Tuesday, 28 February 1984 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SENATE Hansard 1984 FIRST SESSION OF THE THIRTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT (THIRD PERIOD) Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate passed on 16 December 1983, the Senate met on Tuesday, 28 February 1984, at 3 p.m. The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Hon. Mick Young was appointed Special Minister of State and Leader of the House on 21 January 1984. The Hon. Kim Beazley remains Minister for Aviation. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 28 December 1983 of former Senator Francis Patrick McManus. I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 28 December 1983, of Francis Patrick McManus, CMG, Senator for the State of Victoria from 1956 to 1962 and from 1965 to 1974 and former Leader and Deputy Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Former Senator McManus died on 28 December 1983 when most honourable senators were on holiday or enjoying the break from this chamber. His death was perhaps less noticed than it might have been because it occurred on that date. He was a founding member of the Democratic Labor Party and he represented my State, Victoria, as a senator from 1956 to 1962 and from 1965 to 1974. I had personally a little to do with Senator McManus in 1955 before he became Democratic Labor Party senator for Victoria, but after that time I had no personal knowledge or experience of him except of his public record as a senator and as a person who was outspoken about the things in which he believed. He was, of course, a parliamentary leader in the Senate for a brief time between October 1973 and April 1974, and prior to that he was Deputy Leader of the Democratic Labor Party . During his term of office in the Senate he served on a number of committees, I believe with distinction. As a result of that period of dedicated public service he was made a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George in December 1979. I am sure that all honourable senators will join with the Government in expressing compassion and condolences to those members of his family who survive him after a prominent public career. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) in support of this motion of condolence on the death of Francis Patrick McManus. It says something for the rate of change in Australian politics that the great majority of honourable senators here today did not serve with former Senator McManus, who left here as recently as 1974. Those of us who did not serve with him and who therefore did not know him personally all know something of his role in Australian politics over the period from 1955 in particular through to 1974 when he left the Senate. He was involved in matters of great principle and of deep division within the Australian political system, but I have never heard it suggested that he was other than a man of very great principle or that the arguments in which he became so strongly engaged were not arguments, for him, of very deep principle. I understand that he was educated at his local Christian Brothers College and that he later won a scholarship to Newman College at Melbourne University. Whatever view one took about the particular issues in which he was engaged, I believe that the men who educated him at those institutions would have regarded him as having followed through the principles that they delivered to him during his education. I, on behalf of the Opposition, join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate in expressing the sympathy of the Senate to his family, his associates and his friends. He was held in very great respect throughout the political spectrum. In a sense, I suppose that the more recent political events in Victoria are a reminder of some of the more permanent aspects of politics about which he was concerned. In any event, the Opposition joins very sincerely in this motion of condolence. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I join in this motion of condolence towards the memory of the late Frank McManus and send sympathy to his family, not just on my behalf but on behalf of my Party. I knew Frank McManus very well. I attended his funeral, where I was greeted by a great number of people who stated that they were surprised to see me there because my attitudes towards the philosophies of the Party which he led with distinction were well known. I should have thought that it would be very difficult to find a party with a political persuasion so different to that of mine as was that of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. Notwithstanding that, my respect and admiration for Frank McManus the man transcended my feelings about the philosophy to which he chose to belong. He was a man of extraordinarily high principle, of total integrity, and a man of great compassion. I remember with some affection some of the long philosophical discussions that he and I used to have when I and a fellow called Billy Snedden, and others, were callow back benchers in the Liberal Party. We used to go to the Yass railway station on Thursday nights in the winter and catch the train from Yass to Melbourne to save any delay at a fog-bound Canberra airport on Friday mornings. Frank McManus always accompanied us. Quite often the train was late, and on those wintery mornings, well into one o'clock or two o'clock in the morning, we used to have lengthy philosophical discussions, and we used to play ricky-ticky, with pound notes, as I remember, and we had general conversations about various issues. If honourable senators had been at the funeral service at St Patrick's Cathedral, they would have been as impressed as I was, and as everyone who attended it was, not only with the number of people present-the enormous cathedral was packed to overflowing-but also with the genuine beliefs and feelings of sympathy and admiration for the man on the part of those present. It was a living tribute to a person who had made his contribution and passed on. I take this opportunity of putting on record my personal tribute to a good man. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I join in offering my personal sympathy and the sympathy of my Party, the National Party of Australia, to the family and friends of the late Senator McManus. I had the pleasant experience of serving in this chamber in the latter years of the late Senator McManus's period here, when he was Deputy Leader and then Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. I remember him as a tall, distinguished and, above all things, scholarly member of this chamber. I suppose that if anything marked him more than any other single thing it was the measure of his dedication and sincerity. I am sure that wherever he moved he would have left that impression at least among those people with whom he spoke, both friends and foes. There was never any doubt that the late Senator McManus was sincere and dedicated in all of the things that he did. I again express my and my Party's sympathy to those he leaves behind. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I join with all other senators in paying tribute to the late Frank McManus and conveying to his widow, his two sons and his two daughters our warm sympathy. At the same time I record my own view-I am sure it is the view of many-that Frank McManus was a great Australian, a very distinguished person and a man of very singular qualities. I came to know him, as did Senator Chipp and others, in the time that I served here. I came to respect him as a man of high intellect, great integrity and massive courage. Whatever were the rights and wrongs of the 1950s there is no doubt at all that Frank McManus believed that what he did was right. He did it with courage and at great sacrifice to himself and to his family. He carried those principles with great honesty and integrity wherever he went and in whatever he said. He was a man of great humanity and great affection for others. Indeed, I quite willingly say that I had not only an admiration but also an affection for the man quite beyond the ordinary politics of this chamber. Because he stood up for his principles and was willing to run up his flag for what he believed in against his own self interests, he paid the price. Although I was not able to go to his funeral-I would have liked to do so-I am delighted that there should have been such a wide Australian acknowledgment of the man at the point of his death. Therefore, I am very happy to place his qualities on record. I think we are all the better, whatever our political views may be, from having walked with him and shared the dialogue of life with him. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Frank McManus was born in North Melbourne in 1905. He was educated by the Christian Brothers and won a scholarship to Newman College at the University of Melbourne. He held an honours degree in English and Latin Literature and a Diploma of Education. He spent 19 years in high school teaching. He joined the Australian Labor Party in 1925 at the Flemington Branch. He was elected to the Victorian Executive of the Labor Party in 1947 and between 1949 and 1955 he was Assistant Secretary to the Victorian Branch of the ALP. In 1955 he was elected, with George Cole from Tasmania, to the Senate as ALP (Anti- Communist) Democratic Labor Party Senator. His term took effect from 1956. He was unsuccessful in the elections in 1961. From 1962 to 1964 he was Federal Organising Secretary to the DLP. In 1964 he was re-elected to the Senate. He was re-elected again in 1970 and in 1973 took over from Senator Gair as Federal Parliamentary Leader of the DLP. In 1974 he was defeated at the double dissolution. In his retirement he wrote a book The Tumult and the Shouting. Frank McManus was married. He and his wife, Clare, had two sons and two daughters-Mary, Brendan, Paul and Noreen. One different feature of Frank was that he was No. 1 patron of the North Melbourne Football Club. He died on 28 December 1983 at the age of 78. His funeral was held on Tuesday, 3 January 1984. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend that funeral because at the same time the funeral of another great Australian citizen, John Traill, Q.C. who was a close friend of mine was being held in Sydney. Bishop Perkins was the principal concelebrant. There were four other bishops, 45 priests and over 1,000 people at St Patrick's Cathedral, Melbourne. Senator Chipp —Well over 1,000. Senator HARRADINE —There were well over 1,000 people at that funeral. I did not know Frank McManus well. I got to know him in the 1950s. From memory I did not have the opportunity of renewing that acquaintance after the 1950s. As all honourable senators know, he stood a tall man and used to walk and speak with his hands behind his back, somewhat like a school teacher-reminiscent, of course , of the 19 years he spent as a high school teacher. He was an avid reader, mainly of history and biographies, and was a good customer to the Parliamentary Library. He had an aversion to travelling by plane and, as Senator Chipp has reminded us, he used to travel by car to Yass to meet the train going to Melbourne. He was a very strong family man and regretted the time that the Parliament kept him away from his family, particularly whilst his children were growing up. His wife Clare was very devoted. Frank McManus had a great affection for Ireland. His father was born in County Roscommon. He was good friends with a number of journalists, including from the Press Gallery the late Kevin Power, Ian Fitchett, Alan Reid and the late Richard Hughes-the China watcher. He had some very close friends amongst the Chinese community in Melbourne. Perhaps his major interest during his parliamentary career was foreign affairs. He served on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. He had a dry sense of humour and a well-developed sense of the ridiculous. He often told jokes against himself. For example, in his book The Tumult and the Shouting he recalled his introduction to politics in the schoolyard in 1916 when the conscription debate was raging. He said: I was accosted in the schoolyard at St Mary's by five or six boys and asked 'Are you for conscription?' I did not know what conscription was and said so. An answer was insisted on, so I guessed; I said 'Yes', and was promptly flattened. Subsequently, largely because of the conscription debate, he joined the then Australian Labor Party. Senator McManus was always grateful for the assistance he received from the many thousands of ordinary men and women-support which enabled him to receive a very high 19.7 per cent of the vote in the 1970 Senate election. In the foreword to his book he paid tribute to those men and women who had fought over the years to save the Labor Party and the unions from communist domination. He said in that foreword: They were branded as scabs and rats, as fascists and traitors; they were widely and ignorantly regarded as a Catholic mafia, seeking to take over Labor and the unions. They deserve no less than that the truth be told; therefore I have written this book. As with many other books, The Tumult and the Shouting will probably be read and understood only now that the author has died. I take this opportunity of joining with other honourable senators in placing on record my support for the condolence motion and my sympathy for Senator McManus's family. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. The PRESIDENT —Order! It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 10 January 1984 of Mr Laurie Wallis, former member of the House of Representatives for the electorate of Grey, South Australia, from 1969 to 1980. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Very briefly, on behalf of Government senators, I want to say a word about Laurie Wallis who died on 10 January 1984 aged 62 years. Mr Wallis was the honourable member for Grey in South Australia from 1969 to 1980. During his period of service in this Parliament he belonged to and served on many committees. All those things are a matter of record in the Parliamentary Handbook and I do not want to go into them . On my own behalf and, I believe, on behalf of my colleagues, I want to say that Laurie Wallis will be very well remembered by us all, firstly as a man of great integrity and a very honest man. Secondly, he was a man with a great deal of common sense. I think Laurie Wallis was one of the best barometers in this place if one wanted to find out what sensible people were thinking in the sometimes frenetic atmosphere which arises here. Thirdly, he was a very diligent and hard working member for his electorate. It was an enormous electorate and he knew it very well. He worked very hard for the people of Grey in the time he was in this Parliament and in difficult times. Because of that, he remained the honourable member for Grey. On behalf of the Government I place on record those things about Laurie Wallis and express our sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I support the remarks which have been made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). Mr Wallis was a member who was known to many of us-I suppose to all of us. I support the comments about him which were made by the Leader of the Government. I served with him on one of the joint committees on which he served in the Parliament, namely, the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory. That exercise was one of many exercises in which one gets a great deal of non-partisan consideration of difficult and complex issues. It was the one opportunity I had to work with him directly. On that occasion he showed the sorts of qualities to which Senator Button has referred. I do not wish to say a great deal because I know that Senator Jessop has a wish to speak about this matter, but I extend the sympathy of the Opposition to Mr Wallis's family for the loss of a very fine man. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —As Senator Button has already pointed out, Laurie Wallis was the honourable member for Grey, which was indeed an enormous electorate covering more or less half of South Australia-the west coast and the upper northern regions of that area centred around what is known as the Iron Triangle, Whyalla, Port Pirie and Port Augusta. It is a matter of considerable regret to me that most honourable senators do not get the opportunity to know members of the House of Representatives very well. This is of course particularly true when they are not members of one's own political party. So my knowledge of Laurie Wallis is pretty much hearsay. Nevertheless, I think that no one will disagree with me when I say that he was well known and well liked in his electorate both as a man and as a member of parliament. He was widely respected as a person who cared for and worked hard for his electorate and for the people who lived in it. It was not an easy electorate to work for covering, as it did, such a large rural area plus a very large industrialised area, both of which suffered intensely from unemployment and the problems that go with it. I and my Party therefore join in the previous expressions of sympathy to his family. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I also wish to join in the condolences for Mr Laurie Wallis. Mr Wallis worked very hard for the electorate of Grey. Laurie Wallis would meet with people of any political persuasion. He worked just as hard for members of the Country Party or the Liberal Party as he did for Aboriginals or members of the Australian Labor Party. It did not make any difference whether a person was wealthy or poor or what position he held, Laurie Wallis worked very hard. I believe he gained the respect of people in the electorate of Grey. It is a great loss because he worked so hard. I know that Laurie Wallis used to burn out a car every twelve months because of the distances that he had to travel in the huge electorate of Grey in South Australia. Laurie Wallis retired only a couple of years before he died. Before he entered Parliament he was a boilermaker. I believe that, like so many boilermakers, he had to work with asbestos. I still believe that that was the cause of Laurie Wallis's early death. It is a great shame that Laurie Wallis could not have gained some enjoyment from his retirement. His family saw very little of him. Any member who works in a huge electorate such as Grey must sacrifice some pleasant things, such as family life. My sympathy goes to his family, because, for the ten years he was a member, they saw very little of him. It is a great loss. As I said, it is unfortunate that he could not have had more time to enjoy his retirement. On behalf of all South Australian senators, I extend condolences to his wife and family. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —I associate myself with this motion of condolence. As honourable senators know, following the redistribution in 1969 after which, unhappily, I lost 7,000 or 8,000 rural votes, Laurie Wallis was successful in taking from me the seat of Grey. It was a large area which covered nearly 90 per cent of the area of South Australia. I knew Laurie before he went into Parliament. He was a patient of mine and I regarded him always as a friend. I did not always agree with his political views, but he was a quiet man who quietly went about the task of serving his large electorate. As Senator Elstob has said, irrespective of people's political views, he did his very best to serve them. I would like to pay that tribute to him. I was able to attend his funeral and paid my personal respects to his widow. I would like to place on record my feelings of a man whom I regarded as a friend and who served his people well. I pass on my condolences to his wife and family. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I associate myself with this motion of condolence for two reasons. Firstly, Laurie Wallis was a good friend of anyone with whom he came into contact. He was a man of the people. Secondly, he represented the electorate of Grey which includes the town of Quorn where I was born and the area in which I worked for some time. I did not actually work in Quorn, but certainly in the northern area. It has always been recognised far and wide in Australia that the northern people are the salt of the earth. Laurie Wallis was a typical northerner. He dedicated himself to his job and I know from first hand knowledge from relations in the area that, as has been said by Senator Elstob, he did his job without fear or favour. I join with other senators in supporting this condolence motion and expressing sympathy to his family. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. Senator Chipp —Mr President, I ask your indulgence and the indulgence of the Senate to raise a point of order concerning the condolence motions. In the white copy, the draft program, which was circulated in this place earlier this morning to party leaders there were to be condolence motions regarding the late Senator McManus, the late Mr Laurie Wallis and the late Mr Andropov. However, on the Notice Paper the last name does not appear. When inquiring into this omission I was told that certain people who prepare the Notice Paper considered that in view of the remarks that I made the last time a condolence motion was raised in regard to a Russian leader, Mr Brezhnev, it might be more desirable to leave Mr Andropov's name off and avoid that sort of situation. In the event, had a condolence motion to the late Soviet leader been on the Notice Paper, I would have used similar expressions of concern and put on the record some of the crimes against humanity for which he was responsible. That is not the point I am raising today. I am asking you, Mr President, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) or somebody else to refer this matter to the Senate Standing Orders Committee. The point I am making is that it is undesirable for a certain group in this place, whoever they might be-Whips, officials or party leaders-to say who shall or shall not be listed if they are a head of state who has died. Are we reaching a situation where a certain group here will determine that only 'the good guys' are listed for condolences? If so, who will determine the criteria? It is a matter of some concern. I have a personal view that it is time we stopped this nonsense of putting the names of any heads of state on the Notice Paper. I believe it is reaching a serious situation if we are going to discriminate between one head of state and another. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter of programming arrangements on the part of the Government. I suggest that if the honourable senator wishes to pursue the matter he should direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate at Question Time . So far as the honourable senator's suggestion about the Senate Standing Orders Committee is concerned, I will see that the matter raised by him is taken up by the Committee when it meets. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Sex Discrimination Legislation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action Hospitals, Doctors and Nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school 'community' provide an environment conducive to the development, including moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 15 citizens). To The Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Protest to the proposed change to the Oath of Allegiance in which recognition of God and the Queen would be deleted. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should- Request that the Oath of Allegiance remain unchanged. by Senator Collard (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: that Australia is basically a Christian nation, as shown by figures from the last census. That the Queen of Australia is recognised as head of Australia's Parliamentary System. That no mandate has been sought from, or given by the Australian people to alter our Oath of Allegiance, the proposal to amend the Citizenship Act not being publicised prior to the last Federal election. That removal of reference to God and the Queen is the first small, though significant step towards Republicanism. Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the Government does not remove references to God and the Queen from our Oath of Allegiance and that it be allowed to remain unchanged. by Senator Collard (from 31 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. by Senators Chaney (from 46 citizens), Collard (from 25 citizens), Durack (from 11 citizens), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 22 citizens), Scott (from 39 citizens), Teague (from 15 citizens) and Withers (from 20 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 Senators Button (from 36 citizens), Ryan (from 762 citizens) and Zakharov ( from 40 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 2. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 3. We call upon the Federal Government, however, to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own Special Programs and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 4. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Grimes (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Scott (from 75 citizens) and Sibraa (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from five citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the post-school education sector has been neglected in recent years. Therefore we call on members of the Senate to endorse: (1) Increases in TEAS to at least the level of the poverty line. All people should be guaranteed a living wage. (2) Increased funding for campus based childcare. (3) The abolition of the overseas student visa charge which is grossly discriminatory. (4) Increased funding for student housing. (5) Increased funding for libraries to ensure facilities are adequate. (6) The establishment or supplementation of campus based student loan funds which are interest and free short-term. (7) Increasing the level and number of postgraduate awards. (8) Extending services to part-time, mature age and external students to open access to education. (9) Increasing student representation at all levels. (10) Innovation in curriculum to ensure curriculum is relevant and critical. (11) Increasing education funding to improve existing facilities. (12) Funding quality student health services which help contribute to the successful completion of courses. (13) Expanding enrolments to open access to education. (14) Compensating institutions for the costs of amalgamation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Senate will support the above claims. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Senators Colston (from 19 citizens) and Jones (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Senators Scott (from 19 citizens), Sibraa (from 65 citizens), Walsh (from 63 citizens) and Zakharov (from 87 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 Senator Withers (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: Domestic consumers dependent on L.P. gas are currently disadvantaged by the current pricing system of L.P. gas which imposes exorbitantly high energy bills. Country consumers have a choice of using a mixture of expensive L.P. gas and electricity, or switching to all-electric homes and paying higher tariffs. In addition they miss out on the concession on winter gas bills announced by the State Government because the pricing of L.P. gas is a Commonwealth, not a State matter. Your humble petitioners therefore pray that: The pricing of L.P. gas undergo a thorough public review to determine a pricing structure which does not disadvantage domestic consumers of L.P. gas. That this review be determined by the Commonwealth Government in consultation with the Victorian Government and domestic consumers and community groups. That domestic consumers of L.P. gas receive any concessions available to the users of reticulated gas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 353 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, recently discovered 20,000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River, Tasmania, equal in importance to those in the Vesere Valley in France, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. The constitutional basis for protecting historical and environmental assets remains weak. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government to hold a referendum to amend the constitution so that: The Federal Government has the duty and a right superior to State and local governments to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore, those things we hold in trust for the future. Being relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance. To care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, to manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and in any other matter which might be seen to be in the same spirit. In particular to prevent beach mining, preserve the Heritage Areas, The Great Barrier Reef Region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and consider its extension into the Torres Strait. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, being Electors in the State of New South Wales, respectfully submit that the Government review its intention to tax Friendly Societies after so many years of service to the community at large. And in faith your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from 28 citizens). To the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Young unemployed people continue to suffer discrimination through insufficient income. We therefore humbly request that the Commonwealth of Australia: Make available unemployment benefits to all young people who have left school. And that the unemployment benefits for those between the ages of sixteen and eighteen be raised to the level of the adult benefit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Grimes (from 130 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the Government of Australia is discriminating against Australians living in remote areas through the introduction by Telecom of the 'Countrywide Calling' telephone system; 2. That people adversely affected by the new telephone charging system should not be further disadvantaged by having to bear these additional charges; and 3. Calls on the Government to allow those disadvantaged by the new arrangement to retain their local call status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 34 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the reduction in the subsidy to tertiary student residential colleges of twenty-five per cent announced in the Federal Budget will: 1. Increase the financial hardship already being experienced by Australian students. The cut in subsidies to colleges will undoubtedly increase fees for that accommodation in 1984. Many students will be forced out of tertiary education as they will not be able to meet these increased costs particularly as the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme only gained a maximum increase of $2.80 per week in the Federal Budget. 2. Decrease access to education for country students. Many country students live in college accommodation either to attend tertiary institutions in the metropolitan area or in regional centres. The cut in the subsidy to residential colleges will even further disadvantage this group of students who already have comparatively low participation rates in tertiary education. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Senate to ensure: (1) That the full subsidy to student college accommodation is immediately restored. (2) That the Federal Government assume financial responsibility for all student college accommodation to prevent the planned closures of colleges in Victoria. (3) That two student representatives are appointed to the committee of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission reviewing student housing. (4) That new forms of college accommodation are investigated which would be more appropriate to the needs of the current student population, i.e., accommodation appropriate for students with dependant children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 137 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 111 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia are concerned at the termination of the tax exemption on Defence Force Reserve pay. We are convinced that unequal relativities in pay will occur and the Reserve Force will lose a large number of dedicated trained servicemen and women which will make it impossible for the Reserve to meet its commitments to the defence of Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will act to form a Senate Select Committee to inquire into and report on the effect of the removal of the tax exemption prior to the implementation of Government policy. by Senator Teague (from 37 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposal of Telecom Australia to close the Manual Assistance Centre at Parkes will severely disadvantage the Parkes community by: 1. The loss of current employment and future employment opportunities and consequent loss of income to the district 2. The loss of a local 24 hour emergency service 3. The loss of local knowledge of telephonists being available to telephone users when traffic is routed to an exchange anywhere in the State 4. The loss of a local and personalised service provided especially to elderly and handicapped people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable Senate will call on the Government to halt the closure pending a full and open inquiry into the needs and desires of affected subscribers and the full economic and social effects of the closure on this district, rural telephone subscribers and Telecom Australia employees. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Sibraa (from 125 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. A petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we believe that there should be a thorough investigation by a parliamentary committee into all allegations of corruption and improper conduct by Foreign Affairs officers, whether made in the Parliament or otherwise. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray: by Senator Primmer (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. A petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we believe that all charges against Mr Don Witheford of the Department of Foreign Affairs should be dropped and that he should be immediately reinstated to his former position. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Primmer (from 16 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the exportation of nuclear materials, and for purposes connected therewith. Notice of Motion Senator HAINES(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 so as to give further protection to consumers in respect of defective motor vehicles. Senator JONES(Queensland) — I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate deplores moves by the Queensland Government to encourage and facilitate sand mining on Moreton Island and urges that the Federal Government immediately declares the entire area of Moreton Island a national park. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate congratulates Queensland's banana growers, particularly those newcomers to the industry in North Queensland, who, for the first time, have produced more bananas than their counterparts across the border in New South Wales and are setting new records each year. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Is there, or is there not, to be an assets test? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I expect so. Senator CROWLEY —Did the Minister representing the Minister for Health receive a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Andrew Peacock, as I did, requesting his assistance in fighting creeping socialism, especially in Medicare ? Did his letter ask first for a donation to the Liberal Party of Australia and, secondly, for him to fill in a brief questionnaire on which future Liberal Party policy about health insurance would be based? Does the Minister agree with one of Mr Peacock's assertions that he will not tolerate free public hospital beds, regardless of patients' means, or does he agree that this betrays Mr Peacock's failure to understand the Medicare levy, which is based on patients' ability to pay, that is, according to means? Finally, does the Minister agree that Mr Peacock should check his medical mailing list? Senator GRIMES —Yes, like Senator Crowley, I did receive a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, asking me, amongst other things, whether I would donate at least $25 to assist the Liberal Party in its fight against the Labor Party, and assuring me that he would continue his fight against what he called the nationalisation of the health industry in this country. Incorporated in the letter, I think Senator Crowley will agree with me, are the most puerile yes/no questions I have ever seen in my life. I think the first question was, 'Are you opposed to Medicare? Yes/No'-one was to be crossed out. Others were 'Are you opposed to nationalised medicine? Yes/No', 'Do you like the Liberal Party? Yes/ No', et cetera. At the bottom of the letter were two lines. The first line read: 'Will you send a donation of $25 to the Liberal Party?' The second line read: ' Will you send a donation . . . to the Liberal Party to enable Andrew Peacock personally to lead the fight against' what he called, as Senator Crowley said, ' creeping socialism?' Certainly the letter sent to me and the letter sent to Senator Crowley indicate that the Liberal Party has some problems with its mailing list. Senator Chipp —Answer the question. Did you send him any money? Senator GRIMES —I will come to that. The Liberal Party really has problems with its mailing list. As my colleague Mr Young has pointed out, some people may send some money, but under the new legislation some may not be so keen to do so because they may have to disclose the amount of money they have sent. Senator Walters —That sort of statement inspired many doctors. Senator GRIMES —I hear Senator Walters, the greatest representative of the medical profession in this place, known amongst her own colleagues as 'creamy', because she is rich and thick. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator should withdraw that remark. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry; I did not call her that, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to withdraw. Senator GRIMES —Yes, I withdraw that. If Senator Walters wants to come into this chamber and represent the privileged in the community, she can. But I am in the extraordinary situation of having received that letter from Mr Peacock. I say to Senator Chipp and Senator Crowley that no, I did not send him any money. I am not likely to. I suspect that neither are the majority of the doctors in this country. Senator CHANEY —My question follows that asked by Senator Crowley, which related to the courtesy my Leader displayed in sending a letter to Senator Grimes. I ask the Minister for Social Security: Did his Leader have the courtesy to send him a letter, or perhaps to use the telephone, to contact him about the change in the assets test before he announced it to the waiting Australian public at the Press Club last week? Senator GRIMES —What a surprising question! I spoke to the Prime Minister about this matter on the day he came back from China. I also spoke to him about this matter on Monday last week, I believe. The reason that this matter came up, of course, was that the Government was in the position- Opposition senators-The by-election. Senator GRIMES —No, the by-election was before that. Honourable senators should get their facts right. Last November the Government was informed-through the Press, of course-by the Leader of the National Party that the Opposition was not going to oppose this legislation, that it might defer it until February. We were informed also that the Australian Democrats would agree to a deferral of the legislation but would not oppose it. In recent weeks, of course, Senator Messner , who I notice changes his appearance with his views, announced that the Liberal Party would again defer the legislation. Senator Chipp and the Democrats also decided that they would defer the legislation. So, of course, the Government had to make moves to take that situation into account. It was for that reason that we decided at the Cabinet meeting in Hobart that we would discuss this matter. It was for that reason that Mr Hawke announced on Wednesday what the Government was going to discuss on Thursday. Senator MAGUIRE —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the finding some years ago of the Asprey Taxation Review Committee, appointed by the McMahon Government, that 'the effective discussion of taxation policy in this country is hampered at every turn by the lack of reliable data about the distribution of income and wealth'. In view of the Committee's conclusion that an inquiry into these matters would be valuable, is it now proposed that the 1986 census include questions on incomes and private wealth ownership? Senator WALSH —I understand that the 1986 census forms, if printed in accordance with current recommendations, will include a question on income, as the previous census and, I think, at least one census previous to that did. The current recommendation does not include the asking of a question on wealth or total assets, nor does it re- commend that the sources of income be disclosed, other than payments from government. A question relating to the sources of income might give some indication of wealth holdings, but it would be an imperfect measure of wealth, a fact which I am sure Senator Maguire would appreciate. Nevertheless, if he wishes me to, I am quite willing to ask the Treasurer whether he will consider including in the question on income the various sources from which that income is derived. I also understand, in a more general sense relevant to the question that Senator Maguire asked, that the Prime Minister's office has recently spoken to Professor Karmel. While I am not aware of the details, tentative discussions were held as to the most expeditious way in which wealth holdings and variation of wealth holdings may be accurately determined. As Senator Maguire's question suggests, it is very important for any government which is seriously interested in equitable social policies that reliable information on wealth holdings be available. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister for Social Security: Can the Government estimate the number of people who are illegally and improperly receiving unemployment benefit, pensions and sickness and other benefits? Does the estimated loss of revenue due to this illegal activity exceed several hundred million dollars per year? What argument can the Government advance against the proposition that receipt of any benefit from the Government should be gained only after producing an identity card showing the name, address, photograph, registered number and signature of the bearer? Even though there may be some valid concerns as to civil liberties, is such a card not a logical extension of the Medicare card and may not the savings to taxpayers warrant it? Senator GRIMES —Senator Chipp has asked a question which concerns many people in the community. The exact amount of money which it can be estimated people are receiving improperly-that is, illegally and otherwise-from the Department of Social Security is very difficult to assess. It certainly is not, I believe, many hundreds of millions of dollars, but I will see whether we have the latest figure available. Senator Chipp —Did you say it is not? Senator GRIMES —Well, not hundreds of millions, as Senator Chipp said. The matter of identity cards comes up quite frequently and creates much debate in this country. The first thing to point out is that to produce an identity card which is beyond falsification or corruption is not easy and is a considerable administrative problem. The fact that there is a name, a number and a signature on it does not mean that people cannot get round the system. For instance, in the United States of America, everyone from the President to the latest new-born babe has a social security number. However, at the same time, one of the big and continuing controversies in the United States is the amount of alleged fraud on the social security system. We also have a political problem, to which Senator Chipp referred. For instance , at various times Mr Anthony, the former Leader of the National Party, has said that everyone should have an identity card or social security card of that type before he or she receives benefits. Yet at the same time people such as Mr Fraser, the former Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Party, have said that the introduction of such a card, even just for the health insurance system, was akin to nazi Germany in 1939. I know that it depends a little on what stage of the political cycle people are talking about, but there is always the complaint that the introduction of such a card or such compulsory identification is an offence against civil liberties. I do not necessarily agree with that. However, I point out that it is administratively very difficult and very costly to produce cards which cover the whole population and which would not be able to be subject to deception in the way that Senator Chipp is concerned about. The Department of Social Security and, I understand, other departments are continually looking at this matter, but until now we have no proposals to introduce such a system. Senator Chipp —The banks can do it; why can't the Government? Senator GRIMES —There is a great difference between the Medicare card, banks' arrangements and the taxation system. Everyone who pays taxes has a number. We have a political problem in that, every time this matter is raised in this place , I can guarantee that there will be a whole lot of people on the Opposition benches who will say that it is akin to something in nazi Germany, and that there will be some people on our side of the Parliament who will be worried about the civil liberties aspects of it. Under the Medicare system, as honourable senators will know, some people have managed, through various means, to get more than one card. This is a simplistic method which is attractive to many people but; when one comes to the nitty gritty of just how to go about it, one finds that it is a difficult administrative problem. In the United States of America and in such countries in which a similar system exists, it does not eliminate social security fraud in the way in which Senator Chipp would believe that it does. Senator PRIMMER —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen media reports over recent weeks of allegations of corruption and security breaches made by a former Foreign Affairs officer, Mrs Van Dartel? Will the Minister support a parliamentary investigation into these allegations? Will he also investigate allegations by several officers that the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Peter Henderson, used the diplomatic bag for the illegal transportation of a valuable set of jewellery from Sri Lanka, along with expensive perfume and other items for personal use? Will Mr Henderson be suspended from duty whilst these investigations are conducted? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is aware of Press reports, as I am, of allegations made by Mrs Van Dartel about misuse of diplomatic bags and loss of classified documents. Mrs Van Dartel was an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs until 1980, when ill health led to her being retired from the Public Service on invalidity grounds. In the absence of specific details, the Department of Foreign Affairs, I am told, has been unable to substantiate Mrs Van Dartel's claims. However, they have been brought to the attention of the police. As to the question of diplomatic bags, I assure honourable senators that Australian diplomatic bags arriving in the Department of Foreign Affairs from Australian missions overseas have no immunity and are regularly and thoroughly inspected by Customs officers. Items deemed to be other than official are subject to the normal range of Customs duties and quarantine regulations. Other than those responses, I am afraid that I am unable to assist Senator Primmer further. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Attorney-General. I refer him to questions that I asked him on 30 November and 8 December last year concerning the need for an investigation into possible breaches of Federal law involved in allegations published in the National Times. In view of the undertakings given on both of those occasions, why did it take the Attorney and the Special Minister of State more than two months to initiate any proper inquiry into these allegations of corruption involving a Sydney solicitor, a senior judge and several crime figures? Now that the Government has, belatedly, appointed a Special Prosecutor and a Joint Police Task Force to inquire into some aspects of the questions raised initially in the National Times, when does the Attorney- General expect to be in a position to report to the Senate on the substance of those allegations? Senator GARETH EVANS —In about 46 minutes time. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. It concerns a case where a person who has defaulted on his maintenance payments over several years is now receiving unemployment benefit and is having his accrued maintenance debt paid off in the form of child allowance payments. Will the Minister explain why the defaulting payer is not liable to repay the Department? Does the Minister agree that this system is actually rewarding long term maintenance dodgers? Senator GRIMES —I am not sure that I have the exact gist of Senator Elstob's question. It seems to me that he is suggesting that someone who has defaulted on his maintenance payments is paying the money back in the form of child allowance or family allowance payments. Senator Elstob —Exactly. Senator GRIMES —I assume-I am thinking aloud-that in those circumstances the person receiving the unemployment benefit and the family allowance, or the allowance for children, had custody of the children and was paying his separated spouse back out of those children's allowances. I cannot imagine any way in which the Department of Social Security could force someone in those circumstances to use those allowances in any particular way. However, if Senator Elstob gives me the details of the case I will be perfectly happy to take that matter up with the Department to see just what is happening and whether this is an abuse of the system. I would not like, any more than anybody else, to see the social security system abused in the way that Senator Elstob seems to think it is being abused. Senator WALTERS —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I will phrase the question politely. I refer to the Prime Minister's speech to the National Press Club last week in which he admitted that his Government had made a mistake regarding the assets test. He stated: It has become clear that there is continuing and justifiable uncertainty about whether the Government has yet found the best way to implement legislation on an assets test in a fair and equitable way. Given this justifiable uncertainty about the fairness and equity of the assets tests legislation, will the Minister explain why he wanted to push the legislation through the Parliament last year before its full implications could be thought through-action which would have imposed a defective and punitive assets test on the aged people of Australia? Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters referred to a statement by the Prime Minister last week about justifiable concern by various pensioners in the community about the assets test. I agree with that statement. Some pensioners were concerned, and justifiably so. They were justifiably concerned because-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. That is a complete misrepresentation of what Senator Walters asked. The words were: . . . continuing and justifiable uncertainty about whether the Government has yet found the best way to implement legislation . . . Mr PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator GRIMES —Thank you, Mr President. The Leader of the Opposition is very stroppy early in the session. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will answer the question. Senator GRIMES —If I can answer the question in my way, as Senator Chaney used to do in the same circumstances I will be grateful. The concern is, of course, justifiable in the light of what the Government did. I will go through it very carefully. We announced last August that we would introduce an assets test, giving a general outline. We said we would not introduce the legislation until November, to give people a chance to look at it and to allow me and others to have discussions with various organisations about the test. Come November, the Opposition announced that that was not enough and that it would defer the legislation. So we introduced the legislation into the House of Representatives and said we would reintroduce it at the start of this session after we had had further consultations, especially in the light of the fact that after the legislation was introduced and passed in February there would be another period of nine months or so until November in which people could further look at it and further talk about what they thought might be anomalies. The Opposition, of course, announced that that was not enough and that it would defer the legislation again. That became an intolerable situation. The problem was that although the assets test would affect only a small percentage of pensioners and although up to 85 per cent would not be affected at all we had the situation-it is an understandable situation in our political system-in which people, including members of the Opposition, were saying to pensioners that they would all be affected, their house would be affected, et cetera. What we did not have at any stage was a suggestion from the Opposition on just what it would do. We know that it was opposed to the lump sum taxation on superannuation. We know that it was opposed to the introduction of the attentuated means test for those over 70. We know that it was opposed to the assets test. But it has had no positive proposals. The only positive proposal was that of Senator Macklin. He wants a national superannuation scheme of the Hancock type which would involve a 5 per cent levy on people's taxable income. That would be an interesting debate in this country. We were in a situation where there was uncertainty. That uncertainty was justified in view of the propaganda that had been put around. We thought that the best thing to do was to establish a panel of people. I believe that when that panel of people is announced even the Opposition will accept it as being expert, dispassionate, able to look at the situation and able to take evidence from all those in the community who have a view, including members of the Opposition such as Senator Messner, Mr Peacock and even Senator Walters, if she can get it down on paper. They can come along and say, as they have always said: 'We believe in a needs-based pension system and a needs-based social security system. This is how we would do it. We would not do it in the way in which the Government was going to do it with its assets test. We will do it this way'. It will be a very interesting day-- Senator Messner —We are quite willing to talk about what you are saying before the election. Senator GRIMES —It will be an interesting day when the Opposition in this place actually comes forward with some positive views on what it would do. I hear Senator Messner talking. Senator Messner is an honourable senator. We are all honourable senators-the Standing Orders say so. Therefore, the dreadful rumour going round this Parliament and the Press Gallery in this place that when he was Minister for Veterans' Affairs he actually advocated the introduction of an assets test cannot, of course, be true. We know that could not be true because Senator Messner is an honourable man. But once this review panel is in place Senator Messner will be able actually to go to it and say: 'This is what I believe in'. Then we can have a debate about what people believe in. Senator Walters believes that people should be able to have as much as they like and get as much as they like from the Government in those circumstances. I believe we have given everybody in the community the opportunity to express their views clearly to a dispassionate, non-political panel. It will be an interesting day when they all do. Senator WALTERS —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister did not refer at all to the Prime Minister's admission of the Government making a mistake. Will he refer to that part of my question? Senator GRIMES —Certainly. I remember very well what the Prime Minister said. He referred to the fact that we introduced the assets test in the way in which we did and that we encouraged a prolonged debate. As a result some people were quite justifiably disturbed. I have said that several times. Senator Walters was not disturbed. Therefore, we have taken the action that we have. I put it to honourable senators opposite that that is very different from a former Minister for Social Security in this place getting up and standing very near to where I am standing and saying: 'We will probably limit people to having $3,000 in cheque accounts. We will probably introduce some legislation which will restrict the amount people can have in those accounts'. I well remember Senator Giles and I month after month asking: 'What will you do?' Eventually, after about 12 months, the former Minister for Social Security said that it was too hard. We are not saying that. We are giving members of the Opposition a chance to get up and say what they think. I hope that they do. Senator COOK —Has the Minister for Social Security seen the Insurance Commissioner's annual report for 1982-83? Is it the case that the Commissioner's report tells us that for 1982-83 the general insurance industry as a whole failed to record a profit and that it continues to amass large underwriting deficits in the compulsory compensation classes of business? Does this mean we can expect another bout of hefty premium increases to shore up this ailing industry? Is this one of the concerns that lies behind the Government's commitment to co-operate with the States in establishing a national compensation scheme? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have seen the annual report of the Insurance Commissioner for 1982-83. Like other honourable senators, I would be concerned at a deterioration in the performance of the general insurance industry in this area. Private insurers have in fact accumulated nearly $1,100m in underwriting losses in the past three years and almost half of this loss occurred in 1982-83. Much of the loss has resulted from the compulsory compensation classes of business. I agree that we can expect another round of workers compensation and, in fact, compulsory third party premium increases as a result. As Senator Cook says, we have all heard this before. This is the same tired story we have grown used to over the years. It is of great concern because the premium increases which will result-as they have resulted in the past-will be at the expense of a further tightening of the labour market because workers compensation costs are a major indirect cost of labour. In fact, after taxation they are the major cost of this type to various employers. This results in higher inflation because at least some part of workers compensation costs are passed on in higher prices and compulsory third party premiums are included in the consumer price index basket of goods which are calculated every three months. There is also obviously some loss of business profitability and competitiveness. This situation is all the more lamentable when one recognises that, after excluding the State government insurance offices, about two-thirds of workers compensation and all compulsory third party business is now operated for the benefit of little more than a handful of insurance companies-of the order of 10 companies at the last count. The only solution to this would seem to be a co- operative effort from both the States and the Commonwealth Government to establish a more rational compensation system. The very serious alternative to this may in fact be a collapsing around our ears with an increasingly severe restraint on economic activity, which I do not think anyone wants. I believe, as Senator Cook obviously believes, that we have to look forward to a rational, sensible, sure and economical system of compensation in this country through a national compensation scheme, whether it is done through the Federal Government or with the co-operative effort of the State and Federal governments. I hope that day will come but, like other honourable senators, I hoped that day would come back in 1974 when I was in this place and the idea was first introduced. It seems as though it is a long time coming. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Prime Minister's National Press Club speech last week in which he said that after conversations with 'some senior Ministers that I have had time to consult' he had decided that the whole question of asset testing had to be looked at again by Cabinet at its Hobart meeting last week. Given that Senator Grimes is fourth in the Ministry ranking and he was not informed of the Prime Minister's decision to back down, can the Minister inform the Senate whether he or Mr Bowen were consulted on this matter? Senator BUTTON —I cannot inform the Senate in relation to Mr Bowen. I suggest that Senator Bjelke-Petersen pursue that matter with Mr Bowen in the House of Representatives through one of her National Party colleagues. I was not consulted about the details of the announcement that was made at the Press Club on Wednesday last week. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister for Veterans' affairs to the recent cries of poverty from medical specialists, and ask: Can he advise the Senate of the extent to which private specialists have benefited financially from referrals by his Department? Is it a fact that expenditure on private specialists in the current financial year is far outstripping expenditure in the previous financial year? Is it also the case that certain specialists who are leading the campaign against Medicare and the Government's other health care initiatives are amongst the principal beneficiaries of referrals by his Department? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Bolkus referred to the obvious controversy which exists as a result of the passage of the Medicare legislation by the House of Representatives and the Senate and the resultant exaggerated statements that have been made by some groups of specialists and some sections of the Australian Medical Association in respect of the expenditure containment proposals which the Government insists will be followed in the wake of the Medicare legislation. Naturally, of course, the Department of Health, which is the Department most affected by the proposals and my Department, in which there is about one-third or one-quarter of such expenditure in this area, have looked at the costs involved in specialist treatment. Expenditure by the Department of Veterans' Affairs on private specialists in 1982-83 was $32.2m. It is interesting to note that in the first seven months of this financial year expenditure has been $22.1m. If those figures are maintained they will result in an increase in expenditure of 18 per cent during a period in which everybody in Australia is being requested to exercise some measure of economic restraint. Of course, employees generally, in accordance with the prices and incomes accord, have followed that request fairly strictly. However, there are sections of the Australian community which are not prepared to put into effect the assurances that they gave at the National Economic Summit Conference in 1983. For example, in my Department in New South Wales expenditure for the first seven months of the financial year has been $11.4m, which represents a projected increase of 14 per cent over 1982-83. Included in the list are eight or nine specialists' firms and individual doctors who have benefited annually by amounts in excess of $100,000. In particular, in the area of pathology, six centres in New South Wales have benefited to the tune of between $110,000 and $554,000. As regards the centre which has received payments from my Department of $554,000, this represents five or six times the salary of the Australian Prime Minister. When that figure is multiplied three or four times to take into account the amount which is paid by the Department of Health, one can estimate the desire of the Government to have some containment in the area of payments to specialists in Australia. Of course, I find it ironic that prominent amongst the list of specialists are several doctors who are leading scurrilous campaigns against Medicare which are not only based on deceit and misinformation but also creating a great deal of confusion in the Australian community. This Government is determined to ventilate publicly those doctors who are making considerable incomes out of specialist attention in our repatriation general hospitals. Senator MACKLIN —Will the Attorney- General confirm that the Prime Minister has been unsuccessful in his request to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to amend the new Northern Territory Criminal Code where that Code offends against the notions of criminal justice and particularly where it disadvantages Aboriginal people? If this is the case, will the Attorney inform the Senate whether the Government has decided to advise the Governor-General to disallow or amend this legislation which is so contrary to the principles of justice and personal liberty? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that a number of aspects of the Northern Territory Criminal Code continue to give rise to considerable concern not only among lawyers but also among all those in this country with a keen interest in civil liberties, particularly the application of the criminal justice system to minority groups such as Aboriginals. Four particular matters in the present code appear to the Government to be quite unconscionable by reference to Australia's international obligations in particular under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is also unconscionable by reference to the traditional standards of the Anglo-Saxon tradition of criminal jurisprudence which we have inherited. Those matters relate to issues concerning the mental element in offences in which drunkenness is involved, fines for persons who are in fact not convicted of any offence, the provisions relating to proscribed organisations, in particular the absence of any provision for judicial review in relation to such organisations, and the complete abolition without qualification of unsworn statements from the dock. These matters have now been the subject of a further letter from the Prime Minister to the Northern Territory Chief Minister. I am not sure whether it is accurate to say the Prime Minister has been rebuffed once again because I think the letter has been sent only in the last 24 hours or so. In that letter a further course of action is foreshadowed. I believe it would be premature to say anything more about that course of action and indeed the details of the latest plea that has been made to the Northern Territory by the Commonwealth Government . I simply say that the Commonwealth Government remains hopeful, although not tremendously optimistic, that reason and common sense will still prevail without the necessity for more severe measures. Senator COLSTON —Does the Minister for Veterans' Affairs receive a considerable number of complaints from veterans and their representatives regarding delays in the repatriation determining system? Can the Minister advise the Senate how many repatriation claims are outstanding at present? Does the Minister regard this situation as satisfactory? If not, what steps is he taking to overcome the problems that currently exist in the repatriation determining system? Senator GIETZELT —Probably one of the areas that both my predecessor, Senator Messner, and I would accept as occasioning a great deal of complaint is that concerning the delays in the repatriation determining system. Clearly it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs when people who served their country in time of war make application for a pension and have to go through the processes of the system that start at one tier and finish up four tiers later, with a lot of tears in between, by the way. That process takes from an average of 268 days to reach the Repatriation Board, to 784 days to reach the final Repatriation Review Tribunal. Of course, that is very unsatisfactory. At the end of January, for example, 17,000 entitlement claims were waiting to go before the repatriation boards. Another 8,800 pending claims were for an increase in the disability pension. Naturally, of course, those claims have been occasioned by the health of the applicants. Consequently any delay lessens their standard of living. Something like 3,700 entitlement claims were awaiting the Repatriation Commission; 4,500 were before the Repatriation Review Tribunal, as well as 2,700 assessment claims also before the Tribunal. The Government and I regard this backlog as completely unsatisfactory because it often denies benefits to people in their declining years. I advise Senator Colston and the Senate generally that I will be taking to Cabinet within the next few weeks proposals designed to remedy the problems in the determining system which have led to the accumulation of this backlog. I am sure that this legislation will receive the assent of all members of the Senate. Senator HILL —I refer the Minister for Social Security to the 1,400 staff that have been employed and trained in order that they might administer the proposed assets test on pensioners. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the duties that these officers are currently undertaking now that the intended legislation is being reviewed? What has been the cost to the taxpayer of employing these officers, training them and paying them to fulfil a duty that does not exist? In retrospect, does the Minister still stand by his defence of the employment of these people last year before the assets test legislation had been decided upon by the Parliament? Senator GRIMES —Yes, it is normal practice in the Public Service in this country- it has been for many years through all sorts of governments-to prepare for the introduction of legislation which it is announced will be introduced in the Budget in this way. The introduction of an assets test has a long lead time. We have always said that. From the sorts of comments which were made by the Opposition last year I think it was reasonably expected that the legislation would pass in February or March this year. The people who have been employed have been largely in training for the implementation of the assets test. They have been employed training themselves or training others on the preparation for the introduction of the test which at the moment is deferred. I am the first to admit that 1,400 people is a lot of people, but I think Senator Hill should remember that the normal turnover of staff in the Department of Social Security is some 300 a month; so it does not take long, if one stops recruitment, to run down that number of people. Also there are many other activities which can be performed in my Department from now on. In the past few years pension reviews, for instance, have been intermittent in some cases. There is a need for more extensive training. In the last five years training was cut down considerably in the Department and this has affected its efficiency. At the moment officers from my Department, the Public Service Board and the Department of Finance are discussing independently and with each other the reallocation of such staff within the Department and if necessary outside the Department. I will get to Senator Hill as soon as possible the exact figures on what it has cost until now. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that almost all diagnostic specialists in Queensland public hospitals have been employed by the State Government for more than 20 years under contracts almost identical to those proposed for the public health hospitals in other States by the present Federal Minister for Health? Is it not also a fact that, because this system has been proven to work well in Queensland hospitals for more than two decades, it is unlikely that any active support will be forthcoming from doctors in that State for the inexcusable strike now being threatened for Thursday by the mercenary minority of doctors in New South Wales? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I agree with the gist of Senator Jones's question, but I think it is worthwhile pointing out that he is not quite accurate. In fact the contracts under which the doctors he referred to in Queensland hospitals work are much harsher, and certainly much more restrictive, than the contracts proposed by the present Federal Minister for Health under section 17 of the Health Insurance Act. The Commonwealth Government's initial proposals were that salaried specialists would be able to earn an additional 25 per cent above a senior specialist's salary from private work in a public hospital. That is, they can earn another $12,500 a year on top of the $50,000 a year which is the average per annum salary of senior specialists in hospitals. Visiting specialists and radiologists in hospitals would have been able to earn $62,500 a year without any restrictions. They could then leave 25 per cent of their earnings-between $62,000 and $87,500-in a trust fund and 40 per cent of their earnings above $87,500 in a hospital fund. Queensland salaried specialists have no private practice rights at all and have not had them for two decades. Queensland hospital specialists would be very attracted to the sorts of contracts that Dr Blewett and the Federal Government are offering under section 17 of the Health Insurance Act. In these circumstances Queensland private practitioners must be very different from their avaricious friends in New South Wales in particular who are indulging in the obscene activity of going on strike when they have an income of more than $90, 000 plus whatever they can earn from private practice. Senator MacGibbon, I notice, has not been going in to bat over the last 20 years for the apparently poverty stricken state of diagnostic specialists in Queensland hospitals. Senator MacGibbon —The Government scheme gives less to all medical practitioners in Queensland than is paid in other States. Senator GRIMES —The Queensland practice has been in place for 20 years. Queensland specialists have been getting less than specialists in other States for 20 years. They have been on much harsher contracts than the contracts suggested by Dr Blewett. Queensland specialists would love to be under the same contracts as those suggested by Dr Blewett. But the Government, and Dr Blewett in particular, has not demanded the imposition of conditions on those even higher earning diagnostic specialists. We have offered to defer the income restraints. Many people would not consider that they were much of a restraint. We have offered to defer these restraints until the whole issue has been examined-particularly the matter of private practice in public hospitals-by a joint Government and Australian Medical Association committee under Professor Pennington, who is the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Melbourne. Other more contentious issues, such as the matter of appeals, rights and the preparation of a national list of facility charges for the use of public hospital services and other equipment, have also been referred to the inquiry. This Government's only requirement for doctors who have been trained at public expense and who practise in public hospitals using facilities which are paid for by the taxpayer is that they stick to the schedule fee. That is the only restraint that is on them at the moment. These are the people who are, in fact, going on strike. The schedule fee is drawn up by a committee which is agreed to by the national body, the Australian Medical Association. I repeat: It is an absolute obscenity that these medical practitioners should be going on strike in this way when they work in taxpayer-funded facilities and when they have been trained with the taxpayers' money. It is an absolute obscenity that they should go on strike because the Federal Government says: ' Charge what is a fair thing'. These same people-I am quick to point out that I believe that the majority of doctors in the community do not approve of these doctors going on strike-would be the first to complain about unionists in another area who earn much less going on strike. In fact, as one of my colleagues has said, they make Norm Gallagher look socially responsible. I put it to honourable senators that what Dr Blewett and the Federal Government are doing is, in fact, being perfectly reasonable with these people. The fact that Mr Bjelke-Petersen and Mr Austin in the Queensland Government have come out in support of surgeons in New South Wales who are going to indulge in a strike of this type when, for the two decades that they have been in Government, Queensland's own doctors have been working under much harsher and stricter contracts which imposed much greater restraints on diagnostic specialists in Queensland hospitals is the absolute epitome of hypocrisy. This Government will not back down under these circumstances. We will not back down under political or economic blackmail such as this. We believe that those who use publicly funded facilities and who are trained with taxpayers' money have some sort of social responsibility in this country. If they will not demonstrate that social responsibility, we will have to impose such a responsibility on them. Senator LEWIS —I also ask the Minister for Social Security some questions about the Prime Minister's announcement last week that an independent panel would be established to review the assets test legislation. I refer in particular to the Minister's announcement earlier today that the panel will be able to take evidence. I ask the Minister: Can he indicate to the Senate on what date that panel will be constituted and what will be the extent and nature of its powers? Finally, will the Minister also give the Senate and the people of Australia some assurance that the members of the panel will include people directly representative of those people who are to be affected by this test, in other words, the pensioner community? Senator GRIMES —I am happy to answer that question. The panel is in the process of being constituted now. I cannot give Senator Lewis the exact date when we will make an official announcement, but it will be within days rather than weeks . Secondly, I can assure Senator Lewis that members of that panel will be representatives of the constituent groups affected by the assets test and others . Thirdly, as to the nature and extent of the inquiry, the panel will be asked to look at the proposed assets test and the legislation. Senator Lewis —Powers? Senator GRIMES —The panel's functions will be to advise the Government on what it considers are the efficiency, effectiveness and nature of the assets test and on any anomalies it may see. We will certainly let Senator Lewis know the terms of reference of the panel. I am not sure what Senator Lewis means by powers. Does he mean whether it can subpoena or gaol people? Senator Lewis —You said that it could take evidence. What do you mean by that? Senator GRIMES —The panel will not consider just the legislation in isolation. Organisations, groups and individuals in the community will be able to give their views to the panel. We will inform the honourable senator as soon as possible as to the exact details and the mechanics of how that will work. Senator GILES —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen the reported claims by a serviceman that he was denied treatment for a badly lacerated hand until he produced his Medicare card with its number? Can the Minister say whether this is probably another case of bloody-minded officiousness on the part of the doctor concerned and assure all holders of Medicare cards, even Defence personnel, that such standover tactics will not be tolerated? Opposition senators-That is the system. Senator GRIMES —Unfortunately for members of the Opposition, that is not the system. We went through this in many ways. Senator Walters —They made a mistake again. Senator GRIMES —As a senator and a citizen-and a doctor, I might add, Senator Walters-I would be appalled at any member of the medical profession who refused to treat anyone in this community if that person did not have a Medicare card, if that person did not have a dollar in his or her pocket or for any such reason . The Medicare card does not entitle any doctor to refuse to give treatment to anyone. In fact, it is a means of simplifying a patient's capacity to claim on his or her medical bill. Any doctors who refuse to treat a patient in this country who does not have a Medicare card or, as I have known happen in the past , who refuse to treat in an emergency situation a patient who is not insured, do not deserve to be members of the medical profession in this or any other country . In fact one wonders whether they should be part of the human race. Senator MacGIBBON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that Medicare officers, on payment of the 85 per cent of the fee, are retaining the receipted account from medical practitioners? Is he aware that the excuse given by Medicare officials is that this is the only way in which they can establish proof of the claim? Is he aware that Medicare officers are claiming that they have storage facilities for every receipt issued in Australia for years? Finally, is he aware of the variance with commercial practice that this action is causing, because legally that receipted account is the property of the patient and not of the Government? Senator GRIMES —I am not aware of the exact details of the claims that Senator MacGibbon has made. I understand that the account given by the doctor is needed by Medicare as proof that the account has been rendered and paid. I do not know the exact details of the problems raised by Senator MacGibbon. I will refer that matter to the Minister for Health and seek an early answer. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs been drawn to the acute shortage of places in the tertiary education sector? How does this measure up with the Government's stated intention of increasing participation in post-school education? Senator RYAN —Obviously the Government and I are very concerned about reports appearing in newspapers daily and coming to us from vice-chancellors and other responsible bodies about the explosion of demand for higher education places. It is something that we anticipated and indeed took steps to cope with in our first Budget by making an extra $10m available for an extra 3,000 tertiary places. Those extra 3,000 tertiary places have been taken up according to our guidelines of providing increased possibilities for tertiary study in areas which had previously been disadvantaged. But quite clearly the legacy of the Fraser Government is still with us and is the main cause of this unhappy situation. During the seven years of the Fraser Administration recurrent and capital funding for the higher education sector was systematically cut back to a stage where there is virtually no infrastructure to deal with this excessive demand. Let me say a couple of things about the increased demand for higher education places. The Government welcomes and I welcome the renewed confidence that young people are displaying in undertaking further education. It has been very much part of our Government's strategy to try to restore the confidence of young people in gaining further education and training, because we are very well aware that young people who leave secondary education without an adequate level of skills and training and who do not undertake some form of further education and training will simply not be able to compete in the improved economy which we are now seeing with the kinds of jobs that are becoming available. We also have a concern on equity grounds. It seems to us to be quite inequitable that some young people who may finish their education in a government school, or even a non-government school, at the age of 15 and 16 are getting a much smaller slice of the education cake than those who complete their secondary education and then undertake higher education. Indeed, as my colleague Senator Grimes pointed out earlier in Question Time today, the highest paid people in our community, namely doctors, have available to them a very expensive publicly-provided education at universities. So there is the question of equity in our wishing to encourage young people to pursue their education, as well as the obvious fact, very well established now, that more than four years of secondary education is necessary and desirable if young people are to pursue satisfactory post-school education and work. We are very encouraged and heartened to see that young people are now seeking places in higher education. However, the fact is that young people are seeking many more places and are qualified by their tertiary entrance scores for many more places than are available. This is not a situation, given that it resulted from seven years of neglect by the previous Fraser Administration, that we have been able to reverse in one Budget. We took some steps. We increased recurrent and capital funding for technical and further education. As a result, many more places in TAFE are available, although again not enough to meet the demand. In higher education, as I said, we have created an extra 3,000 places, particularly in areas which have been disadvantaged, but clearly that is not enough to meet the demand. However, as a result of the urgent situation that has been created by the increased demand for places, the Cabinet considered at its meeting yesterday what steps we can take in the short term. We wanted to take steps which would not interfere with the proper process of the report and advice from the Tertiary Education Commission which I expect at the end of next month. We have decided to accelerate the approval of the forward commitment of capital funds for those three projects to which the Tertiary Education Commission, in two published reports now, has given the highest priority. They are the Kingswood campus of the Nepean College of Advanced Education, which will have a total cost over 1985 -86 of $5.3m; the Latrobe University library project, which is a $6.3m project; and the Coburg campus of the Phillip Institute of Technology, which is a $25m project. The agreement here will not involve any new expenditure for 1984, but those funds have now been guaranteed, so- Senator Peter Baume —Phoney-no extra places. Senator RYAN —The effect of announcing this now means that the tenders will be able to be let and the new places, which will be about 1,500, as I recall, will be available one academic year earlier as a result of building approvals starting this year rather than next year. Senator Peter Baume —Phoney. Senator RYAN —Senator Baume interjects: 'No extra places'. Quite clearly, the backlog in capital which the Government has inherited cannot be overcome in the first year. We acknowledge that. But by permitting the forward commitment of these three major projects, we will be putting those institutions at least on notice that they will have increased physical facilities for the 1986 year instead of the 1987 year. That means that their efforts to take in a higher number of students this year-each of those three institutions has increased its numbers this year-will be encouraged because they know that any interim arrangements they make by way of accommodation will be overcome one academic year earlier. Of course, we wish to do a great deal more in both capital and recurrent assistance to higher education, but further decisions will have to await my receiving advice from the Tertiary Education Commission and the issuing by me on behalf of the Government of the funding guidelines for the next triennium. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-The purpose of this statement is to report to Parliament on the issues arising out of, and the action that has been taken, concerning the material known as the Age tapes. Receipt of Tapes Early in the evening of 1 February-following an appointment arranged half an hour earlier-and then on 2 February 1984, representatives of the Age newspaper furnished to me the following material: (a) four tapes containing what appeared to be 11 recorded telephone conversations between a Sydney solicitor and a number of other persons; (b) 524 pages of documents, divided into six bundles, purporting to be the summaries and direct transcripts of approximately 3,000 telephone conversations between a large number of persons. In providing the material the representatives of the Age stated to me that the material had been given to the Age by Mr Bob Bottom, who in turn was believed to have received it from some source within the New South Wales Police Force, although no detailed information or proof was offered as to the source. I drew it to the attention of the Age representatives, who appeared to be unaware of the point, that to the extent that the material was authentic and had been gathered otherwise than under Australian Federal Police warrant, it appeared that massive breaches of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, or its legislative predecessor, had been committed. Action Taken On 2 February 1984 I discussed the matter with the Special Minister of State, the Hon. M. J. Young, and set in train the arrangements carried into effect the following day, 3 February. On 3 February I wrote to the Special Minister of State, requesting him to arrange for a police investigation of the material, and on the same day I caused the material to be handed over to a senior officer of the Australian Federal Police. Later that day the Special Minister of State wrote to me confirming that he had asked the AFP to investigate the material with a view to determining whether federal offences had been committed. There was never at any time any basis whatever for the reported suggestions by Senators Chipp and Durack that the Federal Police investigation of the Age tapes and transcripts given to me that week would be confined to the circumstances in which they were made, and not extend to their content. I made this clear in a statement issued on 4 February, when I said that the Australian Federal Police had been asked, through the Special Minister of State, to investigate fully and report upon all aspects of the matter, including the possible commission of any Federal offences revealed by the content of the tapes and transcripts. A preliminary report from the Commissioner of Police was received by the Special Minister of State, and through him by me, on the morning of Monday 13 February, and was immediately considered. The report stated that the material disclosed the probability of an unauthorised, and accordingly illegal, interception of telephone calls in New South Wales. It also identified in general terms a number of matters requiring further examination and investigation; asked for assistance from the Attorney-General's Department in assessing the material; and identified a series of procedural options for carrying the investigation forward: The favoured one, so far as possible Federal offences were concerned, being investigation under a Commonwealth special prosecutor. It was decided, as a possible prelude to the Special Prosecutor option being pursued, that the Director of Public Prosecutions-designate and current President of the Law Council of Australia, Mr Ian Temby, QC, should be briefed to advise on what offences against Federal law, if any, appeared to be disclosed or suggested by the material, and what further inquiries should be made. Mr Temby was to be asked to advise on as a matter of urgency, and to give priority attention to, the position of the judge allegedly involved in the taped conversations. The Acting Crown Solicitor flew to Perth that afternoon to brief Mr Temby, and Mr Temby prepared his opinion over the course of the next two days , assisted by consultations both with the Acting Crown Solicitor and the senior AFP officer who had been in charge of the initial police investigation. Mr Temby's opinion became available to me in vocadex form in the afternoon of 15 February. It confirmed that breaches of the Commonwealth Telecommunications ( Interception) Act 1979 and its predecessor, the Telephonic Communications ( Interception) Act 1960, were likely to have occurred, and that there were other matters that might require further investigation. I table Mr Temby's opinion, complete except for the deletion of names, other identifying characteristics and certain information supplied to him in confidence by the AFP. The substance of Mr Temby's opinion, and the preceding police report, was summarised in the joint statement issued by the Special Minister of State and me on 17 February. Following the receipt of Mr Temby's opinion, and consultations with the New South Wales Government and Police Force, the Government made a number of decisions about the proper further course of the inquiry, and these were also announced in the joint statement of 17 February: a special prosecutor would be appointed to supervise further investigations in relation to the tapes and transcripts handed by the Age newspaper to me on 1 and 2 February 1984; the role of the special prosecutor would be independent of the Government; he would supervise a joint investigating team, consisting of selected police officers from the Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales Police Force , and would be charged with bringing prosecutions for any breaches of Federal law discovered as a result of investigations into, or in relation to, the contents of those materials; questions concerning State law that may arise from the materials would be a matter for the law enforcement authorities of the State of New South Wales. The statement of 17 February also announced that Mr Temby would be recommended for appointment as Special Prosecutor. The appointment was made by the Governor- General on 21 February. Mr Temby's terms of reference have been specified by me for the purposes of paragraph 6 (1) (a) of the Special Prosecutors Act 1982 as follows: (a) activities illegal under Commonwealth or Territory law in relation to the interception of alleged telephone communications which are referred to in the materials, including cassette tapes, delivered by representatives of the Age newspaper to the Attorney-General on 1 and 2 February 1984; and (b) any other activities illegal under Commonwealth or Territory law established as a result of investigations into, or in relation to, the contents of those materials. Although the most obvious grounds for investigation by the Special Prosecutor clearly concern the circumstances of the interceptions, there are several other possible offences under Commonwealth law that may have been committed and which will require further investigation-although in some instances, as is made clear in Mr Temby's opinion, the raw material on which such investigations could proceed is extremely limited and tenuous. These matters are: possible offences arising out of an immigration racket-which has already been the subject of investigation and successful prosecution-involving a former Commonwealth public servant and AFP officers; possible improper release of information by AFP officers; possible currency regulation charges in relation to a money courier; possible tax evasion; and possible fixing of a case in the Australian Capital Territory I should make it clear that in addition to being examined by Special Prosecutor Temby's team, some of the material has also been forwarded to Special Prosecutor Redlich, and to Royal Commissioner Mr Justice Stewart, as it is possibly relevant to matters on which each are working or have worked. It should perhaps be stated, because it has been questioned in some quarters, that the reason that Mr Temby was asked to accept the role of Special Prosecutor in this matter was simply that he was the Director of Public Prosecutions- designate, scheduled to take up that office on 5 March. When he formally becomes DPP, he will continue to act as a Special Prosecutor in this matter, but the two roles will for practical purposes become assimilated. This is consistent with the policy in this respect which underlay the creation of the office of DPP and which was explained to Parliament at the time of enactment of the enabling legislation: Namely, eventually to absorb the work of the existing Special Prosecutors-Messrs Redlich and Gyles, QC-under the DPP umbrella, and not to appoint any new Special Prosecutor other than in the most exceptional circumstances. On Saturday 18 February I indicated orally to the Solicitor-General that I would be referring certain questions of law to him to ascertain whether his views confirmed the view of the law expressed by Mr Temby in relation to the meaning of 'misbehaviour' in section 72 of the Constitution. This was followed up by a written reference on Monday 20 February. I will refer to and table the Solicitor-General's opinion later in this statement. A question has arisen as to the action taken by the Government in relation to the article 'Big Shots Bugged', published by the National Times in its issue of 25 November-1 December 1983, which was clearly based on similar, perhaps identical, material to that in the possession of the Age. This article was the subject of questions to me by Senator Archer on 30 November 1983 and 8 December 1983 and, of course, today. On 30 November he asked whether I would assure the Senate that the allegations contained in that article would be fully investigated to determine whether there had been any breaches of Commonwealth law, and that appropriate action would be taken. In my reply, I said that I had been advised by the Special Minister of State that the AFP were investigating to see whether the material in the National Times could possibly have come from information supplied by them and that I was awaiting further information. On 8 December Senator Archer asked a follow-up question, repeating his request for assurances, and I told the Senate that I had not received any further information to that point from the Special Minister of State. I understand that the investigation by the AFP had not been completed before 3 February, and is now encompassed in the larger investigation arising out of the material given to me by the Age. One of the difficulties involved in this area is that the National Times, unlike the Age, is not prepared to reveal to the proper authorities the material which it has in its possession. It has been widely reported, not least in the National Times itself on 17 February, that the New South Wales Police Commissioner, Mr Abbott, requested the National Times to provide him with its material, only to be refused on the ground that, as the document purported to be a police document, it should already be in his possession. I requested the National Times on 21 February, to provide me with material in its possession relevant to the inquiry being conducted by the Special Prosecutor. To date, I have had no reply. This description of the action taken since 1 February should demonstrate to any observer that the Government's actions since the receipt of the materials have been both prompt and proper in every respect. I have dealt so far with the particular procedural steps taken by the Government in this matter and the reasons for acting as we did when we did. It remains now to address a number of particular issues which arise from the publication of the Age articles, and I do so under the following headings: First, authenticity and evidentiary status of the material; secondly, references to a judge and the question of 'misbehaviour' ; and, thirdly, privacy, illegality and responsible journalism. Authenticity and Evidentiary Status I cannot emphasise too strongly the dubious status of the material in question. The tapes and transcripts given to me are clearly not originals. The locations of the original tapes and transcripts are not known to the Government. Who took the copies from which the Age copies were derived is unknown to us. The material is therefore completely anonymous and completely unauthen- ticated. This is not some technical point designed to divert attention from issues of substance, as some media comments have perhaps suggested. We simply have no means, and are unlikely in the future to have any means, of being sure that we have a full, untampered with, reliable account of the conversations that appear to have been intercepted. It is not even a matter of being able to check the content of the Age-supplied transcripts against that of the Age-supplied tapes, since the two categories of material are mutually exclusive: None of the material on the tapes is in the transcripts, and none of the material in the transcripts can be checked against anything on the tapes. There is no basis at all for assuming the authenticity, in whole or part, of the purely written material and there are a number of problems confronting any acceptance of the tapes at their face value. The Tapes As to the tapes, there is a very real question as to whether they have been tampered with. The New South Wales Solicitor-General's opinion confirms an impression to be gained by what I will call a layperson's hearing of the tapes. She said In some conversations there are changes in speech patterns and/or speed which are to the untrained ear suggestive of 'editing'. She went on: Without full technical assessment it is not possible to exclude the possibility of 'editing' and/or 'patching' of conversations. I have requested the Commissioner of Police, who now has possession of the documents and tapes provided to the Attorney to undertake a full technical assessment of the tapes. This may be a lengthy process and, in any event, may not be reliable because the tapes are, as I have already stated, clearly not the original intercept recordings. Senator Chipp —You have established beyond any doubt that they are not original intercept recordings? Senator GARETH EVANS —We were told by the Age that they were copies of material supplied to the Age, quite apart from whether the material in the Age's possession is itself original or copies of other material. Certainly, it seems to have been a multigeneration process, with the copies in our possession being down the line. As part of the Commonwealth investigation of the whole material, our copies of all the tapes have been given to a leading expert in the field, and we are awaiting his assessment. The Documents The so-called transcripts in most instances are not in fact transcripts in the sense of being verbatim reports of everything alleged to have been said. The documents made available to me consisted of 6 bundles: The first bundle, of 64 pages, apparently corresponding with the bundle identified by New South Wales Solicitor-General, Ms Mary Gaudron, QC, as 'B-1', purports to contain summaries or records of conversations over a telephone in March 1976. The party whose telephone was apparently intercepted, was identified in the documents as 'Target' or 'T'. The subject matter of the conversations is very wide, but is substantially concerned with horse races and SP betting. The second bundle, of 106 pages, apparently corresponding with Gaudron bundle ' A-4', purports to contain summaries or records of conversations over a telephone in March and April 1979. The telephone intercepted appears to be that of a Sydney solicitor. Included amongst these conversations are a number of conversations between the solicitor and a judge. The third bundle, of 146 pages, apparently corresponding with Gaudron bundle 'B -2', purports to contain summaries or records of conversations over a telephone in the period June-July-August 1979. The summaries and extracts appear to relate to 35 tapes of conversations in that period. The telephone intercepted was substantially used by one 'D' although a number of other persons seem to have used the telephone in that period. Again the subject matter of the conversations is very wide. Apart from personal matters, horse racing and SP betting appear to be the major subjects of the conversations. The fourth bundle, of 97 pages, apparently corresponding with Gaudron bundle 'A -3', purports to contain summaries or records of conversations over a telephone during February 1980. The telephone appears to be that of the same Sydney solicitor. Again the subject matter of the conversations is very wide. Again the material includes much of conversation between the solicitor and the judge. The fifth bundle, of 67 pages, apparently corresponding to Gaudron bundle 'B-3' , labelled 'Trimbole Tapes', purports to contain summaries or records of conversations over a telephone over a period March-May 1981. The telephone appears to be that of a person described as 'Bob' although a number of other persons apparently used the telephone. Again the conversations cover a wide variety of subject matter but racing and SP betting figure prominently. The sixth bundle, of 44 pages, apparently corresponding to Gaudron bundle 'A-2' , consists of two documents. The first document is a three-page report which is undated and contains no reference to an author. The document refers to a number of prominent persons and makes very serious allegations against those persons. The second document is described as a summary of information supplied by an informant in relation to the solicitor and is in the form of summaries of telephone conversations over the period February to May 1980. The two documents are related in that the allegations made in the first document appear to be based on the summaries in the second document. Both Mr Temby, QC, and the Solicitor-General for New South Wales, who appears to have examined essentially the same material as Mr Temby, state that there is no authentication of either the tapes or the documentary material. In terms of the law of evidence this means that the material is worthless. Of course, even if it were to be established that the tapes and transcripts were authentic in every respect, that there had been no editing of or tampering with the tapes, and that the transcripts and summaries were exact and faithful reports of what was said, it does not follow for a moment that what was said by any individual in any particular conversation was true. Quite apart from the danger of ironic, joking or careless statements being taken at their literal face value, it is not at all uncommon for people, especially when they believe they are talking privately and not in any way for the record, to brag, exaggerate, fantasise or tell straight-out untruths. References to a Judge and the Question of 'Misbehaviour' Any allegations involving a member of the Federal judiciary are matters of serious concern. Any government must treat such allegations as very serious matters. The Fraser Government claimed to do so when I raised serious questions of bias in relation to the then Chief Justice of the High Court in 1980 not in any casual or partial way, as here, but in a fully documented speech in the Senate occupying some 28 pages of Hansard (Senate, Hansard, 29 April 1980, pp. 1897-1925). In the 1980 case, the Prime Minister said that the serious matter raised-a conflict of interest arising out of family shareholding, and one which was squarely and directly related to the conduct of his judicial office-was a question which was wholly one for the individual judge to decide (House of Representatives, Hansard, 29 April 1980, p. 2348). In the present case, as I have indicated, the Government referred the relevant material for examination and report to the Federal Police and then to Mr Temby. The substance of both reports was summarised by the Special Minister of State and me in our joint statement of 17 February as follows: Both the report and opinion concluded . . . that in relation to the alleged involvement of a Judge in telephone conversations with a solicitor, the material -if authentic-could not support any conclusion that the Judge had been guilty of criminal misconduct. Nor, in the opinion of Mr Temby, could the content of the material-if authentic -support in any way a conclusion that there had been 'misbehaviour' within the meaning of section 72 of the Australian Constitution. Both the police report and Mr Temby's opinion make it clear that there is no basis upon which any further police or Special Prosecutor investigation of the alleged behaviour of the Judge, as revealed by the tapes and transcripts, could be justified. One might hope that that is where the matter will be allowed to rest-in the interests not only of the judge concerned, who has already had to endure a disgraceful campaign of gossip and innuendo, but also of the whole institution of the judiciary. In fairness to the judge concerned, however, I made arrangements to interview him on the afternoon of 15 February, in order to put the material in question to him and get, should he be minded to make it, some indication of his response. The fact that such an interview took place was mentioned by me in my Press conference on 17 February. Since the timing of that interview appears to have itself attracted some questioning, I should make it clear that it was governed by two considerations: First, the desire to give to the judge the earliest possible opportunity to make his own response to the allegations concerning him; but secondly, not to do so until I was satisfied- following the reports from the AFP and Mr Temby-that to put the relevant material to him would not in any way prejudice further police investigations. Both at the interview on 15 February, and at a subsequent brief interview on 24 February, I was accompanied by the Permanent Head of my Department, Mr Pat Brazil. On both occasions His Honour strongly questioned the authenticity of the material and referred in terms of the strongest conviction to the outrage done to his and to his family's privacy, and to his objection to the principle of guilt by association being applied to him. In respect of specific matters raised by the published material, he either specifically denied the factual accuracy of the allegations concerning him, or gave explanations which put those allegations in a rather different context than that evident at first sight. For present purposes it is unnecessary to give more detail than that, and I do not propose to do so. When material of contested authenticity is obtained in circumstances which, at the best, are manifestly illegal and gross invasions of privacy, the onus of explanation should not have to lie upon the target of the attack. To argue otherwise is to place all public figures who may be similarly attacked-and the institutions of which they may be part-in an invidious position . For obvious reasons, nowhere is this more clearly the case than in relation to members of the judiciary. The Question of 'Misbehaviour' The Government has given careful consideration to whether there is anything in the Age material which-assuming for present purposes its authenticity-might properly be claimed to amount to or point to misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution. That section provides that a Federal judge shall not be removed, except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. I am satisfied, and the Government is satisfied, that there is no basis at all on which any substantive motion based on misbehaviour could or should be moved. The Government initially referred for advice the question of misbehaviour to the Director of Public Prosecutions-designate, with the request that he consider this, as a possibly separate issue, at the same time as he was considering whether any criminal offences were involved. That part of Mr Temby's opinion which deal with the meaning of misbehaviour in section 72 of the Constitution and which sets forth the conclusion he reached states: There is nothing in the material I have seen, assuming its authenticity, which would prove or in any way support the conclusion that [the Judge] has been guilty of misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 (ii) of the Constitution . At least ordinarily such misbehaviour must be in a matter pertaining to the office held although conviction for an infamous offence which renders the person concerned unfit to exercise the office is apparently sufficient. Quick and Garran, 'The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth' p. 731; Halsbury 'The Laws of England', 4th ed., Vol. 8, 680; The Earl of Shrewsbury's case, 9 Co. Rep. 41''. Quick and Garran, the most contemporaneous and authoritative commentary on the Constitution, quotes on the meaning of misbehaviour in section 72 the following passage in Todd, Parliamentary Government in England, second edition, page 857: Misbehaviour includes, firstly, the improper exercise of judicial functions; secondly, wilful neglect of duty, or non-attendance; and thirdly, a conviction for any infamous offence, by which, although it be not connected with the duties of his office, the offender is rendered unfit to exercise any office or public franchise. The opinion I have now received from the Solicitor-General, and which I now table, has substantially confirmed the test that Mr Temby applied. The Solicitor -General points out that the requirement under the Constitution is not conviction in a court of law but proof to the Parliament. It is important to note what he goes on to say: Inasmuch as Parliament considers the matter, the question is whether there is proved offence against the general law 'of such a nature as to warrant the conclusion that the incumbent is unfit to exercise the office'. Parliament is not at large to define proved misbehaviour by reference to its own standards or views of suitability for office or moral or social character or conduct. The Parliamentary inquiry is whether commission of an offence of the requisite quality and seriousness is proved. Parliament would act beyond power if it sought to apply wider definition or criteria for misbehaviour than the recognised meaning of misbehaviour not pertaining to office. The Solicitor-General goes on to answer the specific question of law I put to him as follows: Misbehaviour is limited in meaning in section 72 of the Constitution to matters pertaining to- (1) judicial office, including non-attendance, neglect of or refusal to perform duties; and (2) the commission of an offence against the general law of such a quality as to indicate that the incumbent is unfit to exercise the office. Misbehaviour is defined as breach of condition to hold office during good behaviour. It is not limited to conviction in a court of law. A matter pertaining to office or a breach of the general law of the requisite seriousness in a matter not pertaining to office may be found by proof, in appropriate manner, to the Parliament in proceedings where the offender has been given proper notice and opportunity to defend himself. My understanding throughout of what Mr Temby considered to be the test was that it was substantially the same as that which has now been identified by the Solicitor-General. It is clear from the relevant paragraph that I quoted above from Mr Temby's opinion that he did consider whether the material, assuming its authenticity, in any way supported a conclusion that a serious criminal offence had been committed. His conclusion, to which I have just referred, was that there was no material that in any way supported that conclusion. Mr Temby, both by reason of his extensive criminal law experience and by virtue of his office of Director of Public Prosecutions-designate was clearly the most appropriate expert adviser on these criminal and evidentary matters. I would only add that the issue of the meaning of misbehaviour within the terms of section 72 of the Constitution, and the question of the naming of the judge, raises in my view a quite fundamental constitutional issue relating to the separation of powers. This matter is referred to in the Solicitor-General's examination of the legislative history of section 72. Section 72 deals with the sensitive interface of the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. In this regard, the Constitution was clearly established on the premise of separation of power between these two institutions. Because of the sensitivity of this separation- Senator Chaney —That should be 'judiciary', not 'Executive'? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have corrected the text. It should be 'judiciary'. I thought that the honourable senator would be acute enough to pick me up on that. I might also add that it involves the question of the relationship between the Executive and the judiciary as well which matter, no doubt, we may find ourselves debating. Because of the sensitivity of this separation, it is acutely important that all honourable senators and members be restrained in dealing with matters of alleged misbehaviour of judges. Criticism of members of the judiciary by the legislature is a very sensitive matter, and certainly should not be based on the very unsatisfactory material which is available here. Any action asserting misbehaviour which were to be based merely on party political or other special interests would be quite indefensible in principle, and would degrade this Parliament and the Constitution. Privacy, Illegality and Responsible Journalism The most worrying aspect of this whole matter is, I believe, the massive illegality and invasion of privacy which appears to have been involved; and, associated with that, the profound indifference, even cynicism, with which that illegality and privacy invasion has been greeted by some members of the media and Opposition spokesmen. The Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, by section 7, makes it an offence to intercept a communication passing over a telecommunications system unless authorised by Commonwealth laws. Before that Act came into operation on 1 June 1980, the only relevant legislation was the Telephonic Communications ( Interception) Act 1960, under which there was no legislative authority for any telephone interceptions by anyone-other than the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation on national security grounds. If the material is accurate and authentic-that of course very much remains to be established-then it is clear that very large scale unauthorised interception of private telephone calls has taken place, contrary either to that Act or the previous law. Section 7 of the 1979 Act also makes it an offence to divulge or to communicate to another person, or make use of or record, any information obtained by intercepting a communication passing over a telecommunications system or obtained by virtue of a warrant. This offence is not confirmed to the divulging of information obtained pursuant to law, but applies to the divulging of all information obtained by intercepting a communication passing over a telecommunications system. Accordingly if the material is in fact information obtained by an intercept, then the divulging of that material by any person to another person would constitute an offence. As the Solicitor-General for New South Wales points out in her advice, the effect of this provision may be even to make it an offence for her to divulge information contained in the material to other people. It is this Government's view that the investigation of the circumstances in which this material originated should be pursued with the greatest vigour. It is also the Government's view that if, in the course of those investigations, other illegalities are established the law will take its course in relation to those illegalities. I make it clear however that the first concern of the Government in this regard is to investigate what is, or what appears to be, a massive invasion of the privacy of the citizens of this country. It is important to appreciate just what is involved in invasions of privacy of the kind that appear to have occurred in this case. Confidentiality of personal communications appears to have been breached on a massive scale. The tapes, transcripts and summaries given to me by the Age on their face record approximately 3,000 separate conversations, involving dozens of different people . Unless the law comes down very hard on unauthorised eavesdropping-and also limits very dramatically, as the present law does, the circumstances in which authorised eavesdropping may take place-no one in this country, and certainly no one in any position of public responsibility, can ever feel safe again in having a private telephone conversation. No one will ever be able to blow off steam with loved ones or trusted intimates; no one will be able to gossip, or brag, or exaggerate, or fib in the way that every one of us has done from time to time in circumstances which we would be appalled to ever find made public. Senator Chaney —Sometimes in the Senate too. Senator Walters —Don't tell me that you brag. Senator GARETH EVANS —Let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone. A great deal of reference has been made to organised crime in relation to the present tapes and transcripts. Many of the matters that might appear to lend themselves to this description have already been the subject of extensive police investigation and action; anything else that needs to be investigated will be investigated by either the Special Prosecutor's Joint Investigation Team or the New South Wales State authorities. What needs to be appreciated is that if there is any new kind of organised crime revealed by this material, and constituted by its proliferation, it is an organised crime against privacy. Those that have orchestrated this proliferation of smear and innuendo bear a very heavy responsibility. A situation has been created in which any persons whose identity can be associated with a reference on these tapes or transcripts immediately will be assumed to be involved somehow in organised crime or official corruption. They will bear an impossible burden of proving their innocence. They will be convicted in the public arena by the unacceptable process of guilt by association. It is to be hoped that those in this and other parliaments around the nation who might be minded to contribute further to the process of identification, sheltering as they can under the cover of absolute privilege, and knowing that they will never have to defend or establish their position in a court of law, will think long and hard before they do so. The investigation of the matters that need to be investigated is proceeding competently, honestly and quickly, at the Commonwealth level under completely independent supervision. There is nothing to be gained, and a great deal to be lost, by further smearing individuals who have already suffered a good deal of humiliation and hurt in the way this affair has developed so far. Responsible Journalism I think it needs to be said, finally, that the role of the Age newspaper in this whole affair has not been a very proud one, particularly for a paper so prone to suggest its moral and intellectual leadership of the profession of journalism in this country, and which is certainly believed by many to occupy that role. Senator Lajovic —Ban it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that is the solution that springs readily to the lips of Senator Lajovic, but it is not one shared by honourable senators on this side of the chamber. About the only respect in which the paper has behaved completely commendably has been in giving the material in its possession to me so as to enable proper investigation to be carried out-more than can be said for the National Times, which still remains apparently quite unwilling to co-operate . But this gesture was somewhat counter-balanced by the Age having its story already set up for front page treatment the following day at the very time the material was being handed over. Had the paper been genuinely more concerned to root out possible crime and corruption than to increase its circulation, it would have given the material to the Government well before it ever went to press-perhaps, if it felt that there was any danger the Government would be disposed to ignore it, also overtly making the material available to a responsible Opposition politician-if one can be found-at the same time. It is acknowledged that this would hardly be a normal course for a newspaper to follow-papers are, after all, in the business of selling news, not crime fighting-but this was hardly a normal situation. The material was, if it was at all authentic, obtained in manifestly illegal circumstances; it manifestly involved outrageous invasions of privacy in so far as individuals were-or were ever likely to be-identified; and it involved putting at serious risk the credibility and status of, and public regard for, the whole institution of the judiciary. These considerations should at least have led the paper to wrestle with its collective conscience before publishing, and to actively explore alternative courses of action. There is no evidence that it did so. The editorial columns show no particular signs of agonising over the principles involved-whether the end did indeed justify the means and indeed showed little sign of anything but cynical indifference to the values and principles I have just mentioned. Worse even than that was the way the story was handled. The first article in the series, on 2 February, occupied most of the front page under the banner heading 'Secret Tapes of Judge'. Less than a third of the way into the story, very prominently located at the top of the second column, appeared a series of paragraphs relating to sexual matters, in particular the following: 'In other conversations the Judge talked of his drunkenness and sexual achievements. 'A transcript reveals that the solicitor asked: 'Did you have a good time?'. The Judge replied, 'if you can call getting tired and drunk and f...... everything a good time, yeah . . .'. We now know, of course, that the transcript revealed nothing of the kind. There are no conversations in which the judge talked of his drunkenness or sexual achievements. The quotation in question is clearly attributed in the transcript not to the judge but to the solicitor. The mistake was not a peripheral or minor one. It involved one of the central premises of the whole article-that the integrity and fitness for office of the judge was in question-and the potential damage done to the target and his family was incalculable. But the acknowledgement of error, when it was eventually forced out of the Age two weeks later, was less than handsome. It did not appear on page 1, and it certainly did not appear under that stark and familiar heading 'We Were Wrong'. It appeared right at the bottom of page 3, in a single column, under the somewhat less than self-lacerating heading 'Wran points out error in police tape article'. The editor was concerned to insist at the time-as no doubt will others-that the sexual issue was in any event a marginal one. Objectively, he may well have been right. But if that were so, why give that part of the story so much initial prominence? Of course the answer is clear, and it does not-again-do the paper much credit. One does not have to know much about human nature-and newspapers that survive know a lot about human nature-to know that this was the aspect of the story that was likely to command the keenest and most fascinated attention. One did not have to have one's ear very closely to the ground to know that this was the aspect of the story that was attracting the most gossip and speculation in the bars, cars and living rooms of the nation. And one does not have to have much imagination to appreciate that this was the aspect of the story which was likely to cause the most embarrassment and humiliation to the man in question in his personal and family relationships. The Age newspaper has now called for a Royal Commission, and no doubt others will be minded to do likewise. But there is simply no evident necessity for any step of this kind now to be taken. The Government has acted quickly, responsibly and responsively. It has put in train a full, independently supervised investigation of the circumstances in which this material was obtained and the Federal offences its contents might reveal. That investigation will be conducted competently and with vigour. As I said at the Australian National University conference last weekend: 'It is not necessary, and indeed it is quite destructive of some of the very values it is sought to preserve-including in particular public confidence in the executive, legislative and judicial institutions of government-for every piece of scuttlebutt or tale of scandal to result in a full-scale, full-length Royal Commission. 'The three most recent Commissions of Inquiry in New South Wales-the Street Royal Commission into the ABC allegations against Neville Wran, and the Cross Inquiries into the Sinclair and Bottom allegations-should have amply demonstrated by now that where there is smoke, there is not always fire. 'They should also have graphically demonstrated the kind of damage, humiliation and hurt that even the most ill-justified muck-raking can cause its victims. 'It is not good enough for a newspaper-whether its motives be high-minded, political, cynical, or just plain circulation-greedy-to publish salacious gossip about people in high places, to disregard the illegal or privacy-invading (or both) circumstances in which it was obtained, to deliberately generate an atmosphere of disquiet, and then to thunder about the necessity for a Royal Commission to allay the very fears which it alone has generated.' The investigation of crime is not a matter for amateur sleuths operating in the public arena or public forums. The way in which this whole matter has been developed and manipulated has been against the public interest. It has outraged privacy and threatens basic human rights. If crime is to be detected, and offenders brought to justice, it will be done not by sensationalism of a salacious Press story or a muck-raking question, but by careful sifting and proper professional police investigation under independent supervision. That is the course which this Government has chosen to follow in this matter, and that is the course to which we intend to stay. I seek leave to incorporate the Temby opinion and the Solicitor-General's opinion in Hansard for convenient reference. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Opinion of Mr Ian Temby Q.C., 15 February 1984 (Edited only by the exclusion of names, identifying characteristics, and certain information supplied by the AFP) OPINION I am instructed that ''The Age'' newspaper in Melbourne recently furnished to the Attorney-General 524 pages of documents, which are or purport to be comments on and transcripts of intercepted telephone conversations, and some tapes of intercepted telephone conversations. Copies of each have been made available to me. I have been instructed by the Acting Crown Solicitor to advise with respect to them as a matter of some urgency. I have not personally checked the transcripts of the tapes for accuracy. For the purposes of this opinion I assume that they are accurate. I have advised that this should be checked. It should be stressed that little is known as to the provenance of the material made available to me, and that it appears to have been abstracted selectively: the documents are not continuous or complete. Whether the documents or the tapes, or both, are genuine, in whole or in part, is not known to me or to those who instruct me. It appears from the material I have seen that on a number of occasions [the Judge . . .] had telephone discussions with [the Solicitor]. A matter of particular concern is whether [the Judge] has, or may have on the basis of the material, committed any criminal offence. I am also asked to give consideration to whether the material, assuming it to be genuine, could warrant the conclusion that ''the ground of proved misbehaviour'' could be made out or supported as against [the Judge] pursuant to section 72 (ii) of the Constitution: in that event he could be removed from office by the Governor-General on an address from both Houses of Parliament. That is of course a matter upon which only the Parliament could decide, if it chose to embark upon the exercise. It is thought appropriate that I should also comment as to whether, on the same assumption, the conduct of [the Judge] appears to have been injudicious. According to the Macquarie Dictionary, ''judicious'' means ''(1) using or showing judgment as to action or practical expediency; discreet, prudent, or politic (2) having, exercising or showing good judgment; wise, sensible, or well-advised; a judicious selection'', and to act injudiciously is to act in a manner which does not display these characteristics. I have been instructed to peruse the documents with care and advise as to any offences against Federal law which they disclose, or any further enquiries which should be made on the basis of them. In that context I should say that it is police officers who have particular skills in relation to detection and investigation of alleged criminal behaviour. Lawyers do not have that expertise. I will do my best to make such suggestions as may be useful. The first general point to be made is that the material I have seen could not of itself warrant the laying of charges against anybody. Neither the tapes nor the documents are original, and it may be that they have been fabricated. The first step, if any aspect of the matter is to be taken further, is to establish their authenticity. That might be difficult. It is not likely that those who prepared the tapes or documents will co-operate in disclosing the role they played. And if the tapes are genuine there will be great difficulty in proving the identity of any speaker to the high criminal standard of proof, at least in the absence of an admission. Speaking generally, no person is obliged to give information to investigating police officers, particularly information which may be of an incriminating nature. The second general point I make is that even if the material is authentic, and the identity of the speakers can be established, it does not follow that what has been said by any individual is true. It is not unusual for men to brag, to claim greater power than they have, even to tell simple untruths. The material I have seen covers an extraordinarily wide ground. In the circumstances those who instruct me have agreed that one broad aspect should be put on one side. It appears that there may have been one or more conspiracies to [. . .] using illegal means to do so. A man named [. . .], a former employee of the Department of [. . .] features largely in the material. It appears that at some stage he was the subject of a departmental investigation. A charge was brought against [the Solicitor] in relation to [. . .] matters. He was convicted , and has appealed. In the circumstances it is thought best not to deal in this opinion with any aspect of these matters, including [the Former Employee's] involvement. There are various references in the material to [the Judge]. I deal with each of them which may be of any significance. In a summary of a conversation between [the Solicitor] and a man named [. . .] it appears that one or other mentioned that 'a girl has to be arranged for [the Judge]'. Assuming that this was in fact said, it cannot be concluded that it was seriously meant: the comment could have been jocular. If it was seriously meant, it does not follow that anything of the sort was done on that or any other occasion. And if it was, it could not support a conclusion of criminal conduct on the part of any person. The matter does not warrant further investigation. Indeed how the matter could be further investigated I do not know: no details are available as to time or place. All of this can be said with equal force in relation to a statement in what appears to be a general commentary on the tapes, namely that [the Solicitor] organised girls for [the Judge] when time permits. The transcript of one of the taped telephone conversations between [the Judge] and [the Solicitor] refers to [. . .] and [. . .]. Presumably those referred to were [. . .] and [. . .], who acted for [. . .], the complainant against [. . .] . Assuming the tape to be genuine, it contains nothing which is of a surprising nature. One cannot expect the defendant in criminal proceedings to be consistently charitable towards the complainant and those perceived to be associated with him. Some would think to be inappropriate certain of the language used by [the Judge] and the matters casually adverted to by him, given the high office that he holds. However, assuming the tape to be genuine, it is of a private telephone conversation which according to law should have remained private. On a couple of occasions [the Judge] intimated to [the Solicitor] that he should, or perhaps they should, be careful as to what they said over the telephone. This is equivocal. It could not support the conclusion that [the Judge] had been guilty of criminal or other misconduct. In March 1979 [the Judge] and [the Solicitor] had a conversation in which the former told the latter [. . .] is . . . appointing [a Public Servant] as Deputy Chairman of an unidentified body. The latter expressed himself to be pleased. There was talk about the tenure of the appointment. It appears that [the Judge] may have taken some steps to secure the appointment. That would be clear beyond argument if he is the unidentified male in another telephone conversation with [ the Solicitor] who was asked to ring [. . .] 'for that [Public Servant]', and agreed to do so. And in another telephone conversation between [the Solicitor] and an unidentified male person, the former said that when he barked the appointee as Deputy Chairman of the [. . .] would jump. In that telephone conversation [the Solicitor] was advising the person he called of the appointment of 'that big [Public Servant]' to the position in question. It seems unlikely that the other party to that conversation was [the Judge]. I am instructed that a New South Wales Government Directory published in 1982 shows that a [the Publish Servant] was then Deputy Chairman of the [. . .] of that State. If it be the case that [the Judge] used influence or persuasion, direct or indirect, to have him appointed to that position, then that carries no consequence so far as criminal conduct is concerned. There is nothing unusual about people in high places suggesting or urging that given individuals should be appointed to particular Government positions. It would of course be a matter of great concern if that was done in order to secure some favour, or for any sort of consideration. One can imagine circumstances in which the taking of steps to secure such an appointment would be by reason of accompanying circumstances be criminal in nature. There is nothing in the material I have seen to suggest any such accompanying circumstances. I cannot think that any further investigation of the matter is likely to be at all fruitful. In the transcript of one of the tapes of a conversation between [the Solicitor] and a man named [. . .] who I understand to be a lawyer, the former asked whether the latter was ''sweet with any of the Judges in Canberra'' to which he received a coy reply. [The Solicitor] said that a horse trainer friend of his had a son who had bashed some fellow and it was desired to save him from the can . He then suggested that money might be put forward to that end. The matter was not taken further. A credulous cynic might conclude from this that an attempt was to be made to bribe a Judge of the ACT Supreme Court. I do not think the matter can be taken further as against any party. If the tape is genuine it would not warrant the laying of any charge against either [the Solicitor] or [. . .]. And police officers can hardly be asked to go through the embarrassing ordeal of approaching all of the Judges who sit in the ACT Supreme Court and asking each if he has taken or been offered any bribes lately. As I have been dealing with [the Judge] it should be said that he of course sits on [. . .] which does not deal with cases of [. . .]. This conversation clearly has nothing to do with him. There is nothing in the material I have seen, assuming its authenticity, which would prove or in any way support the conclusion that [the Judge] has been guilty of misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 (ii) of the Constitution . At least ordinarily such misbehaviour must be in a matter pertaining to the office held although conviction for an infamous offence which renders the person concerned unfit to exercise the office is apparently sufficient. Quick & Garran, ''The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth'', 731; Halsbury, '' The Laws of England'', 4th Ed., Vol. 8, 680; The Earl of Shrewbury's case, 9 Co. Rep. 42. Has [the Judge] acted injudiciously? On the material I have seen his conduct cannot be so categorised, unless it be established that he well knew that a man with whom he was having frequent dealings was of poor reputation. [Judges] occupy lofty and rather isolated positions, and it may be that [the Judge] did not know in any detail what [the Solicitor's] reputation was. Even if he did, there is room for debate as between persons of good sense and goodwill as to whether any people, including those who hold high office, should be traduced by reason of the reputation of their friends and acquaintances, in the absence of actual and established improper conduct on their part. It places a Judge in an invidious position if he has frequent dealings with any person of poor reputation. Presumably [the Judge] now realises this and will act more carefully in the future than he has done in the past. If there is doubt in this regard, it may be that he should be approached and advised as to the desirability of not further nurturing the relationship he has with [the Solicitor] if it presently remains on foot. Except in relation to the aspect to be dealt with in conclusion, I can find nothing in the material which provides any strong indication that any breach of Federal law has been committed by any person. Nor do I think there are any obvious lines of enquiry open to police officers. It is hard to see what course could be usefully followed by an officer who was required to conduct a supplementary investigation in relation to Federal offences. I should say that the material I have seen is not consistently salubrious. Several of those who have spoken, if they could be identified, would be hard put to deny general involvement in activities including illegal bookmaking, race- fixing, bribery, and prostitution. However these are matters for the State authorities to pursue. And charges of criminality cannot be preferred with any prospects of success unless particulars of the conduct involved, including time and place, can be provided and established. As a general rule a person who intercepts a communication passing over a public telephone service commits an offence, and this has been so at all material times . See section 5 (1) of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960 and section 7 (1) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. It does not necessarily follow that evidence cannot be given of an unlawfully intercepted telephone conversation. See Bunning v. Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, and R. v. Padman (1979) 25 ALR 36. I am instructed that none of the permitted circumstances of interception occurred in relation to any of the material I have seen. It follows that unless the material is spurious, some people at present unknown have committed offences . The matter should be investigated in detail. I think this should be done by officers of the Australian Federal Police. It would be presumptuous of me to suggest how the investigation be conducted. I can say that I have discussed the matter with Superintendent Brown of the Australian Federal Police, and that which he has suggested seems entirely sensible. In the course of those investigations there should be, and I have no doubt there will be, interviews conducted with respect to one present and one former officer of the AFP, named [ . . .] and [. . .] respectively. The material does not establish that either has been guilty of any criminal misconduct, but suggests that each may have been used improperly by criminal elements. It may very well be the case that there is no substance in any of this, but it needs to be looked into. If any aspect of the matter appears to have received insufficient attention, or if any questions arise, I will be pleased to address them. (SGD IAN TEMBY) Perth 15 February 1984 In the matter of section 72 of the Constitution OPINION 1. I am asked the meaning of ''misbehaviour'' in section 72 of the Constitution , and, in particular, whether misbehaviour for this purpose is limited to matters pertaining to the judicial office in question and conviction for a serious offence which renders the person concerned unfit to exercise the office. 2. So far as relevant, section 72 provides- 72. The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament- (i) Shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council; (ii) Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity; 3. Clearly the ambit of the grounds for removal from office embraced by section 72 is limited by comparison with the position of judges under English law. Section 72 gives conscious effect to the principle that the judiciary in our Federal system should be secure in their independence from the legislature and the executive. This was a matter which considerably exercised attention in debates during the drafting processes leading to its final formulation. Quite deliberately, the conventional grounds for termination of judicial tenure were narrowed. 4. The English position is that judges hold office during good behaviour or until removed upon address to the Crown by both Houses of Parliament. 5. Coke described the grant as creating office for life determinable upon breach of condition: Co. Litt. 42a. Now tenure is until retiring age. A judge may be removed by the Crown for misbehaviour (or want of good behaviour) without any address from Parliament. The position as to such misbehaviour is conveniently summarised by Todd, Parliamentary Government in England, ii, at 857 -8- 'The legal effect of the grant of an office during ''good behaviour'' is the creation of an estate for life in the office.' Such an estate is terminable only by the grantee's incapacity from mental or bodily infirmity, or by his breach of good behaviour. But ''like any other conditional estate, it may be forfeited by a breach of the condition annexed to it; that is to say, by misbehaviour. Behaviour means behaviour in the grantee's official capacity. Misbehaviour includes, firstly, the improper exercise of judicial functions; secondly, wilful neglect of duty, or non-attendance; and, thirdly, a conviction for any infamous offence, by which, although it be not connected with the duties of his office, the offender is rendered unfit to exercise any office or public franchise. In the case of official misconduct, the decision of the question whether there be misbehaviour rests with the grantor, subject, of course, to any proceedings on the part of the removed officer. In the case of misconduct outside the duties of his office, the misbehaviour must be established by a previous conviction by a jury. 6. The contrasting Parliamentary jurisdiction to address for removal is described by Todd (at 860) as an additional power unrelated to breach of condition which- . . . the constitution has appropriately conferred upon the two Houses of Parliament-in the exercise of that superintendence over the proceedings of the courts of justice which is one of their most important functions-a right to appeal to the crown for the removal of a judge who has, in their opinion, proved himself unfit for the proper exercise of his judicial office. This power is not, in a strict sense, judicial; it may be invoked upon occasions when the misbehaviour complained of would not constitute a legal breach of the conditions on which the office is held. The liability to this kind of removal is, in fact, a qualification of, or exception from, the words creating a tenure during good behaviour, and not an incidental or legal consequence thereof. In entering upon an investigation of this kind, Parliament is limited by no restraints, except such as may be self-imposed. 7. The position is much the same in Canada: section 99 of the British North America Act provides that judges ''shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor-General on Address of the Senate and House of Commons''. Likewise for the States of the Commonwealth. Indeed, many of the precedents cited by Todd as establishing Crown rights to remove for misbehaviour or upon address by Parliament concern judges with an Australian connection: Justice Willis was removed from the Bench in Upper Canada in 1829 and later from the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1846; also debate concerning Justice Boothby of the Supreme Court of South Australia, 1861-1867; and Sir Redmond Barry (over the curious issue of taking vacation without leave) 1864-1865, discussed in some detail in Todd, Ch. VI. 8. Todd (at 860-1) emphasises obvious inhibitions upon the exercise of the discretionary powers of Parliament- Nevertheless, since statutory powers have been conferred upon Parliament which define and regulate the proceedings against offending judges, the importance to the interests of the Commonwealth, of preserving the independence of the judges, should forbid either House from entertaining an application against a judge unless such grave misconduct were imputed to him as would warrant, or rather compel, the concurrence of both Houses in an address to the crown for his removal from the bench. 'Anything short of this might properly be left to public opinion, which holds a salutary check over judicial conduct, and over the conduct of public functionaries of all kinds, which it might not be convenient to make the subject of parliamentary enquiry.' 9. Under our Constitution Parliamentary address is the only method for judical removal. The reason sufficiently is summarised by Quick and Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, 733-4, under the heading ''Reasons for Security of Judicial Tenure'': The peculiar stringency of the provisions for safeguarding the independence of the Federal Justices is a consequence of the federal nature of the Constitution, and the necessity for protecting those who interpret it from the danger of political interference. The Federal Executive has a certain amount of control over the Federal Courts by its power of appointing Justices; the Federal Executive and Parliament jointly have a further amount of control by their power of removing such Justices for specified causes; but otherwise the independence of the Judiciary from interference by the other departments of the Government is complete. And both the Executive and the Parliament, in the exercise of their constitutional powers, are bound to respect the spirit of the Constitution, and to avoid any wanton interference with the independence of the Judiciary. '' Complaints to Parliament in respect to the conduct of the Judiciary, or the decisions of courts of justice, should not be lightly entertained . . . Parliament should abstain from all interference with the judiciary, except in cases of such gross perversion of the law, either by intention, corruption, or incapacity, as make it necessary for the House to exercise the power vested in it of advising the Crown for the removal of the Judge''. (Todd, Parl. Gov. in Eng., i. 574.) Hence the structure of the Constitution itself explains this direct limitation upon the power of judicial removal. The desire is to protect the judiciary as the interpreters of the Constitution. 10. Clearly section 72 excludes all modes of removal other than the one mentioned. This deliberate limitation, apparent from the terms of the section, is emphasised by permissible consideration of legislative history. To paraphrase what Stephen J. said in Seamen's Union of Australia v. Utah Development Co., ( 1978) 144 C.L.R. 120, 142-4, it is from the successive drafts of the Bills which ultimately became our Constitution that the true role of section 72 emerges; its history and origins cast light upon meaning, the precise effect of which may otherwise be subject to some obscurity. 11. The first draft of the Commonwealth Bill of 1891 departed from English and colonial precedent and tied revocation of office held during good behaviour to address from both houses. At Adelaide, in the 1897 Bill, this intention was made clear. In committee, tenure was further secured by resolution to limit parliamentary power of intervention to cases of misbehaviour or incapacity. The clause read: 72. The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament: (i) Shall hold their offices during good behaviour; (ii) Shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council; (iii) Shall not be removed except for misbehaviour or incapacity, and then only by the Governor-General in Council, upon an Address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same Session praying for such removal. In the Melbourne session on the 31st January 1898 Mr Barton successfully moved that tenure be further secured by providing that a parliamenary address must pray for removal ''upon the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity''. 12. Although their Honours regarded it as unnecessary then to consider the extent to which the Debates may be regarded in the construction of the Constitution, in Re Pearson; Ex Parte Sipka, (1983) 57 A.L.J.R. 225, 227, Gibbs C.J., Mason and Wilson JJ. accepted Griffith C.J.'s dictum in The Municipal Council of Sydney v. Commonwealth, (1904) 1 C.L.R. 208, 213-214, that it is permissible to have regard to Convention Debates, ''for the purpose of seeing . . . what was the evil to be remedied''. Perusal of the Adelaide and Melbourne Convention Debates confirms the extent to which the delegates desired to deal with the need adequately to safeguard the independence of the judiciary as an essential feature of the separation of powers in the Federal system. Todd's summary of the English position (set out in paragraph 5 above), which was read by Mr Isaacs at Adelaide on 20th April 1897 (Convention Debates 984-9), was the received meaning of misbehaviour. Each of the successive amendments to the draft clause was intended further to limit, for the purpose of the Constitution, the power of removal to a single specific and narrow basis related solely to the established ground of removal for breach of condition for good behaviour. The general discretionary power of Parliament to address for removal on grounds other than misbehaviour, in the technical sense understood by the delegates, was eliminated; with the function of finding such misbehaviour vested in the Parliament rather than in the Executive. 13. What then is proved misbehaviour or incapacity? Incapacity is easily dealt with: it extends to incapacity for mental or physical infirmity, which always has been held to justify termination of office: see Todd, at 857. The addition of the word ''incapacity'' does not alter the nature of the tenure during good behaviour; it merely defines it more accurately: see Quick and Garran, at 732. 14. As noted in paragraph 5 above, Todd, at 857-8, purported exhaustively to define misbehaviour as breach of the condition for judicial office held ''during good behaviour'' as including- (1) the improper exercise of judicial functions; (2) wilful neglect of duty or non-attendance; and (3) the conviction for any infamous offence, by which, although it be not connected with the duties of his office, the offender is rendered unfit to exercise any office or public franchise. Todd's commentary, at 858, was that the decision of whether the first category of misbehaviour is constituted rest with the Crown. However in the case of the third category misconduct outside the duties of office, he stipulated misbehaviour must be established by previous conviction by a jury. Similarly Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th ed, viii, para. 1107, which accepts Coke's statement that ''behaviour'' means behaviour in matters concerning the office and also the exceptional case of conviction upon indictment for any infamous offence of such a nature as to render the person unfit to exercise the office. Much might be said as to the received meaning of infamous offence. It is discussed in R. v. Richardson (1758) 1 Burr. 517, in the context of removal from office. Bacon's Abridgement, 7th ed., iii, 211 regarded such offences as embracing convictions for treason, felony, piracy, praemunire, perjury, forgery, and the like, together with crimes with penalty ''to stand in the pillory, or to be whipped or branded''. All this is somewhat archaic for contemporary definition. Maxwell J. in re Trautwein, (1940) 40 S.R. (N.S.W.) 371, warned against exhaustive definition, and adopted the sensible approach of having regard to the nature and essence of a proved offence without attempting a definition or enumeration of the crimes which fall within the expression. To his Honour (at 380) infamous crime was one properly described as ''contrary to the faith credit and trust of mankind''. Such ambulatory approach seems appropriate to give continuing content to any limitation expressed by reference to infamous offence, although it certainly does not close the otherwise open texture of meaning. 15. However defined, Todd's third category of breach of condition for office held during good behaviour requires conviction for offence. Hence it is curious that, without comment, Quick and Garran (at 731) accept Todd's three categories as defining misbehaviour for the purposes of section 72. However a definition requiring conviction for offence in misbehaviour not pertaining to office does not rest easily with Quick and Garran's clear recognition of the essential limitation of section 72 requiring address of Parliament upon the proved ground of misbehaviour as the sole basis for removal (at 731)- The substantial distinction between the ordinary tenure of British Judges and the tenure established by this Constitution is that the ordinary tenure is determinable on two conditions; either (1) misbehaviour, or (2) an address from both Houses; whilst under this Constitution the tenure is only determinable on one condition-that of misbehaviour or incapacity-and the address from both Houses is prescribed as the only method by which forfeiture for breach of the condition may be ascertained. Obviously ''proved misbehaviour'' is to be established to the Parliament and, whatever the offence, such proof is not predicated upon anterior conviction in a court of law. 16. The ultimate requirement of section 72 is for address upon ''proved misbehaviour''. Quick and Garran's views (at 732) are- No mode is prescribed for the proof of misbehaviour or incapacity, and the Parliament is therefore free to prescribe its own procedure. Seeing, however, that proof of definite legal breaches of the conditions of tenure is required, and that the enquiry is therefore in its nature more strictly judicial than in England, it is conceived that the procedure ought to partake as far as possible of the formal nature of a criminal trial; that the charges should be definitely formulated, the accused allowed full opportunities of defence, and the proof established by evidence taken at the Bar of each House. Odgers, Australian Senate Practice, 4th ed., 598, suggests, without discussion, that the probable procedure would be by way of joint select committee, with the accused being allowed full opportunities to defend himself. However it is difficult to see how Parliament adequately could discharge its obligation to address upon ''proved'' misbehaviour if the trial function were to be delegated (cf. FAI Insurances Ltd. v. Winneke (1982) 41 A.L.R. 1, 17 per Mason J., discussing delegation of enquiry by Governor-in-Council). Todd, ii, 860-875, requires ''the fullest and fairest enquiry into the matter of complaint, by the whole House, or a committee of the whole House, at the Bar; notwithstanding that the same may have already undergone a thorough investigation before other tribunals'' such as a select committee. 17. Inasmuch as the Convention Debates reveal mischief intended to be dealt with, clearly it was contemplated that Parliament could fix its own procedures: see Convention Debates, 20th April 1897, 952, (Mr Isaacs and Mr Barton) and 959- 960 (Mr Kingston). At the Melbourne Convention it was made clear that the judge would be entitled to notice and to be heard: (see Convention Debates, 31st January 1898, 315, (Mr Barton)). Hence Parliamentary discretion as to mode in which power should be exercised is in the context of obligation that charges be formulated, and full opportunities for defence be furnished, before finding of proved misbehaviour. 18. Quick and Garran reject any analogy between the Parliamentary discretion to address on grounds which do not constitute a legal breach of the condition on which office is held and the position which obtains under section 72. After reciting Todd's summary of the discretion in parliament and in particular his conclusion that parliament is 'limited by no restraints except suich as may be self imposed' (set out in paragraph 6 above), the authors note (at 731)- These words are quite inapplicable to the provisions of this Constitution. Parliament is 'limited by restraints' which require the proof of definite charges; the liability to removal is not 'a qualification of, or exception from, the words creating a tenure,' but only arises when the conditions of the tenure are broken; and though the procedure and mode of proof are left entirely to the Parliament, it would seem that, inasmuch as proof is expressly required, the duty of Parliament is practically indistinguishable from a strictly judicial duty. 19. The conferring of exceptional function to find proved misbehaviour is not equated to vesting discretion in Parliament to define misbehaviour constituting breach of condition of office. The general power of a Parliament to address for removal where there is not technical misbehaviour is negated by section 72. The power is limited to address only upon proof of misbehaviour, and neither House is at large to define and recognise misbehaviour as it pleases. Misbehaviour, as a breach of condition of office in matters not pertaining to the office, has a meaning related to offences against the general law of the requisite seriousness to be described as infamous. To this extent it has an ascertainable meaning, even if content varies in particular circumstances. In consideration of the issue of proved misbehaviour Parliament is obliged to apply this meaning. 20. The inquiry is whether the offence is of such nature as to render the person unfit to exercise the office, although it is not committed in connection with the office. The notion that private behaviour may affect performance of official duty was expressed by Burbury C. J. in Henry v. Ryan, (1963) Tas. S.R. 90, 91: . . . misconduct in his private life by a person discharging public or professional duties may be destructive of his authority and influence and thus unfit him to continue in his office or profession. Sir Garfield Barwick, in opinion of 18th November 1957 on clauses of the Reserve Bank, Commonwealth Bank and Banking Bills of 1957, dealing with office held 'subject to good behaviour', wrote- Good behaviour . . . refers to the conduct of the incumbent of the office in matters touching and concerning the office and its due execution, though the commission of an offence against the general law of such a nature as to warrant the conclusion that the incumbent is unfit to exercise the office would be a breach of the condition of good behaviour even though the offence itself was unrelated to the duties and functions of the office . . . There is, in my opinion, no significant difference between a condition of good behaviour and a condition against misbehaviour. Indeed, in the older books the word 'misbehaviour' is often used as synonymous with a breach of good behaviour. Thus, the 'misbehaviour' in the Bill will be held to refer to conduct touching and concerning the duties of the member in relation to the office, but will also include acts in breach of the general law of such a quality as to indicate that the member is unfit for office. I concur with this opinion. It represents a contemporary statement of the quality of offence not pertaining to office which may constitute misbehaviour. As discussed in paragraph 14 above, the content of offence so expressed is much the same as what may now be understood as embraced by infamous offence. 21. It follows that the terms of section 72 dictate meaning for 'proved misbehaviour'. The fundamental principle of maintaining judicial independence is recognised by excluding all modes of removal other than for misbehaviour as a breach of condition of office. In matters not pertaining to office, the requirement is not conviction for offence in a court of law. Inasmuch as Parliament considers the matter, the question is whether there is proved offence against the general law 'of such a nature as to warrant the conclusion that the incumbent is unfit to exercise the office'. Parliament is not at large to define proved misbehaviour by reference to its own standards or views of suitability for office or moral or social character or conduct. The Parliamentary inquiry is whether commission of an offence of the requisite quality and seriousness is proved. Parliament would act beyond power if it sought to apply wider definition or criteria for misbehaviour than the recognised meaning of misbehaviour not pertaining to office. 22. Parliament has, of course, a residual discretion not to address for removal , even if proved misbehaviour is found. 23. Accordingly the question asked in paragraph 1 is answered- Misbehaviour is limited in meaning in section 72 of the Constitution to matters pertaining to- (1) judicial office, including non-attendance, neglect of or refusal to perform duties; and (2) the commission of an offence against the general law of such a quality as to indicate that the incumbent is unfit to exercise the office. Misbehaviour is defined as breach of condition to hold office during good behaviour. It is not limited to conviction in a court of law. A matter pertaining to office or a breach of the general law of the requisite seriousness in a matter not pertaining to office may be found by proof, in appropriate manner, to the Parliament in proceedings where the offender has been given proper notice and opportunity to defend himself. GAVAN GRIFFITH Solicitor-General Canberra 24th February 1984. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-proposed: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.20) —The Opposition is not satisfied with the statement which has just been presented to the Parliament by the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) in relation to the Age tapes. The Opposition believes that this matter, which the Government accepts is of great importance, should be the subject of full debate in this Parliament after there has been further and more adequate time to consider the statement and the opinions that are attached to it; although, of course, I acknowledge that we were given-and I thank the Attorney for having given-the usual notice in relation to them. However, it is a matter on which I propose at this stage simply to make a few general comments and seek leave to continue my remarks in an early debate, which I am hopeful can take place tomorrow. In the statement that he has just read the Attorney has attempted to defend the Government's actions by seriously questioning the authenticity of the material, and the motives and ethics behind its publication. However, it seems that the Attorney is totally confused on the question of authenticity. Obviously the material was authentic enough for the Government to decide to appoint a special prosecutor and to set up a joint police task force. Clearly the New South Wales Government, after initially attempting to denigrate the material, also felt there was enough substance in it-or there was certainly enough pressure being brought on the Government-to ask for a proper inquiry into the whole matter. The Attorney himself emphasised that fact from the word go. He was concerned not simply with investigating the illegality of the circumstances by which the material was obtained but with investigating the contents of the material. Obviously it was authentic enough for the Attorney himself to speak to the judge . Also it appears from the opinion of the Solicitor-General of New South Wales, and indeed from Mr Temby's opinion, that they believed that there was sufficient substance in it for further investigation. Senator Evans, in his joint statement of 17 February with the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), appeared basically to accept the authenticity of the tapes. Indeed, he raised the question of authenticity only in relation to the conduct of the judge. I must say that I was very surprised by the vehemence of the Attorney's attack on the Age newspaper. I do not believe that that attack is justified. The Attorney must be living in an unreal world if he believes that a newspaper which has a reputation for investigative journalism would be so trusting of the probity of government simply to hand over material to law enforcement authorities, some of whom were alleged to be involved in the matters raised, and trust in their determination to put things right. In the Opposition's view the Age handled this matter quite responsibly. It avoided publishing names of those involved and has passed the material only to the Federal Attorney-General. As the Age stated, after successive royal commission inquiries into matters involving the spread of organised crime in our community, it would have been acting against public interest if, after having satisfied itself as to authenticity, it had decided not to publish. That is a matter which it said it investigated. It obtained legal advice in relation to the matter before doing so . We do not believe that it is possible-or that it would be responsible-for this Parliament simply to dismiss the question of the conduct of the judge. The Attorney's discussion on that matter needs much further consideration. All we are told is that the judge specifically denied some matters of fact or-I quote from the statement-'gave explanations which put those allegations in a rather different context than that evident at first sight'. Certainly the Opposition believes that the sort of behaviour alleged in the published material, as I said when the Age first published the material, would be viewed with great concern by the overwhelming majority of the community. Although this perhaps needs further discussion and consideration, we do not accept at this stage the restricted view of misbehaviour as outlined in the opinion of the Solicitor-General. But certainly, if there is some constitutional problem about the meaning of misbehaviour or Parliament is restricted in what action it can take in that way, a responsible debate in the Parliament-I agree with the Attorney-General on this point-about the conduct of a judge is clearly within the responsibilities of this Parliament. To say, as the Attorney-General tried to say, that some great issues about separation of powers are involved is another attempt to divert this issue and to suppress proper public discussion of matters of such great importance. I also believe that the Government's handling of this matter leaves a great deal to be desired. Much more needs to be said and questioned about that aspect. But I place on record the concern that I have expressed about the appointment of Mr Temby in the dual role of Special Prosecutor, heading a very special police task force, and his new and most important role as Director of Public Prosecutions. This is a new position which was recently created to strengthen the prosecuting arm of the Commonwealth. Mr Temby has been appointed to take up that position on, I think, 5 March. It will involve an enormous task and will be a challenge in itself. The problem that we are discussing today is a separate and challenging problem which certainly demands the response of at least a special prosecutor, if not a greater response in the form of a royal commission or judicial inquiry. But it certainly requires the attention of a special prosecutor who can give special and sole attention to the enormous problem that is presented by this material. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Georges —No, leave is not granted. I wish to make a few comments. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. I understand that there is an arrangement that you will be given leave to make a statement if you so wish. Senator Georges —The matter is of grave importance and I believe it is my right to speak to the motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Leave is not granted-- Senator Chipp —If you give Senator Durack leave, then you can seek leave. Senator Georges —How can I? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges does not need to seek leave. He is on his feet and he may get the call now. Senator Georges —I cannot grant leave. When I have spoken I will seek leave to continue my remarks and that will leave the debate in the same position as it would have been had I granted leave. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —As a matter of fact it would not. If leave is not granted, Senator Durack is not entitled to speak again-- Senator Georges —But if I seek leave to continue my remarks the matter will be placed on the Notice Paper for debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, I think the simplest thing would be to adjourn the debate and give you leave-- Senator Georges —It is important that I make the statement which I wish to make right now, and I seek your call. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted for Senator Durack to continue his remarks. The debate is now continuing. I call Senator Georges. Senator Chipp —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I am sure Senator Georges does not mean to do this, but it is a breach of an arrangement. Would not the simplest thing be for Senator Durack to be given leave to continue his remarks and for Senator Georges then to seek leave to make a statement on the matter? He will get leave as far as we are concerned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is what I proposed to Senator Georges, but he did not accept that, and any single senator refusing leave does-- Senator Georges —Would you give me leave? Senator Chaney —Yes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is: That Senator Durack have leave to continue his remarks. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Debate adjourned. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-I think it is important for me to make a brief statement. I will be very brief, but it is necessary to put before the Senate some further information which I believe will assist. What has occurred must be of considerable concern to honourable senators. We are now engaged in a debate based on certain information, received in a certain way, on which I think we have raised questions before in this place. Some accusations have been made concerning contact with a judge. I believe all those accusations have been refuted in the statement of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). However , one point remains-that the judge may have been in contact and communication with a person of doubtful repute. However, although it may be the case that that person is now of doubtful repute that person may not have been of doubtful repute in 1979-80 when the conversations were supposed to have taken place. I point out that in 1982 the person concerned was of sufficiently good reputation to have been the subject of a representation by Sir Ernest Keith White. I draw the attention of the shadow Attorney-General (Senator Durack) to the fact that Sir Ernest Keith White by letter dated 21 June 1982 requested the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, to have Federal charges against a certain solicitor dropped and that Mr Fraser passed on the request to Senator Durack, as Attorney-General. In this regard my purposes are not scurrilous. I merely indicate to the Opposition the trap in which we are all falling. On that particular date, in all earnestness, Sir Ernest Keith White wrote to the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and Mr Fraser then made a representation to the Attorney- General. Sir Ernest Keith White is a very important person in the Liberal Party and in the community. He has held high positions in the Liberal Party. Senator Walters —Who is he? Senator GEORGES —He was a leading figure in the Liberal Party. He was a founder and president of the Liberal Party. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Where? Senator GEORGES —He was also founder and President of the Australian-American Association. Senator Walters —Who is he again? Are you sure it is not the Labor Party? Senator GEORGES —I will put the matter more clearly. I ask whether it is a fact that while Sir Ernest Keith White was a close friend of the solicitor concerned he was also a founder and leading figure of the Liberal Party? I am sorry, I may have said that he was a president of the Liberal Party which he was not, but he was a leading figure. I do not in any way denigrate Sir Ernest White. He was also President of the Australian-American Association. I do not denigrate him on that basis either. I am telling honourable senators the facts concerning the person who made a representation on behalf of the solicitor concerned. At that stage the solicitor was held in high repute. Is it also a fact that a similar request was made by the former Liberal member for Phillip, Mr Jack Birney, at about the same period? I say further that the request made of the former Attorney-General may have been a reasonable request on the basis of the information before the Prime Minister at the time. What followed then? Is it not a fact that after the intercession the major charge of forgery against the solicitor was dropped? We could start to stir that matter about. A major charge of forgery was dropped on the representation made by a person of considerable reputation in the community on behalf of another person whom he believed to be also of good reputation. What I am saying to honourable senators is that we have reached a stage now where the reputation of a judge has been impugned on the basis of a conversation with a solicitor in 1979 and that in 1982 members of the Liberal Party were making representations on his behalf to the Prime Minister who then made a representation to the Attorney-General and subsequently a major charge of forgery was dropped. That might have been the correct course of action to have taken. All I say is that the judge whose character has been impugned has been impugned mainly as a result of the conversations and the communications with this solicitor in 1979 who is now the subject of these great questions. Also we find that leading members of the Liberal Party were friendly with that person in 1982. Senator Walters —Who is he? Senator GEORGES —I will leave that to Senator Walters to find out. I am suggesting to certain members of the Opposition that they do not condemn people for their unwitting contact with people who may have criminal connections. For any person engaged in questionable activities in the community one method of insurance is to get close to leading politicians. It may be the turn of honourable senators opposite next. Some of their friends close to them may turn out to be quite different from what they first appeared. That is something Mr Dowd in New South Wales found to his cost and which other people have found to their cost. They have found suddenly that those friends whom they held in high repute were not what they appeared to be in the first place. That is exactly what has happened in this case. Before honourable senators go down the track making further charges and trying to establish guilt by association I ask them to be careful. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-On behalf of my Party I thank the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for the statement he has put down. I commend him for the clear and precise way in which in most of it he has established the situation as it is at the moment. I join with Senator Durack in saying that what I believe to be an otherwise sound statement was spoiled a little by the denigration of the Age newspaper over which the Attorney took so long and so many pages. I thought that the Age went to incredible trouble to keep anonymous the personalities allegedly involved. As I read the Age reports-I believe I read them as carefully as anyone-there was nothing to identify any of the people involved. Senator Georges —They were known around the coffee shops. Senator CHIPP —If, as Senator Georges interjects, the names of the people allegedly involved were known around coffee shops that certainly cannot be attributed to the Age newspaper. I remind Senator Evans in passing-because his criticism of the Age newspaper, while serious, was not a major part of his statement-that identical criticisms were made of the Washington Post in the early stages of its expose of Watergate. Other than that, I welcome the Attorney -General's statement and look forward to studying it in greater detail with a view to responding tomorrow when the debate, as I understand, will resume. I also refer to one matter the Attorney did not cover in his statement. It is not, I suppose, a major matter but it is a significant matter. On page 6 of Mr Temby' s opinion he says, among other things: Has [the Judge] acted injudiciously? He continues: On the material I have seen his conduct cannot be so categorised, unless it be established that he well knew that a man with whom he was having frequent dealings was of poor reputation. Senator Georges —That is right. That is why I raised the question. Senator CHIPP —That is the question that Senator Georges quite properly raised. Mr Temby goes on: [Judges] occupy lofty . . . positions. Quite often judges do not know the reputation of the people with whom they deal. On page 7 of the report Mr Temby states: It places a Judge in an invidious position if he has frequent dealings with any person of poor reputation. Presumably [the Judge] now realises this and will act more carefully in the future than he has done in the past. Mr Temby then made a rather novel suggestion, presumably to the Attorney: If there is doubt in this regard, it may be that he should be approached- that is, the judge should be approached- and advised as to the desirability of not further nurturing the relationship he has with [the Solicitor] if it presently remains on foot. The Attorney relies fairly heavily on Mr Temby. I think I am raising a fair point in asking why the Attorney did not follow that rather novel, quaint suggestion that Mr Temby put to him. Perhaps the Attorney will tell us that when he responds. Senator Gareth Evans —Maybe there was no doubt. Any approach was premised on there being a doubt. Senator CHIPP —I thank the Attorney for his interjection. In conclusion, the Australian Democrats accept the strictly legal interpretation offered by the two opinions that at this stage have been put down by the Attorney. We reserve final judgment until the report of the Australian Federal Police is available. We express the view that the investigations could be wider and could go beyond the narrow limits of the words on the tapes. I want to express very briefly some disquiet. I refer to the ambit of the investigation to be undertaken by Mr Temby 's supervision. To investigate with a view to a prosecution is a brief somewhat narrower, in fact a lot narrower, than I would have liked to have seen and may well constrain Mr Temby from following trails which may open up beyond the actual content of the tapes. The Attorney will agree in a flash that Mr Costigan was not bound by such constraints and that the investigations of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, in particular, were made more fruitful by its ability to follow such trails that Mr Temby is precluded from following. That is an aspect that does give me some disquiet and at the moment I merely express it. Further I must foreshadow, as I think is reasonable, that the Australian Democrats would request a wider judicial inquiry only if the Australian Federal Police report turns out to be a whitewash which, of course, all of us hope it will not be. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(5.44) —I seek leave to amend notice of motion No. 1. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —By way of explanation I briefly state that the purpose of these amendments is to avoid one of the problems associated with the sessional order dealing with the tabling of papers. In the past honourable senators have been unable to obtain advance copies of certain papers and reports prior to their tabling in this chamber. The amendment will provide honourable senators with the opportunity of having at least one hour more at their disposal in which they can peruse any paper they may have an interest in prior to its consideration. I move : 1. DAYS AND HOURS OF SITTING 1. That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and hours of sitting of the Senate from the first sitting in 1984 shall be as follows- (a) during the first sitting week- Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-7 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Friday, 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-4.15 p.m. (b) during the second sitting week- Monday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8.30 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-7 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. From the termination of the last sitting in the second week, the Senate shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on the third Tuesday after that termination, or on such day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable due to illness or other cause, by the Deputy- President, and that the day and/or hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each Senator and the 4-weekly cycle will then be repeated. (2) That the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day. 2. ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE That, at the terminating time each day, the President shall put the Question- That the Senate do now adjourn-which Question shall be open to debate; if the Senate be in Committee at that hour, the Chairman shall in like manner put the Question-That he do leave the Chair and report to the Senate; and upon such report being made the President shall forthwith put the Question-That the Senate do now adjourn-Which Question shall be open to debate: Provided that if the Senate or the Committee be in Division at the time named, the President or the Chairman shall not put the Question referred to till the result of such Division has been declared; and if the business under discussion shall not have been disposed of at such adjournment it shall appear on the Notice Paper for the next sitting day. 3. ROUTINE OF BUSINESS That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders and unless otherwise ordered, the Senate shall proceed with its ordinary business in the following routine: Week 1 Tuesday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Questions (4) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (5) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (6) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (7) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (8) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper Wednesday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) Consideration of Committee Reports, pursuant to Sessional Order (10) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Thursday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) General Business (10) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Friday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Week 2 Monday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Questions (4) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (5) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (6) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (7) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (8) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper Tuesday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Questions (4) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (5) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (6) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (7) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (8) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper Wednesday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) Consideration of Committee Reports, pursuant to Sessional Order (10) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Thursday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa , as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) General Business (10) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper 4. PROPOSALS PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 64 That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, on Fridays in week 1 and Thursdays in week 2 the discussion of any proposal submitted to the Senate pursuant to Standing Order 64 shall not exceed one hour. 5. GOVERNMENT AND GENERAL BUSINESS-PRECEDENCE That, on all sitting days of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, Government Busines shall take precedence of General Business, except that General Business shall take precedence of Government Business on Thursdays after Questions, any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 and consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order, until the expiration of two and one-half hours or until there is no futher debate; and that, unless otherwise ordered, General Business, Orders of the Day shall take precedence of General Business, Notices of Motion on alternate Thursdays. 6. CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNMENT PAPERS That, unless otherwise ordered, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders: (1) (a) On all sitting days of the Senate, after Notices, Papers may be presented by a Minister; such papers shall then be considered pursuant to this Sessional Order after Questions and any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64. (b) When Papers are called on by the President, pursuant to this Sessional Order, a motion may be moved, without notice, that the Senate take note of one, or several, of the Papers. (2) The debate on any motion moved pursuant to this Sessional Order shall be conducted as follows: (a) no Senator shall speak for more than 5 minutes; (b) if debate pursuant to this Sessional Order is not concluded it shall be interrupted after 30 minutes, and the Senate shall proceed to the consideration of the business of the Day; (c) if the debate is adjourned or interrupted by Sessional Order, a motion may be moved for the resumption of the debate either for the Thursday of that week at the time for the consideration of General Business, or for the next day of sitting; and (d) on Thursdays, at the commencement of General Business: (i) when an Order of the Day is called on under this Sessional Order, Senators who have previously spoken may speak again for 5 minutes. (ii) motions without notice may be moved to take note of Government Papers tabled during the current sitting week and in relation to which no such motion has previously been moved: Provided that debate under this Sessional Order be interrupted after one hour. (3) Where debates on motions moved under the provisions of this Sessional order are adjourned until the next day of sitting and are called on in the normal course of business, Senators who have spoken to the motions under the provisions of this Sessional Order may speak again for the time allowed under Standing Order 407A. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.45) —I indicate the Opposition's attitude to the notice of motion, a good deal of which the Opposition does not oppose, some of which it wishes to amend and one piece of which it does oppose. I think it would facilitate our consideration of this matter if we dealt separately with the different elements of the notice of motion-it is divided into six parts-pursuant to standing order 130. I mention that to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button); I do not know whether he has any objection. That would enable me to move the amendment to part one of the motion which, I think, has the agreement of the Government and the Australian Democrats; to move an amendment to the part 3 which is probably disputed by both the Government and the Democrats; to oppose part 4; to move an amendment if I am not successful in that opposition; and to support the Government on part 6 of the amendment that has just been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Mr Deputy President, I think you can direct this under standing order 130, but I would prefer it to be done with the agreement of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There can be a common debate, but I will put the questions separately on the various parts of the motion. Senator Harradine —Mr Deputy President- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine, did you wish to speak on that point? Senator Harradine —I have two amendments to move to the first part of the motion . The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I will call you before I put the question on that part of the motion. Senator CHANEY —Mr Deputy President, you have already accepted an amendment from the Leader of the Government in the Senate to part 6 of the motion. Do you want to deal with that now? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No, I will deal with part one only. I will leave part 6 until the end. Senator Harradine has an amendment to part one. Senator CHANEY —I move: At end of paragraph (1) of the proposed Sessional Order relating to the Days and Hours of Sitting, 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 or Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate 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 delivering 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 unavailable, 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 —The amendments comprise the standard form of words which have been used by all parties in this chamber since, I think, 1975 to ensure that a majority of honourable senators can recall the Senate. I ask for the support of the Senate on the basis that it has now been accepted for a very long time that the majority of honourable senators should be able to recall the Senate when it is not sitting. It has not been common to have it in place when the Senate is rising for only one week, but it is the view of the Opposition that when the Senate rises for a fortnight or, in the case of Easter, three weeks it is worth while. I would imagine that it is very unlikely that the provision would be used , but it could be. Amendment agreed to. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.49) —My amendments relate to two questions. One is the days on which we are requested to sit and the other is the time we finish on Thursday of the second week of sitting. I move my first amendment, which is: Proposed Sessional Order 1, relating to the Days and Hours of Sitting, on the Thursday of the second sitting week, leave out '6.30 p.m.', insert '4.30 p.m.'. My proposal would enable honourable senators from Tasmania, Queensland and South Australia to get back to their home bases on Thursday night if that is possible. I understand that the new sitting days are largely to meet the convenience of Western Australian senators. Senator Coleman —We still cannot get home if we knock off at 6.30 p.m. Senator HARRADINE —I am referring to the new sitting hours after we have sat on the Friday of the first week and we come back on the Monday. This arrangement is largely designed to meet the convenience of Western Australian senators who may wish to stay in Canberra during the weekend. I feel that the only honourable senators who will be able to get back to their home base under this particular provision will be senators from New South Wales. I put it to you, Mr Deputy President, that we will be away for two weeks of working days, apart from Friday afternoon of the second week. If we can get home on Thursday night then of course we can have the full day on Friday for constituency duties. As we have now agreed to sit through the luncheon break on Thursdays, having gained that time, I feel that it would be ideal to knock off at 4.30 p.m. on the last Thursday and so gain some further time in the electorate without much loss of time in parliament. I think that you, Mr Deputy President, and all honourable senators will appreciate the point I am making, particularly those honourable senators from Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania who, through my proposal, would be able to get home on Thursday nights. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(5.52) —The amendment is not acceptable to the Government. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.53) —Whilst I would have absolutely no doubt that any number of Opposition senators would love to get away at 4.30 p.m., or indeed at 2.30 p.m., on almost any afternoon to get back to their bases and deal with their constituents, the Opposition does not support the amendment moved by Senator Harradine. The reason for that is that we have had long discussions with the Government which is endeavouring to see if we can do in two sitting weeks what has in the past taken us three sitting weeks. This is an attempt to rationalise the hours. It is always possible to trim at both ends. I have just had it drawn to my attention that this proposal to simply carve a couple of hours off the end of the week would carve off in large part the General Business time of the Senate unless we further readjusted the program and reduced the time for Government Business. We do not think that we should do that at this stage but rather that we should see how these sitting hours work. There are plenty of sceptics in the place. I am one who hopes that the new sitting hours will work, perhaps because I am a Western Australian. The Opposition supports the Government in maintaining the sitting hours it has set out in part 1 of its motion until we have at least sucked it and seen. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.54) —For exactly the same reasons as Senator Chaney has explained, the Australian Democrats cannot support Senator Harradine. It is unfortunate that through no fault of his we had no notice of this amendment. I received it literally a couple of minutes ago. One cannot take these sorts of changes on the run. I take this opportunity, however, of saying that as far as I am concerned and, I think as far as my Party is concerned, if two hours are to be lopped off each of the two-week program we would far prefer to sit one night only and not two. I agreed with the proposals of the Government, which have been agreed to by the Liberal Party with grave disquiet. What we are setting ourselves in this program is an extraordinarily heavy schedule of two-week sittings. We have had some warnings of certain senators and staff being affected by the strain of these kinds of sittings. I believe that late night sittings, which are followed by having to get up early the next morning to attend committee meetings well before 9 o'clock put an intolerable strain on people. I agree to the Government's proposals with grave disquiet. Therefore, I regret that I cannot agree with Senator Harradine's suggestions. If two hours were to be lopped off, I would rather see them lopped off on one of the late nights so that we would have only one late night a week. Amendment negatived. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.55) —I move: At end of paragraph 1 of the proposed Sessional Order relating to the Days and Hours of Sitting, add: ': Provided that this Sessional Order does not have effect for Monday, 5 March 1984 and Monday, 7 May 1984'. I am sure that honourable senators will agree with this amendment. I am sure that being asked by the Government's proposal to sit on what is Labour Day in Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland must have been an oversight. I think that it is a disgraceful situation whereby the only public holiday that has been selected by the Government for us to sit on is the Labour Day holiday in Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland. So far as I am concerned, I have not worked on Labour Day since I was a shift worker. I do not intend to start now. I ask the Government to take this proposal back and have another look at it. I have the list of public holidays with me. An examination of that list shows that for the sitting period between now and the end of May, which this motion is designed to cover, the only public holiday on which the Government asks us to sit is Labour Day. I am not going to cop that. If honourable senators want to sit next Monday they can go ahead and sit next Monday, but do not let them expect to see me here. I hope that the Government will take this matter back to its Caucus to ensure that proper consideration is given to it. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(5.58) —The amendment is not acceptable to the Government. I say sincerely to Senator Harradine that we will miss him next Monday. But the fact of the matter is that if we were to rotate the public holidays in Australia, given all the public holidays that we have in various States, we would probably never sit on a Monday . Senator Harradine —No, there are only two Mondays. Senator BUTTON —No, that is not right. This chamber sits on a number of public holidays, including Anzac Day, I might say. I do not want to enter into any impassioned debate with Senator Harradine about this issue. I just say that we regret his personal view on the matter. I will certainly pass it on to the Government, but we do not agree to the amendment. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.59) —I do not think I am allowed to agree to this amendment. I think this is a good example of the trouble the Government is getting into. I suspect that only the formation of a solid centre left group in the Government will prevent this sort of thing occurring in the future. Amendment negatived. Proposed new sessional order 1, as amended, agreed to. Proposed new sessional order 2 agreed to. Proposed new sessional order 6-by leave-agreed to. Sessional order 3 (Routine of Business) Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.01) —I move: In proposed Sessional Order 3, Routine of Business, leave out the routine of business for Friday of Week 1 and Thursday of Week 2 and insert the following routines: Friday, Week 1 1. Petitions 2. Notices of Motion 3. Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business 4. Postponement and re-arrangement of Business 5. Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 6. Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper 7. At 2 p.m., Questions 8. Presentation of Government Papers and consideration pursuant to Sessional Order 9. Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Thursday, Week 2 1. Petitions 2. Notices of Motion 3. Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business 4. Postponement and re-arrangement of Business 5. Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 6. Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper 7. At 2 p.m., Questions 8. Presentation of Government Papers and consideration pursuant to Sessional Order 9. General Business 10. Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper The only change proposed is to bring forward in the order of business the time for dealing with proposals pursuant to standing order 64, that is, matters of public importance. The Opposition brings forward this amendment because it is opposed to changes in the sitting arrangements which reduce the opportunities which exist in this place for the Opposition to obtain a hearing. The Opposition has been consistent in taking this stance when the Government has raised questions about a possible reduction in the availability of Question Time, for example, and I acknowledge that the Government has agreed to the Opposition's point of view with respect to a number of these matters, on some of which we have also had the support of the Australian Democrats. Our concern is that the routine of business as it has been laid down by the Government would not permit debate for a full two hours. Only about one and a quarter hours would be available on the Friday, and a two hour debate of a matter of public importance on a Thursday would cut into the time allowed for General Business. The amendment which I have moved and which has a consequential amendment in that we would be opposing proposed sessional order 4, which restricts discussion on those days to one hour, is simply to preserve the traditional two hours provided for in the Standing Orders for matters of public importance. Any examination of the record of the sittings of the Senate since the Government assumed office would indicate that the Opposition has not sought to use the rights available to it for matters of public importance in any capricious way or in any way to use up the time available to it. I would not wish it to be thought by the Australian Democrats or by any other honourable senators that the Opposition, in moving this amendment, is taking the view that it would on each of those days of necessity want to debate a matter of public importance or debate it for a full two hours. Quite often the Opposition would not want to bring on a matter of public importance and on some occasions when it did it would be prepared to consider a debate for less than the full time. All we are saying is that in principle we do not believe that changes to the order of business should be made which reduce the opportunity for non-government senators to raise matters which they think are of significance. Of course, the use of those rights will vary according to the exigencies and issues of the day. I ask the Senate to support the amendment which has been circulated in my name. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(6.03) —The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment moved by Senator Chaney. Under the Government's proposal on every day there will be on the Notice Paper an opportunity for any proposal pursuant to standing order 64. The Government is concerned to provide some consistency in the program for each of the weeks in relation to when particular events occur so that Question Time will be at 2 o' clock each day and a matter of public importance, if there is one, will follow Question Time each day. We have also indicated to the Opposition that the time in which notice of a matter of public importance must be given should be the same each day so that all honourable senators understand where they are in relation to those matters. One of the reasons we have agreed to the time each day in respect of which notice of a matter of public importance must be given is simply to ensure that honourable senators do not come here at 7 o'clock in the morning, as we did for the seven years we were in Opposition, to put in a matter of public importance. That seems silly. We think that the procedure outlined in the Government's motion unamended by Senator Chaney's proposition, provides that degree of consistency each day. I do not want to deal with the suggested time limitation on a matter of public importance on the last day of the cycle because I think that can be more appropriately dealt with in a later amendment. That is the reason the Government has embarked on this course. We think it desirable that there be consistency every week. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Chaney's amendment) be left out . The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. 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. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. 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. Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Geitzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Richardson, G. F. Rae, PeterSibraa, K. W. Jessop, D. S. Coates, J. Durack, P. D. Question resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Sessional order agreed to. Sessional Order 4 (Proposals pursuant to standing order 64) Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.12) —Sessional order 4 is opposed for the reasons that I outlined earlier. It is the same argument that related to sessional order 3. The proposed sessional order 4 restricts the time available for a matter of public importance to one hour on the Friday of week one and on the Thursday of week two. For the reasons I have outlined, we believe that is a restriction which should not be imposed. Because I understand that the Australian Democrats will not support our amendment, I do not propose to call a division. Nevertheless, I wish to add some words, about which there is no dispute, about the time when notice is to be given of a proposed matter of public importance or urgency. I move: That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the written statement of the proposed matter of public importance or urgency shall be handed in to the President not later than 12.30 p .m. on each sitting day. This would bring us into general line with the practice in the other place, and I think it is fair to both the Opposition and the Government in terms of avoiding those early mornings that Senator Button mentioned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(6.14) —That seems a sensible suggestion. It provides consistency. We are happy with that. Amendment agreed to. Sessional order, as amended, agreed to. Sessional order 5 agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Dairy Industry-IAC Report 2. Polyvinyl Chloride Homopolymer (Anti-dumping)-IAC Report 3. Passenger and Light Commercial Vehicles-Substitution-IAC Report 4. Lawnmowers, Certain Engines and Parts-IAC Report 5. Copper and Certain Copper Products (Including Removal of Export Control) IAC Report 6. Fatty Acids and Certain Aliphatic Acids, their Salts and Esters; Glycerol; Tall Oil-IAC Report 7. Independent Schools (Loan Guarantee) Act 1969-Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 8 of the Independent Schools (Loan Guarantee) Act 1969 8. Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 32 of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Power Act 1949 9. Pilot Study Reports-Volumes 1 to 4-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs relating to the Report. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER RAE (Tasmania)-by leave-Mr President, I understand that some time will be made available on Thursday for General Business. I was hoping that these reports could be given some priority on Thursday to enable a discussion to take place about the general topic which is encompassed by all the reports. Senator Robertson —They will be the first items to be considered. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I present the final report of the Australian Branch Delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to the 29th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Kenya in October-November 1983. Honourable senators will recall that I presented the interim report of the delegation to the Senate on 8 December 1983. My remarks on the delegation's attendance at the Conference were made at that time. Assent to the following Bills reported: States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill 1983 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1983 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1983 Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill 1983 Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1983 Management and Investment Companies Bill 1983 Steel Industry Authority Bill 1983 Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Bill 1983 Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Bill 1983 Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill 1983 Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1983 Insurance Amendment Bill 1983 Radiocommunications Bill 1983 Radiocommunications (Frequency Reservation Certificate Tax) Bill 1983 Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Bill 1983 Radiocommunications Taxes Collection Bill 1983 Radiocommunications (Temporary Permit Tax) Bill 1983 Radiocommunications (Test Permit Tax) Bill 1983 Radiocommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Bill 1983 Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 1983 Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Australian National Railways Commission Bill 1983 Australian National Railways Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 Inter-State Commission Amendment Bill 1983 Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1983 Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Prices Surveillance Bill 1983 Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Amendment Bill 1983 Postal and Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1983 Debate resumed from 7 December 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.07) —The Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Bill is a further development of legislation which was designed to protect Australian trading interests from the extraterritorial application of foreign laws. In particular the problem has arisen from courts in the United States of America seeking in private lawsuits to apply US anti-trust laws to Australian corporations in relation to those companies' operations outside the United States. In 1982 an anti-trust co-operation agreement was signed between the Australian and the United States governments which provided for negotiations to take place at an intergovernmental level to solve conflicts arising from the extraterritorial application of United States laws. In general both parties have subsequently abided by the spirit and letter of the agreement and apparently the agreement is working quite well. However, it must be conceded, as I did when, as Attorney-General, I signed the agreement on behalf of the Australian Government, that it would not be fully effective as a shield against private anti-trust suits. The Bill consolidates and extends existing Australian legislation to provide a comprehensive range of defences to enable the Government to protect Australian interests against extraterritorial enforcement of foreign laws. I do not propose to deal in detail with the Bill; suffice to say that incorporated in it are refined provisions of the existing Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act which was passed by this Parliament in 1976 and which, an order of the Attorney-General, prohibits the production of documents located in Australia and the giving of evidence in foreign proceedings in circumstances covered by the order of the Attorney-General where it is thought to be in the national interest or the interest of international comity, or where it would be in breach of international law for the foreign court to exercise a jurisdiction of an extraterritorial kind. The Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act 1979 is also incorporated in the Bill. It provides for the blocking in Australia of foreign judgments which are also prohibited, on order by the Attorney-General, in the circumstances that I have already mentioned in relation to the giving of evidence. These two Acts passed by this Parliament in those years were fairly major developments in providing a shield for Australian companies which were likely to be affected by proceedings of this kind. The first Act was introduced with some haste. I think it is desirable that it be looked at again. The provisions which have been included in this legislation have been updated and refined in that way. I think they are useful additions. As I have said, this Bill purports to be a code in relation to the subject. It incorporates the restriction enforcement of judgments legislation. I think it should be said that, as a general rule, judgments of foreign courts are and should be enforceable in Australia. It is important for a nation such as Australia, in respect of our trading interests, comity of our laws with other countries, and our commercial operations, that we should give effect to and expect other countries with similar interests to give effect to the judgments of our courts. This legislation certainly qualifies that rule in regard to foreign anti-trust proceedings. I believe that is justified only because of the exceptional threat of those proceedings to Australian interests. It is important to emphasise that, by and large, this is an exception and ought to be an exception to that rule of comity. A development of existing law contained in this Bill relates to the recovery back of moneys paid under a judgment, or that portion of a foreign judgment, which has been declared to be unenforceable in Australia under the provisions to which I have just referred. This is a rather unique provision which has developed from English legislation known as the Protection of Trading Interests Act. The United Kingdom Parliament passed this legislation several years ago as part of its defence mechanism to cope with the same problem that we face in Australia. Of course the problem is not one which is experienced only by Australia; it is a problem which greatly and gravely affects a number of our trading partners, particularly the United Kingdon, Canada and countries in western Europe, because American laws apply extraterritorially in those countries. It affects the trading interests of those countries in the same way as it may affect Australian interests. The United Kingdom took the further step of providing not only for the blocking of a judgment, that is, declaring unenforceable a judgment of a foreign court-as I have said this concerned principally courts in the United States of America-but also it made provision for a United Kingdom citizen who had such a judgment enforced against him in the United States or in some other country to recover back, against assets situated in the United Kingdom, that portion of the judgment which was declared unenforceable. This was a development of the shield against the problem of the extraterritorial enforcement of United States laws, a problem at which we looked very closely when we were in government. In fact in 1981 I introduced a Bill to achieve the same purpose as this Bill. However, we were also concerned in government to enter into an agreement with the United States to ameliorate the problem as far as we were concerned. Other countries have since followed suit in trying to achieve such agreement with the United States. As I have said, that agreement was entered into at the end of June 1982. Having entered into that agreement we decided not to proceed with that Bill. Although I told the United States Attorney-General who signed the agreement on behalf of the United States that we would not proceed with that Bill, I made it clear that we would still keep it in place in case the agreement proved-these are the general terms and honourable senators should not hold me to the exact words-to be less effective or successful than we had hoped. Certainly there was never any suggestion that we would withdraw our existing blocking legislation. It was made clear that it may well be necessary, if circumstances occurred, for us to proceed and put in place this further part of the armoury, so to speak. This Bill goes two steps further than that. It adopts another provision of the United Kingdom legislation which will enable the Attorney-General to make an order prohibiting the performance of an obligation in Australia which has been imposed by a foreign government under a foreign law relating to trade or commerce where the Attorney-General has specified that it is necessary to do so to protect the Australian national interest. It is a very broad power indeed. It is one which I think is somewhat questionable. Certainly it is a rather questionable power to be exercised by the Attorney-General. I would have thought it would be very much more a matter for a Minister concerned with trade rather than a Minister concerned with the enforcement of judgments. In the United Kingdom all these powers are exercised by the Secretary of State for trade and not by the Attorney-General. However, the mischief which this provision was designed to correct in the United Kingdom, which may certainly apply in Australia, is due to the fact that there are a number of other foreign laws. Again, unfortunately, the main example we refer to is the United States example where orders are made under Acts which prohibit extraterritorially another country from taking certain actions which are seen to be or are contrary to the interests of the country making the order. This is a very gross violation of international comity. It is a very gross example of extraterritorial law and it has given nations in Western Europe very great problems. A classic example is orders which were made under the United States export administration Act in regard to companies in Western Europe which were providing work, materials and capital equipment for the building of the Siberian pipeline. That is the sort of example where these laws apply. Although Australia has not been affected directly by orders of that kind-an Australian company was indirectly affected by those orders-I suppose one must always concede that that is a possible problem. Another clause in the Bill allows the Attorney-General to make orders based on national interest grounds which prohibit the enforcement of court orders and judgments which are not for money amounts in Australia. I think that is designed to deal with a situation which was of some concern a few years ago to us in this country when proceedings were brought in a United States court. These proceedings were designed to prevent American companies from entering into resource development agreements in Western Australia in the exploitation of some forest areas. That certainly was a different example of the extraterritorial problem. This particular clause would meet a judgment. In that case the proceedings were dismissed in the United States and no problem arose, but it certainly is another possible problem. From what I have said, it is clear that this Bill implements and carries forward policies that were developed when the Opposition was in government. The object was to protect Australian interests against the successive jurisdiction claimed primarily by United States courts and possibly United States government agencies. They arise particularly under anti-trust laws. The private suits that are commonly brought under these laws enable treble damages to be given and could be ruinous of even large Australian companies. This is a problem which is not, by any means, confined to Australia, but is of considerable concern to many of our trading partners and Western allies. Over the years we have developed very good relationships with other countries which are affected in this way. Certainly when I was in government I had many discussions-I think Australian foreign Ministers and other Ministers concerned in the trading areas also had discussions- with our counterparts in these countries with the object of putting up a united front of resistance to the extraterritorial application of these laws. Our legislation and this proposed legislation would be part of a wide spread defence mechanism which was pursued in various degrees of strength by these countries. It was our policy, and it is the present Government's policy in carrying forward that policy, to encourage this multilateral response to the problem. At the same time we endeavoured to develop modifications of the United States policy in relation to Australia. Our particular self-interest dictated that we should endeavour to reach agreement with the United States to modify, as far as possible on a government-to-government level, the application of its laws. The United States Government cannot dictate what private litigants do in courts, but the United States Government has a very big enforcement arm of anti-trust laws in the Department of Justice. In this agreement we were primarily concerned to reach a means of consultation and negotiation on a government-to-government level in relation to possible enforcement by the Department of Justice. However, another important aspect of the agreement was the obligation the United States Government undertook. If we were to persuade the United States Government that its law should not be enforced against Australian interests it would intervene in a private suit and put the argument to the court that the enforcement of that law, even in a private suit, would be contrary to comity and good relations between the two countries in the hope that the court might be moved to dismiss the suit. That would be a very valuable addition but of course the United States Government's views will not be binding on the court. That is the one major deficiency in the existing agreement. I believe that there is justification for these further steps being taken. I reiterate the view we took in government. Having entered into this agreement we felt, with our existing blocking legislation and with the agreement, that we had a number of valuable tools at our disposal to cope with this threat and that it was not justifiable to proceed with these further defence mechanisms which are provided in the legislation. However, the present Government has taken a different view. It says that the United States Government will understand the need for this legislation in the manner in which it is being taken. I hope the present Government is right in that assumption. I hope that adequate discussions and explanations have taken place with the United States and that it will understand the need for this legislation. I am sure it will not accept the legislation with equanimity because such blocking legislation is very serious. However, it is also very important that the countries of the Western world which are so affected by these laws should make their concerns not only known but also should make them effective. Effective defences should be raised against these economic effects which apply in the extraterritorial application the laws will have. I think this is the only way, in the long term apart from constant protests and constant complaints about these matters when they do arise, and they are certainly made and orchestrated pretty strongly. Another part of the defence is legislation of this kind. Similar legislation has been passed in the United Kingdom and other aspects of this blocking legislation has been passed in other countries. In the long run we hope that in these ways the American legislators or courts will be persuaded that they should not keep on foot laws of these kinds. I think that will take a long process of persuasion. Although there are some indications that expert opinion in the United States appreciates these matters, nevertheless there is a very strong commitment in the United States, reflected in Congress, towards their anti-trust laws, not only the domestic application but also the foreign application. I believe it will be a long process. I believe it is important that we maintain a bipartisan approach to the problem in this country. I believe it is important for us to maintain the strong mutual relationships and defences that have been built up with countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and others over recent years. I know that this legislation will be welcomed, particularly in the United Kingdom because of the reciprocity that is available there under its legislation and will be available under this legislation, if it is passed by this Parliament . I believe that this legislation goes further, particularly in relation to the general orders that can be made prohibiting the performance of obligations under executive orders made by foreign governments and to some extent it may be premature to proceed with the recovery back aspects of the legislation. Although I have those reservations, I think that the more important aspect of this matter is to maintain the common front, both domestically and internationally, in relation to this problem and to maintain the pressure against extraterritorial application, particularly of the American anti-trust laws. By a process of that kind and of complaint-and, dare I say, even education by taking opportunities of various forums that arise in the United States-we may be able to put our point of view and will, in the long run, obtain a modification of these offensive extraterritorial laws. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(8.31) —I rise in support of the Foreign Proceedings ( Excess of Jurisdiction) Bill 1983. I acknowledge the contribution by the shadow Attorney-General (Senator Durack) who indicated that the Opposition would, with some reluctance as to the timing of the legislation being introduced in this chamber, support it as part of the erection of a common front, the maintaining of the shield with various other trading partners of the United States, and also the maintaining of a common front domestically so that the United States Government may know that the Bill enjoys bipartisan support. Indeed, I think much of the rationale underlying the introduction of this legislation, which is reactive and which responds to a situation forced on us by the purported extraterritorial application of United States laws, is shared throughout this chamber and by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which brought down a report on the extraterritorial application of United States laws late last year. There is a question as to its timing, and I am sure that this will be the subject of contributions by other speakers this evening. The Senate has been reminded by Senator Durack that the legislation tries comprehensively to deal with a couple of situations which have arisen in recent times. The first instance arises when the United States, through one of its agencies or a private citizen within the United States, applies anti-trust legislation to the activities of non-nationals, even when that activity occurs in foreign states-in other words, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States-so long as there is some substantial impact on the United States economy. The United States courts take the view that they can subject that non- national to their jurisdiction if they can physically find that non-national either within the United States or elsewhere. The most notorious example of this procedure has been thrust upon our attention over the last several years in relation to the Westinghouse case when, of course , that procedure was attempted. In relation to the activities of several Australian corporations it was alleged a cartel had been entered into in order to maintain and set an artificially high price for uranium with direct effect outside the United States, but with a claimed effect within the United States. Westinghouse entered the United States courts with a view to getting treble damages suits enforced against those Australian companies. In the end the four Australian defendant companies had to settle out of court at a cost of $11m. Of course, one of the techniques employed by those who manipulate the anti-trust laws within the United States is that they bring forward actions for treble damages, which are clearly so potentially ruinous to the defendants that they settle out of court, whatever the merits of the case, because the fact is that costs cannot be recovered even in a case in which the plaintiff's suit falls to the ground. Rather than face hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars in court costs, defendants prefer to settle out of court at an early stage. That is a fairly notorious example of which everyone is aware. A more recent example was the purported extraterritorial application of presidential orders issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979 and its regulations. It will be recalled that under this process the legislation asserted jurisdiction over any foreign subsidiary or affiliate of a United States company abroad which was controlled by a company within the United States . The controlling interest could be as little as 10 per cent or 15 per cent of the shares in that particular company. Of course, over the last couple of years an attempt was made by the United States to achieve a foreign policy objective in relation to the Siberian pipeline to try to prevent its early construction. In that instance, whilst imposing certain sanctions against the Soviet Union, those regulations were invoked and orders were made to embargo the export or re- export of equipment containing United States manufactured components for use in the Soviet-European gas pipelines. This embargo included the export of equipment made outside the United States under United States licences or by overseas subsidiaries of United States companies. This action had a quite unexpected effect in Australia when Santos Ltd, which had contracted with Dresser France to obtain certain gas compressors, found that as the United States presidential ban prohibited United States companies from providing energy-related technology, goods or information to European companies, Dresser France could not fulfil that contract to Santos and Santos had to go elsewhere for the particular equipment to get the compressors it needed. As Senator Durack said, these matters have the potential for quite ruinous treble damages judgments to be entered against Australian companies by the extraterritorial impact of United States anti-trust legislation, most usually in suits brought by private litigants who cannot be controlled by the United States Government, or by the more direct use of the presidential orders under the Export Administration Act regulations which are designed quite clearly and openly to further foreign policy concerns of the United States Government. In both instances very serious questions arise as to the need to preserve Australian sovereignty in its international relations. That applies not only to the more blatant instances but also, of course, to the Australian Government's policy of having orderly marketing schemes, particularly for the sale of our primary products overseas. In relation to these matters Australia must be in a position to protect itself, its citizens, its corporations and their employees, and its general sovereign policy, from the jurisdiction of United States courts. This legislation has been brought forward because of those concerns. I had intended to outline the more salient points of that legislation. But I noticed that Senator Durack felt that the second reading speech sufficiently outlined those matters. Perhaps I could rest on the same approach. I did note with interest his comment that the Minister involved in the making of orders and the exercising of discretions under the equivalent United Kingdom legislation is in fact the Minister of State for Trade. Whilst it is true that we have followed the pattern set by Senator Durack's earlier legislation where the Attorney- General was vested with this power, I think it might bear some examination for the future to see whether the powers to make these various orders are most properly or conveniently vested in the Attorney-General. The fact is that we have here an underlying jurisdictional threat to Australian sovereignty and to our various export and trading policies. Certainly there has been no significant change in the United States anti-trust laws. I believe that we are right to bring such legislation forward. I use a fairly neutral phrase there-'bring such legislation forward'-because, like Senator Durack and some members of the Opposition, I had misgivings about translating this Bill into law . The reason I entertained those misgivings as to the timing was that there has been some evidence of a changing pattern of judicial pronouncements within the United States. In fact, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence recognised this development of judicial doctrine within the U.S. It referred to a US Court of Appeals decision in the Timberlane Lumber Co. case and a US Court of Appeals decision for the Third Circuit in the Mannington Mills case-courts of some status in the hierarchy. In the Timberland case it was stated by the Court that it would take into account these matters: (a) Does the alleged restraint effect, or was it intended to effect, the foreign commerce of the United States? (b) Is the alleged restraint of such a type of magnitude so as to be cognisable as a violation of United States anti-trust laws? And, most importantly for our purposes: (c) As a matter of international comity and fairness, should the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States be asserted to cover it? Honourable senators may well argue that it is not really for a judge or a court to make that sort of decision as to the bounds of international comity and fairness and the extent to which the jurisdiction of the court ought to be pushed. Senator Peter Rae —I imagine, Senator, you would be fairly conscious of what the extraterritoriality claim in relation to this sort of thing very nearly did to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with the gas pipeline. So it does have its very great dangers. Senator TATE —Yes. I take it that Senator Rae's intervening at this point to say that they are matters of such moment and such consequence that to vest decisions as to whether the matter should be pressed in a judge or a bench of non-elected judges has its dangers. Senator Peter Rae —It has its dangers unless there is very full evidence available as to what all those other consequences may be. Senator TATE —That is right. It will be difficult to put those matters before a court. Indeed, however fully they are put before a court, the objection will remain that it is a non-elected bench and it ought not be making decisions of that character. Nevertheless, I mention that particular case and the Mannington Mills case which followed, which laid down some 10 criteria for the US courts to consider when the question of extraterritorial enforcement of one of its judgments arises. The sixth point was the 'Possible effect upon foreign relations if the court exercises jurisdiction and grants relief'. Those criteria have not yet found universal acceptance within the United States judicial system . Nevertheless, there was a movement there which gave rise to some thought that perhaps we ought to stand back and watch that and encourage its development over the next several years rather than come in with legislation at this point. The second cause for not being so sure of the timing was that an agreement of a very single, special and extraordinary kind has been entered into between the Australian Government and the United States Government. I believe it is the envy of the other trading partners of the United States. Honourable senators will recall that, in brief, the agreement contains: A provision requiring the United States to give Australia prompt and detailed notification of any United States Department of Justice or Federal Trade Commission anti-trust investigation that might have implications for Australia's national interest; a provision providing an option for Australia to notify the United States of any Australian policy which might have implications for United States anti-trust laws; and a provision that, after such notification either party may seek consultations and that conflicts are to be resolved with due regard to each other's sovereignty and to considerations of comity. Very clearly, in relation to matters which are instigated or initiated by United States Government agencies, there is good provision for consultation and modification of a stance that may have been taken up in the United States courts . But in relation to private action there is still a great difficulty. It is recognised in the agreement that the United States Government would intervene in private anti-trust actions to inform the court of the substance and outcome of consultations where the matter before the court includes activity which has been the subject of notification and consultation under the agreement. That is a mere intervening obligation cast upon the United States Government to come into a court where private litigants have instigated anti-trust actions and the court may or may not take into account the criteria I have outlined from the Timberlane and Mannington Mills cases. In any case, the weight to be given by the court to the various considerations of international comity is something that is quite unpredictable and still therefore leaves Australian corporations in the jeopardy that they may face a treble damages decision. The view of the Joint Committee was, as I recall, that that agreement was a very significant step towards resolving an issue which had been a major irritant in relations between the two countries over a number of years. Nevertheless, the Committee concluded that, whilst this provided a good framework and certainly a token of good faith on both sides, there needed to be this further element of legislation brought forward. I believe that we are right to do so. It ought to be noted for the record that during discussions at the time of drawing up the Joint Committee report, which were always aimed at getting a consensus report, as I recall it, was put forward that the significance of the agreement could be acknowledged and we should have some sort of phrase in the report to the effect that the legislation be introduced and allowed to lay on the table without actually being processed through the Parliament but that, nevertheless, it would bring the legislation up out of the dungeons or the bowels of the department and lay it for public exposure and comment-that every official within the relevant United States agencies and the lawyers in the major United States corporations would know or suspect that such legislation was in preparation and it was a question of laying it out for public view and then bringing it into play if it were required. That compromise formula, as I recall it, was not accepted on the Committee. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the Committee was in the terms that 'The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General introduce legislation into the Parliament' to carry out that which it does carry out. In relation to that I am sufficiently persuaded by the argument of the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) in his second reading speech, where he stated: . . . it is better to introduce protective legislation now, during a period of improved relations, than to leave it until some crisis arrives, and so heighten what would be at that time a public perception of conflict between our two countries. I think that argument has merit. I think the Senate is right to accede to it, as I believe the shadow Attorney-General has indicated will be done by the Opposition. The argument has sufficient force to persuade me to support the timing of the introduction and passage of this legislation. I support the Bill because of the need to overcome a potentially ruinous application of the United States courts' jurisdiction within Australia upon our corporations trading within Australia and overseas on the basis of policies which have been formulated by democratic processes under our government. As Senator Rae quite rightly pointed out, there are major foreign policy implications. I may have mentioned the Santos case before Senator Rae came into the chamber. The matter that the honourable senator alluded to had an unexpected impact in relation to gas pipelines in Australia. Senator Peter Rae —An extraordinary ramification, but a very real one. Senator TATE —That is right. We need to have as many shields as possible-I adopt the language of Senator Durack-in our arsenal, if one can have defensive equipment in an arsenal, and for that reason I believe this legislation ought to be passed into law and should be supported by the Senate. Senator HILL(South Australia)(8.51) —The Senate is debating the Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Bill 1983. I very much regret that this legislation is before the Senate at this time. I remind the Senate that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), in his second reading speech, stated: It is the Government's firm belief that jurisdictional conflicts between the laws and policies of sovereign governments should be resolved if at all possible by consultation and not by unilateral legal or executive action. But here jurisdictional conflict is attempted to be resolved by unilateral legislative action. He also stated: . . . the Government reaffirms Australia's commitment to the consultative approach of the Antitrust Co-operation Agreement between Australia and the United States. This is not evidence of the consultative process in action. Rather this Bill is of a confrontationist nature. Furthermore, in current circumstances it is unnecessary confrontation. There is no evidence of current need and certainly no evidence has been given in the Minister's speech. To make matters worse, it is destructive of the consultative process. The consultative process, which went as far up as heads of state, was the path chosen by the previous Government to avoid the need for confrontationalist legislation such as this. I remind the Senate that former Prime Minister Fraser and President Reagan met to discuss an alternative course and through them, and in due course their Attorneys-General, an agreement was reached. The action of the previous Government led to what is accepted as a unique agreement between Australia and the United States. It is a bilateral agreement which goes beyond that which had been previously negotiated between the United States and such countries as Canada and West Germany. I referred to the unique nature of the agreement in a speech I gave on this subject in the Senate on 2 December last year. It is based on the understanding and belief that the consultative process was the better way of resolving these difficulties, a better way than legislation which would only further inflame what has been at times a difficult trading relationship. Both parties-Australia and the United States-saw that as the better way to go. Clawback legislation, recovery-back legislation or what ever one calls it, is not helpful in industrial relations. The United States experience with the United Kingdom did not enhance the type of relationship we should all be seeking between friends and allies. I remind the Senate of the language that was used in the report from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the extraterritorial application of United States laws. It adopted language that was put to it that there was lengthy and acrimonious confrontation between the United States and the United Kingdom following the implementation of the United Kingdom law. The previous government was of a view that that was not the way to go if there was a better alternative. The United States also had learnt by its experience and had negotiated with Australia with what I think can be fairly described as a new attitude. Australia on its part made it clear that if the consultative agreement could be made to work it was preferable to legislation. It is clear-I think this is the critical point in this debate-that an understanding was reached that we would go further and legislate on recovery-back only if the agreement failed. Tonight we heard the former Attorney-General remind the Senate that the recovery -back legislation was before the Senate for a long period but it was not enacted because of the understanding that had been reached with the United States that it would be enacted only if bilateral agreement failed. I remind the Senate of Senator Durack's Press release of 29 June 1983 in which he stated: On behalf of the then Australian Government I assured the United States Government that we would not proceed with any further blocking legislation unless the Agreement proved less successful than we hoped. As I have said, there is no evidence that the agreement has failed. There is no evidence in the Minister's second reading speech that the agreement has failed. The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, also stated: When the Labor Government came into office in March this year, the general climate between Australia and the United States in relation to the extraterritorial enforcement of U.S. antitrust laws had improved significantly in no small measure due to the fact that both countries were trying to abide by the spirit and the letter of the Agreement. The Australian Government is reneging on the deal that was made. It is putting at risk the good faith that has developed. It is waving the legislative big stick at the United States in a provocative way when it acknowledges that both parties were, I repeat, trying to abide by the spirit and letter of the agreement. It is acknowledging that it does not have faith in the consultative solution. Its potential destruction of the good faith that has been built up through that agreement is something that I very much regret. I am not saying that the Westinghouse case was not an unsatisfactory affair and I am not condoning the international grasp of United States anti-trust law which I think is, on occasions, contrary to international law and international comity. I am not critical of the enactment of, first, the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976 or, secondly, the Foreign Antitrust Judgments ( Restriction of Enforcement) Act of 1979 which, in the heat of the Westinghouse case, were necessary. It was a time of bad experiences and the Government had a responsibility to protect Australian interests. But the question that we then had to face was where should the Government go along the road of resolving these international trading difficulties. Should the Government introduce further legislation-I acknowledge, and I am sure the Attorney-General would acknowledge, that no legislation in this field can be totally protective- or should it seek a better alternative to develop machinery whereby these difficulties might be overcome by a consulative process in good faith? To its credit, the previous Government chose the latter path. The agreement reached, as I indicated, goes further than any previous agreement and is, I believe, to the great credit and achievement of Senator Durack. The scope and functions of that agreement are well set out in the explanatory memorandum. I say in passing that the explanatory memorandum is comprehensive, helpful and to be commended. I remind the Senate of paragraph 42 of that memorandum which states: The Agreement does not attempt to provide a comprehensive panacea to cure all problems which might arise from the extraterritorial enforcement of antitrust laws. Rather, it is a framework for conflict resolution, in which two nations, respecting and understanding each other's differing positions on important issues have committed themselves to consultations and related conduct that will enable potential conflicts to be faced squarely at the earliest possible time, and to be resolved in a spirit of accommodation and compromise, according to the principles of comity and equality of sovereignty. If one goes to the terms of the agreement itself-I just briefly touch upon the premise to the agreement-the language is of the same style: The Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America; Recognising that conflicts have arisen between the interests reflected in the United States anti-trust laws and policies and those reflected in Australian laws and policies, and that such conflicts may arise in the future; Recognising the need for such conflicts to be resolved with mutual respect for each other's sovereignty and with due regard for considerations of comity; Considering that intergovernmental consultations may facilitate the resolution of such conflicts; Desiring to establish an appropriate bilateral framework for conducting consultations; and Considering that in, the absence of conflicts, co-operation between the Governments of Australia and the United States is desirable in the enforcement of anti-trust laws, Have agreed as follows-- So continues the agreement that was reached. I think that one has only to consider those words to realise the moment of the agreement that was, in fact, reached. Also, if one looks at the words of the then United States Attorney- General, one sees further evidence of that good faith and the early development of what I think can be described as a new and commendable United States attitude in this field. I remind the Senate of his words at the time, which appear in the report I mentioned. The Attorney said: While neither of our countries has sacrificed any part of its sovereignty or rights under international law by this agreement, we have agreed upon an excellent mechanism for channelling and containing potential differences. The United States will work diligently to ensure the usefulness of that mechanism to both nations. I repeat: The United States will work diligently to ensure the usefulness of that mechanism to both nations. The Labor Government is putting all of this at risk by this Bill. Why? One can surmise only that a new Attorney-General hungry for legislative achievement, a Prime Minister perhaps too busy at sporting contests, a Caucus always gleefully ready to embrace any attempt to kick the Americans, fail to appreciate the consequences of their actions. The Attorney-General said that he went to the United States and satisfied himself that America would not be too concerned by such legislation. I invite him to produce one statement from an American official that expressed that view. It is illogical in view of the existence of the agreement to which I have referred and the statements made by the then American Attorney-General which I have quoted. We then get the argument that now is the right time. The Attorney- General said: . . . in the light of this much improved relationship between the two countries . In other words, we can slap the American face now because we are getting on better. The Attorney-General in his second reading speech, said: . . . it is better to introduce protective legislation now, during a period of improved relations, than to leave it until some crisis arrives-- What a disappointingly negative approach, an approach that dismisses the agreement and the good faith upon which it is based, that dismisses the consultative process. The Attorney-General, in his speech, places great emphasis on the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Not surprisingly he fails to mention that a third of the members of that Committee, after taking into account those who were away, strongly dissented, believing that to legislate in these terms, whilst the agreement was being given an opportunity to work, was not in Australia's best interests. I remind the Senate that apart from myself, members of the Committee included Mr Coleman who is, I think, highly regarded by all in the area of international affairs; Mr Shipton, the former Chairman of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee of this Parliament; Mr Lusher, who was the Chairman of the Sub -Committee inquiring into the Pacific Basin which took upon itself this reference and who had to chair the first half of that Sub-Committee's reference before the last election; the Hon. Ray Groom, and you, Mr Acting Deputy President. These members were all of the view that to legislate at this time in these terms was unwise. I would have thought that to be fair, when the Attorney- General was laying great emphasis in his speech upon the decisions and recommendations of the Joint Committee, he would have made some reference to the fact that about a third of the members of that Committee held a totally different view. I wish to look very briefly at the other of the Attorney-General's arguments. He says that one reason we should proceed in this way is that no significant change in United States domestic anti-trust laws is occurring; whereas I think anyone who has done work in this field would concede that Congress is particularly stubborn in this area and that his statement is technically correct . I draw the attention of those who are interested to chapter 6 of the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which looks at all sorts of new pressures that are being brought to bear by the American Bar Association, by the Justice Department, by the State Department, by the American Chamber of Commerce in Australia and other American chambers of commerce throughout the region and to a number of supportive speeches that are starting to occur, in fact, within the Congress. There is evidence of a slowly changing-but changing- attitude. Whether that is to continue whilst governments such as ours unnecessarily decide to enact provocative legislation is questionable. Secondly, the Attorney-General says that the agreement will not resolve problems of private treble damages. I say that whilst there is no absolute answer to that, article 6 of the agreement provides a process which allows the American Government to become involved and which requires consultation between governments and for the American Government to put the result of such consultations to the court. Under the Timberlane principle it is likely, I believe, to be taken into account. But the trouble is that we will never know whether the agreement would have satisfactorily worked because this Government has decided that there are better courses to take by provocative legislation. Thirdly, the Attorney says that the agreement will not overcome trade problems that might arise incidentally after the use by the United States of its Export Administration Act to implement foreign policy decisions. That point has been mentioned by others tonight. Again, the way the Government proposes to act is not the way to resolve such difficulties. When one envisages particular examples it is difficult to see how it would work. I for one cannot see how it could have helped the Santos case, which I noticed was not mentioned by the Attorney- General in his speech. That is the case usually cited as the type of problem that could be overcome by such legislation. The fact is that we cannot effectively legislate out of these problems. Their solution depends upon good relations and good faith. It is a choice of the way in which to operate when in government-whether we are prepared to stand by foreign relations undertakings given by a previous government or whether we favour the consultative process over that of the implied threat. It is clear that the former Government preferred the consultative process and gave the opportunity for a new leadership between friends in what has been a difficult area. It is clear that this Government prefers the alternative of an implied threat. It talks about its comprehensive arsenal of defences, terms which might be used more appropriately in a policy on war or defence. The present Opposition is still anxious to remain constructive and will not formally oppose the Bill. To divide would be to accentuate the differences, and that is still not seen by us as in Australia's best interest. This is not the way we would have gone had we remained in government. In summary, the decision the Government has made, I believe, reflects poorly upon Australia and its good foreign relations and has led to a situation which I regret. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(9.12) —The Australian Financial Review reported on 15 September 1978 the comments of Mr A. H. Page, then, I understand, a senior officer with the Department of National Resources. Amongst the comments he made was this sentence: The philosophy underlying US anti-trust law is not necessarily in Australia's national interest in regard to export of our natural resources. Nor apparently was it considered to be in the interests of certain other countries, as the Australian Trade Practices Reporter mentioned several years later in an article under the heading 'Enforcement Jurisdiction', which made the following comment: . . . the encroachment of foreign anti-trust investigation and litigation abroad has recently led to positive action by way of blocking legislation enacted, inter alia, by Australia, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Canada and The Netherlands . . . Governments have felt it necessary to secure their own sovereignty by legislating to protect their own citizens against investigations and orders sought to be enforced domestically by the US authorities where doubt exists as to the likelihood that the courts will prevent such investigations on the ground of their repugnancy to international law. The blocking legislation enacted in Australia relates both to the investigatory stage and the enforcement of orders in foreign proceedings. Although it is not strictly relevant to the extra territorial operation of the Australian Act, it is convenient that it be dealt with here- that is, in this article- and maybe instructive from the point of view of comparison. The two pieces of legislation were a direct result of proceedings seeking treble damages commenced by Westinghouse Electric Corporation against 29 United States and foreign uranium producers. The Westinghouse case in 1977-79, if it served to do nothing else, served to highlight the fact that as yet Australia and other trading nations do not live in a world economic community. Certainly no one would argue that the removal of artificial trade barriers within a nation state such as Australia is essential if we are to achieve the benefits flowing from competition, such benefits including lower cost to the consumer and the efficient allocation of resources within the economy. Notwithstanding that fact, even in that context we in this country justify a degree of intervention to protect the weak. It is interesting to note though that as yet we in Australia have no legislation akin to the anti- trust laws in the United States which are designed to ensure that the strong do not misuse their position to force up market prices. That may at the moment be no real problem in Australia and indeed there may be no internal need for such legislation. However, it is quite another matter if such internal provisions are to be used to disadvantage individual companies trading in the world economy. In that context it is essentially the individual nation states rather than the individual companies which are trading partners, with varying degrees of strength. Individual companies are part of their respective economic fabrics and I believe nations have the right and the duty to protect those companies against attacks on their economic viability which in turn could well affect the national economy. In 1977-78 Australia's export income from minerals was $4.7 billion, which represented something like 39 per cent of the total national export income that financial year. This was of no small value to Australia and the Australian Government encouraged it, as indeed it should. In the context of what, in view of recent developments, we laughingly call resource diplomacy, Australian companies sued by the Westinghouse Corporation did what Australian Government officials had been recommending that they do to avoid being played off against each other by international buyers; that is, they made price agreements in a market which had been severely destabilised by the release of in the vicinity of 50,000 tonnes of U308 from the United States uranium stockpile. At this point, in view of the resource which was involved, I ought to make the point that the Australian Democrats view that the Australian companies were entitled to government intervention to protect them and to protect Australia's economic interests is not to be taken as any sort of approval of or support for the products they were trading in. Senator Peter Rae —Look, I am shattered! Senator HAINES —I thought that the honourable senator would be absolutely destroyed by that! I am totally and utterly surprised! However, I am sure the honourable senator will agree that we all share a belief in the principle of the matter; that is, that it was something of vital concern to Australia, the effect of which on the companies concerned and on the Australian economy could have been quite devastating. In the event, the punitive treble damages available under United States anti-trust legislation which I have already mentioned in the article from which I quoted at the beginning-I understand they were something like $7 billion-and which may well have been justified and justifiable in that context and in that country were sought against 29 uranium producers, including Conzinc Rio Tinto of Australia Ltd, Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd, Pancontinental Mining Ltd and Queensland Mines Ltd. Ultimately, as I understand it, the judgment was entered after, and indeed despite, Australia's attempt to raise jurisdictional objections; and those objections, I also have been given to understand, were somewhat contemptuously dismissed. As a consequence, in March 1979 the Australian Parliament enacted the Foreign Anti-Trust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act enabling enforcement of the judgment in proceedings in Australia to be prohibited by order of the Attorney-General. Orders were in fact made by the Attorney-General prohibiting the enforcement or recognition in whole or in part in Australia of the judgment entered in these proceedings. However, that 1979 Bill was limited in its application merely to anti-trust judgments. The 1981 'recovery back' Bill introduced by the previous government was not passed, as I understand from some comments made by Senator Durack earlier this evening, apparently in an effort to avoid straining the somewhat fragile agreement on anti-trust co-operation concluded with the United States in 1982. I am somewhat at a loss to understand why it is always Australia that has to tread fairly warily whenever these sorts of agreements look like being broken or strained to the limit. Certainly the United States of America did not worry too much about what damage it was likely to have on its relations with Australia when the United States undertook the proceedings which produced this brouhaha. As Senator Durack also pointed out, that agreement provides avenues for consultation and negotiation but acknowledges that ultimately 'both countries can protect their national interests as they see fit'. Indeed, I believe that the 1979 decision by the Australian Attorney-General was made for the purpose of protecting our national interest in relation to the trading operations of trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth. The present Bill seeks to further this aim by extending protection against enforcement to other than anti-trust actions and to protect Australian citizens and companies from the extraterritorial enforcement of foreign laws. I am not a lawyer. I cannot judge or enter into the fascinating arguments that have been thrown around the chamber tonight by the legal experts in this place. I can simply say that if in effect this Bill does do just that-as I have indicated it does, that is, if it offers protection to Australian citizens and companies from the extraterritorial enforcement of foreign laws, laws which may be well suited to the country in which they were formed but of no particular relevance to Australia, whose laws are established under totally different criteria-it will be supported by the Australian Democrats. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.21) —I very much appreciate, on behalf of the Government, the support for the Bill that has been expressed around the chamber, particularly by Senator Durack, leading for the Opposition, who had a particular personal interest in this whole policy area, and for whom the signing of the agreement with the United States of America represented a very significant personal achievement and, indeed, a significant achievement for the then Australian Government. I can understand the reservations that have been expressed in various parts of the chamber by Senator Durack himself and, more particularly, by Senator Hill, because this is a very sensitive and difficult area. But I also appreciate the way in which honourable senators appear to have overcome those reservations and have seen the necessity for there to be strong and uncompromising bipartisan support for a measure of this kind if it is to successfully serve the very purpose for which it is, after all, being introduced , namely, to remind the United States, in particular, but also any other country that might be minded to engage in extraterritorial activity of a legislative kind, that their trading partners and the rest of the world will not simply look idly by while their interest, our interests, are threatened or potentially threatened by such activity. The objective of this legislative enterprise, the putting in place of some potential sticks to match the carrot that is already there, at least in the anti -trust context with the bilateral agreement, has, I think, been sufficiently explained in the second reading speech not to require repetition from me now. As Senator Durack pointed out, what we are about will be very well understood in the United Kingdom, and certainly also by Canada and a number of European countries, which are only too well aware of the need to shore up legislative and associated defences against the potential application of United States law in these areas. What we are about is equally very well understood by the business community, which, particularly through the Business Council of Australia, which has been apparently the major spokesman on this issue, has made no bones at all about its support for this legislation. The reservations that have been expressed range over a number of different matters. I shall not endeavour to cover them all, but I should address at least a couple of points made by Senator Hill, in particular, in reliance upon and in repetition of the reservations of the minority members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee that considered this matter in its very constructive and useful report. The first matter to which I refer in this respect is the suggestion that the Australian Government may in some way be acting improperly in proceeding with this legislation in the light of the signing of the anti- trust co-operation agreement. But that sort of criticism fails, I think, significantly to acknowledge that, apart even from the continued concern with private triple damages actions, which concern was expressed by the then Attorney -General in an address on the signing of the agreement, the whole of the negotiations for that agreement took place against a background of the introduction and presence on the Notice Paper at the time of the recovery back legislation and of a series of public statements by the then Attorney-General that those provisions in the 1981 Bill were being further considered and refined and that there may well indeed be supplementary provisions to accompany them, and, indeed, against a background, further, of an understanding by the United States-the subject of oral discussions rather than anything that was particularly documented-that the conclusion of the Agreement did not necessarily preclude further Australian legislation. I think that one can go so far as to say, fairly robustly, that at all times, as I understand it, during the negotiation of the agreement it was comtemplated that at least recovery back legislation of the kind proposed in that June 1981 legislation would be introduced. Indeed, the final form of that legislation was settled after the bilateral agreement had been negotiated in the middle of June 1982. The giving away, as it were, of the legislation seems to have come about at the euphoria of the signing, and the dissentients, in their report, are really just in error in point of fact, as I am advised, in assuming, as they do at page 68 of the report, the contrary. So much for the past. What of the present and the likely response of the United States Government to the passage by the Australian Parliament of this legislation? Are we really generating, as Senator Hill would almost have us believe in one particular flight of rhetorical fancy, a warlike response and provoking accordingly a likely warlike reaction on the part of our friends across the Pacific? To make any such claim is, I think, completely to fail to appreciate the tenor of the further discussions that have taken place with the United States in the context of the development of these legislative proposals. As I made clear in the second reading speech, I engaged in extensive discussions on this matter in the United States, in the course of a fairly eventful trip in the middle of last year, during which, among other things, my house burnt down. The United States Government understood, I believe, the need for Australia, from Australia's point of view, to have protective legislation. I shall not seek to saddle it with the second leg of the famous double and say that it not only understood but also accepted the need for Australia to have protective legislation of its own, but it did, nonetheless, appreciate that Australia saw its interests as demanding an additional legislative series of protections of the kind that had become quite familiar with the United States' other trading partners, not least, of course, the United Kingdom, with its protection of trading interests legislation. United States officials were provided at an early date with copies of the Bill and other relevant documents and were invited to discuss the matter with Australian officials if they thought it necessary. I am able to report that, to date, apart from an informal inquiry on a technical aspect of the Bill and what I might describe as a couple of wry remarks to me from United States diplomats at odd times in the last six months on the Canberra cocktail circuit, there has simply been no official or unofficial reaction from the United States. One could hardly pretend that the United States would be ecstatic to see any country moving to join the list of those putting in place protective legislation of this kind; but nor does it, I assure the Parliament, regard the exercise as being a provocative one or one that is beyond the ken in terms of the continuing relations of otherwise friendly trading partners. The final group of points that need quickly to be made relates to the terms of the 1982 agreement and to whether that is sufficient for us to roll along with in the foreseeable future without the necessity for legislation of this kind. This matter has been sufficiently addressed in the second reading speech, but I think it needs to be reiterated, first, that the 1982 agreement is not in any way an all-purpose one; after all, it deals only with the anti-trust area and certainly has nothing to say about the application in Australia of the Export Administration Act, about which Australian business is justifiably very concerned. Equally, the 1982 agreement certainly does not cover the field very effectively or completely so far as private suits are concerned. The consultative procedures are not very powerful weapons in this area and there is always the prospect of the rogue elephant, a treble damages private suit, appearing in the anti-trust area to really make a mess of rational trading relations. The balance of the interests approach in the two court cases-Timberlane Lumber Co. and Mannington Mills-useful as that may be, has not been unequivocally adopted by Unites States courts and we simply cannot assume, in any event, that that will always produce the kind of result that is appropriate from the point of view of domestic Australian industry and national protection. Essentially, United States interests are not uniform. Certainly they are not identical to our interests and neither consultation nor the application of judicious judicial balance will necessarily produce acceptable results. The legislation is not in a form which involves a plunging into confrontation on the first occasion on which a potential conflict arises. It enables all sorts of discretions to be exercised by the Government, by the appropriate Minister, as situations develop. The final point I make relates to who the appropriate Minister should be. This matter was raised by Senator Durack when he asked: 'Why does not the Minister for Trade administer this legislation as is the case in the United Kingdom?'. I simply say that the Minister for Trade and Industry in the United Kingdom has traditionally dealt not only with this area but, indeed, with the whole area of what in Australia might be regarded as the business law part of the Attorney- General's portfolio, including company law, such British-type restrictive practices legislation as there is, securities control and matters of that kind. Traditionally in Australia the Attorney-General, when there has not been a Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, has had the ministerial responsibility for these matters. So far as the extraterritorial operation of anti-trust legislation is concerned, the Attorney-General has certainly had the carriage and co-ordination of matters in this area. I make no imperial bid for the retention of any jurisdiction in this respect, I have quite enough on my plate in this as, indeed, in a number of other areas. I simply make the point that it is as it is because that is the way it has been. That is not to say that it will not be that way in future. I make the point that the making of any order in this area will be a matter for the whole Government taking into account trade policy considerations as well as local or peculiarly technical legal ones. I will certainly have very close regard to the views of all relevant Ministers before making any order in this area. Once again, I thank all honourable senators, particularly Senator Durack who, I repeat, has played a major personal role in this area over the years. I wish the Bill a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(9.36) —I rise to answer allegations made against me in the New South Wales Parliament by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, Mrs Rosemary Foot, on Thursday, 23 February. The substance of the allegations were that a man named Tom Domican had been employed by a property developer, Mr Warren Anderson, to work as an Australian Labor Party operative in the inner city and to do my bidding; further, that Mr Anderson had paid Domican $20,000 a year for two years to do so; and, further, that in return for these favours granted to me Mr Anderson was to receive preferential treatment from ALP-dominated councils in his development and rezoning applications. The councils mentioned specifically were Marrickville, Ashfield, Fairfield, Waverley, Liverpool and Campbelltown. A development at Woonoona in the Wollongong Council area was also referred to. To try to answer all of the allegations against me will take some time. Nevertheless, first and foremost, all of the allegations are based on the unsubstantiated work of Mr Domican. I wish to inform the Senate of some of the activities of Mr Domican, why he has pursued a vendetta against me for the past 18 months, why I believe that vendetta will continue and why I believe it will have no effect. If one looks at the activities of Domican over a long period in the Marrickville area in the inner city of Sydney one sees a pattern-a history of threats, intimidation and violence waged against many ordinary citizens of Marrickville but, most particularly, many Party members and aldermen. All of those involved had at times suffered the overwhelming sheer physical presence of Domican. Anyone who saw Nationwide last night knows he is no man to be trifled with when it comes to matters physical. He professes to be an expert in the martial arts. We saw an unsavoury period in Marrickville, particularly in 1982. Finally in October of that year an assault on Alderman Ken Brennan took place after a council meeting. It was witnessed by Alderman Margaret Newman. That matter received wide publicity. Indeed, it received coverage in the newspapers and in the New South Wales Parliament. I spoke at the time to Alderman Brennan and to Alderman Newman. Alderman Brennan had been terrorised by Domican for some time. He did not wish to pursue the matter with the police because he feared reprisals . Accordingly, I spoke to Domican and asked him not to attend any future council meetings. He agreed to my request, while denying that the assault had taken place and stating that Mr Brennan had simply fallen down and put on an act. Alderman Margaret Newman told me the real facts of the matter. It did involve a serious and brutal assault by Domican. After that incident no further violence was reported for some time, but in December 1982 Domican broke his undertaking to me and attended another council meeting. At that meeting a confrontation developed between Domican, the Mayor, Alderman Harrison, and Alderman Margaret Newman. The next morning, one could believe by divine intervention-I do not-a masked intruder entered Alderman Margaret Newman's home and bashed her. She received treatment in hospital from a doctor. Photographs of her bruised and bloodied face appeared in practically all the Sydney newspapers at the time. Adjournment Adjournment Very shortly after that bashing I had a meeting with Alderman Newman, her husband, Alderman Barry Jones, and a number of other aldermen from the Council. All of them complained of a pattern of threats, intimidation and violence which had increased in the previous six to 12 months. I suggested to them that, if I were an alderman on Marrickville Council, if I were suffering from these threats , this intimidation and actual physical violence, I would resign from the Council and I would ask the Government to sack the Council and appoint an administrator. After discussing the matter with them for some hours the aldermen present at the meeting agreed to do so. Furthermore, they agreed to talk to other aldermen to see whether they could persuade any of them to go along with them. In the end seven aldermen resigned from the Marrickville Council because of the threats and the violence of Domican. These seven aldermen represented all shades of opinion within the Party. Not all of them were friends of mine. But they were all united on one point: They could not take any more. On that point we were all united. Where were the investigative reporters of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Nationwide program during the last few days? They found time to make a folk hero of Domican. While listening to his plea that he had never threatened anyone where were they? Why were they not knocking on Margaret Newman 's door, Ken Brennan's door, Grahame Watson's door, or on the door of any other alderman who had been the subject of actual physical threats and violence by Domican in that period? Did they ask Lin Gordon, the Minister whom the aldermen went to see when they resigned, why he had taken the action to sack the Council? I suspect not unless that was edited out of the program. I would like to read just a few clippings from the Press at the time which I think show that the opinions I am expressing here tonight are not my own but were widely shared by everybody at the time, including the Fairfax media and, in particular, the Sydney Morning Herald. The first article from which I will quote is from the Sun-Herald of 19 December 1982. In an article that was headed 'The Bashing that brought down a council', Margaret Newman was quoted as saying to Joe Payne who wrote the article: 'I was threatened before, but nothing ever happened . . . Now I'm so scared I won't stay alone in the house-and the windows and doors stay locked. I would like to think nothing more is going to happen, but I don't know.' In the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 December 1982 Lin Gordon, to whom neither the Sydney Morning Herald nor the Nationwide reporters chose to talk, after having talked to all the aldermen involved said: 'No one would give evidence. People were frightened. 'There is obviously an explosive situation and I've got to defuse it. The situation is one of great concern.' He said that the aldermen had shown great courage to resign and it was a credit to them. To quote Mike Stekettee who has been for some years now the number one political writer in the New South Wales Parliament for the Sydney Morning Herald : . . . there are very clear links, acknowledged by the Right and the Left of the Labor Party, between the firebombing of Alderman Graham Watson's car, the bashing of Alderman Ken Brennan and Margaret Newman and of Peter Baldwin, MP, and each of these persons' activities, particularly in opposition to a small and notorious clique in Marrickville, to make it clear that the violence is motivated by politics and power in the Labor Party and the council. The opinions that I am expressing are not simply mine. They were the opinions expressed by all and sundry at the time. What makes the argument so preposterous -that is, the argument that Domican was working for me-is the fact that most of these seven aldermen, those who were exposed to the threats, the violence and the intimidation, were my friends. Indeed, some of them were my close friends. I have known Alderman Margaret Newman's husband, Barry Jones, for some 15 years and I regard him as a close friend. These attacks against my friends went on and on. They also went on against my enemies. In fact if I could be criticised for anything that I have done in the Marrickville area at that time it would be for not having removed Domican and his element much earlier. After the bashing of Margaret Newman, I decided, as the responsible officer of the Party, that we had to draw a line. The Labor Party could not handle those sorts of disputes. I could not find any reference in the Labor Party rule book as to how one handles someone who goes around bashing one's colleagues, especially when those bashings occur in one-off situations, when they are very difficult to prove and, more particularly, even where they are witnessed, when no one is prepared to give evidence because of the reprisals they fear will take place later. Ever since that time I have lived with all sorts of allegations emanating from Domican. However, I have to say that, if asked to do it all again , I would. The decision that was made at the time to talk to those aldermen and discuss with them the possibility of resigning, to see them resign and then to see the Council sacked was correct. At least it can be said that, in the 18 months that have ensued, there have been no further acts of violence perpetrated against those aldermen or against any member of the Party in the area at all. Furthermore, it should be noted that before the last election Domican proclaimed loud and long in Marrickville that Leo McLeay, the Federal member for Grayndler, against whom he also has a fair sized vendetta, would not be allowed to take his place in Parliament as the honourable member for Grayndler and I would never be allowed to sit as a senator. He was wrong on both occasions. He will be wrong in anything else that he tries to talk Rosemary Foot into saying. Furthermore, what really annoys me about this matter is that this man, by his own actions, has shown that he has no credibility whatsoever. This aspect of the allegations that he was working for me in any capacity whatsoever is nothing more than a sick joke emanating from a very sick man. After the attack on Ken Brennan, when Domican had given me an undertaking that he would no longer attend Marrickville Council meetings, he told me that he wished to stand for Labor pre-selection for Marrickville Council-something which he had tried to do before in 1980 when I and others had simply told him that he had to withdraw his nomination because we would not proceed with it. He told me he wished to nominate again for the 1983 election. I told him then, as my fellow officers at the time can bear out, that not only would he not be an alderman on Marrickville Council by winning a pre-selection from the Labor Party but also I would not support, on the administrative committee, his ever receiving endorsement to stand as a Labor alderman. It is natural in Labor Party circles to work at maximising one's support by encouraging people to join party branches . Domican was engaged in that activity. He was doing so of his own volition to support his own nomination and to support the nomination of the Mayor, his other friends and colleagues. Let me turn now to the actual allegation about his employment with Mr Anderson. I say at the outset that it was well known in Marrickville at the time-it could hardly be denied by even Domican himself-that Domican was the close confidante, the shadow if one likes, the constant companion and many said the minder, of the Mayor, Alderman Harrison. I want to make it clear that I bear no malice towards Alderman Harrison. He has been a part of Domican's campaign from time to time-a campaign that has been to the Corporate Affairs Commission, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and to newspapers such as the National Times, although it would not print the allegations without them being substantiated by an independent representative or person. Naturally enough, no such person could be found. But I bear Harrison no malice. He has simply been dominated and used by Domican. Back in 1981 Alderman Harrison had several discussions with Warren Anderson. As a result of those discussions Mr Anderson employed Mr Domican to act as a security guard for his properties in Marrickville. He was employed for one year and not for two years as was previously stated. Given that the value of Mr Anderson's properties in Marrickville at the time was some $16m the fact that he would employ someone to protect them from vandals and squatters-there was quite a deal of publicity about that at the time-should come as no surprise to anyone. Furthermore, the caretaker of the Alice Street, Newtown, site had been bashed over the head with a piece of 4 x 2 and seemed to have lost all of his enthusiasm for the job. I cannot state that I witnessed Domican during his employment over that time. All I can say is that Mr Anderson informs me that he had no further trouble with vandals or squatters. To go further into these allegations that he was some kind of emissary for me and that he was working for me, it must be remembered that Domican was a hated man in Marrickville. Association with him rubbed off on all those who dared to be a part of it. What is more, when Alderman Harrison, the person to whom I have referred, nominated for pre-selection for the State seat of Marrickville in comparatively recent times he received fewer than 30 votes out of some 250 votes , which would suggest that any claim of support by Domican or any claim that he ensured that thousands of people joined the Party in the area are false and can pretty easily be seen to be so. The fact that Rosemary Foot would use Domican as the sole source of her allegations fascinates me. From time to time I have remembered John Dowd. Honourable senators will remember that he is a former Leader of the Liberal Party of New South Wales. These people are hard to remember as they come and go like the seasons of the year. In the New South Wales Parliament on 14 October 1982 when referring to Domican, Mr Dowd said: No inquiry has yet been established to look into the latest bashing episode involving Alderman Brennan, who was assaulted by Mr Tom Domican, a fine member of the Labor Party, in the presence of Alderman Newman. A complaint was made to the police, and Alderman Brennan was given time to think about it. Of course, when one has someone of the calibre of Tom Domican in a council, . . . one must be wary about the evidence one proposes to give. Obviously intimidation occurred and Alderman Brennan found that it was in his own interests to withdraw the complaint. That Rosemary Foot could go on with Domican's allegations in the light of that is surprising and disappointing. More importantly, I think it shows just what has happened to the allegations business in the New South Wales Parliament where anything goes and any allegation is capable of getting a run, irrespective of how creditable it might be. I anxiously await the publication of the report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. I will respond to no more of Domican's personal attacks on me at any time until that report has been released. I suggest that all members of parliament, indeed all honourable senators who sit opposite in this Parliament and members of the Opposition in the New South Wales Parliament, would do well to wait for the release of the report before they engage in giving Domican any more of the publicity that he so craves and loves or the credibility that he could never have. On that score I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald. When one looks at the Herald's front page on Friday, 24 February, it would seem that Domican was being glorified. If honourable senators read this paragraph that I am now about to read in conjunction with what had been said in other Herald articles, which I read a little earlier, they will see that at least in 1982 the Sydney Morning Herald had no doubt whatsoever as to who were the villains in the Marrickville piece. They regarded Domican, and said so directly, as the cause of the problem. In an editorial on 13 December 1982, the Sydney Morning Herald stated: Labor's problems at Marrickville will not be resolved simply by the dismissal of the council or a few aldermen. The Labor Party must take action to rid itself of elements that dominate the Labor machine in that area. We took that action. We rid ourselves of the elements in the area. For our pains it would now seem that the victims are being made to look like the villians. Anyone who goes through the evidence of 1982 can come to only one conclusion; that is, while the decision to rid ourselves of thugs and hoodlums may have come too late, it did come. The two programs on Nationwide on the subject leave me almost speechless. I will read to honourable senators what Richard Carleton failed to read out on a program on the ABC last Friday night, 24 February. If one looks at the further aspect of Rosemary Foot's allegations, that is, that Warren Anderson was promised favours by me and was to receive preferential treatment, with the exception of once making an appointment for him to see Alderman Harrison-I might say, in Mr Anderson's defence, that that is my recollection; he does not think that I did that, but at the back of my mind I recall that I did ring Harrison for him once to make an appointment-I have never spoken to an alderman, councillor, council or shire employee about any one of Warren Anderson's 23 developments that he has so far been involved with in New South Wales. I invite members of the Press and members of the Opposition to try to find somebody. Let us look at Rosemary Foot's allegations about Labor dominated councils giving Warren Anderson preference. Let us go through the list of his developments in New South Wales, because it makes fascinating reading. First off , out of 23 developments he has undertaken only six involved rezonings. I will get to those rezonings in a moment. The other developments include: One at Campbelltown, a non-Labor council, where he bought land already zoned; at Forster, a non-Labor council, where he bought land already zoned; at Castlehill, a non-Labor council, where he bought land already zoned; at Armidale, a non- Labor council, where he bought land already zoned; at Hornsby, a non-Labor council, where he bought land already zoned; at Liverpool, a non-Labor council, where he bought land already zoned; at Katoomba, a non-Labor council, where he bought land already zoned; and at Wagga, a non-Labor council, where he bought land already zoned. The Labor council areas include: Randwick, where he bought land already zoned; two developments at Blacktown, at Kings Langley and Plumpton , where he bought land already zoned; at Fairfield where he bought land already zoned; and at Marrickville, where he bought land already zoned. In three other councils where Labor had 50 per cent of the aldermen but did have the Mayors, so presumably they had a casting vote, he had two developments in the Sutherland Shire, at Engadine and Sylvania, where he bought land already zoned; one at Bondi Junction in the Waverley Council area, where he bought land already zoned; and one at Ashfield, where he bought land already zoned. Let us look at the rezonings, the ones that people look at to see what might happen which could be wrong. There were six rezonings in all, five in non-Labor council areas and one only in a Labor council area. That rezoning has cost him the most money and threatens to cost him very much more. Let us look at those zonings. Firstly, there is one at Bowral, where most of the site was already zoned as commercial, but a part of it had to be rezoned. That part was owned by that well-known troublesome body of never-do-wells, the Salvation Army. The same happened in Goulburn, where part of the development was owned by another group of people that one has to look at closely, that is, the Uniting Church in Australia. In Woy Woy and Erina, two developments in the Gosford Council area, a non-Labor controlled council, the land purchased was already mooted to be in an exhibited plan to be rezoned, and indeed that is what happened. In Tamworth, where he bought a convent school from the Catholic Church, part of that site had to be rezoned as well. That left Woonona in the Wollongong Council area. I think that something should be said about Woonona, perhaps not all of which may have been said by Neville Wran today and which may really nail forever any thought that Warren Anderson was given preferential treatment. Warren Anderson owned a zoned site at Bulli. He was asked by the council not to build there because it would tend to drag people away from the Woonona shopping centre. Instead the council asked him to develop something inside the shopping centre. Anderson agreed. As part of that deal he paid the council $1m to develop a soccer oval, plus $400,000 to relocate a council depot and purchase part of the site from the council as well. He followed the Department of Environment and Planning directives and he followed the council's directives. But the Land and Environment Court invalidated the zoning. After two years and several court appearances, Warren Anderson has still been unable to develop the site at Woonona or Marrickville and has briefed Queen's Counsel to look at the prospect of suing the Government for its failure to act and its failure to prevent a situation where he loses money-it could be up to $13m-simply because he followed the directives of the Department of Environment and Planning and the directives of the Wollongong Council. If one looks at Marrickville, one sees yet another situation when Warren Anderson, far from being advantaged, has been grieviously mishandled by the Department of Environment and Planning. He had a site at St Peters-the old brick pits site-which had been already zoned. The Department of Environment and Planning wanted it for a bicentennial park, so it asked him not to build there. It asked him to move further up into the main shopping area of Newtown. He said: 'That is fair enough. I will hand over my contracts to buy the site at St Peters . I will go to Newtown'. So he spent $9m to buy a property in Alice Street, Newtown. However, the Council refused to agree to a rezoning, even though the Department of Environment and Planning would agree, and the dispute between the Department and the Council went on for some time. In the meantime, in this same Government, I noticed that Eric Bedford was supposed to have been involved in the network of influence. He was the Minister for Planning and Environment at the time. The Minister and the Department approved the zoning of another site only a mile or so away at Marrickville, while leaving Anderson's site unzoned. So he had the worst of all worlds. He had to buy the second site to enable him to still have a chance of building a shopping centre in the area. For that site he had to pay the previous owners $ 500,000 for his trouble, plus the $7m for the land. He then had to sell off the Alice Street properties because they were not rezoned. That took over a year and he suffered a loss of more than $3m. Such are the activities of a man allegedly advantaged and given preferential and special treatment by the New South Wales Government. This man, Warren Anderson, has so far spent $500m in developments in New South Wales and employed 12,000 people in the process. State Government actions have cost him a fortune and placed very much more of his money at risk. Yet we still hear an allegation of preferential treatment. Where would the Hermitage land rate, therefore, in this man's priorities? Whether the price was $145,000 or $600,000, it would rate nowhere to a man who was standing to lose as much money as he does because of State Government actions. In regard to the Hermitage land, honourable senators should remember that it cannot be valued as if it were the average block in a subdivision. It has no opportunity value. There is no access, not even for a four-wheel drive vehicle, let alone a family sedan. It is 66 metres long, 6 metres wide at one end and 3 metres wide at the other. It is not what one would call an average building block. At its widest it is 13 metres. I wonder why some of these facts are not stated. For all of the muck raking that has gone on, Warren Anderson is talking about pulling out of New South Wales. Already, he told me that he has cancelled participation in $200m worth of further projects. A few of the places mentioned were Maitland, Wallsend, Wangi, North Sydney and an office block at the corner of King and George Streets. He intends only to complete those projects which are well down the line towards completion. It is a great tragedy that this should occur. It has been brought about by Rosemary Foot, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, being prepared to accept the totally unsubstantiated evidence of a man like Domican who has no credibility, and to slur Anderson, a man who has done so much good for New South Wales. He did not deserve to be repaid like that. He has been done a monstrous injustice. I hope, in light of all the evidence presented here tonight and in the New South Wales Parliament today, that Mrs Foot will show just one scintilla of decency and offer him the apology that he deserves. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.05) —There was a very busy Question Time in the Senate today. I was one of the many honourable senators who was unable to ask questions. I take the opportunity now to read my question, which was to have been directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, representing the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). My question would have referred the Minister to an article published in the Northern Territory News on 8 February 1984 which quoted a spokesperson for the Aviation Minister as saying that several hundred thousand dollars would be spent on the interim upgrading at Darwin Airport. I would have asked whether the report was correct and, if so, exactly how much would have been reallocated to the interim upgrading; what areas of the airport would be upgraded; what nature of work would be carried out; and finally, when would it be anticipated that the upgrading work would begin. I wish to ask that question because in an article in the Northern Territory News on 8 February 1984 Mr Beazley is reported to have said, in a statement in regard to the interim upgrading plan for Darwin Airport: Several hundred thousand dollars interim upgrading will be undertaken at the Darwin Airport. A spokesman for the Federal Aviation Minister, Mr Kim Beazley, said plans were under consideration but it was not yet known which areas would be worked on. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has looked at the proposal for a new international terminal building at Darwin at a cost of some $98m. We now await the recommendations of that Committee in its report to Parliament. But a very serious problem exists in Darwin. The fact is that if the international airport is to be constructed, it will not be completed before about five years. At the moment the facilities for processing overseas visitors is, without exaggeration, so appalling that I would say they are inferior to most Third World countries. Overseas visitors are severely jeopardised in Darwin and will continue to be so until the terminal is completed. Despite the efforts of Customs on the ground at Darwin to humanise the processing of inbound travellers , they are still herded through health and Customs checks under most deplorable conditions. In fact, the Customs area in which these people are herded measures only 16 metres square. Yet up to 200 men, women and children are held in that area for anything up to 45 minutes. This occurs in the early hours of the morning, at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning. The building is not airconditioned. It is an old war-time hangar which was damaged during the war. Money has been spent on it occasionally to upgrade it to a minimal airport facility. The travellers are held in this area for up to 45 minutes while their luggage is being unloaded from the aircraft and brought to an area next to the travellers' holding room. The roller doors are then lifted and there is bedlam as people fight their way to their luggage. In some cases it can take up to two hours before the traveller has been through Customs, collected his luggage and fought his way out to the fresh air. It is a most deplorable situation. The purpose of the question which I wanted to ask today was to highlight the situation and endeavour to have the Minister for Aviation proceed with the upgrading plan so that a minimum amount of money could be spent at least to bring the facilities at Darwin Airport to such a condition that people could pass through and be serviced in some reasonable manner until the new airport is constructed. I turn briefly to another matter. Today I was very concerned to hear a question and answer in the Senate. The question came from Senator Macklin, of the Australian Democrats, and was addressed to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), regarding the Northern Territory Criminal Code. I believe that the situation is getting out of hand. I think a confrontation is developing when there should be no confrontation. I refer briefly to the situation which occurred last December. In answer to a question Senator Gareth Evans read out a letter on 19 November addressed to the Honourable Paul Everingham. The letter was from the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, who outlined the problems that the Federal Government foresaw in the Criminal Code. This letter was incorporated in Hansard. On 15 December Mr Paul Everingham was at Parliament House and delivered to the Prime Minister a letter in very moderate language answering the criticisms, as the Prime Minister saw them, regarding the Northern Territory Criminal Code. In that letter Mr Everingham clearly indicated that the matter was open for further discussion. When I incorporated that letter in the Senate Hansard of 15 December I read the part which stated: At the outset let me say that I hope my letter will not be the end to discussions between our Governments if you consider there are areas of concern. At the end of the letter Mr Everingham stated: As stated at the outset, I would not like this to be an end to our discussions on this matter if your concerns remain . . . In the meantime, a very careful watch will be kept and if anomalies are discovered proper use will be made of the executive discretion to remove any possibility of injustice arising from them. Also at this time the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, indicated his disquiet regarding the matter. I asked questions of him in Question Time. I think it was just a little later at the end of Question Time that the Attorney- General said that he would make no more public comment on the matter as he would be receiving respresentations from a Mr Des Sturgess, a solicitor who was the architect of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. He had agreed that he would see Mr Sturgess to discuss overcoming the possible problems that Senator Gareth Evans saw. We have now reached a rather silly situation. Today in answer to a question Senator Evans said: These matters have now been the subject of a further letter from the Prime Minister to the Northern Territory Chief Minister. I am not sure whether it is accurate to say the Prime Minister has been rebuffed once again because I think the letter has been sent only in the last 24 hours or so. That is quite correct. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has waited more than 2 1/2 months now for some response from the Federal Government which has now been sent, probably today or yesterday, couched, I suggest, in terms, it would appear to bring about further confrontation. As I said before it is a most serious matter. Today I received a copy of a telex to the Prime Minister from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Paul Everingham. He said: . . . Despite the fact that the code has now been operational since January 1 this year, and despite the fact that I have had not further response to my letter to you of December last. That was when he was seeking some response from the Federal Government in an endeavour to have an exchange of views and to overcome the problem. Mr Everingham continued: I myself, my Attorney-General, our law officers and Mr Sturgess can make ourselves available to meet you and your Attorney-General at any time of your convenience. I am most anxious to head off any confrontation in this matter and I don't believe anything can be gained by your acting precipitately. The Criminal Code has been passed into law by a democratically elected government after an exhaustive process of consultation. It was raised as an issue in the recent Northern Territory election by yourself and the Territory Opposition. The results speak for themselves. I hope that before the Federal Government takes any action in Parliament the matter will be discussed government to government. I think it would be most unfortunate if we saw intervention by the Federal Government in the affairs of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory has now been granted responsible self-government by enactment of the Federal Government. I suggest that even though the Federal Government has the ability to intervene in the affairs of the Northern Territory in the present circumstances it would be most improper. Once again I ask the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, before he flies off on another tangent, whether he would please receive representations from the Northern Territory Government and Mr Des Sturgess, the architect of this Criminal Code, so he can understand what the situation is all about. I suggest that there is good reason for the code. I recall of course that the crime rate in the Northern Territory for serious crime, whether it be rape, murder, bashings and so on, is 400 to 500 per cent higher than the national average. It was implied in the question asked today by Senator Macklin that this was a disadvantage to the Aboriginal people. Does he not realise that it is mainly the Aboriginal people who are the victims? Therefore, how can they be disadvantaged? This code will protect the Aboriginal people. There is far too much violence in the Northern Territory. As I said before it is the Aboriginal people themselves who are the victims. Murder and rape are increasing. I would expect this code to alleviate the situation. I say no more for the moment except that I believe the situation is now quite serious. There are increasing reports in the media as to the proposed action of the Federal Government. It has been said that Cabinet will discuss the matter next week. I hope that if the report is accurate Cabinet will take a reasoned, sensible attitude to the whole situation and at least accept the request by the Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, that he with his officers of law be received here in Canberra so the matter can be thrashed out properly. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the telex I referred to earlier . Leave granted. The telex read as follows- SENOPP AA62659 BCA AA36733 84-02-28 1545 MT * SENOPP AA62659 STBY BCAST 85356 CLG FOR THE ATTENTION OF: Senator Don Chipp Senator Peter Durack Senator Brian Harradine Senator Bernie Kilgariff Mr Andrew Peacock, M.P. Mr Ian Sinclair Set out below is telex sent to the Prime Minister a.m. today re. the Northern Territory Criminal Code for your information. To: The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, A.C., M.P., Prime Minister From: The Hon. P. A. E. Everingham, M.L.A., Chief Minister of the Northern Territory CC: Attorney-General Senator G. Evans Dear Prime Minister, I continue to hear media reports that your government in some way intends to interfere with the due administration of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. This is despite the fact that the code has now been operational since January 1 this year, and despite the fact that I have had no further response to my letter to you of December last. It is difficult for me to conceive that you or your government would contemplate the grave breach of constitutional convention to which your interference with the Criminal Code would amount. You of all people should be aware of the attitude of many Australians and of your Party to the last intervention by a Governor-General into matters politic and decreed by convention. As I say the Criminal Code has now been in operation two months. This is far too soon to determine its effectiveness but obviously after twelve months or so of its operation the Northern Territory government is going to have to review whether it is operating fairly and effectively. This has always been our intention and has been stated in the past. It is a matter of some regret to me that your Attorney-General, Senator Evans, did not himself take the opportunity of a briefing from Mr Des Sturgess, our principal adviser and draftsman of the code, but delegated one of his officers for this task. Even at this late stage I would still be happy to meet with Senator Evans and his officers to discuss any lingering concerns he may have. I do reiterate however the following points: Unsworn statements by the accused from the dock have been abolished in Western Australia, and Queensland, New Zealand and many other British jurisdictions. A sub committee of the Law Council of Australia has endorsed the terrorism provisions contained in the code. Provisions relating to intoxication are designed to take account of the shortcomings in O'Connor's case, shortcomings foreseen by the High Court and for which the court suggested legislative amendment. Our law should be compared with that applicable in the code States of Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania . I myself, my Attorney-General, our law officers and Mr Sturgess can make ourselves available to meet you and your Attorney-General at any time of your convenience. I am most anxious to head off any confrontation in this matter and I don't believe anything can be gained by your acting precipitately. The Criminal Code has been passed into law by a democratically elected government after an exhaustive process of consultation. It was raised as an issue in the recent Northern Territory election by yourself and the Territory Opposition. The results speak for themselves. As I indicated earlier, the Northern Territory will be reviewing the operations of the code after twelve months or earlier if it should prove necessary. We have not rejected or refused consultation in this matter. Indeed I am seeking discussions. I await what I hope will be a constructive response from you. Your Sincerely, Paul Everingham Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.19) —Senator Kilgariff raised on the adjournment tonight two matters of concern to him. The first matter relates to the proposed improvement to Darwin Airport. I will make sure my colleague the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) responds to that. Senator Kilgariff's then expressed his concern about the Federal Government's response to the proposed Northern Territory Criminal Code. I will make sure the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is made aware of those matters and responds to them. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.20) —I heard Senator Kilgariff's remarks while I was sitting in my room. I am indebted to him for his contribution to the debate. I can assure him that the kinds of noises he is making have been present to my ears for the duration of this exercise. In particular, the propositions likely to be advanced by Mr Sturgess, as the primary architect of the legislation, have been the subject of very extensive discussions between Mr Sturgess and an officer of my Department who has made trips to the Northern Territory for the express purpose of satisfying himself and accordingly reporting to me that there is a real problem in this area. The Government believes there are real problems with this legislation, as I said at Question Time today. I regret that the initial response from Mr Everingham does not seem to be one that acknowledges their existence. Accordingly, it may be necessary for the Government now to consider moving to the next inevitable stage of this process. We will do so unhappily, but the attitude of the Northern Territory Government seems to leave us little choice. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.21 p.m. The following papers are presented: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 340. Apple and Pear Stabilization Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 324. Audit Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 4 Australian Capital Territory Representation (House of Representatives) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 314. Australian War Memorial Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 343. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 345. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinance 1983-No. 1-Local Government (Amendment). Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 313. Companies Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 316. Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 318. Companies (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 317 Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules- 1983 Nos 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332. 1984 No. 13. Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 347. Defence Act Determinations. 1983- No. 29-Allowance for Loss on Sale of Vehicle No. 30-Higher Duties Allowance and others No. 31-Settling In and Settling Out Allowance No. 32-In Port Allowance No. 33-Woomera Allowance No. 34-Broken Hill Allowance No. 35-District Allowance and others No. 36-Settling In and Settling Out Allowance No. 37-Married Trainee's Allowance and others No. 38-Extra Risk Allowance 1984- No. 1-Trainee Leader's Allowance and others No. 2-Language Proficiency Allowance No. 3-District Allowance and others No. 4-Flying Allowance and others No. 5-Uniform Maintenance Allowance and others Defence Act, Naval Defence Act, Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 305. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules- 1983 Nos 300, 301, 302, 326, 333, 334, 336, 337. 1984 Nos 1, 2, 11. Dried Fruits Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 298. Excise Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 306. Export Control Act- Meat Orders- 1983-No. 1 1984-No. 1 Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 307 Federal Court of Australia Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984. No. 339. Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 9. Freedom of Information Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 338. Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 308. Health Insurance Act- Order under sub-section (6) (2), dated 11 January 1984. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos. 5, 6. High Court of Australia Act-Proclamation-High Court of Australia Building and Precincts, Directions for Regulating the Conduct of Persons, dated 19 January 1983. Income Tax (Assessment) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 319. Inter-State Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 15. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (6) by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Livestock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 7. Loan (Income Equalizaton Deposits) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 348 . Marriage Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 3. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 322. Navigation Act-Marine Orders- 1983-No. 25-Part 2 (Fees). 1984-No. 1-Part 41 (Cargo and Cargo Handling-Dangerous Foods). Northern Territory Representation Act and Commonwealth Electoral Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 315. Overseas Students Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 344. Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 325. Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 346. Phosphate Fertilizers Subsidy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 323. Postal Services Act-By-laws 1984-Postal (Amendment) No. 1. Poultry Industry Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 309. Public Service Act- Appointments- Department of Administrative Services-S. C. Donkersley, C. C. Lawrence Department of Aviation-A. C. Beaumont Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-G. E. Burgoyne, R. J. Gibbins , S. F. Gollan, J. H. Huggins, L. V. Newhow, A. J. Pryor, N. A. Riehl. Department of Special Minister of State-B. R. Minards. Determinations 1983-Nos 24, 25, 27, 28, 29. 1984 No. 3. Presiding Officers Determination-1983 No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983-Nos 297, 310, 311, 349 1984 No. 14. Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules No. 299. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Academic Salaries Tribunal-Academic Staff- Determination and Report of Annual Leave Loadings for Staff which the Special Minister of State took receipt of on 14 December 1983, dated 29 November 1983. Sales Tax Assessment Acts (Nos 1 to 9)-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 8. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1983- No. 58-Radiation. No. 59-Classification of Publications. No. 60-Juries (Amendment) (No.2). No. 61-Legal Practitioners (Amendment). No. 62-Legal Practitioners (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 63-Schools Authority (Amendment). No. 64-Health Professions Boards (Procedure) (Amendment). No. 65-Health Commission (Amendment). No. 66-Building (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 67-Remand Centres (Amendment). No. 68-Real Property (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 69-Workmen's Compensation (Amendment). 1984- No. 1-Motor Traffic (Amendment). No. 2-Traffic (Amendment) No. 3-Legal Aid (Amendment). No. 4-Dangerous Goods. Regulations 1983- No. 23-(Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance). No. 24-(Remand Centres Ordinance). No. 25-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). No. 26-(Workmen's Compensation Ordinance). No. 27-(Health Commission Ordinance). 1984- No. 1-(Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance). No. 2-(Classification of Publications Ordinance). No. 3-(Health Commission Ordinance). Variation of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs (79th Series), dated 11 January 1984. Securities Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 303. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of- New South Wales and Queensland, dated 5 December 1983. Victoria and New South Wales, dated 12 December 1983. New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, dated 21 December 1983. New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, dated 25 January 1984. New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, dated 16 February 1984. Stevedoring Industry Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 12. Students Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 341. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules- 1983 Nos 320, 321, 342. 1984 No. 10. Telecommunications Act-by-laws- Telecommunications (Staff) Amendment No. 44. Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 41. Telecommunications (Country Calls) Amendment No. 33. Telecommunications (Digital Data Charging) Amendment No. 1. Trade Marks Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 312. Wireless Telegraphy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 304. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General are presented notifying that His Excellency has proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983-17 February 1984 (Gazette No. S 47, 10 February 1984) Christmas Island Agreement Amendment Act 1983-21 December 1983 (Gazette No. S 327, 19 December 1983) Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983-21 February 1984 (Gazette No. S 62, 21 February 1984) Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1983- Provisions other than provisions of Part I-1 January 1984 (Gazette No. S 324, 16 December 1983) Customs Amendment Act 1981-Sections 6 to 12, sections 15 to 18, sub-section 19 (2), sections 20 to 24 and section 27-21 December 1983 (Gazette No. S 332, 21 December 1983) Customs and Excise Amendment Act 1982-Sections 6, 8, 11, 13, 26, 27, 30, 31 and 53, and sub-sections 70 (1) and (2)-22 December 1983 (Gazette No. S 333, 21 December 1983) Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Act 1983-1 January 1984 (Gazette No . S 346, 29 December 1983) Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983-5 March 1984 (Gazette No. S 55, 15 February 1984) Freedom of Information Amendment Act 1983-1 January 1984 (Gazette No. S 344, 29 December 1983) Health Legislation Amendment Act 1982-Section 5 and 7-1 February 1984 (Gazette No. S 24, 27 January 1984) Health Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1983)-Part III-1 February 1984 ( Gazette No. S 25, 27 January 1984) Management and Investment Companies Act 1983-1 February 1984 (Gazette No. 35, 1 February 1984) Navigation Amendment Act 1979-Section 55-5 February 1984 (Gazette No. S 32, 1 February 1984) Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981-5 February 1984 (Gazette No. S 31, 1 February 1984) Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981-5 February 1984 ( Gazette No. S 31, 1 February 1984) Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1983-Section 4-23 December 1983 (Gazette No. S 335, 22 December 1983) River Murray Waters Act 1983-1 February 1984 (Gazette No. S. 34, 1 February 1984) The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 372) Senator Richardson asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 September 1983: (1) How much of the additional $21m allocated for children's services in the Budget will be expended on 'after school care centres'. (2) What will be the extent of the Government's assistance in the provision of staff and equipment for these centres if funds are to be expended. (3) Will funds become available this financial year; if so, what criteria will be used in determining which centres receive funding priority. (4) Are the 'after school care centres' at Ryde Primary School and Eden Park Industrial Estate in Sydney being considered for funding in the near future. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No specific amount has been allocated to out of school hours care projects from the additional $21m allocated to the children's services program in the 1983-84 Budget. (2) The policy and funding arrangements relating to the provision of outside school hours care services are currently being reviewed in consultation with community groups and service operators. Under the present arrangements, new services are provided with an equipment grant and recurrent assistance for approved staff salaries and associated costs according to a formula which takes account of numbers of children, and hours of operation. Usually an equipment grant of $500 is provided to a service on establishment but this may vary dependent on the size of the service. As an interim measure I have recently approved a 15 per cent increase to all out of school hours care services. In addition I have approved 39 new services at the increased level of funding. Included in the new services approved are the Ryde Primary School and the Eden Park Industrial Estate in Sydney which have been approved for equipment grants and recurrent funding from 1 July 1983. (3) Yes. Applications are ranked according to the distribution of other services, priorities of need, the type and quality of the service to be provided and the relative cost of the service in terms of the number of children who would benefit. (4) See 2 above. (Question No. 396) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Is the Government planning to set up an office of aged care. (2) Are the State governments likely to set up similar offices; if so, what functions will these offices perform, and when will they be operational. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. However, no decision has yet been taken as to where the office will be located. (2) The Government is aware of two proposals to set up similar offices. The Premier of New South Wales advised the Prime Minister and myself on 23 September 1983 that his Government proposes to establish an office of aged services in New South Wales. The functions of this Office are listed as: (a) To liaise with Government departments and authorities for the co-ordination of programmes affecting the ageing and to monitor the functioning of such programmes. (b) To provide policy advice to the Government on matters affecting aged persons. (c) To initiate or assist development of policy/programme to advance the quality of services provided for aged persons. (d) To liaise with and provide support for community-based aged persons/service organisations. (e) To provide a co-ordinated information service on aged related matters. (f) To foster the appointment of aged persons to Government boards and commissions where their decisions affect aged persons. (g) To co-operate with local government and Federal Government authorities on aged related issues. (h) To co-ordinate government sponsored senior citizens' week and other programmes initiated by the Premier, for aged persons There was no indication from the New South Wales Government when the office would be operational. I understand that the South Australian Government also proposes to establish a commission of aged care. (Questions No. 419) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 October 1983: (1) What is the reason for disregarding disability pensions for the purpose of the income test for unemployment sickness benefit (see answer to Question No. 81 , Hansard, page 1278). (2) Why does a similar situation not prevail for other social security pensions and benefits. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows: (1) Disability (war) pensions have not been taken into account as income for unemployment and sickness benefit purposes, other than where paid for the same disability as sickness benefit, since 1950. The reason for disregarding such pensions at that time seems to have been the strict income test then applicable which reduced unemployment and sickness benefit by the full amount of any income over $2 per week and thus, in effect, significantly negated the payment of this form of compensation. (2) Disability pensions are not disregarded in the legislation for other social security pensions because of the more liberal income test applying. A married couple may have income of up to $50 per week before there is any reduction in pension. Moreover, there would be a very substantial additional cost if disability pensions were disregarded for all social security purposes and other areas of need are seen as having a higher welfare priority at present. (Question No. 459) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 1 November 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware of a study conducted by British doctors reported in the Lancet in April 1983 which concluded that a distance of 10,000 metres away from the hypocentre of an atomic explosion is not safe and that even minute doses of radiation can be harmful. (2) Is the Minister also aware of determinations given by the Repatriation Board claiming that unless the applicant was within 0 to 10,000 metres from the hypocentre of an atomic explosion, then it would be difficult to relate such an incident to the applicant's present condition. (3) Is the Minister also aware that the United States has sent doctors to Japan to study the effects of radiation and the clinical records of those who suffered in the two atomic explosions. (4) Have Australian doctors been properly trained in the effects of radiation; if not, will the Government take similar action to that of the United States to ensure that the situation is rectified. (5) When will the study into the present health of those ex-servicemen who were involved in the British nuclear tests conducted in Australia during the 1950's be completed and the results tabled. (6) Will the Minister take steps to defer further assessment of nuclear veterans who have applied for repatriation benefits until the results of these studies are known and will he ensure that those who may have been wrongly assessed in the past are reassessed in the light of these results and fairly dealt with. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. However, the Lancet article of 9 April 1983 did not refer to a distance of 10,000 metres away from the hypocentre. Nor did the article come to the conclusion canvassed. (2) The author presented five possible explanations for the observed increase in reticulo-endothelial system neoplasms, either: (a) far more men at risk than the number considered in the study; (b) much higher radiation doses than has hitherto been supposed; (c) much higher cancer risks from smaller doses of radiation than has hitherto been supposed; (d) exposure of the men to other causes of reticulo-endothelial system neoplasms; or (e) a combination of some or all of these factors. 2. I am not aware that repatriation boards determine claims on the basis of distance from the hypocentre of an atomic explosion. Distance is only one element among many which would delineate the radiation exposure and risk to a claimant. 3. Yes. 4. In undergraduate medical education all medical students receive some training in the use of radiation for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Extended coverage of radiation is provided at postgraduate level for appropriate medical specialities. At both the undergraduate and postgraduate level the subject gives some coverage of the effect of ionising radiation on human beings; the Department of Health is not aware of the 'action . . . of the United States' referred to in the question. 5. The report of the study on the health of those Australian ex-servicemen who were involved in the British nuclear tests has been printed and was tabled on 15 December 1983. 6. See (5) above. (Question No. 495) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 9 November 1983: (1) Has Film Australia been commissioned to 'produce a film for national and possibly international distribution putting the facts on kangaroos'; if so, who has commissioned the film and who will be bearing the costs of it. (2) Have any instructions been given to Film Australia by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, his Department or the person/s commissioning the film, concerning the contents of the film. (3) Is it proposed that when the film is completed it will be shown, or promoted in any way, by the Federal Government or any of its departments in such a way that viewers may be led to believe that the views expressed in the film are those of the Australian Government; if so, what will be the general nature of the views to be expressed in the film. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes, Film Australia has been commissioned by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service to make a film on kangaroos. The cost of the film will be met by the Service. (2) The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has provided a brief to Film Australia which suggests the aim of the film should be to inform the public about the conservation status of various species of kangaroos, and to discuss the aims, procedures and effects of kangaroo harvesting. (3) Film Australia has been asked that the film present to the general public the widest possible range of views on the place of kangaroos in our culture, their current status in the environment and the desirability or otherwise of kangaroo harvesting. Current proposals are for the film to contain segments showing the aesthetic aspects of kangaroos, the views of graziers and farmers, the animal protectionists' view of kangaroos as needing complete protection, the industry view of kangaroos as sources of income and the role of wildlife authorities. Distribution and promotion of the film will rest largely with Film Australia. However, the intention is that the film be shown on television. (Question No. 502) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 9 November 1983: (1) Has the Government taken any decision to declare the second stage of the Kakadu National Park; if not, at what stage has the Government's consideration of this matter reached. (2) Is the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware of the concern of the Northern Territory Government that any move to declare the second stage without provision for the excision of the Koongarra and Jabiluka uranium deposits will deprive the nation of billions of dollars in export income, Aboriginal communities of millions of dollars in royalties and equity returns and thousands of new jobs which would flow from the development of these reserves. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) An announcement that the Federal Government has decided to declare Stage 2 of Kakadu National Park was made by the Prime Minister on 18 November 1983. (2) Jabiluka and Koongarra have not been included in the park because ownership of those areas is not vested in the Commonwealth. The Government has indicated that it will have discussions with interested parties concerning the question of inclusion of those areas in the park. It is the Commonwealth's view that development of appropriate visitor facilities in Kakadu National Park will generate a major long term increase in job opportunities and increase significantly revenue to the Northern Territory. Kakadu National Park is already a major tourist attraction, and the proposed development will need to be undertaken in such a way as to ensure the protection of the natural and cultural values of the park and be sensitive to Aboriginal interests. These matters will be taken up in discussions between the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Cohen, and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Northern Territory Government and Aboriginal groups. (Question No. 515) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) Did information disseminated by the Australian Government in the United States prior to the commencement of the public hearings in Washington into the delisting of the three kangaroo species from the United States threatened species list, on 6 June 1983, seriously mislead the United States Government into believing that the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 and the national kangaroo management programme were both legally enforceable. (2) Did the United States make it clear during these hearings on 6 June that the legal enforceability of the Act and the management programme were important to the delisting decision, and did the official Australian Government representative testify that the Act would be proclaimed in the near future. (3) Did the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment commit the Australian Government to establishing a national kangaroo monitoring unit to assess population trends following the hearings. Did the Australian Embassy in Washington, in spite of the abovementioned undertakings, recently write to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service stating that no firm date could be given for either the proclamation of the Act or the establishment of the monitoring unit, and does the Australian Government consider that the United States has already received sufficient data on kangaroo management to make a decision on the delisting proposal. (4) On what date will the Act be proclaimed, in light of the importance given by the United States to the legal enforceability of the Wildlife Protection ( Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982; and if this is not known, what are the reasons for the delay. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. The Australian Government made two major submissions to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the 6 June hearings. The first submission, dated 10 November 1982, stated that the Wildlife Protection ( Regulation of Exports and Imports) Bill 1982 was introduced into Federal Parliament on 6 May 1982. No date for passage of the Bill was suggested. This submission included, as an appendix, a copy of the national kangaroo management program. The status of this program is made clear in section 3 (Implementation) which lists issues which should be taken into account by Australian wildlife authorities in implementing agreed management objectives. In a second submission dated 1 June 1983, the Government stated that the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 had been passed by the Parliament and was awaiting proclamation. At the hearing on 6 June 1983, the Australian Government representatives made it clear that this remained the position. (2) The United States did not express any views at the hearing regarding the importance of the legal enforceability of the Wildlife Protection Act or the national kangaroo management program to the delisting proposal. In respect of the Wildlife Protection Act, the Australian Government representative at the hearing indicated that as soon as minor adminstrative details and staffing concerns had been dealt with, including the finalization of the Regulations, the Act would be proclaimed. (3) The Governor-General's speech on 21 April 1983 gave a commitment to establish a national kangaroo monitoring unit. The Australian Embassy in Washington wrote to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service on 4 October 1983 stating that no firm date could be given for the proclamation of the Act or for the monitoring unit; however, since that time , action has been taken to recruit staff for the establishment of the monitoring unit. The Australian Government considers that sufficient information on kangaroo management has been provided to enable a decision to be made on the delisting proposal. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in the Federal Register of 8 April 1983, notified that it had received sufficient data to warrant removal of the Red, Eastern Grey and Western Grey from its classification as endangered and indicated its proposal to delist these kangaroos. (4) I am unable to provide a date of proclamation for the Act as the drafting of regulations, including provisions relating to financial aspects, are yet to be finalised. Discussions regarding enforcement and other adminstrative matters under the Act are continuing between the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Australian Customs Service. Necessary discussions are also being undertaken with the States. I expect to be in a position to make an announcement regarding proclamation in the near future. (Question No. 533) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) and (2) (a) There have been five bodies established in the Department since 5 March 1983, staffed in the main by officers seconded from the Australian Public Service-APS. The details are as follows: Established since 5 March 1983 Additional Staff Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam-established 13 May 1983; *1 position vacant Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies-established 17 May 1983; Nil Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs- established 24 July 1983; 3 National Road Freight Industry Inquiry-established 5 September 1983; and *6 positions vacant Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory- established 15 September 1983. 1 * It is not yet established whether recruitment will be from within the APS or from outside. (1) (b) and (2) (b) It is proposed to establish an inquiry into aviation cost recovery with an approximate staffing level of 12, the bulk of whom will be officers seconded from the Australian Public Service. (Question No. 540) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, 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 Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) Nil. (b) An environmental contaminants authority, in accordance with the ALP platform, will be established within the Home Affairs and Environmental portfolio in 1984. The functions of the authority are being developed within the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. An Interim Consultative Committee for the National Conservation Strategy for Australia (NCSA) will be established. This committee replaces the NCSA steering committee and the NCSA consultative group which were established in 1982 and fulfilled their functions with the successful conclusion of the NCSA Conference in June 1983. An advisory council on Australian archives, as provided for in the Archives Act 1983, is to be established when the Act is proclaimed in 1984. An environment advisory council is to be established to investigate and report to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment on any matter relating to the environment and conservation responsibilities of the Commonwealth which is referred to the council by the Minister. A cultural ministers' council, consisting of Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers having responsibility for cultural affairs and the arts, is proposed to be established in 1984. (2) (a) Nil. (b) Environment contaminants authority-it is not known at this stage how many additional staff will be recruited. Interim consultative committee for the national conservation strategy for Australia-nil Advisory council on Australian archives-nil Environment advisory council-nil Cultural ministers' council-a small number of additional staff is expected to be recruited. (Question No. 541) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, 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 Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) No new authorities, committees, bureaus or other such groups have been established by or within my Department since 5 March 1983. (b) None are being proposed. (2) (a) None. (b) None. (Question No. 560) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: Do defence establishments with resident personnel have fluoride added to their water supplies if the local water supply is not fluoridated; if so: (a) which defence establishments have fluoride added to their water supplies; and (b) which defence establishments do not have fluoride added to their water supplies. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Many defence establishments, especially in New South Wales and Victoria, are supplied with fluoridated water by the local water supply authorities. Where the local water supply to Defence establishments is not fluoridated, the Commonwealth does not fluoridate the water. (Question No. 567) Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 2 December 1983: (1) How much funding has been allocated to the Department of Trade's consulting services feasibility study fund-CSFSF-for each year since its inception in 1973. (2) What are the details for each year, of any unused allocation of CSFSF funds . (3) Has the allocation of funds been fully utilised in every year since 1973; if not, why not. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 1973-74-250,000; 1974-75-250,000; 1975-76-250,000; 1976-77-180,000; 1977-78 -159,000; 1978-79-375,000; 1979-80-375,000; 1980-81-375,000; 1981-82-333,000; 1982-83-377,000; 1983-84-450,000. (2) 1973-74-167,014; 1974-75-130,747; 1975-76-69,468; 1976-77-110,598; 1977-78- 106,687; 1978-79-178,053; 1979-80-61,978; 1980-81-161,758; 1981-82-38,566; 1982- 83-93,494. (3) No. During its first years of operation from 1973-74 to 1974-75 the fund failed to attract the level of interest from Australian consultants that was expected. Initially the operational guidelines were very restrictive and it was the Department's responsibility to identify suitable CSFSF studies and to select suitable firms to undertake these studies. This proved to be unsatisfactory from the consultants' point of view. Effective operation of the fund was suspended from 1976-77 and 1977-78 as a result of Government directives on limiting expenditures. No new projects were undertaken during this period. In 1978-79 the guidelines were revised and consultants were allowed to identify and introduce projects for funding in contrast to the earlier system of Government initiated studies. When administering a scheme of this nature advance commitments can only be entered into to the extent of funds appropriated in the Budget. Consequently any cancellation or deferral by the recipient country, particularly if late in the financial year, can result in underexpenditure. The operating guidelines are currently being reviewed in consultation with the Australian Professional Consultants Council to further improve the fund's effectiveness to assist Australian consultants obtaining overseas contracts. With projects presently under consideration the CSFSF is likely to be fully utilised this financial year. (Question No. 597) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 December 1983: (1) Is the Federal Government considering allowing the United States Navy to establish a permanent presence at Cockburn Sound in Western Australia. (2) Has the United States Government approached the Federal Government with a request to use these facilities; if not, would the Federal Government agree to the United States establishing a naval base at Cockburn Sound if such a request were forthcoming. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. (2) While United States vessels periodically visit Cockburn Sound, the Federal Government has received no request from the United States to establish a permanent naval base there. We consider such a request unlikely in the current strategic situation. If such a request were made, we would need to give the matter careful consideration, taking full account of Australia's national interests, the interests of our allies and the strategic circumstances pertaining at the time. (Question No. 600) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 December 1983: (1) Why are people receiving unemployment services not eligible for rental subsidy. (2) Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the hardship suffered in the absence of a rental subsidy by people who experience long periods of unemployment and also rental accommodation. (3) Will the Minister investigate the area of rental subsidies to ensure that people on unemployment benefits are not disadvantaged. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Under the Social Security Act, entitlement to a 'rental subsidy' by way of supplementary assistance/supplementary allowance is restricted to pensioners, including supporting parent beneficiaries, and sickness beneficiaries after six weeks on benefit. (2) and (3) I am aware that in the current economic climate, large numbers of people, including older people, remain unemployed for long periods while renting in the private sector and that these people represent one of the most needy groups in the community. The Government is committed to extending supplementary assistance to unemployment beneficiaries over 18 years after 6 weeks on benefit and to those aged 16 and 17 living away from home. In the last Budget the Government introduced several measures designed to improve the situation of the unemployed but, because of the need for expenditure constraint, these did not include the extension of supplementary assistance to unemployment beneficiaries. The Government will give further consideration to this matter within the context of the future Budget. Senator Grimes —On 1 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3123) Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the advertising of Medicare in country and non-daily newspapers. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: I am conscious of the value of the daily and non-daily newspapers to the smaller towns in the dissemination of information about Medicare. Daily newspapers in country areas were used in the initial Medicare advertising . The Medicare letterbox drop, enclosing enrolment application forms and informative literature, was sent to every postal address in Australia and was supported by advertising on country television and radio stations and in major regional newspapers. It is expected that all country newspapers, including non-dailies, will carry Medicare advertising throughout the explanatory 'How to use Medicare' phase during February 1984. Senator Button —On 7 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3386) Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, as a question without notice whether the Prime Minister misled the House of Representatives on 17 May this year. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: I have nothing more to add to the statements I have made on this subject following the presentation of the report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies on Term of reference (c) (Hansard, 6 December 1983, page 3289) and I refer the honourable senator to my answer to a question without notice on 7 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3387). (Question No. 281) Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) How many requests for taps of telephones have been made this year and how many warrants have been issued by the Attorney-General? (2) Does this number of requests and warrants equal that of the previous year? Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) In my answer to a similar question asked by Dr Klugman, House of Representatives, Question No. 164 (Hansard, page 2839, 16 November 1983) I said that, whilst it was appropriate to show publicly the general extent to which the intercept provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act were used, there would be no policy of automatically stating the number of current authorisations whenever asked. In accordance with that approach, I indicated that the number of warrants presently authorised is of an order of magnitude consistent with the annual average for the period 1974 to 1983, viz, 85.6. I also said that the Government would give further consideration to the detailed information it may be appropriate to make publicly available in the light of the recommendations, when received, of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. There is nothing further I wish to add to my previous answer. (Question No. 336) Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: (1) Does the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation-ASIO-hold 'normal registry files' on Australian citizens; if so, how many such files are there. (2) Will the Attorney-General review this aspect of spying on Australian citizens to ensure that files are not kept on persons who are not a threat to security. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) In paragraphs 195 and 196 of Volume 1 of the fourth report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security, Mr Justice Hope said: '195. Not a few members of the public are concerned that ASIO might have a 'file ' about them. Being on ASIO's records is not, and should not be seen as, akin to having a police or criminal record. A very large number of ASIO's files establish that persons are not security risks. (4-68: They include people in vetting categories-people in certain Commonwealth Government employment, and immigrants-of whom ASIO almost certainly have a record.) But apart from this at times important intelligence, ASIO needs a bank of information.' '196. A requirement that ASIO destroy all records about people whom it has not established to be security risks is not justified. Such a requirement is based on a simplistic idea about the nature, and the difficulty, of ASIO's task. Information cannot be assessed until after it is collected. Apparently innocent information about people might, after the addition of other information, assume a different appearance. The reverse can also happen. However, ASIO does hold many records which are not, or are not now, of actual or potential security relevance. As resources allow, these records should be destroyed. I have been told by the Director-General that a start has already been made.' I am informed that there are information management practices employed by ASIO whereby files are reviewed and, where appropriate, destroyed. Information management within ASIO is a matter that I expect will be examined by the current Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. I do not think it is appropriate for statistics of ASIO file holdings to be made public. (Question No. 353) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: What was the average amount paid to each of the following schools for each student in years 7 to 10 inclusive for each of the last three years: (a) Merici College; (b) Daramalan College; (c) St Francis Xavier High; (d) St Clare's College; (e) St Edmund's College; (f) Marist College; (g) Padua High; (h) Canberra Boys' Grammar School; (i) Canberra Girls' Grammar School; and (j) AME School. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Commonwealth general recurrent grants (in the case of the Australian Capital Territory, both grants from the Commonwealth Schools Commission and from the Department of Education and Youth Affairs) are paid on a per capita basis with different rates for primary and secondary students. The secondary rates for a particular school are the same for all students in years 7-12. The table below therefore applies to years 7-12 for each of the schools listed. As far as the variations in Commonwealth Schools Commission grants for individual schools are concerned, grants are based on a 3-tier system of per capita payments according to the assessed needs of schools. The AME school and the two Canberra grammar schools are in Group 1 for grant purposes. Other schools are in Group 3. The variation in actual grants for Catholic systemic schools (Merici College, St Francis Xavier College, St Clare's College, Padua High) reflects the allocation of funds between individual schools by Catholic education authorities on the basis of need. GENERAL RECURRENT GRANTS PER SECONDARY STUDENT 1981 1982 1983 Dept. of Educ. Dept. of Educ. Dept. of Educ. School CSC * & Youth Affairs CSC & Youth Affairs CSC &Youth Affairs $ $ $ $ $(a) $ Merici College 714 388 982 426 1,097 497 Daramalan College 727 388 967 426 1,075 497 St Francis Xavier College 721 388 945 426 1,025 497 St Clare's College 730 388 948 426 1,054 497 St Edmund's College 727 388 967 426 1,075 497 Marist College 727 388 967 426 1,075 497 Padua High 750 388 1,006 426 1,144 497 Canberra Boys' Grammar School 353 (b) 388 509 426 537 497 Canberra Girls' Grammar School 415 (b) 388 509 426 537 497 AME School 415 388 509 426 537 497 * Commonwealth Schools Commission: (a) Subject to adjustment in respect of increased salary costs arising from the October 1983 national wage case. (b) The variation shown between the Schools Commission grants for the two Canberra grammar schools in 1981 is due to the operation of a 6-level grant system at that time whereby the Boys' Grammar School was in Level 1 and the Girls' Grammar School in Level 2. In 1982 this was replaced by the 3-tier system whereby both schools were placed in the same group. (Question No. 355) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: What was the average amount paid to each of the following schools for each student in years 11 and 12 inclusive for each of the last three years: (a) Merici College; (b) Daramalan College; (c) St Francis Xavier High; (d) St Edmund's College; (e) St Clare's College; (f) Marist College; (g) Padua High; (h) Canberra Boys Grammar School; and (i) Canberra Girls Grammar School. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Please see answer to Question No. 353. (Question No. 417) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 6 October 1983: Is the Minister for Communications in a position to report on the present situation of the previous Government's commitments for the establishment of a system of inland transmitters at Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs in the Northern Territory; if so, at what stage are the plans and/or progress of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation transmitters, and when is it envisaged that the Australian Broadcasting Communication network system will come into operation. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The project is proceeding. Site acquisition is nearly complete, and the Department of Housing and Construction is proceeding with the design of the buildings and civil works. Unfortunately there has been a delay in obtaining suitable transmitters for the project. Consequently the estimated completion date of the project is now mid 1985. (Question No. 447) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 18 October 1983: As at 18 October 1983, (a) how many applications for local ownership are before the Government for approval, and (b) which ones are they. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As at 18 October 1983 discussions were underway between my Department and local authorities regarding the transfer of several Commonwealth aerodromes. The matter of approval of such transfers will come before me for decision if suitable transfer arrangements can be mutually agreed. At the present time the only application for local ownership of which I am aware is in respect of Albany aerodrome. I am expecting the formal application papers to be put before me shortly. (Question No. 463) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: (1) What defence equipment has been sold by Australia to overseas nations for each financial year since 1970-71. (2) What was (a) the nature; (b) the quantity; (c) the destination; and (d) the price in constant dollars, in each individual case. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Contracts with other governments and agencies purchasing on their behalf include a non-disclosure clause which limits the publication of the details related to specific contracts. The information provided below relates to Defence material sold by the Commonwealth to overseas countries since 1970-71. NATURE OF EQUIPMENT SOLD Small Arms and Spares: L1A1 Rifles and Spares, L2A1 Rifles and Spares, Rifle Magazines, Blank Firing Attachments, Skeleton Rifles, Laminated Handguards, Conversion Kits, Bren Barrels, Striker Firing Practice. Guns: Oerlikon Guns and Spares, Bofors Spares, 105mm Gun Barrels. Aircraft: Aircraft Components, Jindivik Aircraft and Spares, Jindivik Post Design Services, Gyroscope Spares, Jindivik MK4 Development, Reconditioned Aircraft Engines, Jindivik 700 Series Flight Trials. Ammunition and Explosives: Cartridges Nato Ball, Fillers, Cartridges, Blanks, Practice Bombs, Grenades, Demolition Firing Devices, Missiles, Detonators, TNT, Propellant, RDX/TNT, Spotting Charges, Demolition Block 1 1/4 lb, Mine Anti- Personnel Practice F3, Thunderflashes, Simulator Bottle Noise, Primer 1 1/2 oz, Fuse Mine Practice, 500lb Bombs, High Explosive Complete with Electric Cable Assembly. Marine Equipment: Markers Marine, FFG Shafting, Propellor. Technical Equipment and Tools: Armourers Tools and Guages, Missile and Depot equipment, Magnetron, Transformers and Igniters, Heat Exhange Assembly, 28 Volt Generators, Brackets and Lugs for Generators. Destination Anguilla Malaysia Bahamas Malta Bahrain Mauritius Barbados Muscat Belgium New Zealand Belize Nigeria Bermuda Oman Botswana Papua New Guinea Brazil Seychelles British Honduras Singapore Brunei Solomon Islands Burma South Korea Cambodia Sri Lanka Canada St Vincent Denmark Sweden Dubai Switzerland Gambia Tanzania Ghana Thailand Guyana Tobago Holland Tonga Hong Kong Trinidad India United Arab Emirates Jamaica United Kingdom Japan United States of America Kenya Vanuatu Malawi Vietnam Zambia Value (actual sale dollars) YearValue 1970-71$ 8,844,024 1971-72$ 1,138,312 1972-73$10,478,290 1973-74$ 5,840,112 1974-75$ 4,189,690 1975-76$ 4,873,464 1976-77$10,991,435 1977-78$ 2,263,348 1978-79$ 5,882,687 1979-80$ 7,083,255 1980-81$11,108,994 1981-82$ 5,159,116 1982-83$12,923,899 (Question No. 472) Senator Hearn asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 November 1983: Has the Australian Public Service staff been increased in the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 according to increases in workloads for each department, relating to workers compensation determinations referred to in Question No. 451 (see Hansard, 1 November 1983, page 1973). Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The numbers of full-time staff in the Australian Public Service increased in each of the years 1980, 1981 and 1982, and have increased in the nine months to end-September 1983, as follows: Full-time Staff in the Australian Public Service (excluding Parliamentary Departments) Increase December 1979 150,492 December 1980 151,791 1299 (0.9 per cent) December 1981 152,004 213 (0.1 per cent) December 1982 154,721 2717 (1.8 per cent) September 1983 161,149 6428 (4.2 per cent) It is not possible to accurately measure changes in the total workload of the Service. Not all areas are amenable to precise measurement of workload and workload changes may vary markedly between departments and programs within departments. However, departments are expected to support requests for additional staffing with any workload and performance indicators that are available. The Government proposes to introduce a system of human resource budgeting as part of its Public Service reform measures. The steps to be taken in introducing this system have been published in the White Paper on the Reform of the Australian Public Service. (Question No. 478) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 3 November 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that the British Health and Safety Commission is establishing an asbestos industry working group, comprising representatives of employees, trade unions, health and industrial safety experts and others to study the practical implementation of engineering controls within industries using asbestos and asbestos products, study effective exhaust ventilation methods, the cleaning of premises and plant, the use of respirators and protective clothing for workers handling asbestos or asbestos products as well as safety training for management and workers. (2) Does the Minister foresee a need for a similar asbestos industry working group in Australia; if so, will the Federal Government initiate discussions with the appropriate parties with a view to reducing the hazards associated with the handling and use of asbestos and asbestos products in the Australian context. Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The Government recognises the importance and seriousness of the asbestos problem. In a joint Press statement with my colleague the Minister for Territories and Local Government I advised that priority would be given to the development of national standards and guidelines for the safe treatment and handling of asbestos. Such guidelines will be developed by the proposed tripartite National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, details of which were conveyed to the Parliament in my statement of 10 November. Pending the establishment of that Commission, the newly formed National Consultative Committee on Occupational Health and Safety has established a working party to consider the problem of non-occupational exposure to asbestos. This will require that acceptable exposure levels be determined for working environments other than those related to the asbestos industry. With regard to occupational exposure, it should be noted that Australia has one of the most stringent exposure standards in the world. In addition these are reviewed from time to time by the National Health and Medical Research Council. While no decision has been taken regarding an asbestos industry working group similar to that established by the British Health and Safety Commission, I am confident that the initiatives I have announced concerning the establishment of a working group under the auspices of the National Consultative Committee on Occupational Health and Safety will ensure that Australia remains amongst the world's leaders in controlling asbestos hazards. (Question No. 481) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 8 November 1983: (1) Does the Minister for Resources and Energy acknowledge the necessity for compensation to be paid to (a) the mining companies involved, which have, in good faith, spent millions of dollars in carrying out the Government's requirements for development of the uranium industry and to (b) the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land, who have given their permission for mining to be undertaken and who stand to lose some $200m if it is not, in view of the Press conference held by the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, last Tuesday, at which he said he had instructed the Territory's Co-ordinator General to look into the question of compensation for the Territory if the future development of the uranium industry is stopped, and the statement by the Director of the Northern Land Council, Wesley Lanhupuy, on the Australian Broadcasting Commission's After 8 program in Darwin on 3 November 1983 when he said there is no doubt the Council could be approaching the Federal Government on the compensation issue. (2) Does the Minister acknowledge that, no matter what amount the Government may settle on, compensation for the Northern Territory could not make up for the loss of the uranium industry. (3) Will the Government review the decision and allow the development of the uranium industry in the Northern Territory. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The Government is advised that it has no legal obligation to pay compensation arising out of these matters. I point out that the decision taken in respect of existing mines in the Northern Territory provides a basis for maintaining development and revenue for the Northern Territory and employment and income for the relevant Aboriginal communities. The Government envisages that the foreshadowed expansion of visitor facilities in the Kakadu National Park will generate a major expansion of economic and employment opportunities in the region. However, I note that during the recent Northern Territory election campaign the Country Liberal Party distributed a leaflet, bearing the photograph and name of the Chief Minister, which criticised development proposals made by the Labor Party as follows: 'Big numbers of tourists the Labor Party is planning to put in big hotels in the park under Balanda control will destroy Aboriginal self-determination and take away their control of the land.' This statement indicates that the Northern Territory Government is opposed to the proposed Kakadu tourist developments. (Question No. 496) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 9 November 1983: What were the mechanical problems which delayed the departure of Qantas flights from Brisbane airport on 26 January 1983 and 31 August 1983 and what were the details in relation to the factors which caused the refuelling of the Trans Australia Airline flight on 27 May 1983 (see Answer to Question No. 290, Hansard , 8 November 1983, page 2324). Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: On 26 January 1983 the Qantas flight was delayed by a thrust reverse defect on No. 2 engine. On 31 August 1983 the Qantas flight was delayed by a leading edge flap defect. On 27 May 1983 bad weather at Brisbane required the carriage of fuel for flight to an alternate aerodrome. The TAA flight was unable to carry sufficient fuel for the flight from Canberra to Brisbane because of the number of passengers required to be uplifted. A refuelling stop was therefore necessary at Sydney. (Question No. 499) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 19 November 1983: (1) What is to be the future of the surrounding area and the lease of Jabiluka now that the Government has indicated that Koongarra and Jabiluka are not to proceed and there is no indication that these mines will ever produce under a Labor administration. (2) Is the Government going to declare the area known as Kakadu 2 in its entirety as a national park, locking in once and for all the many minerals in this highly mineralised area, or will it accede to the Northern Territory request that a conservation area of not more than 50 per cent be declared for a predetermined period to allow a national stocktake of the resources of this area . (3) Does the Government expect that if this action is not taken uranium and other minerals, such as gold and copper, will be locked in permanently with no further development. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) As announced by the Prime Minister on 18 November 1983 the Government has decided to declare Stage II of the Kakadu National Park in accordance with the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The Government is examining the position of the Jabiluka and Koongarra project areas within the Park and will be having discussions with interested parties. As far as any further development in the Kakadu National Park area is concerned , I note that during the recent Northern Territory election campaign the Country Liberal Party distributed a leaflet, bearing the photograph and name of the Chief Minister, which criticised development proposals made by the Labor Party as follows: 'Big numbers of tourists the Labor Party is planning to put in big hotels in the park under Balanda control will destroy Aboriginal self- determination and take away their control of the land.' This statement indicates that the Northern Territory Government is opposed to the proposed Kakadu tourist developments. (Question No. 521) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaux, 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 Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) The Government decided to establish the following bodies which are serviced by the Department: Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes-ACPI Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs. (1) (b) Nil. (2) (a) and (b) Three, for the ACPI Secretariat. Another 46 officers have or will be deployed under temporary staffing arrangements to service the latter three bodies which are of a short-term nature. (Question No. 526) Senator Archer asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaux, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) Nil (b) (i) Director of Public Prosecutions-DPP (ii) Sex Discrimination Commissioner (2) (a) Mr I. Temby has been appointed Director of Public Prosecutions and will commence on 5 March 1984. (b) (i) A small number of support staff is proposed to be recruited. Depending on directions or guidelines given to the DPP it may be necessary to vary current approved staffing levels. (ii) 8, as part of the Human Rights Commission. (Question No. 527) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaux or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being, appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The only new authority, committee, bureau, or other such group established, or proposed within my Department since 5 March 1983 has been the Defence Industry Policy Committee. (2) Two officers have been assigned to provide secretarial services to the Committee. (Question No. 536) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaux, 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 Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) nil; (b) nil (2) (a) nil; (b) nil (Question No. 542) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaux, 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 answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) No new authorities, committees, bureaux, or other such groups have been established, or have been proposed, by or within the Department of Veterans ' Affairs, since 5 March 1983. (Question No. 545) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) Will any Australian television network broadcast the United States-produced television film depicting the effects of nuclear war, The Day After. (2) Will the Minister for Communications request the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to show the film in prime time nationally and with adequate publicity. (3) Will the Minister indicate the reasons if the film is not to be shown in Australia. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice received from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation endeavoured to purchase The Day After but television rights had already been sold to the Australian commercial television network Channel 10. Cinema rights for Australia are held by Roadshow Distributors Pty Ltd which plans to commence box office sales in February 1984. (Question No. 553) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: (1) What is the present system of quarantine on exotic live fish. (2) Is the present system adequate to stop diseases such as cholera and parasites such as water lice and snail eggs entering Australia via imported pet fish and polluting our waterways. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Proclamation 112A, gazetted in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S 282 of 14 November 1983, places controls upon the exporters of live fish and the conditions under which live fish are exported to Australia. A visual inspection is carried out at all ports of entry to ensure that no prohibited species are brought in along with snails, plant material and obviously diseased specimens. Only premises meeting our requirements regarding hygiene, water quality, handling and packaging facilities have been issued with a certificate to export. Any adverse reports from the quarantine inspectors are followed up and a warning issued that such practices may lead to the certificate being revoked. (2) No. To stop such diseases and pests we need proper Australian quarantine facilities where fish can be held for 14 days and the water in which the fish have been kept must be sterilised and disposed of safely. The industry has been advised of our intent to introduce regulations to include such requirements to be effective from 1 March 1984. Australian importers are currently building import premises to meet the new requirements. (Question No. 554) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: (1) Have works to accommodate domestic wide bodied aircraft at Adelaide Airport been completed; if not, what is the timetable for finalising these works. (2) Will the Minister for Aviation obtain information from Ansett Airlines of Australia about when regular scheduled services operated by Boeing 767 wide bodied aircraft will commence to Adelaide, in view of the fact that Adelaide is the only mainland State capital not served by these aircraft. (3) What are the reasons for Ansett Airlines of Australia not currently operating flights by Boeing 767 aircraft to Adelaide, while Perth and Brisbane are served by such equipment. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The works to accommodate domestic wide bodied aircraft at Adelaide Airport were sufficiently advanced to enable operations by these aircraft to commence on 26 November 1982; they have continued on an ad hoc basis since. All major works have now been completed; however, there are a number of minor items still outstanding. These are expected to be finalised this financial year. (2) The General Manager of Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd has advised that, if there is a recovery in the domestic airline market, it is probable that scheduled Boeing 767 services to Adelaide would be commenced when the company's fifth Boeing 767 is delivered in September 1984. (3) The General Manager has further advised that Ansett does not operate Boeing 767 aircraft to Adelaide on a regular basis because of the effect that its introduction would have on the frequency of services. There is currently an average of five services a day between Melbourne and Adelaide; if the Boeing 767 were introduced, the average would fall to three a day. It is the company's assessment of the market that frequency of service is preferred above any particular aircraft type. The Boeing 767 is operated to Brisbane because of the much higher traffic densities which support 51 services a week. Boeing 767 operations to Perth are scheduled to offer an increase in capacity when additional frequency of service is not warranted. (Question No. 558) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 1 December 1983: (1) Is the Special Minister of State aware that during the Pine Gap Women for Survival Peace Camp a helicopter was regularly hovering over the camp during the day and at night. (2) Who authorised these flights. (3) Is it correct that, during night flights, only one red light was operating; if so, was this red light part of any infra-red camera equipment the helicopter might have been carrying so that it could detect people at night without using a spotlight. (4) Was the helicopter using any lights for navigational purposes; if not, why not. (5) Is it correct that the word 'Police' appeared on the helicopter but that the identification number was either painted out or was not visible during flights over the camp; if so, was the helicopter in fact a police helicopter; if it was not a police helicopter, to whom did it belong. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am advised that, on the night of 11 November 1983, a helicopter operated over the camp in the course of testing its equipment. This was an inadvertent operation of the aircraft and apologies were tendered to the Police Liaison Collective on the following morning by the Australian Federal Police-AFP-Officer in Charge of police arrangements. All subsequent helicopter operations were confined to the prohibited area or to hinterland patrols well away from the camp . The access road along which the majority of women were camped runs parallel to the perimeter of the prohibited area and at a distance of less than 200 yards. AFP helicopter operations would hence have come within 200 yards of the camp while engaged on protective security missions. The usual operating height at these times was between 400 and 500 feet above ground level. (2) All operations by the Australian Federal Police helicopter during the period 11 to 23 November 1983 were directed by the AFP Commander, appointed to conduct the special police responses during the period of the Pine Gap demonstrations. (3) No. (4) Yes-but with exceptions. As the aircraft may have been placed at risk from projectiles originating from the area of the main gate, the aircraft pilot elected to douse navigation lights where and at those times when he thought himself to be most vulnerable. Airspace in which this decision operated was promulgated as 'Restricted Airspace'. A projectile was in fact discharged from the vicinity of the main gate on the night of 22 November 1983. The following lights were used to assist the pilot in avoiding hazards: (a) Hazard lights on artificial structures higher than 50 feet above ground level situated in his area of sortie; and (b) floodlighting fitted to the aircraft. (5) The word 'Police' appeared on one of two helicopters used by police at Pine Gap. The one making the inadvertent flight did so at night when its markings would not have been visible to persons on the ground. One light helicopter was deployed by Northern Territory Police. This had no police identification marking and had no function other than random surveillance within the prohibited area. It is assumed that the question alludes to the helicopter deployed by the AFP. The word 'Police' appeared on the fuselage of the AFP helicopter in accordance with contemporary obligations for police to be identifiable particularly when requiring members of the public to comply with lawful directions. In this case, lawful directions could be given via the public address system with which the aircraft was fitted. The aircraft itself was operated by the National Safety Council of Australia of which the AFP is a contributing member. The NSCA is the custodian of a number of important support skills and equipment, including aircraft, for application in emergencies and disasters; hence Australian Federal Police membership. Authority over tasking of the aircraft was vested with the Australian Federal Police Commander at Pine Gap. The aircraft operation was additionally authenticated by the contractual arrangements made with the NSCA and a procedure which ensured that it was not tasked on operational business without at least one Australian Federal Police officer in the aircraft; more often two. (Question No. 559) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: (1) How many people have been employed under the Community Employment Program up to the end of November 1983. (2) How many of those employed have put in claims for workers' compensation. Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) A total of 1109 people have been employed under the program: 1042 employed by Commonwealth departments and authorities as at 28 November 1983 under the Commonwealth component of the program. 67 employed on projects under the State/Territory component of the program as at 2 December 1983. (2) The responsibility for workers' compensation rests with project employers. Figures relating to such claims in respect of the State/Territory component of the program are not collected. In respect of projects sponsored by Commonwealth departments and authorities six workers' compensation claims had been received up to 30 November 1983. (Question No. 566) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 December 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the level of the cost benefits pertaining to pre-sale dumping. (2) Have comparisons of costs of post and pre-sale dumping been made during the last 3 years; if so, what are the details. (3) Would the difference in costs between the two methods be more than the amounts by which jumbo bales have been discounted, i.e. some 10c to 13c per kilo as indicated by the Australian Wool Processors Council. (4) Will the Government suggest, if the comparisons of post and pre-sale dumping have not been undertaken, that they be conducted by an international authority on commodity handling so that the entire wool industry will have access to the information. (5) What action is being taken by the Government to assure our largest overseas buyers that pre-sale dumping will not become widespread so our future trading arrangements will not be jeopardised. (6) Will the Minister seek the views of the Australian Wool Corporation regarding the commercial risks involved in pre-sale dumped packs at substantially the same price levels as farm bales plus dumping charges. (7) Will the Government intervene should wool brokers proceed with the installation of further pre-sale dumping arrangements. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There has to date been no public disclosure of the cost-benefits associated with the commercial introduction of pre-sale dumping of wool in Brisbane in October 1983. The Australian Wool Corporation has previously undertaken some desk studies which suggest there would be significant net benefits from this system, but these findings could only be substantiated through full-scale commercial trials. (2) Detailed comparison of post and pre-sale dumping are presently being undertaken by the Australian Wool Corporation, the results of which could determine future reserve price support for wool prepared in a dumped form prior to sale and continued support by Queensland woolgrowers. (3) Although discounts at auction of 10c to 13c per kilo on jumbo bales may apply on occasion, the Australian Wool Corporation has no evidence to support the view they are that high consistently, or on average. A detailed comparative study undertaken by the Corporation in 1980 disclosed average levels of discounts for jumbo bales at that time of 5c to 6c per kilo greasy and offsetting savings to growers of 3c per kilo. The Australian Wool Corporation considers it is unlikely that the difference in costs between post and pre-sale high density dumping is more than the amounts by which jumbo bales have been discounted. (4) As I indicated above, a study into the comparative effects of pre-sale dumping on the wool industry is being undertaken by the Australian Wool Corporation on behalf of woolgrowers. The Government believes that the Corporation is fully competent to undertake the study, the results of which will be available to all interested parties in the wool industry. (5) The pre-sale dumping of wool is essentially a commercial matter which should be resolved between the parties involved, principally woolgrowers, brokers and the buyers. I have, however, been advised that unless the introduction of pre-sale dumping can be justified on commercial grounds in each case it is not likely that the system will be supported by growers or the Australian Wool Corporation through the wool reserve price scheme. (6) Yes. The Australian Wool Corporation has reported that it recognises that some overseas markets do not support tri-packed bales, while others require only part of their wool in this form. It recognises also that local processors oppose tri-pack wool, and other high density package forms. The Corporation is continuing to monitor the extent of discounting at Brisbane sales as part of its evaluation of the system. (7) The Corporation has indicated it will not continue reserve price support indefinitely for pre-sale dumped wool unless the system proves its commercial viability and potential net benefit to the wool industry. If this is not achieved, the absence of reserve price support and consequent lack of grower support, could be sufficient to discourage a general movement towards pre-sale dumping without the need for Government intervention. Further, following representations from the Australian Wool Processors Council, I did write on 12 September 1983 to the principal parties involved in the pre- sale dumping of wool stressing that there should be considerable consultations between appropriate groups in the industry on the effects of the development in Brisbane, and that I would be concerned if there was a move towards pre-sale dumping of wool in other wool selling centres before the evaluation of the development in Brisbane was completed. (Question No. 569) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 6 December 1983: (1) Is the Attorney-General able to answer the questions raised by Senator Kilgariff during the adjournment debate on 18 November 1983 regarding the possible misuse of funds and vehicles by the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, Alice Springs, during the demonstration at Pine Gap and in the light of the complaints, has the matter been investigated; if not, is it the intention of the Government to review the matter (see Hansard, 18 November 1983, page 2887). Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I refer the honourable senator to my reply to Question No. 580. (Question No. 572) Senator Sibraa asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 7 December 1983: (1) How many people in each State have had to supply declaratory certificates of identity in order to receive Australian passports since the implementation of new passport procedures. (2) How many of these people have received their Australian passports in each State. (3) How many people are still waiting for their Australian passports in this category in each State. (4) What is the delay in process in this category in each State. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2), (3) and (4) I take it that the honourable senator is referring to declaratory certificates of citizenship. These certificates are issued to Australian citizens by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. All applicants for Australian passports are asked to provide proof that they are Australian citizens. However, my Department does not maintain statistics on the number of people who supply declaratory certificates of citizenship as evidence of citizenship, rather than another form of evidence. Since passports are issued at the rate of roughly 12,000 a week, it would not be practicable to devote staffing resources to compiling statistics on the point. Generally, a passport is issued within 10 working days of an application being received at a passport office, provided that the application has been fully completed. (Question No. 573) Senator Sibraa asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 6 December 1983: (1) How many people in each State have had to apply for and have obtained declaratory certificates of identity in order to receive Australian passports since the implementation of new passport procedures. (2) How many people in each State are responsible for the issuing of such certificates. (3) What is the delay factor in each State. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has no way of monitoring individual reasons for applying for declaratory certificates. An indication of the increase in the need for such documents since the passport office issued new instructions on 24 February 1983 is shown below: Average number declarations Period per month March-November 1982 694 March-November 1983 999 This represents an increase of 30 per cent. (2) and (3) Table below shows the information requested: No. of people issuing these Delay factor States certificates in each State New South Wales 5 3 weeks Victoria 1 3 weeks Queensland 1 1 week Western Australia 1 1 week South Australia 1 2 weeks Tasmania 2 1 week Australian Capital Territory 2 1 week Northern Territory 1 1 week It should be noted that these officers perform other duties in addition to issuing declaratory certificates. (Question No. 577) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: (1) Are any elements of the Defence Forces keeping surveillance or information on any civilians within Australia or overseas. (2) For what purpose is the surveillance or information being kept. (3) Under what supervision is this being done. (4) Who are the Ministers responsible for any such action. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Defence Force does not carry out surveillance of civilians. There are instances in which Defence Force personnel, notably the Naval Police, Military Police and Air Force Police, are required to investigate civilians. For example, Naval, Military, or Air Force Police are, on rare occasions, called upon to make enquiries of or about civilians as part of investigations of Service personnel or of offences committed on Service premises. Investigations of this type are conducted to determine whether prima facie evidence exists for proceedings to be instituted by civil authorities where breaches of State or Federal laws occur, and cases are transferred to the appropriate civil authority at the earliest opportunity. Service intelligence and security staff also collect information concerning applicants for enlistment (that is, civilians) in order to assess their character and general suitability for access to classified information during service. The recruitment process into the Defence Forces requires a degree of investigation to verify background eligibility and stated qualifications of an applicant. Such investigation is done with the written authority of the applicant. Records are maintained on the basis of strict confidentiality and restricted access. (3) Normal command supervision. (4) The Minister for Defence has ministerial responsibility. (Question No. 579) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) Has the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs been drawn to an article published in the Northern Territory's Centralian Advocate on 23 November 1983, which states that Aboriginal women were 'talked into' participating in the recent women's protest at Pine Gap. (2) Has the Government taken any action as a result of the claims made by an Aranda woman, Betty Pearce; if so, what action has been taken and what were the results; if not, does the Government have any intention of reviewing this situation. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) My Department has investigated the claims made by Ms Betty Pearce and I am informed that it is possible that some Aboriginal women who participated in the demonstration at Pine Gap may have been misled in respect of the purpose of their trip to Alice Springs. I am told, further, that they quickly ceased their involvement in the demonstration when they were advised by local Aboriginals that Pine Gap was close to an Aboriginal men's sacred site. (Question No. 580) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 December 1983: (1) Has the Attorney-General been contacted by the Northern Territory Police Association relating to actions of solicitors employed by the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service-CAALAS-in advising demonstrators who have been arrested at Pine Gap. (2) Have solicitors employed by CAALAS been involved; if so, were they on leave and were funds appropriated to assist Aborigines used to assist non-Aboriginal protesters. (3) Will the Attorney-General either confirm or deny whether (a) CAALAS vehicles were utilised to attend the demonstration at Pine Gap and ( b) that a CAALAS vehicle was not available to take an Aboriginal youth to court on 17 November 1983. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) I am informed that some solicitors employed by CAALAS were involved, in their own time, in advising demonstrators and that Commonwealth funds were not used to assist non-Aboriginal protesters. (3) (a) I am informed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that the CAALAS denies that its vehicles were used at any time to assist demonstrators at Pine Gap. (b) The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has been unable to ascertain whether or not a CAALAS vehicle was available to take an Aboriginal youth to court on 17 November 1983. (Question No. 581) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 9 December 1983: (1) Has the Minister for Veterans' Affairs sent letters to trade unions and State branches of the Australian Labor Party relating to the proposed assets test. (2) What was contained in the letters. (3) Will the Minister provide a list of all organisations and individuals who received such a letter. (4) How much did the exercise cost. (5) From what funds was this money appropriated. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) A request for assistance in promoting a better understanding of the income and assets test was sent to all Federal members and senators, all Federal and State executives of the Labor, Liberal and National Country Parties, all branches and sub-branches of all national ex-service organisations and all branches of unions affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The honourable senator was sent a copy on 23 December 1983 and will be aware of its contents. (4) $4,000 (approximately). (5) From the appropriations of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. (Question No. 582) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) What are the details of the activities of the Immigration Review Panel, in particular the number of requests for review of decisions by type of review right exercised and the outcomes of such reviews, for example the number or rejections, reversals, confirmations and modifications of decisions. (2) What is the current size and membership of the Immigration Review Panel. (3) What is the current average length of time for consideration of individual review cases. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Immigration Review Panel examines appeals to the Minister against specific categories of adverse decisions made by departmental officers and recommends to the Minister whether he should uphold or vary those decisions. Panel meetings are held in both Sydney and Melbourne for 2 or 3 days per week. The specific categories of decisions reviewable are: (1) Refusal to allow the migrant entry of a relative sponsored or nominated by an Australian citizen or legal permanent resident of Australia. (2) Refusal to accept migrant entry sponsorship or nomination of a relative overseas by a person who is eligible to sponsor or nominate that relative. (3) Refusal of permanent residence to a person legally in Australia who is eligible for consideration under the provisions of section 6A of the Migration Act. (4) Refusal of permanent residences of a person illegally in Australia who is eligible for consideration under the provision of section 6A of the Migration Act. (5) Refusal to issue a return endorsement to a permanent resident or cancellation of return endorsement held by a permanent resident. (6) Grant of temporary residence instead of permanent residence to a person arriving in Australia with a migrant visa. (7) Refusal to extend or cancellation of the temporary entry permit of a person legally in Australia on business, or for pre-arranged medical treatment, or visiting relatives. (8) Refusal to extend or cancellation of the temporary entry permit of a person legally in Australia with permission to work (excluding entertainers for whom there are separate review arrangements). (9) Refusal to extend or cancellation of the temporary entry permit of a person legally in Australia as a student. (10) Refusal to grant citizenship (excluding cases where, because of refusal on security grounds, other review arrangements apply). (11) An automatic review applies to a person who, having been located as a prohibited immigrant and as such is liable to deportation under section 18 of the Migration Act, is found to be eligible for consideration for resident status under section 6A (1) (b) of the Migration Act by virtue of having an Australian spouse or aged parent or minor child. (12) An automatic review applies to a person who, having been admitted to Australia on a migrant visa, is subsequently found to be a prohibited immigrant pursuant to section 16 (1) of the Migration Act and is therefore liable to deportation under section 18 of the Act (such a person is required to seek a specially endorsed entry permit as required by section 16 of the Act). (Note: Where the word 'relative' is used it means a spouse, child, brother, sister, fiance(e), and includes step-children, step-parents, step-brothers and step-sisters.) The relevant statistics for the year 1982 and for 1983 up to the end of November are set out in the following table. Resolved without Panel Review Applications panel To recommendation category Year received Eligible Ineligible review panel Maintain Vary 1 1982 108 74 34 18 66 38 18 1983 541 516 25 187 497 290 38 (to Nov.) 2 1982 234 223 11 40 216 140 43 1983 1,375 1,360 15 457 1,343 767 136 (to Nov.) 3 1982 319 288 31 41 274 176 71 1983 853 834 19 113 779 658 63 (to Nov.) 4 1982 15 10 5 - 10 6 4 1983 8 7 1 1 7 5 1 (to Nov.) 5 1982 4 3 1 2 3 1 - 1983 5 4 1 3 4 1 - (to Nov.) 6 1982 - - - - - - - 1983 - - - - - - - (to Nov.) 7 1982 277 229 48 117 202 63 49 1983 237 213 24 180 151 27 6 (to Nov.) 8 1982 13 13 - 12 9 1 - 1983 79 79 - 27 66 49 3 (to Nov.) 9 1982 6 6 - 4 5 1 1 1983 6 6 - 2 6 3 1 (to Nov.) 10 1982 14 14 - 8 14 4 2 1983 55 55 - 34 52 20 1 (to Nov.) 11 1982 7 6 1 1 5 5 - 1983 7 5 2 1 4 4 - (to Nov.) 12 1982 2 1 1 1 1 - - 1983 2 1 1 1 1 - - (to Nov.) (2) The panel consists of 15 members, two of whom are Chairmen. One of these Chairmen and any two members consititute a quorum. The members are: Chairmen: Mr Brian Murray Mr Ron Metcalfe Members: Mr Ray Barratt Mr Victor Borg A.M. Mr Tony Boskovic Mr George Donikan Mr Ivan Durrant Mr King Fong Miss Noni Hazelhurst Mrs Elizabeth Hoffmann Mr Giancarlo Martini-Piovano Miss Marlene Mathews A.M. Mr Frederick Parslow Miss Marilyn Rowe O.B.E. Sir Garfield Sobers (3) The intake of appeals has continued to grow steadily and seems to have peaked at about 150 per week. Through the appointment of a second chairman the number of panels sitting simultaneously was increased from one to two and the number of staff in the Review Branch of the Department which services the Immigration Review Panel has been increased substantially. Nevertheless the time taken for review has continued to increase as the backlog has built up further. Priority is given to those reviews in which a requirement for urgent treatment has been brought to notice. The average time from lodgement of review application to decision by the Minister is close to 5 months. This includes the time taken for any further correspondence with the applicant, inquiries into the case (often including inquiries overseas), preparation of all necessary papers for the panel and dispatch to panel members for pre-meeting reading, full examination by the panel including any further inquiries directed by the panel, the panel's report to the Minister and subsequent consideration by the Minister. In a further attempt to reduce the backlog and the average processing time, the Department has recently drawn together a task force which will continue to operate for some months. I am keeping the review system under observation and will await the report of the Administrative Review Council on the review of adverse decisions under the Migration Act before making decisions on any significant changes to the system. (Question No. 588) Senator Childs asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 14 December 1983: What are the details of the APTCARE plan which sets out the procedures to be followed in the event of an accident at Lucas Heights Laboratories, referred to in the answer to Question on Notice No. 411 concerning the extent of the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to ensure the health and safety of workers and residents in the surrounding areas of the Lucas Heights Research Laboratories (see Hansard, 6 December 1983, pages 3349-50). Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: APTCARE (A Plan to Cope with Accidents at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment, Lucas Heights, New South Wales) is a joint emergency plan drawn up by the AAEC and New South Wales authorities to protect the public in the unlikely event of a serious accident at Lucas Heights. The plan consists of procedures to cope with such an accident and the responsibilities for implementation of these procedures. Such a plan is considered prudent for any industrial or technological activity where an accident, no matter how unlikely, could have potential to produce adverse health effects for the public. I have arranged for copies of an information document setting out a summary of the APTCARE plan to be placed in the Parliamentary Library, where they will be available for examination. (Question No. 589) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 14 December 1983: (1) What was the total value of Commonwealth subsidies paid in respect of feeder air passenger services in (a) 1981-82 and (b) 1982-83. (2) What was the total value of subsidies paid in respect of air passenger services in each State and Territory in the above years. (3) What routes, if any, are subsidised in South Australia. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Commonwealth Government currently provides subsidies for air services in three categories: (i) The Remote Air Services Subsidy Scheme is designed to guarantee a minimum level of service throughout the year to ensure fresh food, other perishables and mail can be delivered to remote communities. The level of service normally considered to be a criterion for eligibility for this scheme is a once weekly service by a small single or twin engined aircraft. As the services currently assisted under the scheme are not commercially viable in their own right, they would not be provided without subsidy. (ii) The 10 per cent subsidy for fares between Melbourne and Tasmania paid by the Commonwealth to Ansett, Trans-Australia Airlines and East-West Airlines. This subsidy was introduced by the previous Government in April 1981 following an air fare increase granted to Ansett and TAA. The fare increase was associated with revisions to the air fare formulae which resulted in fares on short haul routes such as those between Melbourne and Tasmania, increasing by more than those on the long haul routes. The subsidy was provided so that the increase in Melbourne-Tasmania airline fares paid by travellers would be contained to approximately the national average increase in fares. (iii) Air travel on services to western Queensland ports is subsidised to enable continued operation of air services currently provided by TAA and Air Queensland, subject to matching subsidy from the Queensland Government. The total value of Commonwealth subsidies paid in respect of each of these categories in (a) 1981-82 and (b) 1982-83 was as follows: (a) (i) $370,659 (ii) $4,114,722 (iii) $1,000,000 (b) (i) $411,539 (ii) $4,799,993 (iii) $2,000,000 (2) The total value of subsidies paid in respect of each of these categories in each State and Territory is as follows: (i) 1981-82 1982-83 $ $ South Australia 6,670 4,674 Queensland 252,120 267,699 Western Australia 31,823 39,100 Northern Territory 80,046 100,066 (ii) Subsidy for travel between Melbourne and Tasmania is not paid by State but provided directly to Ansett, TAA and East-West Airlines on the basis of number and type of passengers carried. 1981-82 1982-83 $ $ (iii) Queensland 1,000,000 2,000,000 (3) Drennan Aviation Pty Ltd provides a once weekly service subsidised under the Remote Area Services Subsidy Scheme in the Channel Country Region in South Australia. (Question No. 591) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 December 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of a report in the Age on Friday 9 December 1983 which cites claims by Dr Kazem Rajavi, a political science professor in Switzerland, that 7,746 people have been executed in Iran since June 1981. (2) Was the Australian delegation to the United Nations one of the 75 delegations, according to Dr Rajavi, amongst which there was not a major nation willing to put the issue of human rights violations before the United Nations, given the Age report as well as Amnesty International's separate report on atrocities in Iran, and a further report authorised by the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva citing dozens of reports of imprisonment, torture and executions in Iran. (3) Why does the Australian Government persist in refusing to take vigorous and determined action either unilaterally or in concert, to make known to the Government of Iran that its persistent barbarities are unacceptable to all civilised people. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Late in the proceedings of the Third Committee of the recently-concluded session of the United Nations General Assembly-UNGA 38-a group representing an Iranian opposition movement lobbied a number of delegations in an effort to have the Third Committee consider the human rights situation in Iran. The group suggested the terms of a possible draft resolution but delegations decided not to proceed with the draft. I am advised that Western delegations assessed that to have initiated at such a late stage in proceedings a debate on the human rights situation in Iran in response to the initiative of an Iranian opposition group would very likely have had a counter-productive result. (3) As should be well known, the Australian Government has taken action on a number of occasions, on both a direct bilateral basis and through multilateral channels, to make known to the Government of Iran its concern about the human rights situation in that country. At UNGA 38, in a statement relating to human rights, the Australian representative in the Third Committee expressed Australia 's serious concern over the recurrent reports of violations of human rights in Iran. In addressing this issue the Government has been guided by the need to ensure that its efforts should be as productive as possible and, in particular, should not put at further risk those suffering or under threat of human rights violations. We shall continue to pursue the question of human rights in Iran as opportunities arise. (Question No. 593) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 14 December 1983: (1) Has the Spanish Government announced a slow down of its nuclear power program. (2) What are the implications of such a slow down. (3) Will the slow down mean that work will stop or not begin on a number of nuclear plant sites where construction has already begun or been approved. (4) What is the expected cost to investment of such a slow down. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is: (1) Yes. On 13 October, 1983, the Spanish Government announced that, consistent with the projections of its economic plan, it had decided to 'slow down or paralyse temporarily' a part of the nuclear power program which had been planned under the direction of the previous Government. Nuclear capacity as at 1990 would now be limited to around 7500 MW rather than the 12,500 MW previously planned. (2) The decision is in line with reduced growth in nuclear and other electricity capacity occurring in other countries. Implications for the Spanish economy include an adverse effect on the balance of payments, as reliance on oil and coal imports would not be reduced to the extent hitherto planned. The slow down in the nuclear power program would also result in a loss of employment opportunities in Spain. (3) and (4) The slow down means that work will either stop or will not begin on 5 of the 12 nuclear plants already under construction or approved. Although the plants which would be affected have not been specified, the Government has indicated that the decision will represent a cost to investors of 300,000 million pesetas (A$2,100m) and result in a capital saving in the short term of 1 ,100,000 million pesetas (A$7700m). (Question No. 603) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 December 1983: (1) What are the details of funding provided for urban public transport throughout Australia under the urban public transport option of the Federally- funded Australian bicentennial road development program. (2) What funds are available outside capital cities. (3) What, on a State basis, is the: (a) total public transport funding; (b) capital city funding; and (c) provincial city funding. (4) What initiatives are planned to upgrade public transport in Townsville to bring this major centre into line with other cities of similar population. (5) Will this city receive a comparable share of urban transport funding. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Section 4 (3) of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development-ABRD-Trust Fund Act 1982 provides that monies available to a State for urban arterial roads may be expended on urban public transport capital projects provided that the Minister for Transport is satisfied that any such project (i) would, if undertaken, result in the reduction of the traffic on, or the wear and tear affecting, urban arterial roads in the State, and (ii) is a project that that State regards as one that should be given priority. Projects which have been approved to 31 December 1983 under this provision are set out in the following table: Commonwealth Date State Project funding approved $000's Queensland Kingston-Beenleigh rail electrification 9,087 8 February 1983 Queensland Car/bus passenger interchanges at Mt Gravatt (Garden City), Windsor (Northey Street), and Toowong 934 8 February 1983 Queensland Car/rail passenger interchanges at Yeronga, East Ipswich and Toombul 553 8 February 1983 Queensland Contribution to Petrie-Caboolture rail electrification 15,125 2 March 1983 Victoria Extension of East Preston tramline to Bundoora 13,400 19 July 1983 Victoria Tram passenger interchange at Domain Road, St Kilda 770 19 July 1983 Victoria Car/rail passenger interchange at Croydon 200 19 July 1983 South Australia Construction of car-bus-rail interchange at Salisbury 1,840 11 November 1983 South Australia Acquisition of articulated buses 9,560 11 November 1983 Western Australia High speed, high priority bus services 1,740 10 December 1983 (2) Funds provided for projects which meet the requirements of Section 4 (3) of the Act may be expended in any of the designated urban areas listed in Section 4 (1) of the Act. These are: the Sydney Statistical Division; the Melbourne Statistical Division; the Brisbane Statistical Division; the Adelaide Statistical Division; the Perth Statistical Division; the Hobart Statistical Division; the Darwin Statistical Division; the Newcastle Statistical District; the Wollongong Statistical District; the Geelong Statistical District; Urban Ballarat; Urban Bendigo; Urban Townsville; Urban Toowoomba; Urban Gold Coast; Urban Rockhampton; or Urban Launceston. It is a matter for a State in the first instance to decide which projects will be proposed for funding under the Act. (3) (a) On the basis that up to 25 per cent of the funds allocated to urban arterial roads may be applied to urban public transport projects and that the total expected revenue accruing to the Trust Fund will be $2,500 million, expenditure on urban public transport over the life of the ABRD Program could be of the order of $188m. The maximum amount available to each State and the Northern Territory calculated on the above basis is as follows: State $m New South Wales 54.9 Victoria 44.6 Queensland 40.8 South Australia 14.4 Western Australia 24.5 Tasmania 6.9 Northern Territory 1.9 Total 188.0 (b) and (c) See answer to (2) above. There is no provision which automatically distributes funds between such areas in the same State. (4) and (5) Responsibility for the provision of public transport facilities in Townsville rests with the Queensland State Government. Any proposals for funding of urban public transport projects in Townsville under the ABRD Trust Fund Act would have to be made by the State Government as provided in Section 4 (3) of the Act. To date no specific proposal for funding of urban public transport projects in Townsville has been made by the Queensland Government. (Question No. 606) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 14 December 1983: (1) What is the rationale for the withdrawal of approximately $750,000 ear- marked for upgrading the freight-aprons at Tasmania's busiest air-freight airport at Launceston. (2) Is the Minister for Aviation aware of the Launceston Airport Action Committee's existence; if so, why did he not refer this decision to relocate these funds for other areas to this Committee. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) As a result of a review of civil works priorities, my Department has had to take action to defer the apron upgrading works at Launceston airport until early in the next financial year. Delays such as this are not uncommon and are sometimes necessary in the normal administration of the limited funds available under the aviation allocation in the civil works program. It is expected that this deferral will only delay the completion of the works by a few months. (2) I am aware of the formation of the Launceston Airport Action Committee in November 1981. However, the matter does not appear to be appropriate for consideration by that Committee. (Question No. 611) Senator Martin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) On what basis are Government printing requirements allocated between the public service-Australian Government Printing Office-and private sector contractors. (2) Is the allocation made on a predetermined ratio or on the basis of government printing capacity or technical expertise, excluding extraordinary considerations such as security and confidentiality. (3) What is the total number of printing contracts or orders placed by the Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS) with the private sector in each of years 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. (4) What was the total value of those contracts or orders in each of the above years. (5) What was: (a) the total number of printing contracts and orders, and (b) the total value of those contracts and orders, filled by the AGPS in each of the above years. (6) What auditing procedures are adopted by the Government over the contracts and orders placed with the private sector. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Private sector contractors are used as much as possible, having regard to the need to maintain, and to economically use, a Government Printing Office capacity geared to the requirements of Parliament and the urgent and confidential printing needs of government. (2) Work is not allocated on a predetermined ratio. It is distributed according to the policy outlined in (1) above and having regard also to such factors as the level of confidentiality of the subject material, the size of the job, technical complexities and time deadlines. (3) to (5) Answers are contained in the following table. (6) AGPS conducts its own internal checks of contracts (for example, to verify that contracts issued comply with requirements, that the rates charged for work comply with quotations or any subsequent agreed revisions, and that the standard of work is satisfactory and complies with the specifications for the work). These procedures are established in accordance with Finance Regulations and Directions issued under the Audit Act 1901, and are, in turn, subject to scrutiny by the Internal Audit Section of the Department of Administrative Services and by the Auditor-General. ORDERS PLACED CANBERRA, SYDNEY AND MELBOURNE OFFICES State Commonwealth Total value of Commercial Government Government work allocated Printers Printers Printing Office by AGPS Financial year Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. $ $ $ $ 1978-79* 6,049,093.33 1,107 306,788.57 16 4,455,408.45 1,000 10,811,290.35 2, 123 1979-80 9,017,942.84 1,627 174,826.00 3 5,022,681.83 1,238 14,215,450.67 2, 868 1980-81 11,810,010.26 2,090 536,748.00 37 3,659,917.85 1,364 16,006,676.11 3,491 1981-82 10,752,533.58 2,216 508,571.98 14 3,685,389.11 1,120 14,946,494. 67 3,350 1982-83 14,971,366.96 2,232 321,176.00 6 4,669,203.53 1,235 19,961,746 .49 3,473 Total 52,600,946.97 9,272 1,848,110.55 76 21,492,600.77 5,957 75,941,658.29 15,305 * Canberra Office only. (Statistics for Sydney and Melbourne Office are not available for any period before 1.7.79). (Question No. 620) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Has the Department of Housing and Construction employed any new recruits or commenced any works relating to the proposed assets test program; if so, what are the details of those appointments/works. (2) From what funds are these being paid. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No new recruits have been employed by the Department of Housing and Construction as a consequence of the proposed assets test program. Up to the end of January 1984 the only construction work commenced by the Department specifically in relation to the assets test program is on fitting-out of leased premises in Spencer Street, Melbourne as a training centre for assets testing staff for the Department of Social Security. This work has cost some $40 ,000 and was completed late in January 1984. (2) The construction work is a charge to the appropriation for fitting-out of leased premises, Division 354, controlled by this Department on behalf of the Department of Administrative Services. (Question No. 626) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Can the Minister for Science and Technology confirm the authenticity of a photograph published in the British Geographical Magazine of October 1983, page 494, the caption for which reads 'Crates of radioactive soil await shipment back to the United States of America after the dismantling of the United States nuclear reactor at McMurdo in the Antarctic'. (2) Was a US nuclear reactor operational in the Antarctic; if so, when and where and for what purpose. (3) Can the Minister obtain information as to the disposal of radioactive waste material from this reactor. (4) Does the installation of a nuclear reactor in the Antarctic constitute a violation of the Antarctic Treaty. (5) Is it a fact that, since 1961, the Antarctic has been kept free of military , nuclear, territorial and commercial rivalries by this treaty which can be reviewed by any of the signatories after 1991. (6) What distance from Australian Antarctic Territory is McMurdo and what is the Federal Government's attitude to nuclear reactors operating in the Antarctic region. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I cannot confirm the authenticity of the photograph published in the Geographical Magazine. However, I am aware that shipment of radioactive material from McMurdo took place between the end of 1972 and some time in 1979, at which time what had previously been the reactor site at McMurdo was released for unrestricted use. (2) A reactor was operational at McMurdo Station in the Ross Dependency between 1962 and 1972 for the purpose of generating electricity. (3) The reactor and contaminated material were shipped to the United States for disposal in South Carolina and California. (4) No. (5) The Antarctic Treaty is one of the most successful international agreements and certainly the most successful demilitarisation treaty. It stipulates that Antarctica should forever be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and not become the scene or object of international discord. The Treaty also prohibits nuclear explosions, the disposal of nuclear waste and measures of a military nature, and removes the potential for sovereignty disputes between Treaty Parties. While the Treaty is open to review after 1991 at the request of any consultative party, modification to the Treaty would require agreement by a majority of consultative parties. The Treaty itself has no finite lifetime. (6) McMurdo is about 150 kilometres from the nearest point on the eastern boundary of the Australian Antarctic Territory. Australia has no intention to install nuclear reactors in the Antarctic, but provided that suitable safeguards prevent contamination of the environment, the Antarctic Treaty imposes no particular restrictions on the use of nuclear reactors in Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty expressly prohibits nuclear explosions and the disposal of radioactive waste material on the continent. Recommendation VIII-12 of the eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting restates the intention of the Treaty parties that there be no disposal of nuclear waste in the Antarctic Treaty Area. If it were proposed that a reactor be installed in the Australian Antarctic Territory, the Government would be concerned to ensure that adequate safeguards existed to ensure the protection of the Antarctic environment. Senator Button —On 18 October 1983 (Hansard, page 1641) Senator Robert Ray asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, a question without notice concerning the videotex system which incorporated three separate questions: (1) When will Telecom Australia be in a position to provide a full videotex service? (2) Is there any danger that the gateway facility will intrude into the security or privacy of third party data base owners? (3) Will the Minister answer criticisms relating to Telecom's decision to use the British developed Prestel standard? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Telecom has set a target of providing a full national videotex service by the end of 1984. (2) No. The gateway facility simply enables third party data base operators to give wider public access to the information held. The operators would need to consider whether any security problems might arise from wider access to their systems and take any appropriate precautions before they are connected to the Telecom network. (3) The British developed Prestel standard is the only standard established and currently in use commercially to any extent in Australia to this time. It is compatible with the teletext standard recommended by the Department of Communications and this means that the cost of television sets serving both videotex and teletext in Australia is minimised. Prestel is also the most basic of the videotex displays and this is expected to facilitate access by terminals of other types to the Prestel compatible data bases. Telecom is therefore currently supporting the Prestel standard in the interests of cost and the rapid expansion of videotex generally throughout Australia. Telecom indicated, too, that the Australian videotex environment is similar to that in the United Kingdom. The knowledge available from the industry and working applications in that country will be of considerable assistance to Australian information providers and will assist the expansion of videotex. Telecom is asking manufacturers here and abroad to indicate what immediate or firm developmental plans they have in regard to compatibility between standards. Telecom's aim is to eventually provide a national system with low cost accessibility from differing types of terminals to the various types of data bases which may be established but there is still much technical development needed before this can be achieved. In the meantime, Telecom is providing capability through its AUSTPAC service for terminals to be connected through to data bases of their own standard. Senator Button —On 17 November 1983 (Hansard, page 2759) Senator Robertson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question without notice concerning standards applied in the United States for permissible exposure to asbestos fibres. I was also asked to outline the measures taken by the Australian Government to regulate the use of asbestos and the standards of safety that apply to exposure in the work place. The Minister for employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued an emergency temporary standard on 4 November 1983, covering permissible exposure levels to asbestos fibres for a wide range of Federal and State workers employed in the manufacturing, construction and maritime industries. This emergency temporary standard reduced the permissible exposure levels from two fibres (longer than 5 micrometres) per cubic centimetre to 0.5 fibres per cubic centimetre, over an eight hour time weighted average period. This standard does not discriminate between asbestos fibre types. The current Australian standard for occupational exposure to asbestos, as recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council, is: One fibre per millilitre of air for Chrysotile and Amosite asbestos and 0.1 fibre per millilitre of air for Crocidolite, or blue asbestos. The current Australian exposure standard differentiates between asbestos fibre types, and is more restrictive for Crocidolite than the emergency temporary standard issued by the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In addition, the 96th Session of the National Health and Medical Research, Council held in October 1983, has agreed that from 1 July 1984, the threshold limit value for Amosite asbestos will be reduced to 0.1 fibre per millilitre, the same as for Crocidolite asbestos. As regards the measures being taken by the Australian Government to regulate the use of asbestos, I announced on 14 October 1983, in conjunction with the Minister for Territories and Local Government, that the proposed National Occupational Health and Safety Commission will give priority to the development of guidelines for the safe treatment and handling of asbestos, and this will form the basis of dealing with the problem on a national level. Pending the establishment of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission the Government has announced the establishment of a National Consultative Committee on Occupational Health and Safety to ensure full consultation with the State and Territories, unions and employers, and relevant Government departments. This Committee is an advisory body to the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, details of which were provided in my ministerial statement to the Parliament on 10 November 1983 ( Hansard, pages 2587-2593). The National Consultative Committee discussed the issue of asbestos at its first meeting on 13 December 1983, and agreed to establish a working party to draw up interim guidelines dealing with the problems of asbestos in the workplace. Senator Button —On 18 November 1983 (Hansard, page 2861) Senator Childs asked me , as Minister representing the Minister for Communications, a question without notice whether the Australian Broadcasting Corporation intends to purchase a film called The Day After for showing on Australian television. The film portrays the aftermath of a nuclear missile exchange between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on an American town. The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice received from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation endeavoured to purchase The Day After but television rights had already been sold to the Australian commercial television network Channel 10. Cinema rights for Australia are held by Roadshow Distributors Pty Ltd which plans to commence box office sales in February 1984. Senator Grimes —On 29 November 1983 (Hansard, page 2896) Senator Coates asked me , as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning advertising by the Health Insurance Commission. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: The Health Insurance Commission has advised me that the advertisement in question has been running intermittently since September 1982. The advertisement will be revised at the end of the present arranged advertising programme to remove any reference to the sex of the Medibank Private staff who provide the claims payment. Senator Button —On 7 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3395) Senator Reynolds asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the following question without notice: Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that in a paper entitled 'Estimates of Unemployment by Local Government Area', the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations lists 36 local government areas, of a total of 145, as having unemployment rates in excess of the Queensland average of 10 per cent? A study of community employment program announcements in Queensland made to date indicates that only a few of these high level unemployment areas are, in fact, represented, leaving up to 30 areas not as yet recognised by the allocation of funds for vital job creation projects. Given that many of these areas are in northern central and western Queensland, can the Minister assure Queenslanders that there will not be a capital city-south-east corner bias in the implementation of the Federal Government's important employment initiatives in that State? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department's estimates identify 32 local government areas in Queensland with an unemployment rate in excess of 10 per cent at March 1983. The number of such areas shown in the paper 'Estimates of Unemployment by Local Government Area' is slightly higher at 36, due to the disaggregation of the Brisbane City Council area into Commonwealth Employment Service Office areas for analytical purposes. I stress that the Departmental estimates should be used cautiously as they may not fully reflect underlying unemployment levels due to the unavoidable need to make a number of assumptions in the estimation procedure. These assumptions relate in particular to population movements and changes in the composition of unemployment. The estimates will play a role in the implementation of the Government's job creation initiatives in assisting consultative committees to direct funds to areas of greatest need. However, consultative committees are dependent on organisations and authorities from these areas submiting project proposals for assessment. I understand that as of 15 December 1983 applications for community employment program funds had been received from all but two of the 32 areas of highest unemployment in Queensland. Applications from 17 of these areas had been approved at that date for funding, with a total project value of $7.859m and program grants made to the value of $5 .599m. Projects totalling over $15.95m in Commonwealth funds had been approved to 15 December 1983 throughout Queensland, representing 38.6 per cent of the State's total allocation in 1983-84. Applications from the remaining areas of high unemployment are currently under consideration. The program is still in its early stages. Many project proposals are still under consideration and further proposals are expected to be submitted. It is the Government's intention that priority will be given to areas of high unemployment in the implementation of the Federal Government's important employment creation initiative. Senator Button —On 9 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3600) Senator Hearn asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the following question without notice concerning precautionary measures for computer operators: In a recent speech the Minister said that estimates suggested that at least $6 billion a year was wasted through loss of production and other costs caused by injury and ill health stemming from occupational hazards. Occupational health and safety are matters of concern to workers using computers because of the many repetition injuries and eye problems which are occurring. Will the recently announced Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission be looking at the precautions needed for people working with computers? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: The Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission-INOHSC-has been established to advise the Government on the detailed functions, structure, membership, staffing levels and methods of operation of a permanent National Occupational Health and Safety Commission-NOHSC-and Office-NOHSO-and a National Institute of Environmental and Occupational Health-NIEOH. The establishment of the INOHSC reflects the high priority the Government accords the development of a national framework through which occupational health and safety problems may be resolved. The terms of reference of the INOHSC do not allow it to examine specific occupational health and safety issues. However, the NOHSC when established will develop standards and guidelines for specific occupational health and safety issues, such as the precautions needed for people working with computers and the NIEOH will provide hazard information, commission research and will advise on training needs of health and safety professionals. In the past, consideration of specific occupational health and safety issues has been undertaken by various bodies including the sub-committees on occupational health and safety established by the National Labour Consultative Council and the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee. A National Consultative Committee on Occupational Health and Safety-NCCOHS-which represents a merging of these two sub-committees, has now been established to provide a means by which the INOHSC can consult fully with the States, employers and unions. The terms of reference of the NCCOHS also provide for it to consider specific occupational health and safety issues which arise in the period prior to the establishment of the permanent NOHSC. This activity will complement the initiatives of other bodies active in the occupational health and safety field such as the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Department of Health and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Senator Grimes —On 15 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3880) Senator Walters asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the categorisation of private hospitals under Medicare. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: Private hospitals were notified of their categories in a letter dated 13 December 1983 which was mailed a.m. 14 December 1983. The hospitals were also sent a copy of the categorisation guidelines at the same time. The health insurance funds have also been advised of the categories determined for the private hospitals in order that they may be aware of the appropriate levels of benefits payable. The hospitals have also been informed of their appeal rights should they be dissatisfied with their categorisation. (Question No. 315) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: What is the current position in relation to tax deductibility of donations to the Innocents Relief Appeal Association. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: On 1 December 1983, the Innocents Relief Appeal Sponsors Account (Developing Countries Division) was gazetted for the purposes of the overseas aid gift provisions of the income tax law. The exclusive purpose of this fund of the Innocents Relief Appeal Association is to provide relief to persons in certified developing countries. In terms of the law, donations of $2 or more made on or after 1 December 1983 to the fund are allowable deductions for income tax purposes. (Question No. 358) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: Has the Minister for Industry and Commerce stated that he is reconsidering Opposition participation on industry advisory councils; if so, when will the Minister be in a position to announce a decision? Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: No. (Question No. 429) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 October 1983: How many more employees will now be disadvantaged by the increase, from $1,590 to $2,000, of expenditure on superannuation schemes eligible for taxation rebate . (See Hansard 11 October 1983, page 1335). Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: For the 1981-82 income year-the latest year for which relevant income tax statistics are available-there were 434,180 taxable individuals with concessional expenditure in excess of $1,590 with superannuation contributions as part of concessional expenditure. Of these taxpayers, 176,293 had concessional expenditure between $1,591 and $2,000. (Question No. 513) Senator Elstob asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 15 November 1983: Has the Beethoven series of concerts at the Canberra School of Music been cancelled; if so, what were the savings accruing from this cancellation and how will these savings be used by the School of Music. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Beethoven series programmed for 1983 has been postponed, not cancelled. The series is to be rescheduled for presentation in the second half of 1984. The funds to be expended on the series will total $1,400. These funds will be provided from the School's 1984-85 financial year allocations. The savings resulting from this postponement of the series will be used before 30 June 1984 to meet the costs of visiting lecturers, of teachers giving mastery classes and of lecture demonstrations by visiting lecturers. (Question No. 519) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaux, 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 Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Steel Industry Authority, consisting of three part time members, as from 1 January 1984. The Shipbuilding Industry Task Force chaired by the Department and having two industry and two ACTU representatives, as from 7 November 1983. The Car Industry Council established on 6 October to report by 14 December 1983 . A revised Australian Manufacturing Council is to be established along with 11 industry councils replacing previously existing industry advisory councils and covering various industry sectors and small business. (2) Five additional staff will be required to form a secretariat for the Steel Industry Authority. Approximately 15 more staff will be required for import watch and bounty activity as the steel plans become fully operative. A secretariat for the revised Australian Manufacturing Council is presently being examined by the Public Service Board. Thirty-two additional staff have been sought. (Question No. 525) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaux, 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 Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: 1. (a)- (i) The Commonwealth Participation and Equity Program Co-ordinating Committee. (ii) The Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy (established jointly by Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Education and Youth Affairs). (iii) Task Force on Education and the Arts. (iv) National International Youth Year Co-ordinating Committee. (b) Nil. 2. (a) One temporary officer for Task Force on Education and the Arts. (b) Nil. (Question No. 531) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 18 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaux, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited as a result. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a)- 1. National Disputes Committee for the Temporary Entry of entertainers and Associated Personnel. 2. Committee of Review of the Private Overseas Students Program. Established jointly with my colleagues Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Education and Youth Affairs. 3. Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. (b)- 4. National Population Council. 5. Tripartite committee of government, management and unions-probably a committee of the National Labour Consultative Council-to develop a strategy for overcoming the problems of a multicultural workforce. (2) (a) and (b) None. (Question No. 561) Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 December 1983: (1) How many assessments have now been issued by the Commissioner of Taxation with copy notices to vendor shareholders for the purposes of the Taxation ( Unpaid Company Tax) Act. (2) How many of the companies referred to in (1) had been served with notices of assessment in the ordinary course, i.e. without reference to the Taxation ( Unpaid Company Tax) Act and vendor shareholders. (3) What steps have been taken to collect the tax from the companies referred to in both (1) and (2). (4) Has the Commissioner issued notices of assessment to companies in all cases and taken normal recovery procedures; if not: (a) has this matter been referred to the Special Prosecutor for legal examination; if so, has an explanatory report been issued; if not, when will such a report be forthcoming; and (b) was this matter considered by the Treasurer in considering the re- appointment of the Commissioner of Taxation and the appointment of his successor . Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Commissioner for Taxation has advised that since the enactment of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 14,000 company assessments, or copies thereof, in respect of some 5,000 companies have been served on vendor shareholders and other former owners as members of the representative class for each of those companies. Precise statistics of assessments issued prior to the enactment of the recoupment tax legislation were not kept. However, on the basis of available information it is estimated that, of the companies identified as having been stripped of assets and rendered unable to pay their tax, assessments had been issued in respect of 60 per cent of those companies. Since the enactment of the legislation all company notices have been issued in accordance with the requirements of that legislation. (3) Recovery action against stripped companies would not be productive as, at the completion of the stripping operation, the companies have no assets with which they can meet their taxation liabilities. In these circumstances, if it were not for the recoupment tax legislation, proceedings would need to be instituted against persons associated with those companies, whether immediately before or after the sale of the shares, who may have breached the law. Those persons could, depending upon which laws might be found to have been breached, possibly be ordered to recompense the companies and thereby enable them to meet their liabilities. However, because of the uncertainty of successfully recovering the unpaid company tax by this means, and in view of the fact that any tax that might ultimately be recovered would not be recovered in what could be regarded as a reasonable time, the recoupment tax was brought in to provide a clearer and more certain technique for collecting the unpaid tax. Because of these considerations, the Commissioner's general policy has been to rely on the recoupment tax legislation to collect the company tax. In a limited number of cases representative of cases in which legal processes were already well advanced, liquidation proceedings have been continued but I have already mentioned the collection difficulties in relation to possible recovery of tax from the company or associated persons. (4) Under the terms of the recoupment tax legislation, the service of a company notice of assessment on a member of the representative class constitutes service on the company. As I have already indicated, service of notices of assessment has been effected in respect of some 5,000 companies which represents approximately 85 per cent of the number of companies identified as having been stripped of pre-tax profits. I have been advised by the Commissioner that necessary action is now in course to enable the issue of notices of assessments in respect of the remaining companies. When this is done, action will be taken expeditiously to collect the tax under the recoupment tax legislation. (a) The Commissioner informs the Special Prosecutor on a regular basis of the progress made in relation to the administration of the recoupment tax legislation. The Special Prosecutor is also aware of those cases in which liquidation proceedings have been continued. (b) No such matter was taken into consideration in the re-appointment of the Commissioner and the appointment of his successor. (Question No. 576) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) What export contracts exist for Australian uranium as at 1 December 1983, and: (a) who is the supplier; (b) who is the purchaser; (c) what quantity was involved; (d) what price was involved; and (e) what was the expected or contracted annual export quantity. (2) What are the conditions and restrictions applying to conversion and enrichment of Australian uranium for contracts in force as at 1 December 1983, with safeguards conditions being those in force prior to the current inquiry by the Australian Science and Technology Council. (3) What contracts include provision for conversion and enrichment. (4) What quantity of Australian uranium is involved. (5) Where will that conversion and enrichment take place. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a), (b) and (c) Australian uranium export contracts approved by the present or previous Governments and under which deliveries were outstanding at 1 December 1983 are as follows: Quantity Seller Buyer (s.t. U308) Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd (*) RTZ Mineral Services Limited (for supply to Tokyo Electric Power Co. Inc.) (Japan) 1,100 Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd (*) RTZ Mineral Services Limited (for supply to Chugoku Electric Power Co. Inc.) (Japan) 1,000 Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Kyushu Electric Power Co. Inc. (Japan) 2,000 Queensland Mines Limited Shikoku Electric Power Co. Inc. (Japan) 2,230 Queensland Mines Limited Kyushu Electric Power Co. Inc. (Japan) 1,000 Peko-Wallsend Operations Ltd and Electrolytic Zinc Co. Australasia Limited Korea Electric Co. (R.O. Korea) 2,500 Queensland Mines Limited Teollisuuden Voima Oy (Finland) 900 Peko-Wallsend Operations Ltd and Electrolytic Zinc Co. Australasia Limited Indiana and Michigan Electric Co. (U.S.A.) 2,250 Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Rheinisch-Westfaelisches Electrizitaetswerk AG (F.R. Germany) 9,094 Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Saarberg-Interplan Uran GmbH (F.R. Germany) 5,456 Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Urangesellschaft GmbH (F.R. Germany) 5,820 Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Japan Australia Uranium Resources Development Co. Ltd (Japan) 13,413 Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Oskarshamnsverkets Kraftgrupp A.B. ( Sweden) 3,150 Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Synatom Societe Anonyme (Belgium) 1,575 Queensland Mines Limited Electricite de France (France) 2,600 Queensland Mines Limited Shikoku Electric Power Co. Inc. (Japan) 1,390 Queensland Mines Limited Kyushu Electric Power Co. Inc. (Japan) 400 Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (U.S.A.) (**) Energy Resources of Australia Ltd Virginia Electric and Power Co. (U.S.A. ) (**) Notes- (*) Prior to completion of production at Mary Kathleen in October 1982, MKU produced sufficient yellowcake to meet all outstanding commitments. Product for outstanding deliveries is currently stored at conversion plants. (**) For commercial reasons the parties to these contracts have decided not to publish full details regarding contract tonnages. ERA has, however, announced that the Wisconsin contract provides for the sale of a minimum 1100 st U308. (1) (d) and (e) Contractural information relating to pricing and annual delivery details has been provided to the Government on a commercial-in- confidence basis and is not available for publication. (2) The conditions and restrictions governing the conversion and enrichment of Australian uranium are specified in the bilateral nuclear cooperation and safeguards agreements that Australia has concluded with partner countries and EURATOM. At any particular time, the conditions and restrictions relevant for uranium exported under any contract are those specified in the relevant bilateral agreements in force at that time. Australia's preparedness in the case of non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) to conclude such agreements only with those adhering to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) functions as a significant minimum condition in its own right. There is the additional requirement for a bilateral agreement with Australia. These agreements specify that Australian-origin nuclear material (AONM) subject to any given agreement (whether with a nuclear weapon state, or with an NNWS) is covered by a stringent regime of international safeguards applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify solely peaceful usage. Strict conditions for applying physical security provisions at agreed international levels to the AONM are also specified in the agreements. Within this framework: (A) Australian-origin uranium or derived material may be converted and/or low- enriched (up to 20 percent U 235) in those countries with which Australia has a nuclear cooperation or safeguards agreement in place and operative. (B) Under a number of Australia's bilateral agreements, specific provisions have been included to allow our treaty partners to have conversion and/or low- enrichment of AONM carried out in a specified third country not party to a bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement with Australia, subject to certain additional requirements being met, including the granting of prior consent by Australia to any such proposal. The additional requirements specify amongst other things that the partner concerned make acceptable arrangements for the return to itself or to another country with which Australia has a nuclear safeguards agreement of a quantity of nuclear material equivalent to all AONM shipped into the specified third country. Finnish and Swedish utilities have made use of such provisions in Australia's agreements with Finland and Sweden to have Australia's uranium enriched in the USSR. (C) Australian supplied uranium is not permitted to be enriched beyond 20 percent U 235 in any country without prior consent by Australia. To date no country has sought such consent. (3), (4) and (5) No Australian uranium sales contracts provide for conversion and/or enrichment services. In all cases the contractual arrangements provide for delivery in the form of uranium concentrates. Subject to the conditions and requirements imposed by Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements, AONM may be processed at any of the approved facilities in bilateral partner countries providing conversion and/or enrichment services. Such services are provided on a commercial basis by, in the case of conversion, Allied Chemical Corp. (USA), British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (UK), Comurhex (France), Eldorado Nuclear Ltd (Canada) , and Kerr McGee Nuclear Corp. (USA), and, in the case of enrichment, by the Department of Energy (USA), Eurodif (France), and Urenco (Netherlands and UK). Additionally, ANOM may be enriched by Techsnabexport (USSR) in those instances where specific provisions (referred to in (2) (B) above) for toll-processing in a third country, not party to a bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement with Australia, are operable. (Question No. 631) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) What provisions or instructions have been set out to ensure accountability of funds paid out under Division 312 Special Fund for Expenditure in relation to Government programs at the direction of the Minister for Finance. (2) What reporting procedures have been adopted. (3) How much of the funds have been expended so far. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The accountability requirements of the Audit Act 1901 will, of course, fully apply to the expenditure of funds provided under Division 312. The following procedures have also been established for the administration of Division 312 of Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1983-84: (a) The Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters advised Ministers on 16 November 1983 of his approval of additional staffing agreed pursuant to procedures approved by the Government. Some further approvals are likely. (b) Departments were advised on 22 November 1983 that the terms of the abovementioned procedures require departments to absorb to the maximum extent possible within Budget provisions, the costs-salaries and directly associated administrative expenses-of any additional staffing approvals. (c) Departments were informed that they should apply for funds from Division 312 of Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1983-84 where, after thorough examination of the scope for absorption, they consider additional costs, which are directly related to the Minister's approval referred to in (a), to be unavoidable in 1983 -84. (d) Applications providing full justification of the amounts sought and the heads of expenditure to which the expenditure should be charged (pursuant to section 7 of Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1983-84) are to be directed to the Department of Finance. (e) The Department of Finance will examine applications for funds against the criteria set out in Division 312 of Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1983-84. Where that Department is satisfied that the application meets the criteria it will recommend to the Minister for Finance that he make a determination under clause (a) of Division 312 and a direction under Clause 7 of the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1983-84. (f) Where the Minister makes a determination and gives a direction in that respect, funds will be issued to departments, in the same way as occurs for the Advance to the Minister for Finance, against the appropriate head of Expenditure ; funds so issued will remain as a final charge against Division 312 and will not need to be subsumed in Additional Estimates. (2) Under clause (b) of the conditions applying to Division 312 the Minister for Finance is required to submit to the Parliament as soon as practicable after a determination is made by him, particulars of moneys made available for expenditure in respect of salaries and payments in the nature of salary and/or administrative expenses. The reporting of Division 312 allocations will be essentially as for the Advance to the Minister for Finance except that the reports will be made available to Parliament as soon as practicable after the making of a determination and will not await the end of the month as for the Advance. (3) No funds have yet been expended under Division 312. (Question No. 642) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Is the sad loss to Australian Broadcasting Corporation television viewers of Neil Inall the presenter of the popular program Countrywide a manifestation of a new, radically foreign approach to programming. (2) Why was Neil Inall replaced or retired, given the age structure of the Australian farming community and the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television audience for such programs is not exactly youthful. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: (1) No. (2) Age was not a factor as evidenced by Mr Inall's replacement, Mr Jim Downes, who is 49 years old. Senator Gareth Evans —On 7 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3395) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice, a question concerning the future of the Australian Defence Force presence at Butterworth, relations with the ASEAN countries, and the future of ex-Royal Australian Navy Skyhawk aircraft and pilots. The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Australia's relations with the ASEAN nations are sound and close. It is a primary aim of the Government that they should remain so. With regard to the future of the Australian Defence Force presence at Butterworth, decisions will be taken in consultation with the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore. Upon completion of the review of this matter by the Government, there will be early and comprehensive discussions with those countries. In respect of the honourable senator's suggestion relating to Skyhawk aircraft, I confirm that the decision which I announced on 3 May, that naval fixed wing aircraft would be phased out, is final. Six Skyhawk aircraft have been withdrawn from service, and the remaining four are being used for target towing pending the development of an alternative system. The announcement also mentioned arrangements for the future employment of Naval personnel affected and, largely because of these, the wastage of ex-Skyhawk pilots from the Australian Defence Force has been minimal to date. Of the 59 pilots, nine have elected to transfer and have been accepted by the Royal Naval and Royal Air Force, two have left to seek civilian employment in Australia, while 34 have elected to transfer to the Royal Australian Air Force and the remainder have decided to continue to serve in the Royal Australian Navy. Senator Walsh —On 8 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3505) Senator Coates asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Finance, a question without notice concerning the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. The Minister for Finance has provided the following information in reply to the honourable senator's question: Senator Coates will be aware that the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust was established under the Superannuation Act 1976 to invest and manage the Superannuation Fund. In fulfilling these responsibilities, the Trust has adopted investment policies directed towards achieving the highest possible return in the interests of all contributors, consistent with the level of security offered . The Chairman of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, Mr Hammond, has advised me that in 1982-83 new investments made by the Trust (excluding short- term investments) totalled about $400m, turnover of short-term investments totalled about $1.7 billion, while the cost value of all investments held by the Trust exceeded $2 billion for the first time. All this investment activity was handled by a relatively small investment staff. Given its limited staff resources the Trust has necessarily imposed a lower limit on the size of investments below which individual proposals cannot be considered. While the Trust recognises that many small investment proposals may otherwise be attractive, it must nevertheless manage its activities within the constraints imposed by the resources available to it. In respect of the Trust's property investment in Tasmania, Mr Hammond has advised that very few proposals have been received from Tasmania since the Trust gained property investment powers in 1976, and that there have always been other property investment proposals available which have met the Trust's investment criteria to a greater extent, especially in relation to size. Nevertheless, Mr Hammond has assured me that, in pursuit of its policy to invest moneys of the Superannuation Fund to achieve the highest possible return in the interests of all contributors, investment proposals originating from Tasmania and which are of an appropriate size, will continue to receive careful consideration. Senator Grimes —On 13 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3647) Senator Crowley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning dental treatment of secondary school children and needy groups. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: I have read with interest the findings of the South Australian Public Accounts Committee with regard to the efficiency and effectiveness of the school dental service in South Australia. Under the Australian school dental scheme which was initiated in 1973, school dental services in all States were rapidly developed. Together with various preventive programs such as the fluoridation of water, this development has led to a marked improvement in the dental health of children. Specific purpose grants to States for school school dental services were discontinued by the previous Government on 1 July 1981 and were absorbed within general revenue payments. Under the revised arrangements the responsibility for school dental services rests with individual States which also determine the priority to be given to school dental services in the allocation of funds. Since July 1981 the Federal Government has had no direct responsibility for school dental services. The initiation and financing of review and evaluation of school dental services are also matters for individual States. The Federal Government did not contribute funds for the review in South Australia to which the honourable senator has referred. I am most sympathetic to the dental needs of children, and am hopeful that in the long-term school dental services will be further expanded to include secondary school children. However, such expansion must be viewed in the context of the available funds and competing priorities. There is a continuing need for restraint in expenditure. In the present circumstances it would be inappropriate for the Federal Government to allocate funds for the dental care of secondary school children. However, the possibility of providing additional funds for the expansion of school dental services is being kept under consideration. With regard to dental treatment of pensioners and other needy groups, I must emphasize that this is a responsibility of States though of course it is an area of concern to the Federal Government. While extension of Medicare cannot currently be contemplated, the possibility of including dental treatment in the Medicare arrangements at some future time cannot be ruled out. Clearly this would be of assistance to needy groups. Senator Gareth Evans —On 13 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3644) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice, when discussions on the visit to Sydney by HMS Invincible began, at what level, and when and why the British High Commission sought an interview with the Minister for Defence. The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The possibility of a visit by a Task Group led by HMS Invincible was raised initially on a Navy-to-Navy basis in February 1983 in the context of RN Fleet program forward planning. A formal request for a visit towards the end of the year was received on 24 June 1983. The acting Minister for Defence welcomed the deployment and port visits in a public statement on 15 July 1983. The British High Commissioner met with the Minister for Defence on 29 November 1983, when the possibility of HMS Invincible dry-docking in Sydney arose. Senator Gareth Evans —On 14 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3741) Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice, to consider tabling all relevant signals, correspondence or records of conversation relating to discussions between Australian and British authorities as to the possibility of HMS Invincible dry-docking in Sydney. The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The departmental documents which the honourable senator has asked me to table concern confidential discussions between the Australian and United Kingdom governments. It has been the practice of successive governments to protect the confidentiality of discussions with other governments. This Government does not intend to depart from the practice. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to table the documents, as requested by Senator Guilfoyle. Senator Gareth Evans —On 14 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3749) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice, the cost of work at the Captain Cook drydock in preparing for its possible use by HMS Invincible, and who would meet the costs involved. The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: When it seemed that HMS Invincible might go into dry-dock, the Garden Island Dockyard undertook preliminary preparations, including undocking HMAS Adelaide, earlier than anticipated. Costs associated with the preparations were of the order of $30,000. Such preparations are part of the general operation of the dockyard, and the associated costs are met from the Defence Outlay. (Question No. 423) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 12 October 1983: (1) Has the United States Congress recently investigated the operations of the International Atomic Energy Agency-(IAEA). (2) Did the investigation come to the following findings: (a) that IAEA inspectors are forbidden to look for clandestine facilities, that is hidden stocks of bomb making material or reprocessing plants; (b) that the IAEA only inspects material that a nation has 'declared' to it; (c) that IAEA inspectors are only allowed to investigate plants or nations where they have been given notice of such investigation weeks in advance; (d) that the IAEA sees its function as promoting the atomic trade not policing it; (e) that the IAEA does not have the proper equipment to monitor plants in the long intervals (up to a year) between visits; and (f) that the IAEA's surveillance devices are inadequate in that they can be easily by-passed and that the system of sealing is poor. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The operations of the International Atomic Energy Agency-(IAEA)-were the subject of hearings by the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in December 1981 and by sub-committees of the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs in March 1982. In addition, committees and sub-committees of both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate conduct regular hearings on nuclear non-proliferation and safeguards issues which include in some cases examination of the operations of the IAEA. One such case was the hearings in June 1981 before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the Israeli air strike in that month against a nuclear research reactor in Iraq. (2) (a) to (f) In the course of hearings in recent years, a number of witnesses have given evidence on the operations of the IAEA. Criticisms of the IAEA, incorporating the sort of points listed in the question, have been made, notably by a former IAEA inspector, Mr Roger Richter. These criticisms have been rebutted in testimony, including by the US Ambassador to the IAEA, Mr Richard Kennedy, who generally praised the operations of the IAEA. To my knowledge, neither the US House of Representatives nor the US Senate have themselves-for example, through reports of committees or sub-commitees or through resolutions- come to the findings listed in the question. (Question No. 492) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 November 1983: Will the Federal Government make arrangements so that Commonwealth employees in the Northern Territory are able to purchase Commonwealth government houses in which they are residing, given the arrangement of the previous Federal Government under which Commonwealth employees in the Northern Territory were able to purchase Commonwealth houses, and the current arrangement in the Northern Territory whereby Northern Territory government employees can buy Northern Territory houses. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It has been decided that the home sales scheme will not be re-introduced for Commonwealth employees in the Northern Territory occupying Commonwealth-owned houses. Reintroduction of the scheme would exacerbate the shortage of staff housing and lead to further demands for capital expenditure on replacement stock . A tenants' home sales scheme does not operate in respect of Commonwealth staff housing elsewhere in Australia and is not consistent with the Commonwealth's present role of employer only in the Northern Territory. In addition, the Northern Territory Government has agreed that occupancy of Commonwealth staff housing would not prejudice eligibility of Commonwealth employees for community housing provided by the Northern Territory Housing Commission. (Question No. 510) Senator Hearn asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 November 1983: (1) What is the racial mix of staff employed at the Australian embassy in South Africa, that is, black, coloured, white. (2) What is the method of interviewing intending migrants to Australia. (3) Where do interviews take place. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am assured that staff in South Africa locally engaged by the Australian Government have been employed solely on the basis of ability and qualifications and that race was not a consideration. The classification of persons by race is inherently offensive to the Australian Government. Racial terms are however used by the South African Government and in these terms, staff employed by the Australian Government in South Africa are: Pretoria: Black-one, White-ten, Coloured-two, Indian-one. Capetown: White-four, Coloured-two. Johannesburg: White-five, Black-two. (2) Applicants for migrant entry and their family members are interviewed in accordance with the standard format and procedures set out in the Migrant Entry Handbook. This is a public document. Its provisions are observed by Australian migration interviewers throughout the world. (3) Interviews are conducted at the embassy in Pretoria and the consulate in Capetown. Interviewing officers from these centres also conduct interviews in Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London as required. (Question No. 523) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being, appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) Inter-departmental Committee on the Review of Atomic Energy Legislation . Inter-departmental Committee on the Australian Uranium Industry. Inter-departmental Committee on the Courses of Action Available to the Government to Deal with Atomic Tests Veterans' and Aboriginals' Claims. Inter-departmental Committee on Resource Rent Tax. Interim Council to Examine the Case for an Institute of Freshwater Studies. The National Fuels Emergency Consultative Committee-NFECC. The Australian Coal Consultative Council-ACCC. National Research Group-NRG-of the ACCC. (1) (b) Australian Minerals and Energy Council Sub-committee to develop alternative Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory emergency fuels legislation. (2) (a) Two additional staff have been recruited to provide secretariat support to the ACCC. (2) (b) Nil. (Question No. 563) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: (1) How many films have been shown by Qantas on its international services in the last financial year. (2) How many of these films were made in Australia. (3) Is there any policy to give preference to Australian made films on Qantas; if so, when was it introduced; if not, will one be introduced. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Qantas has advised that for the financial year July 1982 to June 1983, 24 films were booked for use on Qantas aircraft. (2) During this period, 7 of the booked films were made in Australia. (3) Qantas's aim is to show as many Australian made films on its aircraft as possible. The only restriction on this intent is that in doing so Qantas must achieve its primary objective of providing the highest possible standard of in- flight entertainment to its international passengers. It is the company's view that the revenue potential of the airline market could be better known by Australian film producers, and in October 1982 Qantas instigated and sponsored a 'Selling to Airlines' seminar for Australian film producers, with the support of the Australian Film Commission. I am advised this seminar proved effective, and a follow-up is planned for February 1984. (Question No. 599) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 December 1983: (1) What is the Australian Government's attitude to the continuing British military presence in Ulster. (2) Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs discussed the Ulster question with the British Government or its representatives since 5 March 1983; if so, can he indicate whether Britain is likely to consider a timetable for withdrawal of its forces from Northern Ireland in the near future. (3) Would the Australian Government be prepared to sponsor a motion in the United Nations enabling a UN peacekeeping force to relieve British forces of their responsibilities in Northern Ireland until a solution to the crisis can be found. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government's policy on Northern Ireland is based on a genuine concern at the continuing tragedy of the province and at the same time upon a dispassionate assessment of the situation itself and of those parties most directly and legitimately concerned-the local people and the British Government. The Government's view is that the situation in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the British Government-for historical, political and social reasons. It follows that a lasting solution to the Northern Ireland problem is a matter for the Northern Irish people and the British Government to resolve. This is not to deny that the Irish Government has a special interest in developments in the North. While it would not be appropriate for Australia to seek to play an active role in this situation, it is the Government's strong hope that there should be recognition of, and reconciliation between, the interests of both political traditions in the North. The Government also, of course, condemns all acts of terrorist violence, which are not only repugnant in themselves but can only impede progress towards a solution. (2) No. (3) Sponsorship of such a motion would not be consistent with the policy enunciated under (1) above. (Question No. 614) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: Has any amount been spent under Division 312 Special Fund for Expenditure in Relation to Government Programs at the Direction of the Minister of Finance by the Department of Social Security; if so, how much and what are the details of those expenditures. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Minister for Finance has approved additional urgent and unavoidable obligations of $5.7m against normal departmental appropriation items to enable implementation of the assets test to proceed. The Department of Finance has advised that funds under normal departmental appropriation items will be augmented from Division 312 (special funds for expenditure in relation to Government programs at the discretion of the Minister for Finance) when the Minister for Finance has issued the necessary determination. At 31 December 1983 income and assets test expenditure recorded against normal departmental appropriation items was about $1.9m, comprising some $1.7m for overtime and administrative expenses. (Question No. 623) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) What are the names of the organisations and individuals consulted with by the Minister for Social Security following the announcement of the introduction of an assets test in the August 1983 Budget up to the introduction of the legislation. (2) What were the duration of those consultations. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Since the announcement by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech on 23 August 1983, I have consulted and am continuing to consult with a large number of organisations and individuals about the introduction of an income and assets test. Some of the major organisations consulted have included the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Council on the Ageing and the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled. (2) Because the consultations are continuing, discussions have already occurred over a period of several months with a corresponding variation in time of the duration of my meetings with organisations and individuals. (Question No. 624) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, uon notice, on 16 December 1983: What is the estimated full year cost of the abolition of the income test for females aged 60 to 64 years and males aged 65 to 69 years and all persons aged 70 years and over. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The estimated full year cost of the abolition of the income test on pensions is as follows: Females 60 to 64 years $605m; males 65 to 69 years $253m; females 65 to 69 years $282m; persons 70 years and over $560m. These estimates represent the cost of bringing existing part rate pensioners to full rate and giving non-pensioners full pension at rates current from November 1983. The estimates are based on estimated numbers of persons and pensioners at the end of December 1983. The costs are gross costs in that they make no allowance for the additional revenue that would result from taxation of the payments concerned. (Question No. 636) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Is there any possibility of the British aircraft carrier Invincible going into the Captain Cook dry dock in Sydney for repairs to her propeller shaft. (2) What de-ammunitioning procedures will be followed if this is still likely to occur, despite all the confusion and uncertainty generated by the Government' s mishandling of the visit of the Invincible. (3) Can the work be carried out without the help having to remove its explosive armaments. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (2) and (3) Since the British Government decided that, for operational reasons, it did not wish to pursue the possibility of using the Captain Cook dry dock for repairs to HMS Invincible the matters raised in the honourable senator' s question are now hypothetical.