Wednesday, 29 February 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that: General Revenue Grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83. The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent. The increase in grants to State governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent. Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program. The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 23 citizens), Crichton-Browne (from 37 citizens), Lewis (from nine citizens) and Robertson (from 16 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Haines (from 41 citizens), Macklin (from 21 citizens) and Robert Ray (from 38 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 futher 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 humbly pray. by Senator Macklin (from 70 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, being Electors in the State of NSW, 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 Robertson (from 147 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 Childs (from 49 citizens) and Robertson (from 180 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We deplore the unprincipled and self-interested attacks being orchestrated by minority sects and groups against the policies and person of the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Senator Susan Ryan. 2. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a positive step towards fulfilling their commitment of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own Special Programs and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen (from three citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully submits that: Although many occurrences of sexual harassment in the work force have been reported to various State government authorities, such as the Victorian Commission for Equal Opportunity, the real incidence of sexual intimidation in employment will not be known, or countered, until a national policy towards sexual harassment is determined and implemented. We therefore submit that: 1. The National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation be commissioned to conduct a nation-wide study of discrimination based on sex, both in the private sector and the Public Service, with a view to advising the Government on the development of national policy. 2. The major priority of such a study should be to determine a legally- enforceable definition of sexual harassment. 3. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations should bring forward in Parliament legislation, arising from such a study, to outlaw discrimination and intimidation in employment based on sex. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robert Ray (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to territorial or local government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of territorial or local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 389 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth. That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 71 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That to date no postage stamps have been issued to commemorate the services of Australian Forces in Korea and Vietnam. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should seek and support the issue of such commemorative stamps. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 114 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That there is grave cause for concern in the Australian community at the continuing sensationalist media and political campaign directed against the humanitarian and socially just effects of the Welfare State (most recently exemplified by the front-page article 'One in 4 get Welfare Hand' in the Melbourne Herald of Monday, 3rd October 1983). That, whilst enlarging public awareness of the critical social problems facing our community, such articles tend to paint the victims of our social system as worthless parasites living off the work force. 1. We believe that the 635,000 persons receiving unemployment benefits at the end of June 1983 deserve full support from the Commonwealth, and that the 85,104 persons receiving sickness and special benefits deserve society's sympathy rather than castigation. 2. We also believe that the 2,011,542 persons receiving age, invalid, wife and widow pensions, supporting parent benefits and sheltered employment allowances at the end of June 1983 deserve help from the Commonwealth. 3. We affirm that it is the time-honoured and moral right of Australians to receive assistance in times of distress and hardship, and we remind the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia of its profound responsibility to safeguard and enhance the dignity and well-being of its citizens. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robert Ray (from 201 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: (i) the loss of current employment and future employment opportunities and consequent loss of income to the district (ii) loss of local 24 hour emergency service (iii) loss of local knowledge of telephonists being available to telephone users when traffic is routed to a telephone exchange anywhere in the State (iv) the loss of a local and personalized service provided especially to the aged and disabled Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senate will call on the Government to halt the closure pending a full and open enquiry into the needs and desires of affected subscribers and the full economic and social effect 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 206 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Bill introduced in Parliament on 7th December 1983 to effect changes to the Citizenship Act-Oath of Allegiance. We, members of the Rockhampton Branch of the Catholic Womens League request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that reference to the Queen not be deleted from the Oath of Allegiance. We ask also that, in view of the fact that the reference to God in the Oath of Allegiance is optional, this fact be clearly made known to those concerned. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We have become the innocent victims of your Government's Medicare scheme. We are forced to pay 1 per cent of our wages only to receive less per capita benefits than the people of other States. Without canvassing the rights or wrongs of the dispute between the Federal Government and the State of Queensland the fact is that because of it over one million Queenslanders, who contribute to health funds, are being blatantly discriminated against compared with people in the rest of Australia. Because of the dispute over the introduction of Medicare, Queensland public hospital bed charges are $120 per day compared with $80.00 per day in the other States. This is grossly unfair. As it was the Federal Government which decided to introduce Medicare, we believe it is their responsibility to take action allowing health funds' rates in Queensland to be kept at reasonable levels. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should Use its influence with Government so as to avoid the discrimination (of $40 per day) against insured Queenslanders. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 532 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (1) While totally upholding the privileges of individual Members of Parliament, regrets the attacks made yesterday upon the integrity, impartiality and competence of Mr Justice Cross by the member for New England under the privileges of the Parliament, including in particular the following: (a) 'He simply ignored that evidence because it did not fit into what appears to have been his predetermined conclusion.' (b) 'This is but one of many illustrations of the judge sacrificing accuracy and judgment on the altar of the quick quip.' (c) 'He has in each instance ignored the only objective evidence available to the Special Commission.' (d) 'Mr Justice Cross has acted other than in accordance with the principles of natural justice.' (e) 'The implication of his failing to adequately consider or inquire into the matters referred to him is that not only has my name been muddied, but the administration of justice in NSW has been brought further into question.' (f) 'Indeed, the objective evidence has been ignored.' (g) 'I suggest that in the future, if Mr Justice Cross draws some objective but colourful analogy with the proceedings over which he presided, he might find himself drawn irresistibly to phrases such as Star Chamber, or kangaroo court,'; and (2) Records its full confidence in the integrity, impartiality and competence of Mr Justice Cross. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) deplores the decision of the Victorian Government to close (and sell) four hostels which were used for the accommodation of more than 200 country students in the Melbourne metropolitan area; (b) condemns the failure of the Australian and Victorian governments to accede to widespread complaints made by rural councils, student organisations and concerned parents against this decision which is a clear breach of ALP education policy; and (c) urges the Australian Government to reach early agreement with the Victorian Government providing for the continued financing of the hostels so that essential facilities exist for country students seeking to acquire tertiary education. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Honey Research Committee-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to section 18 of the Honey Research Act 1980. 2. Housing Loans Insurance Corporation-Annual Report 1982-83 pursuant to section 39 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965. 3. Reforming the Australian Public Service-Policy Paper. 4. The Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T.)-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to sub- section 97 (1) of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1977. 5. A maintenance Agency for Australia-Report of the National maintenance Inquiry-together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the Report. 6. Parole Board of the Australian Capital Territory-Annual Report 1982-83- pursuant to section 27A of the Parole Ordinance 1976. 7. Commonwealth Legal Aid Council-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 33 of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977. 8. Judges Handbook-Federal Court of Australia. 9. Aboriginal Development Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 40 of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs relating to the report. 10. Operation of the Special Employment-Related Programs Act 1982 6th report. Motion (by Senator Chipp) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the exportation of nuclear materials for purposes connected therewith. Bill presented by Senator Chipp, and read a first time. Senator CHIPP(Victoria) —Leader of the Australian Democrats)-(10.07)-by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This legislation provides for an absolute prohibition on the export of uranium from Australia. It is similar to legislation I introduced in 1983 but which was defeated when the Australian Labor Party Government and the Opposition combined to vote against the Australian Democrats. This legislation is being introduced because the nuclear issue is of such fundamental importance to the future of humanity that the mere vote of the major political parties cannot be allowed to perpetuate a cover-up. Australia's reserves of uranium make us a major participant in the world's nuclear fuel cycle. Uranium is good for only two things: Fuel for nuclear power reactors or fuel for nuclear bombs. Any responsible examination of whether or not Australia should export uranium must fully consider what uranium is used for , and what the implications of that use are. The Australian Democrats are in no doubt that uranium mining can never be justified. The nuclear power industry began forty years ago with the promise of electricity 'too cheap to meter'. It is now too expensive to produce. In the United States, the home of the nuclear industry, no new reactors have been ordered since 1978. All reactors ordered since 1974 have been cancelled. In January of this year there were three shocks to the nuclear industry in the United States that demonstrate beyond doubt its ailing character. A reactor in Illinois completed at a cost of $3.7 billion was denied an operating licence because of a complete lack of confidence in its quality control. The Marble Hill reactor in Indiana was cancelled despite being half completed at a cost of $2.5 billion. Ohio's Zimmer plant, all but finished at a cost of $1.7 billion, is to be converted to coal. The poor economics of nuclear power are crippling the industry; but not only in the United States. The French nuclear industry, a state-run bureaucracy, has often been cited as a successful example of nuclear power's benefits. It is massively in debt, however. At the end of 1982 Electricite de France was $19 billion in the red. The message is clear. Nuclear power cannot stand up by itself in the market- place. Without enormous government subsidies-at least $40 billion in the United States, and underwriting in France-it would not survive. The so-called free- marketeers of the major parties should think about this. Nuclear power will not be missed. Its contribution to the provision of energy for our society is, at best, minimal. In the United States nuclear power delivers less energy to people than that provided by firewood. In fact wood's contribution is twice that of nuclear power. In France nuclear power provides only one-quarter of that nation' s electricity generation. In the developing nations it provides less than 5 per cent of their electricity. No one in the world will suffer from any reduction in living standards if nuclear power is replaced by the cheapest sources of energy- namely, conservation and renewable resources. The nuclear industry, despite the fact that it has been producing highly radioactive waste for some 30 years, has developed or adopted no permanent waste disposal system. That is an international scandal. It is a severe indictment on all those involved in the industry. The nuclear power industry has many other failings. Consider, for example, the leaks of radiation into the environment from operating reactors and the lax security surrounding the nuclear industry that has allowed many tonnes of bomb-useable material to have gone missing. These facts must be examined when we consider the issue of Australian uranium. We cannot blindly export uranium and ignore the fact that this country's actions will be interpreted as supporting an economically inefficient and dangerous industry. That is a situation that the Australian Democrats cannot countenance. The spread of nuclear power spreads nuclear bombs. It provides the materials, the technology and the personnel that, when mixed with the intent, can develop a nuclear arsenal. In fact, an international nuclear arsenal has been developed. A modern nuclear power plant produces enough plutonium each year for dozens of atomic bombs. The world's nuclear plants-some 211 operating in Western countries -produce in total about 40 metric tons of separated plutonium each year. That is enough for some 5,000 to 20,000 nuclear bombs each year. That plutonium is ready for immediate use now-by governments or terrorists. That is not all the plutonium produced by reactors, however. Each year another 175 tonnes remains unseparated from reactor waste. If separated, that would be enough for over 27, 000 nuclear bombs. It is there for terrorists and crazy governments to use. However, nuclear bombs do not even need separated plutonium. Robert W. Seldon, of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, a nuclear bomb laboratory, wrote in 1977: . . . an entirely credible national nuclear explosives capability could be constructed using only reactor grade plutonium. Just to prove it, the United States announced in August 1977 that such a bomb had been successfully exploded. As noted above, there is enough of this material for some 27,000 nuclear bombs in 1982 alone. Nothing can safeguard these potential arsenals. We must recognise that the elaborate international safeguards system can do no more than detect a diversion of 'peaceful' nuclear material into bombs, and warn people about it. It cannot prevent a diversion from occurring. International safeguards, in particular the International Atomic Energy Agency, are not policemen preventing the diversions. They are mere auditors. The IAEA has only 132 inspectors to cover 854 facilities. The safeguards that those people administer allow a 1-1.5 per cent loss of plutonium or highly enriched uranium. This material unaccounted for-MUF-alone could be to build a small arsenal of weapons. The Roxby Downs uranium mine-the world's largest, and approved by this Labor Government-even if it was put under the strictest safeguards, would leak into the world enough plutonium for 3,800 nuclear bombs. We in the Democrats find both the morality and the practical considerations of that totally abhorrent for a country like Australia. There can be no justification for such a situation. The greatest problem with proliferation is identifying a military diversion. It needs to be clearly seen. That problem can be solved by ending uranium mining, uranium enrichment, reprocessing and nuclear power programs. This would leave any nuclear activity with an unmistakable military intent. Such blatant motives are more easily identified, more politically repugnant and thus more easily opposed. It will not make proliferation impossible but certainly will make it much more difficult than at present. That is an improvement towards a safer world that all people should support. Because of these facts the end of the nuclear industry is both a necessary and sufficient condition to end nuclear proliferation. This Bill provides for an end to uranium mining in Australia. That is the first of a number of steps the Democrats will propose to end Australia's involvement in the cycle of nuclear madness. To do nothing about the crisis the world faces from nuclear bombs, the uneconomic nature of nuclear power and the environmental risks of both, is as good as aiding the problem. We believe this Bill to be a step in the right direction. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Haines) agreed to: 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. Bill presented by Senator Haines, and read a first time. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.18) — by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 17 November 1982 I raised in the Senate the question of whether or not Australia needed to follow the example of some United States of America States and introduce legislation to protect consumers who, having bought a faulty car, discover that they are basically stuck with a 'lemon'. This Bill is aimed at providing protection for those people. I must stress that it is not an attack on all the importers, manufacturers and distributors of cars in Australia. Most of them are conscious of the need to maintain the integrity of a brand name by giving prompt and effective service on a car proved to be faulty. Indeed, the 1982 annual report of the Victorian Director of Consumer Affairs notes: By 1980 it was apparent that a trend had developed whereby several manufacturers were offering genuine assistance towards the rectification of mechanical or paint faults that perhaps could have originated from manufacture. In other words, some were prepared to take their responsibilities even beyond the warranty period. That is, of course, commendable but it does not solve the problem. Some authorised service agents are simply not prepared to accept fully their responsibilities even during the warranty period. Purchasing a vehicle represents a high proportion of the expenditure, income and savings of most householders. The ability of these people to seek proper redress when the vehicle purchased will not perform the functions for which it was intended, or does not exhibit the characteristics that were claimed for it, must not be dependent on the good will of the manufacturer alone. I believe that the purchaser of a new motor vehicle is entitled to be protected by the law and not subject to the whims of a manufacturer or distributor. Most people know of someone who has or claims to have bought a 'dud' car, even if they have not suffered that fate themselves. Most of us therefore have seen the suffering and humiliation experienced by people who have innocently parted with thousands of dollars in the vain expectation that this would entitle them to a period of trouble-free car ownership. The joy and pride of ownership quickly evaporate as people suffer the extremely frustrating experience of being fobbed off with excuses such as: 'They all make that noise'; 'It does not make a noise when we drive it'; 'Change your driving style'; 'Ignore it, it will probably go away soon'; or 'They all do that'. I point out that these excuses have been passed on to me by people suffering from these problems. It should not be almost impossible to get compensation in circumstances where a genuine complaint exists. The example I cited in November 1982 was an American example, and an extreme one. It concerned a man who fought, for 18 months, a vain battle to have his car repaired satisfactorily. The faults he complained of included the car collecting seven inches of water after a rainstorm, the electrical system failing repeatedly, the paint peeling, the parking brake pedal coming off, the manual transmission repeatedly popping out of second gear and going into neutral, and an assortment of lesser faults. Despite the seriousness of his complaints the car sat in the dealer's yard for transmission repairs for 135 days over a period of 18 months. It was his case which was a major factor in leading the Connecticut legislature to pass its own legislation to ensure that manufacturers , distributors and authorised agents accepted the fact that their responsibility to a customer went beyond merely selling a person a car. While all cases may not be as extreme as the American example I have just cited , there are nevertheless in Australia sufficient problems for the major source of consumer complaints to be the broad area relating to motor vehicles. This comprises the purchase of new and used vehicles, repairs and servicing, and other motor vehicle products. The major reason for complaint is the poor quality of a product or service. Since I raised this matter in 1982 I have been contacted by many people, a number of them producing vast quantities of documents, letters and so on to manufacturers, all of whom have complained that they have not received the satisfaction that they saw as their right following the purchase of a new and generally expensive motor vehicle. These amendments will give people with a legitimate complaint the right to compensation. They will compel manufacturers and distributors to deal properly with people who have bought a motor vehicle that does not function properly. They will put pressure on the manufacturer to market products which work and to make a determined effort to quickly remedy faults that may occur. If these amendments are passed, it will no longer be in the interests of the manufacturer to ask for the vehicle to be returned again and again as a tactic to wear down the unfortunate purchaser. It will be possible for a person to buy a vehicle with some certainly that the buyer will not be forced to be the reluctant owner of a 'lemon' on wheels. It will give the manufacturers an enormous incentive to make warranty claims that are feasible and to exercise the most stringent quality control measures over the motor vehicles that they produce. Furthermore, a motor vehicle purchaser would be entitled to redress if the warranty on that vehicle were still in force and within one year from the date on which the vehicle was first supplied to the consumer. The redress would be in the form of a new motor vehicle or financial reimbursement after depreciation had been taken into account. The consumer would be entitled to redress if, on not less than four occasions, a particular defect to which the warranty were applicable was not remedied, or if the motor vehicle had been out of service for more than 30 days-whether in a continuous period or not-by reason of any defect to which the warranty applied. I repeat, this Bill is not to be taken as an attack on motor vehicle importers and manufacturers. It will, however, compel those who do not already do so to act in a socially responsible manner, that is, to force them all to do what some already do. Sub-section 74GA (4) gives manufacturers and not the comsumer the option of choosing between the supply of a new vehicle and the making of a refund. This appears to be the position under similar State laws in the United States of America. Although I note that the United States Federal law relating to consumer products generally provides that the warrantor 'must permit the consumer to elect either a refund for or replacement without charge of such product or part', in this instance I think it is reasonable that the manufacturer should have the option-especially as a comparable car may not be available where a new model has come out. Further, the depreciation or damage may be such as to make it unreasonable that the manufacturer should be required to provide a new vehicle. Sub-section 74GA (7) has been included because it is difficult, if not impossible, to foresee and provide for all the problems that can arise out of the making of a refund or the supply of a new motor vehicle. It therefore seems to be appropriate and wise to rest in the Federal court wide powers to declare or adjust rights and liabilities. By imposing legal obligations on manufacturers and importers, these amendments will basically reduce the element of risk currently entailed when a consumer purchases a new motor vehicle. They will protect consumers by imposing a real social responsibility on manufacturers and importers. I do not oppose the profit motive. It is, after all, the driving force of a basically free enterprise economy. Modern society, however, has also achieved some progress in social responsibility. We can no longer rely on producers motivated solely by profit necessarily or voluntarily to do the right thing. Experience suggests that while many do, many do not. It is time, therefore, that the law protected the consumer or purchaser of a new motor vehicle. My amendments will achieve that aim and I commend the Bill to the Senate and look forward to its early passage. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Debate resumed from 16 December 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.30) —The Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill 1983 was before the Senate, but not debated, at the end of last year. As circumstances stand at the moment, I move: That the debate be now adjourned. (Quorum formed) Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Mason, C. V. J. Chipp, D. L. Messner, A. J. Chrichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Rae, PeterEvans, Jack Reid, M. E. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales)(10.37) —I move: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day, for the first day of sitting after 1 May 1984. I would like to speak to this motion at least in some detail as I think it is necessary to explain the position. It appears, at least to those of us on this side of the Senate, quite extraordinary that the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) have persisted with the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill 1983. It was brought before the Senate on the last day of the sitting last year but was not debated. It was evident that the Government was not aware of the real difficulties and real problems of the industry to which these increased costs were to apply. Consequently it was hoped that a proper measure of consultation would, at least in part, resolve the issue . Taking advantage of the recess and of the fact that the Government had not pursued the legislation late last year such consultation has occurred. Indeed committees have been set up to investigate the area of cost effectiveness of meat inspection-indeed of the industry itself. As the Minister has said the Interim Inspection Policy Council is to carry out as a matter of priority an examination of the financial and economic aspects of the current recovery of inspection costs in the export meat industry. The Minister has asked that the Council's report be available by the end of April. That is a reasonably short period and to us it seems most inappropriate, indeed not understandable, that the Government would want to pursue this legislation which would impose an extraordinarily heavy cost structure on the industry in the absence of an opinion to be formed by the Council and the result of widespread investigations and hearings which are to take place across Australia in Brisbane, Sydney and Hobart during the week commencing 12 March 1984 and in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne during the following week. It will be a widespread and in-depth inquiry into a whole range of issues that relate to the export inspection of meat, to the calibre of that inspection and to its cost. It will relate that to the industry in the current circumstances in which it finds itself and indeed in the circumstances in which it has to compete in a highly competitive and, at the moment, somewhat down-graded meat export industry. This legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives as long ago as last September, I believe, and it represents a desperate attempt by a Government, which at that stage was ill-informed, apparently to head off a legal challenge by the industry. Much more particularly, the legislation was evidence of the Government's lack of capacity and determination to do the very things that it talks so consistently about-to consult with the industry, to examine the industry's position in the economy and to come to some sort of responsible consensus. Obviously it has refused to do that. As late as, I think, 24 November last year the Minister for Primary Industry again insisted that the Government would be pursuing this legislation and the imposition of these extraordinarily heavy charges at a time which was perhaps the most inappropriate. The purpose of the Bill is to validate meat inspection charges from 1 January 1983 to 21 November 1983 due to a technical deficiency in the legislation since the beginning of the year. The Bill certainly should not be passed by this Parliament until the sort of investigation that I and the Opposition have referred to has been carried out. Fortunately the Government has established a proper inquiry into the cost problems of this most important industry but having done that why on earth it should pursue the legislation seems beyond understanding. The whole matter arose in the first place because of the Government's determination in the 1983 Budget to impose very significantly increased charges for meat inspection. 'Significantly' is not nearly a strong enough term, because the charges that were imposed as a result of that Budget represented an increase of 200 per cent, an increase from $1.80 to $5.40 per head-an insufferable proposition. The original Commonwealth charge of $1.80, which had been in force, unaltered, since 1979, compared more or less favourably with the charges in the States of $1.50 in New South Wales, $2.08 in Victoria and as low as $1.06 in Queensland. This sort of increase was an insufferable addition to the cost structure of an industry that had been finding times difficult indeed. It occurred at a time when the industry, like many other of Australia's rural industries, was recovering from the most severe drought in its history. An increase at such a time was impossible for the leaders of and participators in the great primary industry in general and in the meat industry in particular to understand. There seemed to be no justification for an industry, fighting its way through a drought, to be suddenly hit by a 200 per cent increase in one section of its cost structure. People probably fail to recognise that for rural industry to recover from a drought of the severity of the 1982 drought, following as it did a pretty lean period in 1979, 1980 and 1981, takes a very significant time indeed, particularly in the livestock industry. The livestock industry needs a period not of weeks or months but of years to recover in terms of numbers and standard of stock and in its capacity to compete in the world market. Senator Harradine —Some areas are still affected by drought. Senator Crichton-Browne —Exactly. Senator SCOTT —Some people have forgotten this. As Senator Harradine says and Senator Crichton-Browne from Western Australia says, some areas of Australia are still very significantly affected by drought. Since they remind me of that, I should also say that some significant areas of primary producing land in Australia are almost totally devastated by flood. There is an irony in the fact that after literally years of drought, one should be ravaged by flood, which can be almost as devastating. So the period needed for recovery after the drought and the consequences of the drought, I suggest, make this legislation more inappropriate now than it could ever have been. The other matter that makes this a totally inappropriate time to consider even some increase in charges-if indeed there is to be any-is the fact that the industry is struggling and has struggled through a period of depressed prices. Competitively it finds itself in a very serious situation. It has taken this industry many years to recover to some real degree from the loss of market it suffered when the United Kingdom moved into the European Economic Community and as a result of that Community's attitudes. I believe that the sort of competition with which this great meat industry in Australia is confronted is worth remembering. It is a very significant competition with competitors who are helped immeasurably by their governments and their taxpayers. The meat industry in Australia stands on its own feet. It relies on its own efficiency and on its breeding capacities and standards to compete around the world. It is an industry which has virtually no support from the Australian community. Basically it does not seek that support, but it does seek a fair deal in areas such as cost structure, over which governments have a significant measure of control. It is important to recognise that this industry, unaided in Australia and confronting on world markets all forms of competition, is an industry which does not have the sorts of benefits that are common to its major competitors. I believe, for instance, that we should remind ourselves of the circumstances of the European Economic Community, where there is a complete block-out of the mass of Australian products and where prices are bolstered by a very significant subsidised system, to the extent that subsidised surpluses are nowadays moving into the free markets of the world and making those markets very much more difficult places indeed. So our producers face enormous subsidising of competitors in the European Economic Community. It is worth remembering that in the last couple of years New Zealand has subsidised its sheep meat industry by in excess of $500m. South America, a competitor of Australia in the beef and veal markets of the world, has preferential access to many parts of Europe and export rebates and long term cheap loans. These are some of the advantages of yet another competitor. On the Australian side of the coin, the Australian producer virtually starts about $40m behind scratch because that is his contribution to meat export inspection. The meat industry in Australia represents something like $1.5 billion in export earning capacity, and something like $1.2 billion of that is referable to beef and veal alone. When talking of the problems which have confronted this industry and which have been significantly increased by the determination of the Government to press ahead with the proposition of a 200 per cent increase in charges it is worth remembering that the state of the industry is bringing about significant unemployment in a whole range of areas. In the abattoir areas around Australia many people have been laid off. Hundreds of workers have been laid off in meat works in Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. Some of these meat works are closing down and some have closed down altogether. Others are in a skeleton staff situation. I suppose it is worth recalling the measures that the Government has taken to help the steel workers in this country. That may well be a good thing; I am not saying that it is or is not. But clearly that same sort of responsibility and concern has not been exhibited towards rural workers in this country who in this case cover a very wide range of people, including people in the refrigeration and transport industries as well as people within the precincts of the abattoirs themselves. Hundreds and, indeed, thousands of people are involved, and many hundreds have already lost their jobs. Not only have those hundreds lost their jobs but also literally thousands of people are living in complete uncertainty and dismay just wondering whether this week or next week, or next month, their area of operation and work will be forced to close down because it has become non-competitive, basically as a result of the enormous and continuously increasing charges levelled at it. I believe I have made clear the point that caused us to seek the adjournment of the debate on this legislation. It is virtually unbelievable that a government, having recognised, apparently, the need for consultation in this industry and the need to identify the penalty of charges being brought into the industry through the 200 per cent increase, having set up two proper committees, having given them clear instructions and guidelines for investigation and having asked them to report as a matter of priority by about the end of April, should then seek to pursue this legislation. The Government was tardy enough in taking those steps and for a significant period, to the end of November, was arrogantly insistent that it would not alter the charges and would be pressing for their implementation. For all those well-based and sound reasons we have sought the adjournment of the debate so that when matters come to a head again and when the question of export charges is examined again by the Government it will at least be in receipt of a responsible examination by responsible committees and will be talking with some real knowledge of the industry with which it seeks to discuss and come to some responsible arrangement in this area. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.58) — Senator Scott, before he commenced his speech, said that this was an extraordinary performance. He then proceeded to display, as I expect the four or five Opposition speakers to follow him will display, either culpable ignorance or a piece of cheap and irresponsible political grandstanding designed to confuse and mislead the industry and public. Of course, there is nothing extraordinary about either culpable ignorance or cheap or irresponsible political grandstanding from members of the Opposition. The simple fact is that none of the comments he made had anything at all to do with this Bill and, therefore, provide no justification whatsoever for its deferral. The legislation imposing higher charges which became operative from 1 October last year has already been passed by the Senate and was not opposed by Senator Scott or anybody else. Whether this Bill is deferred or passed will make absolutely no difference to the current liability of any abattoir operator in Australia to pay the levy. I do not believe all members of the Opposition are so culpably ignorant that they do not know those facts. I am, therefore, forced to conclude that this exercise is nothing but a cheap and irresponsible piece of political grandstanding. Senator Scott's comments bear the same relationship to reality that the scurrilous, infamous and discredited allegations made by his Leader last October bore, although at least his present Leader, then his Deputy Leader, had the decency to make his scurrilous, discredited and infamous allegations before his own red-necked cheer squad and did not insult the national Parliament by bringing them before it. All this Bill does is correct a technical defect, that is, a failure to prescribe abattoir premises, in a regulation which had been issued pursuant to the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act, which regulation was issued on 1 January 1983 and remained in force until 21 November 1983. After 21 November 1983 the technical defect was corrected by the issue of a regulation without that technical defect. As a result of that technical defect having been corrected, I stress again, all the abattoirs are liable to pay the charges prescribed by the legislation passed last year and not opposed by Senator Scott or anybody else. The deferral or passage of this Bill will make absolutely no difference to the liability of any operator to pay the current charges. On 1 October last year the charges were increased. In that interim period during which they were being applied under a technically defective regulation, that is, from 1 January to 30 September last year, the previous and lower rate of charges applied. I am advised that a total of $11m was collected. Again I am advised that those moneys, although not in the technical sense correctly collected, cannot be returned. Until 30 September last year there was no deliberate attempt by any abattoir operator not to pay the levy although I understand that because of insolvency some levies are still outstanding. On 1 October the charge, again collected under a technically defective regulation, was increased and between 1 October and 21 November, when the technical defect was corrected, some firms appear to have deliberately withheld in part or in full the payment of the levy. Since 21 November last year some other firms, and probably the same firms, either have not paid the levy or have not paid it in full. The non-payment of the levy beyond 21 November was clearly illegal and action to recover will be taken and indeed is in progress. The position of those who either did not pay the full levy or did not pay the levy at all between 1 October and 21 November is less clear. I am informed that in aggregate in the period since 1 October approximately 40 per cent of firms operating abattoirs are in some degree of arrears of payment. The legal processes for the recovery of those charges are being pursued and letters of demand will shortly be sent to those people in arrears. It is simply irresponsible to confuse the facts of this admittedly somewhat complex issue by dragging in an issue, as Senator Scott has done, which has absolutely nothing to do with the substance of this Bill. I emphasise that all that the Bill seeks to do is to correct a technical defect in a regulation issued by the former National Party Minister for Primary Industry. The purpose of the Bill is to correct the errors and negligence of the former National Party Minister, and it has nothing to do with the level of charges currently being applied for export inspection services or the legal obligation of abattoir operators to pay those charges. If the validation Bill is not passed-and Senator Scott's motion seeks to defer further consideration until after 1 May-I have been advised that those operators who paid their full levy between 1 October and 21 November cannot recover those moneys that they have paid. Those who have either not paid at all or not paid in full between 1 October and 21 November may not be-I stress 'may not' be, because opinion seems to be divided on this matter-legally obliged to pay the levy until this validation Bill is passed. What Senator Scott proposes to do-and I presume that the other Liberal Party and/or National Party speakers who follow him will propose to do the same thing- is to continue to leave in doubt the obligation to pay by those who have either not paid in full or not paid at all between 1 October and 21 November 1983. Those firms which have done the right thing and paid are finished with, regardless of whether this validation Bill is passed. Those who have not paid may not be legally obliged to pay unless and until the Bill is passed. The proposition that Senator Scott is asking the Senate to accept is that those who have met their obligations under the law are finished; those who have not met their obligations under the law will be allowed, at least for the time being, to escape and avoid those obligations. I do not intend to comment on all the totally extraneous and irrelevant material about the level of charges to which Senator Scott has referred, for the simple and totally adequate reason that none of those comments has anything whatsoever to do with this Bill, which an irresponsible and mischievous Opposition seeks to defer. All that the Opposition proposal will achieve is the creation of more rich lawyers, as the Government proceeds to endeavour to recover obligations due from some meat processors, abattoir operators, without certain legislative backing to collect those arrears of payments. Senator Scott referred to the study recently announced by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, by the Interim Inspection Policy Council, a body which, I understand, includes representatives of all those who pay for inspection services, not just meat inspection services but the unions involved in meat inspection services, the State and Federal Governments and consumers, and which is due to report by April. That study will not deal with the subject matter of the Bill. Any changes which may be made as a result of its conclusions and recommendations will be applicable to the future only, and not to the past. All that this Bill seeks to do is to correct a technical defect in a regulation issued by the previous National Party Minister for Primary Industry on 1 January 1983. It has absolutely nothing to do with the level of meat inspection charges. There is no valid reason whatsoever why the Bill should not be passed without delay. The invalid reason why it will not be passed without delay is that, taking a charitable view, those members of the Opposition who vote for Senator Scott's motion are culpably ignorant. The less charitable and, I suspect, more accurate view is, as I have said, that they are engaged in a cheap and irresponsible piece of political grandstanding deliberately designed to confuse and mislead the industry and the public, an incidental effect of which will be to leave the Commonwealth in an uncertain legal position in future attempts to recover arrears of payments due and probably to create a number of other rich lawyers. No honourable senator who is informed on this matter-and after my comments there is absolutely no excuse for senators being ill-informed or not being aware of the facts-and no senator who has any sense of responsibility, any sense of the duties of this House of the Australian Parliament will support Senator Scott's motion. I urge honourable senators not to do so. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.11) —I am very grateful to Senator Walsh for, as usual, being able to provide me with such good advice. It is also very refreshing to find that he can come back into this Parliament for his first contribution in 1984 in exactly the same tenor as he would have left it in 1983, 1982, 1981 and so on. Still, I am used to his degree of flattery and complimentary offerings, so I do not really mind saying that I disagree with him . I think it is quite reasonable that honourable senators should have the opportunity not to just say 'Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir', because I disagree with him and I want to make that clear. Senator Harradine —He misled the Parliament on the last day. Senator ARCHER —I do not care whether he misled the Parliament on the last day or today. I just disagree with what he is putting and the premise on which he is putting it. I am not here to mislead the meat industry in all its forms in Australia. I am not here to mislead the growers, the unions, the processors, the exporters or all the other carriers, packers, box-makers and anyone else mixed up with this. What I am trying to do is to see that the industry at large is recognised for what it is and that we do our best to ensure that it survives and strengthens. I do not get any joy out of seeing the actions of any government reducing the amount of work that is available. I do not want to see lay-offs in jobs. I do not want to see costings that will just eliminate the industry piece by piece. I do not want to see the present 20 per cent reduction that is anticipated in 1984 grow to a 30 per cent reduction in 1985. I do not want to be guilty of hypocritically talking here about booms in the rural industry. Where are these booms in the rural industry that everybody has been chanting about for months? Do honourable senators think they are in the sugar industry? Do they think they are in the vegetable industry, the grape industry or the dairy industry? Has a boom shown up in the meat industry? It is the meat industry we are currently talking about. No, such a boom certainly has not shown up there. It is my belief that the Government made a simple mistake of accepting advice from one of its advisory groups which said: 'She'll be right; the industry can stand it'. The main purpose of my contesting the continuing debate on this Bill today is at least to give the Government an opportunity just to look at the stupidity that goes on in this area. It is absolutely ridiculous for us to continue while we are imperilling the industry day by day. The Minister for Primary Industry ( Mr Kerin) fully understands what is going on. It would have been unthinkable for him to have organised these committees of inquiry and given them his wholehearted support if he really felt that what we were doing was the ideal thing. Of course it is not the ideal thing. The terms of the inquiry and the information that has been put out already say it all. The decision to promote these uneconomic fees was based on fallacies. I still believe that the Government is able to take the necessary actions now. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) so adequately covered the matter last week when he promised us mistakes. This is one of the mistakes that he promised us. I quite understand that the people who are making these decisions at various levels are short of information and that accordingly it is likely that they will make mistakes in areas where they lack practical knowledge and contact with people at large. I believe that the information that they are working on should be better than it is. I think there should be more understanding. In my State the meat industry is in a lot of trouble. I would like to see a little more consideration given as to how we are going to assist it to build up. It is one of the things that we in Tasmania can do very well. If we had a little more help from some of our bureaucrats and senatorial colleagues we might be able to achieve something. If people from my State come here trying to validate the nonsense that the Government is producing, I will be very sorry for them when they get home and face their growers. I support the growers, the industry and the unions. I do not want us to go through these continuing rounds of enormous union stand-downs. I do not want us to eliminate the standard of inspection that we have but I want the Government to understand that before we validate these things that it arranged last year we are giving it the chance to have another look at what it has done. Let us look at this inquiry. I believe it will be a good inquiry. I think that the Minister has grappled with the question very well. I certainly commend the fact that we are to have a proper look at it to see just what the economics of it are and what the results will be. I want to ensure that we get an opportunity to cover the position as widely as we can. I have made a little space in the Tasmanian newspapers and on the air this week to urge everybody in the industry to give evidence to the inquiry. I do the same Australia-wide. I hope that everybody who has any association with the meat industry in Australia will make a submission. While we have this feeling that we are suffering from a rural boom and that the millionaires in the bush have to be brought to heel, these sorts of things get through. If we study the realities we see that the average Australian farmer earns $11,400 a year. What is the average weekly income now? It is $350- odd a week. I believe I saw that figure in the newspaper this week. Let us compare that figure with the average annual income of $11,400 for members of the entire farming population of Australia. How can we skin this louse any more if we try to chase these figures any higher ? I again raise the question of the pig inspections. The cost to the pig producers of Australia is greater than the cost to the total export industry. It just cannot last. I have also been talking to the people who export fish, dairy products, vegetables and honey. They are all in the same boat. I cannot get the Government to understand that, according to the information that I got from the Parliament Library in the last few days, in New Zealand almost the total cost of export inspection schemes is met by the Government. In Canada, as in New Zealand , the Government is responsible for the cost of almost all export inspection charges. Details of inspection scheme costs in the United States of America were procurable only in relation to meat. Unlike the current situation in Australia where the Federal Government has adopted a policy of recovering 50 per cent of the cost of export meat inspection, meat in the United States of America is inspected by Federal inspectors at no cost to either the farmer or the exporter. That alone puts a cost of $40m against the producers in Australia. Senator Tate —What about the razor gang? Senator ARCHER —I know that Senator Tate does not give a damn for the meat producers in Australia, but I do. If he wants to squawk about how much he hates them he is welcome to follow me in this debate. In the meantime, I am trying to protect the unionists as well as the producers. I want to be able to say that I have at least done my best to obscure these ridiculous charges and to preserve the industry. Senator Tate —You are a hypocrite, an absolute hypocrite. Senator ARCHER —I believe that these things are part of our entire overall social cost. We have a system in Australia which provides considerable benefits to certain sections of the community. Where considerable benefits are provided to certain sections it is done so at the expense of others. Senator Harradine —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I heard Senator Tate call Senator Archer a hypocrite. That is an unparliamentary expression and I ask that Senator Tate be asked to withdraw it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Tate will withdraw the remark. Senator Tate —Mr Deputy President, in deference to the Chair I will withdraw that remark. Senator ARCHER —Thank you. If we really feel that we need to have a meat industry, we will find, as with other primary industries that it is necessary for us to regard ourselves as an international exporting country. If we are to meet the other exporters of the world on the world markets we have to do so on a reasonably comparable basis. We as Australians have set ourselves an urban standard of living which is the envy of everybody else in the world. We have achieved that at the expense of the rural community in matters such as this. The countries that I mentioned-Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America- also have decided that a high standard of living for their population, mainly their urban population, is desirable. They have also decided that as a result of the cost that this places on their primary producers in world markets they at least will contribute something towards the costs that they create. They pay the export inspection charges as a cost against the community as a whole. I have always recommended that that should be done, and I still do. I believe that it is a quite reasonable cost and that it is obviously acceptable by international trading standards. I think that the results of what happens in other places and the effect on our competitiveness should be taken into account. Are these costs and standards reasonable? The standards are, yes. I am not in any doubt that we have the highest and best standards in the world. As to the costs, I am quite sure that the inquiry that the Minister has now set up will produce a lot of very interesting figures and comparable costs to show that the costs are ridiculous. In the latter stages of the parliamentary session last year I received from the Minister the breakdown on how the various parts of the export inspection service are put together. I have been able to circulate that to various sections of the exporting community. I have already received a considerable amount of information. The people who are paying these costs at present-the people who are participating in the service-would very much like to have an opportunity to discuss what is necessary, what responsibility is to be given and taken and how it would best be carried out. To the best of my knowledge this has not been done up until now. I have discussed this matter in Estimates committees at various times. Regrettably, it does not seem as if there is any great intention to let the people who are involved in the system from the practical point of view really to have any worthwhile input into it. I think that in itself would involve a lot of change. If we were able to rearrange this question of responsibility and cost I believe that the costs would be reduced enormously. This would show the necessity of this legislation to validate these ridiculous and stupid costs. It should not be necessary to have to validate these ridiculous costs. I certainly will never agree that these costs are reasonable; they should be absorbed. I do not want to see any of the workers in the industry having to look for other jobs when there are jobs available. This is an industry that we should be extending and expanding. Let us get evidence from this inquiry before we close the door on export inspections. I was somewhat surprised to hear the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, who spoke before me in this debate, saying that the payers were finished; if they had paid they were done. The non-payers might be off the hook. I am a great believer in the generous heart of Senator Walsh on matters such as this. I am sure that if he found somebody was being disadvantaged he would see that he paid back the amount that may have been held not to have been payable. I am not really in any doubt that he will do that. I am not in any doubt that it could not be done if he was so worried about it. I think this whole question demonstrates a fairly heavy-handed bureaucratic bungle. We are now going through the justification process which is normal when mistakes have been made. I find it very refreshing to have the Prime Minister saying: 'You knew I would make mistakes; I promised you mistakes'. I think we accept that. I would now like to see him following that up by saying: 'This inspection charge is a classic case. We will fix it'. I really do not understand why it is seen as necessary, in spite of what Senator Walsh has said, to bring this debate on now before the hearings are concluded and the decisions are taken. Clearly, an enormous mistake has been made. We need to clear it up as best we can. Once this validation legislation is in place and the people who have made this mistake have covered it up, the chances of getting it openly admitted and discussed and having rectifying legislation brought through are not very good. It is in the interests of the public at large and, in this case, the meat producers in particular, that there should be a delay until we are able to see how big this classic error is. The Government can then advise, in the debating stages on the Live-stock Slaughter ( Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill, what it intends to do about it. I really believe that that is the best thing that we can hope to do. I make no apologies at all for being prepared to endeavour to keep the matter before the Government until the mistakes are put right. I was interested to hear Senator Walsh mention that some of the processors had not paid because they have solvency problems. He would not need to be all that smart to work out the reason that they have solvency problems. If he really went into it he would find that the actual costs we are now imposing, coupled with the natural problems of years of drought, run down in maintenance, falling stock numbers and greater competition from overseas people who are better treated on the world market than our processors, are the reasons for insolvency. But apparently somewhere along the line that has not quite got through to him. We are still confronted by this profitability question, this boom syndrome. We still see articles about it in the Press. Obviously the meat inspection charges were built around this high profitability and the fact that the growers and the processors could stand it. The rural sector has in no way got back to a buoyant, competitive and profitable situation. In certain sectors some degree of improvement enabled some of the backlag to be taken up. I know very few farmers, even those who are fairly successful in the grain business, who are able to come back and say that they are making a profit. In most cases they were able to say that they had reduced some of their losses. In many cases it resulted in them having to spend a lot of money trying to catch up with some of their necessary maintenance or restocking in some areas. That does not seem to have got through to the Minister. It concerns me that this apparent blockage is still before us. I was somewhat surprised to see again in the Press this week that the wheatgrowers, who were carrying this fallacy, are still reported as having had a huge, profitable year. There may be areas where this has happened. But overall, losses have already resulted from weather damage. The Almighty, who provided the grain, took a lot of it back with the rain. He may now well follow that up with what I see the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has referred to as 50,000 mice to the hectare. The Government needs also to take into account that our overseas export markets are not very good at present, even though in the last week or two we found that the meat industry has a new champion who goes to Japan, Korea and other places and assures us that all is well. History shows that Japan bought 101,000 tonnes of beef from Australia in 1979 and 85,000 tonnes in 1982. There was a further decline of about 17 per cent in 1983 and there is an anticipated decline of 17 per cent in 1984. The only problem about this is that nobody has yet said from where the new markets will come to replace that decline. There is also the question of freight. Freight rates are creating a real crisis for our export industry. I do not think that it is reasonable to allow Australian freight rates to continue to rise at a time when we are increasing the costs which high freight rates impose. That is really what is happening now. The higher the costs which keep the freight rates up, the less the return for the producer and the processor. These figures are interesting: In 1976 there were 1,700 inspectors and the kill totalled 11 million cattle and 32 million sheep. By 1983 the kill would have closed at about 6.3 million, as against 11 million cattle and 26 million, as against 32 million, sheep. Only the number of inspectors rose substantially. Although the numbers of slaughtered stock were down by 40 per cent the number of inspectors had increased by 30 per cent, from 1,700 to 2,200. I find it quite extraordinary that we can have a system under which this is possible. With all the compliments that Senator Walsh was able to extend to us for having a desire to try to do something to keep the plight of the meat industry before the Parliament, in spite of the fact that he believes it is not right that we should do so and in spite of the fact that the figures on which the costs were raised have been shown to be demonstrably, totally wrong, I still have an interest in seeing that this major industry in Australia is protected. I thing it is better to advance its interests than to damage them. I only hope that honourable senators will take the same view. I urge the Government to get on with the inquiry that it has now set up and to bring the report to the Parliament as soon as possible, together with the plans that it has for rectifying the gross and unfortunate mistakes that the last legislative procedures produced. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(11.38) —I rise to urge the Senate today to consider and deliberate as much as it wishes and then to vote upon the Live-stock Slaughter ( Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill. I do regret my outburst in the course of Senator's Archer's remarks, which I did withdraw, but I did feel he was putting forward a species of rural socialism which lay ill at ease with many other of his political stances. He has put forward in this chamber, as a model for Australian taxpayers to follow, a situation in which Australian taxpayers should do-- Senator Archer —I raise a point of order. This is absolute nonsense. I did nothing of the sort. I just do not go along with this sort of rubbish. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator TATE —As the Deputy President has ruled, there is no point of order. The honourable senator has put forward, as a possible model for Australia to follow, a system which is apparently the practice in some other primary export producing countries whereby their taxpayers underwrite their export inspection services 100 per cent. That is what the honourable senator said. I find that lays very ill at ease with his attitude, for example, to the Medicare scheme, under which we asked the Australian taxpayers to underwrite 100 per cent by way of a one per cent levy the health, medical and hospital care costs of ordinary Australians. I say that the community underwriting of health care is at least as important as the export of cattle. Senator Boswell —What are we talking about? Senator TATE —I am talking about inconsistency in political stances, which was brought into this chamber. The Bill has been completely misunderstood by the Opposition. All we are seeking to do is to validate the collection of meat inspection fees levied from 1 January 1983 to 21 November 1983. Since late November the increased levy has been the subject of valid regulation. This has not raised protests within this chamber. It has not been the subject, for example, of a disallowance motion. It is, in fact, in operation. So we are merely talking about a Bill to validate the imposition of a levy from 1 January to 20 November last year. Up to 1 October last year that relates to the old levy , the levy imposed by Senator Archer's Party when in government. Senator Archer —We know that. Senator TATE —If the honourable senator knows that he ought to be supporting this Bill, because this Bill merely seeks to rectify a defect in the administration and the executive action of the previous Government in failing to validly construct a regulation to impose that old levy, which was of its making, up to 1 October 1983. We are merely trying to rectify what was so poorly undertaken by the previous Government. We are seeking to collect the levy imposed by the previous Government up to 1 October. Insofar as the increase of the levy applies from 1 October, yes there is a six-week period when this Bill, if passed, would validate the collection of the increased meat inspection levy. I am afraid the total confusion in the minds of the Opposition-this is very apparent in the contribution of Senator Scott, whom I greatly admire-means that what the Opposition is doing is encouraging a confusion which I believe leads to many facilities using meat inspection services failing over the last few months to make their proper contribution as required now by law. It is a fact that many of these places and abattoirs have not made the payments as required by law. I think that they have been under a misapprehension that those payments required over the last several months would truly be required only if this Bill were passed. That is not the case. Those requirements are validly in place. But in saying that I also point out that it would be quite wrong to say that the Government is not aware of the situation within the meat export industry. As we all know, that industry has passed through an extremely traumatic and long, drawn-out period, with the drought exacerbating the situation. The meat inspection levy-I notice Senator Archer is very interested in this as a noted beef producer himself-is in fact one of several government levies that are imposed on the industry. We cannot simply focus on the meat inspection levy as the cause-if there is said to be a cause-of the decline of the industry. Clearly the meat inspection levy is but one part of a series of government levies and one part of the overall costs of the industry which, as I said, was very markedly affected by the drought. The improvement of conditions led to the withholding of much stock. Some people would see that as a bit of a paradox, but it is quite clear why that would be the case. With the breaking of the drought and the improvement in pastures much stock was withheld and there is still not a sufficient throughput through the abattoirs to allow them to operate efficiently . One can point to several other charges which are imposed on that industry. I think I recall-I have not been able to put my hand on it this morning-a catalogue of such charges. There is the Australian Meat Research Committee charge, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation research component, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation component charge for administration of meat promotion and the brucellosis, tuberculosis eradication campaign. In regard to sheep meat there is the market development fund for sheep and lambs. I do recall that last year the report of the Australian Meat Research Committee came into this chamber. It was disclosed by that authority that a much higher levy would have to be imposed in relation to its program of meat research just to produce sufficient revenue to maintain a 25 per cent reduced program due to the lower throughput of cattle through the abattoirs. We are confronted by a situation where many charges are imposed by government and by industry on itself. I have instanced the Australian Meat Research Committee as being such a body. There are many instances of charges which enter into the costs of the meat industry. The employment impact, therefore, of the increase in the meat inspection levy alone is not as considerable or as marked as is made out by the Opposition. I concede that it is a component. Of course, any increase in any item of cost must bear upon the overall viability of a particular enterprise. But the decline in the work force in the abattoir meat export industry cannot be laid at the feet of the increase in this levy which, as I say, operates absolutely validly and without question only from 21 November and has been sought to be applied only from 1 October 1983. The decline was very considerable over a period of years until that time. For example, available statistics indicate that in the period from 1976-77 to 1981-82-that is, a five year period-employment in the abattoir and meat processing industry in Australia dropped from 48,815 to 33,430, a decrease of 32 per cent. There had already been a 32 per cent decline in employment over that five-year period, the period when the former Government was in office and operating the meat inspection levy at its current rate. The rate of decrease was particularly pronounced in the period 1979-80 to 1981-82, when employment dropped by nearly 10,000. Senator Watson —Why didn't you tell your Caucus this? Senator TATE —During that time a total of 32 export works were closed permanently. In other words, during the period when the previous Government was in office, imposing its levy, there was a decline. Senator Archer —We had a drought. Senator TATE —I am trying to make the very point that many factors were operating to bring about the decline in employment and the rationalisation within the industry over that five-year or six-year year period. The Opposition certainly cannot lay the decline in the industry at the feet of the proposed increase in the levy. We ought to be asking in this debate whether this Bill ought to pass through the Senate's deliberative processes today. I am indicating that this Bill applies to the previous Government's levy until 1 October and merely validates it and rectifies a defect in the way in which it drew up the regulations. Therefore, I cannot see how any honourable senator on the other side of the chamber can say that that is an improper procedure for the Senate to undertake today. What we do today will make no impact whatsoever on the levying of the increased meat inspection charge from 21 November. So I do not see that there is any significance in what we do today in relation to that levy. There may be some significance in what we do in relation to the six-week period from 1 October to 21 November. It is true that if we pass this legislation today it will be very clear that the levying of that increased charge over the six-week period is without any doubt a valid government operation, and therefore not subject to various court challenges which are very confusing. As I say, I believe that many operators of abattoirs and meat producers, tend to get confused with the periods on either side of the six-week period. This therefore leads to their engaging, perhaps unwittingly, in an illegal withholding of the correct payment of the levy. At the time when some of us were preparing to debate this matter late last year, I wanted to argue that there was a clear case for further consultation by the Government with the industry. Senator Archer —No, with the Caucus. Senator TATE —With the industry. It is correct that I raised the matter within the Caucus. I thought that further consultation within the industry and with bodies which are involved ought to be undertaken. I am pleased to see that the Government has responded by setting up the Interim Inspection Policy Council. The Council has been given a crucial role in developing and implementing policies relating to the inspection of primary produce in general. Absolute priority is to be given to the range of questions dealing with the meat inspection levy. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, in his address at the setting up of the Inspection Policy Council on 14 February this year, made it clear that he would ask the Chairman to arrange for Council, as a matter of priority, to carry out a re-examination of the financial and economic aspects of the impact of inspection costs on the meat industry and to report by the end of April. In the meantime, the Government believes that its policy of asking the taxpayers of Australia to underwrite-this is the way that it should be put-the meat inspection service to the tune of 50 per cent ought to be allowed to operate. We are not saying that in light of that particular range of consultations that is not open to some modification. But the Senate is being asked to agree that it is reasonable that the Australian taxpayer should underwrite the meat inspection service to the tune of 50 per cent of its costs as presently assessed. There are questions of whether the assessment of costs is correct and whether the figure of 50 per cent is correct. No doubt these matters will be the subject of report by the Inspection Policy Council. But I do not think it is reasonable to ask the Australian taxpayer to continue underwriting the meat inspection service to the tune of say, 70 per cent, 75 per cent or 80 per cent. We have made a judgment that it should be 50 per cent and we put to the Senate that that ought to be the case for the six-week period from 1 October to 21 November. Consultations by the Inspection Policy Council are being undertaken. As Senator Archer said, it is essential that meat producers and abattoir operators make their views known as quickly and as comprehensively as possible. I am sure that under the chairmanship of Mr Meynink, who is also Chairman of the Livestock and Meat Authority of Queensland, the Interim Inspection Policy Council will fairly assess the situation. I believe, however, that it is sufficient in the debate today to point out the very small impact of this legislation and in regard to the further questions, await the report of the Inspection Policy Council. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(11.53) —I enter this debate today because I am very concerned about the Australian Labor Party's attitude to the people of rural Australia. The motion that the Senate is debating at the moment calls for the inspection levy to be held at the present level until the Interim Inspection Policy Council, which the Government has set up, brings down its findings in approximately one month's time. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government cannot wait for one month before acting on the findings which are brought down. I am sure that the Senate will respond to the Government and help it in any way that it likes. But at the moment the Senate is saying: 'You have set up an inquiry; for goodness sake wait until the inquiry brings down its results, because it it pointless to set up an inquiry and then not listen to it' . I want to discuss some of the other repercussions if the $1.80 levy is increased to $5.40. In my home State of Queensland at the moment the export abattoirs are paying $5.40 for the cost of inspection, whether the beast is to be exported or whether it is for home consumption. Senator Macklin —In export registered abattoirs. Senator BOSWELL —Yes, in export registered abattoirs. Of course, people are not sending beef to be killed in export abattoirs. They are sending it to non-export licensed abattoirs. Of course, the non-export licensed abattoirs have a full book; the export licensed abattoirs are going broke at a fast rate. Of course the export licensed abattoirs need the local kill and the export kill to be viable. I do not think the Government has considered that. A lot of the export abattoirs are caught in a cleft stick, not knowing which way to go. Some have surrendered their licences, some have given up. I instance the position in the little town of Kilcoy, just 60 or 70 miles out of Brisbane. The abattoir there has a $196,000 a year meat inspection levy because it has an export licence. However, half the beef that is killed is for the local market. Of course these people cannot make a profit and are wondering what they should do. I will not mention the situation in the pig industry, as Senator Archer has done. Since this Bill was introduced a number of abattoirs have given it away. I see that Senator Tate has left the chamber, but I can tell him that in his home State of Tasmania S. P. Holman and Sons Pty Ltd has gone broke and the Longford Meat Co. and Richardson's Meat Industries Ltd have closed . In Victoria Meat Pak (Victoria) Pty Ltd has shut, as has J. H. Ralph and Sons Pty Ltd. Of course, the consequences for employment are horrendous. It is no time at all to be putting up charges. In the last two years in Australia 35 abattoirs have closed. In two years 6,000 jobs in the meat industry have been lost. I put it to honourable senators on the Government side that a lot of these people support them. However, the Government is not supporting these people by allowing an increase in levy from $1.80 to $5.40. Of course, the Government's action will increase unemployment in abattoirs and meat works. The meat export industry is worth $1 billion to Australia. It was Australia's leading rural export earner. Now it ranks sixth in rural export earnings. Admittedly the drought had some effect. Australia just cannot compete with the highly subsidised industries overseas. No country Australia competes with charges any sort of inspection levy. Canada, America and New Zealand do not charge a meat inspection levy. In fact New Zealand is heavily subsidised, to the tune of $500m. I note that Senator Tate is trying to bring in a red herring by saying we are advocating socialism. If Australia wants a meat industry that provides 40,000 jobs and earns $1 billion in export earnings it has to offset some of the costs against those benefits. I will talk a little further about the competition that Australia faces from a lot of other countries. Just three or four months before Christmas Egypt put out an order and tenders were called. Australia put in a tender. However, Australia lost the tender by 20c a kilo to the heavily subsidised European Economic Community country, Ireland. Not only did Australia lose by 20c a kilo but the EEC picked up the account and carried it for 90 days. We cannot compete against the sorts of benefits that other countries are offering. The benfits have to be balanced out overall. The benefits have to be balanced and offset against the disadvantage of the Government's having to carry some of the weight. Honourable senators must realise that an industry which employs 40,000 people needs some sort of protection. Another point I raise in the debate today is the claim that the industry is not efficient. I refer to the headline in the Country Life 'Pay cheque for $400,000 but no work'. That article shows that 20 Northern Territory meat inspectors were under suspension. Of course, it is the meat industry-the grazier-which has to pick up the tab for the inefficiencies of the Government's meat inspection service. I bring to the attention of the Senate a number of other points. For example, the Hawke Government continues to have a complete disregard for rural Australia. That is only one example of its disregard. I will mention a few more. I will tell the people of Australia what the Federal Government has done to the rural industries in only one year. The Government has reduced the general depreciation allowance; removed the tax incentive from the income equalisation deposits scheme; imposed a 2c a litre increase on the excise on aviation fuel; abolished the special depreciation allowance for petrol storage; abolished the automatic in and out opting provisions for tax averaging schemes; cancelled the bicentennial water resources program; decreased at a cost of $10m in 1983-84 the subsidy payable under the petroleum product freight subsidy scheme; increased the interest payments on Telecom Australia and Australia Post resulting in higher telephone and postal charges. The Government intends to increase massively meat export inspection charges, which is the matter we are discussing today. I hope the Government does not do that today. I hope that common sense prevails in the Senate. The Government has provided only $20m for wool promotion although $28m was promised during the election. It has provided only $1m towards national soil conservation and has placed an excise tax on fortified wine despite the categoric election promise that there would be no sales tax on wine. The Government has increased the excise on manufactured tobacco and further cut back petroleum product freight subsidies. I could go on and on. I ask how this squares with the Prime Minister's unqualified commitment to maintaining the viability of Australia's great rural sector and provisional infrastructure. That does not square at all. The people of rural Australia have been asked to carry too much of the cost recovery burden of this nation. I ask the Senate to let common sense prevail when voting on this motion and to wait for the findings of the Government's Inspection Policy Council. I am sure the Government and all honourable senators will then realise that the industry just cannot increase its cost. Some exporters are narrowly winning contracts by .5c a kilo. The exporters cannot carry this extra levy. The abattoirs cannot carry it and still be competitive. It will go back to the farmer and grazier. They are on the end of the line. As other honourable senators have said, farmers' and graziers' incomes are not even level with the average income of Australians. Their investments on their properties are returning one per cent or two per cent . I think it is too much for this Government to expect the farmers and graziers of this nation to carry an industry which provides so much employment and so many export dollars and which is of such benefit to Australia. Surely to goodness the Government must realise that it was elected on a promise to provide 500,000 jobs. If the Government increases this levy it will knock off probably 10,000 or 12,000 jobs of abattoir meat works, truck drivers and so on down to the carton makers and the waterside workers. These people are Government supporters; they are the people who are supposed to vote for the Government. Has not the Government any thought for them because they are the people it will hurt . Farmers and graziers realise that the Government does not give a damn for them but surely it can stand up and support its own people. I urge the Senate to support the motion to defer resumption of the debate and wait until the Council' s findings come down. I think that we may see some common sense in the situation . Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.06) —I have indicated that the Australian Democrats will be supporting Senator Scott's motion to defer resumption of the debate until May. However, I must say that after hearing Senator Boswell's speech I am confused about precisely why the Opposition has moved the motion. Although nobody seems to be at all interested I think it may be well for me to try to spell out where precisely the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill 1983 came from and to which set of fees it refers. It does not refer to the current charges. It does not refer to the Bills which were passed by this chamber on 14 September last year. Contrary to the claim made by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, they were not passed unanimously. The National Party of Australia, the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party all voted to increase the charges. Senator Boswell does not realise that he voted for the increase last year. In fact in this place he voted not only to increase the charges to $5.40 but also last year to increase them to $10.80. We are talking about charges made under a regulation which came into force in 1982. I will give some history on this matter because I believe it is important that we know precisely what it is we are talking about. It might be worth while for some honourable senators who thought that they were talking about an export levy to listen. Essentially the legislation that caused the problems was the Export Control Act 1982 which went through both Houses in June 1982. Prior to that date the ability of a person to inspect export beef relied on a range of quarantine and other Acts. The essential Act which was used in most cases, particularly if the matter were taken to court, was the Customs Act 1901. At that time there was a fair amount of discussion in the Government and elsewhere-it was the Liberal- National Country Party Government-as to what precisely would need to be done. It was felt that the Customs Act of 1901 did not give sufficient legislative power for what had been a growing area of meat inspection in particular. The matter gained a great deal of impetus from the meat inspection scandal over which Mr Nixon, a National Party Minister at the time, presided. There were a great deal of discussions and committees of inquiry into the matter out of which came a package of 19 Bills. The Export Control Act of 1982 as it is now had attached to it a whole series of regulations. Of particular concern was the definition of 'premises' in the live-stock meat inspection legislation which previously referred to premises that were registered under the Export Control Bill. Those registered premises were included in the definition of the Live- stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1979 which was the first time, of course, that the charges had been levied. For the first time a National Party Minister placed charges on exporting. I think it is well to remember-Senator Boswell obviously is not strong on history-that it was the National Party that presided over export charges when they were first introduced . Unfortunately the definition of an abattoir was placed in the export control regulations and the prescribed premises were defined as those which were used for the carrying on of operations in connection with the slaughtering and dressing of animals from meat intended for export. There was an oversight in the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act regarding this definition. It was not included under regulations made under that Act. Obviously advice had come from the Attorney-General's Department late last year that this definition may render invalid the collection of the charges made under the orginal Act when it came into force on 1 January 1983. The Government, whether or not through an excess of caution-we are not yet aware because no case has been made relating to this matter-brought in a validation Bill last year. At that time the Liberal and National parties had probably had quite enough of being hit about the head by the rural industry and decided that they had to do something. The reason for that is a point that Senator Boswell did not mention and that is the occurrence that took place in this chamber on 14 September last year. I, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, moved a motion to limit the charges on meat export from the prime adult carcass which is taken as the reference. There are quite a large number of export charges in relation to a whole range of different meats but we generally take the prime adult carcass as the reference point. At that stage the charge was $1.80. The Government moved to make the maximum charge $10.80. However the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), in his second reading speech, said that the Government would not be seeking to extend the charge in the next financial year beyond $5.40 which is the figure that Senator Boswell talked about. I, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, moved an amendment that we ought to limit the amount to $5.40 and I explained my reason for choosing that figure. I knew that the Liberal-National parties for some reason best known to themselves decided to pass whatever Bill the Government brought in and so I thought that if I moved an amendment which did not have, on the Government's say-so, financial implications for that financial year, I would get the support of the Liberal and National parties. On that basis I negotiated with the Minister for Primary Industry and although he was extremely reluctant to have any discussions on the matter and showed his concern about my seeking to move such an amendment, nevertheless he felt that there was nothing he could do about it. That was a relatively reasonable political stance. If he were not going to get the $10.80 levy but he would get the $5.40 which he wanted to collect, politically he would probably have to settle for that. But the unfortunate situation was the Senator Scott, speaking for the Liberal and National parties in this place, indicated that he would not support my amendment. Immediately that indication was given Senator Walsh, on behalf of the Government, indicated-it is in Hansard-that he was pleased with the Opposition's stance on the matter because if the charges had to be increased beyond $5.40 the Government would be able to do it this financial year which was precisely the reason why the Australian Democrats moved their amendment. It made sure that the Government did not go beyond that figure. That is the history of the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill 1983. The Bill is a National Party regulation which the National Party now seeks to defer. The reason that the Australian Democrats are supporting that deferral is that we will support anything at this time that keeps this matter at the forefront of political debate in this country. Unlike the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, we believe that the way to collect export inspection charges is not to look at government costs and then charge 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 80 per cent or whatever arbitrary percentage happens to pop into one's mind, but rather to look at the capacity of the industry to pay. Some extraordinary statements have been made in this chamber. I refer to one made by Senator Tate. He was talking about the throughput of abattoirs being down as a reason we should pass this Bill. I am not quite sure of the logic of that, but if one looks at the nation one finds that throughput is down. Senator Tate said that we could not attribute that totally or in any way to the charges. That is fair enough. But what we can attribute it to is the drought and to two of its consequences. One is that the total national herd has been cut enormously . Secondly, if a producer wishes to restock, he has to retain his stock to rebuild. Therefore, not as much stock is available after a drought for those two reasons. There is nothing particularly esoteric about that. I imagine that anybody who had any reasonable knowledge of what goes on in relation to animals would be able to work that out for himself. Yet Senator Tate adduced that as a reason we should pass the Bills. Senator Tate then said that the decline in the profitability of the meat industry had been operating for a number of years. That is fair enough. It has been operating for a number of years. But let us not look at the last couple of years; let us look only at the period from mid-November last year onwards. Let us take that as our cut-off point. The reason I take that period is that the export charges, although valid for a month prior to that, would not have been collected for at least six weeks in the normal course of events. So the financial crunch would not come until six weeks after the original application date. I am not even going back to the day on which the extra charges came into force. I am going back to the day on which the charges would have to be paid by the abattoir. Let us look at abattoirs around Australia. I will not give the names of the abattoirs. I have them here, but I have been asked to keep them confidential. There are obviously business reasons for that. I will simply name the States in which the abattoirs are. In Queensland, an abattoir suffered a 50 per cent drop in kill, leaving seven people unemployed. Traditional customers, as Senator Boswell said, have gone over to non-export works. In Western Australia, an abattoir relinquished export registration to the value of $3m. Three people there are now unemployed. It is now a non-export abattoir. In Victoria, the increased charges have made abattoirs completely non-competitive. In one abattoir, one hundred and thirty five people are out of work. In an abattoir in Tasmania 12 people are out of work. The abattoir is becoming non-competitive. In Victoria, an abattoir which is now non-competitive has closed down the entire cattle chain, putting 70 people out of work. In Tasmania the situation in another abattoir has put 30 people out of work. In Victoria another abattoir has laid off 50 people and newly repaired plant which was readied for operation in mid-September has not been commissioned, meaning that the three hundred people who would have had jobs there now do not. In Victoria, at three abattoirs respectively 60, 145 and 150 people were laid off. In another abattoir in New South Wales 50 people were laid off. This has gone on since mid-November last year. We are talking about the charges that went through this House and which were supported by every party, except the Australian Democrats. The reason those charges have caused this situation is very obvious. The industry does not have the capacity to pay. The money is not there, yet charges are still being levied and are still increasing. The sole reason the Australian Democrats are supporting the deferral of this legislation is not for any of the reasons that have been bandied around to try to tart up the operation. We are supporting it solely to keep this whole business on the political agenda, because people are losing jobs and abattoirs are closing down all over this country. The Australian Democrats believe that that is sufficient reason to keep the issue on the boil. We are keen to achieve that by whatever means. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.20) —The Government's theme today is to say very meekly that all it is doing is validating an earlier regulation or action. It is a theme that may appear to be very plausible and very simple at the outset. But the real crunch is that it would have been okay, had it not been for the unprecedentedly high increases in charges contained in the last Budget. It is these unreasonable charges, this victimisation which has been levied against the primary industry sector, which are the cause of this debate today and of the action that has been proposed by Senator Scott. Senator Tate referred to the proper contribution required by law under the legislation. This implies a rendering unto Caesar of the things that are Caesar's, no matter how vicious, discriminatory or significant they may be in relation to employment and unemployment. I remind Senator Tate that it is the role of an Opposition to point out to the Government the shortcomings of its legislation. I think that it is a tragedy that the Government did not have the foresight or the courage to conduct an inquiry into this matter before embarking upon this action because, despite all the warnings not only within this place but right throughout every State of Australia, it did not foresee the consequences of its action. It is far too late for the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, to now seek an inquiry and report by 1 May. We hope only that in time the Government will recognise this as another one of its mistakes. We appeal to it, in the same way as it changed its mind and backed down on the assets test, to back down on this particularly vicious imposition which is being placed upon the primary industries of Australia. I think that every farmer in Australia, every abattoir owner and every worker in those abattoirs, had they been listening to this debate earlier when Senator Walsh spoke, would have not only been concerned but also would have been very worried at the severity and the nature of the Government's response. The viciousness of Senator Walsh's comments which were directed to those very people must be a matter of concern that really sends chills down their spines. I think that ever since the Federal Labor Government came to office its whole approach, from the mini-Budget in May, right through to the Budget and what is transpiring in the Senate today, indicates its lack of understanding of primary industry and of the repercussions of its actions. Earlier in this debate we heard about the wide-spread lay-offs, the short-times , the dismissals, the problems and the lack of profitability of the meat industry. In the past four months two major meat works in Tasmania have ceased operation because of the rise in export fees. Senator Boswell and my other colleagues have indicated what has happened in Queensland and in the other States. But it is quite typical. The problem does not just exist in one area where one could ride it out politically if one wanted to. The ramifications for the Australian Labor Party of its actions will be very widespread. Prior to this increase in inspection charges, export abattoirs in Tasmania killed 80 per cent of Tasmanian cattle and 70 per cent of Tasmanian sheep. The spin-off effects of this disastrous imposition will be widespread throughout the community and will include restructuring, dislocation, unemployment and financial losses to employees, to companies and right across the board. Now export abattoirs in Tasmania kill only 20 per cent of cattle and 30 per cent of sheep. These figures are quite chilling. Why are not more members of the Australian Labor Party taking up this matter in their Caucus and in the electorates? They have deserted the primary producers. They have deserted the unionists working in the abattoirs. The Budget increased the inspection charge for cattle from $1.80 to $5.40 and for sheep from 18c to 54c, a tremendous increase, a 200 per cent rise in meat inspection charges. Earlier speakers referred to the disparity in income movements in the primary industry sector. Small farmers are really battling at the moment. Day after day the Labor Government takes credit for the recovery taking place in primary industry. That recovery is very narrowly based although it is in a very significant sector-the wheat industry. But the bonanza in the wheat industry is a result of the ending of the drought. Other sectors of primary industry are really battling, particularly small primary producers. The days of the small family farm have almost ended. These sorts of charges are making it more and more difficult. As each abattoir closes down, stock will have to be transported further to other abattoirs, thus increasing costs along the line. It is a tragedy. The time allocated by an inspector to inspect a beast makes these charges higher than those charged by a doctor for inspecting a patient for the same time. These sorts of comparisons show that it is quite ridiculous to have such high and unsubstantiated costs in the meat industry. The industry has major problems. There is a need to alter the whole arrangement . Producers have supported certain changes put forward by the Department of Primary Industry, including the need for a single national inspection service; the use of agencies under contract to the Commonwealth where appropriate, particularly in remote areas; a strongly decentralised management system; the development of a base domestic standard for the registration of premises; a fee for service charging system; an electronic information and communications system ; the modification of security procedures; the integrity of new inspection services to be established; the reappointment of existing staff to the new service on the basis of merit; and so on. There is a need for a new overall legislative framework. In the early days of the Hawke Government the cry of the Minister for Primary Industry was that he could not get his ideas through Cabinet because he was not a member of Cabinet. The situation has now well and truly changed. We are not seeing from the Cabinet the solutions which are urgently required. We only hope that the Government recognises in time that it has made a mistake and will alter these abominable levies. A lot of credit has been taken by the Government for a recovery which was the result of the ending of the drought, but that recovery has been very narrowly based. The meat industry is really in trouble. Apart from the increased charges, a further problem has been the level of export market prices. These increases in charges make it all the more difficult to export. More often that not, the level of productivity in the industry is appallingly low. This has caused restructuring of the industry, mergers and amalgamations. This Government might say that this is a good thing which will make the industry more competitve. What is it doing? It is causing lay-offs, loss of employment. It is a hard Labor Government which deliberately sets out to sack people within the meat industry. When Hawke was in Japan he talked about a restructuring of manufacturing industry. He said that there would be tragedies, lay-offs, et cetera. Fortunately in that case a few of his backbenchers stood up for manufacturing industry. But where are the people standing up for the primary industries? Where are the backbenchers to stand up for the meat workers? They are completely silent. They are apathetic. I challenge them one and all to speak up on this issue and to do something for a vital industry which means so much to Australia. We do not appreciate that Australian agriculture and mining are now responsible for 85 per cent of export earnings. What did Senator Tate say? He said that they should pay the charges required by law. He fails to recognise that the primary industry sector will produce 50 per cent or more of export income this year. The primary industry sector is Australia's most important industry. It needs government assistance and government recognition. It cannot carry the continuous attacks that have been levelled at it by this government. Each Australian farmer produces food for approximately 70 people a year. This compares with only 59 people in the United States and 19 people in Western Europe with its heavy subsidisation of agriculture. We have a very efficient primary industry sector, but it is continually under attack. To realise that one need only look at the mini-Budget, the last Budget and what is happening in this debate today. There is vast potential for technology to improve production further. But what has the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) said about it? He is not interested in applying this technology to the rural sector. He talks about new industries, sunrise industries, and so on. It is about time we started to apply it to some problems. The whole concept of wage indexation and the attitude towards costs are having a frightening effect on the cost structure of Australian industry. We all know that every increase in wage costs is ultimately fed back to the primary industry sector. While it is true that there has been some reduction in the inflation rate in Australia, let us look at the inflation rates of our major competitors. In the United States of America it is one-third of our rate and in Japan it is only 1.8 per cent. Yet we are trying to compete with them and to sell our beef to them. What did the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) do when he was in Korea and Japan? He disregarded the vital interests of the beef producers. What came out of his trip to Japan and Korea as a result was a possible loss of exports to those vital countries. Again he was completely uninterested in and uninformed about the subject. That is not surprising. Even when he was in China he tried to make deals with the Chinese without referring beforehand to the major supplier, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. This is the sort of off-the-cuff decision making that is taking place in Australia. The Prime Minister is playing at brinkmanship. He gets brilliant ideas and then forces the Cabinet to go along with them. Then, maybe if there is enough resurgence of opposition within the community, as there was about the assets test, he says, 'We back down; we have made a mistake'. Let the Government come forth straight away and acknowledge its mistake on this issue and rectify the matter in the interests of the primary industries, in the interests of the people working in the abattoirs, and in the interests of all those small towns around Australia that do not necessarily have a member of Parliament living in them. Had this dislocation occurred in the suburbs of Sydney or in Wollongong, we would have heard a little more about it. People out in the bush can be forgotten. They are the forgotten people of Australia. At the next election all these people who have been selectively knocked off will rally. I support Senator Scott's proposition that this matter be deferred. We just cannot afford to pass so quickly legislation of this nature. Senator Walsh —Have you any idea what it is? Senator WATSON —Had you been in the House, you would have known. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(12.36) —I had not intended to enter this debate, and my name was not on the list of speakers, but I was provoked by the ignorance of Senator Walsh and Senator Tate and the Australian Democrat spokesman on this matter. It is always a matter of great surprise to me that the Australian Labor Party is so intensely anti-rural, because it has people in its ranks, although not many of them, who have a first-hand experience of rural matters, such as Senator Walsh. They are articulate people. But the speech of Senator Walsh this morning simply defied explanation. I do not expect anything out of Senator Tate when he speaks on rural matters. The less said about the Australian Democrats and that Party's speech today, the better, because, God help us, if anyone knows less than the Labor Party about rural matters, it is the Democrats, from whom we had a fortunately short but boring speech written by the Legislative Research Service of the Parliament on the history of these various levies. I understand what the Bill is about. I understand that it applies up to the events on 21 November 1983. It is both profitable and informative briefly to look at some of the principles involved in the Bill and the effects that those principles have down the line on rural industry, particularly on the beef industry. At the outset, I declare a financial interest in the matter. I am a beef producer, albeit in a very small way, so let there be no ambiguity about my having a vested interest in this matter. Senator Walsh —That is more than Senator Archer did. Senator MacGIBBON —The Labor attitude on rural matters-- Senator Walters —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. Senator Walsh must be in his place before he interjects. He is not in his place at present. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh's interjection was out of order. Senator MacGIBBON —We are talking about an industry which, as Senator Watson said, is one of the major export earners for Australia. It deserves some intelligent handling, not to say sensitive handling, so that the benefits that flow on to the whole of the Australian community are not destroyed. The increase in the beef export levy is one of a long line-regrettably, not a finite line-of rural bashing that has been undertaken by the Labor Party. The imposition of sales tax on lubricating oils, the removal of many depreciation allowances that rural producers had, and the general attack on tax benefits which are in place to provide an incentive to rural producers are making what is a very marginal industry quite unproductive. The matter before us relates to the beef export levy. Members of the Labor Party are notorious as being the financial mismanagers of the Australian economy. They spend far more than they earn in every year-Mr Wran , Mr Cain, Mr Hawke, Mr Keating and all people of that kidney. They look at all the charges when they come into office and then raise them by 20 per cent, 60 per cent or a few hundred per cent in an attempt to balance their books. They never look at what they are doing and at how it is being done. They never ask whether it is a necessary field for the Federal Government to be in. They never ask whether the task, if it is necessary, is being done in the most financially efficient way that it can be done. Instead, it is open cheque books and a raid on the tax that makes Robin Hood look like a boy scout. Because this legislation is in place we have seen a lift in the beef export levy, from $1.80 to $5.40 in the first year of the Labor Government. We have an admission from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the Budget Speech that the $5.40 represents only 50 per cent of the meat inspection charge. In other words, he is saying that the true cost of inspecting a carcass is $10.80. I am glad that Senator Tate has just re-entered the chamber because I am about to refer to him. He made the statement, in complete ignorance, that it was only a small lift, and he followed the statement on this matter by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Mr Kerin went on record as saying that the lift of $3.60, from $1.80 to $5.40, was only about one per cent of the value of the beast. That is the gross value of the beast. The point about which we are talking is that the producer, the person who sends the beast to the abattoir, will pay $5.40. It is certainly not one per cent to him. It is hard to put a figure on it, but one is looking at a figure, a true cost, greater than 20 per cent, because what one must do is relate the cost of the meat export levy to the net profit of the producer. There is a world of difference between the profit that the producer makes and the actual value of the beast at auction. That is the point that the Labor Party does not seem to be able to understand. We are talking about a charge now which probably represents nearly 20 per cent, or more , of the profitability to the producer in growing that beast. Senator Tate misses the point. It is not a matter of arguing about whether we should charge the producer 50 per cent or something like that. We are talking about whether we have the most efficient inspection process. We have to have an inspection process. There is no argument about that. In an export sugar market, we must be known as a reliable supplier, in the way in which the sugar industry is known. We know that the quality of Australian export meets very tight tolerances year in and year out. For any export market that we have, we must meet those standards. So let us have no argument about the need for an export inspection service. However, we do not need a service which costs us $10.80 per beast and, more importantly, we do not need a service that is imposed upon the industry by a government without respect to cost. That is precisely what the present Government does in so many other ways. For example, in respect of cost recovery in the aviation industry, it is argued that such and such a percentage of cost should be recovered from the users. Again, that takes no account of the users' interests and needs and the way that they would see that service being run if it were to be run in the most efficient way. We want an inspection service, but we want it to be lean and efficient. To put this cost into perspective, we might look at the figure of $10.80. It is comparable with the figure for a general consultation by a medical practitioner for a human patient. The medical practitioner has to pay the rent and the light bill, he has to amortise his equipment, he has to pay his staff and pay holiday pay, workers' compensation, superannuation and all the rest, and he has to make a profit; and yet he can still examine someone for about $10. I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate expresses its concern that since the introduction of Medicare the Government has: (1) indulged in illegal activities; (2) infringed citizens' rights to confidentiality; and (3) misled the people of Australia. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —Does the Attorney-General recall yesterday describing the material in the Age tapes as 'completely unauthenticated'? Does he recall saying on a television program this morning that it was 'almost certainly the case that a great many of the conversations between the parties in question did take place in some form or another'? He further said: Certainly it is very difficult to contest in any root and branch way the authenticity of the 11 conversations that are the subject of specific content of the four tapes. Does the statement that the Attorney-General made this morning, taken in the context of his actions in appointing a Special Prosecutor and a joint police task force and in referring matters in the tapes to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and to Mr Redlich, more accurately reflect the state of authenticity of the tapes rather than his political statement of yesterday? Senator GARETH EVANS —For a start, nothing at all follows from the handing over of the material to appropriate investigating authorities. Mr Creighton Burns, the editor of the Age, seems to have made much, in his own replies to the criticism I have made of the performance of the Age, of the fact that the material has been quickly and promptly handed over to a variety of appropriate investigating authorities. That, of course, implies nothing as to the authenticity or the ultimate evidentiary status of the material in question. If ever any serious allegations are made, whether by way of hearsay or in any other form, they are, of course, referred to the appropriate authorities for investigation and report. That is exactly what has happened here. Absolutely nothing should be assumed about the status of the material from that natural and responsible government reaction. The material in question falls into two categories-first of all, four tapes containing a total, as I recall it, of 11 conversations; and, in addition, something like 524 pages of material divided up into six bundles which between them contain just on 3,000 conversations or summaries of conversations. I certainly concede, as I did this morning, that it would be very difficult to argue that the tapes themselves constitute a complete fabrication in the sense of no conversation of that kind ever taking place. I would be very surprised if the level of sophistication of even the most ill-motivated people around the place was such as to enable them to produce tapes of that order containing, on the face of it, conversations between people whose voices, perhaps, are recognisable to those who know them. But it certainly does not follow from that that every last bit of content of those tapes is to be regarded as authentic. Indeed, in that sense those tapes are wholly unauthenticated. It is very easy indeed, as we know from everything we have read or been briefed about, to manipulate or tamper with tapes electronically in order to delete strategic words or to rearrange the flow of particular words or responses in such a way as to create a wholly different impression from that which was intended by the participants. So there are very real questions about the authenticity of the tapes even if one accepts, as I do, that it is more likely than not that those conversations occurred between the parties in question. The question of authenticity is, of course, now the subject of a very careful examination of a technical kind. I am simply not in a position yet to report upon the outcome of that examination. The written material has a different status altogether. There is simply no ground whatsoever for accepting the authenticity of any particular conversation or purported conversation. Senator Chaney —Or rejecting. Senator GARETH EVANS —I accept that the matter is at large and it is on the basis of the matter being at large that it has been referred to the appropriate authorities for investigation and report in order to determine whether there is any independent or extrinsic evidentiary basis on which an investigation can go forward or, if an investigation does go forward, on which it might reveal something. Everything I have said in this respect has been totally self-consistent. I do not want to be taken in any way as resiling from the very forceful statements I made yesterday about the thoroughly dubious authenticity of the material in question. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to criticism of the Federal Government's water policies made in Adelaide last week by two Opposition back benchers, Senator Jessop and the honourable member for Wakefield , Neil Andrew. Does the Minister believe this criticism was warranted? Will he indicate what progress has been made by the Hawke Labor Government in improving South Australia's water supplies and how this compares with the record of the previous Government? Senator WALSH —I have seen reports of the type to which Senator Foreman alluded. Not only is there no substance in them, but they are the reverse of what is true and what has happened. In the last year of the discredited former Government, $6 .4m was supplied to South Australia for water resource purposes. In 1983-84, that is, the first year of this Government, in spite of the enormous $9.5 billion prospective deficit that this Government inherited and all the financial stringency which had to accompany that, the funding to South Australia was increased to $10.2m; that is, an increase of some 64 per cent. The reason for that increase, in spite of the very stringent budgetary discipline which was imposed on this Government by the financial chaos that it inherited, was that South Australia has, and ought to have, a particularly high priority. It is well known that the water quality in the city of Adelaide and in the northern towns, particularly in the Iron Triangle, has been deplorable for a number of years. For that reason, in spite of the difficult budgetary situation, we provided that 62 per cent increase in funding of the type of works normally conducted under the water resources program. That priority being given to a real need in South Australia contrasts quite sharply, I might add, with the irresponsible proposition of the previous Government to squander $4m and $5m respectively on feasibility studies to turn the eastern flowing east coastal rivers back into the inland. In addition to the funding of the projects of the type normally included under the water resources program, the present Government, under the country towns water improvement projects-this relates to small country towns-has to date funded a total of, I think, three projects in South Australia. A significant number of projects have already been funded. I hope to be in a position in the near future to announce funding for another water supply project in an important South Australian country town. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have pleasure in drawing the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's gallery of members of the Select Committee on Committees from the Legislative Council of Western Australia. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend a warm welcome to members of the Committee. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator DURACK —I refer the Attorney-General to that portion of his statement yesterday in which he said: . . . 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. First, is it not a fact that, as Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby will be subject to such directions as the Attorney-General, after consultation with the Director, gives or furnishes to the Director by instrument in writing, whereas the Attorney-General is not entitled to give directions to the Special Prosecutor in relation to a particular case? Secondly, will there not be a much closer relationship between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney -General than that between a special prosecutor and the Attorney-General? Thirdly, is not the appointment of Mr Temby as Special Prosecutor a confusion of roles which will reduce the completely independent role which he should have in order to investigate fully the tapes issue? Senator GARETH EVANS —I congratulate Senator Durack on his lengthy and detailed research into the statutory foundations of the respective offices. Of course, he is right. The Director of Public Prosecutions is subject, in extremis, to direction from the Attorney-General but only after appropriate consultation and, in practice, as I have assured the Senate, only in very exceptional circumstances. It is intended very much to honour the spirit of the creation of the new office of Director of Public Prosecutions; namely, as Mr Temby himself has been at pains to stress, that would be very much an independent statutory office not subject in any way to the day to day control or direction of the Government. But that is as to the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is the case that, for this purpose, Mr Temby will retain the separate statutory role as Special Prosecutor under different legislation- legislation which was passed under the preceding Government. While it is true that, for practical administrative purposes in terms of the mobilisation of the investigative resources and the general secretarial support and everything else that is associated with his role as Special Prosecutor, the two positions will be assimilated, it is not of course the case that in his capacity as Special Prosecutor Mr Temby will be subject to any directions from me. It would be quite improper for me to purport to give him any directions wearing that statutory hat. I assure the honourable senator that I have no intention of so doing. It is the case, as I said in brief in the statement, that we made clear during the parliamentary debate on the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill that we regarded it as properly subsuming the offices and roles of the existing two Special Prosecutors, Mr Redlich in Victoria and Mr Gyles QC in New South Wales, both of which offices have involved very much more than the mere formal prosecution of ready-made and ready-investigated offences. Both Mr Redlich and Mr Gyles have been very actively pursuing full scale investigations of what in many instances was only the baldest and most tenuous material. That role is exactly comparable to that which will be exercised by Mr Temby leading and supervising, as he will, the joint investigation team. To that extent it is quite proper for all these different roles to be subsumed under the one administrative structure which will come into existence on 5 March . It is a purely rational, administrative response to what was becoming quite a vexed administrative problem in terms of mobilising and co-ordinating investigating resources around the place. Something which was quite applauded, as I recall, out of the mouth of the present questioner in the context of the debate on the Director of Public Prosecutions was the notion of the assimilation of Mr Redlich's people and Mr Gyles's outfit. Equally I suggest to the honourable senator that the same principles are applicable to Mr Temby wearing a statutory hat as Special Prosecutor in this matter. Senator CHILDS —Can the Minister for Resources and Energy confirm the accuracy of a report in the Age yesterday? The report stated: A group of major industrial countries led by the United States, all nuclear energy users, has blocked a move at a 37 nation meeting on maritime dumping to declare sub-seabed nuclear waste disposal illegal, a communique from the meeting showed. Their idea is to fire high-level waste into soft seabed sediment in torpedoes or bury it there in some other way. Will the Government condemn such actions that will allow the dumping of nuclear waste in the world's oceans? Senator WALSH —I am advised that the report in the Age is not entirely accurate. Apparently it refers to a meeting of the London Dumping Convention which was held between 20 and 24 February. The London Dumping Convention has been regarded as having legal jurisdiction over the above surface dumping of waste in the sea. I am advised that the Convention could not agree on whether, within its legal ambit, it could cover the question of subsurface ocean dumping of wastes. Therefore, it would appear that the report that the group of 37 nations has blocked such a proposal, while correct in substance is not correct in precise detail. In 1983, the same Convention declared a moratorium on the dumping of wastes above the surface of the ocean-a position which is supported by Australia in the general sense. For a very long period Australia has been highly critical of ocean dumping of nuclear wastes. In conclusion, I add that although Australia has signed the London Dumping Convention agreement, that agreement has not been formally ratified pending the promulgation of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act, something which is expected to take place shortly. As Australia is not formally a member of that Convention as its signature has not been ratified, it attended the meeting in London, to which the Age report referred, as an observer rather than a participant. But of course Australia supports the policy decisions taken by the Convention so far; that is, it supports the moratorium that has been declared by the Convention against the dumping of all wastes in the ocean. But as I have said the question of whether that body has legal jurisdiction to deal with subsurface ocean dumping has not been finally decided or could not be agreed by the Convention members. Senator MASON —My question is addressed also to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Is it a fact that the Japanese Power Reaction and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation has found a uranium ore body estimated as high as 20,000 tonnes some 900 kilometres east of Perth at approximately 124 degrees east and 29 degrees and 50 minutes south, close to the Cundelee Mission which is an Aboriginal reserve? Is the corporation entirely Japanese owned and are all workers on the site Japanese? Is the highest public profile of this operation a small sign bearing the letters PNC on an isolated road some 150 kilometres from Kalgoorlie? Has material from this ore body been sent to Japan for testing? If not, is this contemplated or planned? In view of the Government's announced decision not to allow uranium mining to proceed other than at Roxby Downs, why is it permitting this exploration by an entirely foreign corporation? Will the Minister give a positive assurance that no mining will be undertaken on this site? Finally, what other exploration is the Japanese Power Reaction and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation carrying out in Australia? Senator WALSH —An ore body, estimated to contain some 15,000 to 20,000 tonnes of uranium oxide, has been discovered about 900 kilometres east of Perth by the Japanese Corporation named by Senator Mason. It is not correct that it is entirely staffed by Japanese. I understand that there is a Japanese manager but other than the manager Australians have been employed in the past. At present the work force is very small although I cannot be precise about that. I am not aware of the letters PNC being etched into the ground in some way, but the news of this discovery is not new. Indeed, there have been several Press reports since it was originally discovered, I believe, in 1979. As far as I know there has been no attempt to keep it secret but nobody has been particularly excited about it. Ore was sent to Japan for testing in 1982. In regard to the question 'Why is the Government allowing this exploration' although I am not sure whether an active exploration program will continue, the major answer to that question is that it is a State matter. There may be some provision under the Atomic Energy Act-I do not want to be definitive about this without further advice-under which the Commonwealth could stop the subsequent extraction of uranium ore if it cared to invoke the rather draconian powers of that Act. But the exploration activity, in the general sense of course within a State, is something over which the Commonwealth Government has no control. Regarding the question of mining that ore body, it is quite clear from the statement of Government policy announced on 8 November I believe it was, or certainly thereabouts, that there will be no prospect of this mine being allowed to produce or being allowed to export at least while that present policy is maintained. Whether it is a commercial proposition is a separate question and I have no information on that. As far as I know, the Japanese corporation to which Senator Mason referred is not conducting any other mining or exploration activities in Australia, but if there is any activity of which I am not presently aware I will send that information on to Senator Mason later. Senator MASON —I ask a supplementary question. My question to the Minister has not been answered and it was a fairly complex question. Is the Corporation entirely Japanese- owned? Senator WALSH —Sorry, yes. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. The year 1984 is the 150th anniversary of the conviction and transportation to Australia of the Tolpuddle Martyrs. In the Mercury newspaper on 22 February, Melbourne historian Dr Bernard Barrett called for a memorial plaque to be erected in honour of the Tolpuddle Martyrs in Tasmania. I understand that in 1970 the Methodist Church donated and erected a plaque in honour of the Tolpuddle Martyrs at the old Hobart Trades Hall. As the Commonwealth Government has acquired this building, could the Minister inform me of the present whereabouts of this plaque? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Hearn has raised a very interesting question relating to a part of our history. I am sure she will appreciate I would not have any personal knowledge of the whereabouts of the plaque nor of the circumstances which have prompted her to raise the question. I will undertake to discuss the matter with the Minister for Administrative Services whom I represent in this place and get an early reply. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I ask : At either of his meetings with the judge referred to in the Age tapes, did the judge deny that he had promised the solicitor he would speak to someone in support of an applicant for a position in the New South Wales Public Service? If he did not deny the conversation, does the Attorney-General believe that such action is improper for a person in high judicial office, or does he share the view of Mr Ian Temby, QC? Mr Temby said in his opinion: There is nothing unusual about people in high places suggesting or urging that given individuals should be appointed to particular government positions. Does he take 'people in high places' to mean senior members of the judiciary? Senator GARETH EVANS —Without wishing to create a precedent in this answer in the sense that I do not think it will be appropriate for every last single matter of detail to be the subject of individual question in this Parliament and the extraction of a response from me, I am perfectly prepared to answer that particular question insofar as it has attracted so much publicity. I did ask the judge in question what the nature of the conversation, if any, might have been with the solicitor about the particular matter concerning the appointment of a senior New South Wales public servant to a position of comparable status and salary and whether or not the judge had in fact undertaken to have any conversation with anybody about that particular appointment. As I recall it, the judge's answer was that he had had such a conversation to the extent that he could recall it with the solicitor in question and that his response would be that if the occasion arose he would see what the situation was with the appointment in question and let the solicitor know. I certainly do not regard that conversation as being in any way improper nor any follow-up conversation that the judge might have had in response to that. To argue otherwise is to elevate in a very tendentious way, for reasons of conspicuous political motivation, an exchange which would be regarded as certainly perfectly familiar and routine in the dining rooms and smoke rooms of the Melbourne Club, the Athenaeum, the Australia Club and all the rest of the places where the establishment go to play and to talk. Certainly under no circumstances would I regard conversations of the kind in question as in any way giving rise to the kind of impropriety or indeed even judiciousness to which Mr Temby referred. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask a supplementary question. Since the Attorney- General has indicated for the rather whimsical reason I believe that because of the publicity given to the matter he would tell us something of the conversation with the judge concerned, will he now tell us which Minister in the New South Wales Government the judge contacted as revealed by the tapes? Senator GARETH EVANS —No. Senator COATES —Does the Minister for Social Security agree that the term ' dependent female' in the Social Security Act is inappropriate when it refers to a male living with a woman who is working or drawing some other income, such as invalid pension or unemployment benefit? Has the Minister given any thought to changing the terminology so that a male dependant does not have to be claimed as a dependent female? Can the Minister propose changes to the legislation to neutralise those terms and otherwise desex the Social Security Act in the spirit of the Sex Discrimination Bill? Senator GRIMES —Like Senator Coates, I believe the term 'dependent female' applied when there is a male partner. Such a relationship is not only inappropriate but is also quite ridiculous. I might add I am not the only one who thinks so. Judge Fitzgerald, in a Federal Court judgment in October last year or the year before last in what was known as the Linehan case, said that he suspected also that the term was offensive to many people. I am pleased to say that I and my Department at the moment are removing the term from the Act and, as soon as possible, probably this session, I would expect, when we introduce a Social Security Amendment Bill which includes technical amendments of this type, and will replace it with terminology consistent with the terms used in the Sex Discrimination Bill which was passed through this place in 1983. It will make no practical difference to the payments made to such people, but it will remove the misleading description from the situation. I do not know about desexing and whether that is a good term for what we are doing to the legislation, but we are certainly trying to remove discrimination from the legislation. Senator COLLARD —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Why was it necessary for the Attorney and the head of his Department to have two meetings with the judge referred to in the Age tapes? Was there some matter left over from the first interview on 15 February which required clarification at the second meeting on 25 February? Apart from the Attorney, the judge and Mr Pat Brazil, was anyone else present at either meeting? Finally, how long did each meeting last? Was the judge played the tape recordings at either meeting? Senator GARETH EVANS —There was a matter which had not been discussed at the first meeting on which it did seem appropriate to have the judge's response in the light of other material that I had received, including questions that had been raised about the technical authenticity of the tapes by Ms Mary Gaudron in her opinion which did justify a second meeting. Each meeting took about 20 minutes to half an hour, no more than that. No other persons were present except myself, Mr Brazil and the judge in question. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Is the Minister aware that during the recent Richmond by- election the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Richmond ruled that only two scrutineers for each candidate would be allowed at each polling place when the votes were counted. As some polling places had more than two polling booths, was this ruling a breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act? If that was the case, will the Minister ensure that it does not happen in the future? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have heard of the matter to which Senator Sibraa refers. It is obviously one that gives rise to concern on the part of the Government. I will arrange with the Special Minister of State to investigate the circumstances and I will endeavour to produce a reply for Senator Sibraa by tomorrow. Senator HARRADINE —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, follows a question asked by Senator Hearn about the Tolpuddle Martyrs, who were convicted 150 years ago next Monday. Is it not a fact that the initiative for the establishment of a plaque to commemorate the Tolpuddle Martyrs was taken in 1970 by the then Secretary of the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council, one R. W. B. Harradine? Is it not also a fact that, given that George Loveless was a Methodist lay preacher, the TTLC contacted the Victorian and Tasmanian Methodist conference on the occasion of their meeting in Tasmania and took that opportunity to have the plaque unveiled at the old Trades Hall? Is it not also a fact that the plaque now resides at the new Trades Hall in Newtown? Is it not also a fact that it is not likely to be shifted from that site, given that the same previous Secretary of the TTLC is a life trustee of that Trades Hall? Do not all of these facts show a gross ignorance on the part of members not only of this chamber but also of the media who state that the Tolpuddle Martyrs have never been recognised in that State? Finally, I ask the Minister why members of the Government, including himself and Senator Hearn, voted to have this Parliament meet next Monday, which is Labour Day in Tasmania? I repeat: The Parliament can meet, but it cannot expect me to come here on Labour Day. Senator GIETZELT —Anybody who knows anything about the history of trade unionism would accord the Tolpuddle Martyrs a premier position in that history because, against the opposition of conservative governments, they pioneered the right of legal trade union activity. Of course, they were given long penalties and transported to Australia in shocking conditions. They were treated harshly during that transportation. However, they were in the main-if my knowledge of history is correct-Methodist activists and, in my view, they played a fairly significant part in helping to pioneer the ideas of trade unionism in Australia. I suppose that I can only take as fact Senator Harradine's assertion that he did something about this matter in 1970. I do not think I can contradict that statement on the public record. It is a matter of some regret if a dispute exists between the old and new Trades Hall in Tasmania. I do not believe any group, person or building is entitled to own such historic objects as the plaque which commemorates the Tolpuddle Martyrs. However, as I indicated to Senator Hearn, I am not privy to details of the current faction fighting which might involve this issue. Certainly, my colleague the Minister for Administrative Services, Mr John Brown, would want to play some part in having the plaque properly recognised and placed. To that extent I will do what I can to satisfy both Senator Harradine and Senator Hearn. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, who will recall the commitment made at the last election to provide students with 'hands on' experience in the new computer based technologies. Was $6m allocated for this financial year as the first in a three-year funding program to fulfil this promise? Does the Government remain wedded to putting a computer in every school as a means of ensuring that Australian school children attain competence in and an understanding of the use of computers? Can the Minister indicate whether States which have already achieved the minimum placement of a computer in every school can use these Federal moneys to enhance computer studies courses in their schools? Finally, in particular, would the Minister agree- Senator Peter Baume —Why don't you write your own questions? Senator TATE —I beg your pardon? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator should direct his question through the Chair. Senator TATE —Mr President, I think- The PRESIDENT —I ask you to ignore interjections and direct your question through the Chair. Senator TATE —I will do my best, Mr President. In particular, would the Minister agree that the provision of suitable software by such excellent organisations as the Elizabeth Computer Centre in Hobart is as important as the placing of hardware in schools? Senator RYAN —I certainly agree that it was a policy of the incoming Government to provide computer education programs in all secondary schools in Australia. Indeed, it has proved to be one of our most popular and well received initiatives. The extent of involvement by the business community, academics and people who work in the computer area in assisting us to implement this policy has been outstanding. It was the case that our commitment was placed in terms of putting a computer in every secondary school. We have allocated $18.7m over the triennium -$6.3m to be spent in 1984-for that purpose. However, it is also the case, as Senator Tate implied, that some States, in particular Tasmania, are already well advanced in the introduction of computer education into the school system. I had the opportunity of visiting the Elizabeth Computer Centre in Tasmania last week. Along with most people who have visited that place, I was very impressed with the extent of the development of school based computer studies there. Clearly, it is now important for us to implement our commitment on computer education in a flexible way so that States such as Tasmania which have advanced beyond needing additional hardware and are making a great deal of progress in developing actual educational and teacher development programs will not miss out on any moneys allocated under the program. The funds have been divided in an equitable way amongst the States and Territories. It will certainly be the case that the Schools Commission will respond to proposals from each State and Territory in such a way as will meet the needs of the computer education program, depending on its stage of evolution, in each State and Territory. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. What steps is the Government taking to preserve the livelihoods and lives of owner-drivers who currently have no protection under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and are at the mercy of transport contractors, big business and organised labour? Is the Government willing to follow the New South Wales Government initiative and legislate under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to enable owner-drivers to form themselves into an association with rights under that Act in order to protect their common interests, their solvency and their very lives, which are all at risk in the present transport sub-contracting jungle? Senator Walters —That already happens in Tasmania. Senator BUTTON —I will direct the question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations for a detailed answer. But let me say quite simply, by way of preliminary observation, that the complexity of the conciliation and arbitration power is such that it is not a matter which is susceptible to the relatively simple solution which was provided in New South Wales. If the honourable senator requires any further preliminary observations on the matter I refer him to Senator Walters who, of course, in this matter as well as in everything else, is an expert! There are considerable difficulties in dealing with the question of owner-drivers and independent contractors under the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which are not present under the provisions of State law. However, the question is an important one and I will refer it to the Minister for a more discursive and lengthy answer. Senator COLEMAN —Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware that last Sunday night the Leader of the Opposition participated in a Melbourne radio program, claiming that the education policies of the Labor Government are a failure? Has the Minister had equal time-or has she been offered equal time-to answer the allegations made, or will she take this opportunity, while the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast, to refute those allegations? The PRESIDENT —I call the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and ask the Minister to keep her answer brief. Senator RYAN —Mr President, I can understand why you feel you have to admonish me on that score because were I to seek to refute the allegations that the Leader of the Opposition made on radio last Sunday night I would need a lot more time than the very brief time he took. Of course members of the Opposition, such as Mr Peacock and Senator Baume are totally preoccupied with one very small aspect of the Government's education policy. They are absolutely unable to look beyond the small aspect which they pursued with such tedious repetition last year. They ignored major initiatives such as the secondary school renewal program, the participation and equity program of $74m, the computer education program, to which Senator Tate's question earlier today referred and the extra participation money for 3,000 new places for disadvantaged students in higher education. Of course we need to look at those things and we need to start looking at initiatives in special areas such as the building of Aboriginal community schools, the setting up of multicultural co-ordination committees, the setting up of a portfolio working party on the education of women and girls and the setting up of a particular task force within my portfolio bringing in outside experts on education and the arts. It is quite clear that the Opposition is not interested in the major initiatives which will affect virtually all primary school and secondary school children in this country, which will make many more places in higher education available and which will address the long neglected needs of Aboriginal students , students from different ethnic backgrounds and girls and women in our society. All those things which have been of great interest and which have been welcomed and endorsed by education bodies throughout Australia and the general public are clearly of no interest to the Opposition. Mr President, bearing in mind your suggestion to me that I should keep my reply to this question brief, I will refer honourable senators to the very extensive list of government achievements in education which are available through the publications of my Department. Senator JESSOP —I ask the Attorney-General whether at either of his interviews with the judge referred to in the Age tapes the judge specifically denied that during a conversation with a Sydney solicitor he had proposed a court action, the aim of which was to 'get plenty on' someone described as a former leading Federal Government figure? If he did not deny the conversation, what explanation did he give, to quote the Attorney's statement yesterday, to 'put these allegations in a rather different context than that evident at first sight'? Senator GARETH EVANS —The matter to which Senator Jessop referred was the subject of extensive newspaper gossip and speculation. Accordingly, I mentioned it to the judge to see what reaction he might have. Apart from expressing as he did on every occasion and in relation to every matter doubts as to and, indeed, rejection of the authenticity of the reports of the conversations in question contained in the newspaper and outrage at the privacy invasion that was involved , to the extent that there was anything authentic following from the reports, he made the point that there had been a series of conversations with a solicitor relating to the initiation of possible litigation by himself and certain others which placed, of course, the subject of the conversations in question properly within the scope and ambit of legal professional privilege. In those circumstances he would regard, quite properly in my view, anything transpiring in those conversations as not in the slightest bit appropriate in any circumstances for release, by court action or otherwise, in the public domain. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Attorney-General aware that there has been an announcement today regarding some projected improved conditions in Queensland gaols? This follows several months of community disquiet about alleged treatment of prisoners in some of the State's prisons. Has the Attorney-General yet received assurances from the Queensland Government that all prisons in that State in fact operate in accordance with the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the report in this morning's Courier Mail about mail and other sorts of improvements to Queensland prisons, including improvements in visiting rules. I would like to think they represented a civilised response to the representations I made to the Queensland Minister for Justice and Attorney-General following in turn the question asked of me in this place by Senator Reynolds on 15 December last year. Since I have not yet received a response from the Queensland Minister to my letter of January this year I am not able to be completely satisfied that there is a causal nexus between those two events. But it is a pleasant thought that at last Queensland is beginning to show some signs of recognition of its obligations under international treaties to which Australia is a party to develop the conditions in the gaols to a standard which does not offend the basic humanitarian standards and values that are contained in those international instruments. When I get a reply from the Queensland Government I will be in a better position to advise Senator Reynolds and the Senate as to whether there is a general appreciation of Queensland's obligations in this repect or whether the present developments just represent some kind of fluke. Senator TEAGUE —I ask the Attorney-General whether at either of his interviews with the judge referred to in the Age tapes the judge specifically denied that during a conversation with a Sydney solicitor he had discussed an alderman on a Sydney suburban council. Did the judge deny that he had, in his conversation with the solicitor, referred to the alderman as one who frequented 'one of those gay restaurants where all these homosexuals hang out' and that this knowledge should be used to denigrate the alderman's public position? If he did not deny the conversation what justification or explanation did he give the Attorney- General for what appears to be uncivilised persecution on his part and a deplorable contempt for the privacy and civil liberties of another citizen? Senator GARETH EVANS —My answer to that question is exactly the same as the answer to the question asked by Senator Jessop. In the context that there may have been a discussion, whether it was precisely a discussion of the kind alleged in the tapes in the report of the newspaper is very much another question but to the extent that there may have been a discussion it was very much in the context of a solicitor-client type discussion which would, I believe , be covered by legal professional privilege. It is also the case that this is one of the matters in which the circumstances of any exchange that may have occurred is much better understood when one appreciates the total context in which the exchange may have taken place. Senator Lewis —Tell us. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not propose to satisfy the salacious and politically motivated curiosity of those on the other side of the chamber in that respect. As I said yesterday-I repeat it again today-beyond a certain limited degree of detail which it is always proper to give in answer to questions in this place, I do not believe that in the circumstances of this matter the onus of explanation lies upon the target of an attack when the attack is made, as this one has been, in the context of material which is manifestly unauthenticated as I described earlier and which clearly to the extent that it is authentic was obtained in circumstances of gross illegality, amounting obviously to a spectacular and massive invasion of privacy of personal communications, involving as it also does a scurrilous attack upon the judiciary and individual members of it of the kind that has become par for the course for this Opposition. Mr Fraser started the slippery slide with his attacks on the judiciary in the context of the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking last year, responding as he did in tones and terms of unparalleled rudeness and disrespect to the judiciary in criticising the terms of what was then an unpalatable report . We saw the Deputy Leader of this raggle taggle coalition making a fool of himself yesterday with an attack in similar terms-equally implausible, equally illfounded-upon a highly respected member of the judiciary. Exactly that syndrome is at work today in the attempt of the Opposition, bereft as it is of anything positive to say about any matter of policy, once again to drag this issue of judicial behaviour before this Parliament. There is no foundation for any criticism of the kind sought to be made and I do not propose to nurture further the delusions of the Opposition in that respect. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Did the Attorney- General make any record of his conversations with the judge? If so, what is the nature of these records? Senator GARETH EVANS —An internal aide- memoire was prepared at my request by the Secretary to my Department in relation to both of those conversations. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Does the Government have a clear policy on what types of Australian literary journals should be eligible to receive assistance from the Literature Board of the Australia Council? If so, how does the Government view the 1984 grant of $11,000 to the Age Monthly Review , part of the Fairfax publishing establishment? Is government assistance to subsidiaries of such major publishing houses as Fairfax entirely in keeping with the funding objectives of the Literature Board? Senator RYAN —I think the best course of action is for me to refer that question to my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Barry Cohen, for a detailed reply. I point out in reply to the question, in general terms, that the decisions of the boards of the Australia Council and the decisions of Council itself are independent decisions. The relationship between the Council and the Government is a matter that has been debated many times in this place and debate continues as to what extent general guidelines and general objectives should be set by the Government for the Australia Council. The Council is an independent statutory body that operates under its own Act. Particular funding decisions of the boards of the Council are decisions for those boards to make and can be endorsed or overturned only by the Council. Senator LAJOVIC —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware that the Christian Lebanese constituents who have sponsored relatives from Christian communities in Lebanon are receiving letters from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs notifying them that the relevant papers have been sent to Damascus in Syria for processing by Immigration officers at the embassy there? Does the Minister realise that the Christian Lebanese will neither be safe nor have any desire to travel to Syria as they have already been forced from their homes and towns by Syrian based forces? It is no surprise that the Christian Lebanese groups in Australia are dismayed and affronted by the Department's actions. Could the Minister arrange for a senior Immigration officer to be posted, at least temporarily, to Nicosia or some other suitable area where the Christian Lebanese feel safe to travel, to enable their cases to be processed? Senator GRIMES —I have no details on the matters raised by Senator Lajovic. I understand that we are processing some applications in Damascus. I thought others were also processed in Cyprus, but I will get the exact details as soon as I can and ensure that the honourable senator receives the answer promptly. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. It refers to the arrangements to be made to enable members of the Australian national Antarctic research expeditions to vote in Federal elections while they are in Antarctica. Since the usual provisions for secrecy in postal ballots will not be applicable, what provision will be made to ensure that voters in the Antarctic Territory will have the same right to a secret ballot as voters elsewhere? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am surprised to find that I do have with me some briefing about this matter which I am now happy to inform the honourable senator of. Under the new Commonwealth Electoral Act there are provisions of an elaborate kind, it appears, for voters in Antarctica. A person to be employed in Antarctica may request his divisional returning officer to treat him as an Antartic elector for the duration of his posting. At the close of nominations details are sent to appointed Antarctic returning officers of the Antarctic electors at their bases and directions for the preparation of ballot papers are also sent. Antarctic electors then vote using those ballot papers in the normal way. The Antarctic returning officer then opens the ballot box and transmits to the Australian electoral officer for each State and Territory details of Antarctic electors on the rolls for the State or Territory who have voted and of the votes cast. The votes are transcribed by the Australian electoral officer on to postal ballot papers which are then forwarded to the appropriate divisional returning officer and from then on are dealt with in the same way as normal postal votes. Possible loss of secrecy does arise from the fact that the number of votes cast in each State or division may be very limited. If only one Antarctic elector votes in a State or division or if a small number record identical votes, the Antarctic returning officer and the Australian electoral officer will know how those persons voted. Unauthorised disclosure of this information would, of course, be an offence. For this reason Antarctic electors are not subject to compulsory enrolment or compulsory voting. The possible loss of secrecy in this respect is quite explicitly acknowledged in the Australian Electoral Commission's information pamphlet entitled 'Antarctic Voters-Commonwealth Elections'. These provisions are included in the Act because there is no practical alternative way of getting votes cast in the Antarctic back to Australia in time to be included in the count. I am told that the provisions still represent an improvement over the previous situation in which even those prepared to sacrifice the secrecy of their votes were disenfranchised. Senator MISSEN —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to a Press release of 22 February 1983 issued by Mr John Brumby, now the Federal member for Bendigo , which said in part: The ALP will ensure that rural people are able to buy LP gas at reasonable rates. The ALP is committed to at least a three-year extension of the $80 a tonne Federal subsidy. Is the Government still committed to this policy? Why has the Government not reduced the refinery gate price of liquefied petroleum gas in line with the decrease in world parity price? What action will be taken by the Government to help alleviate the discrimination currently shown against LP gas users and, in particular, against country Australians who are unable to get natural gas? Senator WALSH —I will take the last part of the question first. I am not sure what this discrimination is. The substance of Senator Missen's question has been covered by probably a few hundred letters that I have signed recently on this subject and in some public announcements that I have made. The adjustment of price which, under the precedent set by the former Government, would have been due on 1 January this year was postponed until the end of March pending the review of the entire LPG pricing arrangements. A Cabinet submission is currently being circulated. I expect within the next two weeks, certainly within the next three weeks, the Government will have made a decision on that submission and the new pricing policy will be announced at that time; certainly before the end of the month. Senator MISSEN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister answer the first part of my question? Is the Australian Labor Party still committed to the policies announced by Mr John Brumby during the election campaign? Senator WALSH —Mr Brumby is not a member of the Ministry and therefore I carry no responsibility for what he said. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, concerns recent claims made by the head of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence that the Bureau was only now, after three years of existence, becoming an established body. Will the Attorney explain the delays in setting up the Bureau and what effects this has had on developing and co-ordinating national criminal intelligence data? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can advise the honourable senator, on behalf of the Special Minister of State, that the ABCI is an established and working organisation and is, in the view of the Government, now fulfilling the need for which it was created. The Commonwealth's funding of the ABCI has increased quite dramatically from about $650,000 in 1981-82 to $1.048m in 1982-83 and to $1.7m in the current financial year. Like any new organisation in its first year or so of operation some deficiencies were exposed which I am told the Police Ministers ' Council has striven rapidly and with some success to overcome. The major difficulty experienced by the Bureau, particularly in recent times in the last year was, I am told, the substantial increase in work load generated by the growing appreciation of its expertise by the participating police forces. That is a measure of the growing acceptance and efficiency of the organisation. A number of proposals are aimed at upgrading the effectiveness of the ABCI, including the recruitment of additional staff, which have been considered and agreed to by the Police Ministers' Council in November last year. The implementation of these proposals is intended to be undertaken in the context of the 1984-85 Budget. The Commonwealth Government is committed to the continued and improved effectiveness of the ABCI in assisting police forces to combat organised crime. I add in that respect and in my own right that it is, of course , proposed that there be a close working consultative relationship between the ABCI and the proposed national crimes authority which will be undoubtedly to the benefit of all Australians. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —During Question Time today Senator Lajovic asked me a question about the arrangements for migration from the Lebanon to Australia and the disquiet that some members of the Christian Lebanese community had about the apparent necessity for people to go through Damascus and Syria. I have some information from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), who points out that in the present difficult circumstances, when even members of the multinational force have decided to withdraw from Beirut, quite clearly the Australian Embassy in Beirut can no longer function there. Co-ordination of overseas processing will be, in fact, managed from the Embassy in Damascus. Eligible relatives who are able to leave Lebanon do not necessarily have to travel to Damascus. They can register at any overseas migration post which will then liaise with Damascus after interviewing them and going through the other requirements. An additional migration officer was sent to Damascus last week. Another officer is on standby if required. Arrangements have also been made for a Damascus-based officer to visit Nicosia this week to handle cases at that post. So people do not, in fact, have to travel to Damascus. Obviously in many circumstances they could not do so. I urge people to follow the advice of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and, in fact, direct their applications to the Department. Certainly they will be processed through the central processing point at Damascus, but that does not involve individuals having to go to Damascus to get to Australia in those circumstances. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —On 6 December and 8 December Senator Primmer raised a number of issues involving Mr John Ryan, the former Acting Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has provided me with certain information and a response to Senator Primmer's questions in the form of a statement which he is presently making in the House of Representatives. I seek leave to incorporate the terms of that statement and the response to Senator Primmer's earlier questions without notice in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- In a statement made in the Senate on 8 December and in a Question on Notice (No . 584), as well as in a Question Without Notice on 6 December, Senator Primmer raised a number of issues in which he alleged Mr Ryan was involved. In summary, these were: the discovery of the existence of a ''phantom'' employee on the payroll of the High Commission in Accra when Mr Ryan was High Commissioner; the commission of ''financial irregularities'' (malpractice and embezzlement) by Mr Ryan as Ambassador to Lagos; collusion by Mr Ryan, as First Assistant Secretary of the then Management Services Division (1971-1974), to assist the covering up of false entertainment claims (e.g. Stockholm), ''phantom'' servants, tax evasion, furniture removal frauds, importation of dangerous goods (e.g. machine guns) and ''frauds of every conceivable description all over the world''; ''crude and abrasive'' treatment of subordinates by Mr Ryan generally, going so far as attempts to ''expel'' from the Department those who tried to expose alleged frauds involving senior officers; the failure of Mr Ryan, as Ambassador, to make satisfactory arrangements for Prime Minister Whitlam's visit to Rome in 1974; and ''frequent bouts of drunkenness and disorderliness'' by Mr Ryan as Ambassador in Rome. ''that Mr Ryan was appointed Australian Ambassador to Laos at a time when the Australian Embassy there was little more than a minor branch office of the Central Intelligence Agency.'' I need scarcely stress the obvious that these statements are extraordinarily damaging to Mr Ryan's reputation but they have been made in the Parliament with little opportunity for him to defend himself and that he has invited Senator Primmer to restate these allegations publicly so that Senator Primmer would have the opportunity of defending them. The first thing I wish to say is that my personal knowledge of Mr Ryan is limited to my regular professional contact with him in the period from when I became Minister for Foreign Affairs in March last year until December when he voluntarily resigned from his position of Acting Director-General of ASIS. In my experience Mr Ryan as Acting Director-General of ASIS had always sought to apply himself attentively to his tasks and I saw nothing in his character or behaviour which gave me cause to believe that any of the deficiences of character and behaviour attributed to him in these allegations was evident. Mr Ryan has suffered severe criticism for deficiencies in his administration of ASIS by Justice Hope in the report tabled in this Parliament today. These shortcomings, however, are not evidence of the other forms of deficiencies attributed to Mr Ryan by Senator Primmer. While it saddens me that these findings were necessarily made from a very properly conducted enquiry of Justice Hope, I am nonetheless not deflected from making these comments about Mr Ryan as I know him, nor in presenting the following responses to the allegations. These responses have come from the Department of Foreign Affairs after as careful an investigation of relevant files as has been possible to respond to the allegations. I mention, however, that some are so sweeping and general that it would be very difficult for anyone to produce concrete evidence one way or the other. I deal with the allegations as follows: Allegations of Financial Malpractice and Embezzlement in Laos In 1971 Mr Ryan conducted an investigation into fraudulent misappropriation by cheque by the Embassy to the Ministry of Finance carried out by locally engaged staff. There was, incidentally, no loss involved to the Commonwealth through any of the converted cheques, as the creditors bore the loss. The perpetrators were arrested. As a result of his investigation, a severe reprimand was issued against the then Ambassador. Ryan also discovered that two cheques had been fraudulently converted during his own tenure as Ambassador. He disclosed this and recommended inter alia a severe reprimand should be issued against himself as Chief Accounting Officer of the Embassy. Vientiane-Currency Transactions Because of the rapid devaluation of the local currency in 1963 and difficulties of locally engaged staff who were paid in local currency suffering a rapid erosion of their spending power, an arrangement was worked out whereby locally based staff could receive goods such as foodstuffs and other essentials, purchased by the Embassy in Thailand, in part payment. I am assured that in instituting the arrangement, considerable care was taken to ensure that no Lao, Thai or Australian laws were contravened. My advice is that while this was somewhat informal and pragmatic, it was strictly legal. I might mention that because of rigidities in the Public Service system, local allowances could not be adjusted before the next Public Service Board inspection, and in any event, the problem was escalating rapidly. If one is puncilious about such things, one might be encouraged to criticise Mr Ryan for such an unconventional arrangement. On the other hand, given the circumstances prevailing in Laos at the time, one might be encouraged to take the view that if criticisms were due, they should be directed to rigid bureaucratic processes which forced Ryan to allow this arrangement to be put in place when he was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Services Division 3. The alternative, it seems, would have been an appalling collapse in the living standards of the locally engaged staff in Laos. Allegations of 'Phantom' Employee-Accra In 1968 the Department raised with Mr Ryan's successor as High Commissioner in Accra questions about the employment of a night watchman by the High Commission in Accra. The High Commission pointed out that, by a memorandum of 3 December 1962, the Department had authorised the employment of a night watchman. This was well before Mr Ryan's time as High Commissioner in Accra. The matter ended there . Allegation of 'Cover-up' Concerning False Entertainment Claims-Stockholm Because of allegations about representation returns from the Stockholm Embassy made in 1971, Mr Ryan, as First Assistant Secretary, Management Services Division, recommended an investigation be made of the matter. That investigation eventually recommended that the Ambassador be informed that the matters raised in the allegations did not justify the conclusion that there had been misrepresentation, but that a number of discrepancies had emerged. I have to acknowledge that I have experienced some unease at the general conduct of the investigation into this matter, so much so that I referred the file to the Attorney-General's Department. As I understand their advice, no criminal action would be appropriate. I have to also add that there is no suggestion that Mr Ryan was in any way involved in a cover-up or any tardiness in providing his responses to these allegations. Indeed, Mr Ryan's notations and comments where he was involved in this matter suggest that he was quite attentive to his responsibilities. Allegations of Drunkenness and Disorderliness in Rome The only evidence that can be found on file of what might be more appropriately described as abrasive behaviour was when he responded to some complaints about helicopter transport accommodation to Syracusa, Italy, in 1975 in the course of a visit by the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, in what he described as a '' flash of irritation''. He apparently made a rather rude comment to the inquiring pressmen and then declared he was ''off to bed''. He shortly after returned and apologised for his rudeness. Allegations about Arrangements for Mr Whitlam's Visit to Rome The evidence available indicates that the arrival of Mr Whitlam's aircraft was delayed by two hours owing to fog and eventually diverted to an airport other than the one where the official welcoming party was waiting. Apparently some confusion arose with arrangements for the accompanying press at the second airport before the welcoming party (including Mr Ryan) could get there. As I understand the circumstances Ryan did everything humanly possible to try to get incoming party to the alternative airport to greet Prime Minister Whitlam on his arrival. I do not believe any criticism of him in respect of this matter is justified. Allegations About Mr Ryan's Relationship with the U.S. Embassy and the Central Intelligence Agency in Laos The Department of Foreign Affairs reminds me that Mr Ryan did not work for the Central Intelligence Agency at any time, either during his posting as Ambassador in Laos or at any other period in his foreign service career. No other members of the Australian Embassy in Laos at that time worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. Allegations about Wrongful Import of Machine Guns An examination of relevant available records has been made both by my Department and the Australian Customs Service. However, many records covering the period have been destroyed in accordance with departmental disposal arrangements. Those actions show four machine guns were imported by officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs during the tenure of Mr Ryan as First Assistant Secretary, Management Services Division. In one case the importer did not declare an AK50 machine gun on his Customs Unaccompanied Baggage Statement. However, it was included in the inventory of goods which accompanied that Statement. The practice at the time was to permit the release of such weapons where the weapon was modified to render it permanently inoperable and the importer had police approval to possess the weapon. Two of the guns were released in accordance with that procedure. The other weapons, including the AK50 machine gun mentioned above, were donated at the request of the owners to the then Commonwealth Police and the Australian War Memorial. On the available evidence, there is nothing to suggest that all four importations were dealt with other than in a routine manner. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr Ryan was involved in any way with any of these importations. Mr John Ryan served this country in the Department of Foreign Affairs for 38 years, including for 18 months seconded to ASIS as its Acting Director-General. As far as I can establish, he served diligently and honourably. I feel that the facts I have provided, supplied from Departmental files, show that the allegations made against Ryan have no foundation. In fact, Ryan appears to have applied himself to his duties with consistency and firmness that even disadvantaged him, e.g. when he recommended a firm reprimand against himself after discovering improper conduct which had occurred during a period of his administration of an overseas post and for which a locally based officer was responsible. There are two final things I want to say. The first is that Ryan, like some other senior officials of the Foreign Affairs Department, has become the subject of personal attack. In the case of other members of my Department, I have pointed out how a succession of enquiries has failed to establish any evidence to justify the extreme allegations which have been made. These allegations have been quite damaging to the persons concerned, causing great distress to their families. It seems to me, considering the evidence produced by my Department from files available in this matter I have been attending to today, that the edge of fact has been force-moulded through rumour into quite villainous assertions about Ryan. He has been impugned about a number of matters in which he has apparently behaved honourably. It is a shame, therefore, that an effort has been made to discredit his character in this way. The other thing I want to say is this. The allegations were made in the Senate by Senator Primmer. Senator Primmer is a colleague of mine, has been a long- standing friend of mine, and I have known him in the past to be a man of honour, although I wouldn't say that he has always been right. I have personal reasons for being grateful to Senator Primmer. It is my assessment that Senator Primmer has accepted hearsay accounts poured from a bitter and disappointed heart without recognising their nasty nature. He has, I suspect, unconsciously allowed himself to be misdirected in this way. I would appeal to him to exercise the restraint and honour which I had known him to practise in the past. I would particularly ask him to recognise how much pain and distress these sorts of allegations can inflict on people. Finally, on this score I remind him of other matters-matters I suspect not necessarily unrelated to these and some other issues which he has raised in the Senate-that are to be properly adjudicated before the courts and that it would be better to await the outcome of these proper judicial processes before deciding whether he should accept at face value every piece of, what I regard as , ill-motivated scandal brought to his attention. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I welcome the fact that this statement is being incorporated in the Senate Hansard. I assume that this, our second sitting day, has probably been the earliest opportunity to do so. I can understand that with the heavy program we have for today the Government wishes to incorporate in Hansard what is an 11- page statement. But I think that, in fairness to Mr Ryan, who has been subjected to a series of quite savage attacks in this place, at least the heart of the statement might be read into the record on a day on which we are broadcasting. I wish to do no more than to quote the words of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, with respect to Mr Ryan since he has not, as I understand it, had his invitation taken up that Senator Primmer should repeat the allegations outside this chamber. Mr Ryan faces the fact that there have been widely publicised allegations made about his probity. He has denied those allegations. The Foreign Minister in his statement has denied them. Mr Ryan has been cruelly abused under the cover of parliamentary privilege in this place. I return to the words of the Foreign Minister. On page 10 of the statement he says: Mr John Ryan served this country in the Department of Foreign Affairs for 38 years, including for 18 months seconded to ASIS as its Acting Director-General. As far as I can establish, he served diligently and honourably. I feel that the facts I have provided, supplied from departmental files, show that the allegations made against Ryan have no foundation. In fact, Ryan appears to have applied himself to his duties with consistency and firmness that even disadvantaged him, e.g. when he recommended a firm reprimand against himself after discovering improper conduct which had occurred during a period of his administration of an overseas post and for which a locally based officer was responsible. There are two final things I want to say. The first is that Ryan, like some other senior officials of the Foreign Affairs Department, has become the subject of personal attack. In the case of other members of my Department-- that is, of the Foreign Affairs Department- I have pointed out how a succession of inquiries has failed to establish any evidence to justify the extreme allegations which have been made. These allegations have been quite damaging to the persons concerned, causing great distress to their families. It seems to me, considering the evidence produced by my Department from files available in this matter I have been attending to today , that the edge of fact has been force-moulded through rumour into quite villainous assertions about Ryan. He has been impugned about a number of matters in which he has apparently behaved honourably. It is a shame, therefore, that an effort has been made to discredit his character in this way. They are the words of the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden. He went on to say: The other thing I want to say is this. The allegations were made in the Senate by Senator Primmer. The Foreign Minister goes on to say some quite nice things about Senator Primmer which I will leave out, as I do not think that Senator Primmer's reputation has been traduced in the same way. Mr Hayden goes on to say: I appeal to him- that is, to Senator Primmer- to exercise the restraint and honour which I have known him to practise in the past. I would particularly ask him to recognise how much pain and distress these sorts of allegations can inflict on people. I do not wish to prolong the debate. As I said before, we have other matters to deal with, but I thought that in fairness to Mr Ryan what I regard as the heart of the refutation by the Foreign Minister of the allegations which have been made about him should be part of the oral record as well as part of the written record of this place. I say only that, in the context of great expressions of concern on the part of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and other members of the Government about the use and abuse of parliamentary privilege, that they might look closely to their own supporters before they start casting mud in this direction. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation in respect of an article which appeared in the Age newspaper on 19 December 1983 by Kenneth Davidson entitled, 'Senator Harradine should change his vote on harbour tax legislation'. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —The article concerned contains 35 paragraphs, 21 of which contain substantial errors of fact. These errors could have been avoided by the reporter had he researched the subject or even had the courtesy of contacting me prior to writing this article, which simply pushes the line of those with a political axe to grind. As to the defamatory material concerning me published in the Age article, I have instituted legal action for damages against David Syme and Co. Ltd, publishers of the Age, and Kenneth Davidson. For the enlightenment of honourable senators I seek leave to table a document entitled 'History of the Trade Union Movement' written by me and published in the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council directory. It contains a photograph of the plaque commemorating the Tolpuddle Martyrs. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —I present the report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security Agencies on the Sheraton Hotel incident. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator BUTTON —by leave- Background Mr Justice Hope has reported, as requested by the Government, on the incident at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne, on 30 November 1983. The Government became aware of the incident on 1 December 1983 and on that day asked Mr Justice Hope to undertake an inquiry into it. Certain details of the incident were subsequently provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, to the Parliament. This report describes the incident and the circumstances surrounding the training exercise in detail in accordance with the Government's formal request to Mr Justice Hope, conveyed to him on 7 December 1983. Further, as requested by the Government, His Honour has examined the general conduct of all persons associated with the exercise, including those who had a supervisory role, and whether any breach of the law was committed by anyone carrying out or authorising the exercise. Editing and Declassification of the Report The report presented to the Government was highly classified. The reason for this, as His Honour noted, was that the special operations role of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service has, in the past, been treated as top secret. The Government has declassified the report for tabling because the background of special operations training is essential to an understanding of the Sheraton Hotel incident. There has been considerable speculation about what ASIS was up to that led to the fiasco at the Sheraton on 30 November last and that speculation, and the attendant disquiet in the public mind, could only be put to rest by making public the fact that ASIS has been conducting training exercises involving such scenarios as the rescue of a hostage from foreign intelligence agents. Declassification of the report has made necessary a few small editing changes based largely on considerations of our international relations and national security. These small changes, which do not affect the substance of the report, have been discussed with the Royal Commission. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) has been provided with a copy of the classified version of the report. The Incident The training exercise-and I point out that Mr Justice Hope has emphasised that what occurred at the Sheraton was in fact part of a training exercise and was not a real operation (2.1)-required the trainees to rescue an individual from persons playing the roles of foreign intelligence officers who were holding him hostage in a room in the Sheraton Hotel. The means by which that 'rescue' was effected are generally known. To put the exercise in some sort of context, to explain why such an exercise might even have been contemplated, it is necessary to consider briefly the functions of ASIS. The principal function of ASIS, under its directive, is the collection of foreign intelligence. A minor function, specified in the directive, requires ASIS to maintain a special operations capability for war time and other very special situations. As Mr Justice Hopes notes, that capability is maintained only on a contingency basis. The Government notes that the whole question of ASIS's special operations function will be dealt with in the Royal Commissioner's report on ASIS due later in the year. Ministerial Responsibility It being understood that the exercise was conducted as part of training, under the authority of the special operations function as outlined in the directive, the question of ministerial responsibility should be addressed. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has made clear that he was not aware of the planned exercise, and Mr Justice Hope has concluded that there was no suggestion that the Minister should have been informed of the kind of special operations training which was being undertaken in November, nor of the specific exercise which concluded at the Sheraton Hotel. Conclusions on the Exercise In reporting on what went wrong and where responsibility should lie, Mr Justice Hope has criticised the exercise as being 'poorly planned, poorly prepared and poorly co-ordinated' (3.26). The Government agrees with these criticisms. His Honour has concluded that ASIS's training precepts and training manuals provide inadequate guidance and insufficient control on the conduct of exercises such as the one in question (3.26). Further, His Honour concludes that every aspect of the exercise, including preparation for its execution, ought to have been so planned and supervised so as to ensure that it was carried out lawfully (4.5). Mr Justice Hope identifies as an obvious deficiency in the planning of the exercise the failure to notify either the Victoria Police or the manager of the Sheraton Hotel (4.6). The Government agrees that common sense and ordinary courtesy alone required prior consultation. Mr Justice Hope has commended the reactions of the hotel manager and the Victoria Police at the scene of the incident. Offences Mr Justice Hope has made an examination of the possible breaches of laws which may be applicable to this incident but has taken the view that any decision on prosecutions should rest with the appropriate responsible authorities. He makes no findings that any person has committed any offence, and he makes no recommendation that any person ought to be prosecuted (5.18). His Honour has found that there are valid reasons based on considerations of national security and international relations for keeping secret the names of those involved in the exercise (1.10, 6.5-6.7). The Government appreciates the difficulties for Victoria in its consideration of possible prosecutions, where national security, which militates against the public disclosure of the names, conflicts with the State's responsibilities to enforce the law. A copy of the full report was made available to Premier Cain without delay, and discussions on these difficult issues have continued between our governments. The Government understands that the Victorian Government intends to introduce legislation to enable the courts in Victoria to determine that there may be confidentiality in court proceedings where necessary in the interests of the national or international security of Australia. On the basis of the enactment of such protective legislation, and any necessary complementary legislation, the Commonwealth will withdraw its previous objection to the release to the Victorian Government of the names of those participating in the Sheraton incident and not already known to the Victorian Government. There is presently an outstanding High Court injunction against the release of any such names, but the Commonwealth will use its best endeavours to secure an appropriate settlement of that case in terms that will allow communication of the relevant names to the Victorian Government. Recommendations Mr Justice Hope's recommendations for measures to prevent a recurrence of this kind of incident are contained in chapter 6 of his report. In brief, he recommends prohibition on carrying any type of firearms in public and of any exercise which might harm or alarm members of the public, and a requirement for clearance with police, local military districts and owners of any property affected before any such exercises are undertaken outside ASIS training facilities. The Government accepts all of the report's recommendations designed to ensure that such incidents cannot recur. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, has indeed already taken several such steps and will ensure that the other measures proposed by His Honour are put in place. Mr Justice Hope has found that varying degrees of responsibility apply to the ASIS senior management , the planners of the exercise and certain of the participants. Disciplinary Action While His Honour touches on the question of disciplinary or other action for those involved in the exercise, he has not made recommendations as to what disciplinary or other action, if any, should be taken. Those questions have been left for the responsible authorities to resolve. The Government has appointed a new Acting Director-General of ASIS. The new Acting Director-General will be Mr J. O. Furner, C.B.E. Mr Furner has until now been the Director of the Joint Intelligence Organisation, after retiring from the Army with the rank of Brigadier. Mr Furner's first responsibility will be to consider disciplinary action concerning those involved in the planning and execution of this failed exercise. To assist Mr Furner in this consideration the Government has appointed Mr Clarence Hermes to investigate the conduct of persons who were involved in the authorising, planning and carrying out of the exercise. Mr Hermes is about to retire as Chief Magistrate of the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Hermes is to report to the Acting Director-General of ASIS and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on whether disciplinary action should be taken against any of those persons and, if so, what disciplinary action. In the course of those inquiries, those affected will of course be given the opportunity to put their side of the case. It is only when those involved with the exercise have had this opportunity to reply to the report that a decision will be taken on whether disciplinary action should be taken. The Government expects that process to be completed in the next few weeks. Conclusion I take this opportunity to thank Mr Justice Hope for his report and look forward to his further report on the wider subject of the functions of ASIS. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-proposed: That the Senate take note of the paper and statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Durack proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The handling by the Attorney-General of the Age tapes and their contents. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.21) —I put down this matter of public importance-'The handling by the Attorney-General of the Age tapes and their contents'-because I believe that it is a subject which demands immediate debate in this Senate and is an appropriate one for today. Yesterday the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) came into this chamber wrapped in a cloak of unctuous piety about the paramouncy of rights of privacy and of the independence , not to say the untouchability, of the judiciary. His statement was dominated throughout by those considerations. I believe that he has put those considerations in a context which has failed to take into account many other major countervailing questions. Before going into those matters, I express some surprise at why the Attorney-General should have gone to the lengths that he did to emphasise those matters. As he said: The most worrying aspect of this whole matter is, I believe, the massive illegality and invasion of privacy which appears to have been involved. At another point he said: I make it clear . . . that the first concern of the Government . . . is to investigate what is . . . a massive invasion of the privacy of the citizens of this country. He even talks about it now as being a new form of 'organised crime'. I notice, however, that in December last year when he put down a report about privacy, he made this comment: Privacy interests are not absolute and must be weighed against such competing public and private interests as the general desirability of a free flow of information and the recognition of the right of government and business to achieve their objects in an efficient way. I think that the Attorney-General might well have added the fact that there are some competing interests as to the need to investigate and to bring to justice the perpetrators of organised crime on a massive scale which these tapes, if authentic, reveal. We say that not because of the tapes themselves but because of the support that they give to the massive indications of organised crime on that scale which we know, from the investigations of Costigan, Stewart and others, unfortunately exist in this country. I wonder, therefore, why the Attorney-General chose to make the central point of his statement yesterday the paramouncy, as I has said, of questions of rights of privacy over other competing aspects of the public interest. There must be only one explanation: That he was terribly anxious somehow to retrieve his tattered reputation among his own civil rights constituency in matters of this kind, because what he said and the concerns that he expressed yesterday about these matters sit very strangely with what happened to David Combe and particularly what happened in relation to telephone conversations that that gentleman had, and which the Government's counsel at the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies participated in releasing. Also, the Attorney-General's comments yesterday about the status and independence of the judiciary-with all of which I agree, although he put them as more or less a warning to the Parliament in regard to discussion of the judiciary or any criticism of it-went much further than was required or is proper, or is certainly within the normal relationship which this Parliament has with the judiciary. The warnings, more or less that the Attorney-General gave to the Parliament on this matter yesterday sit very strangely indeed with his own massive attack on Sir Garfield Barwick in this same chamber about four years ago , and other attacks which have been made not only on Sir Garfield Barwick but on members of the High Court of Australia generally in relation to decisions that they have made, particularly regarding tax avoidance matters that have come before the High Court over many years. As I have said, it is perfectly justifiable for members of parliament to express criticisms, and quite severe criticisms at times, about the judiciary; yet the way in which the Attorney- General put the matter yesterday indicated that somehow or other it has some inviolability from criticism in Parliament. I concede that the way in which Parliament deals with these matters should be responsible and reasonable. But we have a responsibility and we should not be frightened or warned off in carrying that responsibility. I wondered, finally, what the Attorney-General's views about these matters would have been had the alleged tapes dealt, for instance, not with conversations or alleged conversations, as they were, but conversations about tax evasion or matters of that kind. After some of the debates that we had in this Parliament during the year before last on that subject, it seemed that there was not much regard for the privacy or civil liberties of anyone who may have been thought by the present members of the Government and their supporters to be involved in those matters. The way in which the Attorney-General dealt with this matter yesterday is, in itself, one of concern and questioning. We can only ask why he should have emphasised these matters to the exclusion of other very serious questions that are posed by these alleged conversations, large in all as they are, and despite the fact that they may well have been obtained in contravention of the Telecommunications (Interpretation) Act. I do not suggest and I have never suggested that that is not a very important matter itself which needs to be fully investigated, and if it can be ascertained how it happened those concerned should be brought to justice for that action itself. I repudiate any suggestion, which also seems to come into the statement, that perhaps there is complete unconcern on the part of the Opposition about those matters. The first and foremost matter about which we need to have a satisfactory answer in this chamber relates to the authenticity of this material. Yesterday, the Attorney-General raised a very great doubt about that matter, which in itself is inconsistent-I know he does not like to hear this and he seems to get very upset when it is mentioned-with the actions that he and others have taken in relation to this material. It is of the first importance for this Parliament to be advised of the extent of the authenticity of the material. I know that is not something that can be ascertained immediately. It needs proper investigation. What concerns me, though, is the approach the Attorney-General is taking to this question. He said in his statement: I cannot emphasise too strongly the dubious status of the material in question. He also said: The material is . . . completely anonymous and completely unauthenticated. He went on to say: 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- I emphasise the words '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. I do not minimise the problems that may well exist and I am glad to hear that an expert has been engaged to consider these matters, but the view which was expressed and emphasised by the Attorney-General in his statement yesterday, despite the attempt he made in Question Time today to do otherwise, does not, I believe, sit consistently with what he said on a television program, the National Today Show, this morning. The questioner said: There seems to be some confusion over the authenticity; is there any doubt in your mind that the conversations actually took place or is the issue whether or not the tapes and/or the transcripts are incomplete? Senator Evans's answer was: It is very difficult to answer that. I think it is almost certainly the case that a great many of the conversations between the parties in question did take place in some form or other and certainly it is very difficult to contest in any root and branch way the authenticity of the 11 conversations that are the subject of specific content of the 4 tapes. He went on to emphasise the difference between being able to establish the authenticity of the tapes and that of the transcripts. He pointed out that the tapes can be tested electronically and so on. Someone from the Age newspaper, or its editor-I cannot remember exactly who-made it clear that when the newspaper got this they went to great pains to ascertain its authenticity. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Attorney-General would not have taken the same steps that the Age took in relation to these matters. Senator Gareth Evans —What do you think I have been doing? Senator DURACK —The Age has pointed out that it is really not such a difficult matter to determine the authenticity of the tapes. So for the Attorney-General, who apparently from the interjection he just made accepts that that can be done, continually to assert that the Age really did not have any authority, or to raise, as he has done, real doubts about the authenticity of the tapes, is, I believe, a smokescreen which greatly confuses the issue. I repeat that the Attorney-General has taken important steps. Indeed, the New South Wales Government, although it needed a little more coaxing and pressure, also seems to have taken steps. The Solicitor-General of New South Wales has advised that steps be taken to investigate a number of the matters that are dealt with in these recorded conversations and transcripts. Mr Temby has apparently prepared his opinion in a very short time indeed. It looks as though the material was sent to him on 13 February and he provided his opinion on 15 February. The material had to be taken to Perth and his opinion had to be sent back, no doubt, on the Vocadex machine. It is hardly commendable that Mr Temby should be asked to deal with such important and voluminous matters under that sort of pressure. There are some remarkable omissions from the opinion provided by Mr Temby, no doubt due to the haste with which he was expected to give it. Senator Tate —What are they? Senator DURACK —I have not time at the moment to detail them. For instance, he does not deal with some of the important conversations about which the Attorney- General was asked at Question Time today. I will go into those in much greater detail on another occasion, in view of Senator Tate's very close interest in them. The Attorney-General, by speaking to the judge and again in answers he gave to the Senate today, has thrown much more light on the matter and given much greater authority to the genuineness of this material then was the case prior to today. The answers he gave at Question Time today again sit very strangely indeed with the whole theme of his statement yesterday. I have not the time to go through a number of very important matters that arise in relation to this problem. I repeat that I do not believe that it is an adequate response to give this whole task to a man who is about to take up the most important job of Director of Public Prosecutions on 5 March and establish and get under way that new office. I and the Opposition believe that the importance of this whole matter, this voluminous material and the network of crime and corruption at so many levels and in so many places in this country, reveal again the necessity for independent, fearless and full time effort on the part of an appropriate agency or arm of government at the highest level. We have said that had a national crimes commission been operating at this stage, that would have been a very suitable body to have taken this whole matter over. I am glad that Mr Justice Stewart has been sent the parts of the material that relate to his areas of interest and his terms of reference. But I question whether Mr Temby can be expected, with all the new responsibilities that he has undertaken, to give this very large matter, with its very great number of different criminal aspects, the attention which it needs and which must be given to it by government. I think that the approach taken by the Attorney-General in relation to this appointment and the way in which he proposes to handle this matter is also of concern. As I have said, I believe that the remarks made by the Attorney-General yesterday in his statement about the judiciary and its relationship to this Parliament is one which I think needs further consideration and further debate in this chamber. Clearly, honourable senators are entitled to express views about conduct, as they can about the decisions, of judges. Whether that amounts to misbehaviour in a constitutional sense is another question. What has worried me are the double standards that seem to have been revealed by the Attorney-General in the statement he made to the Parliament yesterday. There has been an emphasis on one or two aspects of this matter to the exclusion of many of the other very important competing public interests that are revealed by this mass of material. The Attorney-General lacks confidence to pursue these matters with the firmness that is required because of the very serious matters that have been revealed and the problems that have been created for him by this material. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.42) —There is a lot of ritual in this place. We have just witnessed another example of the phenomenon at work. Senator Durack had absolutely nothing to say today, and he knew he had nothing to say in this issue. But because he had been creating expectations that he would be having something to say, he stood up in this chamber, wasted everybody' s time for the last 20 minutes and said exactly nothing. The former Attorney- General, Senator Durack, began his remarks by saying that the subject was manifestly one that demanded immediate debate. I ask him: If so, why did he not put his proposition to the Senate in the form of an urgency motion, which indeed was the form in which he submitted this proposal earlier today before he rather shamefacedly withdrew the urgency motion and substituted the matter of public importance which now appears before us? This rather arcane distinction is one that may not be appreciated by anyone unfortunate enough to be listening to this debate, but there is a significant distinction. An urgency motion is one which has a vote normally at the end of it, whereas a matter of public importance does not have a vote. Undoubtedly, the reason Senator Durack did not want to put his proposition forward as an urgency motion was that he knew he could not be confident of winning such a vote, challenging the Government's handling of this matter. He knew he could not be confident of winning such a vote because he does not deserve to win such a vote. The reality of the matter is that this Government's handling of what has clearly been a sensitive and difficult matter has been proper, prompt, responsible and responsive in every possible respect. Senator Durack expressed surprise at the lengths to which I had gone in my statement yesterday to explain, in very great detail, why the Government had acted as it had and precisely what it had done. Of course I went to great lengths to explain the Government's reaction because the allegations, or most of them in the Age material-the tapes and the transcripts-are serious and manifestly of the kind that deserve a serious-minded government response. It is also the case that the circumstances in which the tapes and the transcripts, if authentic, to the extent that they are authentic, were made, are equally important if not more important, raising as they do quite fundamental questions about the extent of illegality and unauthorised invasions of privacy in this country. I make no apology for the weight that I gave to the value of privacy in what I said yesterday, or to any of the language I employed in explaining to those on the other side who are somewhat less sensitive than perhaps they ought to be to these issues just why it is that privacy is a value of quite fundamental significance and justifies far more respect being given to it than seems to be the case by honourable senators opposite and far more respect than was certainly given to it as I have been heard to say on various occasions by the Age newspaper, in choosing not only to run the story but also to run the story in the way in which it did, emphasising the particular aspects of it that it did. I make no apology for emphasising the value of privacy at stake here, in issue here and at risk here, nor do I make any apology whatsoever for the emphasis I placed upon the dangers involved in the challenge, the attack upon the credibility, status and reputation of the judiciary in a mater of this kind, again in particular the way in which the Age handled the story, emphasising as it did the supposed involvement of the judge in these matters as the first story ; de-emphasising by comparison what, on the face of it, were arguably some rather more serious allegations. I do not apologise for emphasising the way in which the judiciary, its reputation, status and credibility as an institution can be put at risk because it is self-evidently the case that when we have a series of attacks of the kind that we witnessed in recent weeks with this affair, followed by Mr Sinclair's performance yesterday, building as they both did in turn on the actions of Mr Fraser last year at the time of the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry and Mr Fraser's response to recommendations he found unpalatable, we are going down a most unhappy course. I do not in any way contest the force of what Senator Durack said about the appropriateness of moderate, temperate, reasoned argument or criticism, indeed quite forcibly expressed criticism, at the performance of the judiciary, the cases that the judges decide or, on occasions, misdecide. Indeed over the year I have been in the forefront of those who have been very critical of members of the judiciary and of particular courts for particular kinds of decisions. That is a perfectly proper and legitimate exercise of the right of free speech whether or not in this Parliament. Equally, I do not in any way challenge the propriety of criticism, properly reasoned, well developed, temperately expressed, of other aspects about the performance of judges; the propriety of judicial behaviour as it affects the conduct of their office. Indeed, I hardly could contest the propriety of acting in these terms because I led a very significant debate of this kind back in 1980 so far as the suggestions of bias and conflict of interest involving a former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick, were concerned. But I challenge anyone to go back over that debate and find anything in the language that I used in that speech which was other than moderate, cautious, temperate and well documented-a very different state of affairs from the kind of salacious, undocumented, unauthenticated scuttlebut that has been put into the public domain very deliberately by those who have actively conspired to produce the present series of articles and the subsequent dissemination of those articles in the media and right around the nation. It is not the case that the mere cautious, not putting of the names of people in these articles was an act of great responsibility. The names in question, on the face of it, with a little bit of help from a hard core of journalists who knew only too well what was involved, were disseminated around the halls and passages of this place, I know, within about 10 hours of the first story appearing in the Age. It is the case that a very serious campaign of gossip and innuendo has gone on and has been actively perpetrated by many different people in recent weeks. Let us remember that that has been based not on any public performance of the judge's duties in office, nor has it been based on any private behaviour which has been in any way directly related to the conduct of his activities in office. It has been based on what are at best private conversations, intended to be private, not bearing upon the performance of his judicial office, the details of which, as I have said, are denied by the person in question both in general terms and as to a number of specifics. Alternatively , they are the subject of explanations as to context or they are the subject of both denials and explanations. Under those circumstances it simply does not wash -to use Senator Durack's expression-to have the unctuous piety of the language employed by him today being poured over our heads in the context of this matter. It is an inappropriate response to material that does not deserve this kind of respect. The substance of the matter of public importance before us today is one that is directed not to any specific matters but rather to the general handling of the whole question by me and by the Government since it arose just a month ago. Indeed, it is very odd for this particular matter of public importance to come forward in the way it has, given the way in which the statement yesterday did address very directly and very responsively a whole series of particular questions or matters that were identified by Senator Durack last week as demanding of explanation; not only deserving but also demanding of explanation by the Government. In a Press release he put out last week on 24 February he said that the Opposition was completely dissatisfied with the way in which the Government had treated these various issues and was demanding a soundly based explanation. He said that the Opposition would be pursuing in Parliament this week a series of questions and he listed them. There were six of them. Each one of these questions was specifically and directly addressed in what I said yesterday. I believe that the propositions that were put were in fact deserving of reasoned and temperate answers and he was given reasoned and temperate answers yesterday. He has not, in any way, challenged the answers to any of those questions. It is fascinating that under those circumstances he should have the gall to come in on behalf of the Opposition with a matter of public importance which in general round and condemnatory terms challenges the Government's and my handling of this particular case. First of all, the issue raised was two months of inaction 'by the Attorney- General and Special Minister of State following Opposition questioning in the Senate late last year'. That matter was expressly directed and responded to in a page and a half of my statement when I explained, quite clearly, the circumstances in which it had been impossible to take that investigation forward until the newspaper in question, the National Times, produced further material, which it failed to do. It was only when the Age actually came up with the material in question that it was possible to pursue that investigation. Secondly , there was the decision to seek an opinion on judicial behaviour from Ian Temby QC, rather than the Solicitor-General. As we now know, I sought an opinion from both and I did so certainly before Senator Durack's feeble thunderings from the side lines. Indeed, I even did so days before the Age chose to give me another batch of gratuitous advice and suggested that was a more appropriate course of action. Thirdly, the issue was the failure to obtain a second opinion on such a major question. I have just answered that. Fourthly, there was the failure by the Attorney-General to address the question himself. I appreciate that there may have been difficulties in days gone by in getting the Attorney-General of the day ever to focus on issues for himself. I assure him that that is not the case in this instance nor generally these days. I have focused on the issue, I have addressed myself to the key questions in issue certainly so far as the issue of misbehaviour and the other legal points in issue are concerned. I am thoroughly satisfied with the quality of the advice that I have been given and accept that advice based not simply on the fact that it is coming to me as advice but on the fact that I fully endorse the argument and reasoning in it. The fifth question was the basis of Mr Temby's opinion that alleged conduct of the judge did not constitute misbehaviour within the meaning of the Australian Constitution. There does not seem to be any challenge to Mr Temby's advice in this respect as that has now been laid out on the public record and supplemented by a rather more detailed piece of reasoning but to essentially the same effect by the Solicitor-General. Mr Temby's opinion has been criticised for its supposed omissions. I am puzzled by the particular omissions that Senator Durack identified in response to an interjection in this respect because certainly, on my reading of the opinion, the material that was the subject of questioning this morning is specifically addressed in Mr Temby's opinion. Finally, we have a question about an explanation demanded of the circumstances and results of the Attorney-General's approach to the judge. I spelt that out in some detail yesterday. I supplemented it with some further detail today beyond which I do not propose to go essentially for the reasons that I spelt out yesterday in this respect. There is nothing untoward and nothing in any way improper about the discussions that took place. The discussions have in fact satisfied me along the lines that I indicated in answers at Question Time. The major specific matter that Senator Durack seemed to continue to be fussed by is that of authenticity. Let me focus, once again, on just what is involved here so far as the authenticity of this material is concerned and what exactly is being claimed, suggested, or stated by the Government. It has never been the case that the Government has denied outright that the material is authentic. What we have said all along is that we simply do not know whether or not it is authentic as a whole or as to any particular part of it. What I said yesterday was 'I cannot emphasise too strongly the dubious status of the material in question'. I went on to say that the material was completely anonymous and completely unauthenticated. It seems that there may have been some confusion in a number of breasts or heads around the place as to an apparent incompatibility of those two propositions, but there is of course a distinction between material being completely unauthentic on the one hand and completely unauthenticated on the other. The business of authentication is the process that is involved in determining whether or not something is in fact authentic. While we simply do not know whether the material is authentic or not, we certainly do know that the material is not authenticated. That is the problem with it, because it is just not self- authenticating in any obvious way even so far as the tapes are concerned, the electronic bits of physical material although, as I readily acknowledge, their prima facie force so far as their authenticity is concerned is considerable and certainly much greater than in the case of documentation, simply type face on paper. Nonetheless, one simply cannot be assured in this day and age that any particular conversation that purports to be a full and complete recording is indeed just that. I hardly need to repeat the obvious points that can be made about the ease with which tapes can be tampered with, edited, chopped around and a very different meaning conveyed. It is that very issue that has been the subject of expert attention at the moment. So far as the authenticity of the documentary material is concerned, obviously it is a very much more difficult business to authenticate material of this kind and to get some sort of perception of just how accurate it is even when it appears to be a detailed transcript and even more so when it is just a summary of some other transcript which is not here to hand. I am fascinated by the suggestion from Senator Durack that the Age in fact went to great pains to authenticate the material. I am fascinated with his face value acceptance of Mr Burns's assertions in this respect. Has he heard what Mr Burns said, I think it was last night, in this particular respect? Mr Burns said that some tests had been done on the tapes as I recall it, and that a few policemen of their acquaintance had been asked as to whether the documentary material seemed the sort of thing that might have been produced on the occasion in question. If that is the best that Mr Burns can do-I do not doubt that he cannot do much better- there is a real difficulty in authenticating material of this kind. It certainly does not justify the confidence that Senator Durack has placed in it. Do I need to repeat that the mere fact that this material has been given to various law enforcement authorities, in some cases specially created for the purpose, does not, in itself, amount in any way to a concession, admission or an acknowledgment of its authenticity. It is simply an obvious response to the receipt of material of this kind which, on the face of it, raises a number of serious issues as well as a number of manifestly not very serious issues but which does clearly, because of the seriousness of at least some of it, demand proper investigation. That is the course we have followed. We would have been quite properly criticised and criticised roundly if we had not followed that course. What was the alternative? Was I to simply sit there at my desk with the material sitting in my lap waiting for intuition to strike as to whether it was in fact authentic? What a nonsensical suggestion. Of course, the material had to be given out and made the subject of proper investigation by people in a position to follow the trail, follow the leads and see what, if any, substantive weight and effect could be given to the allegations and material contained therein. That is exactly the course that has been followed. The whole investigative strategy that the Commonwealth has set in train involving a combination of resources from the Commonwealth and the State police forces under the independent supervision of the Special Prosecutor is a strategy that is designed to produce results if indeed results are there and obtainable, if they are there to be produced. We believe the results are there to be produced so far as the circumstances of the taping and the taking of the transcripts are concerned because it seems very likely that at least some illegal, unauthorised telephone tapping was done. Beyond that, when one gets to the content of the material, it is much more difficult to pin down, certainly at the federal offence level, what, if any are the specifics. I did my best to identify in the statement what were those particular areas that clearly demand a further investigative effort with regard to the possible commission of federal offences. I emphasise, however, as I did in my statement, that Mr Temby is very cautious about recommending that major investigative resources be devoted to these particular matters. He says very clearly, if honourable senators read the thrust of his opinion as a whole, that it is a very tenuous basis on which an investigation could proceed. Indeed, in some instances, for example, the question of the possible fixing of a case in the Australian Capital Territory, if one reads his opinion one will see that for reasons which he sets out with clarity and common sense it will clearly be very difficult to follow up that matter. Nonetheless, that is one of the tasks that will be pursued. This debate has really been a tiresome rerun on the part of the Opposition-and, I readily acknowledge, no doubt from me as well-of the points that were made yesterday. If it was a tiresome rerun as far as I am concerned, the reasons are quite obvious: Nothing new has been advanced by the Opposition and certainly nothing such as would justify the kind of questioning that has been involved of the handling of this matter by the Government in general and by myself in particular. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.02) —This is a serious matter. To understand it we must put it in the context of the climate in which Australia finds itself. The fact is that in recent years some six royal commissions, one after the other, have brought forward reports pointing to serious crime, organised crime and corruption throughout the fabric of Australian society. The Moffitt Royal Commission on Alleged Organised Crime in Registered Clubs in New South Wales, the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking, the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs and, more latterly, the Street Royal Commission of Inquiry into Certain Committal Proceedings Against K. E. Humphreys have shown that there is a threat to the fabric and integrity of our society. Indeed, in more recent times during the latter part of the Budget Session the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) was reluctantly compelled to read and to study some tapes which, although he studied them only for 20 minutes and was pressed to do more, resulted in the end in the forced resignation of a minister in the New South Wales State Government. It is against that background that this debate emerges. More importantly, it is against a background of a free belief in the community as to how the tapes were obtained and for what purpose. The belief is-and it has not been in any way denied-that a substantial section of the police force in New South Wales, which was very concerned that within the force and throughout the community there was serious corruption, sought to obtain the tapes in order to expose that corruption. It is fascinating that the statement made yesterday by the Attorney-General was silent in that regard. Nowhere does he state: 'I sought to find from the New South Wales Government or the New South Wales police whether the conversations were taped by police officially or unofficially'. No such statement appears. In page after page he states: 'I do not know whether they are authentic. They could have been tampered with'. Why would he not have asked that question in the first place? All sorts of cover ups have gone on. Statements were made in New South Wales that the tapes were not made by the Bureau of Crime Intelligence, now a newly named bureau. But no statement was made that the electronic unit inside the New South Wales police force, which in the past was a separate unit, was not used officially or unofficially to obtain the tapes. In any case, this matter has been wafting on in two parliaments on the basis of whether or not the tapes are authentic. I put to this Parliament that two people have substantially authenticated the tapes, one being Mr Temby and the other the Attorney-General. This is a report of what Mr Temby has said: The Special Prosecutor, Mr Ian Temby, QC has advised the Federal Government that perhaps it should warn the judge referred to in the police tapes that his friendship with a solicitor of poor reputation was undesirable. The judge could be placed in an invidious position by having dealings with a person of poor repute. Let me examine that statement. For one thing, if a judge was carrying out his duties in a proper judicial and ethical fashion, there would be no need for such a suggestion to be made by a senior counsel. It would be expected that a judge would know those standards. Clearly, Mr Temby has concluded that taped conversations of some sort went on between the judge concerned and the solicitor concerned. Senator Gareth Evans —The whole thing is premised on the 'authentic or not' issue. Now acknowledge that! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let the Attorney shout as much as he likes. He shouted in November and December. He was proven then to be thoroughly wrong. Noise will never replace the facts. The Attorney behaved abominably and almost to the point of collapse in November and December, but he produced nothing. The answers to the questions that we asked him at that time had to be dragged out of him yesterday when, in his statement, he said that nothing had been done between the time that Senator Archer asked those questions and yesterday. So let him continue his abysmal silence. The fact is that Mr Temby concluded that there were taped conversations of some kind between the judge concerned and the solicitor concerned, and that the judge ought to be told that this was wrong. But the Attorney said: 'I went to see the judge and I talked to the judge'. Answers to question after question were dragged out of him today as to whether he asked the judge: 'Did you have a conversation on fixing appointments with a senior New South Wales Minister? Did you in fact talk about a homosexual situation in which an alderman could be denigrated if the judge advanced such information?'. It is clear that the Attorney had such conversations. Nowhere in the statement does the Attorney say: 'The judge told me he had no such telephone conversations. They are totally wrong'. On the contrary, the allegation is that the conversations were misunderstood, and a different gloss was put on the explanations that were put forward. The fact of the matter is that both Mr Temby and the Attorney have substantially authenticated the tapes. Let no one deny that that is so. On the one hand Mr Temby has concluded that the conversation happened and that the judge needed to be warned that his behaviour was not appropriate; on the other hand the Attorney has said: 'I went to the judge and I asked him'. But the Attorney has said that he found it necessary to go to the judge because it was a serious matter and to find out what happened. But the Attorney should not be selective in the information he brings forward. He should not decide to tell us something and omit to tell us something else, as he indicated in his answers to questions today. It is not for him to make the judgment on whether what the judge did was proper. It is for the community. After all, there were enough kangaroo courts in the case of David Combe. He will never live down the way that he treated David Combe. His own people understand that the so-called civil libertarian destroyed all pretence of civil liberties in that case. He decided that he would go to the judge and then he would say-- Senator Gareth Evans —You are attacking another judge, are you? What were the findings of Mr Justice Hope about that? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let the Attorney call out. He was heard in silence. But the senior law officer of Australia is selective in what he tells and selective in what he withholds. He will say to the people of Australia-he will not get away with it-'I will tell you whether the judge behaved properly and I will decide whether all of the taped conversations occurred. I will not let you have what the judge said to us. I will not let you have the transcripts of the tapes because I, the Attorney-General, will judge these things'. This is the man who stood here in this Parliament and attacked a former chief justice. This is a man who believes in freedom and justice for the community. As I understand it- let us make it perfectly clear-these tapes reveal at least 15 conversations. They reveal that the judge used initials instead of names. Why would anyone use initials instead of names if he is an ordinary, honest citizen going about his business? Why would he be in this kind of situation? Why, if these tapes are right, would a judge listen to a solicitor saying that he was going to blackmail a politician, and not remonstrate with him at all? Why would he simply listen to somebody saying he was going to blackmail someone? Is this the kind of thing an Attorney-General can come into this place and selectively tell us? After all, the Attorney-General saw the judge on the afternoon of 15 February. It is interesting that it was on the afternoon of 15 February that Mr Temby gave his instant judgment. Let me make a point about that . Senator Durack had something to say about this matter. We know the Attorney is no mean speed reader, but there were 524 pages to be read, plus tapes. At two minutes a page that represents 17 hours of speed reading, without giving any thought at all to the legalities, to the massive problems involved, to listening to the tapes. After a day and a half a decision was made. It was an instant decision, a Clayton's decision-the kind of decision one makes when one does not want a decision. Nobody can say that, given 524 pages, in the space of a day and a half a counsel could come up with thoughtful comments on whether these matters were criminal, improper or represented misbehaviour. The fact is, of course, that the Attorney needed that decision. He had it available to him on the afternoon he went to see the judge concerned. That is a very interesting situation. Senator Gareth Evans —Are you impugning Mr Temby's bona fides? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Again the Attorney-General is attempting to shout us down. In his statement yesterday not one mention was made of the Trimbole tapes. Easily the greatest drug scandal in Australia was the Griffith marihuana, heroin scandal. The authorities have been chasing the man Trimbole for years. There are allegations that corrupt police let him get out of the country. As the Attorney knows, the tapes contain reference to this man Trimbole. Yet there is no mention of that. There is no mention of the fact that the tapes contain messages concerning alleged starting price bookmaking, the use of phones, prostitution and drugs, all of which are Federal matters. There is simply a race to the defence of a judge, based on selective information. My goodness, where do we go from here? At least the Solicitor-General in New South Wales concluded that this was a very serious matter, that very serious charges were made throughout the tapes. She concluded that these matters should be investigated. What do we know? There is no way in the world that the Attorney -General can go and see that judge, have conversations with that judge and then come to this Parliament and say: 'I am not going to show you the tapes and the transcript of the tapes and I am not going to tell you the questions and answers between the judge and me'. There is no way in which he can say: 'I am going to decide, and nobody else, what went on. I am going to withhold from this Parliament and this community the vital information on which the community can judge'. How can the Attorney do that? It was by his own wilful act that he set out to see the judge. It was by his own wilful act that he disclosed in the statement yesterday that the judge had not denied that there were in fact conversations. In fact, the Attorney-General' s statement admitted that there were conversations. It was by his own wilful act that he said: 'Really, the conversations occurred, but they can be given different interpretations'. Only one jury can decide what the interpretations are-that is the Australian community, through this Parliament. No Attorney- General can sit in this place and selectively come out with these things. We saw him late last session whimpering over the Jackson tapes, saying he had spent only 20 minutes on them. Could anyone think of a more miserable performance than his performance then? Indeed, he tried to play down the situation and say that there was nothing important about those tapes. In the end those tapes were sufficiently important for a Minister to be sacked from the New South Wales Parliament. This is the same situation now. This is the same performance. It is just not good enough. The Council of Churches in New South Wales has called on Mr Hawke and his Government to have a judicial inquiry. The people of Australia know there is crime and corruption. This Hawke Government has refused a proper crimes commission. Now it is trying to cover up. Indeed, nobody could behave more badly, more poorly or more defensively than has the Attorney. The Attorney's statements yesterday and today are self-contradictory, and defensive in the extreme. In fact, they are selective in what they say and what they do not say. The Australian people will not let the Attorney-General be selective. It is for them to select what evidence comes out. The sooner the Attorney puts all this on the table the sooner the community will be able to judge what is right and what is wrong. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.17) —For the Opposition to sustain this charge against the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in relation to the handling of the Age tapes and their contents it would seem to me that we should look to the Opposition to establish one of several possible lines of attack. Perhaps the Attorney-General could have been charged with being tardy or dilatory in his handling of the matter when it was brought to his attention. Was there any sense in trying to impede, frustrate or slow down the processing of this material by the appropriate authorities? I will come in a moment to the question of whether the appropriate authorities were approached. I think it is a good initial indication of the good faith of the Attorney in relation to these matters if it can be shown that he reacted speedily and in a timely fashion. The fact is that these matters were brought to his attention by the Age newspaper on the evening of 1 February and on 2 February 1984. Immediately the matter was the subject of discussion with the Special Minister of State, the Hon . Mick Young. As I understand it, on the next day, 3 February, the Special Minister of State informed the Attorney that material had been handed over to a senior officer of the Australian Federal Police. So immediately we had a proper response by the relevant Federal Ministers. I think that sort of response is shown throughout the statement that was laid down in this place yesterday evening. It was only a matter of days later that Mr Ian Temby, QC, was briefed to advise on what offences against Federal law, if any, appeared to be disclosed or suggested by the material. At every stage there was a speedy and proper response to get the matters investigated by the appropriate police investigative techniques and advised upon by senior counsel. There can be no question but that the conclusion of the Attorney in his statement of last night-that what was revealed was a course of conduct which was prompt and proper in every respect- can be sustained. Immediately, I believe, any fair-minded member of the public would be of the view that the Attorney-General had at least started promptly in the right direction. One might then ask whether the Attorney had attempted in any way to circumscribe or to restrict by narrow terms of reference or some form of direction the sort of investigations that ought to be undertaken by the Australian Federal Police or, indeed, the sort of advisings or opinion which might be given by Mr Temby, QC. Once again one finds the Attorney's handling of this matter quite impeccable. There was never at any time any suggestion that the Attorney had suggested that the Federal Police investigation be confined to the obtaining of the tapes or transcripts. That charge was made by Senators Chipp and Durack in the course of public discussion but it was never the case. It is that prejudiced view, brought out on that occasion by those senators, of the handling of the matter by the Attorney which is further evidenced in this debate. From the outset there is an inability in the Opposition to accept the good faith of the Attorney-General in relation to this matter. Right from the start both the obtaining of these materials and their contents were to be subject to investigation by the Federal Police and that is what the Attorney and the Special Minister of State intended. Mr Ian Temby Q.C. was briefed to advise, as I have said, on what offences against federal law, if any, appeared to be disclosed or suggested by the material and what further inquiries should be made . There could not be a wider brief than that and it was certainly sufficient for Mr Temby to respond in a very full way. There is nothing in the manner in which the Attorney acted, having promptly responded and handed over the matters to the proper investigating and advising authorities, to suggest that there was any attempt to cover up anything to do with these materials. The question arises: Did the Attorney place these matters in competent hands, in proper hands? Certainly there can be no quibble with the initial thought that the Australian Federal Police ought to be handed the material. In relation to giving the matter to Mr Temby QC, I find it quite extraordinary and quite undermining of the position of this eminent silk, who is about to take on a position created by statute by this Parliament only last year, that that man should be subjected to the sort of attack which was emanated from both the shadow Attorney-General and Senator Sir John Carrick this afternoon. They asserted that he could not be competent enough to digest and assess the significance of the material that was placed before him in an admittedly short span of time in which he was asked to reply as a matter of some urgency. I find it quite extraordinary that it cannot be conceded that a man of considerable talent, and no doubt of some stamina, could peruse this material and come to the sorts of reasonable assessments which he has outlined in his opinion and which he said was by no means a final opinion. As I recall, in the final paragraph of Mr Temby's opinion he said that he would be pleased to follow up any matters which may suggest further lines of inquiry. Senator Gareth Evans —As I said in my statement, he was asked to give priority attention to answering the question of the judge. Senator TATE —That is right. We are speaking of a man who is currently President of the Law Council of Australia. He is well respected by his peers and, as I have said, he has been asked to take on the position of Director of Public Prosecutions which is well known to honourable senators as a position which warrants a political independence from the Federal Attorney-General as set down in the statute creating the position. Given the fact that the matter was given to the Federal Police and to such an eminent QC, who then undertook to supervise a joint task force of Australian Federal Police and New South Wales police officers to see whether charges should be laid and prosecutions should be brought for any breaches of federal law one has a very clear, proper, prompt and unrestricted handling of the material to the competent and proper authorities and persons. Undoubtedly, in all of those areas the Attorney-General is completely vindicated in his handling of this matter. It has been put that somehow the Attorney should vouch for the authenticity of these documents and tapes. This is an extraordinary proposition. It was put to us by Senator Sir John Carrick that Mr Temby had 'substantially authenticated the tapes'. On every page of Mr Temby's opinion he makes these sorts of comments . On the first page he states: 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. In relation to the alleged records and tapes of conversations between a judge and a solicitor, as a preliminary Mr Temby states: There is nothing in the material I have seen, assuming its authenticity . . . He makes other statements to that effect which make it quite clear. On page 4 he states: Assuming the tape to be genuine . . . If he gives any opinion it is always prefaced by a disclaimer by him of any assertion that any of the material is genuine. I cannot believe that Senator Sir John Carrick could have missed those points in his reading of the opinion of Mr Temby. I feel confident that no member of the Opposition or any honourable senator in this chamber would want to vouch for the authenticity of these tapes. It would be an extraordinary thing if he could unless, of course, he had had those tapes or transcripts in his possession for some time and had come to his own conclusions as to their authenticity. If a senator had those tapes or purported transcripts in his possession why did he not make them available to the Attorney-General at an earlier date? Assuming that such a person had not been able to apply his own tests to the material, I am sure that he could not assert the authenticity of the tapes or the transcripts. Again I quote Mr Temby. On page 2 of his opinion he states: 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. He goes on for several paragraphs in that mode. He continues: . . . even if the material is authentic, . . . 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. I think that that would be accepted by any reasonable person. I do not think there is any possibility for any honourable senator in this chamber at this time to make any assertion as to the authenticity of the tapes or the truthfulness of the matters contained or asserted within those tapes or transcripts. As Mr Temby and, I think, the Solicitor-General of New South Wales both concluded, the material appears to have been abstracted somewhat selectively and certainly the documentation is not continuous or complete. I think the Solicitor-General of New South Wales suggested that to an untrained lay ear the difference in speed of some of the conversations on the tapes suggested that there could have been some tampering with those tapes. I do not want to say a great deal about the question of misbehaviour of the judge. I take the view that the opinions put forward by Mr Temby and the Solicitor-General as to the sort of criteria which are proper for the explication of that constitutional provision which states that on the address of both Houses the Governor-General may remove a judge for proved misbehaviour embody the tradition and succinctly state the correct criteria which ought to be applied by this chamber if it has such a matter before it. Certainly, we should be extremely cautious or wary of applying a more general standard of misbehaviour than that which is indicated by the tradition, namely, that there must be some misbehaviour in relation to the discharge of the duties of office or some proved offence which is of such a heinous or grievous nature as to render it quite improper for such a person to continue in such high judicial office. Even if they are the correct criteria it would be quite improper to canvass in this chamber at this time the question of their application to any purported, suggested or rumoured facts which certainly cannot be authenticated. As I have said, from any reasonable view, neither the transcripts, the tapes nor , certainly, the contents can be authenticated or made the subject of any admissible evidence. I do not believe that this chamber is bound by those opinions in that matter. We may have to come to our own conclusions. I have not read the transcripts of those tapes. I have not read the Age articles and refuse to do so in case those matters ever come before this chamber. In that way I certainly am trying to keep an unprejudiced mind in relation to them because as soon as I got the first whiff from conversation that a Federal judge might be the subject of these conversations in the Age, immediately the question of the Constitution came to my mind and I thought to myself: 'I will not prejudice my mind by reading what in any view would have to be edited, discontinuous, unauthenticated statements of the contents of these tapes or transcripts of them'. Certainly, I am not going to leap into any such correlation of the criteria suggested by the Solicitor-General and Mr Temby, for the assessment of whether proven misbehaviour has occurred and the conversations which are alleged. To return to the point, I believe that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has conducted this matter completely properly. The only suggestion I heard as to what he might have done other than what he has done was to put it in the hands of some commission. I thought that we had had enough of royal commissions in this country. It was completely preposterous of Senator Durack to lament the fact that we did not have a crimes commission to which to refer these matters. He failed to proclaim his crimes commission into existence and frustrated the attempt of this Government to create a National Crimes Authority late last year. So I believe that in every way the Attorney-General has been vindicated and has performed his duties quite properly. I believe that the chamber ought to come to that conclusion. It is a pity that we are not going to vote on this motion, as was proposed before midday, because then I believe the whole chamber could express its confidence in the Attorney's handling of these matters. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.33) —There are some very curious aspects about the handling of this whole matter. In fact, a number of red herrings have been drawn across the trail since these tapes were disclosed by the Age some three weeks ago. I hope that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) keeps to his temperate, moderate way, which he seems to have slipped from late in the afternoon, and lets me present my argument. I remind this chamber that since those tapes have come to hand, and even before that, when certain information was disclosed in the National Times, the reaction on many sides was one of avoidance and of drawing red herrings. Mr Wran, of course, was very ready to say that his staff threw the allegations into a waste paper basket; they did not bother about them, they were not going to. We are told now that the material from the National Times was not available. Today and yesterday the Attorney- General did the same sort of thing. He tried to avoid the issue by downplaying the allegations and by relying on opinions about which I will have more to say in another speech and, of course, by launching an attack on the Age for disclosing this information. He tried to divert attention in that way. Let us get to the question which underlies this matter of debate today, that is , the duty of the Attorney-General and the way he has acted in the handling of the tapes and their contents. One must explore what are the duties of the Attorney-General. I shall read to this chamber something written by an authority who I imagine would be fairly respected by the Attorney-General. I refer to the Rt Hon. S. C. Silkin, the former distinguished Attorney-General of England and Wales in the Labour Government, who wrote an article called 'The Functions and Position of the Attorney-General in the United Kingdom'. There are some minor differences between the way Attorneys-Generals operate from one country to another, but I think certain statements in this article are worth recounting. He speaks in the article of his work as an officer of the House of Commons. I remind our Attorney of his duty to this House in regard to these matters. Mr Silkin wrote: The Attorney-General is often asked and customarily undertakes to give legal advice to Parliament, and in that capacity to take part in debates and to attend before committees of the House. In giving legal advice he owes a special duty to the House, separate and apart from his duty to the Crown, and in these matters he occupies a different position from an ordinary Minister of the Crown. Whereas a Minister is normally expected to make a controversial speech, when a Law Officer participates in a Commons debate for the purpose of giving legal advice he is generally expected to assume the attitude of independence and to speak as a lawyer, not as a politician bent on defending the position adopted by the Government. I remind the Attorney of that statement because I do not think that his conduct in the last few days has accorded with it. Mr Silkin further wrote: When dealing with the question that you might have independent law officers-- Senator Gareth Evans —You haven't a clue. Senator MISSEN —The Attorney has had plenty of chances, he should give me a chance now. Silkin wrote this about the category of an independent law officer: . . . we should have the semblance of accountability and not the reality. And in my experience there is no more potent weapon in a democratic society than the reality of accountability to Parliament. Every decision which the Attorney- General takes, every piece of advice which he gives, every statement which he makes is one for which in some form or other he may ultimately be held accountable in Parliament. The Attorney will be held accountable to this Parliament. He is accountable to this Parliament in regard to his handling of these tapes. I turn to his action, because he has maintained, of course, that he has been, in his own words, proper, prompt, responsive and responsible. I suggest that in none of these circumstances does he even get a pass rate. Certainly, early on there were delays. Obviously when people such as Senator Archer asked questions about these matters earlier, there was very little speed. Later on, and in February, there was enormous speed. He has quickly tried to forestall Parliament by ensuring that he had opinions, which opinions I certainly challenge and attack and believe to be unsound. He has got them quickly and has gone to see the judge on two separate occasions. I take the view that what he has done here today, of course, in a series of answers to questions is selectively to give us some of his views on some of the matters he discussed with the judge over those 20 minute conversations. We do not have the whole facts. We have a sifted account. As members of this Parliament we know that serious questions are being raised and we are going to need all the facts when these matters are properly examined. The Attorney went to see the judge. He did that following the opinion of Mr Temby. I regard that as very bad advice indeed. I believe that the Attorney- General should not have gone so that he is in a position today where he gives selective statements, where he is asked only to judge obviously selected parts of the conversation. I think that it was unwise for an Attorney-General to do that. Some other person should have made the investigations. Senator Gareth Evans —What about what you were saying about giving him an opportunity to be heard? Senator MISSEN —I am quite happy for the judge to have every opportunity to be heard. I do not think the Attorney is the person who should have interviewed the judge and then be in a position where he can pick and choose what he will tell his Parliament about his conversations. Of course, taking a hypothetical case, if the judge happened to be someone with whom the Attorney had some personal friendship, knowledge or association that would make the action even more an act of folly than if the judge were one of the judges whom the Attorney did not know at all. Time alone will tell what the situation is in that respect. Senator Gareth Evans —Do not make any vulgar assumptions. Senator MISSEN —I am not making vulgar assumptions; nor will I take notice of the Attorney's vulgar interjections. The fact is that the Attorney chose to get Mr Temby's opinion. I criticise that, as well as the Attorney's course of action . From everything I hear, Mr Temby is a man of great ability. He will no doubt make a good Director of Public Prosecutions. Why was he pitchforked into this matter? Very rapidly he is asked to give opinions on a number of matters. Some of the opinions that he gives may well be thought to be close to contempt of this Parliament because they are telling this Parliament what its duties are if in fact it sees fit to take action against a judge. Of course in my view-and I think the authorities support it-if this matter were to come before the Parliament and we had to decide whether there was any proven misbehaviour it would be a matter within the compass of this Parliament. It would be seriously considered by this Parliament. It would not be corrected by courts. It is not for officers of the Public Service, whatever their capacity, to advise us in advance as to what can and cannot be misbehaviour or proven misbehaviour. It is not a matter for the courts. It is a matter about which opinions are contrary. In another speech I intend to challenge this aspect in great detail. Let us look at the terms of reference. The Attorney has had Mr Temby do various things. The Attorney, in his statement yesterday, said: It was decided . . . 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. That was said as if offences against Federal law are the only questions which might come within the power and compass of this high court of Parliament when it considers criticisms against a judge. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you disagree with the Solicitor-General on that? Senator MISSEN —I certainly do. I disagree most strongly with the Solicitor- General. I believe his opinion has internal inconsistencies and he comes to wrong conclusions. Senator Gareth Evans —Are we going to have the benefit of your opinion? Senator MISSEN —You are indeed. Senator Gareth Evans —When? Senator MISSEN —When the debate on the tapes is brought on, a matter which was originally to be debated today and which, because of the conniving of the Government to stop it, has not yet come on. But it will come on, when I will certainly be expanding on that. I believe there is no doubt that Parliament has the power to determine these questions. Interestingly, we do not know what Mr Temby's terms of reference were. We do not know precisely what he was asked to give advice on. He went on to say: 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. That is very interesting. I do not know where the word 'injudicious' comes from. That does not appear to have been mentioned in the Attorney-General's statement as part of his terms of reference. How many other things was he asked to mention ? He formed an opinion on what is 'proved misbehaviour', which is the term the Parliament has to consider in regard to judicial behaviour. The Solicitor- General also came to a view on that. I believe that Mr Temby was given certain instructions. He no doubt worked very quickly. He produced advice, including the most unfortunate advice to the Attorney-General that he go and see the judge, and from that flow awkward consequences. There is no time to deal with the opinions in detail. The whole question of justiciability, the power which this Parliament has and the fact that the High Court and other courts, as Professor Ryan and others have pointed out, do not have the power to intervene in the actions of Parliament, mean that both these opinions move upon a false basis either that there must have been a mistake in a judge's judicial action, in his office, or that he must have committed some heinous crime against the general law, although not necessarily recorded a conviction. There are many other situations within those two positions. The Solicitor-General in his opinion quoted from Chief Justice Burbury. Senator Gareth Evans —Burbury? Senator MISSEN —Yes, Burbury, a distinguished Chief Justice of Tasmania. He quoted with approval the case of Henry v. Ryan about judicial behaviour. He said : . . . 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. After ignoring that, he went on to deal with Sir Garfield Barwick's opinion, although he was not even a member of the Parliament. Senator Gareth Evans —That is in the context of establishing what kinds of criminal offences are involved. Senator MISSEN —He did not deal with criminal offences. If one reads the opinion one finds that he deals with Barwick's advice to the Government before he was even a judge as though it was advice from the distinguished Chief Justice in his judicial capacity. Anyway, the Attorney-General may be assured that we will go into this in detail. I think it was a grave mistake for the Attorney-General to present Mr Temby's opinion in particular, which opinion is a suggestion to the Parliament about what its rights are. I believe it is an incorrect opinion. Because allegations are made, it is important that the Parliament consider them. We must do this with knowledge of all the facts, when it is obtained. I am not at all happy with the way in which it has been handled, nor with the way in which information is being obtained by police. Someone of greater eminence should have investigated this matter. But we must wait and see what comes out of that. The Attorney-General places great reliance on the fact that these documents are not authenticated. Of course, documents such as this which are serious invasions of privacy and which are probably in breach of the law must be seriously depreciated because of that fact. We will probably never know whether some alterations have been made, but even from what the Attorney-General has said today there is an indication that much of the material is authenticated to an extent by the statements of the judge whom the Attorney-General chose to interview. At least we know that those matters were discussed. I do not take the view that judges' conversations are all that important. I can retail many of them from my club. They show horrible social views, but they are private conversations, as are telephone conversations. On the other hand, it is a question for this Parliament to determine whether actions which follow from that -- Senator Gareth Evans —You have the responsibility then to draw to our attention some of these private conversations, you ass. Senator MISSEN —I thank the Attorney-General. He is not an ass. He just lacks judgment. That is his problem. He is a very clever man without much judgment. He will not prevent me from saying that it is a question of finding out whether any action followed, by a judge or any other, which rendered them unable to effect their positions and depreciated them in the public eye. We have here an important question of the standing of the judiciary. The Attorney-General, by his clumsy handling of this matter, has caused himself to go in the wrong direction. He has taken wrong advice. He has perhaps hurried too much in that regard. He has heavied the Parliament and tried to pre-empt the undertaking of its duties. He has not taken seriously the matters in regard to a judge. He has ignored the rights of Parliament and, therefore, I think he stands condemned. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.47) —The Senate is debating a matter raised by the Liberal Party: The handling by the Attorney-General of the Age tapes and their contents. At the outset I would like to say that I personally have no great concern in general over the way in which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has handled the Age tapes affair. In my view he has done certain things. He has expeditiously sought and gained legal opinions concerning the position of the judge, no matter what one's opinion of those legal opinions is. He has established and referred appropriate matters to a joint police task force and is awaiting its report. He has already referred other matters to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, to Special Prosecutor Redlich and to Director of Public Prosecutions designate Temby. However, after having said that, I have some areas of concern about his handling of the matter. In early February I, along with Senator Peter Durack, was critical of the Attorney- General in that he seemed apparently more concerned with the possible offences connected with the obtaining of the tapes than with the probable offences disclosed by their contents. The Attorney-General chided Senator Durack and me yesterday for this. That is not untypical of any government Minister who finds himself subject to embarrassment because of a leak. It has been the behaviour of governments throughout the years to have an immediate witch hunt for the leaker rather than to show concern over the matter of public interest which has been leaked. After chiding Senator Durack and me, Senator Evans yesterday still seemed pre-occupied with this aspect when he said: Although the most obvious grounds for investigation by the Special Prosecutor clearly concern the circumstances of the interceptions-- he is obviously giving that priority in his mind still after chiding Senator Durack and me- there are several other possible offences under Commonwealth law that may have been committed and which will require further investigation . . . I put that on the record because he took the trouble to chide me. Admittedly the Attorney-General does not go as far as Mr Wran, who tried to dispose of the matter early in the piece simply as a conspiracy of 'smear and sneer'. As I understand it, Mr Wran went further and made the most extraordinary suggestion that, because the tapes were not done by the Crime Intelligence Unit of the New South Wales Police Force, they were by definition false. As I understand it, Mr Wran used the words: 'The tapes are false'. As it is, it has taken consistent prodding, mainly by the Age newspaper, to which I pay great credit, to induce the Attorney-General to appoint a Special Prosecutor to supervise the joint inquiry by the New South Wales and Federal police forces, a move made on 17 February, some two weeks after the tapes were handed to the Attorney and after considerable public discussion. I make no direct comment as to whether two weeks was too long or too short a time; I simply put that on the record. I have already indicated my concern about both the form of the investigation that the Attorney has initiated and its focus. The focus is criminal prosecution , which may well preclude it from ranging as far and as wide as a more general brief might have permitted. Let me explain that. As I said yesterday, as reported at page 39 of Hansard, the constraint put upon Mr Temby, as I understand it, is fairly severe. He is constrained to investigate only as far as criminal prosecution is concerned. Therefore, he has been directly precluded by the Attorney from following trails that Mr Costigan was allowed to follow. We all know the results of the pursuit of those trails by Mr Costigan, which trails at the outset did not have as their criterion public prosecution. I believe that no one in this Senate would disagree that Mr Costigan and Mr Meagher and his Royal Commission have performed an extraordinarily valuable service to this nation and this Parliament in the work that they have done. As I summed up yesterday, for the moment the Australian Democrats accept the strictly legal interpretation offered by the two opinions put down by the Attorney. Senator Missen —You are easily led, then. Senator CHIPP —Perhaps unlike Senator Missen, I am always open to argument. I was about to pay the compliment to Senator Missen of saying that I was interested in what he had to say and will study his opinions and his disagreement when he eventually puts them on record in the Senate when the debate takes place. We reserve final judgment until the report of the task force is available. We express the view that the investigations could be wider, as I have just mentioned. I am very disturbed about the Attorney-General's intemperate attack on the Age. I use the word 'intemperate' not in a rude sense but after giving it consideration. The Age is a Victorian newspaper. I wonder whether the tapes were , in the first instance or simultaneously, offered to a newspaper or newspapers published in New South Wales. If they were issued to other newspapers and if those newspapers refused to publish them, I believe that that underlines the great public service performed by the Age newspaper and illustrates its courage. In a democracy public opinion is formed through the media and an independent, unbiased and, indeed, investigative Press is crucial if our form of government is to survive. I cite the sorts of statements made by Messrs Costigan and Meagher over the past several months. To summarise them, they have said that organised crime cannot survive unless it is supported by crooked lawyers, crooked accountants, crooked police and crooked politicians. Senator Withers —And crooked judges, too. Senator CHIPP —I think that they mentioned crooked judges or, at least crooked magistrates. Here we have a commission that has given in public evidence- Senator Georges —I am getting a little upset. You are getting close to being outrageous. Senator CHIPP —We have had public evidence before the Senate Committee investigating the National Crime Authority, evidence given by Mr Costigan himself stating that in his view the profits from organised crime in Australia now could well exceed $5 billion per year. That is the suggested magnitude of organised crime in Australia. Senator Georges —This is awful. Senator CHIPP —We now have-perhaps Senator Georges will go outside. I have only 15 minutes. Senator Georges —What you have said is outrageous. I am not going outside. Senator CHIPP —Why does Senator Georges not have the guts to get up and speak on this matter instead of interjecting during the speeches of other people? I am defending the courage of a great newspaper. If Senator Georges wants to denigrate it, he should have the guts to get up and denigrate it in a speech, instead of interjecting. Thank goodness that we have newspapers of the quality and the courage of the Melbourne Age. I deplore the Attorney-General's attack on the Age because, at a time when organised crime is rampant in Australia, when it is assisted by crooked lawyers, crooked accountants and whatever, and when we have exposed tapes allegedly implicating judges and crooked lawyers in organised crime, it is a matter of public concern which the Age or any newspaper has a bounden duty to report. I believe that the Age did another, perhaps unconscious, service to this question, because at present public debate is ranging on the proposition of a National Crime Authority proposed by the Attorney-General and by the Labor Government, as opposed to the National Crimes Commission, framed by Mr Fraser and Senator Durack, which has already been passed by this Parliament but not proclaimed. This case illustrates in crystal clear form the weakness of the present National Crime Authority Bill, because in this particular instance the New South Wales Premier could well have gone to the New South Wales police and said: 'Are these matters capable of your jurisdiction?' The New South Wales police would have said: 'Yes, we can handle it', and the New South Wales Premier or Police Minister could have put a veto on the whole investigation, and that would have been the end of the whole Age tapes affair. I make that statement only in passing. The very statement by the Attorney-General admits that the tapes disclose at least five possible breaches of Federal law. The New South Wales Solicitor- General, Ms Mary Gaudron, QC, has recommended further investigation of several possible breaches of State law. The Special Prosecutor, Mr Ian Temby, QC, has indicated, tactfully, concern about a possible continuation of the contact between the judge and the solicitor recorded on the tapes, even though it is his view that the judge's conduct does not warrant removal under section 72 of the Constitution. I thank the Attorney-General for his interjection in my speech yesterday when he said that as far as he was concerned there was no doubt in his mind that an approach was warranted as suggested by Mr Temby. Clearly, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision of the Age to publish. I am not prepared to say that effective investigation would not have been undertaken if the material had not been published. But, bearing in mind Mr Wran's reactions and some of the Attorney-General's more defensive comments, I believe that the action taken by the Age made sure that the action now announced by the Attorney-General is being taken. I note that the Age took great care to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned. As an example of that, the Age did not specify the jurisdiction of the judge concerned. I hope that I do not do the Attorney-General a disservice when I say that it was he himself who focused on the judge's Federal status, not least by the Attorney's concern with section 72 of the national Constitution. Senator Gareth Evans —There are 76 Federal judges. It is not giving much away. Senator CHIPP —The Attorney has at least isolated the fact that it was a Federal judge, which the Age was very careful not to do. In these circumstances I believe that the Age has acted in the public interest and in the best tradition of responsible journalism. Senator Georges —This is disgraceful. We all know, and this Senate knows, who you are talking about. Senator CHIPP —Mr Acting Deputy President, are you going to exercise your authority as far as Senator Georges is concerned or are you not? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —Senator Chipp, I tried to quieten Senator Georges previously, but you kept answering him. However, I say to Senator Georges that Senator Chipp has the floor. I ask him to refrain from interjections. Senator CHIPP —I applaud the courage that it took and the care which was exercised in the face of our restrictive defamation laws and deplore any attempts to intimidate the Age. The parallel with the role played by the Washington Post in uncovering Watergate is inescapable. In the early stages of that traumatic episode in American history, President Nixon said: The main thing is, the Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of this one-they have a television station and they are going to get it- namely, the licence- renewed. President Nixon, in one of his taped conversations, talked about Edward Bennett Williams, the lawyer for the Washington Post. He said: I wouldn't want to be in Edward Bennett Williams shoes after this election. We are going to fix a son of a bitch, believe me. We are going to. We've got to, because he is a bad man. Perhaps it is just as well for the Age that it does not require a licence to continue publication. One recommendation was not taken up. That was that this information be referred to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. I advocated that on 4 February this year- Senator Gareth Evans —How the hell is it within its terms of reference? Senator CHIPP —The Government has extended the terms of reference of the Costigan Royal Commission several times and they could well be extended again. There was a ready made machine for it to take up the matter, which I advocated on 4 February. A similar suggestion was made by the Age on 23 February when it advocated a joint Commonwealth-State royal commission headed by a senior judge, preferably from neither the Federal nor the New South Wales jurisdiction. It is a recommendation which might have to be renewed if the police investigations prove inadequate or a whitewash. Senator Georges —Mr President, I seek a withdrawal. I seek to have Senator Chipp withdraw his remark that I did not have the guts to stand up and state a case. I did not seek a withdrawal at the time because Senator Chipp indicated that he had only a short period remaining in which to speak. I know the Standing Orders provide that I should immediately seek a withdrawal. I do it at the first opportunity. I ask Senator Chipp to withdraw the statement that I do not have the guts to stand up in this place and state a case. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —There is no case for withdrawal, Senator Georges. As you have correctly stated, you should have requested that at the time. As I recall it, Senator Chipp was replying to your interjections. Senator Georges —Right; I shall use another standing order. It will take a little longer. I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Chipp. Is that within the Standing Orders? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, you were not speaking. Senator Georges —No. I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Chipp when he was speaking. We have heard a whole mishmash of sensationalism and allegation in this place, yet- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, I shall give you a little advice. You may seek leave to make a personal explanation, which may get you out of the trouble you got into by making unruly interjections. Senator Robertson —He may also claim to have been misrepresented. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges has not spoken in this debate. Senator Georges, that is your avenue. Senator Georges —I do not know. I do not wish to reflect on the Chair, but your statements, Mr Acting Deputy President, seem to show a bias against me. You are not supposed to be taking that position. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, I am giving you an opportunity to solve your problem. Senator Georges —I seek leave- Senator Chipp —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I do not want to impugn the motives of Senator Georges, for whom I have a great admiration. I am very pleased to withdraw my allegation that he has not had the guts to speak. He has shown lots of guts in his career. I meant to say that he had an opportunity to speak in this debate and had not taken that opportunity. I was annoyed with his constant interjections during my speech. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Thank you, Senator. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(5.03) —It may be a surprise to those who are listening to this debate that the matter of public importance which is under discussion is: The handling by the Attorney-General of the Age tapes and their contents. It may also be a surprise to them that this matter of public importance has been proposed by the Opposition. At the outset I welcome members of the Opposition to the crusade against organised crime, bribery and corruption. I especially welcome the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack. They are obviously very recent converts to this cause. Having presided over an explosion in this area for the last eight years, they now conveniently forget their role and their irresponsibility in the past and parade themselves as puritanical crime busters. This is utter hypocricy. What a shallow, inadequate position. They have accused the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) of lethargy, incompetence, providing an inadequate response and a lack of interest in respect of the Age tapes. But what about their record? How does that stand in the light of public scrutiny? I speak in this debate as someone who over the last 10 years or so has been concerned with organised crime, the effect that it has had on individual Australians, whether they have been young or old, and what it has done to the fabric of government in this country. I have studied and pursued this area at both a State and a Federal level for some time. As I have said, its manifestations have become very clear to me. Organised crime does not merely cover the drug-taking offences that we often hear about and see on television. It does not cover only SP bookmaking. It does not cover only those sexy offences, as the media would like to see them. It does not just cover allegations of graft and corruption. It is in fact implacably wedded to white collar crime in this country. It is wedded to tax evasion and to the inability of society to enforce bad laws, laws over which the Opposition in this place has presided for a long time. One lesson that we have learnt out of the inquiries and reports of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union is that criminal law and white collar crime are wedded inextricably because of their relationship with, amongst other things, the corporate veil. But the Opposition has not been and is not prepared to tackle this part of the problem. Let us look at its record, not as a benchmark on which to assess the performance of the current Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, but as a comparison with the way in which Senator Evans has approached this task. One does not have to look all that far back to find evidence of what the current Opposition has been on about. I refer honourable senators to today's issue of the Bulletin, dated 6 March. An article on page 24 quotes one of the former leaders of the New South Wales Liberal Party, Mr John Dowd. What does he say about his colleagues and their approach to organised crime in that State? The article states: Dowd recalls: 'When I started on the Nugan Hand business I had three of my colleagues trying to deter me from going into it. One of them tried to stop me directly for improper reasons. Another went to Frank Walker (the then Attorney- General) to try to stop him going ahead with it and another spoke to the Nugans and tried to persuade me not to proceed. But I believe he was acting quite sincerely'. Dowd remembers another occasion: 'I've had one of my former colleagues approach me and say a Mr X, who I knew to be associated with some unusual dealings, had offered such-and-such an amount to drop off this issue. But he did it in a joking sort of way and I, in a joking sort of way, passed it off but made it clear, without a formal proposition being made, that I wasn't interested. The name he mentioned was associated with some unusual activities'. A former leader of the Liberal Party was saying that his own colleagues were putting pressure on him, on the first law officer of that State and on all sorts of people in high office not to pursue matters. Members of the same Party are today being critical of the Attorney-General, who in comparison has acted very expeditiously. Let us look at the main person who is making these allegations today. Let us look at the shadow Attorney-General, a former Attorney-General in the Fraser Government. He is a person who for seven to eight years presided over an explosion in tax avoidance and white collar crime in this country. In 1975 in Perth first indications were made of prosecution for tax avoidance. The Commissioner of Taxation then said: 'This activity is occurring on a large scale daily'. Three years later, in 1978, the Taxation Commissioner kept on saying that the activity was occurring, that nothing had been done in the meantime, that the public purse had been defrauded to the extent of $4 billion to $5 billion a year. As we now know through Costigan, this tax avoidance racket was inextricably wedded to organised crime. In 1978 the Taxation Commissioner recommended that a new criminal offence be created to catch those involved in current year profit strips. Two and a half years after that-seven and a half years after the matter was first raised, after massive cost to public revenue and to the fabric of our society, the then Government decided to introduce legislation. But that was not the end of the story. It took it at least two years-it was basically smoked out by the Costigan report-to actually enforce that legislation. It knew for seven years of a billion dollar industry, it knew for seven years of that industry's involvement with organised crime in this country, and it did nothing. Members of that former Government are the people who are laying these sorts of charges in the Senate today. What are the charges? They are that the Attorney-General has acted slowly, inadequately and incompetently. Let us look at the action of the Attorney- General. He found out about the tapes. They were handed to him on the evening of 1 February. He met representatives of the Melbourne Age that night. On 2 February he met with the Special Minister of State. On 3 February he wrote to the Special Minister of State formally arranging a police investigation. Do members of the Opposition suggest that he should have done more at that stage without authenticated evidence? Do members of the Opposition suggest that, at that stage, he should have embarked upon a full scale royal commission? Of course they do not! Their activities today indicate that they do not have full confidence in the procedure they set out to grab this morning. Let us also remember that once that police investigation was set in train the Opposition came into this chamber critical of the Attorney-General for not having an all encompassing inquiry. Members of the Opposition criticised him for not doing what in fact he did. The inquiry was not only in respect of the authenticity of the tapes; it was wider than that. Members of the Opposition did not accept that at the time. They were prepared to go about in their electorates and mislead the Australian public. The police investigation was arranged on 3 February. On 13 February a preliminary report was received from the Commissioner of Police detailing three areas of investigation and suggesting procedural avenues for the Government to follow. It did not take all that long; in fact on the same day the Attorney- General proceeded with the matter to Special Prosecutor Temby for an opinion. As we have heard today his response was extremely quick. The Attorney-General, having received the response on 15 February, set up a joint investigating team on 17 February consisting of the Australian Federal Police and New South Wales police officers under the authority of Special Prosecutor Temby. But he did not leave it at that. Matters were referred to the Stewart Royal Commission. Other matters were referred to Special Prosecutor Redlich. What does the Opposition expect the Government to do in this instance when it still has inadequate information and evidence to go before a court of law? Does the Opposition expect the Government to go into an almighty witch hunt again? I submit to the Senate and to the people of Australia that the course of action taken by the Attorney-General at the time was indeed the proper one. He could not proceed without evidence which can stand up in court. He did not proceed without that evidence. He has been criticised for his response to the position of the judge involved in these tapes. Let us have an honest look at the opinion of Mr Ian Temby in respect of the judge involved. Let us not look at this situation in the way that has been suggested by Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Missen. Senator Sir John Carrick's speech was highlighted by the selectivity of his quotation from Temby's report. Senator Missen's speech was highlighted by the disgraceful manner in which he treated Special Prosecutor Temby. Let us look at the different ranges of impropriety at which Temby looked in respect of the judge. In a number of instances in his report he declared that no offence occurred. I quote briefly from page 7 of the report. Mr Temby says: 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. He was canvassing the position of the judge. Let us look at the question of injudicious behaviour which Mr Temby deals with on page 6 of his report. He says : Has [the Judge] acted injudiciously? On the material I have seen his conduct cannot be so categorised . . . Let us remember that, in all these instances, Mr Temby prefaces his opinion by saying that he is accepting for the moment that the tapes are authentic. But he makes it very clear early in his report that he cannot give an opinion in that case. He says: 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. He makes that very clear. What have we here today? What has been requested by the Opposition? Members of the Opposition want a broad witch hunt on the basis of inadequate provable evidence. The Attorney-General should also be applauded for the way in which, having sought clearance from Special Prosecutor Temby and the Australian Federal Police, he spoke to the judge in question and got his side of the story. That is important, as has been evidenced in one instance already in this brief saga. Honourable senators will remember that the Age, in its printing of the tape transcripts, made one very basic mistake; a mistake which was highly embarrassing to the people involved; a mistake which is inexcusable. Therefore, it is extremely important, when one looks at tapes such as these-even if one accepts that they are authentic-that they be checked out. Are they reliable? Have they been tampered with? What were the relevant times when they were made? Do the tapes require a certain amount of validation? Should they be looked at in their context? All these sorts of questions are important. It is pleasing to me to see that the Attorney-General has pursued these matters with the judge. What then does the Opposition want? In this instance I submit that it wants a broad witch hunt. Essentially, if the tapes were collected by police officers, that raises the question of the way in which law enforcement agencies are operating. Is it their duty to go out collecting information generally, or is it the duty of law enforcement agencies to target offences and individuals and pursue the enforcement of laws? I submit that it is the latter. If they performed the latter function more effectively maybe a certain degree of organised crime could be cleared up. I can see one major problem arising from the tapes. If the tapes are authentic there seems to be an allowance by the enforcement agencies of a continuation of the organisations. If the tapes are authentic would it not have been better for the agencies to have stepped in and made an arrest rather than to allow the organisations to continue and to blossom ? In summary, I put it to the Senate that there is an obligation in this instance not only on the Government to act properly but also on the Opposition and the media. If there were tapes at an early date they should have been produced for law enforcement at an early date. If Mr Bottom and some of his friends have tapes that have not been produced it is their clear obligation to produce those tapes for investigation. If any member holding public office is in possession of tapes which have not yet been produced it is not only their legal obligation to do so but also it is their obligation to do so as holders of public office. The attack on the Attorney-General this afternoon has been a very shallow and ineffective one. It has not stood up in the course of the debate. Accordingly I move: That the order of business be proceeded with. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I seek leave of the Senate to move forthwith the motion of which I gave notice this day concerning the Cross inquiry. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Chaney —No. The PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I therefore move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Senate from proceeding forthwith with the motion of which I gave notice this day dealing with the attacks by the right honourable member for New England in the House of Representatives on the integrity, impartiality and competence of Mr Justice Cross. I note with some interest the immediate reaction of Senator Chaney, on behalf of the Opposition, to try to gag this debate. I note accordingly the lack of confidence he has in the willingness of this chamber to do other than condemn the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) for his attack on the competence, impartiality and integrity of Mr Justice Cross. I note his unwillingness, on behalf of the Opposition, to put this matter to the test. But it is not something which ought to be long delayed in being put to the test. In issue today are matters which ought to be debated immediately following the scurrilous attacks that were made yesterday on the institution of the judiciary and on Mr Justice Cross in particular by Mr Sinclair. What happened yesterday, and only yesterday, is that under cover of privilege and with the Speaker, no doubt because of the particular circumstances of an individual defending himself from what he perceived to be an attack allowing in those circumstances rather more latitude than perhaps would be usual in comments on the judiciary, Mr Sinclair made one of the most sustained, vitriolic and utterly ill-founded attacks on the judiciary ever heard in the Parliament of this country. Extravagant charges were made-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. I understood that the Attorney-General was addressing a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Presumably such a motion has to relate to the terms of the Standing Orders. It has to relate to the Attorney-General's reasons for putting forward a matter as being one of urgent necessity. In his remarks so far he has said nothing which would suggest that there is any urgency in this matter, other than perhaps a certain political urgency on the part of the Attorney-General to cover his tracks. I take that point of order. I ask you to direct the Attorney-General to address himself to the terms of the standing order. The PRESIDENT —I take note of what the Leader of the Opposition has said. I do believe, though, that the Attorney-General is leading up to his reasons for the giving of urgency. I draw the attention not only of the Attorney-General but also all honourable senators to standing order 448 which says: In cases of urgent necessity, any Standing or Sessional Order or Orders of the Senate may be suspended on Motion . . . without notice: Provided that such Motion is carried by an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators. The reasons for urgent necessity should be the subject matter of the debate. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I am indebted to you for your ruling. I note again the sensitivity of the Opposition and its leader to this matter and note again their desire to postpone the inevitable when it comes to dealing with this matter. The urgent necessity in this case is to defend the institution of the judiciary in this country as quickly as this institution of parliament can turn its mind to the task because of the magnitude, vehemence and the ill-foundedness of the attack made upon it by the right honourable member for New England. Extraordinary charges are made, charges which are detailed and listed in the motion which, to save time, I will not read now. But they are charges concerned with the ignoring of evidence because of predetermined conclusions. They are charges relating to the sacrifice of accuracy and the sacrifice of judgment. They are charges related to the abandonment of the application of the principles of natural justice. They are charges relating to the failure adequately to inquire into terms of reference. They are charges that the inquiry was run as a star chamber or as a kangaroo court. They are charges which are such that, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) said in the other place, if true the judge in question is no longer fit to hold judicial office. There are charges which, if not true, indicate that the maker of them is no longer fit to hold office as a member of this Parliament. There are three particular reasons why this motion ought to come on and come on immediately. Firstly, it ought to come because there is no credible basis for the attack which has been made. Secondly, it ought to come on-and that ought to be put to rights very quickly indeed; the public exposure of that state of affairs-and come on quickly and not be allowed to linger on the Notice Paper because what is involved is an attack in particular on the personal credibility, respect, status, competence and impartiality of a single judge of great reputation and distinction, Mr Justice Cross. Thirdly, it is a motion which ought to come on immediately because, as I say, it does involve a fundamental attack on the judiciary of a kind which has become regrettably all too common in this Parliament in recent times from this Opposition which finds itself unable to act with decorum, decency or common sense in these matters. I will briefly indicate the nature of the issues under those respective headings because all of them go directly to this question of urgency. What is involved, first of all, in establishing no credible basis for the attack made by Mr Sinclair is a recognition that Mr Sinclair's statement does not, on its very face, even begin to make out a case against the Cross findings; the Cross findings which were absolutely comprehensive in their demolition of the credibility of the person in question; findings which identified no less than five separate bare-faced and deliberate lies told by Mr Sinclair in his speech on 29 October 1983. I do not stop to address these matters in detail at this point. These are matters that are appropriate for discussion under the substantive motion. I simply mention that these are the matters that Mr Sinclair has failed to address in his statement, as he failed to address them in evidence before the Cross Commission. I refer firstly to his statement that these two men , referring to Mr Waterhouse and Mr Coombs, claimed to speak for the police. Mr Justice Cross found that they did not and Mr Sinclair has not undermined that finding in anything he has said. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. It appears to me that the Attorney- General is now canvassing the substance of the matters he would wish to put on the substantive motion. He indicated that. He is now trying to suspend Standing Orders to move the motion. I ask you, Mr President, to cause him to desist from that course and to direct himself to the matter of urgency. The PRESIDENT —I think the Attorney-General is relating his remarks to the reason for urgent necessity for the suspension of Standing Orders. Again, I would ask the Attorney-General to restrict his remarks to the statements of reason for the urgent suspension. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I am indebted again to you for your ruling. I say no more about that first aspect of the matter than that it is crucially and urgently important that this Parliament address itself to the five particular matters on which Mr Justice Cross found that Mr Sinclair had told deliberate and bare-faced lies and that this Parliament satisfy itself that there is no substance whatsoever in Mr Sinclair's suggestions that Mr Justice Cross had erred and erred fundamentally in reaching those conclusions. The second matter I said was of urgent necessity to re-establish was the reputation of Mr Justice Cross in the aftermath of the scurrilous, vitriolic and disgraceful attack upon him. It has to be appreciated in this respect that we are not talking about some fresh-faced ingenue as a judge, we are talking about someone who is one of the most experienced criminal lawyers, trial lawyers and trial judges in this country; someone who has been on the District Court bench for 21 years, from 1957 to 1978; someone who has been on the Supreme Court bench for six years, from 1978 to 1984; someone whose proud claim-I understand it is- is that during that entire time he has never been overturned by the Court of Appeal on any direction on a question of law or any determination on a question of law he has ever made. His capacity has never been questioned. His integrity has never been threatened. His experience in weighing and balancing the competing claims of witnesses of varying degrees of credibility has never been tested or challenged. Yet this is the man whom Mr Sinclair exposed again to such a disgraceful diatribe of unfettered vitriol in the House of Representatives yesterday. It is this man whose honour it is appropriate that this Parliament should immediately leap to defend without further lapse of time. The final point I make is that Mr Sinclair, in his remarks, was clearly quite deliberately putting at risk public confidence and trust in the independence, honesty, integrity, impartiality and the competence of the judiciary. That is something which cannot be allowed to wallow on the Notice Paper until such time as Senator Chaney deigns to allow the debate to proceed. The behaviour of Mr Sinclair in this respect is not the kind of behaviour that can or should be tolerated by any parliament. It is deserving of condemnation. At the very least the expression of regret that is contained in this motion ought to be carried. It ought to be condemnation which is expressed at the first available opportunity, without delay, without deferring it. I can understand why the Opposition does not want this motion to come on. I can understand why it does not want it to be put to the vote. I can understand why it should be very reluctant indeed for this matter to be dealt with forthwith. I can understand the embarrassment of a great many more honourable members and senators on that side of the chamber who are appalled, naturally, by the abominable behaviour that their party room colleague has now saddled them with. Let them wrestle with their consciences, let the matter be tested and, because of its urgency, let the matter be tested now. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.28) —Six months ago I would have been surprised at the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) lending himself to this sort of performance. I must say his behaviour over the last six months has led us all to believe that we can expect nothing but the most political approach to every issue which he takes on as Attorney-General. The Opposition opposes the suspension of Standing Orders. I wish to make out a case as to why we believe the terms of standing order 448 have not been met. We do not believe, notwithstanding the carry-on of the Attorney-General, that this is a case of urgent necessity. Indeed, the Attorney-General's own behaviour over recent months in the face of the most flagrant abuses of parliamentary privilege by Senator Primmer is a simple demonstration of his inconsistency of principle. Today he produced a statement more than two months after the event as a defence of that long-serving public servant. Today for some extraordinary reason Senator Evans has to bring on this matter which must be dealt with as a matter of urgent necessity. Let me explain why we think the Attorney-General believes that this is a matter of urgent necessity, and let me explain why the Opposition does not believe that this matter is a matter of urgent necessity. I believe that the attempt by the Attorney-General to bring into this chamber as a matter of urgency a debate on comments made in the other place is a clear demonstration of the Attorney- General's lack of confidence in his ability to handle the debate which was supposed to take place in this chamber today. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President, I take a point of order. Might I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is addressing himself to why the matter ought not be debated at all in this place, rather than to the question of its not being debated as a matter of urgent necessity, and that you should drag him back to the point. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator CHANEY —I do not mind at all. That enables me to clear up another of the Attorney-General's rather wild statements, because he suggested that in some way I could prevent the Government bringing on this matter for debate. In fact, once the Attorney-General gave notice of motion, under the Standing Orders, from tomorrow it would be a matter of Government Business and could be brought on for debate at any time that the Government chose. It is a quite ridiculous allegation on the part of Senator Evans. To return to my point, what is quite clear is that the Attorney-General and, indeed, perhaps the Government, was anxious to avoid the actual item of business which the Government had indicated would be dealt with today; that is, the debate on the tapes. The debate was started yesterday by the Attorney-General putting down a quite inadequate statement which has been the subject of criticism in the matter of public importance today. The fact of the matter is that if we look at the way that the Government approached this matter, it is quite clear that it was desperately trying to avoid that debate. Look at the way it failed to mention the possibility of this debate being brought on, when the usual business meeting was held this morning. Honourable senators should look at the secrecy that surrounded its giving of the notice and look at the fact that the Attorney did not tell us that the notice was to be given or that there would be an attempt to debate this matter today until after he had put down that notice. Why was it that this matter was not mentioned this morning? Why was it that the program was arranged for us to discuss the tapes? Why was it that this ambush was prepared by the Attorney-General to divert us from that task? Mr President, this is not a motion of censure. It is a motion which simply passes an opinion on parliamentary privilege with which we would all agree, and an opinion on certain comments that were made in the other place with which many of us would not agree. It is common for a motion of censure to be brought on without notice because of its importance. But there is no precedent for a motion of this sort being brought on as a matter of urgency by the suspension of Standing Orders, except in the normal political hurly-burly of this place. Why is it that the Attorney-General says there is such a hurry to consider this matter? I invite the Senate to consider the quite contrary behaviour of the Government with respect to the very serious abuses of parliamentary privilege which have taken place over and over again in this chamber and which have been corrected by governments of a Liberal-National Party persuasion and governments of the present persuasion, namely Australian Labor Party governments. I refer to the frequent attacks which have been made on the employees of the Commonwealth, and on public servants, by Senator Primmer. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President, I take a point of order. I think on any view of the matter Senator Chaney is straying from the point at issue, not least when one contemplates that he is referring to a statement put down by the Government today in answer to allegations made by Senator Primmer during the last week of the previous session. Senator CHANEY —Speaking to the point of order, Mr President, when I started to speak I indicated to you that I can show that this is not truly a matter of urgency by contrasting the way in which the Government has behaved over admitted breaches or abuses of parliamentary privilege in this place and the way it is proposing to behave today. The fact of the matter is that the Government has put down a statement today, three months after the event, at last clearing Mr Ryan of the allegations which have been made against him. Yet for some peculiar reason it suggests that this matter must be dealt with immediately. I suggest that in drawing that parallel, I am properly indicating why the Opposition does not believe that this is a matter of urgency, but a matter of politics. The PRESIDENT —Again, I do not uphold the point of order, but I ask Senator Chaney, in making his comparison, to restrict his remarks in his case to reasons for non-urgency so far as suspension of Standing Orders is concerned. Senator CHANEY —Thank you, Mr President. I will certainly do that. If we look at the motion which Senator Evans is seeking to have us debate, we find that he has very carefully listed all of the words of the Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Sinclair, which he wishes to criticise and complain about. I, like Senator Evans, will not repeat those words because they are contained in the motion which has been circulated to all of us. But let me remind honourable senators of the sorts of allegations which were made in the Senate as long ago as 6 December, with respect to a senior employee of the Commonwealth Government. The allegations did not concern a State judge, for whom we have no responsibility, nor something which was said in the House of Representatives, for which we have no responsibility, but something which was said in the Senate. A Labor senator talked about the existence of a phantom employee on the payroll of an Australian High Commission. He talked about financial irregularities, collusion, and crude and abrasive treatment of subordinates. He talked about many things which any reference to the statement which was incorporated in Hansard today by Senator Evans will show were extremely defamatory and highly offensive to a loyal, hardworking, long serving member of the Federal bureaucracy. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has in words which I have already quoted to the Senate and will not, therefore, repeat, made it clear that those allegations were totally without substance. The point that I wish to make to the Senate is that the Government and, in particular, Senator Evans tolerated allegations of a most serious kind being made in this chamber by one of its senators about a public servant for whom we are responsible. Three months later, the public clearance which Mr Ryan has so earnestly and publicly sought has been given. But the Attorney-General today, in his desperate attempt to steer the debate away from issues which he knows are damaging, is saying that on this occasion comments, which he does not like, which were made not in this chamber but in the House of Representatives, not about a Commonwealth employee but about a judge appointed by another jurisdiction for whom we are not responsible, must be dealt with immediately. I simply present that contrast to the Senate because I believe it goes to any judgment as to the sincerity of purpose with which the Attorney-General has brought forward this matter. I believe there is no sincerity of purpose. This is an attempt to create a smokescreen, an attempt to divert attention from the matters which are within the responsibility of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General might have had the wit to argue that the judicary is a special case. Perhaps that is what he meant when he told us that it was so important that we should leap in and look after the reputation of the judicary. That should be done today, not tomorrow. The Government controls Government Business, so the matter can be brought on tomorrow. But it is so important that the Government wants the matter dealt with today, not tomorrow. Is it a fact that members of the judicary are such fragile flowers that they should not be criticised at all, that there should be an immediate attack on anyone who dares to criticise a judge? I suggest to you, Mr President, that reference to fairly recent history, statements made by members of the Labor Party about judges and reference to authority suggest that there is no room for the Attorney-General to argue that in some way the judiciary is a special case which demands urgent attention if not today then yesterday. There are no shortages of precedents for rather violent words being used about judges. I will quote some of the words which have been used. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President, I take a point of order. I suggest that once again the honourable senator is trying your patience and that of this chamber. The PRESIDENT —I think the Leader of the Opposition is starting to stray. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I would like to make quite clear why I am addressing these matters. I am seeking to find the reasons why, within the terms of standing order 448, it can be said that this is a matter of urgent necessity which should be dealt with today rather than tomorrow, in the normal course of the Standing Orders. The Government, of course, has total control of Government Business and may bring on the matter at 10 a.m. tomorrow, if that is its wish. Senator Gareth Evans —That is a slight on the Democrats. Senator CHANEY —The Government has total control of the business of the Senate. If the Attorney-General does not understand that, it is because he has taken no interest. But let me show the Senate that there are plenty of examples of hard words being said about judges. I will then quote a judge on the view which should be adopted about public criticism of the findings of judges. The present Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, was reported in December 1979 to have made the following statement: If ever people have to face their maker and justify their existence, certain occupants of the High Court will have a particularly messy time. That was because, in Mr Hawke's view, and in his words, certain tax provisions had been given a 'totally perverted interpretation by the High Court'. The High Court is a small bench. The decisions of the High Court are pretty well known. Clearly-- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that you be sufficiently merciful to Senator Chaney to allow him something to say in his main substantive speech and not allow him to proceed with these particular matters which simply do not bear upon the matter in issue which is the urgent necessity to deal with some scurrilous and impossible to tolerate attacks upon the judiciary, matters upon which this Parliament must immediately respond. The PRESIDENT —I am listening to the Leader of the Opposition carefully. I urge him to relate his remarks to the case of urgent necessity which I assume he is in the course of doing. There is a tendency for him to be getting a little wide of the mark but I assume he is relating his remarks to the reason for the urgent necessity to defend the institution of the judiciary. In that respect I will allow the Leader of the Opposition to proceed. Senator CHANEY —I thank you, Mr President. I will recall the sequence of my argument. The first point which I made was in relation to other matters which were admitted by the Government to represent the most serious abuse of privileges of this place. There has been a very slow reaction and indeed no attempt either to give notice of motion or to suspend Standing Orders to deal with it. That was my first point. My second point was that perhaps it could be argued that public servants may be dealt with slowly but that judges are a special case. I simply wanted to indicate by using no more than three quotations that in fact plenty of hard words have been said about courts. I will again quote Mr Hawke who reportedly said of the High Court in 1979 that it was: . . . 'anachronistic', 'absurd' and 'out of line with economic and social realities'. Again in the same year he was reported as saying: In this day and age I can't think of a greater obscenity than the decision of the High Court in respect of the Curran case. It defies all logic and commonsense. In other words in 1979 it was said that something was obscene and that it defied all logic and commonsense. My simple point is that those words are as harsh as the words which are part of the motion. My next point is to say I believe there is no legal reason for treating judges any differently from the way the Government has treated public servants or others whom they believe have been traduced in this place. Mr President, I have no wish to try your patience but I will quote, if I may, some lines from Lord Atkin. I think his words, which can be used to argue both ways to some extent, are helpful to the Senate in deciding whether some negative comment on judges is a matter of such urgency as to require immediate action by the Senate. In 1936 Lord Atkin said: . . . Whether the authority and position of an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong-headed are permitted to err therein; provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken , comments of ordinary men. The conclusion at that point simply is that there is nothing in the way this Parliament has behaved in the past to suggest that in some peculiar way any criticism of judicial decisions or of the decision of a judge, particularly when he is acting not judicially but in an administrative sense to some form of inquiry, is any precedent for suggesting that that is a matter which has to be dealt with with particular urgency. What I say is that the particular urgency that exists in this case is to allow Senator Evans to avoid dealing with the matters that are clearly within his own responsibility. Senator Gareth Evans —We have been dealing with them for the past two hours. Senator CHANEY —The only reason we got to deal with them over that period was because we gave notice of a matter of public importance specifically to ensure that that sort of thing could not occur. The only reason we stopped moving a suspension of Standing Orders before the debate came on was that, Mr President, I indicated we would not give leave for the tabling of the Australian Security Intelligence Service statement if the Government persisted with its attempts to stop the debate. That is the truth of the matter. The fact is that there is an attempt, through the use of this urgency motion, to get the Government off the hook. Quite clearly it is an embarrassment to the Attorney-General to have continuing debate on the matters for which he is responsible. He is vulnerable on two counts. He is vulnerable on his lack and the Government's lack of enthusiasm for tackling organised crime and he is vulnerable on his mishandling of the tapes affair. There is plenty of evidence of both those matters in the public record by spokesman other than- The PRESIDENT —Order! I think the Leader of the Opposition is now beginning to debate the subject matter of the suspension. I urge him to come back to the immediate urgency of the matter. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, the case which I put on behalf of the Opposition is that we have ample examples in this chamber of honourable senators using privilege in a way which in the judgement of some of us is objectionable. That is not a peculiar thing. It is a matter which has been the subject of some debate in this place. Senator Jessop brought forward suggestions as to how we might deal with it. As recently as December there was debate about the abuse of the privileges of Parliament. It is without precedent for this Government and for this Attorney-General to give notice of any sort of motion to deal with this sort of matter. Therefore, of course, it is without precedent for him to try to get the matter dealt with as a matter of urgency on the day on which the matter is brought into the Parliament. This is a specious application on behalf of the Attorney-General. It is an application which he brings to cover his own political discomfort. I believe it is unworthy of a man who carries the office of Attorney-General. I believe we should not permit him to take the business of the Senate out of its normal order but rather we should proceed to the business that was on the Notice Paper. This was the discussion of the tapes which is a matter within his responsibility and a matter on which he is clearly bungling. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.47) —I rise to oppose the urgency proposal. Yesterday Mr Sinclair made a statement in another place concerning the Cross Special Commission of Inquiry. A debate ensued. All that was said through the night was known to the Government. This morning Government members prepared what it regarded as the priorities for the day. I make the point that they prepared the business in the full knowledge of what went on last night. Nothing has changed since. The Government drew up a business paper which was published and proceeded with. At 10.15 this morning the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) gave notice of a motion which he now attempts to bring on urgently. He gave notice in the ordinary form which would bring the matter on tomorrow, not today. When he gave notice there was no suggestion of urgency at all. If the matter is urgent now why was it not urgent then? On the contrary, he led the Senate and the people of Australia to believe that the debate on this motion would take place tomorrow, as is the case for other notices of motion. Indeed, Mr President, at the placing of business when you asked whether there was any rearrangement of business no such indication was given at all. Today the Government said its priorities were as set out on the business sheet. The Government gave as its main priorities the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill 1983 on which there has been debate and, as the subject of its main debate today, the tape recordings of telephone conversations, that was the basis of the resumption of debate on the ministerial statement. If there were to be in the public mind any suggestion of priorities in terms of seriousness of matters, in terms indeed of allegation against judges , would one look further than to the subject matter of the tapes? By whatever test, whether the urgency of the matter or the fact that it might concern a member of the judiciary, the tapes debate was listed for today. Throughout the day the Senate and the public were led to believe there was no urgency at all. Suddenly urgency developed. Why was this so? The people of Australia are entitled to know. There is an attempt to stop the debate on the tapes tonight, when it will be broadcast to the people of Australia, and to substitute another matter. That is the simple explanation. It is another example of the extremely bad judgment, the top of the head judgments, for which this Attorney is now notorious. Throughout the afternoon we saw his reluctance to face up to his job as the chief law officer in this country. He displayed great reluctance to face up to what was a matter of supreme importance. I direct my comments entirely to the subject of importance. I repeat what the Government said to the Senate and the people of Australia: 'We regard as a matter of priority for today, discussion in the Senate of the statement brought down yesterday by the Attorney-General on the tapes.' What has changed that? Has the Attorney said: 'We believe that the notice of motion that we have given on the Cross Commission is more urgent, more important and more fundamental to the people of Australia than the wide allegations that have been made of crime and corruption throughout Australia, of influence of politicians, of influence of judges-in fact, of bribery and corruption running through the whole of Australia '? Is it being said by the Attorney that he and his Government regard criticism of a judge who was sitting in an administrative matter-not in a criminal matter- as more urgent than the whole of that gamut? I repeat, on the one hand we have the tapes which open up all the subject matter of the six royal commissions, the whole gamut of drugs, prostitution, illicit gambling, bribery of officials, alleged bribery of public servants, alleged influence by prominent people to get denigration of character. Apparently it is not wrong for someone to put forward a suggestion that the way to get something to happen is to denigrate the character of an alderman by saying that he inhabited gay bars and was a homosexual. Why is such an alderman a lesser being than a State judge or any other judge? Where is the urgency of that matter? The priorities of the Attorney-General are clear for all to see. Since he took office he has been defensive on the whole question of crime. He has been defensive of a crimes commission. He brought forward, as his indication of a matter of urgency, such an emasculated piece of legislation to set up a crimes commission, that a crimes commission could never have happened. If one State had said 'No we cannot do it' it could not have been set up. That demonstrates his approach to the urgency of this matter. I plead with the Senate to face the facts. Quite clearly this Government did not believe until now that there was any urgency to debate the Sinclair statement. How could it? If the Attorney were genuine about the matter, when he spoke this morning he would have adopted the normal procedure of moving a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable immediate debate on the matter. In the normal practice of this place-quite apart from the fact that he had the numbers-he could have had that debate. Why did he not do that? It is because it suits him tactically to try to do this now, to try to drive from the broadcast of events of the Senate a debate on crime and corruption, and to intrude his own tactical desires. That is the simple situation. Clearly if we are addressing standing order 448 and if there is to be proof of urgency one must ask: What happened between 10 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. that changed the urgency of the matter? Were any further allegations made against the judge? The answer is: Not at all. The notice of motion is quite specific. It deals with statements which were made last night. It does not deal with anything that happened in the journey of today. What the Government had in mind last night and when it prepared its order of business today has not changed. The only thing that has changed is the mean-minded thought: If we can get this motion carried now by numbers we will take the debate on the tapes, the important crime and corruption debate, off the air and we will list it for a day when the public cannot hear it. That is the situation. It is not a question of urgency at all; it is a question of tactics. I commend to honourable senators that we get on with the business of the day. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.56) —As much as I agree that we should get on with the business of debating this matter properly, I feel that I must speak in view of the extraordinary speech just made by Senator Sir John Carrick. The Government believes that this is a matter of urgency; it believed that this morning and we told the Opposition that this morning. However , we believe it is a matter of urgency because a serious attack has been made on the methods and character of a distinguished judge in this country and we believe that that is something which should be corrected by this House as well as by the other House. Senator Sir John Carrick gave an extraordinary account of what was supposed to have happend here today. In fact he gave an extraordinary account of what used to happen in this place. He stood up and waved around the Notice Paper-that sacred document which he says the Government puts out each morning knowing its mind, and that that is what it should stick to. I was manager of Opposition business in this place from 1980 and Senator Sir John Carrick was the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Manager of Government Business. The Notice Paper used to come out at 10 a.m., it would be changed at 11 a.m. and again at noon. We never knew what was going on. No one on either side of the chamber had a clue about what was going on with that document because Senator Sir John Carrick was always running into the Whip's office and changing it-that sacred document. He used to drive everyone up the wall. He now says: 'Governments have traditionally done that'. Senator Walters —You will have to do better than that. Senator GRIMES —Let me tell Senator Walters the facts, because Senator Sir John Carrick obviously does not know them. Certainly there was a debate yesterday in the House of Representatives and it went through the night. Certainly during that time a considerable number of things were said about Mr Justice Cross and about Mr Sinclair's attack on Mr Justice Cross. Certainly after we came in this morning and looked at what had happened we talked between 9 o'clock and 10 o' clock about what we should do. We decided the best approach would be for the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, to give notice of his motion and to prepare to speak to that notice of motion. We informed the Opposition that we intended to move the suspension of Standing Orders at the first opportunity, which we hoped would be-as Senator Sir John Carrick knows, one can only move it when there is not a question before the Chair-after the discussion this morning on the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Change) Validation Bill, which we did not expect to go on for as long as it did. At that stage the Opposition knew that the Government would attempt to suspend Standing Orders. Senator Chaney and his friends knew that and it is no good their denying it. We had also looked at the program and equally realised that it would be desirable and sensible during the day to start the debate on the tapes, as Senator Sir John Carrick has said and to introduce the statement on the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. It was the Opposition which submitted a matter of public importance concerning the tapes. That was done before we had decided on an exact timetable. In doing that the Government had provided two hours to discuss the tapes issue. It is quite false and quite wrong for Senator Chaney or any honourable senator on the other side of the chamber to suggest that at any stage we wanted to pre-empt debate on the matter of public importance. We did not do so. We did not intend to do so. We certainly do not wish to restrict any debate on that-- Senator Durack —You found you were against the Standing Orders. Senator GRIMES —When there is nothing before the Chair, one can actually move the suspension of Standing Orders. Even in those circumstances we had no intention of doing so, nor did we have any intention of not having some debate on the tapes issue today. Those are the facts. That is what is happening. We brought up this matter, quite reasonably I believe, as soon as we could because we believe that it is important. To compare it with what happened in the unfortunate case of Mr Ryan is nonsense. When those allegations were made on 6 December and 8 December, Senator Evans and Mr Hayden reprimanded Senator Primmer for what happened. They then immediately instigated investigations into the serious allegations about Mr Ryan which involved his service in overseas posts. When the Parliament resumed, at the first opportunity Mr Hayden and Senator Evans-we received the statement, I believe, only at lunch time-put down a statement, as they should have done. Senator Chaney —Why didn't you put down a notice of motion about it? Senator GRIMES —We put the document down immediately it came into this place. It was handed to me, I handed it to Senator Evans and down it went. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) sought leave to take note of the paper. We gave him leave and we would have allowed him to speak for much longer than he did. There was no problem with that at all. Senator Chaney could have moved a motion of condemnation, but he did not do so. So let us not argue about the two cases. I believe that in both cases the Government has acted properly and will continue to act properly. I believe that we can, of course, as we have done in the past, debate the suspension of Standing Orders for a long time. But let us not fool around with it; let us get on with the proper debate which concerns the maltreatment by a senior member of the Opposition in the other place of a senior and respected member of the judiciary in this country. I believe that everyone will be satisfied in those circumstances that justice has been done. Senator WITHERS(Western Australia)(6.03) —Normally, those who wish to have urgency debates under standing order 448 ought to prove urgency. I have yet to hear what is the urgency of this motion. Is it because Mr Justice Cross has asked that he be vindicated? Is it because Mr Justice Cross is upset? From my cursory reading of the newspapers I rather felt that Mr Cross ignored the sort of shabby exercise which occurred in the House of Representatives yesterday evening. Or is it, in fact, just urgent so that we in this place, led by the Government, can go to the muck heap and throw muck at the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair)? Is that the urgency? If the Government thought that the urgency of the matter was to clear the name of Mr Justice Cross, one could well understand the Government's moving only part (2) of the motion of which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) gave notice. That would have been what the indigant outrage was supposed to be about, and the Senate would pass judgment maybe in recording its full confidence in the integrity, impartiality and competence of Mr Justice Cross. But that is just thrown in as a sort of give away, because the whole intent of the motion and the urgency of it is to throw muck at the Right Hon. Ian Sinclair. Having listened to the debate last night and again today, I ask! Why should we imitate our colleagues in the other place and spend our time hurling the same sort of muck from side to side that members of the other place hurled? If people wonder occasionally why politicians and the parliament are held in contempt, the sort of thing that the Government is indulging in this afternoon only reinforces their view. The Government comes into this chamber with this santimonious nonsense of urgently wanting to protect the integrity of Mr Justice Cross, when it is nothing but a subterfuge to abuse a member of another place. I do not mind the Government's colleagues in another place abusing him because they were abusing him to his face and he could answer back. But to say that it is urgent that we honourable senators abuse a man in another place when he cannot stand in this place and answer back, but must answer back through us, I think is cowardice, to say the least. It does nothing for consensus in this country. It does nothing to bring Australia together to abuse a man in another House who does not have the right of reply. I would have thought that one of the things that has brought the Parliament into contempt over recent years has been the abuse of parliamentary privilege by many members of the present Government while in opposition and by some of us while in government, abuse of innocent people outside who have no right of reply . In my book it is denigratory of parliamentary practice to abuse a person in another parliament or in another House when he has no right of reply in the place where the abuse takes place. The sole urgency of this motion is to attack Ian Sinclair. It has nothing to do with defending Mr Justice Cross. He can look after himself. I imagine that like most judges he ignores what happens in parliament. He does not want to get involved in the crazy sort of debate we have been having over this issue. Why should he? Why should he demean himself by worrying about what people think of him? He is in his position until he is 70 years of age unless he is hoisted for some reason-- Senator Button —Just like you. Senator WITHERS —Yes, but if I were properly hoisted for impropriety, Mr Temby, and the fancy new Solicitor-General ought to seek the advice of McGregor and a senior Federal judge would be hoisted. If I should have been hoisted by a distinguished member of the Federal Court on his definition of impropriety, I am quite certain that he would apply those same standards to the tapes of that senior Federal judge. I wonder whether honourable senators would accept his recommendation that that senior judge, like me, should be hoisted. Senator Gareth Evans —But you exercised fine self-restraint when you were hoisted by McGregor. Senator WITHERS —No, I was hoisted. I did not resign. Maybe this other senior judge will have to be hoisted because he will not resign, either. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to relate his remarks to the debate. Senator WITHERS —I apologise, Mr President. I should not respond to interjections. Put quite simply, this debate is nothing but a miserable political exercise. It is not urgent to protect the integrity of Mr Justice Cross. It is nothing but a piece of politics. God knows, I do not walk away from playing politics, but at least I admit it. Why does the Government not get up and say: 'We are playing politics. We do not like the right honourable member for New England. We wish to destroy him as fast as we can. This is a piece of nonsense dressed up as a piece of urgency to protect the integrity of a judge, but really the whole debate will be about paragraph (1) of the motion. How can we denigrate, throw muck at, and destroy the right honourable Ian Sinclair? For those reasons, the Senate ought to reject the alleged urgency of this matter. There is no urgency. It is nothing but a piece of Attorney-General's tendentious humbug. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.09) —I also oppose the motion because there is no urgency and no sincerity in the proposal which the Government is putting forward . Perhaps the only thing said by the Opposition side with which I disagree so far is the over-generous remarks of Senator Sir John Carrick on the subject when he, I think, put down the failure today of the Government to proceed early in regard to this matter as being due to slow thinking, that is, that the Government drew the conclusion that this matter was urgent only as the day went on. I think that Senator Sir John Carrick is being too generous altogether. Maybe the Government did not have the numbers at some time today to proceed with this matter and would have proceeded with it whether or not, for example, we were aware of the facts or even aware of what happened in the other House yesterday. The fact that the proceedings are on air today is a very good reason for the spurious claim of urgency. It was thought that it would be undesirable to have the debate that was proposed for today, the substantial debate on the tapes, the Attorney-General's statement and the handling of that matter, and instead to break that up and try to make some political capital on another subject. Because we are on air and the public must suffer, the Government thought it worth while to bring on this spurious motion. As the urgency of this matter is being urged on us by the Attorney-General, let us look at the beginning of the motion which says: While totally upholding the privileges of individual Members of Parliament-- We regret this and that. It goes into a long catalogue of remarks made in another chamber. Of course, it does not in any way uphold the privilege of individuals. In fact it is an attempt to repeat attacks, and probably find new ones, against a member of the other House. It is worth reminding honourable senators that we have in this chamber a standing order which I think is unique to this chamber, although I may be corrected if I am wrong. It is standing order 418 which says: No Senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member of such House, or of any House of a State Parliament, or against any Statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. Perhaps it is the Government's desire to do that within the terms of a motion and to launch an attack upon a member of the other chamber. I suggest that certainly the proposition and the attempt to push it forward are contrary at least to the spirit of our Standing Orders. Obviously it is intended to use them to do that very thing. There are other reasons why there is nothing urgent about this matter. I suggest that in this chamber it is desirable that notice be given of matters to be moved. Plenty of matters on the Notice Paper require attention. Of course, what is lacking in this Parliament this week is legislation. The Government has come here quite unprepared even to fill out the week. Last night the Senate rose early because the Government had not prepared a legislative program sufficient to cover the day. The Government thought: 'How can we, on a day we are on the air, bring on a subject on which we might make some political capital since we have no legislation?' The people of Australia will recognise the inadequacies of this Government because it cannot find things for the Parliament to do after two months away from the place. There is one matter that could have been dealt with, that is, the tapes and the Attorney-General's statement on them. That has hardly been advanced so far in debate. The Attorney-General has put down his long statement. Many of us want to challenge it in many ways. To ensure that we are not shut out entirely from this matter today we had to propose a matter of public importance for debate. Of course, it was confined to the Attorney-General's action. We could not go into detail and the debate was not of a length to enable us to go into detail about what was wrong with the Attorney-General's statement and the opinions that accompanied it. I suppose that the Attorney-General hopes to put some time between his statement and the replies to it so that we will not be recognised as refuting the things he has said. I point out another factor which makes it so ridiculous to expect us to debate the matter now. Yesterday there was a very long debate in the House of Representatives on the subject. Were members of this chamber to go into such debate, we would not have the opportunity to study the debate that went on in that chamber. I did not have the time last night to listen to the proceedings in that chamber. Senator Chaney —They have debated the same thing again today. Senator MISSEN —Yes. If you are on a good thing, stick to it. That is the sort of policy of this Government now, and it keeps repeating it in hope that the people might think it is true. The fact is that the House of Representatives Hansard was not available until after 4 p.m. today. I have been trying all day to get it. I want to read the debate that took place in the House of Representatives to see what Mr Sinclair and others said on the subject, not because of the debate here but because I think it is important for us to know. But we could not do that. I have not had the time. I was devoting my attention to speeches in this chamber yesterday. Of course, had the Government had the opportunity to bring on this matter earlier this day and, I have no doubt, had it had the numbers, it would have closed off the other debate during the morning and tried to bring this debate on when no senators would have had a copy of the Hansard setting out what was said in the other chamber. There is no urgency whatsoever in this matter. It really has no function in this chamber because it is an attempt to attack a member who is entitled in the other chamber, of which he is a member, to exercise his privilege and explain his position. The opportunity is there for honourable senators opposite to insult and to abuse a member of another chamber. They may be pulled up by the Chair. It may come within the terms of the motion. To bring on this debate today would only derogate from the standing of this Parliament and of this chamber in particular. It is clear that this is purely an attempt by the Government, lacking in sincerity and in business, to interfere with the privileges of a member of another chamber and merely to repeat a debate which has occurred elsewhere. This matter has no great reference at all to the integrity of a judge-a judge of New South Wales, not a judge who has any responsibilities to this Parliament or on whom we would be expected to pass judgment. Right at the end of the motion there is a reference to the Senate recording its full confidence in the integrity, impartiality and competence of Mr Justice Cross. It is clear that that judge is being used by members of the Government here for political purposes. This is a completely invalid and insincere attempt by the Government to bring this matter on and to avoid a continuance of the debate on the tapes and the Attorney-General's actions which should be the matter debated and which the public of Australia are entitled to hear. I hope that we will not suspend Standing Orders to enable this charade to go on. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(6.18) —I support the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in his attempt to bring this business on. We are witnessing at the moment an attempt by the Opposition to talk out time until 7 o'clock so that this matter will not be debated at all. Senator Walters —You don't even believe in freedom of speech. Senator SIBRAA —There we have the usual interjection. We found last session and we are again finding that if every senator in the Opposition interjected as many times as Senator Walters does, this Senate would not work at all. I was hoping that she was not going to involve herself this session in the sorts of tactics she involved herself in towards the end of last session, but it is obvious, even on the second day of sitting, that she is engaging in them. This is an urgent matter because Mr Sinclair is the Leader of the National Party which is represented in this Senate. The National Party is not represented just in the House of Representatives; it is also represented in the Senate. Therefore, his comments tarnish not only members of the National Party in the Senate but also members of the Liberal Party. Senator Withers —You mean the member for New England. Senator SIBRAA —That is why Senator Withers should be supporting the urgency of this matter. Why does the Opposition not want this matter discussed today? Why does it want to discuss the tapes instead of Mr Sinclair? It is the plan of an Opposition which is completely bankrupt. It is part of its campaign in New South Wales which we are now seeing in Canberra. It thinks that if it engages in this campaign it will win the next election in New South Wales. The Liberal and National parties are in opposition in Sydney and in Canberra. They have no policies and no plans for the future. They intend just to smear and muck-rake. We know why they hate the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. It is because just after Fraser won the Federal election in 1975 Wran was able to win in New South Wales in 1976. It was the first crack in the Liberal and National parties right around Australia. Of course they hate Wran, because he destroyed the National Party and the Liberal Party in New South Wales and began Fraser's slide out of office federally. We must all ask ourselves what the public think about the sorts of tactics in which the Liberal Party has been engaged, particularly in New South Wales, day after day on every day that the Parliament sits, and which have now started in Canberra. I think that we must look at the public opinion polls. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest to the honourable senator that he is debating the subject matter of the motion. He should relate his remarks to the question of urgency. Senator SIBRAA —I take notice of what you have said, Mr President. I think that some of the Opposition speakers have ranged fairly widely, and I was making a very brief point as to why they are trying to defeat the urgency motion moved by Senator Evans today. It is because of their standing in the gallup polls in New South Wales and nationally. Senator Walters —What about Tasmania? Senator SIBRAA —Will we have to put up with Senator Walters continuously? Returning to the notice of motion that has been given, it says: That the Senate . . . regrets the attacks made yesterday upon the integrity, impartiality and competence of Mr Justice Cross by the Member for New England under the privileges of Parliament . . . The party of which the member for New England, Mr Sinclair, is the leader is represented in this Senate. There should not be one person in the Senate who does not agree with the sentiments expressed in that notice of motion, and we should debate it as soon as possible. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.22) -I rise to oppose the urgency motion relating to the suspension of Standing Orders. I do so for a number of reasons. I am convinced that in the first place the whole exercise is directed to avoiding a debate on the tapes which started yesterday as a result of the statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). The whole exercise is directed to avoiding that circumstance being brought forward today, as one would have normally expected it to be. I think that the Government is overestimating the public value of this sort of discussion. It has been before the House of Representatives yesterday and again today. It has been debated there, very significantly, in a mud-slinging manner, and it has attracted very little interest around Australia, very little interest even in my home State of New South Wales. It is quite ridiculous, therefore, to assume that there is an element of urgency in discussing the matter of suspension and bringing forward the Government's debate this evening. Rather interestingly, I could find only two references to this matter in Press editorial comment this morning, which does not indicate that the matter was of enormous nationwide concern. Significantly enough, and importantly, I think, the references that I found in the form of editorial comment were references really resolving themselves into a discussion of the matter of parliamentary privilege and just how important that was and how far it should go. I believe that there is a general considered opinion that there has to be a real measure of responsible parliamentary privilege; there has to be an opportunity to alert the community to circumstances to which they ought to be addressing themselves and about which they ought to be thinking. It seemed to me that the Press was concerned that that should be the position, that parliamentary privilege should not be abused, but that indeed it had an important part to play in a land of free speech, in a democracy such as ours. I reiterate those two points in particular: The Press itself was not terribly interested in the happenings of the Parliament yesterday, and that editorial comment was concerned directly only on two occasions, in two newpapers, and that in that comment the remarks were confined chiefly to the matter of privilege and a discussion as to the matter in which that privilege should be observed, what its values were, and at what stage one could reasonably be saying that it is a privilege that is being abused. Consequently, I come to Senator Sibraa's reference to what the public think. I believe that the public may well be forming an opinion which is closer to a backfire, from the point of view of the Government's attitude, than one may imagine. I think that the public are thoroughly tired of this persecution of an individual. It is quite clear to me why Mr Sinclair, for many years now, and certainly since the Whitlam days, has been the object of attack by the Australian Labor Party, by all socialists around this country, and particularly in his own State of New South Wales. He has been the victim of attack because he is one of the most distinguished and capable adversaries that the socialists have in the parliaments of this country, and consequently it is in the interests of the socialists everywhere to seek to destroy Mr Sinclair. Their constant attempts to do this could be significantly backfiring. It is a matter which honourable senators might well consider, because when under attack on many occasions, he has displayed a measure of capacity and of skill and dignity which in the longer term will probably react unfavourably against his adversaries, against the people who seek consistently, in my State of New South Wales and elsewhere, to decry his performances and his behaviour as a prominent parliamentarian for many years. The PRESIDENT —I suggest, Senator Scott, that you are straying from the matter of the suspension of Standing Orders and that you should relate your remarks to the urgent necessity for the debate. Senator SCOTT —Yes, Mr President. I confine my remarks to just a few final observations. They relate to the quite definite belief that the element of urgency in suspending Standing Orders is certainly not relevant to the circumstances today, basically because the arguments that have been going on in the other place and here and in the Press are not arguments that are taking the Australian public by storm at all. They are arguments that have no indication of the measure of urgency and of concern that the Government seeks to display on this occasion. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(6.28) —On this motion of urgency there is an extreme case of urgency. In his report, Mr Justice Cross made one of the most damning judgments on an Australian politician that has ever been made. We also have a situation in which in the Parliament yesterday, under the protection of privilege, Mr Sinclair, the Leader of the National Party of Australia, acted in a most disgraceful way in his criticism of Mr Justice Cross. In this instance, we also have the Opposition in the Senate endeavouring to run away from this debate and from a situation which is of extreme importance not only to national affairs at the Canberra level but also to the country as a whole. The Opposition knows that the Government attempted to have this debate called on this morning as soon as it was possible. It knows that the debate was deferred because of other business. To argue otherwise is a complete deceit. As I have said, it is quite obvious why members of the Opposition want to run away from the matter. They are prepared to abuse the processes of this place, to indulge in parliamentary guerrilla tactics and have us sit till 7 o'clock to debate this urgency motion so that the actual substance of the motion does not come up for debate. I believe that the public of Australia needs to know what is urgent to be debated in this chamber and what the Opposition is desperately trying to run away from. The urgency is about a set of statements made by the Leader of the National Party, Mr Sinclair, in the National Party's Federal conference in 1983 and the consequent judgment on those statements by Mr Justice Cross. As I said earlier, the Cross report is one of the most damning reports ever issued about a Federal politician. It indicts Mr Sinclair. Even to the extent of who organised the lunch that was a focal point of the allegations, Mr Cross found that Mr Sinclair was not telling the truth. These are the sorts of facts on which the National Party in this Parliament is dragging the Liberal Party with it to fight . As I have said, the only matter of agreement between Mr Sinclair and the findings of the Commission was that there was in fact a lunch. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the honourable senator bring his remarks back to the question of urgency under standing order 448. Senator Archer —He is filibustering! Senator BOLKUS —On every other point Mr Justice Cross made damning reports about Mr Sinclair. It is quite apparent why the National Party in this place does not want the public of Australia to know about them. Mr Justice Cross went through Mr Sinclair's statements and dissected them. Senator Lewis —I raise a point of order, Mr President. With due respect, not only is the speaker not speaking to the subject matter but also he has just totally ignored your request to him to bring his remarks back to the subject. He ignored you to the extent that he went on in the middle of a sentence. The Hansard record will show that he continued on with the sentence. An honourable senator suggests that he is reading it. He may be acting contrary to the standing order which is relevant to that matter. Mr President, I ask you to bring the honourable senator to order so that we can get on with the debate. The PRESIDENT —Order! I remind Senator Bolkus that we are debating a motion under standing order 448 to suspend the Standing Orders to allow a debate to take place on a notice of motion. The remarks should be related to the question of urgency. Senator BOLKUS —The point I was making was that a number of specific allegations were made by Mr Sinclair. The Opposition in this place will endeavour to conceal these allegations from the Australian public as much as it can this afternoon. Guerrilla tactics have been indulged in deliberately for the purpose of concealment. Honourable senators opposite are trying to cover up as far as possible the indictment of Mr Sinclair by Mr Justice Cross. They have accused me of filibustering. The filibuster is coming from their side of the Parliament. Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I am trying to hear Senator Bolkus on the question of urgency. Senator BOLKUS —I am trying to indicate to the Australian public what is urgent and needs to be debated today and I am also trying to indicate why the Opposition is behaving as it is. Allegations were made about corruption in New South Wales, police involvement and Labor figures' involvement. On all those points Mr Justice Cross did not make his own judgments; he referred to the evidence of Sinclair and found that Sinclair had undermined his own position. These are the sorts of matters that are urgent to be discussed. These are the sorts of matters that are important to the Australian public. Mr President, when does the integrity of a national leader in this country become a non-urgent matter for the Australian public? It suits the Opposition, when it is in opposition, to so declare, but I think it is the responsibility of honourable senators to canvass the issues extremely widely. It has been put to us that this is not the first opportunity that we have had to discuss this matter, that we could have discussed it at an earlier stage. No one was prepared to debate the matter here late last night, no one was prepared to do so earlier this morning. We all know that important legislation was before the Senate this morning and we all know that the debate on legislation this morning went on for longer than expected. This is in fact the first opportunity that we have had to discuss this extremely important matter. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Bolkus, I ask you particularly to direct your remarks to the motion before the Chair, which is a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders under standing order 448. Senator BOLKUS —As I have said, Mr President, it is quite apparent from the action opposite that Opposition senators are not prepared to allow a full canvassing of this issue in this Parliament. They are prepared to run and, as I have said, the National Party is dragging the Liberal Party behind it. In closing, I submit to the people of Australia that Mr Sinclair has had his comments assessed by an independent Federal judge. The assessment made by that judge- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is quite clear that these final comments go to the substance of the motion. They have nothing to do with the question of urgency. I submit that the honourable senator is flouting your ruling. He is simply trying to abuse Mr Sinclair and the National Party and is using this debate as a vehicle. I ask you to bring him to order and to ask him to address himself to the question of urgency. Senator Bolkus —On the point of order, Mr President, had Senator Chaney allowed me to speak without interruption I would probably have completed my speech by now. The point I was making related to the urgency of the matter dealt with in the Cross report and the discussion thereafter. I submit, Mr President, that I should be allowed to continue my comments in that respect. The PRESIDENT —The honourable senator should restrict his remarks to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Unless he can do that I will ask him to resume his seat. Senator BOLKUS —The final point I make-I maintain that it is not germane to the thrust of the motion-is that it is quite apparent tonight that we are indulging once again in a waste of time by the Opposition in trying to frustrate a proper airing of the Sinclair matter. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.37) —We really have experienced a wonderful debate by the Government. Four Government senators-Senator Gareth Evans, Senator Grimes , Senator Sibraa and Senator Bolkus-have spoken to the urgency motion. Senator Sibraa accused the Opposition of filibustering, but Senator Bolkus took more time than any member of the Opposition. He spoke for just on 10 minutes. It seems to me that the debate has, despite your earnest decision, Mr President, varied over a considerable number of matters. Senator Sibraa told us about the New South Wales polls. He did not mention the Tasmanian popularity poll in which Premier Gray received 64 per cent of the vote- The PRESIDENT —I hope you will not do that either, Senator. Senator WALTERS —Or Queensland's popularity poll. In deference to you, Mr President, I will not go on. Still, Queensland's Premier received 59 per cent of the poll. Senator Grimes and Senator Evans decided that they would tell us why this matter was urgent. Thank heavens Senator Evans is not in private practice. He would not get anywhere at all. He did not convince anyone. Those people outside who are listening will never take him up in private practice when he leaves this place. There is no way that he would ever get a case. It is very obvious that Senator Grimes was never a lawyer. He took up medicine and then gave that away because even that was a bit too hard. Certainly, none of the Government speakers convinced us that anything was urgent about the motion proposed by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). We have 20 minutes remaining in which to debate this motion. I ask the Government to tell us whether Australia will collapse if we do not debate it today. What will happen if we do not go on debating this motion that Senator Evans has said is so urgent ? It is 6.40 p.m. and still he says that the whole matter is urgent. As Senator Sir John Carrick has said, it was not quite that urgent at 10 o'clock this morning. Senator Evans has merely said that he thinks the matter is urgent. All honourable senators in this chamber know Senator Evans very well; some of us better than others. We know that he is not very tolerant of those who disagree with him. His Government colleagues also know him well enough to say that he is not very tolerant of those who do not agree with his way of thinking. We do not think this matter is urgent. It really does not matter what Senator Evans thinks ; we are debating this matter in the Senate. Mr President, I often sit back and wonder what Senator Evans thinks of himself. The PRESIDENT —We will not wonder about that, Senator. We will deal with the matter before us. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, you have upset my whole speech. I wanted to tell you what I believe Senator Evans thinks of himself. The PRESIDENT —Will you tell me privately? Just relate your remarks to standing order 448. Senator WALTERS —Then I will have to deal with that at another time, Mr President, because I think the people of Australia would like to hear what I believe Senator Evans thinks of himself. Before he became a member of parliament he was a greater believer in freedom; he was a great civil libertarian. He believed- Senator Coleman —Mr President, I take a point of order. I understood that we were debating the suspension of Standing Orders. We have listened to Senator Walters giving a critique on those members of the Government who have spoken in support of the suspension of Standing Orders. We are now being sidetracked once again. Would you at least draw her attention to Standing Orders and suggest that she directs her remarks to them? Otherwise I will have equal time with her. The PRESIDENT —I uphold the point of order. I ask Senator Walters to restrict her remarks to the question of urgency. Senator WALTERS —Very well, Mr President. I was about to say why I believed Senator Evans is so sure of himself. If you do not think his history before he came to this Parliament has anything to do with this question of urgency I am very disappointed. All honourable senators know about Senator Evans when he was in opposition. I hope honourable senators will bear with me because this has a great deal to do with why he believes this matter is urgent and why I believe it is not. Senator Evans came into this place with the reputation that he believed in freedom of information and in upholding civil liberties. He had that reputation when he was in opposition. But the first thing he did was to- Senator Coleman —Mr President, I take a point of order. We are not debating the character of the Attorney-General prior to his coming into the Parliament; we are debating the suspension of Standing Orders. I ask you to draw Senator Walter 's attention to that fact or I will get up on points of order every time she moves away from the subject. The PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, as I have pleaded with other honourable senators who have spoken before you, I ask you to restrict your remarks to standing order 448, the question of urgency for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I was doing just that. Such urgency was never apparent when Senator Evans, in opposition, abused a previous judge, Sir Garfield Barwick. There was no urgency on that occasion. Senator Bolkus —Mr President, I take a point of order. I put it to you that Senator Walters's straying to discuss Sir Garfield Barwick has absolutely nothing to do with the urgency of this matter. The PRESIDENT —I uphold the point of order. I plead with Senator Walters to restrict her remarks to urgency, otherwise I will have to ask her to resume her seat. Senator WALTERS —Yes, Mr President. I understand that the Government has approached the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, as the Government wishes to introduce some legislation. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.47) —by leave-I move: That General Business, orders of the day, as set out in the list circulated to honourable senators in the chamber, be discharged from the Notice Paper. The purpose of this motion is to facilitate the consideration of Government papers tomorrow. I understand that the items for discharge have been arrived at after full discussions between the Whips and Senator Harradine. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans Affairs) —by leave-I present a report on a pilot study into the feasibility of an epidemiological investigation of morbidity in Vietnam veterans. The pilot study was undertaken by the Australian veterans health studies team within the Commonwealth Institute of Health. Analysis of the pilot study was completed in 1982 and these detailed reports were prepared. The pilot study results were used in preparing a schedule of future work for the Australian veterans health studies. The pilot study reports are of scientific interest. They provide information about survey design and response which will be of interest to scientists devising methodologies for these types of studies. The reports do not, however, indicate the prevalence or incidence of particular conditions among Vietnam veterans. The release of the pilot study reports is consistent with the Government's intention to make available to the public as much as possible of the work of the Commonwealth Institute of Health study team and to allow the work of the team to be assessed in the scientific community. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —(6.49) -by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has just presented the report of the pilot study into the feasibility of an epidemiological investigation of morbidity in Vietnam veterans. It is not a totally definitive report, nor could it be. It is the result of investigations set in train by Senator Messner when he was Minister for Veterans Affairs. Senator Messner extended the guidelines of this inquiry in November 1981. It may be worth recalling that the chief objectives of this investigation were to evaluate several data collection survey strategies in terms of response rates, quality of response, reliability and validity of response, as well as to determine time and cost differences. The investigation was also to highlight the unforeseen problems with questionnaire design and interview techniques. In other words, it sought a whole range of information and, more specifically, the method of obtaining it in a very difficult and diverse area to test the administrative and data processing systems and to highlight unforeseen problems in these areas. This pilot study was restricted, for all sorts of good reasons, to only some 600 personnel-300 Vietnam veterans and 300 members of the Army. It was a very restricted sample, but even from that investigation it has become abundantly clear that a great variety of circumstances were revealed in the recollection of events. This is one of the things that makes a further intensive inquiry so difficult. It was seldom that one could get a consistent result on questions such as the frequency of spraying. Indeed, there was very little consistency in the answers to questions that related to the nature of chemicals, whether they were heavy chemicals or light chemicals. I suppose all these matters have highlighted what this particular study set out to do. I believe it set out to establish the feasibility of such an inquiry and to try to determine the methods by which such an inquiry should be continued. I presume the most reliable methods will ultimately result from inquiries such as this pilot study. But clearly, the result of this study has been to identify some course of action but , more clearly, to identify the enormous difficulty in establishing a consistent and reliable response to the problems that we seek to solve. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.53) —This morning I wished to ask a question relating to the Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory. However, I was unable to ask that question. I would like to take the opportunity now of addressing the question to Senator Gietzelt who is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I would like to comment on the question briefly afterwards. I wished to preface the question by saying: Despite assurances being given that time would be put aside to consult with those persons or organisations such as the Northern Territory Government who forwarded submissions, particularly in regard to the proposed new rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin, this was not done. I wished to ask: Why were those promises not fulfilled? When will the Government indicate its attitude to the defence aspect of the rail project which was excluded from the inquiry? The report suggests that the upgrading of the Stuart Highway in the Northern Territory does not require accelerated funding to bring it to national highway standards by 1987. Does the Government agree with this? If the Minister does not have this information at hand, will he expedite the answers for the Senate? When one takes into consideration the number of submissions that were put to the Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory I am very concerned that despite the rather full submissions of the Northern Territory Government with all its expertise at hand-if I remember rightly the report covered something like three bound volumes-and despite promises being made the Hill inquiry did not carry out any consultation whatsoever on this matter. To handle the inquiry in a cursory fashion seems to me to be extremely wrong, particularly when one sees the recommendations of the inquiry. This matter has to be taken much further. It is not my intention to take up the time of the Senate any longer this evening. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport to answer these questions because very many people are interested in why the inquiry was not carried to its proper fulfilment. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.55) —I am sorry, I did not hear the first couple of minutes of Senator Kilgariff's speech because the adjournment debate came on somewhat earlier than had been anticipated. However, I did hear the end. The simple answer to his question is that the Northern Territory Government approved of both the terms of reference of the inquiry and of Mr David Hill to be the inquirer. The complaint is that the result of the rigorous analysis which Mr Hill has done on this matter and the conclusions which he has reached as a result of having conducted that rigorous analysis is not the result the Northern Territory Government wanted. That is the basis for the Northern Territory Government's complaint. Having approved of an inquirer and the terms of reference of an inquiry the Northern Territory Government then decided to reject the inquiry when it did not produce the result it wanted. I suppose it is an attitude that has become very common in the National Party which is a cousin, stepbrother or something of that nature of the Government of the Northern Territory. It is an attitude displayed by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) who does not approve of inquiries either unless they produce the result that he wants. The Hill inquiry showed, even on an optimistic assessment of the likely revenues and traffic that will be carried by the proposed railway, that by the end of the century an accumulated deficit of around $1 billion would be hung around the neck of whatever government accepted the financial responsibility. Prior to the appointment of the Hill inquiry the Northern Territory Government had already displayed that it did not have any confidence in the project and that it was not willing to put its money where its mouth was because it rejected out of hand the earlier offer made by the Commonwealth to provide 60 per cent of the capital and the territorial government would provide 40 per cent. In other words, the Northern Territory Government thinks it can get some political mileage out of this and it is therefore attempting to do so. There is no justification either in economics or in equity for the claims it is making. Question resolved in the negative. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill to amend the income tax law covers a range of subjects. Amongst other things it will, so far as income tax is concerned, complete the implementation of unfinished proposals of the former government which this government decided to adopt. The measures being finalised include the denial of relevant income tax deductions in respect of property that is the subject of certain leveraged leasing and similar arrangements, and the extension of special income tax concessions to Australian trading ships. In the same category is the removal, in respect of short-term life insurance policies, of the advantage in the present law under which bonuses and other amounts are received by policyholders free of income tax. The already announced measures covering payments made within 4 years of taking out such policies will apply in respect of life insurance policies secured between the date of the former government's announcement and 7 December 1983. Policies taken out after 7 December 1983 will be subject to tougher measures that I will describe later. The Bill will also give effect to the Government's decision, announced on 27 April 1983, to exempt from tax the first 2 weeks of social security special benefits paid on or after 17 February 1983 to victims of major disasters. Amendments foreshadowed on 14 November 1983 to counter tax avoidance practices involving employee superannuation funds are included in the Bill. Other provisions of the Bill will make certain modifications to the Australian Film Incentives Scheme. Finally, the Bill also provides for extension of the present exemption from interest withholding tax for interest paid on public or widely-spread overseas issues of bearer debentures. I turn now to details of these various measures. Leveraged Leasing and Similar Arrangements The Bill will give effect to 2 measures announced by the previous Government to deny tax deductions that would otherwise be allowable to an owner of property that is the subject of certain leveraged finance arrangements. Under the first measure, deductions-for example depreciation, repairs, interest and expenses of borrowing-will not be allowable where the property has been leased to a non-resident and is used overseas, is leased to a tax-exempt organisation, or is leased back to a person who was the previous owner and user. Similarly, deductions will not be allowable where the property, although not leased, is used in providing goods or services and the person having effective control of the property in providing those goods or services is a non-resident, a tax-exempt organisation or the previous owner and user. However, a taxpayer whose property is being used by a lessee or end-user partly in tax-exempt activities and partly to produce assessable income will be entitled to obtain deductions on a basis that is consistent with the extent to which the end-use of the property is for taxable purposes. That would occur, for example, if the property was the subject of a leveraged lease to a life insurance company that used it partly in connection with its tax -exempt superannuation business and partly in connection with its taxable business. The particular arrangements that will attract the application of the provisions are those under which the predominant part of the purchase or construction cost of a taxpayer's property is financed by a non-recourse debt. Broadly, a non-recourse debt is one where the lender's rights against the taxpayer in the case of default in repayment are effectively limited to rights against the property, or against income generated or goods produced by the property. A debt is also regarded as being effectively non-recourse if, in the ordinary course of events, the lender would not have access to the general assets of the taxpayer in an action for recovery. To prevent a taxpayer being denied deductions in circumstances where the property has been financed under arrangements which might technically be described as non-recourse but where there is no real restriction of the lender's rights against the taxpayer, the Commissioner of Taxation will be authorised not to treat a particular debt as a non-recourse debt if the circumstances so warrant. As announced, this measure will apply to property that a taxpayer purchases under a contract entered into after 1 p.m. on 24 June 1982 or that a taxpayer commenced to construct after that time. The second of these related measures had been announced first, on 18 December 1981. It is designed to preserve the policy underlying the investment allowance that it should apply only to eligible plant that is used by the owner or lessee exclusively for the purposes of producing assessable income. That policy has been circumvented by arrangements under which plant legally owned by a taxable entity is used to produce goods or services for a tax-exempt organisation in circumstances where that organisation has effective control of the use of the plant. An example of the kind of arrangement that has been devised is one where an exempt organisation retains the effective use, but not the formal ownership, of plant that it would ordinarily own and use itself in providing goods or services to its customers. Such ownership may be acquired by a partnership which appoints the tax-exempt organisation as its management agent in the provision of the goods or services per medium of the subject plant. Under the Agreement between the partners and the organisation, the organisation buys all of the goods or services so provided before in turn re-selling them. The real effect, of course, is that the plant is being used by the organisation in providing goods or services to its customers in the ordinary course of business, as though it were the owner or lessee of the plant. If the exempt organisation were the legal owner or lessee, no investment allowance would be available in respect of the plant. The measures contained in the Bill will deny the investment allowance, in the circumstances I have outlined, where the plant is acquired by a taxpayer under a contract entered into after 18 December 1981 or, if constructed by the taxpayer, where construction commenced after that date. Special Concessions for Australian Trading Ships The Bill will authorise special taxation concessions for eligible Australian trading ships. The measures were first announced by the previous government on 29 July 1982 and will give effect to recommendations in the Crawford Report on the Revitalisation of Australian Shipping. The new rules will apply to an eligible Australian trading ship which is acquired new or constructed by a taxpayer, and is or was first commissioned on or after 29 July 1977. Broadly, a ship will be eligible for the special allowances if it is registered in Australia, is engaged exclusively in the coastal or overseas carriage of passengers or cargo, is wholly owned, used and manned by Australian residents and is used exclusively to produce income assessable in Australia. In addition, the level at which the ship is manned must not exceed the level determined for that ship by the Secretary to the Department of Transport. Eligible ships will qualify for depreciation in equal instalments over 5 years beginning, generally, in the year in which the eligibility criteria are satisfied. If the criteria are satisfied in a year later than the commissioning year, depreciation will be based on the depreciated value of the ship at the beginning of that later year. Ships which satisfy the eligibility criteria within 90 days of commissioning will qualify for the new rate of depreciation in the commissioning year, or the 1982-83 income year, whichever is later. In certain circumstances, depreciation at the new rate in respect of a ship commissioned after 30 June 1983 may be allowable in the year preceeding the year in which the ship is commissioned. Eligible ships will also be excluded from the legislative requirement that, to qualify for investment allowance purposes, the property concerned must be used only in Australia. The exclusion will extend to eligible ships in respect of which the investment allowance has previously been denied for this reason. The investment allowance for eligible ships used outside Australia will be available in the same year of income as the new rate of depreciation commences to apply to the ship after it is commissioned. The amount of the allowance will be 18% of the depreciated value of the ship in that year. The revenue cost of these special concessions for eligible Australian ships is estimated to be $8 million for the 1983-84 and 1984-85 income years, $25 million for 1985-86 and $19 million for 1986-87. Short-Term Life Assurance Policies On 30 March 1983, soon after we came to office, my colleague, the Minister for Finance announced that the Government, would introduce legislation to give effect to the measures proposed by the former government to remove the tax advantage available in respect of short-term life assurance policies issued after 27 August 1982. The present Bill fulfils that commitment but the Government believes that the previously announced measures are quite inadequate to stamp out this form of tax avoidance. The weakness of those measures is that they not only failed to counter avoidance through short-term life assurance policies, but gave a degree of legitimacy to policies with at least a duration of 4 years and 1 day. Advertisements have appeared exploiting this very aspect of the announced measures and claiming that tax freedom is assured provided a policy is allowed to run for more than 4 years. This Government is not in the business of facilitating tax avoidance. Policies of life assurance taken out after 7 December 1983 will, with specified exceptions, need to be held for at least a period of 10 years before bonuses and similar proceeds received under those policies will be completely free of income tax. This Bill will make subject to tax bonuses of life assurance policies and other amounts in the nature of bonuses that are received within 4 years of commencement of a policy taken out after 27 August 1982 and on or before 7 December 1983. In these cases the amount received in the first two years of a policy will be fully assessable while amounts received in the third and fourth year after commencement will be taxable as to two-third and one-third respectively. For policies taken out after 7 December 1983 bonuses, and other amounts representing bonuses, will be subject to tax in full if received within eight years of the commencement of the policy. Two-thirds of such amounts received in the ninth and one-third of such amounts received in the tenth year of the policy will also be subject to tax. The Bill will not tax amounts paid as a result of death, accident or disability or or forfeiture or surrender of a policy in circumstances arising out of serious financial difficulties or amounts received in respect of superannuation policies. The Bill also contains a range of safeguards to prevent the use of devices, such as low or no interest loans or policies with nominal premiums in earlier years and substantial increases in later years, to avoid the operation of the new arrangements. I emphasise that measures contained in the Bill, including the extension to 10 years of the taxable period, will not affect the use of life assurance as a means of providing adequate death cover for taxpayers and their families or for the long-term provision of future needs through regular and sustained savings. At this stage I foreshadow that the Government will in the committee stage in this chamber, be moving three amendments, all of a minor nature, in relation to the short term insurance provisions of the Bill. Special Benefits for Disaster Victims After the disastrous bushfires and floods early in 1983 the Prime Minister announced that the income tax law would be amended to exempt from tax the first 2 week's payments or social security special benefit to the victims of those and any similar future disasters. This measure, which the Bill gives effect to, will give these payments the same tax-free status that applies generally to relief payments provided for disasters victims from public appeal funds. At present all special benefit payments are assessable income. This Bill will ensure that payments of special benefit for the first 2 weeks of eligibility will not be subject to tax if they are made in relation to a disaster that the Director-General of Social Security considers to be a major disaster affecting a substantial number of people. In other circumstances special benefits will remain subject to tax to the extent that a beneficiary's annual taxable income exceeds the tax threshold. The amendments will apply to payments made on or after 17 February 1983. Tax Avoidance Practices in Relation to Employee Superannuation Funds Another provision in the Bill will change the income tax law as it relates to the taxation of payments from employer-sponsored employee superannuation funds- commonly called 'section 23F funds'. It extends to these funds provisions enacted in 1980 in relation to funds for the self-employed. This amendment is directed against a particularly distasteful tax avoidance practice containing clear elements of fraud against both the revenue and unsuspecting employees. It will, in accordance with the Government's announced policy in relation to blatant tax avoidance practices, apply with retrospective effect from 1 July 1977. The income tax law provides a number of significant taxation concessions for section 23F superannuation funds, on the condition that those funds are operated in accordance with guidelines set out in the law. The proprietors of some businesses, however, establish superannuation funds ostensibly for the purpose of providing superannuation benefits for their employees and, after taking advantage of the taxation concessions for contributions and the tax-free treatment of the funds, wind up the funds. This is done in circumstances where the accumulated assets of the funds are paid out, not to the employees, but to the proprietors of the business concerned . The procedure is possible because employees are either not informed of their rights under the superannuation scheme or have their employment terminated in circumstances where they become disentitled to benefits from the fund. Sometimes employment is terminated only a few days before the employee reaches normal retirement age and would have become entitled to substantial benefits from the fund. The amendments contained in the Bill are designed to neutralise taxation benefits received from the use of this device in the past and ensure that it will not be practiced in the future. It does this by providing that benefits received from a section 23F fund in breach of the rules of the fund or which are excessive in amount having regard to criteria specified in the existing law, are to be wholly subject to income tax in the hands of the recipient. Investment in Australian Films As announced in the Budget speech, the tax concessions for investment in the production of qualifying Australian films are being reduced as part of the restructuring of assistance to the film industry. For eligible expenditure contracted for after Budget night, 23 August 1983, the special income tax deduction will generally be 133 per cent of the investment, in lieu of 150 per cent. The associated exemption from income tax in respect of the net revenue from a film will be 33 per cent of the investment, rather than 50 per cent. The exception to that general position is where an eligible investor takes up an interest in a film in place of an underwriter who would have been entitled to the higher concessions under arrangements made on or before 23 August 1983. Such an investor will qualify for the concessions at pre-Budget levels. These measures are estimated to save revenue of $1 million for 1983-84 and $4 million in a full year but this is more than offset by additional direct government assistance to the film industry through the Australian Film Commission. The Bill will also give effect to the Government's decision, announced on 21 June 1983, to facilitate the use of certain underwriting arrangements in the funding of film production budgets. A technical amendment to the present scheme of film investment tax incentives will recognise arrangements entered into by a producer with an underwriter so as to fulfil the basic legislative requirement that a film's budget be fully secured by the end of the financial year in which amounts are first expended in, or contributed to, the production of a film. The amendment will enable an investor who takes the place of the underwriter to qualify for the tax concessions without having been a party to the contract securing the film's budget. A further minor change to the film incentive scheme is being given effect by this Bill. It will provide for isolated cases in which films that were in production before the 1982-83 year, and unfinished when the recently modified incentive scheme came into effect on 13 January 1983, cannot, for technical reasons, at present attract concessions under either the modified scheme or the earlier scheme. Eligible investors in such films will be entitled to tax concessions on the basis of the earlier scheme. Interest Withholding Tax On 23 November 1983 the Treasurer announced the Government's decision to extend the present exemption from interest withholding tax for interest paid on certain overseas issues of bearer debentures. Concern has been expressed in representations received by the Government over the difficulties of raising funds in certain overseas markets-most notably, the United States of America-through public or widely issued debentures which are in bearer form. To overcome these difficulties this Bill will extend the present exemption from interest withholding tax to cover interest on all overseas debenture issues, whether in bearer or registered form. This will eliminate any bias favouring public issues by way of bearer debentures over issues of registered debentures and will facilitate increased access by Australian companies to the financial markets of the United States of America. The extended exemption will apply in relation to interest paid on debentures issued after 23 November 1983. Where interest withholding tax becomes payable on interest on a post 23 November debenture issue paid before the date on which the amendment comes into operation, the tax will be refunded after that date. A technical explanation of the provisions of the Bill is contained in a memorandum that will be circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Scott) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senate adjourned at 6.59 p.m. The following papers were presented: Commonwealth Electoral Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 16. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 18. Excise Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 19. Student Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 17. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 564) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 1 December 1983: (1) Who are the staff employed by the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. (2) What is the particular office and function of each staff member. (3) What staff members have previously been employed in any of Australia's security organisations, including Office of National Assessments. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3): The staff of the Royal Commission into Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies consists of the following: the Secretary to the Commission (Mr B. Cox) five research officers two administrative officers one registry officer one clerical assistant one word processing supervisor two stenographers The names of staff, other than the Secretary, are not given for reasons of security and of the privacy of the individuals concerned. However, in response to the particular issues which arise from part (3) of the question, the following additional information is given: Two research officers were recruited from the Office of National Assessments. However, except for some overlap late in 1983 when the second ONA officer joined the Commission's staff while the first ONA officer was still completing his work , there has been only one ONA officer attached full time to the Commission. The officer who returned to ONA last year has, with the consent of ONA, continued to assist on a part-time basis with certain aspects of the Commission's work relevant to his earlier duties with the Commission; One of the research officers was employed by the Defence Signals Directorate from 1971 to 1973; Within the Royal Commission, duties are allocated to research staff in such a way as to ensure that conflict of interest situations do not arise. (Question No. 632) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Has the Chairman of the Australian National Line-ANL-given notice that ANL will be advising of the withdrawal of the services of the vessel Townsville Trader from Darwin by 21 January 1984 unless a subsidy is forthcoming. (2) Will the Government give consideration to making up the losses for a period so that arrangements can be made to procure a suitable vessel that would operate economically considering that the Townsville Trader could never be economically viable because it is the wrong vessel for the service. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The Townsville Trader has now been withdrawn from the Darwin-East Coast shipping service and is to be laid up in Melbourne. (2) The Northern Territory Government has had over three years in which to consider means by which it could ensure the continuation of this service. This year the Government increased the subsidy by a third to $2m to allow more time for the Northern Territory Government to develop proposals for alternatives. To date the Northern Territory Government has not come forward with any constructive proposals. Senator Gareth Evans —On 13 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3645), Senator Macklin asked me the following question without notice: Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to the situation surrounding the Jackson oil pipeline and in particular the situation with regard to Red Ru Pipeline Constructions Pty Ltd which started with 100 per cent equity and finished with none after the intervention of the Queensland Government? Has the Government given any consideration to investigating the commercial and political events that have taken place with regard to the exclusion of Red Ru to ascertain whether or not there have been any breaches of Federal law? Has the Government considered referring the whole affair to the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: This matter concerns the making of arrangements by the Queensland Government for the construction of the Jackson oil pipeline in Queensland. Those arrangements were the responsibility of the Queensland Government. No question of any breach of Commonwealth law or of any Commonwealth Government responsibility appears to be involved in relation to the exclusion of the Red Ru Pipeline Construction Company from this project. In the absence of any indication that Commonwealth laws or responsibility are involved, I do not propose to take any action in the matter. Senator Button —On 2 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3239), Senator Hearn asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Finance, the following question without notice: Is the Minister representing the Minister for Finance aware of continuing concern within the tyre industry about sales tax on retread tyres? Originally it was forecast that, for example, in the case of a retread steel radial tyre for a Ford Falcon, the typical net addition to the wholesale price of $25 would be about $3.60. Already representation has been made to me by employers, the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union of Australia and the Truck Owners and Operators Association. I understand that the Government has been monitoring the situation. I ask the Minister whether there is any evidence of loss of employment, excessive cost to the industry or threat to road safety? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government is aware of some continuing expression of concern within the tyre industry about sales tax on retread tyres. In keeping with its undertaking to do so, the Government has been monitoring the effect of the introduction of sales tax on retreaded tyres. Enquiries by the Commissioner of Taxation have revealed that at the moment there is a general slump in both new and retreaded tyre sales apparently associated with the slump in new and second-hand vehicle sales and the down turn in trucking freight. Further, the Commissioner's enquiries also revealed that, even before the decision regarding sales tax on retreaded tyres, there were probably too many firms in the industry and rationalisation was inevitable. There have been some closures of retreading plants and some small staff retrenchments in the industry since 1 June 1983 but this needs to be considered with caution in view of the general position in the tyre industry that existed before then. For example, the closure of one retreading plant was principally due to an industrial dispute and the sales tax question was at best only an incidental issue. In that particular case three employees were retrenched with the balance being transferred to another retreading plant owned by the same company. The Commissioner has advised that there is such severe discounting of both new and retreaded tyres that some retreaded tyre prices are lower now than they were before the decision to apply the tax. The Commissioner advised that there remains a significant price differential between comparable new and retreaded tyres. There is also no indication of any threat to road safety.