradine to speak again, the Minister perhaps might make this clear when she replies. However, I still feel a little puzzled. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(1.51) -I understand that the intention of Senator Harradine's amendment to clause 32 ( 2) is to remove from the operation of the Bill the selling of goods that are designed for use by members of only one sex. The Government cannot accept such an amendment because it goes well beyond the area of discrimination. For example , it could be used to prevent a husband buying clothes as a gift for his wife or things of that kind. There is no need for such an amendment because the matters that I think are of genuine concern to Senator Harradine, such as abortion and sterilisation, are already excluded from the operation of the Bill by virtue of being services which can be rendered to one sex only. However, the wide-ranging nature of the second part of Senator Harradine's amendment could, I think, create all kinds of problems for normal retailers. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(1.52) — Mr Chairman, I understand that Senator Tate wants to incorporate a document into Hansard. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(1.53) —Mr Chairman, I thank the Committee for its indulgence. I wish to incorporate in Hansard, in relation to clause 32, advice concerning the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 provided by legal counsel to the Right to Life Association Victoria. Can I just indicate that Senator Harradine interjected and said that that is not the correct title of that organisation. Nevertheless, that is the title on the 'with compliments' slip which was pinned to the advice. I am acting in perfectly good faith in saying that I believe it to be advice tendered to the Right to Life Association Victoria. Mrs Tighe indicated to me by phone that the advice would be coming to my office. I have shown the document to Senator Martin, Senator Haines and Senator Harradine. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ADVICE Re: Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 1.1 There is presently before the Commonwealth Parliament a Bill entitled the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 (''the Bill''). The central provisions of the Bill prohibit discrimination against another person on the grounds of that person's sex, marital status or pregnancy. 1.2 Section 5 relates to sex discrimination: ''(1) For the purposes of this Act a person (the discriminator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of the sex of the aggrieved person if by reason of- (a) the sex of the aggrieved person; (b) a characteristic that appertains generally to persons of the sex of the aggrieved person; or (c) a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons of the sex of the aggrieved person; the discriminator treats the aggrieved person less favourably than in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different the discriminator treats or would treat a person of the opposite sex.'' 1.3 Sub-sections 6 (1) and 7 (1) refer to discrimination on the ground of marital status and pregnancy respectively and are substantially the same, although in s.7 (1) (b) a discrimination does not occur if the less favourable treatment is reasonable in the circumstances. 1.4 I am briefed to advise the Right to Life Association (Vic.) (''the Association'') in respect of the Bill. I must say that I have also been approached formally and informally by a number of organisations and persons seeking views upon particular aspects of the Bill. In some cases the persons seeking that advice have had common interests. I am concerned only with the provisions of the Bill in a legal sense which relate to abortion. But I recognise there are probably other parts of the Bill than those I deal with which are unsatisfactory in a legal or social sense. I do not concern myself with those aspects. Clauses 20 and 24 2.1 It has been said that clause 20 makes it an offence for a person to refuse to provide an abortion or abortion services. Clause 20 reads: ''(1) It is unlawful for a person who ........ provides goods or services or makes facilities available, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person's sex, marital status or pregnancy: (a) by refusing to provide the other person with those goods or services or to make those facilities available to the other person.'' (b) ........... (c) ........... 2.2 Services are defined in section 4 as including: ''(d) Services of the kind provided by any members of profession or trade;'' 2.3 The argument for the above construction (as I understand it) goes as follows . A doctor can provide the service of abortion. This is so. Many abortions are performed throughout the States of Australia which allegedly comply with existing law. 2.4 But there are many doctors who (notwithstanding such an abortion is not a criminal offence) conscientiously object to performing abortions and will refuse to do so. 2.5 What, I understand, is feared is that if clause 20 is enacted the doctor who refuses to perform a ''lawful abortion'' will constitute that doctor a discriminator against the aggrieved person, being the mother. 2.6 Presumably it will be said that because the aggrieved person requiring an abortion is pregnant she has a characteristic appertaining to the female sex and therefore the doctor is using that fact to discriminate against her. 2.7 But how can it be said that the doctor is treating her less favourably than he would a person of the opposite sex in circumstances that are the same or not substantially different. The fact of the alleged discrimination ''namely the abortion of a foetus'' depends upon a circumstance (pregnancy) which just does not happen to a man. How can it then be said the discriminator treats or would treat a person of the opposite sex differently. By definition the discriminator cannot treat or refuse to treat a male by way of performing or refusing to perform an abortion. 2.8 I have read a number of articles which fear such discrimination might arise but I find their reasoning quite unconvincing. I understand fears are also held that persons potentially administering the Act might interpret s.20 this way. If this be so it is a sad commentary upon such persons and it must also imply a deficiency in appellate or review procedures. 2.9 Likewise it seems to me obviously wrong to say that because a doctor refuses to perform an abortion he is discriminating in the sense that he would treat a person who is not pregnant differently. Once again it seems to me that the circumstance of pregnancy is a fundamental distinguishing factor. It is a case of ''apples and oranges''. One does not perform an abortion on or give advice or services in respect of abortion to a person who is not pregnant. If a doctor says 'I refuse to abort a pregnant woman' that is a discrimination against the operation of abortion. It is a contradiction in terms to say that a doctor would treat a person who is not pregnant differently-he would not treat her at all. 3.1 I have difficulty in understanding the argument and to the extent that I do understand it I do not accept it. I oppose the concept that a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion discriminates against the mother on the grounds of her sex. The doctor is discriminating between a surgical service which he would perform and in respect of which he has no conscientious objections and one which he does have objections to. 3.2 What if a doctor unreasonably refuses to perform a prostate operation on any man. Such a refusal surely does not involve a discrimination against the male sex. It is against a particular surgical operation. Indeed it might be the case that such a doctor would say that he would similarly refuse to perform that operation if it could be performed on a woman. Likewise a doctor who has a conscientious objection to abortion (i.e. the destruction of a foetus) would consistently refuse to terminate a foetus in a man if it were possible for a man to be pregnant. But it is the nature of the operation which is the basis of objection to its performance, not the nature of the recipient of the operation. 3.3 The matter can be further illustrated by taking the situation of a doctor who refuses to provide blood transfusions under any circumstances. Obviously that doctor, if brought before the Court on the grounds of discriminating against the female sex because he refused to give a blood transfusion to Mary Jones, would say 'I do not refuse to give the blood transfusion because its recipient, Mary Jones, is a woman, I'll give it to no-one, including Bill Jones' . A more realistic example could be a surgical operation for which there are some valid grounds of objection, e.g. face lifts. 3.4 I accordingly consider that the proposition that a doctor discriminates between sexes when he refuses to perform an abortion is untenable. If this were so Mr Bumble's famous dictum 'The law, sir, is an ass' appears credible. 4.1 Accordingly, when I was first requested informally to advise on the Bill I indicated that I did not consider there was a necessity for amendment. Following this representations were made inter alia by the Association with the result there was added to clause 20 the following: '(1A) Nothing in this section applies to or in respect of the provisions of services, the nature of which is such that they can only be provided to members of one sex.' 4.2 Following this amendment I was asked as to whether it would be necessary or desirable to further amend the Bill. I understood that it would be difficult to obtain further amendments and to press for the same might prejudice the continuance of clause 20 (1A). I accordingly expressed the view that it might not be desirable to 'spoil the ship for a halfpenny of tar'. I adhere to that view. 4.3 On the other hand if there is any concern about the provisions of clause 24 or any other part of the Act in the context of abortion and if the prosecution of further amendments will not prejudice the principle of clause 20 (1A) I see merit in 'a catch all' definition either in section 4 or by adding to clause 20 (1A) after the words 'in this Section' the words 'or elsewhere in this Act'. For reasons previously stated I do not consider there is a real need for any amendment but if it was intended that the Act should not relate in any way to abortion there seems no reason why this cannot be specifically stated (albeit unnecessarily). P. J. O'Callaghan 30th November, 1983. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(1.54) —Senator Tate is apparently placing a great deal of faith in what Mrs Tighe said in respect of these matters. I have not had a chance as yet to look at that legal opinion. I will be happy to do so at some stage. However, I have not heard from Mrs Tighe. It is interesting to note that in fact I prepared the letter which first went out and which was then latched onto by others. I would have thought that the most suitable and courteous thing for Mrs Tighe to have done would have been to contact me or my office in respect of these matters instead of contacting Senator Tate and attempting to undermine some of the more serious attitudes that have been expressed, for example, by the national Right to Life Association and the Right to Life Association in New South Wales which have always adopted a moderate intelligent approach to these matters. I make mention of the fact that we are faced with a situation where a variety of legal opinions are going about. We should not judge the matter on just one legal opinion. I have asked certain questions in this chamber on the previous clause which have not been answered. Those questions were prepared by eminent legal authorities. The simple purpose of this clause and the other clause that I moved previously was to put the questions beyond any doubt. I do not know why people do not accept that. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —Mr Chairman, can I make my personal explanation in relation to a matter on which I believe I have been misrepresented in the course of debate? The CHAIRMAN —If the honourable senator has been misrepresented, he is entitled to make a personal explanation. Senator TATE —During the debate a little earlier I had made the point that Senator Harradine had pilloried me in the Press of Tasmania as a 'lackey' of Senator Ryan. Senator Harradine in reply said that I had misled the Committee, that in fact he had referred to me as a lackey only in relation to the education guidelines. A long Press statement by Senator Harradine is reproduced in the Hobart Mercury of 18 November, the final paragraph of which reads: 'It is disturbing to observe that Senator Tate has adopted the role of lackey for Federal Government Ministers in recent debates on such issues as Divorce by Post, Family Law, Sex Discrimination, the Oath of Allegiance, education guidelines and States Rights,' he said. I do not intend to enter into the debate on the merits or otherwise of that allegation. But that is, indeed, the allegation that was made against me. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(1.56) —Mr Chairman, I ask Senator Tate to incorporate the whole of the Press statement into Hansard. Those who read it will see that it relates to Senator Tate's support of the education funding matter. My comments were made after Senator Tate had supported Senator Ryan in respect of that matter. They were made, more importantly, after Senator Tate had pilloried those of us who were concerned about abortion as being hysterical. If he wants to dish it out he will have to cop it. I do not dish it out before I cop it. But when I do cop it I am quite capable of dishing it out and I will continue to do so. The CHAIRMAN —If Senator Tate wishes to have the article incorporated in Hansard he will have to seek leave to do so. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(1.57) —In deference to Senator Harradine's request, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a full reproduction of his Press statement which appeared in the Hobart Mercury. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Harradine blasts tactics over funding A concerted campaign is being waged by the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, to denigrate educationists and parents who are genuinely concerned about Federal Government education funding guidelines, Senator Harradine said yesterday. He was commenting on Senator Ryan's answer to a question by Senator Tate in which she described reported excerpts of a letter to Dominic College parents by its principal, Father John Papworth, as ''inaccurate and misleading.'' ''Obviously neither Senator Ryan nor Senator Tate had read the letter before launching into their attack. ''The letter was couched in restrained terms and was absolutely correct. ''Indeed Father Papworth told parents that Dominic College; as a Group 3 school would receive a small increase next year. ''However, he quite properly drew attention to the fact that the Government's decision to abandon any percentage link between grants for non-government school children and government school standard costs has created uncertainty in education planning with consequences for both non-government and government schools.'' Senator Harradine said this uncertainty was further heightened by Senator Ryan' s pointed refusal in the Senate to provide any guarantee that Group 3 schools would receive more after next year than they would have received under a percentage link formula. ''Principals and parents deserve to be protected against the brow-beating tactics of some Federal Government Ministers and their backbench shadows. ''It is disturbing to observe that Senator Tate has adopted the role of lackey for Federal Government Ministers in recent debates on such issues as Divorce by Post, Family Law, Sex Discrimination, the Oath of Allegiance, education guidelines and States Rights,'' he said. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(1.57) —Mr Chairman, I have had a couple of distractions. Can someone please clarify for me the following point: Has Senator Harradine moved only amendment (7) or has he also moved amendments (8), (9) and (10)? I see we have only one minute left before a vote is taken. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Harradine has moved his amendment (7) which I have been trying to put several times. However, each time I have tried to do so someone has risen to speak. The question is: That Senator Harradine's amendment No. (7) to clause 32 be agreed to? Amendment negatived. Senator Harradine —Mr Chairman, I wish to have my name recorded as having voted for the amendment. Senator Martin —Mr Chairman, I seek leave of the Committee to indicate that the Opposition wishes to be recorded as having voted for amendment (7). The CHAIRMAN —It will be recorded accordingly. The time for the consideration of clauses 30 to 37 has now expired. Clauses agreed to. Clause 38 (Educational institutions established for religious purposes). The CHAIRMAN —The question is: 'That clause 38 stand as printed.' Debate on this clause will end at 13 minutes past two. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(1.59) —This clause, which has been highly contentious, relates to certain matters in independent schools. It is probably one of the clauses in the Bill that have attracted very general public attention and a lot of comment. A number of amendments to clause 38 have been mooted by certain people from time to time. The Government amended this part of the legislation when it brought in the Sex Discrimination Bill mark II. The Opposition thinks the Government has not gone quite far enough although it accepts the version that appears in the Bill now under consideration-the Bill mark II. However, we would like to add a few words which are outlined in amendments (9) and (10) on the list circulated in the name of the Opposition. I seek leave to move amendments (9) and (10) together. Leave granted. Senator MARTIN —I move: (9) Page 22, sub-clause 38 (1), line 20, after ''creed'', insert ''or in accordance with stated principles''. (10) Page 22, clause 38 (1), line 22, after ''creed'', add ''or in order to avoid a contravention of those stated principles''. The effect of those amendments would be to add the words 'or in accordance with stated principles' after the word 'creed' and, at the end of the clause, to add the words 'or in order to avoid a contravention of those stated principles'. For people who do not know what the rest of the clause is that does not make a great deal of sense so I will explain. The clause has the heading 'Educational institutions established for religious purposes'. It states: Nothing in paragraph 14 (1) (a) or (b) or 14 (2) (c) renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person' s sex, marital status or pregnancy- That means discrimination is allowable- in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed . . . It is there we want to add the words 'or in accordance with stated principles'. The clause continues: . . . if the first-mentioned person so discriminates in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed. Then we would add the words 'or in order to avoid a contravention of those stated principles'. What we are seeking to do is not to confine this exemption, this let-out clause, to only those schools that are religious based. We think of other independent schools such as grammar schools and so on. It ought to be borne in mind that this Bill does not apply to many schools. It does not apply to most government schools and its substantial impact in the educational area is on independent schools. Most independent schools have been founded by a church such as the Catholic Church or, as it used to be known, the Presbyterian and Methodist schools board, the Anglican Church and others. They have a tradition of establishment of schools at which they teach to the same standards of curriculum as is taught in government schools but they also have a religious input, not just in religious classes but in standards of behaviour according to the dogma of the religion. But there are a few other independent schools which are ecumenical or non-religious. Nevertheless, they are very deliberately independent schools. They have reasons for existing. Senator Walters —Just Christian schools. They have no special religion. Senator MARTIN —I am talking about ecumenical schools or ones that do not have any religion at all. They have a particular reason for existing. They do not exist because there is no other school in the town or out of bloody mindedness towards the government school system. They are in existence as much as anything because they want to carry out certain standards in education and behaviour. By behaviour I mean standards of behaviour in the community that they want to instil in their students to hold up as an ideal. They want to have some right of sanction if those standards are not adhered to in the school. I put it to the Minister that our amendments would affect very few schools but those which it affects it affects very importantly. It would put those schools on the same basis as those which are based on a particular religion or creed. Senator Walters very properly pointed out that there are some schools which call themselves Christian schools without saying that they are Anglican schools, Roman Catholic schools, Presbyterian-Methodist schools or anything like that. I hope that the Government will accept these amendments because we think they will help the Bill. While I am on my feet, although it has not yet been moved, Senator Harradine has circulated an amendment, No. (11). If the amendments of the Opposition are not carried I indicate at this stage that we will not support Senator Harradine's amendment because the effect of his amendment is far broader than the effect of ours and, to some extent, it would negate other important principles of this anti-discrimination Bill. Senator Harradine —Like what? Senator MARTIN —It states: Nothing in Division 1 or 2 applies to any decision or action by a body or person administering an educational, child-care or other similar institution . . . That counts out the whole of Divisions 1 and 2 whereas our amendments leave untouched the words 'Nothing in paragraph 14 (1) (a) or (b) or 14 (2) (c)'. We have a concern that Senator Harradine's amendment would, for example, enable people not to be paid the same rate of pay and things like that. Senator Harradine —Nonsense. Senator MARTIN —We will see. Senator Harradine can explain it. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(2.06) —The Australian Democrats will not support the Opposition's amendments to clause 38. The clause sets out to make further exemptions for educational institutions. Already, it provides a further extension of exemptions to the Government's original Bill for educational institutions established for religious purposes. As it stands, the clause uses the words 'doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed', which I would have thought would cover those Christian schools to which Senator Martin referred. Senator Walters —They are not religious. Senator HAINES —Senator Walters should wait and hear me out if she can contain herself for five minutes. I would have thought they would have been covered, particularly given the recent High Court of Australia decision relating to scientology. It would seem to me that just about anything now is able to be defined as a religion since even a godhead is apparently no longer required for something to be categorised as a religion. The Opposition wants to extend this provision within the Bill to include the words 'or in accordance with stated principles'. It seems to me that quite frequently the words 'stated principles'-I am sure the Opposition does not mean them in this way-are a mere euphemism for stated prejudices of the sort that go 'I am not a racist but-' or 'I am all for equal opportunity but-'. At best ' stated principles' is a pretty broad term. Senator Martin —Are you suggesting that is the effect of our amendment? Senator HAINES —No, I said that I do not believe the Opposition is putting it forward that way as being an equivalent statement. I am merely saying that frequently people say they have principles when they mean that they have prejudices. My Party has already been prepared to accept the Government's extension of the exemption to religious schools although we are not terribly happy about it. But we are not prepared to make a fuss over it since we will clearly not get any support as the Opposition wants to broaden the exemption further. We therefore are not prepared to support the weakening of the Bill in this area any more. I do not think there is any necessity to extend the number of people who have the right to take their views, distorted or whatever they are, out on other people. We would not permit the perpetration in schools of anti-semitism, anti- catholicism, racism or anything else on the grounds that it conformed with somebody's stated principles so I fail to see why we should allow the perpetration of discrimination against women on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy simply because it conforms with somebody's stated principles . At the very best this frequently means the perpetration of stereotyping and narrow roles for both sexes. At the worst it comes to out and out misogyny and the Democrats will not support the amendments. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(2.10) -I will reply briefly to some of the points that have been raised. The Government does not accept the amendments. We consider that the exemption provided for schools on the grounds of religious belief and creed is very broad and there is no way we could broaden it any further bearing in mind that the principle of this Bill is that people ought not to be discriminated against in employment or education on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy. Accommodating the fact that there are religious views or views in connection with a creed in a community that would require people to prefer to employ married persons or unmarried persons is as far as we can go. Senator Walters suggested that Christian schools conducted in accordance with a general Christian philosophy would not be covered. A school would be covered by this clause if it is conducted in accordance with the doctrines of a religion. It does not have to advocate a particular religion so Christian schools would be covered. I should point out too that all schools, government and non-government, are covered by the education provisions of the Bill. State government employees are not covered by the legislation, which is why employment in State government schools is not covered but education is covered. Of course, State government employees, including teachers, are covered in those States which have State legislation. For those reasons the Opposition's amendments are not accepted. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(2.13) —I would be interested in Senator Ryan's description of a Christian school. I think we probably both have one in mind. Senator Harradine —You are stopping me moving my amendment. Senator WALTERS —I am sorry. We now have only three minutes left. The CHAIRMAN —The question is 'that amendments Nos 9 and 10 moved by Senator Martin to clause 38 be agreed to'. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Senator Walters —I raise a point of order. I know it is possibly too late, but could we not be allowed an extra one and a half minutes? The division should not be taking place in the time allotted to debate on this amendment. The CHAIRMAN —I have no authority to do that, Senator Walters. The Committee has resolved in a particular way. I am committed to the Committee decision. Senator Walters —The agreement on the guillotine was that the time allotted was for debate. Therefore, the extra minute and a half that remains while this division is taking place surely should be given to Senator Harradine to allow him to move his amendment. The CHAIRMAN —The time allotted is for debate plus any divisions on the debate. It is for the consideration of the clauses, which includes divisions. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Martin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. G. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J. Childs, B. K. Haines, J. Chipp, D. L. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. (Teller) Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Question so resolved in the negative. The CHAIRMAN —The time allotted for consideration of clause 38 having expired, the question now is 'that clause 38 stand as printed'. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(2.18) —by leave-I move: (11) Page 22, clause 38, lines 15 to 37, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ''38. Nothing in Division 1 or 2 applies to any decision or action by a body or person administering an educational, child-care or other similar institution, being an institution one of the objects of which is the moral development of those attending the institution in accordance with the tenets, doctrines or beliefs of a particular religion, philosophy or creed or the moral or intellectual development of those attending the institution in accordance with stated principles, where the decision is taken in good faith for reason that include the protection of the integrity of the ethos of the institution having regard to its object of moral or intellectual development.''. I do not want to interfere with the time of other honourable senators. People who read the amendment will see the difference between it and what is contained in the Bill. I am sure they would approve of what is contained in my amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 39 to 42. The CHAIRMAN —This part of the debate will end at 2.29 p.m. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(2.19) —I move: (12) Page 23, sub-clauses 40 (2), (3), (4) and (5), lines 13 to 35, leave out the sub-clauses. I will be very brief because I want to spend most of my time on the conscientious objection clause. I have moved the amendment because the provision in the Bill gives wide regulatory powers to the Government which ought not to be included in this measure. I refer particularly to the following: (20) paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) shall, except to the extent that regulations made for the purposes of this sub-section otherwise provide, cease to be in force at the expiration of 2 years after the commencement of this Act. That wipes out a number of the representations without the matter coming back before this Parliament. I am concerned about that and I am further concerned about the regulatory powers contained therein. Amendment negatived. Senator Harradine —Mr Chairman, I ask that my name be recorded as supporting the amendment. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable senator is entitled to do that under standing order 168. His support is so recorded. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(2.21) —My amendments could go ahead without that first amendment but because obviously my intention will not be supported I will not move the next two amendments standing in my name. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(2.22) —I move: Page 24, sub-clause 42 (2), after paragraph (d), add the following word and paragraph: '; or (e) sporting activities by children who have not yet attained the age of 12 years'. Clause 42 (1) states: Nothing in Division 1 or 2 renders it unlawful to exclude persons of one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant. Sub-clause (2) then lists what does not apply in relation to the exclusion of persons from participation. That includes the coaching of persons from participation. That includes the coaching of persons, umpiring, refereeing, administration of any sporting activity and any prescribed sporting activity. I am aware that that clause appears to cover the area which is affected by my amendment; that is, sporting activities of children who have not yet attained the age of 12. However, in this area people are prone not to let facts get in the way of a good argument and tend to attempt to preclude mixed sporting activities of children under the age of 12 by perpetrating an assortment of myths relating to the comparative strength, stamina and physique of boys and girls under the age of 12. I suggest that it is at this very age that girls not only are generally the equal of boys in height, strength, running ability and so on but also are frequently their superiors. If we are at any stage to overcome the myth that girls' hips stop them from running fast, that their elbow joints stop them from throwing properly, or whatever the various arguments are for excluding women from competing against and with men, we will have to do it when it is quite clearly shown that there is considerable equality between the sexes. I therefore argue that the addition of the words 'or (e) sporting activities by children who have not yet attained the age of 12 years' to clause 41 (2) is not in any way superfluous. This is an age at which attitudes are formed, at which the competition may be genuine and at which it can be easily demonstrated that the differences between males and females in sporting activities are less due to unequal stamina and strength than to lack of competition or to some sort of spread of mythology. I think there is a problem in that people in the community will persist in pursuing the myths relating to strength, stamina and physique with regard to sport. I believe that if we can scotch that at pre-puberty by actively saying within this Bill that sporting activities for children under the age of 12 should include children of both sexes, we will go a long way to effecting the general principle and spirit of this legislation. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(2.25) -The Government is prepared to accept Senator Haines's amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 43 to 64. The CHAIRMAN —This part of the debate will end at 2.55 p.m. Senator Harradine —Mr Chairman, we caught up 15 minutes on the previous group of clauses. I understand that, by agreement, if we have problems we will be able to add 15 minutes to the debate on this group. That is why I did not speak on the last group. The CHAIRMAN —That may be so, but that question is not before the Chair. A motion will have to moved at the time to extend any of the times set down. The question is that clauses 43 to 64 stand as printed. This part of the debate will end at 2.55 p.m. unless otherwise ordered. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(2.26) —I move: (13) Page 25, after clause 43, insert the following new clause: Conscientious objection ''43A. (1) Nothing in Division 1 or 2 renders it unlawful for a person to decline to perform or participate in the performance of any act the performance of which would be contrary to genuinely held conscientious beliefs of that person. (2) In sub-section (1), 'conscientious beliefs' means any conscientious beliefs , whether the grounds for the beliefs are or are not of a religious character and whether the beliefs are or are not part of the doctrine of any religion.''. Mr Chairman, this amendment is so important that I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed) I called a quorum because this matter is of great importance to the conscience and protection of the consciences of individuals. Honourable senators who may not have been following this debate may not have heard some of the interpretations that have been given by the Minister in respect of certain clauses. It is perfectly clear that those interpretations mean that this legislation will force persons to choose between the law and their consciences. I have given the examples and the Minister has indicated that I am correct, in respect of the hotel-keeper. Not only will that person have to go against his conscience and undermine his personal integrity; he will also lose his business. Clause 24 deals with land and its disposal. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that, as I am advised, the giving of a weekly or monthly tenancy involves a disposal 'of an estate or interest in land', as does the granting of any leasehold interest. Bearing that in mind, if a person were fortunate enough to own a house additional to the one in which that person and family lived, that person, according to the Minister, would act unlawfully if, in accepting a tenant from a number of applicants who had responded to a 'To Let' advertisement , he or she preferred a married couple to a de facto couple solely or partly on the ground of marital status. That person might have a genuine conscientious concern. As a result of this measure, as has been admitted by the Minister, that person would have to defile his or her own conscience in order to prevent that person from breaching the law. Another aspect of the matter can be illustrated by using a country pharmacist or doctor as an example. A country pharmacist would be well known in his town and would know everybody in the town. Under this legislation, he would be regarded as a discriminator if he refused to provide contraceptives, for example , to a single person. Senator Robertson —And rightly so. Senator Ryan —That's right. Senator HARRADINE —The Minister says that is right. Senator Robertson —No, I said it was right. Senator Ryan —I agreed. Senator HARRADINE —So that is clear. The country pharmacist would have to get out of the business or go against his conscience. He might have a belief, one which I do not share, that it is quite in order to stock contraceptives and provide them to married couples. The Minister in her previous interpretation has virtually said that the pharmacist's only defence would be that he did not stock contraceptives at all. This is the problem with which the person and the community would be faced. I propose in my amendment a provision which would enable the pharmacist, in this case, to continue his operation but would allow him to honour his obligations to his conscience. Senator Robertson —Do Catholic butchers sell meat on Friday? Senator HARRADINE —What has that to do with the price of fish? Senator Robertson —It seems about as logical as your argument. Senator HARRADINE —It is not as logical. That remark shows that Senator Robertson has not been following this debate. Senator Robertson —Oh, yes I have, carefully. I have been hanging on every word. Senator HARRADINE —The honourable senator has not been following the debate. His remark has nothing to do with the price of fish. If Senator Robertson had been following this debate, he would not have said what he said because it has nothing to do with it. I am not talking about a Catholic pharmacist; I am talking about a pharmacist. If he were a Catholic pharmacist, presumably he would have some problem about supplying contraceptives, full stop. I do not know whether my last supposition is correct because I am not a pharmacist and have not had to face that situation. My example is that of any pharmacist, Catholic or not, who has a conscientious concern about these matters and who may want to supply contraceptives only to married couples and not to single persons. Other examples could include nurses, doctors and people in the paramedical profession. In this amendment, I propose that people should have the ability to be able to choose and to satisfy their consciences. I would like the Committee to note what Senator Tate, who is not in the chamber, said in his speech on the Budget on 23 August 1978. It must have been soon after he came here. Things must have changed since. He said: Conscience, I hope, will never be regarded as a disease in Australia. Rather we as legislators ought to be reinforcing the individual conscience as that which culturally makes us what we are-a society where the common good cannot be secured by means which destroy the individual personality. I ask the Committee to look at the Law Reform Commission's discussion papers which were presented to us yesterday, particularly volume 2. Finally, because of the time-it is a disgrace that we have to deal with such an important matter in such a short time-I refer to the letter which has been tabled in this Parliament by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), the letter of Archbishop Carroll of 25 November 1983. In that letter to the Prime Minister in respect of this matter the Archbishop said: . . . nothing that you have said concerning the operation of the Bill in relation to 'de facto spouses' or to the matter of discrimination on the ground of marital status serves to allay my fear that the measure will, in some circumstances, require a person to choose between conscience and the law. I firmly believe that a law which denies to a citizen the right to prefer a married couple to a de facto couple in areas of accommodation, leasing, dealings with children and in domestic situations, is oppressive. Such a law has the effect of denigrating the institution of marriage whether or not that is the intention . . . The Archbishop went on to say: I am, however, encouraged by your assurance that further consideration is being given to the many matters that I have raised in this general area in my earlier letter and in our discussions. Nothing has come forward from the Minister which shows that there has been further consideration of this matter. I believe we have a choice here today. We can uphold the rights of the individual citizen not to have to choose between conscience and the law. If we are to do that, at least we have to support a conscientious objection provision such as that proposed in my amendment. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(2.38) —I can understand that Senator Harradine can provide examples of certain situations in which a person ought to have a conscientious belief recognised and have perhaps the opportunity not to observe all aspects of the law or to have them applied to him. But the language of this amendment makes it an impossible amendment. I have not given it very close study , but its language is such that it would run a cart-horse through the legislation. It covers what is called conscientious belief. We know that that term is much overused in this Parliament. I think we all vote according to our consciences, and make up our minds on various matters according to conscience. We perhaps vote according to our parties' views. That may be in accordance with the conscience of some, particularly if it is a non-religious one. But ' conscience' is a much overused word. The amendment makes it clear that a conscientious belief is such, whether it is religious or not. What could happen? One who genuinely holds a conscientious belief can take himself outside the effect of this law. If that person has a conscientiously held nazi or racist view and believes therefore-- Senator Harradine —No. That is absolutely wrong. Senator MISSEN —Senator Harradine has had his chance. Senator Harradine —I won't get another chance. What you are saying is wrong. These are the words that are in legislation. Senator MISSEN —The honourable senator might let me say something first, then he can reply. I object to his trying to talk me down. Senator Harradine —I am not. I am trying to give you some advice. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Harradine, Senator Missen has the call. Senator MISSEN —I am saying that a person can have a genuinely held conscientious belief. It might be a nazi belief or a racist belief. Some people are genuine in those beliefs; people are conscientious in that sense. Let us take the most extreme case. Senator Harradine —That is nonsense, and you know it. What about the Conciliation and Arbitration Act? Senator MISSEN —Senator Harradine is a tiresome man. I wish he would listen to other people at times. This is a democracy in which we live and we are entitled to be heard as well. Senator Harradine —Is it, with the gag? Senator MISSEN —If the honourable senator likes I will move for an extension. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Harradine, you must cease interjecting. Senator MISSEN —If one's genuinely held conscientious belief were in the superiority of man, if one believed that men should prevail over women, that men should subjugate women and that women should not go to work-I get letters from people who obviously hold these views and hold them sincerely-this amendment would mean that one would be entitled to ignore the products of this legislation as a whole and do as one wished. To my mind this should be thought about again. Maybe in the other House a limited clause like this which would not be open to that interpretation could be thought of. But this amendment as it stands offers a wholesale right to object to any part of the legislation. Surely it cannot be supported. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(2.42) —I will allow Senator Harradine to answer Senator Missen's comments. I will therefore speak very briefly on this matter. I believe that the Government has said that it does not believe that this Bill interferes with religious beliefs. If that is the case, the Government will have no problem in agreeing to Senator Harradine's amendment, because as the situation stands now it affects people with strong religious beliefs. I mention, for instance, the situation of a person wanting to employ someone for his small shop-a corner store. If that person expected certain standards of behaviour from that employee, with whom he would be working in close contact-in this respect there is a difference between a corner store and, say, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd-I believe that he must have the option of picking someone who will abide by those standards. The Government may well believe, judging from the interjections we had a few minutes ago from Senator Robertson and others, that some religions are bigoted, but that is not the Government's problem. It is not for the Government to interfere with religious beliefs. There is no place for governments to interfere with religious beliefs in this country. We are very proud of our freedom of religion. If the Government believes that some religions are bigoted, it is not up to the Government to change them. I object very strongly, on behalf of those religions, to the Government's attempt to interfere with some of those religious beliefs. I do not care how the Government feels about this. I do not necessarily agree with some of the religions we have in Australia, but I will never abide a government interfering and saying that these religions are wrong. Who is the Government, who is the Minister, to interfere? The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) knows who she is. She is arrogantly laughing and saying: 'Yes, I am the Minister'. She may think she is all powerful and, with a Caucus vote behind her and with the Australian Democrats willing to support anything at all that the Government puts up on this issue, she is certainly very powerful. But the Government will rue the day that it interferes with religious beliefs in this country, because that is what it will do if it opposes this amendment put by Senator Harradine. I certainly give it my full support and I hope that Senator Harradine will be able to allay the fears of Senator Missen, whom I believe has incorrectly interpreted the amendment put by Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(2.45) —Because we are working to an unfortunate schedule it is not possible for me to deal with all of these matters. In respect of Senator Missen's speech, I understood that the Opposition was supporting my amendment. I had been given some very great guarantees that the Opposition would support it. Yet Senator Missen opposed it. That is a disgrace. Apparently Senator Missen can pick and choose. Who am I to go to now? Do I go to the Opposition honourable senator who is dealing with the Bill, or do I go to the Whip, and having been told something do I then have to go to every member of the Opposition to find out whether he or she will support it? What a specious argument has been put up by Senator Missen. The provisions contained in my amendment are the very conscientious objection provisions that are contained in legislation now. The wording of the amendment was not made up by me. It has a foundation in existing legislation. Senator Missen should know that. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act, for example, is one such piece of legislation. It is not hard for the industrial registrar to determine whether a person is a genuine conscientious objector to joining a union. Which is more important to Senator Missen: To have that conscientious objection provision in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or to have it put in the Sex Discrimination Bill, which deals with very major moral issues? I would have thought it more important to have it in the Sex Discrimination Bill, which deals with very major and fundamentally important issues of conscience. I am surprised that Senator Missen does not know that, under further sections of the legislation, those on whom the responsibility to question this will include the Human Rights Commission. If the Commission cannot deal with it, it will go to the Federal Court of Australia. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(2.47) — Briefly, there has been no breaking of agreements. Senator Harradine did have an indication that the Opposition would support amendment No. (13) and, when the vote is recorded, we will. Senator Missen stated a point of view, which as a member of the Liberal Party of Australia he is perfectly entitled to state. We believe that it is one of the strengths of our Party that people are not, each and every one, bound by a Caucus vote. I do not belive it is necessary for me to apologise for Senator Missen. He has stated his point of view, which he is entitled to hold and entitled to express. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(2.48) -The Government will not accept Senator Harradine's amendment because it undermines the basic purpose of the Sex Discrimination Bill. The Bill says that persons do not have the right to discriminate on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy in the areas covered by the Bill. Senator Harradine's amendment, as Senator Missen has pointed out, seeks to reverse that situation and to provide that one does have the right to discriminate if one's conscience tells one that women are inferior, unable to be trusted, or anything else. I use the analogy of the Racial Discrimination Act. Senator Harradine said it would be a dreadful thing if a person could not follow his conscience and discriminate against people in order to protect his business. Everybody knows that when the Racial Discrimination Act was enacted some hotel proprietors said: 'Well, we don 't want to allow Aborigines into our pubs because it might be bad for business'. That is not accepted as proper objection under the Racial Discrimination Act, nor will we accept here that a conscientiously held belief that women are inferior and can be-- Senator Harradine —That is nonsense, Senator, and you know it. We are talking about whether people are shacked up together or, whether, for example, they are genuine married couples. That is what you are talking about in regard to the care of children. Now, face the facts. Senator RYAN —Senator Harradine knows that in the case of the residential care of children there is an exemption. There are numerous exemptions in this Bill to provide for when it is important for people to be able to employ married couples for a particular purpose. But in general the Bill is about providing that there shall not be discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy, even if an employer believes that women are inferior or that married women should stay at home and not be entitled to earn income in the paid work force. Under this legislation that conscientiously held belief cannot be used to deny a person's right to employment. Therefore, Senator Harradine's amendment is not acceptable to the Government. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(2.50) —One of the difficulties with this amendment is that, unfortunately, we do not have a definition. I think that Senator Harradine moved his amendment with a certain intention, and the Opposition supports it with a certain intention, but we are not, to use some of the language used here yesterday, supporting some fruitcake issue; we are not talking about some ratbag idea that somebody can then call a conscientious belief if challenges to the Commission- Senator Harradine —It has to be tested before the Federal Court. Senator MARTIN —That is right. I sought some advice on some cases relating to marital status rather than sex discrimination. The legal advice I received was that it was highly unlikely, for example, that the Alderman Pilbeam case would hold up as a conscientious belief. The difficulty is that, because we do not have a definition, we are getting into some conflict as to what the clause is about. The Opposition accepts the high intention of Senator Harradine. I want to make it very clear that we certainly would not support something that we thought would undo the Bill or make a mockery of it. That is why we support it. The Government will take its own legal advice and its own view, but we have that difficulty. I accept Senator Harradine's bona fides. I do not believe he is trying to undo this Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(2.51) — The definition contained in this legislation is precisely the same as that contained in other legislation. It will have to be tested in a similar manner to that in which other legislation is tested. Quite frankly, in those circumstances I am glad that Senator Martin showed that Senator Ryan's comments are ludicrous. It was suggested that this was in some way to give nutty people, who may think that males are better than females, some way out of the Bill. It obviously is nonsense. This amendment is to provide a genuine conscientious objection provision for people who should not have to choose between the law and their own consciences on this matter. We should not set up that opportunity if this amendment is lost. Amendment negatived. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I indicate that I supported the amendment. The CHAIRMAN —That will be recorded under standing order No. 168. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —by leave-I indicate that the Opposition wishes to be recorded as having voted for this amendment. Clauses 43 to 64. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(2.53) —I move: (14) Page 25, sub-clause 44 (2), line 12, leave out 'before', insert 'either before or after'. This amendment is self-explanatory. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(2.54) -The Government does not accept this amendment. This amendment would substitute the words 'either before or after'- Senator Harradine —If you don't accept it don't argue about it. Senator RYAN —All right, we do not accept it. Amendment negatived. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(2.56) —I move: (15) Page 28, paragraph 52 (1) (b), lines 11 and 12, leave out the paragraph. This amendment relates to inquiries by the Commissioner where it appears to the Commissioner that a person has done an unlawful act by virtue of Part II. This provision places the Commission in the role of drumming up business and of hearing that business. It is sad that we are closing off debate on this matter. This is a very vital matter which impinges upon the due process principle, but I unfortunately have to move the amendment without further debate. Amendment negatived. The CHAIRMAN —The time for consideration of clauses 43 to 64 has now expired. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 65 to 81. The CHAIRMAN —This section of the debate will end at 3.26 p.m. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(2.56) —I wish to indicate a number of matters. The Opposition has a number of amendments to these clauses, including amendment (13) circulated in the name of the Opposition. I indicate at this stage that we will not move amendment (13). We think Senator Harradine's amendment (16) is a superior amendment. When Senator Harradine moves amendment (16) we will support it. I seek leave to move amendments (11) and (12) together. Leave granted. Senator MARTIN —I move: (11) Page 33, sub-paragraphs 65 (1) (b) (i) and (ii), lines 7 to 10, leave out the sub-paragraphs. (12) Page 33, clause 66, lines 14 to 18, leave out the clause, insert the following new clause: Inquiries to be held in private '66. (1) Subject to sub- section (2), an inquiry shall be held in private. '(2) The Commission may, on the application of the respondent to an inquiry, if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, direct that an inquiry, or part of an inquiry, be held in public.'. The reason I move these amendments together, although one concerns clause 65 (1) and the other concerns section 66, is that they are roughly bracketed in that they both apply to the conduct of an inquiry by the Commission. The first amendment, amendment (11), would have the effect of giving an absolute right to legal counsel when appearing before the Commission. At present clause 65 allows a party to have legal representation only if the Commission gives leave. We think that there should be a right of representation if the person feels that he or she needs legal representation. For a variety of reasons that I will not go into we think that that is a very important right for anyone involved in an inquiry. I am sure the reasons people need legal counsel are manifest on any occasion. The second amendment relates to inquiries being held in private. The present clause 66 states that inquiries may be held in private. It requires that they be held in public unless: The Commission may, of its own motion or on the application of a party to the inquiry if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, direct that an inquiry . . . be held in private. We reverse that situation and say that as a general rule inquiries should be held in private, but if the Commission believes it is appropriate they may be held in public. I think that in this sense privacy is very important. The situation in which it is necessary for an inquiry to be public is rather limited , whereas there can be a very important reason for an inquiry being held in private. It may be that if an inquiry is to be held in public certain people would be deterred from making complaints. On the other hand, there may be some mischief done by virtue of the fact that inquiries are likely to be in public. There could be some proceedings which in the end are not justified, but damage may be done, particularly when publicity attends those proceedings. I would have preferred that the nature of the operation of this Bill be low key and non-controversial. Indeed, I understood that that was the Government's view also. The general holding of inquiries in private would assist this and make them a far less traumatic or intimidatory experience for people, many of whom, to their great surprise, may find a complaint made and pursued against them. As has been exhibited in some of the debate, there is a considerable ignorance on the subject of what is sex discrimination or discrimination on the ground of marital status. That will persist in the minds of many for a considerable time, even though they may be people who do not believe themselves to be particularly bigoted. I may need to say more on our amendment (11). I am afraid that I have two versions of it in my hand. I will leave the matter there but may seek the call again in a moment. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(3.02) -The Government does not accept the amendments. It has given great thought to the matters raised by the Opposition but believes that the Bill, as drafted, is more satisfactory than it would be if amended. I point out to Senator Martin that the conciliation proceedings, the first action which follows a complaint being brought under this legislation, will be in private; also that clause 92 provides that particulars of complaints are not to be communicated. So quite a deal of protection is already afforded in the legislation. With regard to clause 66, it is the view of the Government that unless circumstances exist which require in camera hearings the Commission's hearings should be in public. The new non-publication clause, clause 67, will provide an added safeguard. Clause 66, as drafted, recognises both the educative value of having a hearing in public and that circumstances exist in which a hearing should be in private. I believe that to be the most satisfactory situation. With regard to clause 65 and the matter of representation, if counsel assisting is appointed parties have an automatic right of legal representation. In other cases representation is with leave of the Commission. It was not considered necessary to have representation in all cases and a provision such as the Opposition is suggesting may cause problems for a party who cannot afford to have a solicitor present but does not qualify for legal aid. The Commission is not a court and clause 77 makes it clear that the proceedings are to be conducted with as little formality as possible. As drafted, clause 65 is in keeping with this. The clause gives the Commission the option, if the circumstances so warrant, to agree to repre- sentation. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.04) —If I may reply briefly to the Minister, it may not always be apparent to the Commission why counsel is necessary. People tend to be rather intimidated by legal proceedings, even though they may be informal. They may freeze and not do themselves justice. Frequently, people will use legal counsel, and may strictly need legal counsel, even though they may not be required to in regard to certain provisions, simply because they are literally not capable of handling their cases themselves and of being coherent when being asked questions by people in authority. It really ought to be up to the individual to decide whether or not such support is needed. Frankly, we are thinking particularly of the disadvantaged person. For hearings before the Commission it would not be, I would think, a major undertaking to have someone appear with them. That is all I wish to say concerning our amendment (12). Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.07) —It is now obvious that the Government sees the accused as the big, bad employer who has everything at his disposal and the person making the complaint as the poor, disadvantaged woman. That will not always be the case. Surely to heavens the Government can understand that. I propose to bring to the attention of the Minister a situation that is the exact reverse, one in which a rather clever woman has an employer who is a simple soul , who is far from sexually harassing her but who, she decides, she can perhaps have a hold over by making a threat to take action. If such a case reaches the Human Rights Commission and the employer is not capable of representing himself under the Bill as it stands he will not be able to seek legal representation. All of the incriminating evidence can be demanded by the Commission but, as I say, legal representation can be denied the accused. It seems to me incredible that the Government would allow that to happen, would allow someone to be denied legal representation. I cannot understand the Government's thinking; there is no justice in what is proposed. It denies all our normal methods of justice. It is incomprehensible that the Government should say arbitrarily: 'Unless the Human Rights Commission gives permission we will deny these people legal representation. They must be able to stand before the Human Rights Commission and defend themselves. If they are not capable of doing that, bad luck, because we will not allow an automatic right of legal representation.' Such a proposition seems quite incredible. Also, if a decision is not taken that for a very special reason proceedings should be held in private they will automatically be held in public and we could have a situation such as already exists, in that some women may hold employers to ransom and say; 'If I do not get that promotion'-or whatever, 'I will take you to the anti-discrimination commission and you will have to put up with all the publicity that goes with that'. Of course, the employer, not wanting the publicity, will perhaps pay up or give the women what she requires. It seems to me again quite incredible that the Minister would not want full protection to allow this to be done in private in the first instance-at least until it reaches the Federal Court of Australia-if it can be done in private, unless the Commissioner believes, for some very special reason, that it should be made public. At least there would be protection for those who are innocent. We had a situation fairly recently in which a gentleman was called publicly before a board under the provisions of the anti-discrimination legislation in New South Wales. He was hauled before that board and found innocent. The amount of publicity that matter attracted, I believe, was very unjust. The Opposition seeks to amend this provision so that proceedings are held in private at least until a matter reaches the Federal Court. It seems to me that, through intimidation alone, the Minister is attempting to get this legislation through so that women can use intimidation in this area. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status on Women)(3.11) -Senator Walters's deep concern for sexual harassers and discriminating employers is very touching, but I am afraid it leaves me untouched. I must correct a couple of misrepresentations she has made amongst a vast army of misrepresentations which we have had to tolerate from Senator Walters in the course of this debate. Senator Walters talked about the 'accused' and 'offences' . I remind the Committee that we are not dealing with criminal proceedings; we are not dealing with offences. We are dealing with complaints that illegal acts may have been committed. It is very clear from the legislation as it is drafted that if there is a case in which the person complained of-the respondent-feels that he or she needs legal representation and, if the circumstances justify it, that request can be made to the Commission. I see no reason for believing that the Commission will not behave responsibly in this fashion. So there is no basis at all for Senator Walters's portrayal of what, apparently , she thinks is a situation of treacherous and vicious women rushing to the Commission in order to destroy the reputation of employers by accusing them of discrimination or sexual harassment. I think that is really a disgraceful caricature of what the situation we are trying to deal with typically is. I just repeat that, having considered very carefully the points raised by the Opposition prior to our reaching this stage of the debate, we believe that the clauses, as drafted, provide both the possiblity of private hearings, where that is justified, and the benefit of public hearings. We believe they provide the possibility of legal representation when circumstances require it but the capacity to proceed informally if circumstances justify that. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.13) —The Government was dragged screaming to include the amendments it has already made to this civil liberties area. In one of Senator Ryan's Sex Discrimination Bills-I think it was her second Bill after some amendments were made but really I am not sure which one it was-legal representation could be employed by the Human Rights Commission but the Commission could still deny it to the plaintiff appearing before it. Senator Ryan had legislation in which the situation was that legal representation could be used by the Human Rights Commission but-- Senator Ryan —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Walters's remarks are not directed to the clause or to the legislation before us. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters has the call. Senator WALTERS —I object very strongly to that point of order taken by the Minister. The CHAIRMAN —It is not appropriate to object to points of order. Just carry on with your address. Senator WALTERS —I would like to talk to the point of order. The CHAIRMAN —I have ruled on the point of order. There is no point of order. Carry on with your speech. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr Chairman. As I was saying, the Government has been dragged screaming to this legislation. We had the situation that one of Senator Ryan's Bills provided that a plaintiff was not allowed legal representation unless the Human Rights Commission gave permission. The Human Rights Commission could have legal representation and it could deny legal representation to a plaintiff. We pointed out that that was entirely wrong. Indeed, we fed Senator Ryan the amendments we wanted and she has used some of them. She has not gone far enough. She has adopted some of our amendments. Indeed, she has taken up about 50 or 60 of our amendments that we fed to her. But she has not gone far enough. We need this additional amendment which gives the plaintiff a right to legal representation and, indeed, allows the hearings to be held in private unless otherwise stipulated by the commissioners. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.16) —I will speak briefly on this point. The only reason why I rise is to indicate that previously, when Senator Walters spoke, she suggested that this idea was unprecedented. We have had such situations before where there is discretion by the Commission. One example is the Repatriation Commission. The intent is to try to keep the proceedings at low cost and not to have them in a totally adversary context. I think the two propositions we have in this situation probably turn very much on whether one wants to give the Commissioner that type of discretion. I believe that in these circumstances the Commissioner would be the appropriate person to decide whether the operation should be conducted in private. I am quite sure that, if the circumstances indicated that the protection of individuals was concerned, the Commissioner would, in fact, conduct the proceedings in private. Secondly, I think it is a good move, as far as possible, to have the lawyers outside the operation and to have them included only when, indeed, it seems that they would be necessary. The types of circumstances that Senator Walters raised the first time she spoke I think would probably fall within that circumstance and the Commissioner probably would, where it is-- Senator Walters —But you cannot guarantee that. Senator MACKLIN —No, one cannot guarantee it. But I am suggesting, Senator, that what is sought, as in the Repatriation Commission, is, in fact, to keep down the costs and to keep the proceedings in a non-adversary situation so that, indeed, many of these things might be able to be settled reasonably and amicably. I do not think we have to say that we are moving the proceedings up to the status of a full court confrontation. The hope might be that the problem can be solved in a less adversary way. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.18) —I am very mindful of the fact that we have only eight minutes left of the time to debate a series of amendments. So I will not pick up any of Senator Macklin's arguments. Our arguments are on the record. People can judge our intention and what the effect of the amendments would be. In quiet reflection I say that I am rather anxious to move on a little and to explain one thing that appears on the list of amendments circulated in the name of the Opposition. It is not a numbered amendment. The statement simply appears that clause 78 is to be opposed. That is a fairly bald statement. Clause 78 did not seem to us to make much sense. When I turned to the explanatory memorandum to find out why it was included, all I found, as one often does with explanatory memoranda, were the same words as though that explained something when all it did was reiterate what is in the Bill. I would like-not necessarily at this instant because I think it is really more important that Senator Harradine has the opportunity to move his amendment No. (16) and we get a chance to express a view-the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) when she next replies to something to give me an explanation of clause 78. I indicate that, if the explanation is good enough, we will not oppose it; but at this stage we do not see any purpose for it. The CHAIRMAN —On a point of procedure, I have to put all these clauses as a block. It is not practical to oppose just a single clause. Senator Martin, you will have to move as an amendment, if you wish to do so, that proposed clause 78 be left out. Senator Martin —I will wait until I hear the explanation. The CHAIRMAN —That is the only way, in fact, you can achieve that purpose. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(3.20) —I will very briefly correct something that Senator Macklin said. He said that clauses 75 and 76 are references to the Human Rights Commission and not the Commissioner. We do not believe it is appropriate for lawyers to be involved to the extent that some members of the Opposition clearly do. We believe that the provision whereby the Commission can allow, when circumstances justify it, is as Senator Macklin says not a precedent and we believe to be a more acceptable approach. As to Senator Martin's ojections to clause 78, the purpose of clause 78 is to enable the Commission itself to be not put to the task of going through in every inquiry all the exemptions and exceptions in the Sex Discrimination Bill in order to determine whether or not they apply. If a party wishes to raise the application, or possible application, of exemption the Commission will consider it. It may be that the complainant is the first party to raise the possible application of exemption, for example, where the respondent agrees there has been discrimination but says that a particular exemption applies and the complaint alleges misinterpretation of the extent of the exemption. Certainly the clause is aimed at enabling the Commission to deal with matters expeditiously and we believe that is a reasonable clause. Amendments negatived. Senator Martin —Mr Chairman, I wish it to be recorded that the Opposition voted for the amendments. Senator Harradine —Mr Chairman, I voted for the amendments and I ask that that be placed on the record. The CHAIRMAN —In accordance with standing order 168 that is approved. Senator Martin, do you wish to move your amendment to clause 78? Senator Martin —No, Mr Chairman. I will allow debate to proceed. I cannot say that everything Senator Grimes said was wholly intelligible but certainly the clause will not do any harm. At worst it is meaningless and we are not going to the barricades on this one. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.22) —Clause 81 'Determination of other decision of the Commission' states in part: After holding an inquiry, the Commission may- (a) dismiss the complaint the subject of the inquiry; or (b) find the complaint substantiated and make a determination . . . The determination may include any one of seven actions. I propose a further clause (1A) and I so move: (16) Page 37, after sub-clause 81 (1), insert the following sub-clause: ''(1A) (a) Where the Commission dismisses a complaint it may make a declaration that the complainant should pay to the respondent an amount determined by the Commission to reimburse the respondent for costs reasonably incurred in consequence of the complaint. (b) Where the Commission finds a complaint substantiated, it may make a declaration that the respondent should pay to the complainant (not being the Minister or the Commissioner) an amount determined by the Commission to reimburse the complainant for costs reasonably incurred in substantiating the complaint.''. This is not an unusual provision to be inserted into legislation. I hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Government. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(3.24) -The Government strongly opposes Senator Harradine's amendment as we are strongly opposed to the idea of an administrative body being given the power to award costs. To include such a provision would encourage more legalistic proceedings thus making them longer and more formal. We are not interested in promoting a lawyer-led recovery with this legislation. The Bill already makes provision in clause 83 for the Human Rights Commission to make recommendations to the Attorney-General concerning reimbursement of expenses incurred by a successful party in an inquiry. We believe that that is a satisfactory situation . Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.25) —The only thing that is not present-I apologise to the Committee for it-is that I should have included a further provision in sub-clause 81 (2) which states: 'A determination of the Commission under sub-section (1) . . . and sub-section 1(A)'. In those circumstances that is a matter that can be tested in proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia. I acknowledge that. In preparing these amendments I omitted to have a further amendment included. I seek leave to move a further amendment to sub-clause 81 (2 ) to include the words 'or sub-section (1A) after the words 'sub-section (1)'. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —I move: Include the words 'sub-section 1(A)' after the words 'sub-section (1)'. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.26) —I will be brief. I hope it will be considered in the House of Representatives that the position with costs here is different. In many commissions and so forth, yes, we do not want lawyers and costs to be incurred; we certainly want to keep costs down. We are almost turning this jurisdiction into a court awarding perhaps thousands of dollars in damages. I think we have to consider the costs involved. There is a difference in quality and kind in what jurisdiction is now being given to the Human Rights Commission. Therefore the Government ought to reconsider this matter before it goes to the House of Representatives. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The time allocated for the consideration of clauses 65 to 81 has concluded. The question is 'That the amendments moved by Senator Harradine to clause 81 be agreed to'. Senator Martin —Mr Chairman, I was not aware that an additional amendment was moved. What is the second amendment? Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.27) — The amendment is consequential. It adds ' sub-section (1A)' after the words 'sub-section (1)' in sub-clause 81 (2). This enables any determination to go to the Federal Court of Australia. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Harradine, no explanation is necessary. Amendments negatived. Senator Martin —Mr Chairman, I ask that the Opposition be recorded in Hansard as having voted for Senator Harradine's amendments. Senator Harradine —Mr Chairman, in accordance with standing order 168 I ask that it be recorded that I voted for the amendments. The CHAIRMAN —That will be done. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill. The CHAIRMAN —The question now is 'That the remainder of the Bill stand as printed'. This part of the debate will end at 3.58 p.m. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.28) —I move amendment No. (17) to clause 91 which deals with self-incrimination: (17) Page 40, clause 91, lines 19 to 31, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ''91. Without limiting the generality of the expression ' reasonable excuse' in section 89 or 90, it is hereby declared that it is a reasonable excuse- (a) for the purposes of section 89, for a person to refuse or fail to furnish information or produce a document that the furnishing of the information or the production of the document might incriminate the person; and (b) for the purposes of section 90, for a person to refuse or fail to answer a question put to the person at an inquiry, or to refuse to produce a document that the answer to the question or the production of the document might incriminate the person.''. I think that it is a most reasonable amendment. We are not dealing here with a tribunal which has or indeed should have the powers of a royal commission. Under normal circumstances it is not mandatory for persons to produce material or to furnish information which is self-incriminating in nature. I suggest that the amendment I have moved is in the nature of a civil liberties amendment. It is one that I believe should attract the support of civil libertarians in this chamber. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(3.31) -The Government opposes Senator Harradine's amendment. We believe that persons appearing before the Commissioner should be required to answer questions, produce documents and so on, provided adequate safeguards exist to protect that information or evidence. Adequate safeguards are contained, not only in clause 91 (1) but also in clause 57 and clause 112. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.32) —The Opposition does not support this amendment. The Opposition was very concerned about certain self-incrimination provisions. We moved some amendments in regard to the Bill mark I which have been taken account of in this Bill. Clause 91 (1) states: . . . evidence of the furnishing of the information or the production of the document is not admissible in evidence against the person in any civil or criminal proceeding before a court- We accept that for this Bill to operate correctly, which is at a low key level, it may be necessary at a stage of the proceedings to say to someone: 'But we must have this information' so that we are not put into an adversary state any more than is necessary. We are pleased that the furnishing of that information cannot be carried forward. It ends there. If the finding is against the person who has been required to furnish the information and that person wants to challenge further in the courts, the information cannot be carried forward into that hearing. We consider that to be a very important protection of civil liberties. We are very pleased that the Government accepted it in its second Bill. Therefore we do not support Senator Harradine's amendment to clause 91. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.33) —During the consideration of clause 3 I asked Senator Ryan several questions. She indicated to me a couple of days ago that she would get me that information before the Senate rose. We are just about to rise. We are very close to the completion of the consideration of the Sex Discrimination Bill. I ask the Minister whether she has the information she promised she would furnish. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(3.33) -I think that Senator Walters is referring to her request to know the number of petitions that have been lodged. My departmental officers have not been able to get that information yet, but they are still working on it. Amendment negatived. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.34) — There were other questions. Can the Minister give me the answer to them now? Senator Ryan —What were those, Senator Walters? Senator WALTERS —Give me two minutes and I will provide them again. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.34) —by leave-I have an amendment to clause 104, which clause deals with delegation. I move: (18) Page 45, sub-clause 104 (1), line 28, leave out ''or another person or body of persons'', insert '', the National Committee, or the relevant State Committee, on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation or an approved statutory body established by a State''. (19) Page 45, paragraph 104 (2) (b), line 38, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs: '(b) the National Committee, or the relevant State Committee, on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation; or (c) an approved statutory body established by a State,.' Clause 104 (1) states: The Commission may, either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing under its seal, delegate to a member of the Commission , the Commissioner, a member of the staff of the Commission or another person or body of persons all or any of the powers conferred on the Commission under this Act, other than- (a) powers in connection with the performance of the functions that, under section 49, are to be performed by the Commissioner on behalf of the Commission; and (b) this power of delegation. Clause 104 (2) states: The Commissioner may, that is, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner- either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing signed by the Commissioner, delegate to- (a) a member of the staff of the Commission; or (b) any other person or body of persons, approved by the Commission, all or any of the powers exercisable by the Commissioner . . . That is an extraordinarily broad right to delegate power. Taking it to an absurd conclusion, under this provision the Commission could delegate power to investigate a complaint to the complainant or to the aggrieved person. That is how crazy and how broad this delegatory power is. It may not do this. For example, Wendy McCarthy-I doubt whether she would be appointed now-could delegate to people in the Women's Electoral Lobby or Anne Summers could delegate to people in WEL the investigation of complaints made under this provision. I understand why this provision is included in the Bill. The delegation provision will allow complaints to be dealt with in those areas where the Human Rights Commission is not established and also to delegate to, for example, the sex discrimination boards in the various State complaints which they may deal with. I have catered for that and for something else as well. I have catered for the situation where complaints about discrimination in employment are currently being dealt with very efficiently and effectively by the discrimination committees in the various States and by the discrimination in employment and occupation committees and by the national committee. I say 'efficiently' and 'effectively' because those committees are tripartite in character. The Government is represented on these committees. Employers are represented on the committees. The trade union movement is represented on those committees. Those committees have been working efficiently and effectively in this area for many years. I am concerned that the good work they have been able to achieve and are likely to be able to continue to achieve will count for nought if we adopt this clause because the bias on the part of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner could be against such committees. Therefore, I have catered for those two possibilities by these amendments. I have suggested that the words 'or any other person or body of persons' be deleted and the following words included: (b) the National Committee, or the relevant State Committee, on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation; or (c) an approved statutory body established by a State- I would like to know from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) when she replies to what other body could the Sex Discrimination Commissioner or the Human Rights Commissioner delegate authority. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.40) —The Opposition supports amendments Nos. (18) and (19). We think that they contain an excellent suggestion. We are just sorry that it was not made a little earlier. I do not know whether it was made by Senator Harradine to the Government earlier. Senator Harradine —It has been distributed here. Senator MARTIN —That is my point. I received on my desk in my office on Tuesday afternoon some amendments in Senator Harradine's name, and his suggestion to this effect. I was unaware of it until then. I do not criticise. I would think, for that reason, that the Government will probably not accept it. But if the Government decides not to acccept it, I would appeal to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) to try it anyway, in appropriate circumstances. On a number of occasions in relation to this Bill, Senator Harradine has referred to the work of these committees. The Opposition believes that it would be valuable for them to be involved as this body of persons that is referred to in the clause. I also raise the matter of delegation. A member of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has pointed out to me that that Committee feels concerned from time to time about this general delegation of power to a person who is not even known at the time. One is approving a delegation to heaven knows who; not even a category of person. I am sure that it is difficult for the Government on occasions, as it is difficult for others; but it is not a desirable practice. Parliament ought to have something a little more specific than just another person or body of persons to whom we are being asked to say ' yes' as being entitled to have this very wide delegation of power. If the Minister will not accept the amendments, I hope that she will look at the possiblity of using these committees, the national committee or the relevant State commitee on discrimination in employment and occupation or an approved statutory body established by a State, wherever relevant and possible, to fulfil that function of being the other body of persons. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.42) —Senator Martin rightly points out that this delegation clause has been raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. In its tenth report, dated 19 October 1983, it had this to say in relation exactly to this clause-which at that stage was clause 94 of the previous Bill: This clause also contains a now quite standard provision, in this case relating to the delegation of the powers of the Commission. I point out that it has become a quite standard provision in a lot of legislation that the Minister or somebody delegates powers. The report continues : This clause empowers both the Commission and the Sexual Discrimination Commissioner to delegate thier statutory powers of inquiry to other Commission Officers, or indeed to 'any other person or body of persons'. This power of delegation is not limited by reference to the qualifications of persons who may exercise the relevant powers. The Attorney-General's response states that, 'In view of the variety of functions which might be delegated, it would be impractical to list all the persons or bodies who or which might conceivably at any time in the future be considered able to exercise functions under the Bill or attempt to define the qualifications such persons or bodies should have'. In view of that, the Committee then put in its report. The Committee acknowledges the response of the Attorney-General which answers satisfactorily the concern it expressed in relation to clause 94. Therefore, presumably, it satisfactorily answers the concern in relation to clause 104. The national committee, the relevant State committee on discrimination in employment and occupation or any approved statutory body established by a State, are not excluded or precluded from being used by the Commission to have powers delegated to it. For those reasons, we shall not be supporting this amendment. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(3.44) -The Government will not accept the amendment. I thank Senator Haines for referring to the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which accepted, as she pointed out and quoted-- Senator Haines —Sadly, we are not a standing committee yet. Senator RYAN —The Select Committee, I am sorry. It accepted these delegation powers as set out in the Bill. I think that Senator Harradine, in his amendment, is thinking only of the conciliation powers and where they might be delegated to . However, there are a wide range of delegations which ought to be delegated under legislation. For example, there is a community education function which could well be delegated to the Community Education Council; and so on. In response to Senator Harradine's suggestion, which I think was also influential on Senator Martin, I would say that any improper delegation, a delegation to an improper person or an improper organisation, could be challenged under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.45) —I should like, Mr Chairman, to correct something that I said a moment ago. In fact, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is a Standing Committee; it is just not as standing as some of us would like it to be. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.46) —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) asked me what were the questions that I had asked. I asked about the number of signatures that came into the House of Representatives and the Senate either against the Sex Discrimination Bill, asking for amendments, or against the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; as well as the number of amendments that the Government has proposed since the Bill was introduced. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(3.47) -That information is not yet available. Senator Walters —What about the amendments, Minister? Surely to heaven the Minister can give me the amendments that the Government has put up. Also, when will the information be available? Will the Minister answer the question? Senator RYAN —The information will be available as soon as the officers are able to get it. Senator Walters —Thank you. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.47) —Senator Ryan has not addressed herself to the questions that I posed. Nothing that has been said here has given any indication as to why she cannot, and why the Australian Democrats cannot, accept an amendment. What we are trying to do here is to prevent the indiscriminate delegation of power. It is all very well to say that there is provision for appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That is not very satisfying to people who may not have the money and may not have the legal expertise to know that. The Minister's statement that this may be needed to delegate powers of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission on the community education function is a most important question. I believe that it is even more important, then, that we adopt my amendment, which would ensure that the delegation of the power goes to either the discrimination in employment and occupation committees or an approved statutory body established by a State. If the Minister is concerned about whether the State or the Commonwealth should be involved, that is another matter; but there has to be an approved statutory body . I believe that this is taking away from the Parliament and, indeed, to mention Senator Haines's point, taking away from the Minister, any power of delegation. This is giving to a non-elected, non-judicial Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Human Rights Commission a very wide power of delegation. The Senate would not be observing its duty if we allowed this to pass without remark and an attempt to amend it. Amendments negatived. Senator Martin —Mr Chairman, I indicate that the Opposition wishes to be recorded as having voted for Senator Harradine's amendments. Senator Harradine —Pursuant to the Standing Orders I wish to have my name recorded as having voted for the amendment. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Harradine's name will be recorded accordingly. The question is 'that the remainder of the Bill stand as printed'. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.50) — We have got eight minutes to deal with the remainder of the Bill, from clause 111 onwards. We have yet to deal with pages 47 to 57 of the Bill. The two amendments which I will move will make more accountable the actions of the Commission and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. I mention to the Committee that clause 111 (1) states: The Commission, a member of the Commission, the Commissioner or a person acting under the direction or authority of the Commission or of the Commissioner or pursuant to a delegation under section 104 is not liable to an action or other proceeding for damages for or in relation to an act done or omitted to be done in good faith in the performance or purposed performance of any function, or in the exercise or purported exercise of any power or authority, conferred on the Commission or the Commissioner. My amendment seeks to omit certain words and to add these words: . . . to an act done or omitted to be done honestly and in good faith in the due performance of any function or in the exercise in good faith of any power or authority conferred on the Commission or the Commissioner. I do not think it is fair enough for a non-elected non-judicial commissioner, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission to be protected from civil action brought by innocent citizens because they can claim that they acted 'in the purported performance of any function'. The actions, whatever they are, should have been done honestly and in good faith and in the due performance of any function. That then places a real onus on the Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission to act properly. My second amendment deals with a similar matter. I seek to have these words added at the end of clause 111 (2): . . . unless it appears on the balance of probabilities that the complaint or submission had been made or the document or information had been furnished or evidence had been given in bad faith with an intention to cause loss, damage or injury to another person. That is, for example, where a complainant, the aggrieved person, or indeed it could be the discriminator, might bring evidence before the Human Rights Commission, which may be an open session, which may be quite damaging or injurious to the discriminator or the aggrieved person. In those circumstances, I believe that if evidence had been furnished in bad faith with the intention of causing loss, damage or injury to another person that person ought to be liable. The essence of my proposed two amendments is to ensure accountability and responsibility on the part of all parties to these proceedings under this legislation. I seek leave to move my amendments Nos (20) and (21) together. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —I move: (20) Page 47, sub-clause 111 (1), lines 12 to 15, leave out all words after '' in relation'' (line 12), insert ''to an act done or omitted to be done honestly and in good faith in the due performance of any function or in the exercise in good faith of any power or authority conferred on the Commission or the Commissioner''. (21) Page 47, sub-clause 111 (2), at end of sub-clause, add ''unless it appears on the balance of probabilities that the complaint or submission had been made or the document or information had been furnished or evidence had been given in bad faith with an intention to cause loss, damage or injury to another person''. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(3.55) -The Government opposes these amendments. With regard to amendment (No. (20) moved by Senator Harradine, it is necessary to provide that an action done in good faith-in the belief that it can be done-be protected. Thus, functions can still be performed even if, for example, there might be a technical defect in a delegation given. With respect to Senator Harradine's amendment No. (21), the Government opposes it. There is already power in the Commission to reject a complaint if it is vexatious. The Commissioner can ignore any submissions or evidence of this nature and if evidence is false or misleading an offence might occur. What Senator Harradine suggests would enable the discriminator to threaten a potential complainant with a legal action to deter that person from making a complaint. To provide a respondent with such a weapon is not necessary because the Commissioner or the Commission can use its good offices to resolve such problems. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.56) — That was the most inadequate explanation I have ever heard. The Minister did not address herself to the matters that I raised about the responsibility of the Commission to act honestly and in good faith in the due performance of any of their functions. She did not mention that . I want to make sure that there is responsibility. How long do we have left, Mr Chairman? The CHAIRMAN —Two minutes. Senator HARRADINE —We have only two minutes left. There is absolutely no more time to deal with this matter. We have yet to deal with all the matters in the Schedule. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(3.57) -I simply refer the Committee to the requirement in clause 111 (1) for the Commission to act in good faith. Amendments negatived. Senator Martin —The Opposition would like to record its support for amendment No . (21) moved by Senator Harradine. The CHAIRMAN —That will be recorded in Hansard. Senator Harradine —Pursuant to the Standing Orders, I ask that my name be recorded as being in favour of both amendments. The CHAIRMAN —The question is 'That the remainder of the Bill stand as printed'. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.58) — We come to the Schedule of the Bill, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. I ask that the response of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to me, which included certain interpretations placed by the Government on the Convention, be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- M83/11639:SB Senator Brian Harradine,Senator for TasmaniaParliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. Dear Senator Harradine, During the Second Reading Debates on the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 you expressed your intention to seek further details of the Government's interpretation of various Articles of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. You will appreciate, as the Bill deals with discrimination in certain specified areas, a number of Articles of the Convention will not be relevant. Article 6 ( exploitation of prostitution), Article 9 (nationality rights), Article 16 ( rights relating to marriage) and Parts V and VI of the Convention, for example, fall outside the scope of this particular legislation. In addition to these a number of aspects of other Articles will also not be relevant. In assessing the relationship between the Convention and the Bill a further factor to bear in mind is that the Convention deals with two themes: measures to eliminate discrimination by ensuring equality of rights, and measures to prevent discrimination. It is the first of these themes with which Part II of the Sex Discrimination Bill is concerned. In the light of these matters I enclose a copy of a note my Department has prepared on the interpretation of relevant Articles of the Convention. I understand the Prime Minister wrote to you some time ago in regard to some specific matters of interpretation you raised concerning Articles of the Convention. The attached note is fairly general and if after reading it you see any specific problems you may wish to raise these with me. During the continuation of your speech on the Sex Discrimination Bill last Friday you also sought an assurance as to the position of pharmacists who did not wish to supply certain drugs, such as abortifacients, to customers. As Senator Ryan indicated at the time, if a pharmacist refused to stock these drugs that pharmacist would not commit an act of discrimination under the legislation. The essence of discrimination in clause 5 of the Bill is less favourable treatment on the ground of the sex of a person. A pharmacist who does not stock particular goods is not in a position to supply them to any person, so the sex, or indeed marital status, of the customer is irrelevant. A further consideration is that the refusal to stock the goods is because of the pharmacist's concern about the nature of the goods, not about the sex of any potential customer. Yours faithfully,GARETH EVANS CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN Relationship to provisions of the Sex Discrimination Bill Article 1 Definition of ''discrimination against women''. Article 2 General obligations to ensure elimination of discrimination against women The Government is committed to the elimination of discrimination against women and has chosen the Sex Discrimination Bill as an appropriate means of implementing obligations in Article 2. A number of the requirements of this Article can be satisfied by non-legislative means, such as through the conciliation and community education functions vested in the Human Rights Commission under the Sex Discrimination legislation. Article 3 Article 3 is complementary to Article 2. Whereas Article 2 requires measures to eliminate discrimination, Article 3 requires measures to ensure equality. Article 3 is in general terms and does not oblige State parties to any particular course of action. One of the objectives which the Human Rights Commission has under its own Act and under the Sex Discrimination legislation is to guarantee the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Australians without distinctions such as sex. Article 4 Article 4 allows States Parties to adopt temporary special measures to accelerate the achievement of equality between men and women: however these measures must be discontinued when their objectives have been achieved. Article 4.2 allows State Parties to adopt measures aimed at protecting maternity. These matters are reflected in the exemptions provided in the Sex Discrimination Bill. Article 5 Article 5 requires appropriate measures- (a) to modify social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women. This obligation is concerned with measures to eliminate prejudices and practices based on inferiority or superiority of either sex or on stereotyped roles of men and women. Stereotyping occurs where a particular role which is quite capable of being performed by either sex, is regarded as the preserve of one sex only, that is, without reference to the capabilities of individual members of that sex. The Sex Discrimination Bill is concerned with equality of opportunity. Neither the Convention nor the Bill requires that a man or woman is to be compelled to choose any particular role or to avail themselves of this equality of opportunity. (b) to ensure family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases. This obligation is not concerned with the actions of individuals and how they instruct their families. The Government interprets this obligation consistently with Article 23 of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights which recognizes that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection. Part II of the Sex Discrimination Bill is not inconsistent with the principle in Article 23. Articles 7 and 8 These Articles are concerned with equal participation in public and political life and are self-explanatory. Article 10 Article 10 contains a number of specific requirements aimed at equality of opportunity and access to education and the elimination of discrimination. This will enable men and women to compete on the basis of skills and merit without regard to their sex. Similarly the Sex Discrimination Bill contains provisions aimed at ensuring equality of access to education and training. The Article does not require the abolition of single-sex schools but requires opportunities to be made available for equivalent standards of education, equivalent courses of study and equal access to higher education. The Article is also concerned with the quality of access to specific educational information on matters of health but not with the content of that information. Article 11 Article 11 contains a number of specific requirements aimed at equality of rights in employment and employment-related areas. Sub-Article 11.1 is concerned with equal enjoyment of the rights listed therein and does not create separate rights for women. In this regard two matters should be noted: first, the reservation lodged on ratification in regard to employment of women in the Defence Force in combat and combat-related duties and secondly, the recognition in sub-Article 11.3 of the existence of certain ''protective legislation'' which may be applicable to matters listed in the Article. The Sex Discrimination Bill contains provisions aimed at the elimination of discrimination in matters relating to work. Sub-Article 11.2 provides that certain measures should be taken in order to prevent discrimination against women on the ground of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work. Regard should also be had to the reservation lodged on ratification in respect of paid maternity leave. Paragraph 11.2 (a), prohibition of dismissal on the ground of pregnancy or maternity leave and discrimination in dismissals on the basis of marital status, is the only part of the sub-Article of direct relevance to the Sex Discrimination Bill. Article 12 Sub-Article 12.1 deals with equality of access to health care services. These are matters falling within the prohibition in the Sex Discrimination Bill on discrimination in the provision of services and facilities. The sub-Article is concerned with the provision of access to services and does not impose an obligation to provide services that are not already available. Article 13 Article 13 is concerned with equality in economic and social life. In this regard the Sex Discrimination Bill covers discrimination in regard to the provision of services, Article 13 (b) (the right to bank loans, mortgages and other forms of financial credit), and in regard to clubs, Article 13 (c) (the right to participate in recreational activities, sports and all aspects of cultural life). In regard to Article 13 (c), this obligation is to give women the same freedom of choice as regards what sporting and recreational activities they may wish to pursue as men. It does not require that all such sporting activities be mixed. Article 14 Article 14 is concerned with the special problems of rural women. The rights enumerated in sub-Article 14 (2) are interpreted as being concerned with the equality of rural women and rural men. Article 15 Article 15 is concerned with the question of equality of men and women before the law. This question is of indirect relevance to the Sex Discrimination Bill in that men and women are treated equally in all stages of procedure before the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Commission. Further , the Australian legal system does not treat women as second class citizens or give them a lesser right than men in relation to the capacity to maintain legal proceedings or enter into contractual or other legal relationships. Senator HARRADINE —I thank the Senate. It is not possible in the short time available to deal with all these matters. I believe it is very important to see the interpretations that the Government places on the various provisions and articles of the Convention which this Bill seeks to implement. May I seek leave to continue my remarks, Mr Chairman? The CHAIRMAN —No. The debate is terminated. The time allocated for the consideration of the remainder of the Bill has expired. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment and a resolution; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Ryan) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.00) —I have no wish to take any more of the very limited time still available to us by debating the third reading, but there will be a variety of responses to the third reading on the part of members of the Opposition as there is to be a free vote on that part of the Bill. A number of us will support the Bill, and I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a brief statement setting out the reasons for our support of the third reading. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- STATEMENT ON THE THIRD READING OF THE SEX DISCRIMINATION BILL 1. We, the undersigned, have determined to vote in support of the third reading of this Bill. 2. It has not been an easy decision and has been taken with a number of reservations. Nevertheless, we have reached our decision upon the following factors. (a) The Opposition stands firmly against discrimination in any form, including discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status or pregnancy. Our stand on this Bill has never been directed to the objectives of the Bill but against the means adopted by the Government to attain those objectives. (b) Whilst the original Bill was an ill-considered and poorly drafted document, the Bill, in its present form, is workable and incorporates more than 53 changes ; those amendments in general having been made by the Government in response to representations by the Opposition and other interested individuals and organisations. The point is that the Government has come a long way down the road to accommodate legitimate objections to its original proposal. (c) The freedom of religious schools will now be preserved. The Bill cannot now be used to force unwilling persons to participate in abortion procedures. The initial provisions infringing civil liberties have been removed. (d) The debate generated by the Bill has indicated a number of areas of public concern as to the effect its implementation will have upon the structure of our society. Accordingly, it is pleasing to note that the Bill will not provide for affirmative action. Neither will the more unsatisfactory provisions of the UN Convention, for example the provision calling for supervision by a UN Committee, be implemented. 3. While we are particularly concerned about the use of the external affairs power much of the Bill is based on other legitimate heads of Commonwealth power. 4. There should be no doubt that both Government and the Opposition regards this Bill as significant. In the light of that significance it may well be appropriate for a Parliamentary Committee to review its operation in a few years to ensure that the positive results hoped for are achieved and to see if further amendments are required to redirect the legislation to achieve those ends. P. E. BAUMEF. M. CHANEYP. D. DURACKM. G. C. GUILFOYLED. J. HAMERB. F. KILGARIFFK . J. MARTINA. J. MESSNERM. E. REID Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.01) —I wish to make it perfectly clear that I will be voting against the third reading. I also want to make it perfectly clear that I am strongly against any discrimination against my sex or any other sex and against discrimination on the grounds of marital status or pregnancy, but I will not be intimidated by the name of the Bill. The Bill has been named the Sex Discrimination Bill. I do not believe in any discrimination, not merely discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy but also on religious grounds. I believe there is discrimination in this Bill against religious beliefs. It is for that reason, and also because of the use of the external affairs powers, that I will vote against the Bill. As I have said, I do not want to hold up the Senate. I make it perfectly clear to the Senate and to the Australian people that I am absolutely opposed, as strongly as anyone in the Senate, to discrimination against women, which is primarily what this Bill is about. But from the very beginning the intimidation by the Government that anyone who dared to speak out against this Bill was discriminating against women is, I believe, irresponsible. From the very beginning, the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, has called people who opposed the Bill hysterical-that is the word that she so frequently used-yet she has brought into this place 80-odd amendments to the Bill that she brought forward. She will not tell me-even though she has had plenty of time, days, to do so-how many people signed a petition asking for amendments to the Bill. She has no intention of doing so. I will not be intimidated by the name of this Bill and I want that clearly understood by the Senate. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.03) — What we have witnessed with this Bill has been a denial of the rights of the Senate and of individual senators. The gag has been applied. In applying the gag the Government and the Australian Democrats have in fact undermined the rights of the Senate as a House of review of government legislation. In addition, because of the time allotted to the conscientious objection amendment and the civil liberties amendments, the action of the Government and the Australian Democrats has undermined the rights of the Senate to uphold the rights of individuals in Australia. I am concerned about that. Senator Chipp —How many times did you speak on the second reading? Senator HARRADINE —I spoke once on each Bill. I am concerned about that. The Democrats have turned out to be-rather than minders which is what they put themselves to the people as-are enforcers. Without the conscientious objection amendment that was sought to be incorporated into this legislation, I will not vote for the legislation, but I certainly will not vote against it. I want the legislation to go to the House of Representatives. I hope the members of the House of Representatives who are interested in civil liberties and the rights of conscience amend the Bill so that it comes back to us. The PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Baume, Peter Haines, J. Bolkus, N. Hamer, D. J. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Chaney, F. M. Hill, R. Childs, B. K. Kilgariff, B. F. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Martin, K. J. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Messner, A. J. Durack, P. D. Missen, A. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Jack Reid, M. E. Foreman, D. J. Reynolds, M. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walsh, P. A. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Scott, D. B. Carrick, Sir John Townley, M. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Walters, M. S. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Watson, J. O. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Assent to the following Bills reported: Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1983 Taxation Administration Amendment Bill 1983 Consideration resumed from 1 December 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.12) —I move: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the first day of sitting in February 1984. Perhaps I might indicate to the Senate why the Opposition wishes to see the Live -stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill deferred until February-I thank the Australian Democrats for their support in this. The Bill is one which provides for an increase in the meat export inspection charge from $1. 80 to $5.40 per head. This matter has caused considerable difficulties in the industry, which has been going through a very difficult time, and there have been substantial representations to the Government. We want the Government to take time to consider the representations which have been made. In addition, there is the possibility of a legal challenge to some aspects of the charges and it is the wish of the Opposition that there be an opportunity for that matter to be considered and, if necessary, pursued. This is a slightly unusual course of action, Mr President, but I thought I should briefly explain to the Senate why it is we seek to consider this Bill when we return in February. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.13) —Whilst the Australian Democrats are not totally in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), we support the Opposition move to have consideration of the Live-stock Slaughter ( Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill put off until next February on the basis that current problems in the abattoirs and in the slaughter industry around Australia indicate that we ought to look much more seriously at this issue than currently we have time to look at it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.14) —I support the adjournment of the debate on the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill. I too have some considerable concern about the effect that the proposal would have had-and is having, actually-on a number of abattoirs, especially in the State of Tasmania. That is a matter about which I would have wanted to say a great deal in this chamber had this legislation come forward for debate. It will now come forward early next year and I hope that in the meantime sufficient work is done on the Government to ensure that it does something about the real problems being faced by abattoirs, particularly those which rely heavily on the export market. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-This Bill is actually a validation Bill which goes to the validity of earlier charges rather than to the increases which were made in the Budget. I am sorry that I slightly blurred that section in the comments I made and got it wrong. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.15) —I indicate that Government senators have considered this matter. They would all vote against this most reprehensible and delaying move which has been foisted on us by recalcitrant Opposition and Australian Democrat senators. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 4.15 p.m., under sessional order, I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I move: That the Senate at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 28 February 1984 at 2 p.m. , or such other day and/or hour that may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the day and/or hour of the meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator. I seek leave to withdraw notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name. Leave granted; notice of motion withdrawn. Amendment (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: At the end of motion, add ': Provided that the President, upon a request or requests by an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a day and hour of meeting in accordance with such request or requests, and such time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator. For these purposes a request by the Leader of Deputy-Leader of the Opposition shall be deemed to be a request by every Senator of the Opposition and a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Australian Democrats shall be deemed to be a request by every Australian Democrat Senator. Provided further that the request or requests may be made to the president by leaving the same with, or delivery of the same to, the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President. In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall without delay notify the Deputy-President, or, should he be unavilable, any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who shall be deemed to be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accordance with the terms of this Resolution'. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Senator Baden Teague, who was paired and who is away from the Senate on business, has asked it to be recorded in the Hansard that he would have supported the third reading of the Sex Discrimination Bill. That is necessary because pairs would not have applied, I assume, because of the free vote which took place, and I wish that position to be clear. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate meets next. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an answer to a question which Senator Kilgariff asked of me and which I indicated I would answer. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- On 15 December Senator Kilgariff asked me a question without notice about the Australian National Line's East Coast/Darwin shipping service. The Minister for Transport has advised me that the Australian Shipping Commission has advised the Northern Territory Government that because the $2 million Commonwealth subsidy for the Darwin/East Coast Service will be exhausted this month and because of the rate of loss being incurred, it proposes to give shippers one month's notice of termination of the service on 21 December. I understand that the Australian Shipping Commission indicated that it was prepared to continue the service while alternative arrangements are being finalised if the Northern Territory Government agreed to provide adequate financial support. The Commission also offered to provide the 'Townsville Trader ' on charter to the Northern Territory Government and/or operate it at that Government's risk and expense. It is my understanding that the Territory Government has not replied to the Commission's proposals except to forward a copy of a press release which Mr Steele issued on 9 December. In that press statement, Mr Steele again called on the Federal Government to continue supporting the service financially. The Federal Government's position has been known to the Northern Territory since August. We provided a further $2 million assistance in the 1983 Budget on the understanding that this was to grant the Northern Territory Government time to decide whether to assist the continued operation of the service. The Government has made it quite clear that no further Federal subsidy will be made available. It is up to the Northern Territory Government, if it wishes the service to continue, to support the operations which exclusively serve the Northern Territory. Valedictory Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(4.19) —I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. On behalf of the Government I want to say a few words as the Senate is now breaking up, as it were, for the Christmas period. For all honourable senators this has been a difficult year. A year in which an election takes place in March is a truncated parliamentary year. It has been a difficult year for the Government and, certainly from some expressions of aggro I have heard from the Opposition at various times, it has been a difficult year for the Opposition, too. Let me say that I understand exactly how it feels. I was a member of the Opposition for a long time. I take the opportunity to thank all honourable senators for the way in which they have handled the work of the Senate this year . Particularly, I thank you, Mr President. I think you have been a very fair President, and the business of the Senate has been run very well. I thank the Clerk of the Senate, his deputies, all the officers of the Senate and all of the attendants. There are probably many others I have forgotten, but I thank all those who have made this place as workable as politicians will allow it to be. I think there have been one or two quite special performances in the Senate this year. Senator Gareth Evans was accused of making an alteration to the Hansard but I think my colleague, Senator Grimes got away with that better than anybody else. I notice in one issue of the Hansard it is recorded that Senator Grimes is described as a 'spunk' by Senator Ryan. I sat here and I distinctly heard her say: 'You are a skunk'. The next day the Hansard appeared with that alteration in it. I also think Senator Primmer is to be congratulated for his unique interpretation of what 'non-controversial time' in the Senate means, and Senator Harradine for his marathon contribution to what is now the sex Act. Of course, there are many others who have contributed spectacular performances, particularly Senator Peter Baume and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle for their understanding that brevity is the soul of wit and for the very concise and precise speeches they have made on a couple of issues in this last week. I like to think that I might join them in that category in time. All in all, it has been a difficult but I think productive year. I did single out three honourable senators-Senator Grimes, Senator Primmer and Senator Harradine-as those who have made quite outstanding and unique contributions to the work of the Senate. This brown paper parcel on my right, Mr President, contains three bags of James chocolates. If Senators Grimes, Primmer and Harradine will see me they will each get a bag of James chocolates to eat over Christmas. I wish everybody a happy Christmas on behalf of the Government and again make my personal thanks and good wishes. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.22) —I support the remarks made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). If he thinks it has been a difficult year for the new Government, I can assure him it was a much more difficult year for the old one. It is just as well we are having Christmas greetings because if we were wishing people what we want for them in the New Year I would have to say that I hope the Government will have an equally difficult year in 1984 as we had in 1983. Mr President, I wish to thank you and all of those many people who work under you for the work you have done for us during the year. I join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate in thanking you for the way you have conducted the presidency, which I think has been fair and forthright-qualities which we expect in a President and which we, on the other hand, are always grateful to receive when they are delivered. We thank you for that and we thank all of your officers , from the Clerk onwards, and all of the staff of this place who put up with us. It is a quite extraordinary thing-I am not sure whether it is the effect of Christmas being a week away or the adjournment motion-but suddenly the horns have disappeared from Senator Button's head. I am only sorry that Senator Gareth Evans is not here because it would have been much more challenging to see whether the horns had disappeared from his head also. However, he is away with the other Attorneys-General. I would just like to say to the Leader of the Government in the Senate that we do not really miss Senator Evans because the lack of tact and diplomacy displayed by Senator Button over the last few minutes , when he suggested that Senator Ryan called Senator Grimes a skunk, was worthy of Senator Evans. I really feel that he is here with us in the chamber in spirit if not in body. Mr President, again we extend our best wishes to all of those who work in this place. I hope that everybody has the sort of Christmas which is the stuff of our mythology and of our society and that everybody has as good a time with their families as I am intending to have with mine. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.24) -Mr President, I endorse the comments of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). I think there is always something of a fascination around Christmas time in the way that in this chamber the fire and brimstone of yesterday suddenly becomes peace and goodwill as we draw Christmas into our sights. I just hope that the season that follows us when we leave this chamber today, and next year, 1984, are happy periods for all of us and that we have health, strength and peace around us. Certainly, on behalf of my Party, I thank you, Mr President, for your very fine occupancy of the Chair during the year. I wish you a happy Christmas and a fine New Year. To the Clerks at the table, who have shown their great capacities and given help, to the skilful and tolerant people of Hansard, to the attendants and the other staff and, finally, to our colleagues on both sides of the chamber, I wish a happy Christmas and a bright and healthy 1984. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.26) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I endorse the comments of Senators Button, Chaney and Scott and thank everybody associated with this place for the assistance that they have given us. It has been a pretty rugged year. I said to my wife the other day: 'Hasn't the year gone quickly'. She said 'Good heavens, how can you say that because we had an election in March'. All of a sudden, I was stunned to think that it was this year that we had the election and that a new government was elected. That seems an enternity ago to us. The Australian Democrats hold the balance of power in this chamber and that has made life very difficult for us. We are occasionally accused by the Liberal Party of being an extension of the Australian Labor Party. In turn, we are accused by the Labor Party of being an extension of the Liberal Party. It just pleases me that the number of accusations from each of these quarters seems to be the same. If I can single out one group in particular I single out the Clerk and everybody in the Department of the Senate, who do an extraordinary job. I know that you, Mr President, are very proud, as you should be, to have such people on your staff. I make the point that 169 Bills have been presented by the Government since March of which only four have been rejected. This means that 98 per cent of the Government's legislative program has been passed without impairment. In addition to that, we have moved over 70 amendments to Bills. We received assistance in respect of every one of those amendments from your Clerks . That assistance has been provided always in a willing, courteous and extremely efficient manner. In addition, we received assistance in respect of the dozen or so private members' Bills that we introduced. I thank them especially. I take this opportunity on behalf of the Democrats of wishing all honourable senators and their loved ones a happy and holy Christmas. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.28) — Mr President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks that have been made in respect of your presidency. I also mention that much of the examination of legislation at the Committee stage would not have been possible with such efficiency if it had not been for the work of Senator Hamer, the Deputy President and Chairman of Committees. The honourable senator is extraordinarily quick. He seems to be able to detect when people are about to rise-he has not missed anybody yet. I certainly have missed speaking to one clause of a Bill because of his efficiency and the gentle speed with which he announces the various clauses. I must say that his work has been appreciated by the chamber, especially at the Committee of the Whole stage. I thank very sincerely the staff of the Department of the Senate for the work that has been done in respect of drafting amendments. I also thank the staff of the Joint House Department-the people behind the bar, the people who prepare the food and what have you. In addition, I thank the attendants and the Senate transport officers who are probably waiting to ship some people off, although I am probably the only senator who is going to stay in Canberra over night. I really put my faith in the notice of motion put down by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) that we would meet tomorrow. It has been a long day. I very much thank the attendants. Maybe, like me and the rest of us, they have not had any lunch today. Maybe they are like me and have not had any breakfast today. I will certainly go to the table and collect the chocolates so I can have my breakfast. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(4.30) —I associate myself with what has been said by previous speakers. I mention particularly those people around the area who have been of great assistance to me during the year. I include those who have helped arrange my travel, people in the Government Printing Office and areas like that who have been most helpful to me, the attendants who, except on one occasion, have delivered everything I have required within a reasonable length of time and the people in the Bills and Papers Office, with whom I was perhaps a little rough yesterday. I thank particularly the Hansard staff who this year have worked during dinner hours and at times when they should not really be expected to work. I think that next year we will have to look at the pressures we apply to the staff around the place, not just members of both Houses. I wish everybody a very good Christmas-a healthy one-and hope that in view of the pressures of the sitting hours next year, which I think will be very onerous, everyone will have a reasonable rest during the recess. Finally, I think it would be most remiss of me not to thank, on behalf of the troglodytes of the No case, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) who I am sorry is not here today. In fact, henceforth I think he should be known as ' Claytons' because he certainly is the Attorney-General you have when you are not having an Attorney-General. The PRESIDENT —I join with all the other speakers in thanking the many persons who have contributed to the operations of the Senate during the year. I think all of us in the chamber this year have been fulfilling new roles and responsibilities. I particularly thank the Deputy President, Senator Hamer, and all the temporary chairmen of committees for their assistance to me in the chair . I also extend my thanks and appreciation to those senators who, from time to time, have represented me at official functions. My thanks also go to all the officers of the Senate Department. I completely agree with the remarks made by Senator Chipp. They carry out their duties in a most efficient, honourable, impartial and fair way. I express the gratitude of all senators to the Parliamentary Librarian and his staff, the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, the officers of the Joint House Department, the officers of the new Parliament House Construction Authority, the attendants, the police officers who are stationed at Parliament House for security reasons, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Inter-Parliamentary Union secretariats and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation personnel who arrange for the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Parliament and all other media representatives. In the chamber this year we find ourselves creating new records. Although we had a late start to the parliamentary year, following the March general election , the Senate has sat for approximately 489 hours. By sitting today we are equalling the record last year of 16 December being the latest sitting day for 40 years. During this Budget session we have sat for 45 days which is the most sitting days in the Budget session for at least the last nine years. I thank all honourable senators for assisting me in my task as President and thereby making my responsibilities in the Parliament in 1983 satisfying and rewarding ones. I will not delay the Senate any longer. I wish simply to express my seasonal greetings to all members of the Parliament and all those associated with it. May they all have a happy Christmas and a great New Year. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.34 p.m., until 2 p.m. on 28 February 1984, unless previously called together in accordance with the resolution passed earlier this day. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 68 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: Will the Treasurer consider the introduction of a means-tested income tax rebate for families and single parents on a percentage of home and accommodation rentals to offset the discrimination between owner-occupiers and the growing number of rental tenants in areas of housing assistance. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Commonwealth assistance to rental tenants currently takes the form of assistance to the States to increase the availability of public rental accommodation and direct assistance to persons renting privately. I announced in my May economic statement a significant increase in assistance for public housing. Assistance under the Commonwealth-State housing agreement is being increased in 1983-84 to $500m-an increase of $167m, or 50 per cent on the $333m provided in 1982-83. Direct assistance to persons renting privately is being provided through supplementary rental assistance to eligible pensioners-estimated cost $ 164m in 1982-83; and through assistance under the mortgage and rent relief scheme, under which the Commonwealth has agreed to provide up to $20m per annum for a period of three years from 1982-83 provided this sum is matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the States. It is considered that this assistance is better targeted to persons in need in the private rental market than the provision of a means-tested income tax rebate to all persons renting privately, and is accordingly a preferred method of assistance at a time of very difficult budgetary circumstances. In addition, the Government has terminated the universal home loan interest tax rebate for owner-occupiers, which the former Government introduced in August 1982, and confined the benefit of the tax rebate scheme for first home buyers to lower income earners who occupied their first home before 1 October 1983. Once again, these measures give effect to the Government's policy of directing housing assistance to those most in need. Question No. 214 Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 May 1983: (1) What was the rate of growth in the money supply during March and April 1983 when expressed as an annual rate. (2) Did interest rates fall over the same period. (3) Did the Treasurer announce a $1.5 billion bond tender on 19 May 1983; if so , what will be the effect on the money supply. (4) What effect did this announcement have on interest rates. (5) Do the answers to the previous questions indicate that a tight monetary policy is associated with high interest rates and depressed economic activity. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The growth rate of M3 expressed on a twelve-months-to basis decreased from 12.4 per cent in March to 11.7 per cent in April 1983. (2) Most short term interest rates decreased appreciably during the March-April period. For example, the 90-day bank accepted/endorsed commercial bill rate fell from 17.0 per cent at end-February to 12.65 per cent at end-April. Medium and long term secondary market Treasury Bond rates also fell during this period. For example, secondary market yields on five year Treasury bonds fell about three- quarters of a percentage point between end-February and end-April. (3) The Treasurer did announce a $1,500m bond tender on 19 May 1983. The settlement dates for the tender were 30 May to 24 June, so that its impact on the money supply would have been reflected in the June and later figures. The growth rate of M3 was 11.2 per cent over the 12 months to May 1983 but 12.5 per cent over the 12 months to June 1983. This outcome was influenced by several factors, including foreign exchange inflows, the Budget surplus, and the transactions of the Reserve Bank and private banks, as well as by Government financing transactions. Nevertheless, the tender announced on 19 May would have contributed to a lower monetary growth in June than if the tender had been smaller. (4) Immediately following the tender announcement on 19 May, most short term rates and secondary market Treasury bond yields rose, continuing a trend evident over the previous week. A decline in hedged overseas borrowing costs and substantial foreign exchange inflows in subsequent days resulted in short term rates declining to levels only slightly above their pre-tender announcement levels by the start of the settlement period on 30 May. In contrast, secondary market bond yields at the beginning of the settlement period remained at the higher post-announcement levels, although this can by no means be attributed solely to the tender. (5) No. Question No. 215 Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Did the Treasurer say in his economic statement of 19 May 1983 that monetary growth at 12 per cent 'is not consistent with this Government's objectives'. (2) What was the rate of growth in M1 and M3 in the year to March 1983 and did the rate of growth in M3 exceed that of M1. (3) Does M3 include bank deposits on which market rates of interest are paid and does this not mean that banks can offer high interest rates when liquidity is tight so as to offset Government's attempt to control the money supply with open market operations. (4) Is M1 a better measure of the tightness of liquidity. (5) What was the real rate of growth in M1 in the year to March 1983. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The growth rates of M1 and M3 in the twelve months to March 1983 were 1.8 per cent and 12.4 per cent respectively. (3) The volume of money measure M3 includes trading bank fixed deposits and certificates of deposit as well as savings bank investment accounts and statement savings accounts on which market or near-market interest rates are paid. Open market operations involving the sale of additional Commonwealth Government securities to the non-bank sector by the Reserve Bank have the effect of reducing the overall volume of funds available to the banking system as deposits. One response of the banks to such operations could be an increase in their deposit rates designed to limit their loss of deposits. However, such action by itself is unlikely to offset fully the lower deposit growth resulting from the open market operations. This is because the increase in bank deposit rates will need to be reflected in bank lending rates and, as these increase, it is reasonable to expect that there will be an increasing reluctance by borrowers from banks to pay the higher interest rates. Faced with the consequent fall-off in demand for borrowings, the banks' ability to offer higher interest rates will be necessarily inhibited and, hence, so will be the banks' ability to offset fully the open market operations. (4) No single measure is adequate on its own for measuring the liquidity of the financial system. An accurate assessment of monetary and liquidity conditions can only be reached after considering a wide range of financial indicators. For example, the M1 aggregate needs to be interpreted with particular caution at present since the relatively high nominal interest rates on most interest bearing bank deposits and other financial assets have resulted in individuals economising on balances held in cheque accounts. As these cheque accounts are included in M1, this aggregate has therefore grown more slowly recently than most other financial aggregates and accordingly does not reflect the easier liquidity conditions more generally. All measures of monetary and liquidity conditions-including M3-are subject to a variety of structural and cyclical influences that must be taken into account in assessing their effectiveness in portraying monetary conditions. The choice of one monetary aggregate over another as a better measure of monetary conditions must ultimately reflect a judgment as to the relative disadvantages and advantages of each aggregate. In this regard, M3 appears to be more representative of general monetary conditions, less susceptible to short-term volatility and has a greater level of community understanding than M1. It is considered a more appropriate summary measure of monetary conditions. (5) Real growth rates of monetary and other aggregates are dependent on the choice of the price deflator used in the calculation. Based on movements in the Consumer Price Index, the real movement of M1 in the twelve months to March 1983 was minus 8.7 per cent. Question No. 217 Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 May 1983: Is the Treasurer considering introducing a one, two or five dollar coin for general use; if so: (a) will it replace any current notes or coins, (b) when is it likely to be in circulation and (c) where will it be minted; and if not, will the Government consider introducing a higher value coin to allow for the efficient operation of a range of coin operated vending machines. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: On 8 July 1983, I announced that the Government had agreed to the introduction of a $1 coin into general circulation. Subsequently, on 4 August 1983, I announced details on the composition, size and design characteristics of the new $1 coin. The Government has no plans at this stage to introduce either a $2 or $ 5 coin. (a) It is intended that the $1 note will be withdrawn as soon as practicable following the introduction of the $1 coin. (b) The $1 coin is expected to be introduced into general circulation in the first half of 1984. (c) The $1 coin will be minted at the Royal Australian Mint in Canberra. Question No. 248 Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 June 1983: (1) Are small businessmen linked to a $1,200 tax deduction for contributions they make to superannuation funds, payments from which will be subject to the new 'super tax'. (2) How can employees operating contributory superannuation schemes, obtain tax benefits which, together with the $1,200 rebate theoretically obtainable by employees for their contributions, amount to far higher (perhaps three or four times more) tax subsidies than are available to the self-employed. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The income tax law allows a self-employed person or an employee without employer-sponsored superannuation support an income tax deduction for his or her contributions to a qualifying superannuation fund up to an annual limit of $1, 200. Benefits from such a superannuation fund, to the extent to which they are referable on a time basis to membership of the fund after 30 June 1983, will be subject to the new taxing arrangements. (2) The honourable senator seems to be asking why income tax deductions available for contributions to a supperannuation fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee can be much higher than the deduction for such contributions available to an employee who has to make his or her own superannuation arrangements. The former contributions are, of course, deductible to the employer as part of the overall remuneration payable in respect of the employment of the employee, are part of the costs of derivation of the employer' s income and are funded in accordance with guidelines which reflect the employer -employee relationship. The latter contributions have no direct relationship to the derivation of the taxpayer's income and the deduction of up to $1,200 represents a concession under the income tax law which would not otherwise be available to assist unsupported employees and self-employed persons to provide for retirement. As the honourable senator would know, the level of concessions of this nature under the income tax law are subject to budgetary considerations. Question No. 249 Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Will the forthcoming discussions on the arrangements with life assurance companies and other interested parties with regard to annuities, include the question of indexation of payments to superannuees or will the provisions of indexed bonds referred to by the Government in the economic statement only be aimed at maintaining the life companies asset worth but yield only small income refunds. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Following the announcement in the Government's economic statement of 19 May 1983 concerning new arrangements for taxing lump sum benefits, preliminary discussions were held with representatives of the life insurance and superannuation industries on a number of related issues, including the sale of annuities. The Statement which the Treasurer issued jointly with the Australian Council of Trade Unions on 15 August 1983, foreshadowed a continuation of discussions with the ACTU, the Confederation of Australian Industry and other interested parties including the superannuation industry, with the objective of developing a national retirement package. It also indicated that the operation of annuities will be subject to further consideration. The question of issuing Commonwealth indexed securities raises a number of substantial and complex issues. It was against this background that the Martin group, which was established to review aspects of the Australian financial system, was specifically asked to give priority consideration to this issue. The Treasurer has received an interim report by the Martin group on this subject and it is being considered by the Government. Any governmental discussions with industry on this subject will be considered after the Government has decided its basic policies on the matter. Question No. 252 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) What are the names of all companies which are engaged in coal mining in Australia which have notified the Foreign Investment Review Board that they have significant foreign ownership. (2) What is the percentage of foreign equity in each case. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Companies operating in Australia-including those engaged in coal mining-are not required to notify the Foreign Investment Review Board that they have significant foreign ownership. Under foreign investment policy or the Foreign Takeovers Act, corporations that have substantial foreign ownership or control-that is where a foreign person holds 15 per cent or more of the voting power or issued shares of the corporation, or two or more foreign persons hold 40 per cent or more of the voting power or issued shares of the corporation-are required to notify the Government of any proposals to develop new businesses or projects, including in coal mining, or to acquire interests in existing businesses including coal mines or coal mining companies, with activities in Australia. Below is a list of all coal mining proposals approved by the Government under foreign investment policy-excluding takeovers that were not implemented-since the Foreign Investment Review Board was established in April 1976. The present level of beneficial foreign equity-excluding foreign portfolio holdings-which is indicated in each case, is based on the most recent information available to the Board. NEW PROJECTS Beneficial foreign Name of Projects equity per cent Baal Bone 36 Birds Rock 49 Blair Athol 50 Clarence 56 Curragh 50 Drayton 49 German Creek 50 Gloucester 49 Hail Creek 43 Mt Arthur South 15 Mt Thorley 46 Nebo 20 Norwich Park *80 Oaky Creek *52 Redbank Plains 49 Ulan *65 Wallamaine 36 Warkworth 42 Wolgan 52 * As a condition of approval Australian equity in Central Queensland Coal Associates was increased to 20 per cent. * Foreign investment approval for the commencement of commercial production was given in December 1982 on the basis that 50 per cent Australian equity would be achieved as opportunities permitted. * Based on Ulan being owned 40 per cent by Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd (MDP) , 45 per cent by White Industries Ltd (WIL) and 15 per cent by the State Superannuation Board of New South Wales. MDP has a direct equity interest and an interest as mortgagee in WIL; both interests have been taken into account in calculating the figure in the table. TAKEOVERS Beneficial foreign Name of Company Project equity per cent Aberdare Collieries Pty Ltd 32 Austen & Butta Ltd 48 Bayswater Colliery Company Pty Ltd 41 Bellambi Coal Co. Pty Ltd 45 Callide 30 Clutha Development Pty Ltd *100 Cook 40 Gollin Wallsend Coal Company Limited 49 Kembla Coal & Coke Pty Ltd *53 Lithgow Valley Colliery Co. Ltd 24 R. W. Miller Holdings Ltd 33 North Bulli Collieries Pty Ltd *53 Thiess Holdings Ltd 0 Wallerawang Collieries Pty Ltd 36 Wambo Mining Corporation Pty Ltd 50 * BP is required to introduce 50 per cent Australian participation as soon as practicable. * KCC, a wholly owned subsidiary of CRA Limited, is a naturalising company under foreign investment policy. KCC owns North Bulli Collieries. CRA is presently about 47 per cent Australian owned and committed to increase this to 51 per cent under the naturalisation arrangements. Question No. 314 Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) What action has the Government taken to deregister tax agents promoting tax avoidance schemes. (2) What measures does the Government intend to take against such agents in the future. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The registration of tax agents is controlled by independent tax agents' boards constituted under the Income Tax Assessment Act. Registration and cancellation of registration are, under the existing law, matters for decision by those Boards. The tax agents' boards review registration of an agent if a complaint is received. In this regard they may cancel registration where it is considered that an agent has been guilty of misconduct as a tax agent or is not a fit and proper person to remain registered. In addition, each registered agent is required to apply annually for continuation of his or her registration and the boards may refuse to re-register a person whom they consider is unfit to continue practising as a tax agent. The Government is at present considering the question of how its election commitment in this area might be given practical effect and will indicate its intentions when decisions have been taken. I expect this will be in the next few months. Question No. 344 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: Will the Treasurer consider authorising the Foreign Investment Review Board to release full details of any purchases of Australian rural land by foreign interests, including the full identification of the purchaser(s), the amount tendered for the property, the location of the property, the area of the property, details of prior advertising on the Australian market and the purpose to which the property will be put; if not, why not. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A requirement that the full details of all purchases of rural land by foreign interests be released would represent a significant departure from the approach presently taken in relation to information supplied in confidence by parties to foreign investment proposals. The Government and the Foreign Investment Review Board rely on the co-operation of parties for the supply of commercial information necessary for the effective consideration of proposals. This co- operation would be endangered if the confidentiality of such information could no longer be assured. I would draw the honourable senator's attention to the fact that the Government has continued the established practice of ensuring that a rural property has been publicly advertised or otherwise made clearly available for purchase by Australians before giving consideration to a foreign investment proposal for its acquisition. The Government has also continued the practice of publicly announcing decisions on major or otherwise significant proposals after consultation with the parties involved. Decisions by this Government on proposals involving rural property interests which have been made public are: a proposal by Wallcreek Trust to acquire land at Noosa and Tewantin, Queensland (further information is provided in the Treasurer's statement of 22 April 1983); a proposal by Nchima Tea and Tung Estates Ltd to acquire shares in Iota Pty Ltd , a predominantly United Kingdom-owned company with rural property interests in Western Australia (the Treasurer's statement of 21 July 1983 refers); a proposal by two United Kingdom-owned companies to acquire an aggregate 50 per cent interest in Australian Airport Services Pty Ltd, the main activities of which are in the cotton industry at Bourke, New South Wales (the Treasurer's statement of 3 November 1983 refers); and the proposed acquisition of 'Rosewood' station in the Northern Territory by the Sarawak Economic Development Corporation (the Treasurer's statements of 10 May and 16 August 1983 refer). Information of foreign investment proposals involving acquisitions of rural properties (numbers and areas of properties, by State) is also prepared on an aggregated basis by the Foreign Investment Review Board and made publicly available. Question No. 350 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: (1) Why is the new tax on cosmetics containing sunscreen agents based on the marketing technique of a product rather than the effectiveness of that product to protect the skin from harmful ultra-violet rays. (2) Are there any products that contain an effective level of sunscreen agents, with the exception of night preparations which will attract this new tax; if not , would it not be more effective to amend the present legislation to exempt night preparations; if so, why has the Government decided to tax these products when they afford the wearer protection from ultra-violet rays. (3) Why is the Government not encouraging the manufacturers of cosmetics worn during the day to include in their products an effective level of sun screening agents rather than discouraging them from this practice by way of a tax. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There is no new tax on cosmetics containing sunscreen agents. Cosmetics have been taxable for many years. However, prior to the August 1983 Budget various cosmetics had gained exemption under a provision conferring exemption on sunscreen preparations by having included in the ingredients of the cosmetics a sunscreen agent. Notwithstanding the inclusion of the sunscreen agent the products remain essentially cosmetics. The effect of the Budget amendment made to the exemption provision (item 38A in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax ( Exemptions and Classifications) Act) is to exclude cosmetics with sunscreen agents from exemption and to tax them at the same rate as other cosmetics. The exemption for sunscreen preparations has, ever since it was introduced, been dependent on the effectiveness of the preparations in screening out solar ultra- violet rays. The exemption has also been dependent on the manner in which the product is put up for sale. Sunscreen preparations which are not essentially cosmetics but which are effective and are put up for sale for the purpose of screening out solar ultra- violet rays remain exempt from sales tax. (2) Cosmetics, cosmetic preparations and goods in the nature of cosmetic preparations are now excluded from exemption and are taxed even though they might have a sunscreen agent in them which effectively screens out solar ultra- violet rays. It is not proposed to amend the law to exempt night preparations. The Government has excluded the cosmetics, et cetera. with sunscreen agents for exemption because they are essentially cosmetics and should bear the same rate of sales tax as other cosmetics. (3) The Government has never intended to exempt cosmetics. It is concerned that cosmetics which include sunscreen agents, even those with effective sunscreen agents, should not gain a competitive advantage over other cosmetics because of sales tax. The Government continues to encourage the use of sunscreen preparations as such by exempting those which effectively screen out solar ultra -violet rays. Question No. 415 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 October 1983: (1) Has the Deafness Association of the Northern Territory made representations to the Government requesting the granting of sales tax exemption on teletext decoding equipment for deaf and hearing impaired people. (2) Will the Government allow the Association's request in the light of the difficulties experienced by these incapacitated people, and the exorbitant cost of equipment such as the teletext decoder. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The law has been amended to provide conditional exemption from sales tax to persons who are profoundly deaf in respect of broadcast teletext decoding devices, interactive and broadcast videotex systems, closed caption decoding devices and similar decoding devices of a kind used in or in connection with television receivers. As the honourable senator would be aware, videotex, teletext and other comparable equipment enables the spoken word and information to be reproduced in visual form on television screens or monitors designed for use with television receivers without the need for sound. This exemption from sales tax will be of benefit to the profoundly deaf in our community. The Secretary of the Deafness Association of the Northern Territory has been informed of the Government's action together with details of how the sales tax exemption will be administered. Question No. 439 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 October 1983: (1) In what form are Australia's foreign exchange reserves held abroad. (2) Are any of Australia's foreign reserves held in banks and or financial institutions other than Australian banks and or financial institutions; if so why are the reserves so held, and what are the names and addresses of those institutions. (3) What fees and commissions, if any, are paid to foreign banks and other financial institutions for holding Australia's foreign exchange reserves. (4) Has an investigation been conducted into the feasibility of holding Australia's foreign exchange reserves in overseas branches of Australian banks; if so, what are details. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In addition to gold and International Monetary Fund-related reserve assets, Australia's foreign exchange reserves are held in several currencies, predominantly United States dollars. Investments are held mainly in the form of marketable obligations issued by foreign governments, their agencies and international organisations. Some funds are invested in bank deposits. (2) Deposits are held with the head offices of selected major domestic banks in the country of the currency held. It would be inappropriate to divulge names of those commercial banks with which part of Australia's foreign exchange holdings are invested. (3) No fees or commissions of any sort are, or have been, paid to foreign banks or institutions for holding Australia's foreign exchange reserves. (4) The Reserve Bank has, on several occasions in recent years, considered the scope for holding a portion of Australia's foreign exchange reserves with overseas branches of Australian banks. The bank has concluded that there are no strong grounds for it to depart from its practice of holding deposits only with major banks in overseas domestic markets. The bank keeps the list of eligible banks under regular review. Question No. 450 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 October 1983: (1) Has the Treasurer given instructions that the Northern Territory be included in the Government's review of State relativities, being undertaken in the lead-up to the termination of the State tax sharing arrangements in June 1985. (2) Would a change in the funding arrangements cost the Territory considerable investment funds and put a brake on the rapid growth that has occurred in northern development as a result of Government support for the rapidly increasing private sector in the north. (3) Will the Treasurer ensure that no change is made to the funding arrangements, as set out in the memorandum of understanding, for the Northern Territory. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (3) Heads of Government agreed at the June/July 1983 Premiers Conference that Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory officers should advise by end October 1983 on terms of reference for a review by February 1985 of the distribution of the tax sharing and 'identified' health grants beyond 1984-85, when the present three year arrangements will expire. I indicated to the Treasurer of the Northern Territory that it would be appropriate for the officials' report to canvass the question of the possible inclusion of the Northern Territory in the next review of tax sharing relativities-which will, of course, be concerned primarily with recurrent (rather than capital) expenditures and revenues. The officials report has now been received by the Government. The decision on whether to include the Northern Territory in the review will be taken after the officials' report has been considered by the Government. Question No. 460 Senator Elstob asked the Minister representing the Special Minsiter of State, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: (1) What was the total cost of the Fraser Government's Task Force on Departmental Information activities. (2) Who were the members of the Task Force. (3) How long did the Task Force take to conclude its enquiries. (4) What Federal Government departments were covered by the Task Force investigations. (5) Was the final report of the Task Force withheld temporarily from normal distribution; if so, why. (6) What departmental information units have adopted the policy recommendations of the Task Force. (7) Is there currently in operation a Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Domestic Information as recommended by the Task Force; if so, when was this Committee set up and what Departments are represented. (8) What is the role of the Committee referred to in Part (7). Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Task Force on Departmental Information was serviced by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and its cost, other than the salaries of officers who comprised or assisted it, was as follows: 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 $ $ $ Travel and Subsistence 4,347 10,970 nil Office Requisites 35 1,029 nil Incidental (freight, advertising, et cetera) 5,913 10,614 nil Total 10,295 22,613 The salary costs associated with the Task Force are not shown separately in departmental accounts and I am not prepared to request the considerable work that would be necessary to identify these costs. (2) Members of the Task Force were: Mr W. P. Butler, Chairman, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr J. C. Russell, Public Service Board, Mr J. M. Malone, Department of Administrative Services. (3) The Task Force, supported by a small secretariat, began its detailed review in November 1978 and printed its Report in July 1980. (4) The Task Force reported that it surveyed every department and relevant statutory authority with information programs. (5) The Task Force Report on Departmental Information was released in February 1982 along with an announcement of the then Government's decision as to improving departmental information programs. (6) All departments have been encouraged to incorporate the relevant policy recommendations of the Task Force into the activities of their departmental information units. The Information Co-ordination Branch (ICB) of the Department of the Special Minister of State is assisting in the implementation of the Task Force recommendations. (7) Instead of the Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Domestic Information as recommended by the Task Force, the ICB was established and is now located within the Department of the Special Minister of State. (8) The role of the ICB is to assist all departments in the co-ordination and expert presentation of their information programs. This involves the review and monitoring of ongoing programs for efficiency and effectiveness, and participation in the development of new information programs in areas of communication deficiency. The primary objective of ICB's co-ordination activity is to improve departmental communication with the public about rights, obligations, administrative procedures, and matters of national importance. The Branch is also required to remedy deficiencies identified in the Task Force Report on Departmental Information, including information services to the 'communication disadvantaged'. Question No. 491 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 9 November 1983: (1) Is the Government considering moves to make Australia a signatory to the Association of Tin Producing Countries Agreement (ATPCA). (2) Would such an action undermine the development of the Northern Territory tin industry, which just two years ago was one of the Territory's most promising growth sectors. (3) Could the nation be put into a conflict of interest situation by trying to represent the interests of both producers and consumers by becoming a signatory to the agreement. (4) Is the voting structure of the ATPCA such that Australia would be at a disadvantage, and would the Australian tin industry's interests be better served by acting as a lobby group from outside the organisation. (5) Will the Minister for Resources and Energy recommend to the Government that Australia not become a signatory to the ATPCA. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) On 22 November 1983 the Minister for Trade, who is responsible for these matters, announced that the Government had decided that Australia should become a signatory to the Association of Tin Producing Countries Agreement. (2) No. (3) No. The Association of Tin Producing Countries has only producers as its members. No consumers are involved. (4) No. Although the allocation of votes within the Association is essentially based on members' tin production, the rules of the Association provide that wherever possible decisions will be taken by consensus. The ATPC will be the major forum for regular consultations among tin producing countries. The Government is of the view that it will be better able to present the views and represent the interests of the Australian tin producing industry as a member of the Association rather than as a non-member. (5) See (1). Question No. 516 Senator Harradine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) What were the numbers of officers in the following categories: (a) two-star officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force; (b) Second Division Public Service or Naval Defence Act officers of the Department of Defence or Service departments; (c) officers of the rank of Colonel, Captain and Group Captain; and (d) Third Division Public Service and Naval Defence Act officers at Class 10 or above of the Department of Defence or Service Departments. on the following dates: (a) 30 June 1965; (b) 30 June 1974; and (c) 30 June 1983. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 30 June 30 June 30 June 1965 1974 1983 (a) Navy 6 8 9 Army * 9 16 Air Force 6 9 10 (b) Public Service Act 33 101 * 117 Other than PSA 0 1 1 (c) Captain 47 70 88 Colonel * 99 122 Group Captain 63 89 120 (d) Third Division Class 10 and above * * 463 NDA * * 0 Notes: * Army figures for 2 star officers and Colonels for 30 June 1965 cannot be separated. Combined number of officers of Colonel rank and above is 108. * On 30 November 1973 the Departments of Navy, Army and Air were abolished. Figures for 30 June 1974 and later reflect the amalgamated Department of Defence which included the former Departments of Navy, Army and Air and elements of the former Department of Supply. * Records for Class 10 and above Public Service Act and Naval Defence Act officers are not available. Senator Walsh —On 11 May 1983 (Hansard, page 333), Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Special Minister for State a question without notice concerning public funding of elections. The part of the question which related to the tax deductions for election expenses has been referred to the Treasurer, who has supplied the following reply: The Commissioner of Taxation whom I consulted on this matter has informed me that statistics of income tax deductions for election expenses are not available . To obtain accurate information on the cost of the relevant deductions allowed for expenses incurred in the last Federal elections it would be necessary to examine the 1982-83 income tax returns of all the candidates. Compilation of this information would, I believe, absorb valuable resources in the Taxation Office and I do not consider that the effort would be justified. I am informed, however, that the total number of candidates at the last Federal elections was 769. An indication of the magnitude of the revenue cost involved may be obtained by assuming hypothetical levels of expenditure and marginal rates of tax. If, for example, each candidate was allowed deductions of $1,000 and the marginal rate of tax in each case was 46 per cent, the total reduction in income tax revenue that would have resulted from these deductions would have been about $350,000. Senator Walsh —On 8 September 1983 (Hansard, page 525), Senator Jessop asked the Minister for Social Security a question without notice concerning the Government 's new taxation arrangements for lump sum superannuation and kindred benefits. In responding to him Senator Grimes indicated, inter alia, that he would pass the question on to the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance for any additional comment which they might like to make. The Treasurer has now provided the following response in answer to the honourable senator's question: It is true that most lump sums received by individuals are relatively small and such lump sums would only purchase modest annuities. However, the average size of lump sums received by genuine retirees, which is the group for which the annuity option is relevant, would be significantly higher than the figures quoted by Senator Jessop which related to lump sums received both prior to and at genuine retirement from the workforce. Of course, the Government's new tax arrangements for lump sums will not in any way compel lump sum recipients to take annuities on retirement nor will they provide any special tax inducements to take this course of action. Under the new measures, on retirement, a lump sum recipient will have two choices. First, he can take his lump sum and pay tax on it (generally at 15 per cent after the transitional provisions have worked their way through). Alternatively he can roll the lump sum over into a pension or annuity in which case tax on the lump sum will be deferred by the individual until received as part of his regular stream of pension or annuity payments at which time it will (after the transitional provisions no longer operate) generally be taxed according to the rates applying under the ordinary income tax rate scale. The new arrangements have been designed with the aim of making the effective tax burdens approximately equivalent under either alternative, so that those persons who choose not to convert their lump sum into a pension or annuity will not be disadvantaged. Senator Walsh —On 13 September 1983 (Hansard, page 588) Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question without notice concerning Victorian pipeline licence fees. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commonwealth has agreed to pay to Victoria in 1984-85, 46 per cent of the amount payable to Esso/BHP by the Victorian Government in regard to past payments of the pipeline licence fees. The Commonwealth has also undertaken to ensure that in the decisions flowing from the discussions of the working party established at the June-July 1983 Premiers Conference and the review by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which are directed to establishing an appropriate sharing of taxation powers and revenue grants, the loss of revenue from the pipeline licence fees will be taken fully into account. Senator Walsh —On 21 September 1983 (Hansard, page 855) Senator Peter Baume asked me, as the Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Will new imposts announced last night in New South Wales, for example on the cost of petrol or cigarettes, add to the consumer price index? If so, what allowances were provided in the forecast Australian annual inflation rate of 7.5 per cent for price rises arising from State government budgets. The answer to the first part of the question was given on 21 September 1983 ( Hansard, page 855). The Treasurer has supplied the following answer to the second part of the honourable senator's question: The Budget forecast of an increase in the consumer price index, in 1983-84 of about 7 1/2 per cent included an estimate of the effect of increases in State taxes and public authority charges announced prior to the Budget (mainly in Western Australia and South Australia). It also included some general-and necessarily rough-allowance for increases in State taxes and charges which, on the basis of past experience, might have been expected to be announced in the State budgets. The increases in taxes and charges that have been announced in the State budgets suggest a slightly larger contribution to the consumer price index than allowed for in the Budget forecasts as, in general, the States have chosen to increase expenditure-and hence their taxation levels-somewhat more than had been assumed in those forecasts. However, given all other uncertainties, the difference is not sufficient to warrant a change to the Budget-time consumer price index forecast. Senator Walsh —On 22 September 1983 (Hansard, page 964) Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the effects on Budget revenues of subsequent changes or revisions to measures that were originally announced in the Budget. In my answer, I indicated that reductions to that time in Budget revenue estimates were in the vicinity of $80m . I undertook to get more accurate figures from the Treasurer. Since that time, the honourable senator will be aware that the Senate has rejected the Government 's Budget proposals to achieve further recovery of evaded tax in 'bottom of the harbour' cases, at a cost to revenue of $60m in 1983-84 and $270m in total. Accordingly, the Treasurer has now provided the following additional information in response to the honourable senator's question: 'Changes to revenue measures originally announced in the Budget are set out below, along with any consequent variations or revenue estimates for 1983-84: Revision to 1983-84 Budget revenue estimate $m Reduction in excise on fuel oil, heating oil and lighting power kerosenes from 9 .027 cents per litre to 1.872 cents per litre -69 Senate rejection of further measures to recover evaded tax in 'Bottom of the Harbour' cases -60 Medicare levya -5 Reduction in sales tax on swimming pool liners and component parts from 20 per cent to 7 1/2 per cent . . b Reduction in excise on fortifying grape spirit from $2.50 to $1.50 per litre of alcohol . . b a. Net effect of decisions on exemption thresholds and of revisions to revenue estimates. b. Revenue variation less than $1m. The sales tax amendments in respect of piping and tubing used in buildings, to which the honourable senator referred, were merely to clarify the Government's original intentions in this area. Consequently, the amendments will have no effect on Budget revenue estimates.' In my earlier response to the honourable senator, I indicated that the excise rate on fortifying spirit applying up to 1970 was $2.00 per litre, and that the present value equivalent to that rate would be in the vicinity of $8.00 per litre. The Treasurer has drawn my attention to the fact that the excise on fortifying spirit in 1970 was 15.4 cents per litre of alcohol, which would imply a present value on this excise of about 60 cents per litre of alcohol. Senator Walsh —On 22 September 1983 (Hansard, page 963), Senator Zakharov asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, without notice: My question, which I address to the Minister representing the Treasurer, concerns the granting of sales tax exemptions for goods bought for use by public benevolent institutions. The Commissioner of Taxation has ruled, on the basis of High Court decisions, that an organisation is not a public benevolent institution unless it has as its dominant objective, both in constituting documents and in practice, the relief of poverty, sickness, suffering, distress, misfortune, destitution or helplessness. His interpretation is that these criteria rule out counselling and referral centres such as citizens advice bureaux. Since such centres do, in fact, relieve suffering, distress and helplessness and assist people to obtain relief from poverty, destitution and sickness, it would seem the ruling is based on an outmoded view that 'relief' means the direct provision of material relief. . . . My question is: 'Will the Government take action to remove this anomaly which denies sales tax exemption for essential equipment for vital community services?' The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that exemption from sales tax for purchases by non-profit community organisations, including citizens advice bureaux, depends on whether the organisations qualify as public benevolent institutions. The Commissioner confirmed that High Court decisions have established that an organisation is not a public benevolent institution unless it has as its dominant objective, both in its constituting documents and in practice, the relief of poverty, sickness, suffering, distress, misfortune or helplessness. It is a question of fact in each case whether a particular organisation qualifies as a public benevolent institution. The Commissioner does not hold the view that counselling and the giving of advice can never be activities of a benevolent nature in the sense established by the High Court. There are, however, many organisations which provide worthwhile community and welfare services. Such organisations may provide to members of the public generally welfare and community services such as counselling, referral and educational services in problems in certain areas, for example marriage, law, health and employment. These services certainly meet a community and social need and, indeed, in many instances are financed by Government grants and have Government support in other ways. Nevertheless, their activities are not necessarily directed to the relief of persons suffering poverty, misfortune, distress, etc. An amendment to the law would be required to extend sales tax concessions to counselling and referral centres, such as citizens advice bureaux. Such a question would need to be examined in the context of the competing claims made by many other kinds of non-profit community organisations whose activities are also worthy, but which are not at present eligible for exemption. Senator Walsh —On 7 October 1983 (Hansard, page 1324) Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister representing the Treasurer the following question without notice: Does the Minister representing the Treasurer recall that when Mr Jeff Kennett was elected Leader of the Opposition in Victoria he gave several interviews in which he indicated that he no longer participated in his previous private business? Does he also recall that the only connection between Mr Kennett and that company is that he is provided with a free Mercedes Benz every year? Will the Minister investigate whether the company allows as a tax deduction the provision of that car to an individual who contributes nothing to the firm? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Express provisions in the income tax law prohibit the Commissioner of Taxation from divulging information about the affairs of any person. It is not possible, therefore, to offer any further comment on the income tax implications of the provision of a motor vehicle to Mr Kennett by his former employer. Senator Gareth Evans —On 29 November 1983 (Hansard, page 2904) Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice, a series of questions concerning the Four Corners program of 26 November 1983. The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. The honourable senator may be assured that I am aware of the Four Corners program he refers to, and of the allegation contained in that program. When tabling a detailed report entitled 'Report on the Use of Herbicides and Other Chemicals by the Australian Army in South Vietnam' the then Defence Minister, Mr Sinclair, drew attention on 9 December 1982 to the matters which the honourable senator raises, when he said: 'The Army report does much to confirm what was previously known and made public about this subject, but it also provides new information, some of which contradicts earlier statements. These earlier statements were, of course, made in good faith on the basis of then known facts. But, new information having come to light, some of these statements are seen to have been wrong.' Having regard to these circumstances, no action against any departmental official is contemplated, nor is any warranted. Senator Button —On 30 November 1983 (Hansard page 3008) Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question without notice concerning a strike by Electrical Trades Union members in Western Australia. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: The dispute was resolved recently following acceptance by the striking workers of a decision by the Western Australian Industrial Commission awarding electrical tradesmen employed under the State Electrical Contracting Industry Award an increase of $20 a week. That increase incorporates a flow on of the 4.3 per cent National Wage increase. Work resumed on 9 December 1983. The dispute concerned a claim by Electrical Trades Union members employed under the State Award seeking payment of increases totalling $38 per week, which were provided for under an agreement entered into in 1981. That agreement had been ratified by the Western Australian Industrial Commission in 1981. However, increases due in January and July of this year were deferred by the Western Australian Industrial Commission in the context of the wages pause which was then in place. Following the National Wage Case decision of 23 September, the Western Australian Industrial Commission, like all State Industrial Commissions, adopted the terms of the new centralised system. There was therefore only limited scope for the original agreement to be implemented after the wages pause ended. The Government was, throughout the dispute, extremely concerned at the industrial action being taken by some Electrical Trades Union members in Western Australia. The economic implications of the union's claim, if successful, were of great concern to the Government, as was the impact on employment of a continuation of industrial action. In that context I discussed the dispute with my Western Australian counterpart, the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Dans, on a number of occasions. However, as the dispute concerned employees employed under a State Award, the matter was finally one to be resolved under the processes of conciliation and arbitration established under Western Australian legislation. That has now happened. Question No. 209 Senator Martin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) Did the former Minister for Communications say in his answer to question on notice No. 2205, 'Information in respect of the time devoted to the televising of community service announcements by capital city commercial television stations is not readily available'. (See Senate Hansard, 18 August 1982, p 240). (2) Did the former Minister arrange for the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) to be requested by the Department of Communications in writing, for the detailed information provided in parts 2, 3 and 4 of the former Minister's answer. (3) Did the former Minister arrange for each of the 15 capital city commercial television stations, to be requested by the Department of Communications in writing for the information requested in question on notice No. 2205; if not, how was the ' . . . not readily available' conclusion reached. (4) Which of the 15 stations were prepared to provide the information, which were not, and what reasons were given. (5) What percentage of total broadcasting time is devoted to (a) advertising; ( b) 'free' community service announcements and (c) other programs by each of the 15 commercial stations, for a given four week period, during a ratings period. (6) Have the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, the Green Report of 1976 and all public policy on television since its introduction in Australia, been based on the central proposition, that the electromagnetic spectrum-the air waves-is a scarce resource and is public property; if so, and not withstanding their ownership, why should the ABC be publicly accountable for the time it spends on community service announcements and the commercial stations should not. (7) Will the Minister write to each of the 15 commercial stations requesting the information in the first instance for a given four week period; if not, will the Minister make a detailed statement to the Parliament on why this kind of information should not be made available on a regular basis. (8) Will the Minister institute a mechanism by which the Parliament is regularly informed of the time devoted to, and the organisations benefited by, community service announcements on all television and radio stations throughout Australia; if not, why not, and if so, will he include that form of information in the Department of Communications' annual report to the Parliament or some other similar report annually presented to the Parliament. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the Department of Communications: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) No. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal at that time informed the former Minister that the information being sought was not readily available that is, not held in the Tribunal's records and therefore obtainable only upon request to each of the capital city commercial television stations. (4) All 15 capital city commercial television stations subsequently provided to the Tribunal the information originally requested which is set out hereunder: (a) Amount of Time Occupied by Announcements Station Total Time Period ATV 7 hours 1 min 30 secs 6 June-3 July 1982 GTV 2 hours 58 mins 20 secs 1 Nov-20 Nov 1982 HSV 2 hours 54 mins 32 secs 1 Aug-21 Aug 1982 12 Sept-18 Sept 1982 ATN 1 hour 23 mins 10 secs 3 Oct-30 Oct 1982 TCN 4 hours 37 mins 30 secs 1 Oct-31 Oct 1982 TEN 1 hour 39 mins 20 secs 1 Aug-31 Aug 1982 BTQ 1 hour 46 mins 39 secs 19 Sept-16 Oct 1982 QTQ 1 hour 51 mins 20 secs 12 Sept-9 Oct 1982 TVQ 1 hour 51 mins 30 secs 1 Oct-31 Oct 1982 ADS 1 hour 48 mins 55 secs 1 Oct-31 Oct 1982 NWS 1 hour 4 mins 10 secs 1 Aug-31 Aug 1982 SAS 9 hours 31 mins 57 secs 10 Oct-6 Nov 1982 STW 2 hours 56 mins 0 secs 15 Aug-28 Aug 1982 12 Sept-25 Sept 1982 TVW 8 hours 49 mins 4 secs 15 Aug-28 Aug 1982 12 Sept-25 Sept 1982 TVT 1 hour 2 mins 36 secs 1 July-31 July 1982 (b) Announcements Televised by Each Station in Time Zones Open 5.30 p.m. 10.00 p.m. to to to Station 5.30 p.m. 10.00 p.m. close Total ATV 411 54 84 549 GTV 174 15 25 214 HSV 204 21 12 237 ATN 142 2 30 174 TCN 169 24 154 347 TEN 145 1 0 146 BTQ 75 12 59 146 QTQ 117 4 47 168 TVQ 160 0 10 170 ADS 145 17 32 194 NWS 83 18 20 123 SAS 706 35 94 835 STW 156 22 71 249 TVW 629 158 161 948 TVT 54 6 25 85 (c) Community, Charitable or Other Non-profit Organisations for which the announcements were televised Arts Victoria. Australian Conservation Council. Australian Film and Television School. Children's Protection Society. Christian Television Association. Epilepsy Foundation. Foster Parents Plan. National Multiple Sclerosis Association of Australia. Road Safety Council. Salvation Army. UNICEF. World Vision. Sovereign Hill. Anti-Cancer Council. APEX. Australian Institute of Petroleum. Australian Red Cross. Brotherhood of St Laurence. Combined Charities. Department of Industry. Diabetics Foundation. Freedom from Hunger. Girl Guides. Keep Australia Beautiful. Kidney Foundation. Ministry for Conservation. Parents without Partners. Pharmacy Guild of Australia. ROSTA. SEC of Victoria. Save the Children Fund. Country Fire Authority. Small Business Awards. Spastic Society. Tuberculosis Foundation. Victorian Council on the Ageing. Victorian Deaf and Blind Association. Victorian Foundation on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. Victorian Police Force. Wesley Central Mission. Victorian Government Tourist Authority. Little Sisters of the Poor. Victorian Dental Association. National Heart Foundation. National Trust of Victoria. IDEC Lebanon Relief. VCT Dental Health. Australian Children's Television Foundation. Australian Conservation Fund. Australian Jaycees. Children's Leukaemia Foundation. Epileptic Welfare Association. Greenpeace Australia. Minimbah. New South Wales Childrens' Week. New South Wales Safety Council. Rotary International. Royal Blind Society. Scout Association. Seventh Day Adventists Appeal. Smith Family. Spastic Centre. Commonwealth Employment Service. Motor Vehicle Research. Guide Dog Association. Taronga Park Zoo. Muscular Dystrophy. Powerhouse Museum. St. Lucy's School. Nock /Kirby Charity Shop. Presbyterian Church. Australian Deafness Council. Royal North Shore Hospital. AGAS. Catholic Communications Centre. Sydney City Mission. New South Wales Health Commission. Anti-Litter Council. Microsearch Australia. KAB Council. Listening Library. Department of Motor Transport. Foundation 41. Royal Humane Society of New South Wales. Hyperactivity Association (New South Wales). Legacy. Police Boys Club. State Pollution Control Commission of New South Wales. Shepherd Foundation. Lifeline. Anglican Media. Queensland Deaf Society. White Cane Day. Department of Industry and Commerce. Commonwealth Games Foundation. Festival '82. Harrisfield State School. YMCA. Brisbane Visitors and Convention Bureau. Commonwealth Gala Performance-Lady Mayoress' Fund. Queensland Concert Brass. State School for Spastic Children. Harbours and Marine-Safer Boating. Historic Homes. 'Shine on Brisbane'. Kidney and Medical Research Centre . National Trust-Currumbin Bird Sanctuary. Junior Sports Organisations. Queensland Rose Society. Ipswich Lifeline Auxiliary. Council of Churches Choir. Senior Australia Week. Autistic Children's Association. Wavell Heights Bowls Club. Acacia Ridge Marching Girls. Mansfield Primary School. The Spotlight Theatre. Crippled Children's Association. Freedom from Hunger. COPE. Lions Clubs . Savings Bank of South Australia. Radio 5UV. Adelaide South Rotary Club. South Australia Stamp Council. Riding for Disabled. SACOSS. South Australia Hardcourt Tennis. Adelaide Children's Hospital. Spastic Centre, Woodville. Hampstead Hospital. 'Its Our State-SA Great'. Agoraphobia. Australian Foundation. Ascertainment. State Rescue Helicopter. BP Safety Hints. Church of Latter Day Saints. Child Medical Research Foundation. Diabetic Association. Education Program Unemployed Youth. History Trust of South Australia. Health Commission. Multicultural Education. St. John Ambulance. YWCA. Youth Link. Information Technology Week. Appealathon. West Australian Speech and Hearing Centre. Children's Safety Messages. Jesus People Concert. West Australian Youth Orchestra Concert. West Australian Young Film-Makers Festival. Advance Australia Campaign. The Samaritans. National Safety Council. TVT-6 Station Kids. International Year of the Tree. Telethon Foundation. Adult Literacy. Marriage Guidance Council. State Emergency Service. Tasmanian Cancer Committee. (5) The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has informed the Minister for Communications that this information is not now available in the form you require. It has provided, however, the following information which is based on its analyses of logs provided by stations. These show for each capital city commercial television station the percentage of an ''average'' hour which was devoted to the three categories of material specified. These analyses are based on three one-week periods in September 1981, November 1981 and March 1982: Percentage community Percentage service Percentage Station advertising announcements programs ATV 16.61 0.56 82.83 GTV 18.80 0.25 80.95 HSV 16.30 0.82 82.88 ATN 17.70 0. 92 81.38 TCN 19.28 0.72 80.00 TEN 17.50 0.53 81.97 BTQ 15.39 0.47 84.14 QTQ 17.11 0.08 82.81 TVQ 17.11 0.33 82.56 ADS 16.11 0.33 83.56 NWS 17.14 0.53 82. 33 SAS 14.50 0.67 84.83 STW 16.81 1.00 82.19 TVW 16.89 0.58 82.53 TVT 12.19 0.67 87.14 (6) Broadcasting policy in Australia is based on the principle that the electro -magnetic spectrum is a scarce national resource and is public property. There is, however, no statutory requirement for the ABC to publicise the amount of time allocated to community service announcements although the ABC is obliged to supply information for answers to questions asked by members of parliament. The ABC is not obliged to broadcast any community service announcements, although it could be construed that a blanket ABC refusal to broadcast such announcements would be inconsistent with its charter. Commercial radio and television stations are publicly accountable through the licence renewal process, administered by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Before the Tribunal may grant or renew a licence, applicants have a statutory obligation to undertake to provide 'an adequate and comprehensive service' in pursuance of the licence. (7) See answer to (4). (8) The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is the appropriate body to collect and publicise information concerning broadcast community service announcements. In its 1982-83 Annual Report, the Tribunal included an aggregate figure, provided by the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters, on the value of time provided free of charge by commercial radio stations for community service announcements. I understand that the Tribunal will endeavour to obtain similar information on this matter from the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations for inclusion in future Annual Reports. At licence renewal inquiries, many commercial radio and television stations provide detailed information on the amount of time donated to, and the organisations benefited by , community service announcements. Question No. 316 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware that in December 1982 the Department of Industry and Commerce was asked by the then Minister, the Hon. Andrew Peacock, to develop procedures to prevent transfer of tender quota holdings which had clearly been acquired for speculative purposes. (2) Have such procedures been developed; if so, what are they and with what degree of success have they been applied. Senator Button —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am aware that on 21 December 1982 the then Minister for Industry and Commerce asked the Department to develop procedures to prevent transfer of tender quota holdings which had clearly been acquired for speculative purposes. (2) On 27 April 1983 Australian Customs Notice No. 83-81 set down procedures to restrict quota speculation. The text of that Notice is as follows: 'The 1984 tender quota scheme will provide for limits to quota transferability in that not more than 20 per cent of a tender quota holding in a category may be freely transferred. 'If a genuine importer wishes to transfer an amount of tender quota in excess of 20 per cent of quota held in a category, it will be necessary to produce substantive evidence that the quota was originally acquired to meet an importing program which has since changed. 'The restriction on transferability of tender quota is specifically aimed at traders who seek to acquire quota for speculative purposes. Genuine importers will face a minimum of inconvenience from the measures, whereas transfers in excess of 20 per cent of the holdings of quota speculators will be refused. 'Prospective tenderers should carefully note that they will be required to give an undertaking that they will both import and enter the goods covered by the quota. TENDER QUOTA IS NOT AVAILABLE TO ENTER FOR HOME CONSUMPTION, GOODS WHICH WERE IMPORTED BY A PARTY OTHER THAN THE TENDER QUOTA HOLDER.' The constraints on transferability of tender quota have not been applied to 1983 quota allocations as to do so would represent a substantial change to the basis on which the tender was conducted-in mid 1982-and quota allocated. It is therefore not possible at this time to answer the second part of this question relating to the success of the procedures. I understand that in the course of its discussion program last September and October the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee received comments from importing interests which would suggest that measures taken in relation to speculation in, and leasing of quota had been effective in containing these practices. Quantifiable evidence of the effectiveness of these measures is not available. Question No. 356 Senator Reid asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: What was the average cost of educating a student in each of the following high schools for each of the last three years: (a) Belconnen High School; (b) Campbell High School; (c) Canberra High School; (d) Charnwood High School; (e) Deakin High School; (f) Ginninderra High School; (g) Holder High School; (h) Kaleen High School; (i) Kambah High School; (j) Lyneham High School; (k) Melba High School; (l) Melrose High School; (m) Telopea Park School; (n) Wanniassa High School; (o) Watson High School; (p) Weston High School; (q) Woden Special School; and (r) Woden Valley High School. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority does not maintain records of costs associated with the operation of each individual school in a format from which specified data such as per capita cost at each of the listed high schools could be easily extracted. However, the Authority has advised that information is available on costs for certain schools and these are as follows: Per capita cost High schools (June 1983 prices) $ Campbell High School 2,269 Canberra High School 2,325 Kaleen High School 2,471 Kambah High School 2,597 Lyneham High School 2,561 Watson High School 3,364 As far as costs for all high schools in the Australian Capital Territory are concerned, the current average per capita figure is $2,562 (June 1983 prices). Question No. 452 Senator Lewis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 October 1983: (1) How many current model Ford Falcon GL automatic 3.3 litre sedans has the Commonwealth purchased. (2) How many have developed a fault causing the engine to stall without warning . (3) Is the Minister for Administrative Services aware of the concern of Commonwealth drivers about the dangerous situations which could occur and do occur at the point of stalling. (4) Has any action been taken by the Ford Motor Company to rectify this dangerous fault; if so, what. (5) Has the Ford Motor Company published any warning to the public concerning this defect or issued any recall of this model to rectify this fault. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 443 current model Ford Falcon GL automatic 3.3 litre sedans have been purchased by the Commonwealth of which 364 have been purchased by the Department of Administrative Services. (2) No records are available. However, all sedans of this model owned by the Department of Administrative Services and located in Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne have progressively been checked. (3) I am aware of concerns reported by Commonwealth drivers about apparent tendencies for this model to stall in certain circumstances. (4) The Department advised the Ford Motor Company of the apparent problem in August 1983 and the Company arranged for the Department of Administrative Services vehicles to be progressively sent to its dealers for rectification. (5) No. The Ford Motor Company has advised the Department of Administrative Services that it does not consider the condition to be dangerous. Question No. 453 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 October 1983: What action, if any, have Australian governments taken to implement recommendations 1 to 26 of the report of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Inquiry (the Ralph Report) and the suggestions relating thereto. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Since the publication of the Ralph Report in 1979 various actions have been taken to implement the recommendations. In August 1980 a Joint Press Statement was made by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Rt Hon. Philip Lynch, and the then Minister for Health, the Hon. M. J. R. MacKellar, outlining their Government's decisions in this matter. In addition a document entitled Ralph Inquiry Into the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry issued by the Department of Health on 19 August 1980 sets out each of the Inquiry's recommendations and the Government's decision on each recommendation. A copy of this document has been placed in the Parliamentary Library. As regards Recommendation 1 of the Report as noted in the Joint Press Statement the then Government decided that the present pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS ) drug pricing arrangements were to stay in operation for the present pending further consideration of the complex issues involved, with a view to a decision in 1981. At the same time an 'across-the-board' price increase of 20 cents per prescription at price to chemist level was granted, to be effective on 1 November 1980. In August 1981 the Government decided to retain the existing PBS drug pricing arrangements and granted a further 'across-the-board' price increase effective on 1 November 1981. The question of implementing changes to the PBS drug pricing arrangements was again under consideration in August 1982 when a further 'across-the-board' increase-effective 1 November 1982-was announced. However, no changes to the PBS drug pricing arrangements had been introduced by the March 1983 election. The Joint Press Statement and the document issued by the Department of Health indicated that action would be taken in respect of Recommendation 7; namely, the introduction of legislation to allow chemists to 'discount' the patient contribution. This decision was rescinded in a news release (70/80) from the Hon . M. J. R. MacKellar on 21 August 1980. In regard to Recommendation 11 and the subsequent decision to appoint at least one economic adviser to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), Mr John Brooks was appointed and attended his first PBAC meeting in February 1981. This initial appointment was for a trial period of one year. Mr Brooks was subsequently appointed for a further trial period of two years. This trial period has not yet been completed. Following the election of the present Government in March 1983, preliminary discussions on pharmaceutical benefits drug price arrangements have been held with representatives of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. A detailed submission on this matter has now been received from the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association and a submission is expected shortly from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. It is the Government's intention to establish an Interdepartmental Committee to examine the submissions and I hope to make a statement on this subject in the Autumn sittings. Question No. 529 Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 18 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 Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: (1)- (a) Interim Inspection Policy Council Interim Fishing Industry Consultative Panel, Livestock Export Industry Advisory Committee, Exotic Diseases Industry Liaison Committee, Cotton Research Committee, Committee to advise on the Establishment of a Bureau of Rural Science and Technology. (b) Livestock and Meat Industry Policy Council, Joint Industry Selection Committee, Australian Livestock and Meat Research and Development Corporation, ( to replace the present Australian Meat Research Committee) National Drought Consultative Committee. (2)- (a) Nil. (b) Two. Question No. 530 Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 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 Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: (1)- (a) Vehicle Standards Advisory Committee (VSAC), replacing the Advisory Committee on safety in Vehicle design (ACSVD) and the Advisory Committee on Vehicle Performance (ACVP). (b) Inter-State Commission. (2)- (a) and (b) The establishment of VSAC has not led to a requirement for any additional staff. Staffing requirements for the Inter-State Commission are yet to be determined. Question No. 565 Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 1 December 1983: (1) What is the level of 1983-84 funding for energy research, development and demonstration grants nationally and by state and territory. (2) What specific projects (by amount of grant, by state and by institutional name) are receiving energy research, development and demonstration grants during 1983-84. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows. Details of the bulk of projects which I have approved in 1983-84 under the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program are given in the attachment to my press statement of 11 November 1983, details are listed below. The total value of grants listed is $16.3m. However, additional funding will be provided for the 11 projects listed as 'To be commissioned'. In addition, it is possible that the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council may submit a small number of further recommendations to me during the remainder of 1983-84. These could attract additional funding. The list below provides details of the grantee for each project. A breakdown by state and territory of the $16.3m allocated to date follows: $'000 per cent New South Wales 8,236 50.6 Victoria 3,862 23.7 Queensland 1,270 7.8 Western Australia 1,458 9.0 South Australia 779 4.8 Tasmania 21 0.1 Australian Capital Territory 456 2.8 Northern Territory 195 1.2 Total 16,277 100.0 NATIONAL ENERGY RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM: APPROVED PROJECTS 1983-84 Brief Description Receipt Grant $ FUEL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Enhanced Recovery of Petroleum Flow improvers for Waxy Crudes and Middle Distillates Monash University 47,226 Development of Artificial Membrane Technology for Natural Gas Stripping University of New South Wales 34,000 Sub-Total 81,226 Resources Assessment -Petroleum and Oil Shale Development of Computerised Basin Study-Technical Application to Resource Studies Wiltshire Geological Services 152,842 Development of Methods for Hydrocarbon Assessment in Precambrian Basins Bureau of Mineral Resources 116,900 Assessment of Hydrocarbon Resource potential in Australian Sedimentary Basin University of Melbourne 115,741 PEDIN-Petroleum Exploration Data Index Bureau of Mineral Resources 90,600 Sub-Total 476,083 Exploration Techniques -Petroleum and Oil Shale A Cryogenic Gravity Gradiometer for Geophysical Exploration University of Western Australia 187,998 Deep Transient Electromagnetic Soundings for Petroleum Exploration Macquarie University 128,093 Application of Self Potential (SP) Method to Exploration for Onshore Oil and Gas CSIRO 110,473 The Application of GCMS Techniques to Oil Exploration Western Australia Institute of Technology 73,774 Sub-Total 500,338 Resource Assessment-Coal Downhole Determination of Oxidized Coal BHP Co. Ltd 77,290 Sub-Total 77,290 Total 1,134,937 COAL MINE SITE TECHNOLOGY Improved Recovery from Underground Coal Mines Multi-Slice Longwalling for Underground Thick Seam Extraction Queensland Coal Owners Association 527,100 Alternative Mining Methods for Mining under Claystone Roof-Vales Pt Area ACIRL 493,700 Investigation of Subsurface Subsidence NSW Department of Mineral Resources 490,260 Design and Engineering of Lighting Systems for the Coal Face University of New South Wales 303,529 Outburst Research Collinsville Coal Co. Pty Ltd 287,719 Methane Drainage ACIRL 192,400 Water Jet Assisted Drilling of Small Diameter Rock Bolt Holes BHP Co. Ltd 90,000 Development of Equipment for Rib Bolting Kembla Coal & Coke Pty Ltd 76,849 Simulation of Explosion Propagation in Coal Mines University of Wollongong 7,182 Sub-Total 2,468,739 Surface Coal Mining Bucketwheel Excavator Diggability Assessment from Surface Refraction Seismic Profiling UTAH Development Co. 176,600 Sub-Total 176,600 Prediction of Seam and Strata Conditions in Coal Mines Definition of Igneous Intrusions in Coal Seams by Crosshole Seismic R. W. Miller & Co. Pty Ltd 280,200 Sub-Total 280,200 Coal Mine Strata and Seam Water Underground Mining Research in the Collie Coal Field Western Australia ACIRL 961,200 Sub-Total 961,200 Coal Beneficiation Thermal Drying Fine Coal Using Live Steam Injection with Vacuum Disc Filters Kembla Coal & Coke Pty Ltd 293,220 On-line Determination of Moisture in Coal CSIRO 199,500 An Economic Study of the Benefits of Thermally Drying Coal in Australia BHP Co. Ltd 33,860 Sub-Total 526,580 Handling Storage and Transport of Coal Dust control from concentrated sources BHP Co Ltd 196,885 Transport of coal by pipeline CSIRO 108,980 Sub-total 305,865 Total 4,719,184 TECHNOLOGY OF COAL UTILISATION Behaviour of coals in coke and char making Reactive intertinite and coal carbonization-NMR Thermal Analysis Studies CSIRO 150,000 Effect of alkalis on high temperature degradation of coke University of New South Wales 88,413 Sub-total 238,413 Coal combustion: Fluidised bed Fluidised bed coal fired boiler development project Department of Health N.S.W. 852,518 Energy recovery from coal wastes Joint Coal Board 500,000 Sub-total 1,352,518 Coal combustion: Pulverised bed Solar drying of low rank coal slurries SECV 251,090 Coal abrasiveness Electricity Commission of N.S.W. 146,050 Study of the long term fouling behaviour of low rank coal SECV 125,000 Aerodynamics of burner jets designed for brown coal fired burners SECV 109,220 Ash formation and laboratory simulation of ash fouling during coal combustion University of Newcastle 68,806 Sub-total 700,166 Coal combustion: Environmental aspects Laboratory drift velocity measurement for E.S. precipitator performance ACIRL 106,570 Sub-total 106,570 Total 2,397,667 TECHNOLOGY OF SYNTHETIC FUELS Methanol Development of catalysts to produce methanol from coal via synthesis gas University of New South Wales 75,678 New routes to methanol University of New South Wales 75,247 Sub-total 150,925 Coal liquefaction Liquid fuels by hydroliquefaction of Australian coals using discardable Catalysts ACIRL 1,000,000 Oil from coal by flash pyrolysis CSIRO 399,756 The economic feasibility of producing transport fuels from Australian coals Ampol Petroleum Ltd 225,350 The direct hydrogenation of brown coal in continuous flow catalytic reactor Monash University 92,800 Modelling of coal liquefaction reactions Monash University 29,166 Sub-total 1,747,072 Oil from shale Comparative processing characteristics of six Australian oil shales Southern Pacific Petroleum and Central Pacific Minerals N.L. 377,321 Sub-total 377,321 Fuel conversion catalysts Catalytic conversion of light hydrocarbons to liquid fuels BHP Co Ltd 586,069 Synthesis gas/methanol conversion to liquid transport fuels I.C.I. Australia Operations Pty Ltd 208,500 New Fischer Tropsch catalysts Flinders University 183,913 Sub-total 978,482 Total 3,253,800 SOLAR, NUCLEAR AND WIND ENERGY Solar: Thermal applications Application of Solar-boosted heat pump for commercial pool heating City of Nunawading 150,975 Transparent oxide films on glass for solar thermal applications Victorian Solar Energy Council 122,507 Demonstration and Further Development of Non-Tracking Concentrators University of New South Wales 87,993 The Market for Solar Thermal Systems in Industry To be commissioned Sub-Total 361,475 Solar: Collector Technology and Testing Alice Springs Solar Pond Project Australian Solar Ponds 164,176 Research Facility for the Development of Solar Pond Science and Technology University of Melbourne 149,931 Improved Solar Evaporator Plate Siddons Industries Ltd 139,705 Development of a Medium Temperature Heat Production System University of Queensland 11,154 Workshop on Solar Testing and Labelling Victorian Solar Energy Council 5,000 Assessment of Solar Pond Technology and Application in Australia To be commissioned Sub-Total 469,966 Solar: Photovoltaics Testing Solar Cell Arrays: Australian and Japanese Modules Telecom Australia 272,000 Application of Transparent Conducting Films to Photovoltaic Cells Victorian Solar Energy Council 79,796 Plasma Process Enhancement of Second Generation Silicon Solar Cells University of New South Wales 55,251 Sub-Total 407,047 Solar: Wind Technology Technical and Economic Feasibility Study on Wind Power in Tasmania To be commissioned Sub-Total Solar: Remote Area Power Investigate the Potential Energy Available from Water Storages Ingersoll-Rand (Australia) Ltd 95,000 Power Conditioning for Remote Area Power Supply Systems Suntron Energy Co Pty Ltd 68,455 Continuous Monitoring of Solar Electric Water Pumps Indian Pacific Solar Electric Co. 22,900 Technical and Economic Feasibility of Solar Thermal Electric Systems To be commissioned Market for Stand-alone Power Systems To be commissioned Sub-Total 186,355 Storage: Electric Zinc Bromine Battery for Energy Storage Applications CSIRO 72,940 Sub-Total 72,940 Nuclear Research Nuclear Waste Immobilization in Synroc Australian National University 248,101 Scientific and Technical Evaluation of Synroc Fabrication Program Griffith University 228,201 Rotomak Studies Flinders University 34,294 Sub-Total 510,596 Total 2,008,379 ENERGY CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY Conservation: General Diesel/Battery Power Control Demonstration Hytec Controls Pty Ltd 51,540 Sub-Total 51,540 Conservation: Agriculture Comparison Testing to Improve Tillage Efficiency SA Institute of Technology 86,720 Controlled Traffic Tillage and Planting System Queensland Agricultural College 85,940 Technical and Economic Assessment of On Farm Milk Concentration To be commissioned Opportunities to Reduce Energy Consumption in Tillage To be commissioned Sub-Total 172,660 Conservation: Buildings Energy Budget Levels for Non-Residential Buildings in Australia SA Department of Mines and Energy 137,500 Passive Solar Retrofitting for Sydney Housing Rodney Jensen and Associates 54,000 Performance Test Methods for Domestic Wood Fuelled Appliances University of Tasmania 21,338 Computer Based Design and Audit Methods for Energy Use in Buildings Enersonics Pty Ltd 20,000 Workshop on ''Thermal Design Tools for Energy Efficient Buildings'' CSIRO 5,000 Thermal Design Tools for Energy Efficient Buildings To be commissioned Sub-Total 237,838 Conservation: Industry Low Temperature Solid Electrolyte Oxygen Sensors CSIRO 127,839 Self Recuperative Burners for Radient Tube Fired Furnaces Ajax Fasteners Aust Ltd 63,745 Recuperator for High Temperature Furnaces NKS Holdings Pty Ltd 60,346 Energy Conservation in Chemical Reactors University of New South Wales 30,642 Impedements to Implementation of Energy Conservation Technologies in Industry To be commissioned Sub-Total 282,572 Transportation: Road Based Passenger Vehicle on Road Fuel Consumption Survey Society of Automotive Engineers Australia 145,000 Quantifying Motor Vehicle Fuel Conservation Strategies University of Melbourne 105,917 Reduction of Fuel Consumption in Passenger Cars CSIRO 58,800 Guide to Estimation Procedures for Car Fuel Consumption Australian Road Research Board 46,300 Energy Considerations in Passenger Transportation Planning in Australian Cities James Cook University 27,000 Energy Implications of Pedestrian Crossings University of Queensland 17,000 Workshop on 'Priorities for Research in Truck Fuel Conservation' Australian Road Research Board 5,000 Research Priorities for Truck Fuel Conservation To be commissioned Sub-Total 405,017 Transportation: New Vehicle Concepts Stratified Two-Cycle Car Engine Trial Orbital Engine Co Pty Ltd 187,202 Fuel-Efficient Small Turbocharged Engine Normalair-Garrett Manufacturing Pty Ltd 184,781 Additives for Methanol as a Diesel Fuel ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd 180,000 Demonstration of Hybrid Transmission System University of Queensland 132,832 Sub-Total 684,815 Total 1,834,442 ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Energy Supply Study of effects of Power Stations on Precipitation in the Hunter Valley NSW State Pollution Control Commission 256,000 Study of Plume Dispersion Characteristics SECV 222,513 Effects of SO2 HF and their Combination on Plants in Australia University of Newcastle 123,062 Social Impact of a Transport Fuel Disruption; Implications for Contingency Planning SA Department of Transport 77,750 The Impact of Government Policy on Exploration and Long-Run Energy Supply University of Adelaide 54,370 Mineral and Petroleum Law Program University of Melbourne 40,902 Legal Aspects of the Practical Application of Solar Energy Technology University of Melbourne 19,573 The Effects of Open Cut Mining on Water Quality and Movement To be commissioned Sub-Total 794,170 Energy Demand Demonstration and Monitoring of Local Government Energy Conservation Policies City of Fremantle 47,912 Energy Demands and Supply Strategies for Large Remote Communities in the Northern Territory NT Department of Mines and Energy 30,790 Sub-Total 78,702 Energy Modelling Australian Energy Demand 1980-2030 Griffith University 55,328 Sub-Total 55,328 Total 928,200 Grand Total 16,276,609 Senator Walsh —On 17 November 1983 (Hansard, page 2759) Senator Coates asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) a question without notice about a statement by the Chairman of Qantas Airways Ltd, Mr Leslie, concerning the numbers of public servants and people from this Parliament using Qantas for their travel. Senator Button responded to the question but undertook to obtain from the relevant Minister a comment on the figures quoted by Mr Leslie for usage of Qantas by public servants and parliamentarians. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) as the responsible Minister has provided the following response: The Government does not maintain statistics on the use of Qantas by members of Parliament or public servants. The Government has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statistics quoted by the Chairman of Qantas. In elaboration of the comments made by Senator Button in his preliminary response to Senator Coates' question I wish to record the fact that Finance Directions require Qantas services to be used on all occasions where available flights meet requirements for official travel at Commonwealth expense by Commonwealth public servants travelling overseas. The Directions also require that where suitable flights are not available, preference be given to services of airlines with which Qantas has revenue pooling arrangements. Senator Gareth Evans —On 8 November 1983 (Hansard, page 2249) Senator Bjelke- Petersen asked me the following question without notice: My question is to the Attorney-General. I refer him to a report in the Australian newspaper last week in which it was stated that a Mr Peter Niarros, a boilermaker at Mount Newman, was receiving bomb threats and was to be dismissed following his refusal to pay $20 to a union strike fund. In view of this blatant violation of Mr Niarros's human rights, will the Attorney refer his case urgently to the Human Rights Commission for immediate investigation and action? In view of the Attorney's much flaunted belief in human rights, will he give an unequivocal assurance that the human rights legislation will extend to those unions which have shown on many occasions that they will not hesitate to use standover tactics, including bomb threats and abusive phone calls, to violate the human rights and liberties of those people in our community who will not bow to their demands? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: With regard to the first part of the honourable senator's question, I should mention that the complaint handling function of the Human Rights Commission relates to acts and practices engaged in by or on behalf of the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority, or in a Territory, or under Commonwealth or Territory law. There is, I think, a question whether the action taken against Mr Niarros referred to by the honourable senator is an act or practice of that kind. However, if it appears to Mr Niarros that the matter may be within the Commission's functions, his appropriate course would be to take up the matter with the Commission by lodging a complaint. As to the second part of the honourable senator's question, as I indicated in my earlier answer, the content of the proposed Bill of Rights will be made public when the Bill is introduced early in the autumn session.