Monday, 5 March 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 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 an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 1,219 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 the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 12 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 that 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 blatently 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 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 625 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That every child in Australia is entitled to government financial support for their education whether they attend government schools or non-government schools . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision for the continuation of Federal Government per capita grants payable in respect of all children in non-government schools at a rate calculated as a percentage of government standard costs at a level not less that the prevailing in 1983. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 300 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 162 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the reduction in the subsidy to tertiary student residential colleges of twenty- five per cent announced in the Federal Budget will: 1. Increase the financial hardship already being experienced by Australian students. The cut in subsidies to colleges will undoubtedly increase fees for that accommodation in 1984. Many students will be forced out of tertiary education as they will not be able to meet these increased costs particularly as the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme only gained a maximum increase of $2.80 per week in the Federal Budget. 2. Decrease access to education for country students. Many country students live in college accommodation either to attend tertiary institutions in the metropolitan area or in regional centres. The cut in the subsidy to residential colleges will even further disadvantage this group of students who already have comparatively low participation rates in tertiary education. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Senate to ensure: 1. That the full subsidy to student college accommodation is immediately restored. 2. That the Federal Government assume financial responsibility for all student college accommodation to prevent the planned closures of colleges in Victoria. 3. That two student representatives are appointed to the committee of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission reviewing student housing. 4. That new forms of college accommodation are investigated which would be more appropriate to the needs of the current student population, i.e. accommodation appropriate for students with dependant children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever humbly pray. by Senator Macklin (from 34 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows- That, with the exception of the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Senator Martin (from 21 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 respectively 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 decision 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 recuirrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from 111 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Pariament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposal of Telecom Australia to close the Manual Assistance Centre at Parkes will severely disadvantage the Parkes community by:- 1. The loss of current enmployment and future employment opportunities and consequent loss of income to the district 2. The loss of a local 24 hour emergency service 3. The loss of local knowledge of telephonists being available to telephone users when traffic is routed to an exchange anywhere in the State 4. The loss of a local and personalized service provided especially to elderly and handicapped people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senate will call on the Government to halt the closure pending a full and open inquiry into the needs and desires of affected subscribers and the full economic and social effects of the closure on this district, rural telephone subscribers and Telecom Australia employees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sibraa (from 679 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Pariament assembled : The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia and Electors of Victoria respectfully showeth: That the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Victoria) calls upon the Commonwealth Government to take appropriate action to reduce and, ultimately, abolish and prohibit the export of live sheep from Australia and replace it with a carcass only trade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen (from 379 citizens). Petitions received. 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. Australian Egg Board-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 23 of the Egg Export Control Act 1947-Together with the text of a statement on the operation of the Egg Export Control Act 1947 by the Minister for Primary Industry. 2. Anglo-Australian Telescope Board-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 19 (2) of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970. 3. Australian Research Grants Scheme-Report on Grants approved for 1984. 4. Australian Film Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 44 of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975. 5. National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation Annual Report 1982-83. 6. Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 30 of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1973. 7. Australian Dried Fruits Corporation-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 36 (1) of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978. 8. Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers-Annual Report 1982-83. 9. Agents Board of the ACT-Annual Report 1982-83. 10. South Australian Local Government Grants Commission-Annual Report 1983- Pursuant to Section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. 11. Australian Heritage Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 43 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975-Together with a statement by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment outlining the reasons for the delay in tabling the report under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 12. Commissioner for Superannuation-Report-and the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust-Report-Statement by the Minister for Finance outlining the reasons for the delay in tabling the report under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 13. Australian Dairy Corporation-Annual Report 1982-83-Statement by the Minister for Primary Industry outlining the reasons for the delay in tabling the report under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 14. Australian Wool Corporation-Annual Report 1982-83-Statement by the Minister for Primary Industry outlining the reasons for the delay in tabling the report under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 15. Australian Honey Board-Annual Report 1982-83-Statement by the Minister for Primary Industry outlining the reasons for the delay in tabling the report under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 16. Wheat Research Act 1957-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 18 (1) of the Wheat Research Act 1957. 17. Barley Industry Research Council-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 35 (1) of the Barley Research Act 1980. 18. Inquiry into the Commonwealth Laboratories-Report-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Science and Technology relating to the Report. 19. Strategies to Help Overcome the Problems of Aboriginal Town Camps- Government response to the Report by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. 20. The Dried Vine Fruits Industry-Short Term Assistance During the 1984 Season -IAC Report. 21. Australian National University-Report 1982 Part 2-Pursuant to Section 33 (3 ) of the Australian National University Act 1946. 22. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1981-Direction under Section 42 to reduce amounts specified in schedules 1 & 8 Part I for 1983. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs or, alternatively, the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to the announced decision by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr West, to refuse visas for the visits to Australia of Mr Kent Durr, a National Party member of the South African Parliament, and Mr Mahmoud Rajab, a member of the President's Council. I remind the Minister that I have, for years, been an unqualified opponent of the vicious practice of apartheid and that, in 1982, I made two visits to South Africa, had extensive discussions with members of all political parties and all racial groups and reported extensively to the Australian Government following such discussions. I ask, firstly, does the Minister not agree that the South African Government should be encouraged and indeed urged to develop its dialogue and increase its economic relations with neighbouring states in South Africa instead of a policy of isolation and military incursions? Secondly, should not Australian politicians and citizens concerned with the human rights of the great majority of South Africans have every opportunity to express their views to persons in authority in that unfortunate country? Thirdly, would not the Australian Government be better advised to increase communication and press on with the implementation of a code of conduct for Australian business in South Africa, which I have urged past governments and the present Government to implement and which the present Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, undertook to facilitate in his public statement of 5 June 1983? The PRESIDENT —I suggest that the first part of the question be answered by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Senator GRIMES —Inasmuch as this question involves the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, I say that the decision to refuse entry to the two members of parliament from South Africa was based on the merits of their case. We had a situation in which applications for visas had been put forward on behalf of those two people. We had at the same time knowledge, via a letter which was distributed by the Ambassador for South Africa, Dr Dennis Worrall, and which was issued before any such decision had been made on the visas, that these two people, Mr Kent Durr and Mr Mahmoud Rajab, were coming to this country 'for a series of seminars of a confidential nature at which there would be no media coverage'. People were invited to attend and travel and accommodation expenses were offered to those people. It seemed quite clear to those who made this decision-and the decision was made on this individual case-that this was a propaganda exercise. Despite the claims of Mr Kent Durr that he would not be talking about apartheid, it is quite clear from the list of matters to be discussed at the seminar that that matter would be discussed. I remind honourable senators that the previous Government had a policy of opposing apartheid and opposing visits to this country by sportsmen, by representatives of sporting organisations and by those who wished to come here to propagandise in this regard. In future, as I think Senator Missen has implied, these matters will be looked at on a case by case basis. In the past people whose political views have not been the same as those of this Government have visited this country. But in this case, to permit the entry of two parliamentarians for them to advance arguments supporting the apartheid policies of the South African Government, we believe would not be in accordance with the policy of strong opposition to apartheid, a policy which, I add, was the policy of the previous Government. The matters raised by Senator Missen about the formation of a code of conduct for Australian businesses in South Africa and, for that matter, the development of a policy concerning future visits for people of this type are matters for the Minister for Foreign Affairs in conjunction with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I have no immediate details on those matters, but I am sure that Mr Hayden and Mr West will give details of them in another place. That is the extent to which I can answer the question. Senator MISSEN —I ask a supplementary question. Assuming that the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs will not, apparently, answer with regard to the codes of conduct, I will ask about the other part of my question which was not answered; that is, in regard to communication between, for example , politicians in this country and elsewhere. Is our democracy, in the Minister's view, so puny that it cannot resist or stand dialogue between us and politicians of South Africa? Surely that is how it will be looked at in the eyes of the world? Senator GRIMES —I suppose it is a matter of judgment as to what Senator Missen considers to be dialogue. We have two South Africans, one a member of the ruling party in South Africa and the other a member of the President's Council of the South African Parliament, coming to Australia for what in fact are secret seminars. I believe that was not made clear before the decision was announced to the general public. That is clear now. I know that there are some members of the Opposition parties who are in fact extremely tolerant, if not supporters, of the policy of apartheid. However, I remind honourable senators that the previous Government, and in particular the previous Prime Minister, took an attitude on this subject as firm as that of the present Government. I find it strange that some honourable senators apparently have changed their views in opposition. Senator COATES —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology to the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories tabled on Friday. This inquiry was initially appointed by the previous Government and arose out of a decision of the Review of Commonwealth Functions, the razor gang. I want to raise concern about the effect of Commonwealth employment in Tasmania if the report were to be implemented. The Armed Forces Food Science Establishment at Scottsdale and the Australian Government Analytical Laboratory and the Commonwealth Department of Health Pathology Laboratory at Hobart are said to be under threat with centralisation to the major cities the alternative. Will the Minister assure me that when the Government looks at the report full consideration will be given to the whole question of Commonwealth employment in the regions and the smaller States and that it is not necesarily the most efficient answer to centralise all Commonwealth activities in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne? Senator RYAN —I am advised by my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, that a Government response to the report has not yet been formulated. An inter-departmental committee composed of all relevant departments will be set up to consider the report. I would expect that in that time too particular matters of concern raised by Senator Coates in his question will be adequately considered. After these matters are given full consideration the Government response will be made. Senator DURACK —I refer to the Attorney-General the answer he gave Senator Chaney on Friday when Senator Chaney asked whether he had arranged for tabling of the Age tapes and tapes transcripts. The Attorney, inter alia, replied that Parliament's responsibility in relation to conduct of the judiciary begins and ends with the Parliament's role in relation to section 72 of the Constitution relating to misbehaviour and incapacity. Apparently the Attorney's view is that that is circumscribed in a very narrow way, as is the view of the Solicitor- General given in the opinion. Does the Attorney-General agree that a reading of the Constitutional Convention debates shows the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers of the Australian Constitution were of the view that Parliament and Parliament alone should have the final say on the question of judicial misbehaviour? In particular, I draw the Attorney's attention to a view of the then Mr Isaacs, the Attorney-General of Victoria, who said on 31 January 1898: You must not allow the solemn verdict of the two Houses of Parliament on this question to be challenged elsewhere-- There were numerous other opinions to that effect by those who took part in the debate. How can the Attorney-General, in the light of all this and the Solicitor -General's own reference to the Convention debates in his opinion-although he did not mention these-justify his refusal to provide the factual material contained in the Age tapes and transcripts on which Parliament can decide, as it alone has the responsibility, the question of judicial conduct? Senator GARETH EVANS —I readily agree that the determination of whether something is a matter of misbehaviour in relation to section 72 of the Constitution is something for Parliament and not the courts and that the Convention debates were very careful to draw this distinction and in particular to insist upon an approach to this question which is very different from that which applies in Britain, the mother of parliaments, where the ground rules that are capable of being applied by the Parliament are very much more wide-ranging so far as the judiciary is concerned than the ground rules that have been thought appropriate in the Federal, written constitutional system here in Australia. Certainly I have no quarrel with the references to the flavour of those parliamentary debates that Senator Durack has made. However, if he reads the debates exhaustively and appreciates the context in which the arguments were being put and, moreover, if he focuses on the particular language employed in 72 (ii) of the Constitution, which talks not of misbehaviour at large but of proved misbehaviour, he will, I think, appreciate the force of the option of the Solicitor-General, Dr Gavan Griffith, that Parliament is not at large, it is not at liberty, to apply any criterion that occurs to it as appropriate in order to determine what misbehaviour might mean. A lot of learning has gone into that conclusion. It is not simply a matter of some intuition by the Solicitor-General ; it is a very carefully argued out conclusion, which I suggest follows quite inexorably from the materials to which he refers and from the whole course of Australian jurisprudence on this matter. It is the case that Parliament is and should be circumscribed as to the matters that it can take into account. What Dr Griffith's opinion makes perfectly clear- this is consistent with what Mr Temby had said, rather more briskly, before him- is that there are only two sorts of circumstances in which it is appropriate for Parliament to pray for removal for misbehaviour. One is when there is some misbehaviour properly described as attaching to the performance of the judge in his judicial office. That is clearly not in issue in the circumstances of this case. The other criterion that is applicable is whether or not there is misbehaviour in the sense of criminal misconduct, some offence, not necessarily one that has been dealt with by the courts but one that might be dealt with by the courts, which is of such a character that it is obviously quite inappropriate for a judge to stay in office. They are the only two circumstances and situations to which it is proper for this Parliament to have regard. When those two situations have been quite explicitly ruled out in the way that has been the case with Mr Temby's opinion, looking both at the law and the facts , and the Solicitor-General's opinion, I simply do not regard it as appropriate to go down the exploratory route that the Opposition is inviting me to follow. To do so is simply to give aid and comfort to those who would reduce the standard and tone of political debate in this country, and it does no credit to those who are seeking to follow that course. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Attorney-General seen the announcement by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Neville Wran, of the proposed establishment of a Judicial Commissioner of Public Complaints, who will have power to refer complaints to the National Crimes Authority for investigation? Does the Attorney-General agree that this is a welcome development? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has noticed the announcement by Mr Wran yesterday of the establishment of a Judicial Commissioner of Public Complaints. The Commonwealth Government welcomes that announcement by Mr Wran. It further welcomes his statement yesterday that the New South Wales Government will support to the hilt the Federal Government's National Crime Authority. Senator Chipp —It is a toothless tiger; that is why he will support it. Senator GARETH EVANS —It further welcomes the announcement made yesterday that one of the roles of the Judicial Commissioner for Public Complaints will be to integrate the work of the Commissioner in New South Wales, so far as questions of official corruption are concerned, with the work of the National Crime Authority. Part of his function will be to make recommendations to the Government of the day which in turn will be translated through as references to the National Crime Authority. I suggest to someone such as Senator Chipp, who is minded to interject on the supposed weakness of this chain, that the point is obviously that when one has an independent judicial figure making a recommendation which is required to be formally tabled in the Parliament in the way that is the case here, it would take a very brave government indeed, and one much less sensitive than the Wran Government in these matters, to refuse to make the reference in question. The political weight would be entirely in that direction. Might I say that the Commonwealth Government particularly welcomes Mr Wran's announcement in this respect, coming as it does, after a very long series of other initiatives in the fight against organised crime and corruption in that State. I think it is appropriate on an occasion like this to put this initiative in its context, lest some sordid and cynical minds opposite be inclined to think that this is some Johnny-come-lately idea which is not, in fact, part of a long and carefully developed strategy, honestly-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. I really think that the Attorney-General should not put propositions to the Senate which he himself does not take seriously, and obviously he does not take this seriously. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —The proposal for the establishment of a Judicial Commissioner of Public Complaints is part of a long strategy, honestly and competently pursued by the Wran Government with fierce integrity over recent years. I refer the Senate to some passages in Mr Wran's speech yesterday which make perfectly clear for the record just what that record has been. Mr Wran said : For the truth is that no government in Australia's history- with the possible exception, of course, of this Government- Federal or State, has done more, or as much, to fight crime and corruption and to enhance the standards of integrity in public office. Look at the list: the declaration of pecuniary interests, the declaration of political donations, and the public funding of elections, the Police Board, the complaints against the police procedures, the Police Ombudsman, the strengthening of the police force, the closure of illegal casinos, the clamping down on S.P. bookmaking, new laws on prostitution, the Woodward Royal Commission , the Stewart Royal Commission, the Street Royal Commission and the Cross Special Commission. We established the Office of the Crown Advocate to provide an independent director of public prosecutions. We established an independent judicial tribunal to determine citizen complaints against the police. We enhanced the powers of the Ombudsman to scrutinise and investigate complaints against the police. He goes on to put the new initiative-the establishment of the special judicial commissioner of Public Complaints-squarely in the context of that record. It is in that context that the Commonwealth Government unashamedly and wholeheartedly expresses its support for this new initiative by the Wran Government. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy a question. In the light of the Prime Minister's embargo on uranium exports to France in force until October this year when a shipment of 250 tonnes of uranium is due to go to France, I ask: Is the Minister aware that the French nuclear power industry uses nuclear waste from so-called peaceful reactors for its nuclear bomb program? Is the Minister aware that France has not signed the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and transfers nuclear materials and technology needed for nuclear bombs to nations such as South Africa, Iraq-which this morning was accused of using chemical warfare-and South Korea? Is the Minister aware that the French Government has firmly restated its intention to continue nuclear testing in the South Pacific? Given that these acts considerably worsen nuclear proliferation and that the only acceptable solution is for France to end nuclear testing in the South Pacific, which it says it will not do, will the Minister take this opportunity to state unequivocally that unless France ceases nuclear testing in the South Pacific for good, Australia will permanently ban uranium exports to France? Senator WALSH —Senator Chipp listed about half a dozen items which I would regard as being anti-social or even irresponsible, and which he said were practices that the French were currently following. He asked me whether I could confirm this. I cannot confirm whether France follows all those practices. I cannot remember that off the top of my head but I can confirm a number of the points that Senator Chipp raised, the most important of which, I suppose, concerns nuclear testing in the South Pacific. France does follow those practices. For that reason, of course, and principally because of its testing in the South Pacific the Prime Minister and the Government decided last year that the shipment of uranium due to go to France in July 1983 would be postponed and that no shipments would be made, at least until October 1984. Since that date there has been a further Goverment decision to set up the Slatyer inquiry which is due to report at the end of May. Following receipt of that report, it is anticipated that the decisions will be made regarding the supply or non-supply of uranium to France in the period after October 1984. But until that report has been received and considered by the Government, I think it would be premature of me to make any commitments which seek to bind the Government because the Government has decided to defer those final decisions until the Slatyer report has been received. Senator ROBERT RAY —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: What steps has the Government taken to respond to a request from the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Mr Somare, for assistance in the event of a volcanic eruption in Rabaul? Senator GARETH EVANS —The latest briefing I have on this matter is dated 29 February so there may well have been some further developments, in which case I will report them to the Senate at an appropriate stage. The Australian Government is already responding, and responding vigorously, to the request that has been received from the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea for emergency assistance at Rabaul. The Government has been in touch with Papua New Guinea for some time and has arranged for a speedy and co-ordinated Australian response. The Prime Minister, Mr Somare, has been informed of our willingness to help. Australia will provide an emergency broadcasting system. The Government will help with temporary accommodation for those people not already provided for under the local evacuation plan. We are providing the services of two Australian experts in this respect. The former head of plans and operations of the Australian Natural Disasters Organisation, who is currently advising the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, is in Papua New Guinea to advise on the operations to date and on requirements. A Bureau of Mineral Resources officer has also arrived there to help establish a vulcanological information service. I have been informed that Papua New Guinea is accelerating work to upgrade a further airfield, and we shall be kept informed of progress in that respect. Detailed requirements for water supply construction are being worked out. The Government is monitoring the situation closely to ensure that we are ready and equipped to respond to any further requests from Papua New Guinea as the situation evolves. Senator PETER RAE —Has the Attorney-General prepared his own written option as distinct from those of Mr Temby and the Solicitor-General as to whether the judge referred to in the Age tapes is guilty of misbehaviour? If so, when will the Senate be given the benefit of his reasoning? If not, why did he, the Commonwealth's first law officer, decide that it was not necessary to formulate his own opinion? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am a little puzzled by Senator Rae's question. It is not normal to prepare one's own opinion for the sheer hell of it if one is wholly in agreement with the opinion prepared for one by one's senior law officers, in particular the second law officer of the nation, the Solicitor-General. I am fully satisfied that the opinion received from him, supported as it is by detailed reasoning, which was not the case on paper anyway so far as Mr Temby's early opinion is concerned, accurately reflects the law and, to the extent that it is appropriate, practice in this respect. I have indicated my support for both the reasoning and the conclusions of that opinion. I guess I will have another opportunity to do so in winding up the further debate on the tapes which will occur later today. I will have the benefit then, of course, of having heard Senator Missen's discourse on the relevant and applicable law, and it may be that I will be moved from my present position of so far quite unshaken commitment to the validity of the opinion that I received from the Solicitor- General. Senator PETER RAE —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I ask the Attorney-General to tell us upon what basis he formed the opinion that he did not have to form an independent opinion but could accept the one from the Solicitor-General without doing any research of his own. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am quite satisfied, following discussions with the Solicitor-General and also, I might add, earlier minutes from my departmental officers, that all relevant material was in fact scrutinised and perused by the Solicitor-General. I have, of course, read a number of slabs of that primary material, both in terms of the Quick and Garran type accounts and the Todd accounts, in the commentary literature, plus such case law as is applicable in the circumstances. I have not done my own primary research in the sense of going back through Halsbury and whatever else the Library may have on offer in this respect, but I repeat that I am completely confident that my departmental officers, Mr Temby and the Solicitor-General, have between them plumbed the necessary material, and I am completely satisfied with the reasoning that is deployed by Dr Griffith. In those circumstances, I do not propose to waste everyone's time, including my own, in retracking that kind of territory. I think if honourable senators asked Senator Durack they would find that it was only on very rare occasions that he deployed any further and better opinion writing expertise of his own in circumstances such as these. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It follows Senator Bolkus's question of 28 February regarding the extent to which private medical specialists have benefited financially from referrals by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I share the Minister's alarm at the figures that he provided to the Senate and I ask him whether he can explain why they should be so high. Senator GIETZELT —It is true that, in answer to a question by Senator Bolkus last week, I indicated that there had been an 18 per cent increase over the last financial year in diagnostic specialist fees paid by my Department and that this was out of character, particularly in New South Wales, because further examination shows that, of the $32m spent in this area of my budget last financial year, $17m was spent in New South Wales. Pro rata, it does not bear comparison, because it indicates a ratio that is completely out of character and unacceptable from the point of view of government spending. The instructions that my Department has given to local medical officers over the years are that in referring pathology, radiology and other such matters to specialists they should have regard to a priority system of sending them, firstly, to the repatriation general hospitals, then to the Commonwealth Health Laboratories or to the State or public hospital authorities and only in the last resort should such matters be referred to private specialists. It is clear that that arrangement is being breached. It has been suggested to me that there is a very nice, cosy arrangement between some general practitioners and some specialists that allows this overservicing and certainly over-use of a system that has grown up because of the geographical changes in Sydney. Looking at the figures, I find it difficult to appreciate why , for example, one particular doctor in the Strathfield area got $110,000 for pathology. One could argue that, in the first instance, those matters should have been referred to the repatriation general hospital within that region. Once can only conclude that there has grown up a system which is being used by the specialists to the degree that it is out of character with the rest of the systems that are operating in all other States of Australia. I have this matter under close consideration with a view to introducing a system to curtail the obvious rip-off that has been perpetrated by some specialists and some general practitioners at the expense of the public sector and the taxpayer. Senator LEWIS —I ask the Attorney-General whether, during his discussions with the judge referred to in the Age tapes, the judge made any admissions or provided any relevant information which the Attorney-General thought should be referred to the Special Prosecutor and/or the Joint Police Task Force as being of assistance to them in their investigations of material in the tapes and transcripts? If so, what was the nature of any such admission, and when did the Attorney-General refer it to the investigating team? Senator GARETH EVANS —The answer to the first part of the question is no. The remaining parts are not applicable. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen the report of claims last week by the South Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry that the national economy is in no state to cope with any form of tax cut and that tax cuts for workers would cripple economic recovery? What prospects does the Government see for personal income tax cuts next financial year by way of reductions in tax rates or indexation of tax brackets for inflation? Senator WALSH —I have looked at the report in the Adelaide Advertiser to which Senator Maguire referred. I assume that Mr Nettle from the South Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has been accurately reported. All my comments will be predicated on that assumption. That being so, my summary, I suppose, of Mr Nettle's opinions is that they are simplistic in that they argue that if taxes are cut the deficit will increase or at least be higher than it would otherwise have been, and therefore inflation and interest rates will go up. That sort of simplistic economic dogma is reminiscent of that which was followed for six months of the seven years of the discredited former Government, which asserted the dogma that, if the deficit is reduced, inflation will automatically fall and interest rates will go down and vice versa. For most of the time that the discredited former Government was asserting that dogma the empirical evidence was running in the opposite direction. It continues to do so. Senator Peter Rae —That is hardly true of France, is it? Senator WALSH —This year, for example, in spite of the strenuous cost of saving or rigorous expenditure controls applied by the present responsible Government, a deficit of the order of $8.5 billion-an increase of almost 100 per cent on the deficit which had applied in the previous year-was still inevitable. In spite of that, the inflation trend is unarguably downwards. It has fallen quite considerably already and the same thing has happened to interest rates. In other words, the views attributed to Mr Nettle are difficult to reconcile with the empirical evidence-not necessarily from all of the world, Senator Rae, but from a greater part of it. What Mr Nettle has overlooked, as I think the previous Government overlooked, is the influence of cost push inflation-something recognised by the Australian Labor Party for many years and preached by the Labor Party for many years to the discredited former Government-and flowing from that, the necessity for a consensus about prices and income, which was finally achieved by the present Government in its final stages in opposition just before the Federal election one year ago, in the form of the prices and incomes accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is the accord, and not the size of the deficit or any other economic variable per se, which is crucial. Incorporated in the accord , among other things, was an expectation that tax relief would be provided, especially for low and middle income earners. That expectation was refered to quite recently by the Prime Minister. In a radio interview on 4 March he said: . . . let me say this that in the area of tax, we weren't able in the area of tax reduction, to do it in our first budget. We will I believe be able to have tax reductions in our second budget and we aim to do that in the context of a reduced deficit and in doing that we will obviously seek to give relatively greater relief to those who need it most. Very similar comments were made by the Treasurer at a Press conference on 26 January. Insofar as the taxation position is a part of the accord, it is something to which, as the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have both already said, the Government will turn its attention. I might add-this is perhaps equally important-that included also in the accord is a commitment by the Government to take positive action against tax evasion. Indeed, of course, those two things are related. The scope for tax reductions is influenced by, amongst other things, the degree to which the Government is successful in forcing tax evaders to disgorge that which they should have paid long ago to the Commissioner of Taxation. Flowing from that, of course, it follows that the more sections of the Senate use their numbers to protect tax evaders, as they did last year, the less scope there will be for cutting taxes for those honest taxpayers to whom the Government believes an obligation exists under the accord and in accordance with Australian Labor Party policy in general. Senator MESSNER —I refer the Attorney-General to the answer he gave Senator Archer on Friday, when he recalled that there was one alleged conversation involving the judge, actually a tape recording, and perhaps another 10, or something of that order, on the transcripts supplied by the Age newspaper. I ask : What was the subject matter of the conversation recorded on the tape? Those matters which have been published concerned a job in the New South Wales Public Service, attempts to block a former Federal Government figure from a public position, moves to denigrate a Sydney suburan alderman by virtue of alleged sexual preferences, and the desirability of a Sydney solicitor clearing his name . What other matters were discussed in the 10 or so conversations recorded or summarised on paper? Senator GARETH EVANS —That question does not even count as a good try in this place. I have no intention whatsoever of satisfying the curiosity, high-minded, salacious or otherwise, of Senator Messner in this respect. There is nothing in the content of the electronic tape which has not been the subject matter of speculation by the newspaper. There are no brand new topics lurking in any of this material. They stand or fall on their own feet. I repeat, as I have repeated every time-- Senator Chaney —What does that mean? 'They stand or fall on their own feet'? Senator GARETH EVANS —In the sense that they do not add anything to what has been the response of the Government so far. Senator Chaney —How do we know that? Senator GARETH EVANS —Every now and again Senator Chaney ought to be prepared to take on trust the independent judgment of the Director of Public Prosecutions- designate, the leader of the legal profession in Australia, so acknowledged by his peers, both from the barristers' side of the profession and from the solicitors' side, a man of unquestioned competence and integrity, who reaches the conclusion that there is nothing in this material which, if authentic-the authenticity of none of it is conceded at this point-would amount to or point to criminal misconduct or other misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 (ii) of the Constitution. I cannot make my conclusion clearer than that in answer to this or any other question. There is no basis whatsoever on which I will assist the Opposition in its desire to trail imaginary stinking fishheads across the noses of the Australian public for every sordid and immediately obvious political motivations . I do not propose to assist the Opposition further in this enterprise. Senator HEARN —I draw the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to an article in the Weekend Australian of 25-26 February headed ' Vietnam War for kids-via the computer', detailing a computer program being offered to schools which allows children to participate in the Vietnam War. I ask the Minister: Is this not a denial of Article 10 of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, contrary to the recognised need for peace education in our schools? Are there any guidelines for the use of suitable material in computer programs in schools? Senator RYAN —My attention has been drawn to a report in the Australian over the weekend as referred to in Senator Hearn's question, but apart from that report I have no knowledge of the schools program described in that report. Senator Hearn will be aware that the final responsibility for what is taught in schools and the resources used remains with the Minister for Education in each State. I can advise honourable senators that the Curriculum Development Centre to be re- established within the Commonwealth Schools Commission is gathering information and views from State systems and other education systems about the nature and extent of peace studies in schools. At present, the Commonwealth has no direct role in peace education at school level. I shall, through the Curriculum Development Centre, seek a report about the program in question and inform the State Ministers for education of the action taken. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is also to the Attorney-General. I am sorry that he said he does not intend to assist the Opposition any further in answering questions about the tapes. I trust he will be able to give me some information on what I am asking now. I refer him to the answer he gave to Senator Durack on Thursday of last week about the apparent failure of Mr Ian Temby, QC, in his opinion on judicial behaviour to refer to some of the matters discussed between the judge and the solicitor and which have been published in the Age newspaper and elsewhere. I also refer to the current edition of the National Times newspaper which claims that Mr Temby analysed only two of the 15 conversations between the judge and the solicitor. I ask: Why did Mr Temby not deal with some of the matters raised in the published material? What was the basis for excluding them? Is it true, as claimed in the National Times, that the transcripts of at least five of the conversations were not available for examination? They are fairly clear questions. The PRESIDENT —Order! The question has been asked. Senator GARETH EVANS —Moreover, Mr President, they were asked very nicely, and I acknowledge that. I do not know whether it is the case that there were five transcripts unavailable to Mr Temby. That is the first I have heard of that and I certainly do not believe that to be the case. The full bundle of material that was supplied to me by the Age was, in fact, physically taken over personally by the Acting Crown Solicitor and delivered to Mr Temby. Up until now I have been under the complete belief that all those conversations were involved. I will certainly check that matter out and see whether there is any foundation for that particular hare. As to the question as to whether or not Mr Temby had regard to all the conversations, that is, the conversations allegedly involving the judge directly or allegedly referring to the judge, it is my clear understanding that Mr Temby did have regard to all that material. Although he may not have given any detailed analysis of every one of the conversations or every one of the subject areas in question, there is no doubt in my mind, having talked to him, that he did have regard to every reference in the material to the judge and, as such, I am completely confident that the conclusions he reached about the absence of any pointing of the material to criminal misconduct or the absence of any material pointing to judicial misbehaviour in any other relevant sense represented a firm conclusion based on a proper scrutiny. I do find it regrettable that to some extent in this question, and more particularly in the previous question that was asked of me, there seems to be a mounting disposition in the Opposition to now turn its sneering and smearing tactics on Mr Temby and to treat him in exactly the same way as Mr Sinclair-in admittedly more robust fashion-sneered and smeared at Mr Justice Cross last week . There is a fine tradition in this country, which I would hate to see undermined, of respect for the judiciary and, moreover, respect for those whose professional independence, competence and integrity ought to be absolutely beyond doubt. It was on that basis that Mr Temby was appointed Director of Public Prosecutions without any adverse reaction or comment from the Opposition at the time. Indeed, I was privately congratulated by a number of members of the Opposition on the good sense and attractiveness of that particular choice. It was on the basis of the competence, integrity and honesty of Mr Temby, combined, of course, with the fact of his impending assumption of the role of full time Director of Public Prosecutions, that he was briefed on this sensitive and difficult matter to advise the Government as to whether or not there were grounds for believing that there may have been misbehaviour. To challenge Mr Temby's bona fides or to challenge Mr Temby's diligence in the way that Senator Bjelke-Petersen has just done is, I believe, to behave in a way which is unworthy of honourable senators in this place. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Attorney- General: On what was his clear understanding based-which he mentioned in his answer-in regard to this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —I said it was based on conversations with Mr Temby and conversations also, I add, with the Acting Crown-Solicitor, who was there and was available to consult with Mr Temby at all relevant times and who, I know, was fully aware of all of the material, such as it was, in the transcripts that purported to relate to the judge. It was also evident from the text of Mr Temby' s opinion which, although focusing in detail on two or three particular areas, employed language which was general in character and its conclusions and, as such, was quite enough to satisfy me. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that the Queensland Government is apparently planning to disregard occupational safety priorities by its reduction of three-man crews on a number of the State's coal and freight trains as from today? Given the Federal Government's commitment to upgrade occupational health and safety by implementing a national strategy in close co-operation with all States and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, could the Minister suggest what steps the Federal Government could initiate to ensure that such issues are fully assessed to consider adequately the occupational safety implications of such a decision? Senator BUTTON —Senator Reynolds gave me brief notification of the question and I have received some advice from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. First, let me say that I am not aware of what the Queensland Government is planning in this regard, although I understand there have been newspaper reports of it. The Federal Government is committed to upgrading the occupational health and safety arena-if I can put it in those terms-in this country. We instituted the National Consultative Committee on Occupational Health and Safety for that purpose. It was set up to examine problems of the kind which Senator Reynolds has raised. I make the point that it is considered that, as a body, it will exchange information and try to arrive at some uniform approach to these questions throughout Australia. It is certainly not appropriate to discuss this particular matter in the Senate today. We hope that the Committee will look at those problems in the course of time. Certainly, I do not want to get involved in a discussion about a purported action of the Queensland Government which may or may not be relevant to these procedures. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I remind the Attorney that he and his colleagues supported the Fraser Government's retrospective tax legislation of 1982. I ask him whether he agrees with this opinion with respect to the retrospectivity in that legislation: Any person who understands the topic, whatever view they might have about the moral obligation upon all to pay a fair share of the cost of running the community, should be outraged by that which is proposed. In other words, does he agree that that legislation was outrageous? If so, why did he support it? The PRESIDENT —Insofar as the Leader of the Opposition is not asking for a legal opinion, I will allow the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —Nor does the question bear upon any current ministerial responsibility that I can think of, Mr President. I ask that Senator Chaney put that question on notice. Senator RICHARDSON —I raise with the Leader of the Government in the Senate the current dispute between the taxation officers branch of the Federated Clerks Union and the Public Service Board. The dispute relates to the position of members of that union who contract repetition strain injuries due to keyboard work during their initial period of probation in the Australian Taxation Office. Is the Minister aware that if at the end of the probation period the injuries to the employee are so serious that he or she cannot perform keyboard work, that person's appointment to the Public Service is annulled or, to put it in plain terms, that person is sacked? Is the Minister aware that people in these cases, unlike permanent Commonwealth employees, do not receive compensation for their work related injuries, nor are they offered any alternative employment? Can the Minister inform the House of what action, if any, the Government has taken in this dispute? Senator BUTTON —The matter raised by Senator Richardson has been raised with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Public Service Board by the Federated Clerks Union. The Government views the situation with considerable concern and the Public Service Board has been asked to conduct an inquiry into the matter. When the results of that inquiry are available they will be reported to the Government and any appropriate action will be taken. One or two other important matters were raised by Senator Richardson in his question. The situation which Senator Richardson described in his question has been occurring. The Government has directed that, pending the outcome of the review by the Public Service Board, there be no further annulments, as they are called, of probationary employees suffering from repetitive strain injuries. Secondly, I thought it was implicit in Senator Richardson's question that probationers suffering from repetitive strain injury incurred in the course of their employment in the Public Service were not eligible for compensation. My understanding is that that is not correct and that all employees, whether they be probationers or not, are eligible for compensation and that there are claims pending in respect of probationers who have incurred repetitive strain injury. I understand that there can be no immediate solution to this question, but all steps have been taken, I understand, by the Public Service Board to ensure that there is no proliferation, as it were, of the injustice while the matter is being investigated by it. Senator HAINES —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of concern in the community generally and in the National Association of Community-based Children' s Services in particular regarding fee relief for low income users of children's services? In particular, is he aware of concern that the present guidelines on fee relief as required by the Office of Child Care may well create serious financial problems for some centres and disadvantage many low and middle income users of those centres? Can the Minister assure the community that moneys promised in the last Budget will be used to establish new services and upgrade existing ones and not be used simply to finance modifications of the fee relief system? Senator GRIMES —I am aware of concern amongst some children's services organisations in this country of the impact of the new fee relief proposals-the special economic needs proposals particularly-in the funding of children's services. As a result of that concern we have had one consultation in Canberra and meetings with various groups throughout the country. Out of that have arisen new proposals which I am in the process of considering at the moment. The problem with providing fee relief in subsidised child care centres is considerable. In the past we have run into difficulties throughout the country in that the concentration of children's services has not necessarily been in the areas of most need-certainly not in low income areas. We have had the problem that some of the fee relief procedures used by some children's services have not , in my view and that of the Government, been aimed at giving maximum relief to low income earners but rather at giving relief in an unbalanced way so that in some cases high income people have received considerably more relief than was necessary. As a result of this we are in the process of finalising our new proposals for a new and revamped fee relief service which will go before the Government in, I hope, the next couple of months. Senator Haines also asked about moneys provided in the Budget. First of all we have provided moneys for many new services. I am sure Senator Haines would know this. New services are being developed throughout the country and new types of services are being developed with greater concentration on multi-purpose centres and those services which provide not only the traditional child care but also long day care, respite care and sometimes assistance for 24 hours a day. Such centres will remain open for 24 hours a day in special circumstances. Clearly, if we are going to expand the special economic needs area, which some people would desire, within the limited child care budget that would mean that some of the expenditure would go into the economic needs area at the expense of new services. That is a matter which is constantly under consideration. We are concentrating on using new money for new services and developing an economic needs subsidy service which better spreads the burden throughout the whole range of incomes in the community. Senator JONES —I draw the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to correspondence received from the priority country area program, Charleville Local Advisory Committee, signed by Mr A. Foster, Secretary, in which he draws attention to the concern of the Local Advisory Committee, Charleville, over the limitation of funding for the south-west region of the priority country areas program. This shortage of funding is resulting in a cut back in the mobile field study unit and also the mobile manual arts unit. Will the Minister outline the Government's position in relation to this funding? Can the position for that program be alleviated? Senator RYAN —My attention has been drawn to this correspondence. The explanation of what has actually happened will have to be sought from the Queensland State Government. I remind the Senate that in 1984 the Government has provided some $9 ,714,000 for the country area program. This is the same level of funding in real terms as was available to the program in 1983, but in 1984 Queensland will receive an increase in funds of $2,354,000 compared with the 1983 allocation of $2,256,000. Administration of the country areas program rests with the State authorities and State and regional committees. They have been appointed by the State Minister of Education to administer this joint government and non- government program in Queensland. The number and geographical boundaries of the prescribed areas-that is, the areas that would benefit under the program-are determined by the State Minister of Education on the advice of the State committees. This arrangement is intended to give the State the flexibility to develop a country education program that matches its particular circumstances. However, States have been advised that at this stage of the program's development the Commonwealth believes that the effectiveness of the program will be enhanced if States continue to single out a limited number of regions for intensive application of funds, though some form of turnover in funding by rotating areas in and out of the program is also provided for. I understand that the Queensland Minister of Education has considerably increased the extent of the areas eligible to participate in the program. Since this decision was made by the Minister in the full knowledge of the funding basis for the program, it would appear that Queensland authorities have chosen to rotate areas receiving fundings under the program in 1984. The Government's education guidelines for 1984 ask the Schools Commission to review the full range of Commonwealth specific purpose programs, including this one, to ensure that the Government's objectives and priorities are being met. The Government expects the Commission to provide a full report on the needs of the country areas program in the next triennial report, which is due early in 1985. I expect that the issue of turnover in funds will be addressed in that report. I suggest now, however, that the honourable senator approach the Queensland Minister of Education, the Hon. L. W. Powell, MLA, for further information on the organisation for the country areas program in Queensland and the basis on which funds for 1984 have been allocated as those decisions are within his responsibility. Senator MARTIN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, refers to criticisms that have been made of and recent Press coverage that has been given to the storage of the national map collection by the National Library of Australia. Is the Minister aware of allegations that inadequate storage is leading to the deterioration of an extremely valuable map collection and that the cramped conditions of storage of the maps means that worthwhile work and research is impossible? In view of the fact that later this year there will be an international conference of people who are interested in the subject of maps and the allegation that Australia will be a laughing stock if delegates to this conference see the way the National Library is storing our collection of maps, does the Government consider it a matter of priority that the maps be preserved as part of the national heritage? Is the Government undertaking any investigation of the National Library's handling of these maps? Does the Government consider this a matter of urgency? Senator RYAN —My colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has investigated this matter and has provided me with some information, which I will now give to the Senate. I am advised that the space for the map collection is cramped but, as I am sure Senator Martin will be aware, so it is for almost all of the Library's activities. Remedial measures are being taken to correct a roof leak which has developed in recent months. I am advised that no significant damage has occurred to the map collection. The present map reading room is a temporary arrangement which was provided as an interim measure as close as possible to the stacks. New facilities of a higher standard will be provided in the extension to the building currently under construction and due for completion in late 1985. The Library's acute space problem, which has long been a principal cause of management difficulties, was exacerbated by the decision of the previous Government in 1981 to deter the construction of this much needed extension. Senator GARETH EVANS —On Thursday, 1 March, Senator Primmer asked me a question concerning Mrs Carmel Van Dartel. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following additional information: Mrs Carmel Van Dartel retired from the Public Service under the provisions of section 67, invalidity, of the Public Service Act, with effect from 22 May 1980. Her retirement was the result of an examination by the Commonwealth Medical Officer which concluded that Mrs Van Dartel was unfit for continued employment and should be retired on the ground of invalidity. I understand that Mrs Van Dartel's invalidity may have resulted from a motor vehicle accident. Senator GARETH EVANS —On Friday last Senator MacGibbon asked me a question about the possible involvement of Mr O'Connor in the Richmond electorate during the Richmond by-election. Following information received from the Special Minister of State, I am able to answer the question as follows: Mr O'Connor was intermittently in the Richmond electorate for the 18 February by-election. He was there in his capacity as a member of the ministerial media group to facilitate visits by Government Ministers. Mr O'Connor helped in arrangements for visits by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Bowen, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown. Mr O'Connor was in the electorate from 23 January to 26 January; 31 January to 2 February; 6 February to 9 February; and 13 February to 16 February. Senator LEWIS —I was hoping that I would have been able to ask the President this question before he vacated the chair in your favour, Mr Deputy President. I am concerned that the Senate does not have available to it the daily Hansard for last Friday. I understand that that will not be available possibly until Wednesday of this week. Could the President tell us when it will be available? Senator Robertson —He did on Friday. Senator LEWIS —I understand that the President made an explanation concerning this matter on Friday. However, I would also like to know whether this is going to happen every time the Senate sits for two consecutive weeks or whether this is some special arrangement, and how this problem might be overcome. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I understand that the difficulty is being caused by an industrial dispute. The President made a statement on this matter on Friday. I understand that he now wishes to make a further statement on the matter, so I will vacate the chair in his favour. The PRESIDENT —In reply to Senator Lewis, on Friday I made a statement to the Senate that because of industrial disputation taking place at the Government Printing Office there would be a delay in the supply to Parliament of the Hansard of last Friday and also of the Hansards of this week. As I understand it , that industrial dispute is continuing. The delay in the production of Hansard will therefore continue. Senator WALSH —by leave-In response to a question from Senator Reynolds on 1 March in relation to the release of contaminated water from the Mary Kathleen uranium mine site I indicated that the release was accidental and had occurred while liquid was being siphoned to a lower pond to avoid possible overflow from an upper pond during extraordinarily heavy rain. That advice was based on a briefing earlier provided to me by my Department which in turn was based on information supplied from the Queensland department. I table a document prepared by Mr McGregor, First Assistant Secretary in the Uranium and General Division of the Department of Resources and Energy, which is his note for file on that question. My Department has now drawn to my attention that it was misinformed on the nature of the incident. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a background information statement dated 27 February 1984 by Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd. Leave granted. The document read as follows- BACKGROUND INFORMATION STATEMENT (27.2.84) Release of Evaporation Pond Liquid at Mary Kathleen Since the commencement of operations at Mary Kathleen in 1958 the process liquids have been retained and evaporated in large ponds. When operations ceased late in 1982, work started on a 2 to 3 year programme aimed at drying out the ponds, cleaning up the area and revegetating it. Operation of the evaporation ponds at this stage in the programme involves the pumping of liquid between ponds to maintain optimum evaporation conditions over the area. There are two main evaporation ponds and several very small subsidiary ponds. Prior to the commencement of the monsoonal rainfall, the larger main pond was almost empty in preparation for the next phase of the rehabilitation programme. The other main pond was only 70 per cent full. Rain began on the afternoon of Monday February 13th and continued until Friday 17th February. A total of 242mm (approx. 10 inches) fell during this period. In anticipation of larger rainwater flows, extra freeboard was created in all of the ponds by transferring liquid into the larger main pond. However, rainwater filled the particular subsidiary pond faster than anticipated, because the liquid level had not been adequately adjusted. In order to prevent pond liquid from overflowing approximately 1 megalitre of liquid was released in a controlled manner, by syphoning it into Cameron Creek. The release was stopped immediately the level of liquid in the pond was stabilised. The liquid in the evaporation ponds is over 90 percent water, with less than 10 percent of solids in solution or suspension. The bulk of these solids are manganese and iron salts. Other elements or salts contained in small proportions include: Calcium Sodium Sulphate Uranium Thorium Aluminium The salt content and radioactivity level of the liquid put it above drinking water levels. The liquid is acidic and most of the dissolved salts in the liquid only remain in solution at relatively high levels of acidity. When the acidity of the liquid is lowered (such as when the liquid is added to ordinary water with a more normal PH level) various salts precipitate out. This happened when the discharged liquid met the creek water. The dissolved salts therefore precipitated into the creek. These, together with material in suspension caused staining of the creek and left a residue on the creek bed. It should be noted that, although the quality of the liquid in the pond was below potable standards, it was considerably diluted when it entered the creek. Extensive tests are being conducted to determine the exact composition of the creek water and the solids deposited on sections of the creek. For information: Terry Ward, General Manager-MKU Telephone (077) 43 8311 A/ Hours (077) 43 2988. Senator WALSH —The statement indicates that the controlled release of contaminated liquid into Cameron Creek took place. Neither I nor my Department was aware of this at the time I answered Senator Reynolds's question. I had been briefed on the basis of advice to my Department from a senior official of the Queensland Government that the release was accidental. Unfortunately that advice was incorrect. I add that I intend to take follow-up action, firstly, to determine the level of impurities in the water still in the pond in question, and, secondly, to determine what measures can be taken to ensure that there is no recurrence of this incident. I note again, as I noted when answering the question on 1 March, that those are matters which will have to be taken up with the Government of Queensland because it is responsible for the rehabilitation of the Mary Kathleen uranium mine site and not the Commonwealth Government. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to make one or two comments on the annual report for 1982-83 of the Australian Egg Board. I find it regrettable that at present in New South Wales there are two problems, one involving eggs and the other involving egg on the face. The one involving eggs concerns a group which is endeavouring to operate outside the Egg Board's marketing arrangements. Many years ago the Egg Board was set up and given certain statutory approvals to administer egg production in Australia, and basically it has worked very well. There were certain times when a former senator in this place used to raise various problems in which I supported him on almost all occasions. Senator Robertson —He will be listening in today too. Senator ARCHER —I hope he is because he would not be pleased to find that there has been either of these difficulties in New South Wales. He also would wish that those who are endeavouring to get outside the system should attend the meetings, exercise their rights to vote and do whatever is necessary to see that the system is operated in the manner most appropriate for all the people who are in it or want to be in it. I am not naturally a person who favours government controls and organisations but when the producers themselves decree that this is in their best interests I go along with it entirely. We have to remember that the poultry producers of Australia pay an extraordinarily high levy. They pay $1 .95 per hen per year. This is a very large tax against their total stocks. So that the matter is put into some sort of perspective, I think it needs to be mentioned that in 1982-83 the total number of eggs produced in the mainland States of Australia amounted to 193.5 million dozen. That is a lot of eggs. However, what is also important is that as a result of having the Egg Board in operation, that production has more or less been static for the last 10 years. Whereas it is 193.5 million dozen eggs now, it was 192-odd million dozen in 1973 -74, and it has been as high as 196 million dozen and as low as 180 million dozen. But the Board has brought about considerable stability. The marketing of the surplus eggs, in the form of egg pulp and so on, has been quite satisfactory . I believe that its operation is quite sound and in the best interests of poultry producers. I just hope that the problem in New South Wales can be sorted out. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debated adjourned. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.16) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report gives us some very interesting facts about the operations of the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation. The areas of discrimination at which the Committee looks, together with State committees, cover a very wide number of matters-sex, colour, ethnic origin, marital status and all sorts of things. In view of the debate we had in this place last year on the Sex Discrimination Bill, I wish briefly to bring to the Senate's attention some quite fascinating figures that appear in the report. Debate on the subject of sex discrimination tends to centre very much on discrimination against women, probably understandably so since many women would claim that most of the discrimination in Australia is against women, but also it has been made a more emotive debate by virtue of the campaign that was run against the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. So the debate has been essentially in terms of discrimination against women, but this report brings out some important facts which might broaden a little the interest in the subject of discrimination. The report points out, for example, the increasing trend of complaints from men . It says that this is probably one of the most significant trends in the subject of discrimination and complaints about discrimination that the Committee can identify. For example, the report says that there was a 14 per cent increase in the number of complaints made by men in the year 1982-83 and that complaints of discrimination on the ground of sex by men increased by 47 per cent, which is a very remarkable increase. The Committee comments in the report that the significant increase in complaints from men is largely due to complaints of discrimination in non-traditional occupational categories. I should have liked a little more information about that. I am conscious, for example, that one sees more male nurses these days in training as general nurses. I am conscious that men are being employed as stewards by airlines, a position that used to be referred to as 'hostess' but now is dignified with the title 'airline attendant' or 'flight attendant' since it refers to both men and women. I am delighted to see that. However, as those are two apparent areas where discrimination against men is breaking down, I should have been interested to know what the other significant areas are, and I think that the community would have been interested to know. It is possible that in the future perhaps the Minister who represents the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in the Senate, Senator Button, will enlighten us on the matter. As I said earlier, the report makes the following statement: Overall, the potentially most significant emerging trend is the relative increase in complaints from men, particularly on the ground of 'sex'. I think for many reasons it is a very interesting report. I am sure that other honourable senators will want to say a few words about it while they have the opportunity today. I just point out that I think the understanding of the problem of discrimination on the ground of sex has been rather one-sided, and it is salutary at this point of the Parliament's debate on the subject that it be pointed out that this Bill and other measures to overcome discrimination on the ground of sex are good for men as well as women. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(3.20) —I draw the attention of the Senate to a photograph on the second page of the tenth annual report of the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation. This photograph, I believe, is unique in reports of this nature or reports of any kind that come before this Parliament. It depicts 15 individuals, seven or whom are women. But for the fact that on the occasion of the taking of the photograph Mr Ron Flemming of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in Perth was representing the Western Australian chairwoman, Miss Sheila McClemans, the score would have been eight women and seven men. This, I believe, is a great credit to both the previous Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Macphee, and the current Minister Mr Ralph Willis. It is evidence, if such is needed, of a bipartisan acknowledgment of the need to appoint women to such positions as those of the people included in that photograph, the members of the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation and the individuals who chair the separate State committees. It is a milestone, and I would not want such a photograph to pass without some comment. This report differs a little from the reports of previous years in that it does not carry any case histories. This, I find, is some what of a disappointment. The case histories provide not only very interesting reading but also excellent examples on most occasions of the types of cases of discrimination which come before the committees and the way in which they can be handled. As such they provide a considerable contribution towards the understanding of the committees and their activities. I had the privilege of chairing the Western Australian Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation between 1974 and 1976. I think the tabling of the tenth annual report provides an excellent occasion on which to pay tribute to those very many people who have worked on the committees , both State and Federal, over the years, for the time, effort, energy and commitment they have put into the committees, especially as at this stage the role of the committees is to change. Subsequent to the implementation of our sex discrimination legislation the committees will be located in the Attorney-General's Department rather than the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Rather than dealing predominantly with, as Senator Martin has said, complaints about discrimination on the grounds of sex, those complaints will now go before a commissioner of sex discrimination, when she is appointed, and the committees will have a role which has not been to the forefront in the past-that of dealing rather more intensively with the other six deadly sins which come under their jurisdiction- and will be conducting a very wide-spread and, we hope, very effective program of community education. It is good to note that a great deal of their energy over the last 12 months has been spent in proselytising on behalf of the Guidelines on Equal Employment Opportunity which were developed by the National Labour Consultative Council about three years ago under the previous Government. Those guidelines are an excellent and comprehensive forerunner of the policies that we hope we will be implementing soon under our affirmative action legislation. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.26) —I too would like to say a few words on the report of the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation. I suppose it is rather telling that Senator Martin and Senator Giles have spoken and now I am speaking to this report. But perhaps that is what we are here for; to do some different telling. I am particularly interested in the contents of this report, not the least because the first task of members of the incoming Committee was to reappraise what had gone before prior to setting new goals or emphases for themselves in their forthcoming term of office. They felt that it was very important to do that before they sailed ahead. In particular, they undertook an analysis of what had gone before to see whether that had been fully effective in dealing with the complaints and, in particular, to see whether the methodology of dealing with complaints was satisfactory. Senator Giles has already referred to the fact that the Committee came up with a couple of new emphases to which it wanted to devote this triennium. In particular, the Committee wanted to look at the question of whether the groups most likely to be discriminated against were aware of the Committee's complaint handling role. It is well and good to have procedures to deal with discrimination but if no one knows about them, in particular those people who are discriminated against, they are to no advantage at all. The Committee also wanted to examine how long it took to deal with complaints. Again, as Senator Giles has said, it wanted to place particular emphasis on the equal employment opportunity personnel practices to be promoted to employers, employees and unions. The Committee also wanted to examine the conciliatory approach and how that worked in dealing with complaints. Another thing that seemed important to the Committee was the concern for groups that were disadvantaged as apart from individuals. The Committee has placed an emphasis on community involvement and, in particular, information passing to the community so that it can inform those groups in the community that are likely to be discriminated against. Other honourable senators have mentioned the change in complaints that have been brought before the Committee. I think it is interesting to go through those again in a little more detail. Up until 1973, the majority of complaints were on the grounds of sex and they were submitted by women. They were mainly related to employment practices and policies, in particular, those things that referred to barriers to recruitment and training; positions that were open only to men or only to women. There was a denial of equal opportunity for both sexes to equal advancement. There were differential systems of conditions for men and women. There were requirements for women to resign in certain conditions. There were reduced benefits for women under superannuation schemes and a compulsory earlier retirement age for women. Interestingly enough they are not the sorts of complaints that continue to come before the Committee, partly because some of those complaints have been appreciated as being matters that need a change of regulation or legislation. So those conditions, at least in some areas of employment, no longer exist. However, complaints on the grounds of sex still constitute some 65 per cent of the complaints, but the nature of the complaints is now somewhat different. They include: Discriminatory advertising and recruitment practices; differing criteria for employee benefits, such as low interest loans; employment of women in the defence forces, which is a problem that has been alluded to under the sex discrimination legislation; and the problem of sexual harassment. The point that Senator Martin raised is stressed and can be stressed again by me: There is a significant increase in the number of complaints from men on the grounds of discrimination due to sex mainly referring to non-traditional areas of male employment. There have also been some other areas of complaint apart from the area of sex discrimination. There have been some complaints on the grounds of race, national extraction and also, curiously enough, discrimination on the grounds of age. Not only are people who are old complaining about the problem that confronts them in terms of continuing employment or retirement but also there have been an increasing number of complaints from young people who complain that they have been denied access to apprenticeships because of the maximum age limit. Other reasons for complaint are listed. As Senator Giles said, there are very few case histories so we cannot elaborate on the interesting things in this report which do bear examination. I congratulate the Committee on preparing a report that has analysed past procedures, compared them with the present, and put down some proposals for how it will deal with these matters in the next triennium. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The 1983 annual report of the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission reports on the Commission's activities in 1982-83 and on the recommended grants to local governments in South Australia for the current financial year. The South Australian Local Government Grants Commission allocates funds to local councils which have been passed on to South Australia from the Commonwealth Budget. A total of 30 per cent of the funds are allocated to local councils on a population basis, with equal amounts per head of population, and the remaining 70 per cent of the funds are allocated to councils on a needs basis, on the basis of certain formulae that determine efforts made by councils in expending and raising moneys. Since 1974-75 funds have been made available from the Commonwealth Budget to local government. The Whitlam Government established the precedent, giving the first ever grants from the Commonwealth Budget to local government in Australia. Something of the order of $450m annually is now paid from the Commonwealth Budget to local government throughout Australia. This year councils in South Australia will receive some 8.6 per cent of the national allocation from the Budget, totalling some $39.5m. Funds paid in my own State go not only to local councils but also to such important bodies as the Outback Areas, Community Development Trust which services those parts of South Australia without local government, and the Coober Pedy Progress and Miners' Association. Currently local government grants are based on a formula which provides that 2 per cent of personal income tax collections from the Commonwealth Budget are paid to local government. In that way, the funds paid to local governments are different from funds paid to the States. In the case of the latter, funds are based on the total tax collections rather than specific personal income tax collections. Last financial year local councils nationally received a 21 per cent growth in funds from the Commonwealth Budget, but this year the rate of increase will be far lower, and I think it is very important to outline the reasons for that very low increase. One reason is the effect of the wages pause introduced by the former Government. The very slow growth in income tax and the consequent slow growth in funds to local authorities is one of the side effects of the wages pause which was not thought through very clearly by the former Government. As a result, there has been a very big impact on local government in Australia. Certain income tax cuts were also made late in 1982. Over and above that was the effect of the economic recession in compressing incomes and, therefore, taxation collections. This financial year the growth in funds to local councils from the Commonwealth Budget will be of the order of 8.2 per cent. Concern has been expressed by a number of local authorities about their real growth this financial year. Their concern is that the allocation of funds from the Budget should keep pace with inflation. Certainly, the Budget provides for a growth of 7.5 per cent in the consumer price index this financial year, which gives some apparent real growth, but I acknowledge that the consumer price index is more a measure of costs faced by consumers than costs faced by organisations such as local authorities. However, there is some encouraging news that the gross domestic product deflator, which is a more broadly based measure of inflation, was running below the 7 per cent rate late last year, and that suggests a real growth in funds for local government this financial year. The Government is concerned by the slow growth in funds to local government. I am pleased that the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) late last year indicated that there would be an inquiry into local government finances during 1984. I welcome the announcement by the Minister. I welcome his expression of concern for local government finances, and I am pleased that the Minister will announce soon the membership and terms of reference of the inquiry into local government finances. I hope that one of the aspects looked at will be the case put by South Australia for a bigger share of funds. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.37) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I am aware of the fact that time is running out for debate on reports and that there are a number of reports to go. My comments today on the report of the Australian Heritage Commission 1982-83 will therefore be very brief. I want to make a general observation on the subject of Australian heritage. In the report the Commission draws attention to the fact that not all States or Territories have effective heritage legislation. Throughout the report the Commission points out over and over again how items and areas of considerable cultural heritage value to Australia are being lost or destroyed, either deliberately or inadvertently. I think the Heritage Commission has done an outstanding job in documenting our heritage in Australia and in raising public awareness and consciousness of areas and items of interest, but it must seem that it is fighting a losing battle. Nevertheless, I am sure it has placed it on the political agenda for a number of State governments. I am sorry that my own State of Queensland has not yet moved to heritage legislation, but I believe that that is quite possible in the not too distant future. That is a term I hate to use, but in this case I think it is the appropriate term. The Commission in its report laments areas that were destroyed, particularly in the Ash Wednesday fires of last year, as well as the wilful destruction of certain items. It also points out that there is destruction in Australia of matters of significance in our heritage simply because people do not recognise them, because they do not realise what they are looking at. For example, a bulldozer can go over an item of some cultural heritage to the Aborigines. It is not that the bulldozer driver does not care, it is simply that he does not recognise what he is looking at. Therefore, the matter of educating the Australian public has a long way to go. Nevertheless, I am sure that all honourable senators would agree with me that in recent years pride in things Australian has become very much more overt and has been much more strongly expressed amongst Australians. Many more Australians are looking around them and deciding that big is not necessarily beautiful, that what is old and what it signifies, its value to us as an inheriting generation and to future generations who will inherit what we leave behind, is something that should be assessed objectively and, where relevant, protected and treasured. I draw attention to only two particular points which appear at the beginning of the Commission's reports. One is the matter of maintaining Commonwealth buildings which has been brought to the attention of the Commission over a number of years. I notice that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who represents the Minister for Administrative Services in the Senate , is present. Perhaps he would like to discuss this matter with his colleague the Minister for Administrative Services. I am not attempting to score a political point, because the criticism that follows is one that obviously applies to Liberal as well as Labor governments. The report states: The level of funds required to maintain Commonwealth buildings has been brought to the attention of the Commission over a number of years. . . . The problem is felt particularly keenly by revenue-producing statutory authorities which are expected to make a profit. It has been suggested that a fund be established to cover the difference between normal maintenance costs and expenditure on ' heritage retention' for Commonwealth properties. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation in October 1979 recommended that: the Department of Finance, the Department of Administrative Services and the Australian Heritage Commission examine the desirability of introducing a separate item into departmental appropriations or any other means to allow the independent grouping of all maintenance and restoration in costs associated with Commonwealth properties listed on the Register of the National Estate. That is an extremely sound recommendation. I wonder whether, in the years that followed 1979, the Department of Finance, the Department of Administrative Services or any other body followed that recommendation. I think the Heritage Commission probably would have commented if that were so, because its recommendation includes the Australian Heritage Commission, and it makes no comment that it has been involved in any such discussion. But that is something at which the Government should take a measured look, because the objective is a very real one. It is all very well for us to say in the Parliament that something ought to be done about private properties that are on the National Estate if the Government itself is not doing it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(3.42) —I seek leave to make my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLLARD(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-I present a paper on the operations of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which was presented by me to the Second Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation held in Ottawa in April 1983. I move: That the report be printed. Senator TATE —Normally, a paper of this character would go to the Publications Committee for its consideration as to whether it ought to be printed. But given the wide interest in this chamber last week on the work of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, it was thought desirable by many members of that Committee that this step be taken. I do not hereby set a precedent, but the passage of this motion to print this report would be appreciated for the benefit of all senators. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a brief statement in relation to a number of reports where statements have been made, giving explanations for the fact that they are late in their presentation. Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE —I thank the Senate. I draw attention to the fact that letters which date back to December have been received from the Australian Honey Board, the Australian Wool Corporation and several other organisations. For instance, the Honey Board in its letter of 8 December 1983 to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) stated that it expected to be able to forward its report no later than the end of February 1984. Yet it was not until March 1984 that this chamber even received the explanation and the copies of the document. I raise the question as to whether the procedure for putting these important matters before the chamber could not be improved. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave- Earlier this year I announced a review of the repatriation hospital system. The repatriation hospitals are important institutions, especially for ex-servicemen and women and war widows. Unfortunately previous governments have not provided the resources for new buildings or renovations or for equipment and staff needed to ensure that they provide the best possible quality of service for those Australians who have served their country in times of war. If it had not been for the dedicated staff in the hospitals the standard of treatment would have been unacceptable. Too many of the buildings of the repatriation hospitals are of Second World War vintage. There is inadequate privacy for patients, facilities are poor and staff have to work in unacceptable conditions. Although we have started to redress the neglect of the past with a major re-building program, we need a planned capital works program to cater for the demands to be made on the hospitals up to and beyond the end of this century. The present Labor Government has already confirmed the re-building of the operating theatres at Daw Park Repatriation Hospital in Adelaide and, provided the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works agrees, we shall proceed with major re-building at Concord and Greenslopes in Sydney and Brisbane. I hope that the review of hospitals produces a blueprint for improving the overall accommodation of the repatriation hospitals in the interests of patients and staff. In far too many instances the repatriation hospitals are having to cope with aged equipment which in some cases is incapable of being repaired. An important aim of the review is to identify the needs for specialised equipment on an ongoing basis. We also need to be sure that the hospitals' administration is suited to the demands which they have to meet. The repatriation treatment system is one of the largest in Australia. If it is to operate successfully not only must there be adequate buildings and equipment but also the management and human resources in the hospitals must operate at the optimum level of efficiency. The Australian population is ageing. It is now nearly 39 years since the end of the Second World War. While 14 per cent of the Australian population is over the age of 60, over 80 per cent of Veterans' Affairs beneficiaries are in this category. There will be new demands on the hospitals and new emphasis in medicine and technology to meet the needs of these veterans and to continue to cater for the requirements of younger veterans, particularly those from the Vietnam conflict. The review of the hospitals will be headed by Dr Ian Brand, who is Chief Executive Officer of the Preston and Northcote Community Hospital in Victoria. Dr Brand is well qualified and experienced in review activities. He will be assisted on the Committee by a geriatrician and a social worker. Mr W. Newington of the New South Wales Branch of the Returned Services League will also be a member of the review team. The Committee will report by 31 December this year. Its terms of reference are to: Firstly, identify deficiencies in resources- buildings, equipment and staff-and administrative procedures which inhibit the hospitals from delivering a high quality of care with efficiency and convenience to patients; secondly, identify the requirements for the further development of the hospitals and related services to an ageing veteran population to the end of the next decade; thirdly, make recommendations-including on funding-to correct any such deficiencies and to meet those requirements. The review will be constructive and ex-servicemen and women and war widows will be given the maximum opportunity to provide their views. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.53) -by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. On behalf of the coalition I welcome the prospect of a review of the repatriation hospital system. I believe that the review will provide the sort of recommendations and insights that it will be necessary to follow if the capacity of the repatriation system is to be equal to the task that lies ahead of it, particularly in the next 15 to 20 years. I think it is proper that I should emphasise that I cannot agree with inferences here and there in the statement- admittedly chiefly in the early part of the statement-that there has been neglect of the repatriation hospital system. It has always been the very distinct and strong policy of the Liberal and National parties that the repatriation hospitals system should be encouraged and developed to the maximum degree that is consistent with economic responsibility. Indeed, we set in train a number of matters which the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has referred to and, of course, acknowledged. These include the Daw Park Repatriation Hospital in Adelaide, certain developments in Perth and the needs and prospects for Concord Repatriation Hospital in Sydney and the Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital in Brisbane of which, of course, we were aware. It is important in a consideration of a review such as this that we should be particularly aware of the age circumstances of the people involved. Indeed, as the next two decades pass by the greatest pressure will be brought to bear on the capacity of the repatriation hospitals. Incidentally, the coalition parties always supported them as strongly as was reliably and responsibly possible. It is important that these repatriation hospitals should develop along lines that will enable them to meet the enormous obligations that they already have and which they will continue to have. Indeed, most of the hospitals in this category around Australia today have a 90 per cent to 100 per cent bed occupancy . This indicates the severity and the significance of the problem. I believe that, as outlined by the Minister, the Committee of Review of the Repatriation Hospital System which will undertake these investigations and which will bring down the recommendations is a broad one with a broad base. It should be successful in developing the sort of report from which a continuing and developing exercise in the repatriation hospital area may be followed. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.56) —The announcement of the formation of the Committee of Review of the Repatriation Hospitals System is certainly most welcome. However, the Review Committee has not been asked to report until 31 December this year-this is perfectly understandable-which means that any funding action is not likely to be undertaken until the 1985 Budget. Therefore, we would not expect anything to flow from the review by way of buildings and major changes probably until 1988. That is four years down the track. At the same time there are growing problems with certain categories of veterans and in certain areas of veterans' affairs. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) drew attention in his statement to the problem of ageing among veterans. That will certainly become acute very shortly. It is to be expected that many veterans cared for within the repatriation system will find many of the problems they have suffered for many years compounded by the problems of old age. That will certainly place an enormous burden on these hospitals. Of course, the repatriation hospitals have had to try to confront new and emerging problems. I refer here to the tragic event that happened in Rockhampton a couple of weeks ago. I knew the Vietnam veteran involved; I had met him on a number of occasions, both in Rockhampton and at ward 14 of the Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital. When one looks at that tragedy one has to acknowledge that such tragedies have been occurring in the lives of other veterans. These tragedies have encompassed many innocent people and their families. I felt that part of the difficulty there was the enormous pressure on ward 14 at Greenslopes Hospital. The superhuman activities being undertaken by the staff there are certainly only to be admired and it is to be wondered how they manage. Fairly obviously the pressures they are under do not allow them to give the extended period of treatment that I am sure they would like to give many of these veterans. Therefore, the inevitable is happening; many of these veterans are being asked to go out of the hospital in order to make room from what the staff perceive to be more urgent cases at the time. I can only sympathise with the staff as to how they make those very acute and difficult decisions. I think the case in Rockhampton involved such a decision. Unfortunately for so many people it turned out tragically. I welcome this review but I hope that the Minister, in asking for the review, is not putting aside until 1988 the very urgent problems associated with the rebuilding and rehousing of many of the current facilities which exist within the repatriation hospital system in each State. The other element is that many of the staff who have to work in these hospitals are working in what could only be called sub-standard buildings. In many cases the buildings, certainly the ones that I have seen, could be viewed as a health hazard. It is a difficult area. When one looks at the Budget one must be conscious of the enormous expenditure that is involved in this area. Nevertheless we have a responsibility to meet the cost of the conflicts that have been entered into by the Australian Government on behalf of the Australian nation. That cost does not stop when the troops are withdrawn; the cost continues. Everybody was confronted with that in a very tragic way by the events in Rockhampton two weeks ago. The cost is still borne by many people in the community. This Parliament has a special obligation to make sure that some of the ill-founded discussion which goes on in the community and which is aimed at raising an image of many of the veterans as, in Australian terminology, bludgers must be put down strongly and vigorously wherever it occurs. That type of talk, which is seemingly becoming more rife and which could be used by a government as an excuse for inactivity and lessening of effort in this area, would have untold consequences within the community. At a stage when we are looking at a review in this area I merely urge that we do not wait until 1988 to meet the more obvious needs and that this review concentrate on those areas of priority that are not so blatantly obvious to anybody who goes into the repatriation hospitals. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: (1) That intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of Government Business, Order of the Day No. 8 (Tape Recordings of Telephone Conversations-Ministerial Statement) and Government Business, Order of the Day No. 6 (Liquid Fuel Emergency Bill 1983); and (2) That Government Business, Order of the Day No. 2 (Insurance Contracts Bill 1983) and Government Business, Order of the Day No. 3 (Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Bill 1983) be postponed till the next day of sitting. Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.04) —When this debate was adjourned last Tuesday afternoon I had commenced to put down the Opposition's views on the statement which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) had just presented to the Senate on this major issue of what has become known as the Age tapes and transcripts. In the few minutes I spoke at that stage of the debate I outlined the principal concerns which the Opposition had in relation to the statement. I highlighted the question of the authenticity of the material, the question of the judge's conduct and also the general question of Parliament's role in dealing with the misbehaviour of judges. There are a number of other issues which I dealt with then and before that, which I have dealt with since and about which I have outlined the Opposition's concern. I think those matters will be the subject of continuing debate. Indeed, many of them have been brought out in the course of questioning by the Opposition of the Attorney-General over the last few days of sitting. This afternoon I come back particularly to that part of the statement dealing with the conversation the judge had with the solicitor and the matters which are apparently revealed in the tapes and transcripts concerning the conversation. The Attorney-General has taken an extremely restrictive view of Parliament's role in this matter. As questioning has proceeded of the Attorney-General on this matter he seems to have become even more restrictive in his attitude to it. I said last week that the Opposition does not accept the restricted view of misbehaviour which was the opinion of, presumably, Mr Temby, certainly of the Solicitor-General, and has now been adopted by the Attorney-General although we have not been given any written opinion by him. He has gone out of his way to emphasise on several occasions that he adopts the opinion of the Solicitor- General and Mr Temby on this matter. We are now faced with a situation in which the Government, in handling the matter of the tapes and transcripts, has excluded completely any further consideration of or attention to the role of the judge which may be-or may not be for all we in this Parliament know-revealed by these tapes. It is a fact that the Parliament has not been fully informed about the role of the judge as revealed in the tapes and, as yet, it has not been informed as to views on the authenticity of the material even though the Attorney-General decided, on the basis of the material that he was given, that he would discuss the matter of the tapes and even though there has been some recognition-I use that as a neutral word-by the judge in those conversations with the Attorney-General that there may have been some discussions of the kind referred to in the transcripts by him with the solicitor. There are on foot a number of major issues concerning the role of the judge, quite apart from the other issues raised by these tapes. Although the Opposition has expressed concern about them and they will be in future the subject of further discussion, I do not propose to deal with those other aspects this afternoon. I will concentrate on the positon of the judge and the role of Parliament in regard to it. As I have said, the Attorney-General has taken a very restrictive view of the role of Parliament in regard to judicial conduct. He made it perfectly clear, in answer to questions from Senator Chaney last Friday and from me today, that he regards Parliament's role as beginning and ending with the constitutional provision that a judge can be removed only for proved misbehaviour or incapacity on an address of both Houses of Parliament praying for his removal. It is on that subject that I wish to concentrate now. The Attorney-General has adopted the position that Parliament should take his view, enlivened as it may be by an opinion of Mr Temby, who is the Director of Public Prosecutions designate and who, whatever his legal qualifications may be in the criminal sphere or any other sphere, is not, I think, presented by the Attorney-General as an expert on constitutional law. It is also enlivened by an opinion of the Solicitor-General, Dr Gavan Griffith, who of course, recognised as an authority on constitutional law. Nevertheless, the Attorney-General takes the view that this is purely a matter for him in his role as a member of the Executive. He is to be advised on the material presumably by Mr Temby and on the law by Dr Griffith. The Opposition does not accept that position at all. In the course of this debate, as in debates concerning the Australian Constitutional Convention there will be a good deal of support for this and aspects of what I call the constitutional law argument, which I have not time to deal with this afternoon. Suffice it to say that the Attorney-General, in answer to a question from me today, has recognised that the decision on this matter is a decision for the Parliament itself, the Parliament alone. It is not for the High Court of Australia to interpret or to review. Senator Gareth Evans —Parliament acting in accordance with law. Senator DURACK —If Senator Evans does not agree with that he can tell us so later. That is certainly the view of the Opposition. It is the view of the founding fathers of the Constitution. We believe very firmly that that view should be adhered to. It would be an absolute travesty of our democratic Constitution if, on a subject of this kind, the address of both Houses of Parliament would not determine the issue, and determine it once and for all. I quote from one of the contributors to a debate on this matter, no less a person than Sir George Turner of Victoria. He said: Now, can we imagine a deliberative body like the Parliament of the Commonwealth removing one of the Judges of the Federal Court unless on the strongest possible grounds, and for the best possible reasons, and after having given everybody the fullest opportunity of being hard on every point in question? Surely that is a clear affirmation of the role and responsibility of Parliament; an affirmation that the decision should be left to Parliament. That is the case that the Opposition is making today. The Attorney-General has challenged that fundamental principle and continues to challenge it and to defy the role of Parliament in this matter, both on principle and in his answers to questions-in which he has made it clear that he will not provide Parliament with any further information. He will not even provide Parliament with the material on which Parliament itself can make a judgment, given even the restricted view of Parliament's powers maintained by the Attorney-General. According to the Attorney-General, we are not to be provided even with the material on which we can make that judgment. Because the many opportunities that have been given to the Attorney-General over the last week to provide adequate information to the Parliament have not been taken up, we believe that the time has come when we must make some move to ensure the role of Parliament. Therefore, I move: At end of motion, add: 'and that there be laid upon the Table of the Senate without delay all those portions of the transcripts and transcripts of any tapes not so far transcribed which refer to any conversation between the judge and the solicitor or other conversations referring to the judge or in which he participated, together with the aide-memoire of the Attorney-General's discussions with the judge on February 15 and 24, subject to the deletion from all documents of any name or identifying characteristics of individuals'. In moving the motion in those terms, I am indebted to no less a person than the Attorney-General. I recall very well that in September 1982 in the teeth of the Costigan debate the Attorney moved a motion for the tabling of papers by my colleague, the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, and me. During that debate on 8 September, when moving the motion, he said: It is only by access to these documents that it will be possible now, given the attitude that the Government has taken, for an objective view to be reached as to where the merits and the truth lie. If the Government has anything to hide, I can understand its continued reluctance to make these documents available. There were many debates on this issue at the time. On 14 October in one such debate Senator Evans said that the Senate was trying to have the papers tabled: . . . in order to determine for itself whether the Executive arm has been discharging its constitutional responsibility to enforce and maintain the laws . . . Even if we accept, as I do not, that the Parliament here is somehow seeking to exercise itself an Executive function, it really is just claiming too much for the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers as that doctrine is developed in Australia, to say that this in itself constitutes an absolute barrier to the Senate taking the action in question . . . which, he then said, the Executive was resisting. At that time there was a real argument as to what the Executive responsibility was in regard to certain of those papers, which were opinions, police reports and so on and which were clearly within the Executive's responsibility. But Senator Evans brushed all that aside, saying that those papers must be tabled so that Parliament could see whether the Executive was doing its job. That would perhaps be a good argument in this case as well, that is, to see whether Senator Evans, as Attorney-General , is doing the job for which he is responsible. But in this case, the question of the removal of judges is not the Executive's responsibility. Nor indeed, is the censuring of judges. It is the responsibility of Parliament to pass a view on the conduct of judges. The Parliament may not decide, in its wisdom, that that conduct provides grounds for the removal of judges. That is not the Executive's responsibility. It is the Parliament's responsibility, which Senator Evans has today at long last recognised, although apparently he now wants to make some qualifications to that. It is Parliament's responsibility. In this motion we are saying that Parliament must be given the material on which it can make that judgment. It has to have the material. If the Government will not make the material properly available to Parliament, Parliament must see to it that it gets it. It will then, of course, have to consider how to handle it. Clearly, questions have to be considered by Parliament regarding the authenticity and the full text and context of the discussions. We do not know the full context of those discussions. We cannot rely on Mr Temby's opinion. Mr Temby was asked, as far as I can see, to give an opinion on whether the judge had committed any criminal offence. He was also asked to give consideration to whether any material could warrant the conclusion that was reached concerning the ground of proven misbehaviour. As I have already pointed out, Mr Temby in his opinion has not dealt with certain of the matters which have already been published in the Age concerning the transcripts. For all we know there may be other material which bears upon the judge's conduct. Mr Temby's opinion is quite deficient in dealing with all the matters in question. I notice that this has been pointed out in an article which appeared during the weekend in the National Times. On Senator Evans's own admission, there were something like 10 conversations. But Mr Temby's opinion deals only with three or four of them. So we cannot be expected to rely on Mr Temby's analysis of them. For goodness sake, he did not have time to analyse them properly. He was given less than two days to analyse 524 pages of transcript. How would he have had time to research the law on the constitutional matters which were raised as well? This is an absurd proposition from the Attorney- General. The fact is that, even if Mr Temby had put down the most detailed and most perfect opinion on all these subjects, it is the Parliament's right to have the material, to consider the material, and to make the final judgment on that material. I conclude with one or two remarks upon the standards of judicial behaviour which are called for in this country, which are expected by the people of this country, and which the judiciary of this country has an enviable record of meeting. Sir Winston Churchill, in speaking in 1954 in the House of Commons about the standard of conduct of the judiciary, said: A form of life and conduct far more severe and restricted than that of ordinary people is required from judges and, though unwritten, has been most strictly observed. They are at once privileged and restricted. They have to present a continuous aspect of dignity and conduct. That quotation from Sir Winston Churchill is contained in a major book on the conduct and standards of judges, how they are removed and so on, published in 1967 by Mr Shetreet and called Judges on Trial. It is the up to date and standard work on the subject of judicial conduct. Senator Gareth Evans —In Britain, you silly character. It is totally different in Australia. There is a fundamental difference. Senator DURACK —Well, we have already shown how wrong the Attorney-General is on that. It is no good because it is a British text book! What about the book on the British Constitution by Mr Todd, a nineteenth century book, quoted by the Solicitor-General? What a remarkable outburst from the Attorney-General-it is no good because it is British! But the Solicitor-General relies on a nineteenth century British text book. At least this is an up to date and late twentieth century text book. Senator Gareth Evans —You clown. You absolute intellectual clown. If you cannot appreciate that difference, you ought not to be on your feet in this place. Senator DURACK —No, it does not make any difference. The role of the Parliament in this matter is supreme. As Sir George Turner said, the Parliament, of course, would not act capriciously. The Constitution certainly makes the signal clear to the Parliament that it is to act only on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, but ultimately the Parliament is the body which decides these matters. It decides what are the standards by which misbehaviour is judged. It decides what are the standards by which incapacity is judged. It decides those issues not only as a matter of fact but also as the ultimate court in relation to these matters. This is the old tradition of the High Court of Parliament. Over the last week not only has the Attorney-General shown that his record as Attorney-General on civil liberties is very much at risk and at stake, but also his whole attitude to this matter reveals that his understanding of the democratic rights and the ultimate responsibility of Parliament is just as deficient. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.25) —I support what Senator Durack has said and what the Opposition has to say on this matter. I do not propose in this speech to go into a number of other matters which are relevant to the argument on the tapes, but I think the matters raised by Senator Durack in his statement on 28 February and the questions he thought appropriate to be asked in the Parliament, which have been asked and expanded on since that time, are highly relevant; and I agree entirely with him. I understand that earlier today the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) thought he might be moved by my argument, which of course will be criticism of the opinions on which he relies. I am not so optimistic as to expect that. I hope to move the people of Australia to a realisation of what this means, but I would be too optimistic altogether if I expected to move the Attorney-General entirely from the fixed position in which he has already set himself. When I say 'fixed position' I should say his 'present fixed position', because if one takes the-- Senator MacGibbon —He will change tomorrow. Senator MISSEN —If one examines the questioning of last week one finds that the Attorney-General started by giving us some selective answers-I refer here mainly to the matters which the judge has said and I will be concentrating very much in that area-and then said that he thought they meant this and that his discussions with the judge were so and so, although we have not heard the lot. By Wednesday it had all turned hypothetical. We learnt then that the judge was not acknowledging that he had had any such conversations, but, if he had, they would have gone something like this and this might be so. This was greeted by humour in this chamber and it was a very weak situation. The Attorney-General resiled from that position, and so we come to Friday's position and today's position, where in effect he has said: 'There is no need for me to answer you people. There is no need for me to give any more information about this. We are satisfied. The Government is satisfied. You should be satisfied. You have no right to interfere further and ask further questions. I am not going to investigate the matter in connection with the judge any further and have not given the Special Prosecutor any such instructions'. Given that rather varied opposition and attitude of the Attorney-General, we can understand the remark of Mike Walsh just before Christmas that Senator Evans is to politics what Inspector Clousseau is to crime control. I do not know what next week will hold. I want to deal with the Attorney-General's statement before I turn mainly to Dr Gavan Griffith's comments and views. Several things in the Attorney-General's statement, I think, call for independent mention, because he put it down as an authoritative view. He referred, of course, to the remarks Mr Temby had made- that very early opinion he gave-on the meaning of misbehaviour when he told us that it was very limited, that Parliament must observe it, and that was that. One might say that that view was somewhat injudicious. For some reason better known to himself, he defined 'injudiciousness' in his later opinion, but I would have thought he was in grave difficulty in telling the Parliament what its conclusions were and in trying to place it in a straitjacket which it is not obliged to be in. Of course, it has an obligation to go much further when dealing with this matter. One finds on page 13 of the statement put down by the Attorney-General that he mentions the joint statement he made with the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) on 17 February. To summarise the statement, he said that the conversations between the judge and the solicitor, even if authentic, could not support any conclusion that the judge had been guilty of criminal misconduct- honourable senators will realise that that is the way it has been defined by Mr Temby; it has to be criminal misconduct-nor in the opinion of Mr Temby could their contents, if authentic, support in any way a conclusion that there had been misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 of the Australian Constitution. So that conclusion and Mr Temby's opinion was that misbehaviour has a very fixed meaning and that the Parliament is bound to accept it. The Attorney-General went on to say in that statement: Both the police report and Mr Temby's opinion make it clear that there is no basis upon which any further police or Special Prosecutor investigation of the alleged behaviour of the Judge, as revealed by the tapes and transcripts, could be justified. That is, apart from the fact that he has been to see the judge and has assured us that many of his statements are in a rather different context than would be evident at first sight. I have already expressed my view of the folly of the course he adopted of seeing the judge; and I hope that that folly has come to his attention in the last few days. The thing is that this shuts out the Parliament and suggests that the Parliament is not entitled or indeed obliged to examine serious allegations which are made about the behaviour of a judge. Senator Evans further says in the statement: I am satisfied, and the Government is satisfied, that there is no basis at all on which any substantive motion based on misbehaviour could or should be moved. That may be his opinion. It may be the Government's opinion. But it is the only conclusion to which the Senate can come when it sees the documents and the material, when it has the reports that are being undertaken at present, and when , with regard to this particular series of allegations, the Attorney-General does not intend to pursue, through the Special Prosecutor, any further examination. Reference has been made this afternoon to Mr Todd, a writer well before the Constitutional Convention, a man who expressed views in England. That apparently has now been deprecated by the Attorney-General, yet in his opinion, at page 16, he places great reliance on Mr Todd. Senator Durack —What was the date of Mr Todd's work on this? Senator MISSEN —I am not sure. It was sometime in the nineteenth century, certainly a long time before the constitutional conventions at the end of last century. On page 16 the Attorney-General was then quoting with approval Mr Todd' s work. Honourable senators should listen to this. The reference is: Misbehaviour includes- note that 'includes'- firstly, the improper exercise of judicial functions; secondly, wilful neglect of duty, or non-attendance; and thirdly, a conviction for any infamous offence, by which, although it be not connected with the duties of his office, the offender is rendered unfit to exercise any office or public franchise. Of course, there are differences in the provisions in England as opposed to those here, but it is important to realise-and this will be found in other things referred to here, which the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General totally ignore-that the wording includes 'misbehaviour'. It includes these things. It is not exclusive. It is not suggesting for one moment that there are not important other matters in judicial behaviour, matters such as improper associations with people, scandalous behaviour, interference in political affairs, and denigration of public officials. One could go on in a number of other areas about things that do not constitute a criminal offence but constitute the sort of action which would bring down a judge's good name, which would no longer allow him to be respected in the community, and which would bring down the judiciary generally in disrespect. It is my contention that those are the sorts of areas that must be considered by this House and the Parliament in its entirety. Senator Gareth Evans —Under section 72? Is that what you are saying? Senator MISSEN —Yes. Senator Gareth Evans —You have completely misread the law. Senator MISSEN —I am not going to let you, Senator, interrupt my speech. You put down a statement and opinions, and I am replying to them today. I shall not be deflected from my task by any interruptions. When referring to these matters, as to what are the duties of the Parliament in this respect, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General refer to a number of authorities, to Quick and Garran and others, and I think that they take them right out of context. But let me refer to something to which the Attorney- General has not referred-expressions by Lumb and Ryan, authors of The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Annotated, a recognised authority. In that work they say this about section 72, which has not been interpreted by the courts and is a matter still of some speculation. This is what they say on page 234 about the method of removal of judges: The removal procedure by address from the Houses of Parliament is the usual form of removal provided for in the Constitution Acts of the States and has been followed on the federal level. The question arises as to whether the High Court, if a removal of a judge were challenged before it, would require that a certain burden of proof be satisfied before the judge could be removed, or whether the requirement of proof is a matter which is within the sole jurisdiction of the Houses of Parliament and the Governor-General in Council; in other words, whether the only requirement is that the behaviour must clearly be proved to the satisfaction of the Houses of Parliament and the Governor-General in Council. It is more likely that this latter interpretation would be adopted, and that, apart from the case of a clearly politically motivated removal where there was no evidence of misbehaviour or incapacity, the High Court would not interfere with a proposed removal which has complied with the procedure laid down in s 72. That is the kernel of my case so far as this is concerned, and it is not the case of the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General. I maintain that that is a sound judgment of the law. I turn to certain matters in the opinion of the Solicitor-General, Dr Gavan Griffith. He was asked questions. He was asked the question about the meaning of misbehaviour in section 72 and in particular whether misbehaviour for this purpose is limited to matters pertaining to the judicial office in question and conviction for a serious offence which renders the person concerned unfit to exercise the office. Except for the fact that he does not say that conviction is necessary, he gives the Attorney very much the answer that he wanted because, at the end of a very tortured opinion, on page 14 at paragraph 23, he answers the question: Misbehaviour is limited in meaning in section 72 of the Constitution to matters pertaining to- (1) judicial office, including non-attendance, neglect of or refusal to perform duties- I interrupt there to say that that seems to be a very narrow meaning of judicial office; I think that there are many other things that might be done in a judicial office which in themselves would be matters which Parliament should consider. He goes on: (2) the commission of an offence against the general law of such a quality as to indicate that the incumbent is unfit to exercise the office. I reject the idea that that is the limitation, that it is limited in that way, and I intend to go on to show that. The position that follows in this opinion is that Dr Griffith, on page 3, makes some reliance there upon Mr Todd's work, which has already been referred to. Senator Peter Baume —It was in 1887. Senator MISSEN —Yes. In regard to this work, whereas in the Constitutional Convention the whole section was referred to, in paragraph 5 of the Solicitor- General's opinion, he quotes the definition, including the word 'includes', but there was no attention to that. He then also points out that there are latter parts in that statement, that is, that the power given to parliament is that of the exercise of that superintendence over the proceedings of the courts of justice, which is one of their most important functions, a right to appeal to the Crown for the removal of a judge who has, in their opinion, proved himself unfit for the proper exercise of his judicial office. This power is not in a strict sense judicial. It may be invoked upon occasions when the misbehaviour complained of would not constitute a legal breach of the conditions on which the office is held. He says further that, in entering upon an investigation of this kind, parliament is limited by: no restraints except such as may be self-imposed. Of course, the Constitutional Convention imposed this restraint that parliament should consider matters of proved misbehaviour and incapacity, but it was for parliament to have its attention drawn to them and for parliament to constrain itself with reference to them. It is curious that later on in the opinion, Dr Griffith loses his interest in Mr Todd and prefers the opinions of the text writers here in Australia instead; Quick and Garran he then finds rather convincing. It is very interesting that in regard to his opinion, Dr Griffith draws attention to what were the intentions of the founding fathers who met in the conventions at Adelaide, and there is reference to their general discussions, where they quoted Todd and various other writers. But he seems to have ignored entirely the significance of the Constitutional Convention debates in Melbourne that followed in the following year. It was there, of course, that the actual terms of section 72 were brought together; they were changed and they reached their final form. The significance of things said at that time, in that Conventon, by leading politicians of the day is important. One has been referred to by Senator Durack today-Sir George Turner. I shall not refer to what was said by him, but I shall refer to statements by a number of others. In the opinion that we have here, Dr Griffith points out that the judges do not regard it as necessary to consider the extent to which debates may be regarded. A number of the judges-Gibbs Chief Justice, Mason, and Wilson-have accepted Chief Justice Griffith's dictum, that it is permissible to have regard to Convention debates for the purpose of seeing what is the evil to be remedied. Then Dr Griffith goes on in a summary of what was the conclusion which I challenge. He says: Perusal of the Adelaide and Melbourne Convention Debates confirms the extent to which the delegates desired to deal with the need adequately to safeguard the independence of the judiciary as an essential feature of the separation of powers in the Federal system. He refers to Todd's summary read by Mr Isaacs as the perceived meaning of misbehaviour. He then says: Each of the successive amendments to the draft clause was intended further to limit, for the purpose of the Constitution, the power of removal to a single specific and narrow basis related solely to the established ground of removal for breach of conditions for good behaviour. That is a most unfair, most incorrect interpretation of the debate, particularly when it was finalised in Adelaide. He says: The general discretionary power of Parliament to address for removal on grounds other than misbehaviour, in the technical sense understood by the delegates, was eliminated, with the function of finding such misbehaviour vested in the Parliament rather than in the Executive. That is true, but it is a quite unfair down-playing of the debate. Parliament, and certainly not the courts, was to make the decision. While the clause was limited to misbehaviour and incapacity or proved misbehaviour and incapacity, it was for the parliament and not the courts to determine a serious question like that. Let me read from the remarks which Mr Isaacs made in that debate. He said: You must not allow the solemn verdict of two Houses of Parliament on this question to be challenged anywhere. If you do, what will be the result? To carry the case I have supposed one step further, the Judge is removed, or is attempted to be removed by a vote of the two Houses. We must always suppose that any Judge would have the fullest and fairest opportunity of defending himself before the two Houses. If the one House does not give him that opportunity I cannot but suppose that the other will. So it was expected that that was what would be done. Mr Kingston, the then Premier of South Australia, said: How do you propose to prevent it being challenged? After some discussion, Mr Reid said: If you add to the words 'praying for such removal,' the words 'upon the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity,' I think you would get rid of the difficulty. Make it necessary that the addresses shall allege misbehaviour or incapacity. It must be alleged. It must be drawn to the Houses' attention. That, of course, means that they would have a view on the matter. Senator Tate —The word 'proved' is missing from that. Senator MISSEN —I will get to that, do not worry. The word 'proved' was not in the wording then; it came in later, for a good reason. Mr Kingston went on a little later to say: We are all agreed that it is desirable to protect the Judges so long as they behave themselves in the best sense of the term, but at the same time on this question of good behaviour or misbehaviour we should make the position of the Federal Parliament unchallengeable and without appeal. That, of course, is what the founding fathers endeavoured to do, and, as I have said, succeeded in doing. Mr Barton, Australia's first Prime Minister, had this to say in the debate: We cannot conceive such a thing happening, for the safety of, and with benefit to the Commonwealth, as that a Judge, having committed some misdeed- I ask honourable senators to note the word 'misdeed'- or having lost his capacity, should find himself so utterly opposed to the decision of Parliament upon the matter that he should turn round and appeal to his brother Judges for a decision in his favour. We ought not to put him or the Federal Court in that position, and I do not think that it would conserve the dignity of the Court if we were to impose such a task upon it. Surely that was not done. Surely it was not the intention of the founding fathers, nor what they did. Sir George Turner has been referred to. His remarks were very much along the same lines. He referred to reckless behaviour. Things like this are not necessarily breaches of the law, but the behaviour of judges may have to be investigated by the parliament, in its duty. Mr Symon said: The only point is whether the final decision of the question should be left to the body described in the clause, namely, the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by the Governor-General in Council. I entirely agree that they ought to be the complete and final judges of the matter. It would be impossible and absurd that there should be an appeal to the tribunal of which the accused Judge-if I may use the expression-was a member; because he would continue to be nominally a member of the bench until his formal removal from it. The result of that was that the grounds were then worded in the present form. The Convention then considered the following amendment to the motion: . . . 'upon the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity' be added to the sub-section. Why was that? Mr Kingston said: We want to make it perfectly clear that the decision of the Houses as regards the matter of fact shall be conclusive. So it was suggested that the amendment could read either in that way or as follows: . . . upon the grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity, proved to the satisfaction of such Houses. Mr Reid said that that was not necessary and that he did not think that even the word 'proved' was necessary. Mr Issacs finished the debate by saying: I understand that the Drafting Committee will not be bound by the form of words adopted by us now, and that if the amendment is carried they will frame the clause using such language as they think will meet our intention, and ensuring that the addresses shall not be passed except because of what Parliament believes to be misbehaviour or incapacity, and that the finding of the two Houses shall be unchallengeable. Mr Symon said 'Hear, hear', and the amendment was agreed to. That was the finish of the debate. Anyone could read what the Solicitor-General said about the purport of the Convention debate. It is clear that it was the intention of the founding fathers to ensure that parliament would be unchallengeable if it considered or was directed to consider any proved misbehaviour or incapacity. In addition, the Solicitor-General acknowledged in his statement that Parliament has the right to prescribe any procedures which might be necessary. At paragraph 15 he said: Obviously 'proved misbehaviour' is to be established to the Parliament, and whatever the offence, such proof is not predicated upon anterior conviction in a court of law. I think that is quite right. He went on, however, to deal with another very interesting matter. This is where he came to the conclusion of his opinion. He referred in paragraph 20 of his opinion to the following question: whether the offence is of such a nature as to render the person unfit to exercise the office, although it is not committed in connection with the office. He said: The notion that private behaviour may affect performance of official duty was expressed by Burbury C. J. in Henry v. Ryan . . . These are the words that I quoted the other day: . . . misconduct in his private life by a person discharging public or professional duties may be destructive of his authority and influence and thus unfit to him to continue in his office or profession. He did not seem to bother to go on with that line. He left it, whereas I think it is a significant factor. It may well be the way in which a judge's whole authority is destroyed and why he, because of his conduct, may in certain circumstances have to be removed. He relied then upon Sir Garfield Barwick's opinion. He followed straight on with a view expressed by Sir Garfield Barwick, in an opinion to the Government on the Reserve Bank Bill of 1957. The conclusion is put this way: Thus the 'misbehaviour' in the Bill- the Reserve Bank Bill- . . . will be held to refer to conduct touching and concerning the duties of the member in relation to the office, but will also include acts in breach of the general law of such a quality as to indicate that the member is unfit for office . He used the word 'include', not 'exclude'. He referred not to the total package but to what is included. He immediately followed by saying: I concur with this opinion. It represents a contemporary statement . . . He said: . . . the terms of section 72 dicates meaning for 'proved misbehaviour'. He came to the conclusion that it was not that it included this or that, but that it was limited in meaning to the two things that he chose to be the way in which parliament must deal with it. I say that the opinion is faulty and a misuse of such authorities. Of course we do not have any authoritative determination by the courts of meanings of these things. But I think a couple of other rather useful things can be brought to the Senate's attention in making up its mind as to its own authority. I refer to the ruling by the first President of the Senate, Sir Richard Baker, in 1906, which is referred to in Odgers' Fifth Edition of Australian Senate Practice. Ruling 347 reads: There is no authority outside the Senate competent to decide whether the proceedings have been regular or irregular. The learned author, in his writings, refers to Cormack v. Cope, indicating that if the Parliament in its carrying out of legislation does not go through the required constitutional proceedings, the legislation may well be found to be constitutionally invalid. He refers also to the case of Browne v. Cowley and a statement by Chief Justice Griffith, before he was Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, when he said: I think that in dealing with this point the court ought to bear in mind the rule as laid down by Blackstone, and quoted by Sir James Stephen, in the case Bradlaugh v. Gossett . . . 'The whole of the law and custom of Parliament has originated from this one maxim-that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed, and adjudged in that House to which it relates, and not elsewhere'. That, I think, is a general statement, a general authority. Of course, it may be read down in some circumstances but it should not be in this case. This is a matter for Parliament to make its decision. I refer finally to the whole question of justiciability, which the Solicitor- General does not bother about, and the fact that many parts of the Constitution which prescribe duties to the Parliament will not be interfered with by the courts. Professor Ryan, the learned author of a paper to the Australian Constitutional Convention about putting constitutional conventions into a legislative form, referred to section 47 of the Constitution and stated: . . . questions of disputed elections are to be determined by the House in which the question arises. There are other provisions of this sort. He stated further: However, it can be said while the Courts are under a duty to determine the validity of any attempted excercise of legislative power and to exercise the judicial power with which they are vested under the Constitution, the exercise of the reserve powers of the Crown does not in itself give rise to justiciable issues; and it would be quite possible to detail in the Constitution the rules . . . This whole question of whether a thing is justiciable, whether a court will interfere, is a matter that is not resolved in this section of the Constitution; but I suggest that, because of the intention of the founders of the Constitution , it would not be one that would. I would have liked to refer to the case of Osbourne and the Commonwealth in which some reference was made to this matter but time does not allow that. Finally, I have come to some conclusions from the authorities before us. One could also ask, in the words that were made rather famous by Mr Ian Sinclair last week: 'How could they have got it so wrong?' How could the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have got it so wrong? They have wrongly sought to restrict the power of parliament. They have told us, quickly and in advance: ' You are not entitled to make a proper inquiry'. Parliament does not just have a power but it has a duty, where allegations are made, to investigate those allegations and to be satisfied from its own knowledge, not from the filtered processes which the Attorney-General chooses. It is the duty of the parliament in doing these things-there is a necessity for us all to exercise natural justice-to have these things proved to the satisfaction of the parliament. Aside from actions which have no semblance of misbehaviour, where the parliament acted in a purely political way, the courts will not interfere with a serious determination of facts made by the parliament. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General of this country can advise the parliament; in fact they should. But they have gone further than this. They have attempted to circumscribe the Parliament and to tell it what it should do. It is our job to act with caution because of the nature of these tapes. It is our job to act in the interests of preserving the integrity of the judiciary. This is a job which is facing this Parliament; it is not one that can be taken away from it. For these reasons, I support the amendment and I suggest that the views which have been expressed in law by these learned gentlemen are unsound. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.54) —We are in the Senate chamber this afternoon embarking on what I would take to be a very grave matter because it could involve questions relating to the exercising of a quite extraordinary power vested in the Governor-General in Council upon an address being framed and made by the Houses of the Parliament in a way which could lead to a member of the Federal judiciary being removed from office. Therefore, I think it behoves this chamber to take the matter with the seriousness which I believe has been the occasion up to now. I agree with Senator Durack and Senator Missen that the question of the interpretation of section 72 of the Constitution, which is the fundamental section with which we are concerned, is not justiciable. It is a matter for the Parliament. To that extent I entirely agree that anything that is done within either House of the Parliament in relation to section 72 is not something which can be the subject of judicial review. There is no question that what goes on within the walls of this Parliament in relation to the exercising of the powers conferred by section 72 is a matter for parliamentarians in the exercising of a very extraordinary public duty and obligation cast upon them by that section. I entirely agree that this is not a justiciable matter; it is a matter which we have to resolve and determine for ourselves. What we do is unchallenge- able and without appeal. Therefore it makes us even more conscious, I suggest, of the heavy responsibility placed upon us. It is quite apparent, to put it in its most obvious form, why this is so. One could not have a judge in this situation, according to Senator Missen, appealing to a bench of fellow judges to second guess the parliament in relation to his proved misbehaviour or incapacity. There are deeper reasons having to do with the separation of powers why it is so that this matter is not justiciable. Having said that it cannot be a matter of review by the courts, it is not surprising, therefore, that we have no judicial assistance or precedents to guide us in our deliberations as to the true role of the parliament. We have to turn to the texts of learned authors to note the law and custom of parliament. I will come to that in a moment. I also want to make clear what is the role of the Parliament. Let us remember that it is not to remove the judge. The role of the Parliament is to frame and make an address praying or alleging that certain misbehaviour or incapacity is the case. Honourable senators should not forget that it is the Governor-General in Council who has the power and responsibility perhaps to remove the judge. It is the Governor-General in Council-it is specifically put in those terms in the Constitution-advised by his Ministers who exercises the power of removal. He awaits the address of both Houses of Parliament before he can act with his Executive Council. That is where the actual power resides. He awaits our action before that power can be exercised. What action is required? What is it that the Parliament has to do in relation to section 72? I think it is quite legitimate to turn to such learned authors as Arthur Horatio Todd, who I believe wrote his text in 1894. Therefore, it was available and present in the minds of the framers of our Constitution. I never call them founding fathers. The framers of our Constitution would have had before them quite clearly the benefit of Todd's review of the law and customs of parliament. In my remarks in this chamber last Wednesday I said, and I still think it is probably correct: 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. I believe that this nineteenth century text is relevant because, as I say, it clearly would have been present in the minds of the framers of the Constitution as it was recorded and recounted by Quick and Garran, who were not only eminent lawyers but also participants in and contemporaries of the whole process of the framing of the Constitution. Therefore, what they say was the understanding of the framers of the Constitution, who had Todd before them, I think carries considerable weight. One must look at the opinion given by the Solicitor-General -I do not rely on Mr Temby at all-because, as Senator Durack said, it is the Solicitor-General who is an acknowledged expert in the field of constitutional law. Mr Temby has experience in other areas of the law. I believe he has practised in criminal jurisdiction amongst others. The position, as put by the Solicitor-General, Dr Griffith, in paragraph 5 has been conveniently summarised by Todd. He states: Behaviour means behaviour in the grantee's official capacity. Misbehaviour includes, firstly, the improper exercise of judicial functions; secondly, wilful neglect of duty, or non-attendance; and, thirdly, a conviction for any infamous offence-- There are three matters that could possibly amount to misbehaviour: Firstly, improper exercise of judicial functions; secondly, wilful neglect of duty or non -attendance; and thirdly, a conviction for any infamous offence. Of course, whichever of those three matters is relevant would have to be proved in some appropriate way to the Senate chamber or House of Representatives chamber. That is quite clear. Senator Teague —Are they the only three? Senator TATE —They are the only three that are relevant because of this point which is made constantly in the opinion. There is a reliance on the debates and, particularly, the understanding of Quick and Garran; namely, that whereas in England a judge could be removed for any of those three reasons of misbehaviour which amount to a breach of the conditions of holding the office, in addition there could be a more general address by the Westminster Parliament which could lead to the removal of a judge without having to show that any of those three conditions had occurred. The framers of the Australian Constitution decided not to vest that general power in the Australian Parliament to make an address praying for the removal of a judge on the basis of any other matters than those three matters which amount to breach of the conditions of the holding of the office. That is made quite clear by Quick and Garran in reliance on the debates. Senator Hill —How can you conclude that that is an exhaustive definition of ' misbehaviour'? Senator TATE —Mr Acting Deputy President, I am not saying to the Senate-I think I tried to make this clear in my remarks last Wednesday-that that is, in fact, an exhaustive definition of misbehaviour. What I am saying is that when the Constitution was framed the framers of the Constitution had before them a very clear understanding of the tradition and the customs of the Westminster Parliament and they very deliberately made a decision to cut down, to curtail, to restrict what, in normal parlance and in normal thought, might constitute misbehaviour justifying removal from office. Senator Durack —Has the British Parliament ever removed a judge from office for anything less than serious misbehaviour in a general sense? Senator TATE —I cannot answer the question. I do not know enough of the individual instances. Senator Durack —That is where Mr Shetreet would be helpful to the Attorney- General. He might learn more about it. Senator TATE —I am making my own contribution. My contribution is that we are entitled to draw on the tradition, as known to the framers of the Constitution, at the time of the making of the Constitution at the end of the nineteenth century. They were quite clearly of the mind that a judge ought only to be removed for one of those three reasons which would have to be proved to the Parliament. Proof of those breaches of the conditions of the holding of the office is required. In relation to the third, namely, some sort of criminal offence, I am confident in saying that it was not intended that Parliament should, somehow, resolve itself into a court, exercise judicial power and assess whether certain facts had occurred and assess whether those facts amounted to a breach of the criminal law with some offence attracting some sort of penalty. Rather, as I see it, the role of the Parliament in all this is to receive proof in an appropriate way-by looking at the record of some court-that an offence did occur, and then it is the role of the Parliament to characterise, to give a certain colouring, to give a certain assessment of the weight of the grievousness of that particular proved offence. In other words, it is up to the Parliament to decide whether that particular conviction amounts to misbehaviour in the true sense of something that is infamous. Senator Chaney —And if no proceedings are brought? Senator TATE —If there is no conviction the Parliament cannot proceed in this matter. Senator Gareth Evans —That is not the case. The Crown can proceed on the basis of that which would found the criminal proceedings. Senator TATE —I am giving my opinion. Senator Gareth Evans —I don't know what the hell you base that on. Senator TATE —I have not had the benefit of the full exposure. My point is that the role of the Parliament is to characterise the offence which has either attracted a conviction or, I am advised by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), which could possibly be brought to the court to attract a conviction. I have not had sufficient time to consider that. However, as I see it, the role of the Parliament is to characterise the offence as one amounting to misbehaviour; that is, infamous conduct even though the offence itself has nothing to do with the exercise of judicial function, nothing to do with incapacity to actually discharge the duties of office, nevertheless is so infamous as to call for, to cry out for, the removal of that judge from the high office which he holds. To that extent, the quotation from Chief Justice Burbury was correct, insofar as matters occurring in one section of a person's life can have a profound effect on his ability or propriety to hold office even though there is no absolute necessary connection between the two. The fact is that the case Senator Missen quoted was of a rather different order . A policeman had been found only in his underclothing in the grounds of St Mary 's College in Hobart, a school for Catholic girls. This was thought by the court to be conduct such as could amount to a breach of the disciplinary code of the police even though it had nothing to do with, say, insubordination or refusing to carry out an order given by a superior officer. It was, nevertheless, a breach of discipline or could be misconduct amounting to a breach of discipline in the view of the court. All that shows is that something occurring in one portion of a person's life may lead to a conclusion that it is quite improper for him to hold high judicial office. But under our Constitution we are not able to wander at large through a person's life and find out whether the holder of a federal judicial office has conducted himself or herself in such a way as to warrant the conclusion that the incumbent is unfit to hold office. We are restricted to the criteria put forward so succinctly by Todd that requires that there be a breach of the conditions of holding office, namely, some improper exercise of judicial function, a wilful neglect of duty or non-attendance, or a conviction for an infamous offence. That was before the framers of the Constitution and that explains why they restricted the matter, not to misbehaviour, but to proved misbehaviour relying on that particular line of authority. Senator Missen —That is not the Solicitor-General's opinion. Senator TATE —It is the Solicitor-General's opinion. Senator Missen —No. He says no conviction is required. Senator TATE —I believe the honourable senator has completely misunderstood the Solicitor-General's opinion. He does say that proved misbehaviour is to be established to the Parliament and, whatever the offence, such proof is not predicated upon anterior conviction in a court of law. I insist that we have to come to our own judgment as to what is right or wrong. We are not able to draw on any precedents available from the judiciary. My understanding of it would be that all that the Solicitor-General is indicating is that there are three criteria, three possible ways in which the holder of Federal judicial office may bring into being a situation where there can be an address for his removal. I have indicated them time and again. So it does not depend only on a prior conviction; it can depend, amongst other things, on improper exercise of judicial function, wilful neglect of duty, or non-attendance. Insofar as it relates to some general breach of the law, there has to be a conviction, and that is what I believe to be the situation. Before this chamber can embark upon making an address for the removal of any holder of Federal judicial office, there must be brought before it proof, in whatever the appropriate way might be, of an improper exercise of judicial function, and I do not think that that has been alleged; proof of a wilful neglect of duty or non-attendance, and I do not think that that has been alleged ; or proof of conviction for any infamous conduct, and that is not the case. It has been suggested by way of interjection that we are waiting on some prosecution to take place and that that is somehow putting the Parliament in a subordinate position to the decision of some prosecuting authority. Actually, I believe that that is the case. I believe that it was intended that that be the case. I believe it was intended that, rather than this chamber resolving itself into a court to determine whether any particular conduct amounted to a breach of criminal law, what we are required to do, in a judicial manner, a conviction for an offence having occurred, is to try to characterise the offence and decide whether it amounts to infamous behaviour. That would be our role. We are dependent, therefore, on the opinion of the prosecuting authorities as to whether a prosecution ought to be launched. In that regard, Mr Temby's opinion becomes relevant, and since it is in the public domain one is entitled to quote from it. Mr Temby, having read the transcripts and heard the tapes, states on page 2: 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. He explains why, in the absence of any authentication of those tapes, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make them the basis of any high criminal standard of proof in the absence of any admission. Throughout his opinion he states that the matters outlined in the tapes, even if taken to be authentic, do not amount to material such as could found a prosecution. For example, with regard to the question of the judge perhaps playing a role of persuasion in the appointment of a person to an office within the New South Wales Public Service, he stated: If it be the case that (the Judge) used influence or persuasion, direct or indirect, to have him appointed to that position, then that carries no consequence so far as criminal conduct is concerned. Such instances occur throughout the opinion. In other words, Mr Temby pointed out that as a prosecutor he would find it almost impossible to find in the material that has been handed to him admissible evidence and, even if it were in a state of admissibility, there is revealed in it nothing which would allow one to say that any criminal activity may have occurred which would warrant prosecution. So insofar as we await that conviction, we nevertheless have it from the Special Prosecutor that a prosecution is unlikely to be forthcoming. I believe, therefore, that this chamber is left in a state, perhaps, of discontent, perhaps of having some misgivings, perhaps of being somewhat upset that it cannot engage in this wholly judicial function of deciding whether an offence of the requisite kind of seriousness has occurred. Its function is to decide, an offence having been proved before it by looking at the record of a court, whether the offence is of sufficient seriousness, is of a character which demands, cries out for, removal of a judge. We must await a conviction before we can decide that. As Dr Griffith, the Solicitor-General, stated in paragraph 21 of his opinion: In matters not pertaining to office, the requirement- and this is where I think Senator Missen has been misled- is not conviction for offence in a court of law. That is true, but that sentence cannot be taken in isolation. He continued: In as much as Parliament considers the matter, the question is whether there is proved offence against the general law of ''such a nature as to warrant the conclusion that the incumbent is unfit to exercise the office'' . . . The Parliamentary enquiry is whether commission of an offence of the requisite quality and seriousness is proved. I believe that that is the role of this chamber. When an offence is proved before us, by looking at the court record, we must then decide whether the requisite quality and seriousness amounting to infamous misconduct or misbehaviour has occurred. We cannot proceed until that is put before us. I believe it is for this chamber to make up its mind finally. I believe it must have regard to the law and custom of Parliament, as indicated in the authorities that were available to the Australian Constitutional Convention, because we will find no other aid to the minds of the framers of the Constitution. I believe when one does that, one must come to the conclusion that the opinion by the Solicitor-General correctly and succinctly states the tradition and custom that the framers of the Constitution adopted for the conduct of matters of such high importance as this by this Parliament. For that reason, I support the Attorney- General to this point and repudiate the amendment put forward at the end of the motion by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.17) —A year ago today I was elected to this Parliament, and I am very proud to be able to stand in this Parliament. I was even more proud to be elected to the Senate, where meaningful and responsible debate takes place and where, as a result of the Australian Democrats holding the balance of power, significant debate takes place because it is possible for legislation to be amended, improved, adopted or rejected on a non-partisan basis. A good illustration of that was the Sex Discrimination Bill. Today I believe we have dropped our standard. Let us put this debate into perspective from the Democrats' point of view. I do not think that anybody in Australia has a reputation which can match that of Senator Chipp in his campaign to fight organised crime in this country. The Australian Democrats have supported him and will continue to support him to the hilt in that fight against organised crime. We will join with any party, any body, any organisation or any part of society to fight against organised crime. We believe it should be a major concern of the parliaments, the courts, the police and the public of this country. Having said that, let us look at the issues with which we are confronted at the moment. Some questions need to be asked from both the pro and the anti points of view. I think a number of questions need to be asked in the context of this debate. Firstly, should police make public the evidence and the innuendo that they gather in their police activities? Secondly, should the fruits of illegal activities of the police, which produce evidence which is not acceptable in the court, be used to denigrate citizens who cannot defend themselves in the courts because no charges are laid? Thirdly, at a time when laws of libel are under scrutiny is it fair and just for newspapers to publish scandalous gossip gathered from purported transcripts of illegally obtained tapes which have yet to be tested for their genuineness? Fourthly, should the newspaper have printed these defamatory articles, minus the names, with an awareness of the potential for the names to be subsequently revealed either inside or outside this Parliament or any other parliament? Finally, why has the public denigration of David Combe in the Parliament-with some substantiation by tapes-been considered reprehensible by certain newspapers when the public denigration of other people in this way is considered justifiable by those same newspapers? I believe it is absolutely vital for this country to have a free Press. I admire the free Press and particularly the newspapers which are the subject of complaints concerning the revelation of these matters. I believe that the Age and the National Times have behaved over the years in a very responsible manner. I applaud their willingness to research and to conduct in-depth investigations into matters that they believe are of public concern. I take nothing away from their desire and their willingness to get in there and find out what is at the bottom of these matters. I think nevertheless that those questions need to be asked of those newspapers and all newspapers in this affair. On the other hand, with the reputations of Australia's parliamentary system and judicial system impugned by the publication of the tapes transcripts why have not the Federal and New South Wales governments appointed a royal commission to investigate the manner in which the tapes were made, transcribed, distributed and used? Why was this matter not referred to Mr Costigan, for instance? I think the questions which need to be asked in this context are: Firstly, were the tapes used to blackmail anybody? Secondly, were they doctored? Thirdly, did they lead to the need for top level crime investigations which were not followed through? Fourthly, who knew about the tapes' existence and when? Fifthly, if the tapes and the transcripts are authentic what further action should be taken, and by whom? Sixthly, were other tapes produced under similar circumstances which have not yet come to light-for whatever reason, including the selectivity of the person making the tapes and handling the tapes? Finally, on this side of the question, what measures, including legislative, need to be taken to protect the civil liberties of all Australians? Senator Robert Ray —Well, why don't you answer those questions? Senator JACK EVANS —I am not going to answer those questions because I have a very real concern for what is happening in this Parliament at this time. I am concerned with the abuse of parliamentarians' time in debates such as this. My speech will be very brief to emphasise that point. However, I needed to put the matter into context. The Australian Democrats abhor the abuse of the forum provided by the national Parliament to drag reputations through the mud in the way that has been done this year. If parliamentarians want to throw dirt then I ask them to throw it out in the public arena and not to abuse the forms of the Parliament to throw that dirt. I ask them to cease the abuse of the great privilege of freedom to say virtually anything on practically any subject-a magnificent freedom given to the parliamentarians of this country-and, I remind honourable senators, a privilege denied to all other Australians, even those who are the subjects of attacks in this Parliament. I ask parliamentarians to stop using the time and the privileges of this Parliament to conduct the lower form of political campaigning in here. I am appealing to all honourable senators, to all parliamentarians to get on with governing and legislating for the people we represent. The hours that we have spent on debating these tapes I believe should have been used to debate subjects such as human rights legislation, which is still pending ; industrial democracy legislation, for which many people have been waiting for years; tax and sales tax injustices which are endemic to this country; ways of stopping nuclear proliferation-my God, people who have seen films such as The Day After or the magnificent film which I was privileged to see last night, Testament, must be concerned at the lack of concern shown by parliamentarians on this topic-or how we can rescue small businesses in this country from the dreadful state to which they have finally succumbed as a result of being neglected by the parliaments of this country. We should be debating the future of Australia's banking system-a red hot issue at the moment. We should not be taking up our time in the way that we have this afternoon with this debate. We should be debating Australia's education crisis and the escalation of health costs, Australia's pension and superannuation systems and our country's future defence direction. The National Crime Authority itself should be the subject we are debating today, not this mud that has been thrown around this Parliament for the last couple of weeks. I express my concern-I believe it is the concern of all Australian Democrats and indeed, I suspect, of most Australians outside this Parliament-for the fact that over the next three weeks while we endure another election in New South Wales we will have more of the same. I believe that all Australians, not just the people of New South Wales, will be watching and listening to this Parliament over the next three weeks. The question will be asked whether we are going to set a new low standard of political debate for this country or whether we will rise above the gutter level politics that some honourable members and honourable senators obviously prefer. I will speak for my Party. In the New South Wales campaign there will be no dirt from the Australian Democrats. They will be debating the real issues-the quality of life issues such as hospitals, education and transport. Fortunately the Democrats do have answers. Many of these answers have been picked up by the Australian Labor Party since it came to government. I am delighted that these matters have been picked up by this Parliament. These matters similarly will be picked up by the New South Wales Parliament as a result of the election of our Upper House Leader, Ray Griffiths, who will join the Honourable Liz Kirkby in the Upper House of that Parliament after this election. We will have meaningful debate. Mr DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Evans, you are getting very wide of the subject of the main issue. I ask you to refer to the actual subject of the debate. Senator JACK EVANS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President, I will follow your lead. In my discussions over the weekend with members of this Parliament, with honourable senators and with my constituents I felt growing disquiet at the direction that the Parliament is taking and the inordinately disproportionate amount of time being spent in debate which has no other purpose than to denigrate either people outside the Parliament or people inside the Parliament. In particular, on broadcast days parliamentarians seem to have concentrated their time and attention on the topic of tapes, taps, transcripts, corruption, and abuse of judges and justices and each other. We are currently suffering massive problems in our economy with unemployment, under-employment, redevelopment of our resources and the possible consequences of the deregulation of banking and financial institutions in this country. Surely our priorities should now turn to resolving some of these problems. I believe that the people of Australia and the majority of parliamentarians would support the Australian Democrats' attitude on this. Senator Archer —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. It is very good for Senator Evans to take the opportunity to open the New South Wales election campaign in this way! He has barely touched on the subject matter. Whilst I appreciate the material he is giving I do not think it has any relevance at all. I ask you to see that we get on with the discussion on the tapes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have already warned Senator Evans about relevance. He must stick to the subject of the debate which is the tapes. Senator JACK EVANS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I have been back on that subject since you issued your correction to me. I am disappointed that Senator Archer has not recognised that. I ask, in the name of the people of Australia, who are listening to this debate and to this Parliament, that we get on with discussing the topics for which we were elected and that we let Mr Costigan, or other appropriate people, get on with the investigation of crime and corruption in this country. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.30) —To a formal motion that the Senate take note of a ministerial statement on the Age tapes, the Opposition has moved an amendment that there be laid on the table of the Senate certain transcripts, portions of transcripts and an aide memoire of the discussions of the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) sanitised by the removal of names or other information which might identify individuals. The amendment, which I support, does not seek to make judgments about any person, any tape or any judicial figure. It does not seek to bring down an address for the removal of any judge. It does not go into that question. The amendment seeks to have brought into this Parliament information about transcripts, records of conversations and primary data sanitised to protect individuals and to protect the naming of individuals which the Senate can use. It seeks these things in a situation, as I shall describe, in which confidence in public administration in my State of New South Wales is in question. What is at issue in this amendment is the determination of the Liberal and National Parties to have brought into this Parliament such information, without names, that would allow us to test or assess what is going on. The Australian Labor Party is determined to prevent that course being followed, to prevent that information coming to the Parliament and to prevent the Parliament from knowing what it needs to know in order to do its duty. If, as Senator Tate admitted, the Parliament is the arena which finally has to make up its mind, how can he and his Party logically deny to the Parliament the information and the means so to do? My colleagues Senator Durack and Senator Missen, as lawyers, have already set out the case in detail and with compelling logic. They have indicated the role, the rights and the primacy of the Parliament over the Executive on this, as in all matters. To some extent, Senator Tate, in the speech which he made, accepted their argument. I put it to Senator Tate that if the Executive fails to act, is he seriously suggesting that the Parliament is powerless to take action? That is the logical conclusion of what he suggested. It is an extraordinary view. In another country Watergate proved that view to be wrong and to be a view, which in the face of Executive intransigence, is not in the public interest. I put the argument not as a lawyer but in a different way. Our request is simple. Let the Parliament know and, through letting the Parliament know, let the people know what is going on. Let the people know the information. It is consistent with all the principles of open government which Senator Gareth Evans , when in Opposition, was so eager to espouse. My colleague Senator Durack drew attention to one such occasion. I am reminded of another occasion in November 1980 when, in Opposition, he moved a motion condemning the then government for not releasing certain sensitive material. His motion stated that he viewed with grave concern the attempts by the Government to suppress the publication of whatever it was. He described behaviour in trying to stop publication by booksellers as intimidatory and dishonest. He said that the action that was taking place merely served to give greater circulation to the material. I submit to the Attorney that what he said in 1980 when he was in Opposition could well be thrown back at him now. As a New South Welshman, as a citizen of New South Wales, as a New South Wales senator, I have special concern about these tapes. They refer to matters within my State but they do not refer to them in isolation. I stand alongside my State colleague, Mr Greiner, and alongside his predecessor, Mr Dowd, in wanting the information concerning these kinds of events brought out in the open. There is the stench of corruption over the State where I live and it is associated with the administration. It is not isolated; the events are mounting up. It has been consistently denied by the Government of that State until time after time the evidence has been shoved down its throat and has had to be accepted. In less than three weeks there will be an election in New South Wales. Senator Jack Evans has referred to that election. The Premier of New South Wales has said that the charges of corruption arising partly out of these tapes are part of the election issue before the people of New South Wales. If that is what the Premier said, that is even more reason for this Parliament having an entitlement to know, for the people of New South Wales having an entitlement to know, enough information for them to have some help in making up their minds on how they will determine their vote on the issue which the Premier has identified as central to the election. Senator Missen —He has had a death bed repentance. Senator PETER BAUME —He has had a death bed action. He has identified the election as being based on charges of corruption. All the Opposition's amendment seeks to do is produce that information for the Parliament and, through the Parliament, make it available to the people. What is wrong with that? We have sought to have the information treated so that individuals will not be named. Unless there is something to hide, unless there is some cover-up, what logical argument can there be for preventing the people of New South Wales knowing what it is that the Labor Government is sitting on which refers to action in a Labor State which is going to the people and claiming that the corruption charges are the issue before them? These facts are relevant to matters in dispute in New South Wales today. It has been claimed that the exercise is just one of allegation without foundation. Senator Gareth Evans —You are going to name them tomorrow. Senator PETER BAUME —I will examine the context within which these allegations have occurred because the Attorney, who is shouting to try to interrupt me, will have to admit that it is not so. These are not just allegations without foundation. Senator Gareth Evans —Hypocrite. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order ! Firstly, I ask the Attorney-General to come to order. I notice that he is on the list to speak later. I think a number of the matters he wants to raise can be mentioned then. Secondly, I ask him to withdraw the remark that he has just made. Senator Gareth Evans —I withdraw. Senator PETER BAUME —Sadly New South Wales, my State, the premier State of Australia, has been under the Wran Government. There has been a proven story of corruption dishonesty, lying, resignations, bashings and a total breakdown in public confidence. I say to my colleague Senator Jack Evans of the Australian Democrats that if he does not believe that these facts of history over the last five years of the breakdown of public confidence in New South Wales deserve our concern, I will be forced to say, sadly, that the Australian Democrats, in the election which is coming up, will be even more irrelevant than I thought they would be on the basis of their record. The record in New South Wales goes back at least to the death of my friend, former Liberal candidate Donald Mackay, a campaigner against illegal drug use. Today we have a sub judice matter concerning his death. However, I have to note that a Mr Robert Trimbole was conveniently allowed to escape from Australia, allegedly on the basis of information leaked to him from within the New South Wales police. There has been a series of matters which set the context for these tapes and for our demand that the Parliament and the people of New South Wales have information. These events are not pretty. They start with the senior stipendiary magistrate in New South Wales, Mr Murray Farquhar, who has not only brought discredit upon the whole magistracy but also has been backed by the Premier and other Ministers step by step throughout the events brought before the Parliament where people tried to bring him to heel. Senator Tate —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I ask you to call Senator Baume to order. He is referring to matters which I understand are still the subject of judicial proceedings. The subject of Mr Murray Farquhar is one such matter. Senator MacGibbon —It is a matter of public record. Senator Tate —I do not need Senator MacGibbon's help. I am speaking to the Chair . Secondly, in any case, these matters are certainly not related to the subject of the tapes and transcripts, the tabling of which is being sought. Senator PETER BAUME —In regard to the point of order, there are a large number of matters involving Mr Murray Farquhar. One of those matters is sub judice. I will exercise appropriate discretion in referring to that matter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Under those circumstances I call Senator Baume. I accept his undertaking. Senator PETER BAUME —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I accept the point that Senator Tate is making. One must try to be careful. I remind the Senate that Mr Murray Farquhar has had a long and chequered history in New South Wales. I remind the Senate that evidence appeared at a royal commission that approaches were made to Sir Harold Dickinson by Mr Gleeson of the Premier's department, on behalf of the Government, to have Mr Farquhar continue hearing cases when his record was known. At present there is a case to which I will not refer but which involves Mr Farquhar and which bears upon this whole question of public confidence. In a number of other episodes over the years Mr Murray Farquhar's behaviour was brought before the Parliament. Let me remind honourable senators that in the Sankey v. Whitlam case it was brought before the New South Wales Parliament in June 1977 that Mr Farquhar had discussed the case with the presiding stipendiary magistrate, Mr Leo, at the request of a member of the Labor Government of New South Wales. Mr Farquhar admitted discussing the case and said that he was just pointing out to Mr Leo that there may have been a conflict of interests. I remind the Senate that on that occasion-I am setting the context of concern in New South Wales-Mr Wran defended Mr Farquhar in the Parliament. I remind the Senate, too, that in March 1978 it was alleged in the Parliament that Mr Farquhar improperly dismissed a case against a King's Cross-- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Might I suggest that it is quite disgraceful for Senator Baume to be misusing the privilege of this place in this way. It is well known that there is a matter before the courts at the moment involving Mr Farquhar. The matters raised by Senator Baume all go to Mr Farquhar's credit and credibility. They are being used in this way in a shameless fashion by Senator Baume, who is misusing his position at the moment. I urge you to draw him to order, Mr Acting Deputy President. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —This matter was raised earlier. Senator Baume has given me certain undertakings. I think it would probably be best, Senator Baume, if you were to move on to another part of your argument as soon as possible. Senator PETER BAUME —I will refer only to at least three or four other occasions . On each one Mr Farquhar was defended against allegations of misconduct. He was defended by Mr Mulock on two occasions and on another occasion by Mr Wran. If it is not desired that I should set these matters out, I am sorry. I will refer also to another matter which has had to be raised again; that is, the Cessna v Milner case in New South Wales, heard before Mr Farquhar and in which there may have been a grave miscarriage of justice. The solicitor who appeared in that case was Mr Morgan Ryan. Mr Wran admitted that Mr Morgan Ryan made representations to the Commissioner of Police on that occasion on behalf of Cessna. Mr Wran said: We can only be suspicious that the law was bent by the ex-commissioner to oblige a friend. People in New South Wales are sick at heart about what is going on in the State. Here we have a saga of a person who was head of the magistracy and who was defended by Labor politicians in the New South Wales Parliament time after time in relation to serious matters which go very much to the question of corruption. But it does not end there. What about the case of the Deputy Commissioner of Police in New South Wales? What does that do for public confidence in the administration of justice in New South Wales? Mr Allen was a junior officer. He was promoted over 16 officers who were senior to him, at the insistence of Mr Wran. He was then appointed, against the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police, as Deputy Commissioner of Police. Later it emerged in relation to a number of allegations that Deputy Commissioner Allen was not a fit person to be Deputy Commissioner of Police in New South Wales. He had been promoted under the patronage of Mr Neville Wran, the Premier of New South Wales. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I suggest that Senator Baume is using the cover of this motion to roam at large on matters that have nothing whatsoever to do with the tape material, or with the amendment before the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Baume, you mentioned earlier that the comments you were making had relevance to the amendment before the Chair. I have been listening carefully. I have been trying to tie them in with the amendment. I ask you to proceed, but to make sure that the remarks that you are making, which are sensitive ones involving personal liberties of people outside this Parliament, are related to the amendment. Senator PETER BAUME —The people of New South Wales are being asked to make a judgment on allegations concerned with the Age tapes. It is alleged that these allegations are without foundation. I am discussing by way of context the real history of corruption and the lack of confidence in New South Wales which make the people anxious to know about these tapes and make them concerned that the administration of the Government of New South Wales is not dependable. I remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that this particular Deputy Commissioner of Police had to be dismissed following a visit to Las Vegas and was retired on a pension of $19,000 a year, to the disgust of his fellow policemen. It was thought that he was treated extremely leniently. The Government of New South Wales ended up paying his legal costs following the investigation of charges which led to his dismissal for having disgraced the police force of which he was a member. But it does not end there. The people of New South Wales are sick at heart about another matter which is to come up for investigation concerning the early release scheme. That led to the resignation of a Labor Minister from the New South Wales Government for having misled the Parliament. That Minister was defenced and defended by the Premier of New South Wales until finally the evidence became too much and he was forced, when caught red-handed, to resign. He was known to be associated with a notorious gentleman, a Mr 'Neddy' Smith. It was thought that the early release scandal was sufficient to require his resignation from the New South Wales Ministry. I remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that that happened only when the Senate pursued this matter and only when the Senate, by promising to carry out its own investigation, forced the Government of New South Wales to take the matter seriously. I do not wonder that the people opposite are taking points of order to try to stop this material being presented. The people of New South Wales are disgusted by what has been going on. They are disgusted by the evidence of corruption in the magistracy within the Government and within the police. It does not end there. There is corruption within the New South Wales Labor Party. I remind the Senate that the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking raised the question of a Mr Danny Casey who was Deputy Mayor of Leichhardt and a member of the Labor Party at the time. He was found by the Woodward Royal Commission to be the principal of a major drug pedalling ring. It was alleged that he had channelled $20,000 into Labor Party funds to avoid prosecution on drug charges. Wings Travel Pty Ltd was also mentioned before the Woodward Royal Commission. It issued cheap airline tickets to members of the Australian Labor Party and to other people between 1976 and 1979. That company was named in the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking as a front for drug operations. Mr Murray Riley, well known in New South Wales-- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order, might I suggest that the honourable senator is flagrantly defying the succession of rulings you have given from the chair that discussion at large-I should say, barrel scraping at large-in the way the honourable senator is attempting simply does not bear upon the immediate subject matter of this debate or the amendment before the Chair. You have brought him to order several times already and I suggest that he is just behaving in contempt of the Chair at the moment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —I do not know at this stage that I have brought the honourable senator to order. I have asked him to tie his comments to the amendment before us. It seems to me that Senator Baume is listing some arguments as to why these tapes should be presented to the Senate. In those circumstances, I will ask Senator Baume to continue. Senator PETER BAUME —There are not many more examples I wish to use, but I mention that Mr Murray Riley travelled on a ticket issued by Wings Travel with a 75 per cent discount; and that has sickened the people of New South Wales as well. The final case I mention is the Sergi case in which several people in 1976 were committed for trial in Griffith for conspiracy to grow and sell Indian hemp. All except one man-Mr Sergi-were found guilty. The foreman of the jury stated that the jury was unlikely to agree over Mr Sergi and the jury was discharged. The prosecution had alleged that Mr Sergi was the organiser behind the whole scheme. After the case was dismissed because the jury could not agree, the Government declined to file another bill against him until the Woodward Royal Commission recommended in 1978 that Mr Sergi be retried. He was then indicted and arraigned in February 1978 and appeared before a magistrate. I could go through that case, but the point is that this man was not proceeded against until the Royal Commission forced the hand of the New South Wales Government. I suppose the final matter I would mention that has caused public disquiet in my State is the bashing of a man who became a member of another place here. It occurred after he had alleged corruption in inner city councils. He subsequently made a statement naming a suspect, and recently we have seen a Mr Domican appear on television to say that he was the person who had been named and he may well have been an employee at one stage of a member of this Senate. My colleagues have demonstrated clearly- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. It is quite out of order for Senator Baume in that way to bring into question the bona fides of a member of this place. He has heard Senator Richardson in this place deny absolutely, unequivocally and completely those allegations. It is a contemptible attack on the character of a fellow senator for Senator Baume to proceed in this way, and I urge you to ask him to withdraw. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr Acting Deputy President, from my reading of Senator Richardson's text, I did not know that he denied that fact. If I have said anything against the Standing Orders, I will certainly obey your ruling. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Baume, you said that this person may well have been an employee. I think perhaps you could withdraw those words. Senator PETER BAUME —I withdraw those words. My colleagues have demonstrated clearly that the Parliament, not the Executive, has a prime role in deciding the merits of this issue. The people of New South Wales cannot make up their minds, as the Premier has invited them to do, unless they have the information. The issue before us today is whether we are going to let the people know. I have tried to explain why we are concerned. We are concerned by the evidence-not allegations-of a corrupted community, of corrupted police, of corruption within the Government and of corruption within the magistracy. Of course we are concerned, and we demand to know all the details of these latest allegations. We do not want to know the names of people. We want to know the details of the allegations so that we can decide. The Labor Party is determined to see that we do not get the information so that the people of New South Wales will go to the poll not permitted to know material which is available to their Canberra colleagues. Let us not forget that these tapes allege that public servants have been buying jobs in New South Wales. They allege the fixing of trials and prosecutions. They allege the buying of girls for senior judicial figures. They allege links between politicians and the judiciary and senior crime figures. If these are not matters which go to the very basis of public administration in New South Wales, what does? This is also the State in which there have been allegations that New South Wales politicians and members of the judiciary have been compromised by senior crime figures. There have been allegations that the former Deputy Police Commissioner, Bill Allen, and Mr Abe Saffron had attempted to gain information on a former Liberal leader, John Dowd, with intent to blackmail him. There have been allegations that there is a criminal intelligence entrapment network in Australia and that New South Wales is the master computer in that system. There have been allegations that Mr Abe Saffron's lawyers in the late 1960s are now Cabinet Ministers and members of parliament. That is as serious a set of allegations as one could see. In New South Wales we have had the Moffitt Royal Commission on Alleged Organised Crime in Registered Clubs in New South Wales, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, the Woodward Commission, the Street Royal Commission of inquiry into certain Committal Proceedings Against H. F. Humphreys and the Cross Special Commission of Inquiry, and still the stench of corruption arises. It is all right for Mr Wran to say that he throws questions concerning the tapes into the waste bin. That is the line that Richard Nixon tried to take with Watergate. It was characterised by an enormous effort from those in the Executive Government of the time to prevent information getting out to the public. When that information got out, when the Press had overcome the disparagement and the decrying of its work, the Executive was brought to heel. We heard Nixon, Ziegler, John Mitchell and Colson all attacking the Press, but in the end the information appeared; and when the information appeared, as it will in New South Wales, the people had a chance to determine and decide. If Senator Evans can talk, as he did at Question Time today, about 'the fierce integrity of the Wran Government', he has nothing to fear from putting down this information in the Senate. I submit that it is only if there is something to cover up or to hide that people will not let the Senate and the people of New South Wales know. The Age newspaper talks about an evil web to be unravelled. It talks about crime links too grave to ignore. Of course, the people of New South Wales will be asked to be the judges in an election, but it has been so organised that they are not going to be given the information they need to make that judgment properly and completely. Without that information, it is like calling an election on the issue of unemployment and then refusing to release any unemployment figures. Today we are seeking to have information given to the people of Australia and the Parliament, through the Senate, to allow us to determine our view. The people of New South Wales, sick of the stench of corruption in government, in the magistracy, in the police and in politics, are anxious to know the facts. Labor is refusing to make that information available. Let the people know. There can be no reason, apart from some partisan political reasons, for holding back this information. In the interests of freedom of information, what we are seeking is appropriate, and it is the way to resolve this matter. Let the people have the information; sanitised to protect individuals-but let them have it. Unless there is something to conceal, let it come out before the election. If the Government seeks to prevent the right of the people to know before the election, we in New South Wales will conclude that there is something to hide and that the Wran Government is proceeding in this way because it cannot answer the substance of this and other allegations. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(6.00) —I speak as someone who has not been in the Senate today but who has been listening to the debate on the outside. In that capacity, it is quite apparent to me that the Opposition, in raising this matter once again, has lost touch with the electorate. The electorate is not tuned in to the level of debate that has been taking place here today, the level of muck-raking, the level of new-found concern with law and order on the part of the Opposition. Senator Chaney —Nonsense. Senator BOLKUS —Senator Chaney calls it nonsense. Let us just look at some of the facts in respect of this matter. Last week, in speaking to a matter of public importance on very much the same topic, I canvassed the performance of the Opposition in this place on the law and order issue. I took the point initially that organised crime was not purely the crime of occasional drug selling or the occasional brothel or prostitution. Organised crime in this country is intractably wedded to white collar crime, and it is the people on the Opposition benches here who presided over the great blossoming and flourishing of organised crime. It was their incompetence as Ministers that allowed them to disregard advice after advice from Commissioners of Taxation which allowed, and Senator Chaney knows this full well, coming from the State of Western Australia- - Senator Chaney —You look at this material. Every one of your mates is in it up to his neck. Senator BOLKUS —Senator Chaney talks about my mates. That is precisely the point . Last week I referred to the edition of the Bulletin in which a former Leader of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, Mr Dowd, made some rather pertinent points about whose mates were involved in organised crime in Australia. He was the Leader of the Liberal Party in New South Wales and he lost his position of leadership essentially because he tried to pursue the question of law and order. Mr Dowd is reported in the Bulletin as talking about his mates, his colleagues, his Party members in the Liberal Party in New South Wales, as follows: Dowd recalls: 'When I started on the Nugan Hand business I had three of my colleagues'- Three of his colleagues from the same Party as that of Senator Peter Baume- '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. Talk about our mates! Talk about the mates of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, and talk about the mates of Senator Peter Baume, who has been brought up among these sorts of people in New South Wales. The article goes on to say: 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'. Pressure was coming from the Liberal Party within New South Wales on its then parliamentary leader. Members of the Liberal Party do not want to hear about this matter now. Let us look at the Minister responsible for crime matters in New South Wales, a person who has been protected in this place by Senator Peter Baume time and again. Let us not have short memories. Let us look at the National Times, the newspaper about which Senator Baume was talking rather critically in 1981. Its edition of September 13-19 carried the headline: 'Askin friend of organised crime'. I do not want to go into this article and to quote the allegations, but what was established in the article is that not only were Sir Robert Askin or leading figures of the Liberal Party in New South Wales involved in or getting a payback from organised crime, but there was a ministry for organised crime operating in that State under Liberal Party government. Let us not forget that. I am cutting my remarks extremely short because of time pressures. I return to the point with which I started. I welcome the Opposition to this crusade against organised crime. I have been able to take an interest in it, whether in this place or in the capacity of a private lawyer in Adelaide over the last 10 to 12 years. I can see the effects of it. I can also see, as members of the Opposition are unable to see, the way in which organised crime has flourished under their stewardship, under the stewardship of people such as Sir Robert Askin, and under the stewardship of people such as the previous Attorney-General, Senator Durack, who for years, with slovenly neglect of his own Department, took no action at all to ensure that the law was being enforced. Finally, the pertinent point is that if these activities were going on, if these tapes are authentic, who was the Attorney-General at the time? Who was the Attorney-General responsible for some of the immigration activities that were supposed to be going on? It was Senator Durack, of course. As the first law enforcement officer of the country in that period, he should be the last person to rise here today to talk about these points. Turning briefly to the performance of the present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Federal Government, in the debate last week I went through the actions of the Attorney-General and I referred members of the Opposition to the Special Prosecutor, Mr Temby. Point by point in his advice to the Attorney- General he assessed the tapes. He assessed whether offences could be laid against any particular person. On page 7 of his report, Mr Temby says: . . . 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 then goes on to address himself to the question whether the judge in the tapes had committed any injudicious behaviour. 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 . . . He goes on to talk about impropriety and he draws very much the same sort of conclusion there. The question to which we must address ourselves is not whether we should reveal the tapes or whether we should go ahead and table them and let the consequences follow. The basic question we must answer before we take that position is whether the Attorney-General and this Government have taken adequate action consequent upon receiving those tapes. Nothing I have heard from the Opposition today would lead me to the conclusion, nor, I submit, would it lead any Australian citizen listening to this debate to the conclusion, that the Attorney -General has not acted expeditiously and properly. I see this motion as nothing more than cheap politicking by the Opposition in a pre-election period. I also see it as having very deep inherent dangers, for to embark on this type of McCarthyist witch hunt without adequate provable evidence in court would do the system of government in this country absolutely no good. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.07) —I rise to speak to the motion that the Senate take note of the paper deliwered by Senator Evans on 28 February entitled 'The Age Tapes'. I do so because I was virtually invited to by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) in that when I asked a couple of questions in the last session, it was very notable that he went to a lot of trouble to avoid giving me any information. So I thought that it was time I took a little interest in the matter. I have listened to various legal men discussing the report on the allegations of probably the most serious organised destruction of morality and law and order in Australia's history. It seems that two points of view are being peddled: First, that there is no substance, and that New South Wales comes up smelling like a rose; and secondly, that the allegations are secondary and insignificant as the material that is involved may have been obtained in an irregular manner. As a non-lawyer, I find absolutely fascinating the intrigue that is going on to try to build this case. I have a citizen's interest in the manoeuvring that is going on to try to prevent any sort of discussion on these horrible affairs. I am surprised at the efforts being made to suppress the discussion and to try to ridicule and belittle anyone who takes an interest in it. I am terribly disappointed at the total lack of action when action is what is necessary. With all the reluctance of accepting the full impact of the matter at issue, I find it significant that there appears to be no questioning the fact that the tapes concerned were produced by the New South Wales police, the very police who carry out law enforcement for the New South Wales Government and their past and present police Ministers. From the information that has been made public from these tapes, we are told that there certainly has been crime and that it can be identified with all of the following things and probably a few more: Drugs, immigration, funny money, race fixing, court rigging, prostitution, gambling, murders, police corruption, extortion, job buying and anything else that sin city has to offer. We are told that it involves people in high places and I understand that the information contains some names, some nicknames, some initials and some code names, while some people are referred to by all of those things. For instance, a person is referred to as No. 1. Someone, I understand, is referred to as The Trump. People, whoever they may be, are referred to by various such names. Starting with the National Times in November the position was pretty clear. I found it most objectionable to read the sorts of allegations that were being made, so I asked a question of the Attorney-General, the Commonwealth's chief law officer. My question is recorded on page 3000 of the Hansard report. Amongst other things, I said: . . . the serious allegations made in regard to a Sydney solicitor, a former New South Wales magistrate, a judge and a Liberal politician? Will the Attorney- General assure the Senate that these allegations have been or will be fully investigated to determine whether there have been any breaches of Commonwealth law and, if so, that appropriate action has been or will be taken? The answer waffled through about half a column of print and concluded with the constructive part: We will see what it might be possible to put on the public record when we have that information. When we had not received any of that information I asked another question on 8 December. I asked, in part: Has he received the extra information he said he would seek from the Special Minister of State regarding these serious allegations? Is he now in a position to assure the Senate that the allegations have been or will be thoroughly investigated and that appropriate action has been or will be taken if it is found there have been breaches of Commonwealth law? Senator Gareth Evans, in reply said: The short answer is: No, I have not received the further information I have sought from the Special Minister of State in this respect. As soon as I do I will ensure that it is made available to the honourable senator, or released publicly if it is the kind of information that does in fact lend itself to that treatment. I assure him that if there are any revelations of breaches of the law , the appropriate steps will be taken. At that point I made what at the time was a rather unfortunate interjection. I realise now that the interjection was far more abrasive than I had intended it to be. At that stage no names were being bandied about, nobody was in any accord as to who those involved were. Now that certain people have been mentioned by name, I regret that my interjection may well have been somewhat offensive and embarrassing and in rather poor taste. I sincerely apologise for causing Senator Evans that embarrassment at the time on a matter which was obviously so sensitive to him. I was, however, considerably alarmed at the degree to which the Attorney- General avoided the issue at the time. All I wound up with out of all that was enough red herrings to provide cat food to the Parliament House cat population through to our moving to the new Parliament House. Now, 14 weeks later, those named, mentioned and discussed have already had three months in which to clean up, to get out or to prepare whatever alibis they find to be necessary. Why have we procrastinated over this period? Quite clearly, it is because we want to ascertain whether the alleged information was legally obtained. The Federal and New South Wales governments seem to be prepared to spend months and possibly years in the hope of letting the air clear. They want to take as long as they possibly can to avoid getting started on this job. I find that the abuse of the Press by the New South Wales Premier and others is absolutely classic theatre. This knee-jerk election talk will not, I can assure the Senate, speed away the allegations. I believe that a quick discussion with Richard Nixon would demonstrate the lack of wisdom in this type of smokescreening. Another matter that worries me somewhat is the area in which the Attorney- General and other Government lawyers have not helped me very much; that is, where do investigative journalism, public interest, open government, freedom of information and these sorts of things go? At what point does it suddenly become muck-raking? It apparently depends on who is doing it as to which it becomes. I do not find it to be a very easy distinction. However, I understand that Senator Evans will follow me in this debate and he may well be able to draw that fine line. I also do not understand why we are so compulsively trying to go to these lengths to make sure that we do not go round the traps. The names are clear and the offences are clear and we are doing everything we possibly can to avoid seeing them. A judge has been mentioned in several places, I find. Many questions have been asked about a judge. But I am not fully aware, yet, of whether it was the judge who first decided that he needed to test his position by contacting the Attorney-General or whether it was the Attorney-General who decided that he needed to check up on the judge. I guess, however, that whatever else may have transpired, the Attorney-General was able to get even a third legal opinion on the position of the judge. I find, as does the general public, that this Dickensian definition of what constitutes misbehaviour is absolutely hilarious. The general public regards it as an absolute joke to find that it takes two legal definitions to decide what constitutes misbehaviour. I believe that this is what we might call a Clayton misbehaviour-the sort of misbehaviour you have when you are not having one. I do not think it requires a fancy interpretation to cloud and confuse such an issue. We now have a judge who, like his lawyer friend, came up smelling like a rose, even if it did take two or three legal opinions to get it that way. I am inclined to agree with what the Attorney-General said earlier in the afternoon. While it may to some smell like a rose it just smells like stinking fishheads to me. There seems to be no demonstrated will to do anything but at the same time there is a considerable demonstrated will to do nothing except to obtain definitions, to abuse those who have an interest in getting some action and to denigrate what information is available. I suppose the Attorney-General's statement went about as far as it could possibly go. It is by far the firmest statement that we have had from anybody. The most powerful paragraph is on page 20. It states: It is this Government's view that the investigation of the circumstances in which this material originated should be pursued with the greatest vigour. It is also the Government's view that if, in the course of those investigations, other illegalities are established then the law will take its course in relation to those illegalities. They are powerful words, that is real action! It is a real, red hot, red-blooded effort to attack organised big time crime such as I have never seen before. Who could ask for anything more than that? The smokescreen is absolutely alarming. The comments of the New South Wales Premier who, like me, may well be named or alluded to for all I know, are frightening. I think it is this 'quick, everybody out' or the under-the-mat approach that is so inappropriate. I am pleased to see that out of all this we have not overlooked the civil liberties issue. It is raised consistently, and rightly so. Everybody seems to have civil liberties now, but none more than the crooks of Australia. I wonder what the position of Donald Mackay's civil liberties is. What about the honest cops, honest judges, honest magistrates and so on? What has been mooted in the last 14 weeks since we first got onto this matter to restore their prestige? Nothing at all. What have we done to tell the public at large that their position is guaranteed and that they can have complete confidence in law enforcement and the law makers? Nothing at all. While ever we fudge it is getting harder to sell the notion that Parliament is not here to protect the crooks. While roaring about those who, against real odds, were trying to fight crime, not one thing in the 26-page document gave me any indication as to what was actually being done. Every law abiding officer, administrator and citizen wants to know what is being done. The vast majority of people are honest, decent and law abiding. I am prepared to admit that there are some that are not like that. How can we encourage people to come forward with information without fear? I am wondering whether we are really making sure that we are not getting information. The frightening position of allegations about top citizens certainly destroys public confidence. On 30 November and 8 December I asked the Attorney-General to outline what was being done about the substance of the allegations. I would still like to know what is being done. Why does he not cancel this farce about a joint inquiry and get a fearless, responsible citizen and give him open options to investigate and report on those matters that would assist the fight against organised crime, whatever it is, irrespective of whose jurisdiction it may be under? I suggest that the Government reads the papers. The reflection of public perception is there. The fudging is incriminating many people-names are now widely rumoured-and they must be cleared or found guilty as the case may be. The 26-page document that Senator Evans put down may salve his conscience but it does not salve anybody else's conscience. I would like to see a bit of action in this matter. I do not care who winds up in the net. I do not care about their station, their occupation, their sex or sexual preference, their political party affiliations or anything else. Even though it still seems to be escaping the Attorney-General, right round Australia people feel as I do. Like me they are wondering why both the Attorney-General and his colleague, the Premier of New South Wales, are so timid about taking action that might put the whole nasty business to rest, that would clear the innocent, restore dignity and honesty to parliament, the law and the police and give the public at large the feeling of security to which surely they are entitled. That is all we seek. (Quorum formed) Senator HAINES(South Australia)(6.25) —A number of things about the amendment moved by the Opposition bother me. A number of issues about the whole matter are of concern to me and the Australian Democrats. I have been particularly saddened by suggestions that have been made-I think in the Press and around this place- that the general public are so sick of scandal-mongering and people raising the question of organised crime that they do not want to hear any more and that this is some justification for us dropping the whole matter. I do not share that point of view. If there is a problem, I think it ought to be raised. Simply allowing the public to become apathetic, uninterested or sickened by it is a travesty of the sort of justice that this Parliament ought to be upholding. On the other hand, I do not believe that the Opposition's amendment, whatever the motives behind it, will see justice done. In fact I suspect it could be quite the reverse. Certainly the Australian Democrats are as concerned with the problems and the damage done by organised crime in this country as anybody else in this chamber. I suggest that we all have to fight it with everything we have, legally and in all justice, at our command. I agree also that the Parliament itself needs to make its own judgment on the matters at hand and the matters that have been raised in the debate over these tapes. To do that we need to have a look at the same sorts of material that have been made available to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Solicitor-General. For that reason and more, which I will go on to explain in a moment, it is our intention to move an amendment to the amendment of the shadow Attorney-General. That amendment will be: After 'any', first occurring, in Senator Durack's amendment, we insert the words: ' authenticated and genuine'. Senator Tate —Only in relation to the tapes. What about the documents? Senator HAINES —The tapes which have already been transcribed appear to- Senator Gareth Evans —By whom? Senator HAINES —I am no mind reader. The tapes appear to have been so bandied about in the media and have caused so much damage now that I cannot believe that the simple tabling of those transcripts in the Parliament will cause any more damage than has already been done. On the other hand I can see no reason why doctored tapes, allegedly doctored tapes, even possibly doctored tapes, or tapes which are in some way not authenticated and/or are not genuine should, through their transcripts, be made public even though, according to this amendment of Senator Durack's, there will be deleted from all documents 'any name or identifying characteristics of individuals'. I suggest that that is somewhat shutting the door after the horse has bolted, since I rather imagine that the names of the people involved are fairly well known already. Senator Gareth Evans —That is just a muddle. Senator HAINES —If the honourable senator does not like it I am afraid he will have to lump it because this is the course of action that we are taking. If he does not think we go far enough it may just be that there is a certain amount of self-interest in it. Senator Gareth Evans —Before you listen to the counter arguments against tabling the stuff in this Parliament you are going to take the action? That is not in the finest tradition of the Democrats. Senator HAINES —We have been arguing about these tapes for quite some time. At the moment I am concerned to make sure that no further injustice is done to anybody, including this Parliament and the people of this country, about whom I think it is time somebody had some sort of consideration. Senator Gareth Evans —By your criteria you are not excluding any of the material . Senator HAINES —I have absolutely no interest in the timing of the- Senator Chipp —Don't you understand Senator Haines's language? She has just excluded anything that is not genuine or authenticated. Senator Gareth Evans —Which has not already been transcribed, according to the language, and everything has been transcribed. It is only talking about one tape . Senator HAINES —I am beginning to wonder who has the call. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Haines has the call. Senator HAINES —Thank you Mr Deputy President. I will repeat, if I have not already said it in these words: I find it offensive that this Parliament would even contemplate making public, as tabling documents makes things public, something which could prove to be-which is indeed alleged to be-distorted, innaccurate or out of context, if not actually fully manufactured. I and the Australian Democrats have absolutely no interest in the timing of the New South Wales election. I certainly have no great love or respect for the Premier of a State out of which comes so many allegations of corruption, scandal and deviousness. As I said earlier, I certainly support the Opposition's desire for this Parliament to be put in a position to decide on the matter using the same material used by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Solicitor-General. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator HAINES —Prior to the suspension of the sitting the Senate was debating an amendment by Senator Durack to the general tapes debate. The amendment reads: At the end of motion, add: that is, at the end of the motion that the Senate take note of this statement by Senator Gareth Evans-- 'and that there be laid upon the Table of the Senate without delay all those portions of the transcripts and transcripts of any tapes not so far transcribed which refer to any conversation between the judge and the solicitor or other conversations referring to the judge or in which he participated, together with the aide-memoire of the Attorney-General's discussions with the judge on February 15 and 24, subject to the deletion from all documents of any name or identifying characteristics of individuals. Prior to the suspension of the sitting I indicated that the Australian Democrats had some concerns with Senator Durack's amendment and that we intended to amend it in order to include a provision that those transcripts and tapes be authenticated and genuine before they are tabled. I made the point too that the Australian Democrats are as concerned as anyone else with the problems of and damage done to the community by organised crime and that it is not our concern over that matter that is leading up to move the amendment that I foreshadowed before the suspension of the sitting; that is, that we are not planning on being a party to covering up any discussion of organised crime in this country, but simply that we want justice not only to be done but also to be seen to be done. We believe that if justice is not seen to be done in this Parliament, Australia as a whole cannot expect justice to be seen to be done anywhere. I agreed with the Opposition's contention that the Parliament needs to make its own judgment and that we should be able to make that judgment on the same material or similar material to that on which Mr Temby and Mr Griffith, the Director of Public Prosecutions and Solicitor-General respectively, made their judgments. However, we argued that we felt it was offensive that this Parliament could contemplate making public something which could prove to be distorted, inaccurate or out of context if it were not actually manufactured material. We pointed out that there has been a considerable number of suggestions that the tapes have at least been doctored. Indeed, the suggestions have gone as far as to say that they are not authentic tapes. For those tapes to be made public would be a travesty of justice. For the Parliament to agree to them being made public when there is some doubt about their authenticity and about their genuineness is even more appalling. It is no good saying, as this amendment does at the end, that all of this is being done subject to the deletion from all documents of any name or identifying characteristics of individuals. Enough has been bandied about in this country already for a very large number of people to have a pretty good idea of who is being referred to. While in no way resiling from the fact that if blame is attached to an individual it should be sheeted home, particularly if some criminal activity has been undertaken, I believe scandal for the sake of scandal is not something we ought to be involved in in this place. The amendment we propose to move, which I foreshadowed before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, seeks to include the words 'authenticated and genuine' in Senator Durack 's amendment. However, our amendment is not as simple as the one I mentioned before the suspension of the sitting. We had a considerable amount of difficulty even making sense out of Senator Durack's amendment. Senator Walters —And the little chat with Gareth. Senator HAINES —If the little chat with Gareth had had any effect the reference to the aide-memoire would have been removed. I assure Senator Walters the reference to the tabling of the aide-memoire has not been removed from this amendment. However, the problem with Senator Durack's amendment is that, while it may be good legalese, it does not appear to be terribly good English. We therefore, propose that Senator Durack's amendment be amended so that the words 'portions of the transcripts and transcripts of any tape not so far transcribed' be deleted and instead the words 'parts of transcripts of authenticated and genuine tapes' be inserted. In that way, the amendment would read: 'and that there be laid upon the Table of the Senate without delay all those transcripts or parts of transcripts of authenticated and genuine tapes which refer to any conversation between the judge and the solicitor or other conversations referring to the judge or in which he participated, together with the aide-memoire of the Attorney-General's discussions with the judge on February 15 and 24, subject to the deletion from all documents of any name or identifying characteristics of individuals'. Senator Chipp —Would you like to repeat that so the Liberals can understand it? Senator HAINES —I think I have made it perfectly clear. It is vitally important to the status of this place, notwithstanding anything which might come from some members of the Liberal Party, that we appear to be seeing that justice is done. I would like to suggest that there may well be some moral basis for the stance that the members of the Liberal Opposition are taking. However, there will be no moral basis for it if what they are attempting to do is to give parliamentary approval to something which has been not only illegally obtained but also very likely doctored. If nothing else, we should be seeing that justice is done, as well as seeing that those people who have done wrong are brought to book for their wrong-doing. I think this whole sorry story has been dragged out quite long enough. The media and members of the Opposition have had a field day with the transcripts already made available. There is no reason why this place should make matters any worse. I make the point here, having been in this place when the previous Government was in existence, that I find Senator Durack's amendment somewhat reeks of double standards if not actually hypocrisy when we bear in mind that no matter how many calls were made by the members of the then Opposition when the Liberals were in power, they refused to make available anything at all in this place. I move: Leave out 'portions of the transcripts and transcripts of any tapes not so far transcribed', insert 'transcripts or parts of transcripts of authenticated and genuine tapes'. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.10) —Senator Haines was presumably speaking on behalf of the Australian Democrats. I do not know what the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) did earlier today when he spoke, or what Senator Haines was doing when she spoke before the dinner break. I presume that the remarks she just made show where they now stand, although it is very difficult ever to know where they stand on anything. I remind Senator Haines-- Senator Macklin —On, don't carry on. You chop and change your views as frequently as you change your underwear. Senator DURACK —The Democrats have become very pious. Obviously they were faced with a very difficult problem. Although their hearts are apparently with the Government in this matter, they could not be seen, of course, as being against all of those pious things such as freedom of information, disclosure and crimes commissions. Over the dinner break this awful truth must have hit them. Even though they had all afternoon to consider the matter, apparently they did not have the Attorney-General's assistance with the drafting of their amendment because Senator Haines, as we have just seen, had great difficulty reading someone else's writing when she moved her amendment. Senator Mason —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I cannot see that the shadow Attorney-General's ideas on how the Democrats conduct their business has anything to do with this debate. Would he please confine his remarks to the point at issue. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Durack is responding to the amendment moved by Senator Haines. Senator DURACK —The real difficulty we all have is not how the Democrats conduct their business, but how we understand the result of the conduct of their business. I mention Senator Haines's complaint that when the Opposition was in government we never tabled anything. The fact is that during the greatest debate in this chamber since any of the Democrats have been here, the then government, of which I was Attorney-General, was asked to table papers in relation to bottom of the harbour matters. We tabled such a voluminous quantity of papers that the present Attorney-General was moved to complain about the extent of the disclosures and the volume of material that was tabled. I mention that to refute completely the miserable and untrue allegations of Senator Haines, which she apparently found so amusing. I refute those allegations for the sake of the record. The Democrats' amendment, I emphasise, has changed dramatically over the dinner break, in less than two hours. They had hours this afternoon to work it out without the assistance, presumably, of anybody else. Having spent the dinner break in some sort of agony, apparently, they have now decided to move an amendment which would, as I understand it, require only that transcripts or parts of transcripts of what are called 'authentic and genuine tapes' be tabled. The point about this debate is completely lost on the Democrats. The point that we have been making- Senator Jack Evans —What is the objection to this? Senator Macklin —Why don't you own up? Senator DURACK —If you listened instead of interjecting, and if you had listened earlier today, you would not be making inane interjections. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should address the Chair. Senator DURACK —I will again read the Opposition's amendment: 'and that there be laid upon the Table of the Senate without delay all those portions of the transcripts and transcripts of any tapes- that is, the tapes known as the Age tapes and transcripts- . . . which refer to any conversation between the judge and the solicitor or other conversations referring to the judge or in which he participated, together with the aide-memoire of the Attorney-General's discussions with the judge on February 15 and 24, subject to the deletion from all documents of any name or identifying characteristics of individuals. The point of the Opposition's motion is that ultimately the question on this matter is for this Parliament to determine. It is not for the Attorney-General, no matter how advised he might be by the Solicitor-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions designate, or whoever it may be. The point is that it is the responsibility of this Parliament to determine ultimately upon the conduct of a judge. Therefore, it is the responsibility of this Parliament to investigate allegations that are made against a judge. It is not the responsibility of the Attorney-General. It is the responsibility of this chamber. We do not have the totality of material that is very likely to be relevant to the conduct of a judge because only portions of it have been published. The Attorney-General has spoken to the judge in question and the judge has had the opportunity of absolutely denying the authenticity of any of the material, but, by the Attorney -General's own admission, he has not done so. He has put up what is known as a confession and avoidance in relation to the material. A great deal of evidence has been provided by the Age newspaper. We know the extent to which it has checked the authenticity of the material, and it is perfectly obvious that such material can be quite easily authenticated. Yet the Attorney-General has had three months-Senator Archer first raised this matter three months ago, at the end of November-to find out whether it was authentic, but has not yet done so and cannot tell this Parliament anything about it. This Parliament is entitled to demand that the material be made available to it so that we can have tests made and we can determine the matter. It is our duty to determine whether the material is authentic and genuine. It is not the duty of the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, or the Director of Public Prosecutions designate or anybody else the Attorney-General chooses. It is not an executive's job; it is the Parliament's job and the Democrats, by their amendment, are denying Parliament's responsibility. They are denying that it is the Parliament's job. Of course, they do not want to know about it. They do not want to muddy their lovely, clean, white hands that they keep so pure. They do not want to muddy themselves by undertaking any real responsibility. They just want to slough this matter on to anybody else but themselves. That is why the problem that they faced suddenly struck them over the dinner break. They are running away from the problem, as they have run away from every other problem which they have had to face in this chamber. The Opposition will not accept or support this amendment, and those are the reasons why it will not do so. The PRESIDENT —I call the Attorney-General who will be winding up the debate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.19) —This debate has come a long way. Indeed, as Senator Jack Evans said earlier, in a vivid and effective speech, it has descended a long way. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order with regard to your statement that the Attorney-General is closing the debate. We have before us an amendment which was moved by the Australian Democrats to the amendment which has been moved by Senator Durack. I submit, Mr President, that all the Attorney- General is doing is making his penultimate contribution to the debate. Presumably, when he has finished other honourable senators may contribute with regard to the Democrats' amendment if they wish. The PRESIDENT —I think that is right, until the amendments are disposed of. Senator GARETH EVANS —On a point of order-if, indeed, it is a point of order- there are such things as agreements in this place. It is well known that the Leader of the Opposition is unable to lie straight in bed. He has given another ample demonstration of that in this performance. There is an agreement-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Attorney-General will withdraw that remark. Senator GARETH EVANS —I withdraw, but I make the point that agreements are agreements even as between people who, in some instances, are not gentlemen. The agreement in this instance was that this debate would last no longer than three hours. Already it has lasted three and a half hours. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I find that statement utterly offensive. I believe that the Attorney-General is canvassing your ruling and that he should either return to the subject matter or be made to sit down. The PRESIDENT —I thought the Attorney-General had withdrawn his remarks. If there were other remarks to which the Leader of the Opposition objects, I have overlooked them. I call the Attorney-General. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I will say what I wanted to say in this debate in speaking to the amendment. Should it become necessary for me to speak again in response to the motion itself I shall be happy to do so. I start again: This debate has come a long way since the statement we are debating was put down last Tuesday. As to some of the contributions to that debate, in particular Senator Baume's, I think the less said about them the better. About the only noteworthy aspect of that particular piece of scurrilous muck-raking was the utter failure of Senator Baume to refer to the Street Royal Commission into Certain Committal Proceedings against K. E. Humphreys, the Cross Special Commission of Inquiry-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The Attorney-General was present during Senator Baume's contribution to the debate. He did not take a point of order at that time and he now accuses Senator Baume of scurrilous muck- raking. I suggest that that is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I took numerous points of order during Senator Baume's speech, as the record will disclose. The PRESIDENT —I invite the Attorney-General to come back to the subject of the debate. Senator GARETH EVANS —The reality of the matter is that those particular royal commissions which Senator Baume did not mention amply demonstrated, as I have said on innumerable occasions, that where there is smoke, where there are allegations of this kind, there are indeed not always fires. If the Street and Cross commissions of inquiry have demonstrated nothing else they have demonstrated that. Whether there is smoke, just smoke, or fire in the context of the present Age allegations has yet to be demonstrated. The Government has taken every step within its disposal to ensure that just that occurs. Since the Age made its allegations on 2 February the Government has acted with speed, diligence and integrity in examining and investigating this material, taking advice and setting in place appropriate investigative mechanisms as it went. Indeed, the challenge to the Government's behaviour in this respect seems to be no longer to our general handling of the affair, because it is accepted and it has to be accepted by an objective observer that the Government has acted and reacted properly and responsibly. We are now witnessing by the Opposition a desperate scrabbling, clutching at straws, waiting feebly, as I said the other day, like a collection of half- starved political Micawbers for something to turn up, something which may of course be to the advantage of their political friends in New South Wales. The Government will give no aid and comfort to them in this unworthy ambition. We will act in accordance with the law. We will act in accordance with principle. We will act in accordance with common decency, and we will act with the proper and appropriate respect for the institution of the judiciary, none of which things can be said of the behaviour of the Opposition in this matter. The issue on which the Opposition has chosen to focus, in particular in its amendment moved in this debate, is the position of the judge, an issue on which the Age made an almost complete fool of itself so far as the accuracy of its own reporting is concerned, and an issue on which the Opposition at the moment is doing no better. What the Opposition's argument boils down to, the nub essentially is this: The suggestion is that I, as Attorney-General, and the Government are defiling-or defying, I think was Senator Durack's expression-the proper role of Parliament in this particular matter; that we are relying wholly on Mr Temby and the Solicitor-General, Dr Griffith, as to the statement of the law that is relevant and applicable here; that we are relying wholly on Mr Temby's conclusions and the police conclusions so far as the application of that law to the facts is concerned. The Opposition apparently believes, and has said so over and again in this debate and in moving its amendment, that we ought not to so rely; that we should leave it to the Parliament to make its own judgment of every related issue in this particular matter and that we should give the Parliament, give the scavenging, ravaging hordes opposite, all the material necessary for the Parliament itself to do the whole job. While on the face of it that has a certain prima facie plausibility which I readily acknowledge, there are excellent reasons why it is inappropriate and indeed quite wrong in principle to go down this particular track here. There are two basic reasons which I bring into the debate to explain why the Government has taken the course that it has. The first is that the role of the Parliament in relation to matters of alleged judicial misbehaviour is not a role which is at large. The Parliament's responsibility is not of the same order as it is in relation to scrutinising and exposing to criticism the Executive. The Parliament's role in this respect is one that is constrained by the Constitution and constrained by the law. Here the role is a limited one, and in exercising that role self-restraint is entirely necessary. What is crucial is an appreciation of the application of the principle of separation of powers and the kind of reasoning associated with that, based on the books and on the cases, which lead one inexorably to the conclusion that Parliament's only role in relation to section 72 of the Constitution is to look at misbehaviour in the conduct of judicial office, whether that takes the form of positive misbehaviour such as bias or wrongful conflicts of interest or, rather, neglect or default in the exercise of one's duty. On the other hand, it is criminal misconduct, the establishment that someone has committed all the elements of a criminal offence which by its nature is of a kind to make the person an improper continuing member of the judiciary. It is clear that it is not appropriate to censure or to chide for so-called indiscretions or what might be thought by some people to constitute injudiciousness. Lesser steps of that kind, which it might well be appropriate for Parliament to take in relation to the Executive, are beyond the competence, beyond the capacity, beyond the responsibility of the Parliament when it comes to the judiciary. I will develop that point further in a moment. Essentially that is the first step in the argument. The Parliament's role is a very limited, very constrained, very circumscribed one for excellent reasons of constitutional and legal principle. The second part of the argument is put on a quite different basis. Whatever the role of the Parliament might be in relation to determining questions of misbehaviour, it is not necessarily appropriate, and it is certainly not appropiate in the circumstances of this particular case, for Parliament to have available to it and publicly on the record, under cover of the privileges associated with this Parliament, all the raw material on the basis of which the Government has reached a judgment that the conditions in question are not satisfied. In an ordinary case there may well be some justification for that claim being made. Obviously, again it is a claim that is made with a degree of prima facie plausibility. But this is no ordinary case. Why is it not an ordinary case? Because even on the most favourable view of the authenticity of this material this material was squalidly and illegally obtained. There is a fundamental principle of law which in the United States is an absolute principle of law, that evidence which is illegally obtained is inadmissible. It is a familiar basis on which the courts on every day of the year exercise a discretion to exclude otherwise possibly relevant material. There are excellent reasons of principle why that is so. Moreover, it is not just illegality, it is material which involves a gross violation of personal privacy, if again it is authentic and to the extent it is authentic. It is material in respect of which, as the Australian Democrats have acknowledged quite frankly and quite openly, its authenticity is absolutely not established. Certainly it is material in respect of which its authenticity, either in whole or in part, has not been conceded by the judge in question. To table this material would be to lend the weight and credibility of the Government to it. Sanitisation may occur but it would only take someone to drop a name-the Opposition has given every indication that that is its intention-for the whole picture to be laid out. I understand from what I hear-one never knows quite what to believe around the corridors-that it is the Opposition's intention, against the better judgment of some of its senior members, to overtly name the names in Parliament tomorrow. What a squalid little affair that will be when it occurs. I will be very interested to see the reaction of Senator Durack and a couple of others who, I am told, have argued against such a squalid course. It will only take, of course, the naming of a few names, if the material is sanitised and put on the public record by the Goverment, for the whole picture such as it is, with its authenticity still not established, to be wholly laid out. There is simply no justification for doing that. The amendment which has been moved by the Opposition could not be complied with without taking a very significant step as a result down the road towards a spectacular and gross violation of privacy. It would not be just acknowledging that invasion as it has already occurred by the people who taped this material, if they did in the first place, not only the violation of privacy that was engaged in by the Age in conducting itself in the way in which it did, but a violation of privacy to which this Government and this Parliament would be giving aid, comfort and nourishment and support in principle. This is not a case like the bottom of the harbour legal opinions or some of the other matters which have attracted debate in the past where the names and the other identifying characteristics could be eliminated with confidence that this would protect any privacy or other considerations, in that case, considerations relating to the proper investigation of offences. Because the source of the material is as it is in this case and because of the wide circulation that that material has already had so far albeit not openly and overtly out on the public record, there simply can be no guarantee that the identifying characteristics, the names, will not be attributed by some other person outside the control of this Government to produce the very result which this motion purportedly seeks to avoid. Senator Chipp —Steele Hall went a fair way down the track today. What is going to happen tomorrow? Senator GARETH EVANS —I neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the scurrilous innuendo that was contained in Steele Hall's contribution to this already very muddy debate today. But what is the case-and I draw the Senate's attention to it -is that Senator Baume, throughout the course of his speech, while answering numerous other interjections from various parts of the chamber, utterly refused to answer the interjection that I kept putting to him: 'Will you undertake on behalf of the Opposition not to mention the names in question in the remainder of this parliamentary week?' That is an undertaking that Senator Baume, for obvious reasons, was not prepared to make because the decisions have already been made by the tacticians, by the gentlemen, by those who lie straight in bed, on the other side of this chamber. It will be a disgraceful day for this Parliament and this nation when that sort of thing occurs as I believe, unless the Opposition has second thoughts overnight, as I hope it will, will occur tomorrow. The reality of the matter here is that we have anonymous material, material which is utterly unauthenticated, material which has been challenged as to its validity both in whole and in part, material which, if it is authentic, has been illegally obtained in gross circumstances and material which amounts to a spectacular invasion of the privacy of a great many Australians whose names have already been the subject of a great deal of gossip and innuendo and have been bandied about. If the material is authenticated there is a better case for putting it on the public record than would be the case if it remained utterly unauthenticated. To that extent the Australian Democrats' amendment represents an improvement on the Opposition's amendment and to that extent only the Government will support the Democrats' amendment. But there are still fundamental flaws and problems about an amendment cast in those terms because it creates a situation in which even if authentic the material will still be illegal, it will still represent a gross invasion of privacy and it will represent a rather spectacular innovation in this place where hitherto the results of police investigations have remained, quite properly, outside the public domain and have never been argued to be appropriately within it. So there are excellent grounds for continuing to resist the publication of this material even if its authentication should be established. As to the aide memoire part of the Democrats' amendment, on behalf of the Government I would also resist the production of this material even in a sanitised form. As to the sanitisation the point is exactly the same as I made a moment ago. If there is no guarantee that that sanitisation is going to be maintained, if there is no guarantee that the privacy, the confidentiality of the people in question is going to be maintained by the other side in this place , it is a very empty exercise indeed to put a document in sanitised form on to the public record. However, I make clear, as I have made clear privately to the Democrats-I think the message was communicated to the Opposition; I can never be sure in this place-that I am perfectly willing to make available the aides memoires on a private and confidential basis to the Leader of the Opposition ( Senator Chaney) and to the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp). Senator Durack —When did you tell us that? Senator GARETH EVANS —The message was certainly communicated to the Democrats. I cannot be held totally responsible. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Senator GARETH EVANS —I will communicate it to you now. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator GARETH EVANS —When you stop baying and carrying on like the collection of thugs that you are I will communicate it to you once again. I am prepared to make this material available to you on a confidential basis so that you can see for yourselves that I was not in any way misleading the Parliament to the extent that I was purpol go back to the basic thrust o f what I am saying. Itmay well be appropriate for this materia l to be scrutinised o that basis. If the Opposition is in doub t about the validity r good faith with which I have made refe rences to the intervies-- Senator Chaney —We are in doubt. I am in doubt. Senator GARETH EVANS —I hear Senator haney say that he is in doubt. I acknowle dge once again anothe gentlemanly contribution to the debate from the Leader of theOpposition; there have been many of thos e. I make clear my wilingness to do that. I m ake equally clear my uwillingness to put this material directl y on to the public recrd. There are a number of reasons for th at. The first and mos obvious of them is that the material in question has not beengiven back to the judge in question for vetting or for a respose in any shape or form. It may well be that if this material ere to go into the public domain it woul d be regarded as bein the last word, as it were, in terms of w hat actually transpird at that meeting. It may well be that t here were some inaccurcies, some infelicities in the way that the particular nuance of that conversation were transcribed. I do not happen to beieve so; I believe it is accurate. But it is quite unfair to smeone who may find himself prejudiced or alleged to be prejudied as a result of that material going on the record, having itgo on the record as a purported record o f a conversation to hich he is a party without having had an opportunity to check t. That is the first point and a very im portant one why I woul resist the production of this material. The second point and one of rather more general significance-I would have hoped it would be a point that would be appreciated by anyone who has previously been an Attorney-General as Senator Durack has-is that there must be a capacity for an Attorney-General to talk confidentially on matters of sensitivity with his judges in order that that basic and quite fundamental relationship of government which is quite indispensible to effecting workings of government might be maintained. In circumstances where the behaviour of the judge in question is called into question by the public prints and in circumstances, as I have made perfectly clear, where there has been a preliminary, quite independent investigation by both the police and someone of the stature of Mr Temby and where the results of that preliminary investigation have been to make it clear that there is no basis on which criminal misconduct could be alleged or established, it is only fair, in all the circumstances, to put the material to the judge in question and seek such response as he may care to make. That is exactly what happened in this instance and I make no apology for doing that. I believe it ought to be possible for Ministers, senior officials and judges in this instance to talk without the results of that and all the potential for misrepresentation that might be involved in doing so being broadcast around the world at large. I do not believe that even a sanitised version of the aides memoires would be other than a gross invasion of the confidentiality of those discussions. As I said, I am prepared to make a half-way house offer in this respect but I am not prepared, on behalf of the Government, to accept the really quite unprecedented demand that is being made here in the terms of this motion with the support, it seems, in this respect of the Democrats. Let me say something else about the question of what is the relevant law and the relevant standards that are applicable in the Parliament resolving matters of this kind. Senator Chipp —That argument has been abused by the Liberals and the Labor Party . We must be right. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Chipp has not been abused by me on this occasion. I readily confess that there have been such occasions in the past, but not tonight. I have been a model of decorum by comparison with my opposite numbers. I hope that point has not been entirely overlooked. I think it is important to appreciate that there is quite solid intellectual legal foundation-foundation in constitutional principle-for the course which is being taken by the Government in support of Mr Temby's legal opinion and that of the Solicitor-General so far as the proper meaning of misbehaviour is concerned. Senator Missen's speech was the most head-on assault on that concept. I am afraid that it must be said, with all due respect to Senator Missen, that his speech was a muddle, compounding confusion upon confusion and demonstrating an utter inability to untangle the different conceptual threads that were involved and are involved in this matter. Three separate questions are involved here and they have been splendidly mixed up together in Senator Missen's contribution to this debate. It falls to me to try to untangle them quickly. The three questions are: Firstly, does Parliament or the courts, the High Court of Australia, have the last word in this matter, in this kind of issue? The second question is: Is Parliament, if it does have the last word, nonetheless obliged to act in accordance with law, legal principles and legal standards? The third question is: Assuming that, what are the proper standards which Parliament should apply and what is the proper meaning of misbehaviour? Let me address myself quickly to each of those questions because, as I say, they are quite fundamental to what this debate is all about and what this chamber's appreciation of the role of Parliament is all about in these matters. In regard to the first question-that is, is it the case that parliament or the courts have the last word-I am prepared to concede that, on the reading of the Constitution, almost certainly the answer is that Parliament has the last word; that these matters are not justiciable; that section 72 of the Constitution means what, on the face of it, it seems to mean-that Parliament has to make the decision in praying in its address as to whether or not there has been misbehaviour. I do not exclude the possibility that in an extreme case there might be an argument for some residual justiciability. For example, were Parliament minded to move, in some more sectarian age perhaps, that all Protestants or Catholics be removed from the bench, or members of the National Civic Council for that matter, or the socialist Left, if there were some utterly irrational criterion of that kind being applied in an extreme way, it may be that some principle could be identified which would give some overriding role to the courts of law. But it is very difficult to argue that and I acknowledge the force of the arguments of Senator Missen and others that these issues are, on the face of it, just not justiciable; that Parliament does have the final word. However-this is where most of the confusion arises-the second point is that Parliament can nonetheless be regarded as being obliged to act in accordance with ascertainable and indeed definable legal principles by references to standards which are inherent in the Constitution in deciding itself-albeit with the last word-what is permissible misbehaviour. The notion that simply because parliament has the last word-parliament can in turn apply whatever whim or fancy strikes it, just simply does not follow from the first proposition; it is quite a separate issue. The answer in this respect-and I obviously have not time now to track over the debates on the Australian Constitutional Convention and all the rest of the materials which lead one to this conclusion-is manifestly yes, that it was the intention of the founding fathers, or, as Senator Tate would prefer, the framers of the Constitution, that this be so. They understood the difference between the United Kingdom's system of interrelationships between the judiciary and the Westminster Parliament and Executive and the situation which applied in Australia with a written Constitution depending on a much more rigorous separation of powers. Indeed, it is arguable, quite separately from what people thought they were doing when they debated the issue, based on the fundamental principles of the Constitution, that the principle of separation of powers demands that it be the case that parliament not act simply erratically but by reference to very carefully, precisely and narrowly defined standards of what is impermissible behaviour. The third question I come to is just what are the standards. These points are partly linked together because the notion running through the second point is that it is proper for parliament to exercise some self-restraint. Simply because it might be construed as having the ultimate power does not mean that that power should be exercised in such a way that it passes judgment upon someone by reference to lesser standards than are contained in the text of the Constitution itself. So the third question becomes: What are the standards contained in the Constitution itself? If not in its expressed language-although the language of proved misbehaviour takes us some distance down the track-what is the obligation of parliament and to what ought it have regard? In this respect I can only simply say again, without having an opportunity to develop the point, that the situation is very different from that which obtains in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom traditionally there have been two tracks by which one could attack the judiciary. First of all the Crown, that is the government of the day, without reference to parliament, is traditionally in Britain able to remove judges for misbehaviour in the conduct of their judicial office. Secondly, it can do so by reference to misbehaviour not related to judicial office but involving convictions or possible convictions for what are called 'infamous offences'. The authority for that-and there are authorities all over the place- is Shetreet's volume Judges on Trial which most precisely and elaborately sets out the foundation for that rule as it operates in Britain. The second track in Britain is the parliament itself. This is where I make a point which has been constantly overlooked in this debate. In Britain there is a separate track. The first two points I made about what the Crown can do are entirely familiar, because that is what has been taken over in Australia. In Britain parliament can make a judgment, can pray and make an address by reference to any standard of misbehaviour the British Parliament chooses to apply to the particular circumstances of that case. It is acknowledged as a matter of constitutional principle in the United Kingdom-ungoverned, as that is, by a written constitution; not being a federation, as it is; and not being the kind of separation-of-powers-oriented constitutional system that ours is- although it has been many years since that power was exercised, that parliament has a completely ungovernable, unfettered discretion to do what it likes. Hopefully it will exercise some self-restraint, but there is not the kind of constraint built in there as there is here. What we took over here in Australia-and it is amply established in the literature, in the cases by the founding fathers and in their debates-was the first track. The deliberate intention of the founding fathers and the writers of the Australian Constitution, using the language, as they did, of proved misbehaviour, was to take over the traditional narrow, finite grounds of attacks upon the judiciary; to limit it, in other words, to those two categories of misbehaviour in the conduct of judicial office, either positively or negatively, or secondly, misbehaviour constituted by the commission-albeit not necessarily an actual conviction-of an offence which by its character is such as to make the continued occupancy of the Bench improper or inappropriate. Thus is there the distinction between the conviction for a parking or a driving offence on the one hand and forging a cheque or something on the other. It is that distinction that we have taken over. It is that distinction which is embodied in our law and in our practice. It is that distinction which is enshrined in the Solicitor-General 's opinion. It is that distinction which is enshrined rather more briskly in Mr Temby's opinion. It is that distinction which makes clear that the role of this Parliament is indeed very limited. Combine that with the particular circumstances of this case, the particularly squalid character of the material at issue in this case, and, Mr President, I believe that we have an excellent foundation on which to come to and sit on the conclusion that the Government has reached in this matter; that is-based as it has been on independent verification and analysis of the material by people whose competence and integrity have not hitherto been questioned, that it is wrong for this Parliament to embark upon the kind of adventure that is contained and enshrined in the amendment which the Opposition urges upon us. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.49) —I rise to support Senator Durack's explanation of why the Opposition will not support the amendment moved by Senator Haines on behalf of the Australian Democrats and to repeat some of the reasons why the Opposition sees this as a serious matter which should be pursued. The Opposition has one difficulty in this matter, and one difficulty only-that is that the political exigencies of the moment make it easy for the Government, and even for the Democrats, to say that this is a matter just of base politics and that we should put it aside. I remind the Senate that, in all this talk of proving that where there is smoke there is not necessarily fire and all this talk that this is just some squalid political exercise, some hard facts are being overlooked. I remind the Senate that it was not the Opposition which raised allegations on Four Corners, allegations which were subject to an inquiry at the instance of the New South Wales Government and which gave rise to charges against Mr Humphreys and against Chief Magistrate Farquhar. They were not matters raised by the Opposition in some pre-election spasm. They were matters which were raised by the media of Australia and which were subject to judicial inquiry. I remind the Senate that it was not the Opposition in some squalid pre-election spasm which raised the question of whether tapes were available which showed doubtful behaviour on the part of the New South Wales Government. It was a newspaper which was much criticised and at the time much defended by Senator Chipp and a journalist called Marian Wilkinson who was much abused in this place by Australian Labor Party members opposite and defended by Senator Chipp. It was her article which resulted, I understand, in the resignation of Mr Jackson. When people say 'put up or shut up', I merely wish to remind the Senate that perhaps Mr Humphreys, Mr Farquhar and Mr Jackson stand as some record of the fact that things have been put up. We now face a matter which has come before the Parliament not because of some squalid muck-raking effort on the part of the Opposition. We are now debating a matter which has come before the Parliament because the media of Australia, through the Age newspaper, a newspaper which in the past I have heard much admired by members of the Labor Party, has raised matters which were not within my knowledge or the knowledge of any member of the Opposition and which go to the heart of the administration of justice in this country and of whether we have probity in the major public organs of this country. The matters which have been raised have been thought serious enough for the Attorney-General to refer them to my former law partner, my friend Ian Temby, for his opinion in his role as the future Director of Public Prosecutions. They have been thought serious enough to be referred to the Solicitor-General, the second law officer of the Commonwealth. They have been thought serious enough by the Wran Government for it to refer them to former Justice Mary Gaudron, the Solicitor-General of that State. It was not the Opposition which called an election in New South Wales and made this a matter of some political difficulty. It was not we who called that election; it was Mr Wran who called that election. I do not believe that we are entitled to put our public duty as senators behind us because of Mr Wran's election plans. We have raised in this place the questions which I think properly arise from a reading of what has been published in this matter. Our questions have not been answered. Instead, the confusion has been compounded by the answers of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). We have heard a lot of very specious debate and very heated debate which relates to the political problems which face both the Commonwealth Government and the Labor Government of New South Wales. I would like to touch very briefly on some of the points which have been raised. I hope that the Attorney-General goes to bed tonight and sleeps with a copy of the convention debates under his pillow. We have heard a lot of reference to the convention debates today and I am grateful to Senator Missen and Senator Durack for putting so many of them on the record. I ask the Attorney-General to ponder on the words of Mr Barton on 31 January 1898. I think what Mr Barton had to say is something the Attorney-General should ponder on. Mr Barton was talking about whether or not the Parliament or the High Court of Australia should have the final say in these matters but I think it could be given a broader application. Having said 'I make not the slightest imputation on any Judge in the land' he said: What I mean is that those who are associated with one another in friendly communion during a long period of years become, as they ought to become, confidential and intimate friends; and the Judges of the High Court are no doubt likely to have such intimacy with each other that, as friends, they will be the last to see a defect of the kind we have in view. I think the Attorney-General should ponder on that as a reason for understanding why it is this Parliament and not the courts which has the ultimate responsibility in this matter and on its broader implications. The Attorney- General, Senator Tate, the Solicitor-General, the Australian Democrats and everybody else who has proffered a view on this matter seem to put the same view ; that is, it is this Parliament which has the final responsibility for determining these matters. Senator Chipp —That is right; we agree with that. Senator CHANEY —I am grateful to Senator Chipp for signifying yet again that that is the position adopted by him and, I understand, by his colleagues. We face the very real difficulty that we have the constitutional responsibility in this matter but are denied the means of exercising that responsibility because, in its simplest form, the Attorney-General says: 'I have the material. I have seen fit to submit it to the Solicitor-General and to Mr Temby, the putative Director of Public Prosecutions, and you must take their word for it that in their judgment the constitutional provisions are inapplicable and there is no role for the Parliament'. Senator Gareth Evans —Exercise decent self-restraint in the particular circumstances of this case. Senator CHANEY —We are being asked to exercise decent self-restraint in this matter. I think we have tried to exercise decent self-restraint in the face of the Attorney-General not being prepared to give us the information which we require to satisfy our duties. It is a very interesting debating ploy that tonight for the first time I heard from the Attorney-General an offer which I understand has not been communicated to my colleague the shadow Attorney-General and which certainly has not been communicated to me. The Attorney-General wants to make available the aide- memoire on some confidential basis. I gather from what he said that he is certainly not prepared to make the other material available on some confidential basis. We are entitled to be concerned about this matter. If the Attorney- General refuses to give to the Senate the material that he has, the material that has been published in the newspapers of Australia, the Age in particular, that well and truly explains why the Opposition is properly, legitimately and appropriately concerned about this matter. It would be helpful if we could feel sure in our minds that the Attorney-General is acting in the way he is supposed to-as guardian of the public interest in this matter-and not as a functionary of his Party and of his Government. The allegations contained in the documents which the Age in some way got hold of and then reported on are that a senior judge of the Commonwealth and a solicitor discussed trying to publicly denigrate a former leading Federal Government figure who was being considered for a senior public position. I simply quote the words which were published on the front page of the Age on 2 February. They go on to say: The plan has been revealed in secret police tape recordings of telephone conversations between the judge and the solicitor, who is involved with organised crime figures. If that allegation appeared on its own there would be reason for concern. But it is followed by a series of other allegations which relate to the same judge and to conduct which any non-lawyer, any non-technically-minded person, would regard as conduct which at best is very peculiar on the part of a judge. If we put it on the level of whether the behaviour was the sort of behaviour which is expected by the Australian community of a high judicial figure, any honest person would have to answer: 'No, it is not'. As an Opposition, we face the situation in which everyone agrees-Senator Tate agrees, Senator Gareth Evans agrees, the Australian Democrats agree-that it is not the responsibility of Mr Temby or of the Solicitor-General; it is the responsibility of us here to make these judgments. I happen to believe that whilst Dr Griffith is certainly a much more significant lawyer than I would have been if I had practised for 50 years-I make that concession and I agree that he is a man of great ability-I have to say that I find his opinion very doubtful indeed. But even if his opinion is right, even if the opinion which has been adopted by the Attorney-General is right, that does not take from the fact that the Attorney-General himself agrees that the buck stops not with Dr Griffith but with us. It is we who have to carry the responsibility of this matter. It might be terribly nice and terribly convenient if we put all that aside for six weeks for the benefit of Mr Wran. But I remind the Senate and the Attorney- General that we did not call the election, that we did not raise these matters, but we face the fact that we have these allegations before us and we have an Attorney-General who has shown no wish to give this Senate the information which it requires, in our view, to do its duty. Senator Gareth Evans —You give no weight to the illegality, no weight to the invasions of privacy. Senator CHANEY —I am sorry, but there is no consistency in the behaviour of the Government and the sort of interjection that is made by the Attorney-General. The fact is that he has made plenty of allegations in his time, as has his leader in the other place. We are faced with the fact that all of these allegations are before us. There is certain information which is in the hands of the Government, information which the Government has made available to its lawyers and advisers and information which it refuses to give to the Parliament. I turn to the stance which has been adopted in this matter by the Australian Democrats. I have a very great sense of disappointment that they should take the stance that they have taken. Senator Chipp —Explain what we have done. What is wrong with it? Senator CHANEY —I am quite happy to do so. I was about to move on to that. The fact is that the Democrats, before dinner, took a stance which was based on what I understood was being said on their behalf, a stance which acknowledged the Parliament's role in this matter and which proposed a very limited amendment which related solely to the tape which has not been transcribed, the one conversation, we have been told by the Attorney-General which relates to the judge. After dinner, the Democrats have taken a quite different stance and a stance which would provide the Government with an endless out and a way of avoiding any action at all, because I think that the simple answer that would be given if the Democrats' amendment were carried would be: 'I am sorry, but we are just not satisfied with the authenticity of these matters and therefore there is nothing that we need release'. So there is a complete non sequitur in what the Democrats have put forward in their post-dinner thoughts on this matter. Senator Chipp —You know there are tapes which have not been transcribed? Senator CHANEY —There are 12 conversations, I think, the Attorney-General told us. It is a relatively small number. There are 3,000, I understand, referred to in the written material. That is available on the public record. Senator Gareth Evans —Twelve conversations which have since been transcribed. Senator CHANEY —The Attorney-General says that they have since been transcribed, so the technical difference perhaps disappears. The fact is that, on the one hand, the Australian Democrats are choosing to acknowledge the primary role of Parliament in this matter but they are saying that we should not get access to the material on which the Solicitor-General and Mr Temby have been allowed to make their judgment. The Opposition believes that that is not a sensible stance to be taken. I believe that the Democrats have a genuine concern about being caught up in the politics of what is happening with an election. I can only say to them, as I have said before, that it was not the Opposition which called the election. Over the last five minutes or so I have listened to the odd cry of ' sanctimonious' from the Government benches. If, on the one hand, one debates this matter with vigour, one is abused and called a muck-racker; if one tries to deal with the issues as they appear to the Opposition in a fair and square way, one gets allegations about being sanctimonious. Senator Gareth Evans —A sanctimonious muck-racker. Senator CHANEY —In response to the sort of comment made by the Attorney-General, I must say that I was thoroughly disappointed by his failure to show evidence of concern for the national interest and I had a very great sense of disappointment at his readiness to leap to the defence of his government instead of his country . Senator Gareth Evans —Before you sit down, will you give us that undertaking about not naming any more names this week? Senator CHANEY —The Attorney-General seeks an undertaking from me in circumstances in which he, the Attorney-General, has been part of a sustained attempt to cover up the facts of this matter. I should like to see him making available to this Parliament the facts on which the Senate could make a judgment . But the fact of the matter is that what we are seeking is simply the means for this Parliament to carry out its constitutional duty, a duty which has been acknowledged by Senator Tate and Senator Gareth Evans and a duty which they believe can be performed for us by the Solicitor-General and Mr Temby. We take the view that that cannot be done. We can only do our duty for ourselves. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.06) —I have a great deal of sympathy with what has just been said by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) and the thrust of what he and his Party have been and are trying to do towards eliciting the facts behind the Age tapes. Whether it is an accident of time or whether it is sheer naked politics, it does not matter, but it is unfortunate that this motion from Senator Durack should come one day after the announcement of a New South Wales election. I had discussions with the Opposition indicating that the thrust of what it is trying to do would have the total support of the Australian Democrats if the Opposition left it until after the New South Wales election. But I was told that this matter was too urgent and that that would have meant delaying it only for this week's sitting of the Senate because on Thursday of this week the Senate rises. I want to correct Senator Durack who has said that we have had all day to think about his amendment. The fact is that I received it in my hands for the first time at about a quarter to three this afternoon, and I might have been lucky to get it then. There was other business of the House, and we have been on the run all day; so we have not had all day to view it. I suggest that a former Attorney -General, a pretender for the throne of future Attorney-General, should not be as loose with the truth as he was tonight when he accused us of having it all afternoon or whatever he said, and not coming to a decision. That is not in accordance with the truth. Let us look at the situation. I am deeply concerned, as is Senator Chaney and as are my colleagues, about these tapes and the allegations in them, not just about a judge or a solicitor, or a prominent member of the Liberal Party in New South Wales who is also mentioned in the tapes, or other prominent figures. Let us be honest. All sorts of people are mentioned in those tapes. We are concerned with the general seriousness of the problem. But one thing concerned us at our Party meeting today. Senator Haines said something that was very sad to hear. She said, 'is it not a tragedy when in a civilised society that is governed by the rule of law, ordinary citizens go about their business expecting the protection of the law and they say, ''I wish those politicians would stop talking about corruption because I am sick of it and because there is no evidence. Can they not get on to something else?'' ' What Senator Haines said was: 'In that climate, when the ordinary people in the street feel that way about their politicians, that is the time that organised crime flourishes. That is the time when the crooked lawyers make their fortunes, when policemen get bent, when politicians go on the take-when those people feel that the ordinary person in the street has had such a gutful that they can do it with impunity. On the other hand, the Liberal Party is facing an uphill battle in New South Wales. I can understand the political opportunity that confronts members of that Party. They are salivating at the prospect of gaining a few points. The Australian Democrats are not prepared to let this very serious matter drop for the sake of a few cheap votes at a State election. I pause and welcome Senator Chaney, with your indulgence, Mr President, to interject. Tonight we are debating two simple things. The first is a motion by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) that the Senate take note of the paper, which is a device used in Parliament to allow politicians to talk about something. We are talking about the tapes. To that motion the shadow Attorney-General has moved that there be laid on the table without delay portions of the transcripts and transcripts of any tapes not so far transcribed which refer to any conversation between the judge and the solicitor, et cetera. Does anybody in this chamber believe that the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, does not have a copy of those tapes and those transcripts? Does anybody in this chamber really believe that copies of the transcripts are not being floated by members of the Opposition and members of the Press gallery? Of course they are. Senator Teague —I do. Senator CHIPP —I have heard no denial from Senator Chaney or Senator Durack. If they do not have the tapes, then it would be a very simple matter for either of them to answer by interjection the invitation I now give to them. Can they therefore give a guarantee that in the remaining three days of this sitting week no member of their Party will table those documents in either this House or the other chamber? Can I have that undertaking from either Senator Chaney or Senator Durack? There is a thunderous silence from both honourable senators. What is the purpose of moving this motion this week? Senator Chaney —Because it may well be in the public interest to do that, quite frankly. Senator CHIPP —If the Opposition wants to pursue this matter after the New South Wales election it will have the Democrats' total support to the end, but to do it now will cheapen the currency and will be for tawdry political purposes. I again pause, with your indulgence Mr President, to allow Senator Chaney, Senator Durack, Senator Messner or anybody else in the Opposition shadow Cabinet, to interject. Was the question asked by Mr Steele Hall today in the House of Representatives discussed in the shadow Cabinet or among any members of the shadow Cabinet? Again there is a thunderous silence. Senator Walters —What did he ask? Senator CHIPP —I am not the slightest bit interested in whether the main strength of the Liberal Party, Senator Walters, knows or does not know what Mr Steele Hall asked today. She, for reasons well known within the Liberal Party, is not a member of its front bench. I am asking members of the front bench: Was this matter discussed at the shadow Cabinet meeting today? I just wonder how sincere the Liberal Party is on this matter. Having said that, let me say this: I totally concur with Senator Chaney as does my Party and, I believe, to some grudging extent, Senator Gareth Evans, that the question of whether the judge named had misbehaved is not a subject to be determined by lawyers, no matter how smart or how well credentialled they are. That judgment has to be made by the Parliament. In that Senator Chaney, Senator Durack and the Liberal Party will have the total support of the Democrats. Therefore one can say that Senator Chaney formulated a perfectly respectable argument when he said that if Parliament is to be the arbiter of the behaviour of this judge then the Parliament should have all the documents that were made available to Messrs Temby and Griffith. The fact is that we do not have all the documents. We have had put to us through the medium of a newspaper certain purported transcripts of tapes that are alleged to be in existence. Senator Lewis —If we read them. Some of us-Senator Tate and I, for example-have deliberately not read them. Senator CHIPP —That is the honourable senator's problem, with great respect. I have read every one of them. Therefore one can find great sympathy with what the Liberals are putting. Because this is such a fundamental point the Democrats believe it has to be debated, not in the heat of a tawdry State election campaign but after that campaign is out of the way, when the currency of these tapes will not have lost any value or any thrust. Can somebody tell me why there is a burning need to have those tapes divulged this week and not in the week the Senate resumes? Senator Missen —Because the Attorney-General will not investigate them any further. He has shut them off altogether. Senator CHIPP —I am sorry, I cannot quite follow that, with great respect. If that material is made available to the Parliament, and I have already conceded that the Parliament has to make this decision, surely the credibility of the Parliament's decision will be better among the general public if the determination of the matter is made out of the context of a tawdry State election campaign. If Senator Missen, for whom I have a great admiration in these matters, cannot see that point, I cannot put it any more clearly. I am sorry that I cannot explain it to his satisfaction. On the other hand, the public production of those tapes at this stage could do incalculable wilful mischief to possibly innocent people. Senator Durack —But not in a month's time, is that what you are saying? Senator CHIPP —Senator Durack during his tenancy as Attorney-General was a champion of the protection of civil liberties and personal reputations. I pay him credit for that. I cannot understand his new enthusiasm in this area. There may be allegations on these naked transcripts of tapes. There could be an argument that they should be divulged for the reason I just gave, namely, that the Parliament ought to be in possession of the information. I would be tempted to vote for the Liberal Party's amendment in its original form if I could be guaranteed that the personalities would not be divulged or had not been divulged . Let us stop kidding ourselves. I ask the innocents in this chamber, the babes in the wood such as my friend Senator Baden Teague, to put up their hands now to indicate that they do not know the name of the judge. I wish that the Parliament were now being televised. I ask the original babe in the wood, Senator Withers: Does he not know the name of the judge? The PRESIDENT —Order! Will Senator Chipp address the Chair. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, do you not know the name of the judge? Do you not know the name of the solicitor? This whole thing is a joke. Is there one member of the Press Gallery who does not know the name of the judge, the solicitor, or all the names on the tapes? Of course they do. As soon as this information in its naked and unadorned form comes down the glossary anonymously will appear in the Press Gallery or it will be laid on the table here. A name will be put down to fit the name of the judge. A name will be put down to fit the name of every character in those tapes. If each of those characters were guilty of some offence I would not mind at all naming criminals or friends of criminals. But here we have an opportunity of finding people guilty by association under parliamentary privilege. If this Federal judge has been guilty of misbehaviour, not just misbehaviour in terms of the strict meaning of section 72 of the Constitution, but guilty of misbehaviour in a sense that will compromise his position as a judge, that is the point that worries me, that a strict legal interpretation of his behaviour might not offend section 72 but could well put him in a situation with his associations with organised crime-it would make it impossible for him to carry out his position without fear or favour. Senator Gareth Evans —Oh, for God's sake! Senator CHIPP —Mr President, with your indulgence, I pause to ask Senator Evans: Why does he say 'for God's sake'? Senator Gareth Evans —Because there is absolutely no foundation for any such suggestion on the basis of that material. For God's sake, don't destroy someone. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I respect Senator Evans's interjection. This is the very point that Senator Durack, Senator Chaney and I are making. I am not prepared simply to take Senator Evans's opinion, distinguished lawyer though he is, that 'for God's sake, it will not compromise the judge's position'. I believe that the Parliament should make that decision. I do not want to equate the alleged behaviour of a judge with the proven and confessed behaviour of a Minister of the Crown some years ago in the British Parliament. At that time, that Minister of the British Parliament committed a series of grave indiscretions. It was not the fact that he committed those indiscretions, which were not illegal, that forced him to resign. It was the fact that those indiscretions compromised him as far as the proper conduct of his duties was concerned. Senator Withers —Profumo. Senator CHIPP —Indeed. Senator Withers —What about Parkinson? Senator CHIPP —I will rest with Profumo. I think that is enough on which to rest my case. Nevertheless, I thank Senator Withers for his assistance. Indeed, I am grateful to Senator Withers because Profumo was involved in another indiscretion of misleading the House which Parkinson did not. I thank Senator Withers; his interjection has greatly improved the content of my speech. In conclusion, what is the result of the amendment of the Australian Democrats? I will read it out to the listening public to see whether they can find anything exceptionable about the motion as the Democrats would have it amended. I understand that the Liberal Party will vote against this amendment and the Australian Labor Party will vote for it. We will then go through the charade after the amendment has been passed, as it will be, of the Labor Party voting against the whole deal. This is how the Democrats would like to see the amendment: and that there be laid upon the Table of the Senate without delay all those transcripts or parts of transcripts of authenticated and genuine tapes which refer to any conversation between the judge and the solicitor or other conversations referring to the judge or in which he participated, together with the aide-memoire of the Attorney-General's discussions with the judge on February 15 and 24, subject to the deletion from all documents of any name or identifying characteristics of individuals. To those honourable senators who have interjected-Senator Walters, Senator Lewis and those other rampant Liberals on my right-we make no apology whatsoever for inserting the words 'authenticated and genuine', because we believe that the least this Parliament can demand is that the good and innocent names of people should not be desecrated by rumour or by edited tapes. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.27) —I do not wish to reopen the general debate on this matter. I take it that what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has done is, in effect, close the debate. In regard to matters which he has raised I just want to say that a number of the things he has said have clarified the situation and I think have acknowledged the areas which we have been debating this afternoon. Obviously we are miles apart on the question of whether we took over from Britain a rigid idea that only two or three things might be described as misbehaviour. On that question I think we stand entirely in disagreement. The Parliament is not so restricted. He concedes that it is a matter for the Parliament to make final decisions. Of course it is a matter for the Parliament to be responsible, to regard it as a very serious matter and not act with any gay abandon or just for political purposes. We on this side of the House disagree entirely with the interpretation which the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General have put before the Parliament and say that parliament has a wide discretion and parliament must exercise it in its own interests. This was intended by the founders of the Constitution-that it should have its mind directed to these matters of misbehaviour and that it should seriously control its own destiny in that regard. I want to say something not open to that debate because on that matter we obviously fundamentally agree. I want to say something about the amendment of the Australian Democrats. It seems to me that the Democrats, probably with the best of intentions-I will give them that-have fallen into a real trap. They recognise that the Australian Labor Party-the Government-will support this amendment. Of course it will, so that it can therefore ruin the Opposition's amendment. Look at the language of the amendment. What does it require the Government to do? Senator Gareth Evans —Requiring authenticity and genuineness. What a travesty! What a sham! Senator MISSEN —The Attorney-General may well smile because he knows that he can easily deal with that. If he were to lay upon the table of the Senate without any delay those transcripts, or parts of transcripts of authenticated and genuine tapes and so forth-he would have no intention of authenticating those transcripts and tapes because he has decided-- Senator Macklin —The inquiry is still on. Senator MISSEN —No, the honourable senator is wrong; the inquiry has not suggested that the judge's conversations will be considered any further. That has been wiped out. Senator Macklin —The joint inquiry is still on. Senator MISSEN —The inquiry is in regard to all the other matters. Senator Macklin —It is not; it is still on. Senator MISSEN —The honourable senator should read the statement again. He will see that the Attorney-General has said: 'There is nothing in this matter with the judge and we are not going on with that'. The Government is going to bother about the authentication of the tapes in regard to the judge. It is not going to table anything. Senator Gareth Evans —The tapes are with an expert at the moment. Senator MISSEN —Yes, the tapes are being looked at and we do not know what will come from that. I have no idea what the State and Federal police forces may do or what they will come up with. Senator Macklin —You should have found out. Senator MISSEN —I cannot find out because we will not know that until they report back. They might report back to us and I think they should. I think this Parliament, in due course, will have to set up a committee in both Houses to have a look at the evidence. Senator Mason —This is about the right time to do it. Senator MISSEN —This will take some time. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Missen, I ask you to address the Chair. Senator MISSEN —Mr President, I will direct my remarks through you. Senator Macklin —This is a serious matter. Senator MISSEN —This is a serious matter involving a Federal judge and, therefore, is not a matter in which the Government can say: 'We say there is nothing else in these allegations. We are not going to look into them further'. The Government is not going to do anything further and say that the tapes are authenticated or genuine tapes in respect of that judge. The Government will not be concerned further with the matter and, therefore, the responsibility comes back to this Parliament, to this chamber, to ensure that we know what evidence has been obtained and what has been done in regard to those tapes and that, if necessary, we pursue other inquiries. We must do that. Senator Jack Evans —Which one of us can prove that they are authenticated tapes? Which parliamentarian do you suggest? Senator MISSEN —I am not suggesting anyone. The honourable senator has been here for one year and he is not aware of the fact that Senate committees are able to obtain evidence and are able to get consultants. Senator Macklin —You didn't suggest a committee. Senator MISSEN —I think this will happen in the long term. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is a nice little conversation going on up there, but we cannot hear you down here. Senator MISSEN —I am sorry, Mr President. I will ignore the five-finger exercise over here. This Senate obviously will have to investigate this matter. Even if the Government and the Attorney-General are not willing to do that in respect of the judge we will have to do it. It is our obligation and the public expects it. As Senator Chipp has said, the public is very concerned at the amount of muck- raking that goes on, particularly in New South Wales, within the Parliaments and so forth and we have to avoid that, but we do have to investigate the matter. Senator Gareth Evans —Tell that to your leader tonight. Senator MISSEN —Of course the honourable senator is conducting his own mini- Watergate here and endeavouring to ensure that these matters are not looked into . This Parliament has to look into them. I say to the Australian Democrats that their amendment is such as to completely vitiate any usefulness of the Opposition amendment. Therefore, the Government says that it will support the amendment and then defeat the whole matter. It will not be the end of the matter , but it means that we will not be pursuing and taking on further-- Senator Chipp —Yes, we will adjourn the debate until after the New South Wales election. We will support that. Senator MISSEN —The Government will not have that. We will find that there will be no investigation. It is necessary for a discussion to be had and for this matter to be investigated. The Australian Democrats are holding it up at the moment and avoiding the tabling of the documents which the Government is not prepared to use. I suggest that the Australian Democrats amendment is, therefore , an act of folly. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Haines's amendment to Senator Durack's proposed amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Bolkus, N Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: 'That the words proposed to be inserted by Senator Haines's amendment to Senator Durack's proposed amendment be inserted'. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: 'That the words proposed to be added to the motion by Senator Durack's amendment, as amended by Senator Haines's amendment, be added'. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition no longer supports the amendment in the form in which it has been put by the-- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President, I raise a point of order. On what basis is Senator Chaney now addressing the Senate? He is still speaking to the amendment which is before the Senate. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I have never spoken to the motion. I spoke only to the Australian Democrats' amendment. The PRESIDENT —It was understood that the Leader of the Opposition was speaking to the whole debate when he spoke. During his remarks, after he had been speaking for about 10 or 15 minutes, he referred to the amendment moved by Senator Haines. He is entitled to seek leave to speak. Senator CHANEY —As I recall, Mr President, I rose to speak to an amendment to Senator Durack's amendment which had been moved by Senator Haines. I explained why the Opposition would not support Senator Haines's amendment. Senator Haines' s amendment has now been carried and we now have before us an amended proposal from Senator Durack. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition did not indicate at the time he spoke that he was speaking in the manner in which he has now indicated. He was taken as speaking to the whole debate. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I have no wish to canvass your ruling. I seek leave to make a brief explanation. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator CHANEY —Thank you, Mr President. I thank the Senate for its indulgence. The Opposition does not support the amendment in the form in which it has now been left. The reason for that has been made clear, but I would like it to be beyond doubt. The Opposition does not regard the amendment in the form in which it now appears as putting any obligation on the Government which is really enforceable against the Government or which gives the Parliament, the Opposition or the Australian people any guarantee that the Government will perform in an appropriate way. The fact is that the decision as to what is authenticated and genuine will be left to this Government. The Opposition can come back to this matter when the New South Wales election is out of the way and we can see whether the Democrats will put their money where their mouths are. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-There are principled grounds for opposing the amendment in the form in which it now exists. They are those which I foreshadowed in my previous speech. But in case there should be any confusion or doubt about the Government's position on this matter, let me make it clear that while Senator Haines's amendment, as carried, represented an infinite improvement on the Opposition's amendment, it was still subject to all sorts of problems which I outlined previously. As to the tape and transcript material, as I indicated, even if it does prove to be genuine and authenticated, there are still very real difficulties about putting on the public record material which is illegally obtained and which amounts to a gross invasion of privacy. It is quite unprecedented for criminal investigations of this kind to be put into the public domain in circumstances like this, and it is not a precedent that the Government would wish to see established in this or any other case. As to the second part of the amendment in the form in which it still exists-the question about the production of the aide-memoire-I made it perfectly clear in my previous speech that there were, again, grounds of principle related to the confidentiality of communications between the Government-the Attorney-General in particular-and judges combined, of course, with considerations of privacy and fairness to the judge in question so far as the textual substance of this material is concerned. For that reason, the production of the document would have been resisted and is now still resisted. So for reasons which I hope are understood by the Democrats, not to mention everybody else, we will also vote against the amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Durack's amendment as amended by Senator Haines's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J. Haines, J. Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasBoswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John McIntosh, G. D. Chaney, F. M. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Martin, K. J. Coates, J. Missen, A. J. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterColston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Durack, P. D. Robertson, E. A. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Scott, D. B. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. TI. Teague, B. C. Giles, P. J. Townley, M. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hearn, J. M. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate (on motion by Senator Macklin) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Last Friday, 2 March, I informed the Senate of delays in the printing of Hansard during an industrial dispute at the Government Printing Office. The dispute which concerns the amount of a skills allowance to be paid to typesetters has resulted in the imposition of overtime bans and limitations. The Public Service Arbitrator has directed the union involved, the Printing and Kindred Industries Union, to lift its overtime bans and limitations so that argument on the amount of the allowance can be heard next week. The union will be meeting tomorrow to consider this direction. Even if the bans and limitations are lifted following that meeting it is expected that delays in the production of Hansard will continue for the remainder of this week. Debate resumed from 13 September 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.54) —I speak on behalf of the Opposition on a relatively uncontentious measure, the Liquid Fuel Emergency Bill 1983. I express the view that if we do get another liquid fuel emergency, the people of Australia are likely to regard that as possibly more significant than the matters we have recently been debating. In fact, we would all hope that the matters which are the subject of the treatment of this Bill are ones which will not arise and that we will not have the sort of emergency which this Bill is aimed to meet. The Bill before us is an important step forward in planning for possible future fuel supply shortages in Australia. To an extent this is a quite unfashionable subject because, of course, we have had some relative success in petroleum exploration in Australia recently with the very promising discovery at Jabiru and good discoveries at the Cooper and Eromanga basins. Of course, there has been a fall in the price of oil charged by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries in the face of world oversupply. In general, the attitude to liquid fuels is that the shortages which were very much a feature of the 1970s and the ever-rising prices which were reflected in the 1970s have eased and no doubt there has been a lessening of the level of community concern which existed about possible fuel shortages. The legislation which we have before us arises from the work of the National Petroleum Advisory Committee. On behalf of the Opposition I wish to acknowledge the work of that Committee under Sir Frank Espie and the recommendations made which are substantially reflected in the legislation. I thank them for the work which Senator Sir John Carrick and State Ministers at the time got them to do on our behalf. Notwithstanding the changes in the world oil market, the fact is that there is still potential for very considerable disruption to our oil supplies, although Australia is better placed than many other countries. Australia is about 65 per cent self-sufficient in oil and that means that if there were interference with external supplies, the blow would be cushioned by our national reserves. The fact is that there is a continuing possibility of interference with external supplies. Of course, it is possible that there could be interference with the supply of oil from within Australia itself. I suppose the vulnerability of our own reserves lies mostly in the fact that they are substantially off-shore. Notwithstanding the great care which is taken in respect of the security of the installations it is always possible that something could go wrong. It is also possible, of course, that something like industrial disruption on a wide scale could put us in a situation of very real difficulty. I suppose that the present relatively relaxed position in Australia-indeed, I suppose the people who market petroleum would say that the position is one in which there is too much fuel and the market too competitive-would acknowledge the wisdom of policy over recent years. The policy of the previous Government in establishing import parity pricing has I think been substantially successful in increasing the level of exploration in Australia and our level of self-sufficiency and in giving us a situation which is satisfactory, although a great deal of effort needs to be done in the future to maintain that self-sufficiency. What we have before us now is a very substantial piece of legislation which gives the Federal Government the power to interfere massively with the market situation, to intervene to ensure that where there are shortages or where there is some emergency which gives rise to a shortage in fuel that emergency can be dealt with by government direction. As I said, that is a matter which arises from the recommendations of the Committee under Sir Frank Espie. Notwithstanding the fact that one could argue that the legislation is unduly intrusive and draconian in the measures which it would allow government to take, the Opposition proposes to support it, in part because it has a sunset clause. We will have a chance to look at it over some years. We also support the legislation because there has been a genuine attempt to bring together all the elements of the industry and to arrive at a common agreement as to the appropriate measures to be taken. The Government introduced this legislation a long time ago. It was proposed that it should be passed last year. I suppose that the one thing which this legislation has done for me is to demonstrate that we should never pass any legislation through this Parliament quickly. I say that meaning no disrespect to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), his Department or anyone else concerned with the legislation. It has been my invariable experience that if Parliament actually delays legislation and takes a close look at it, either through the medium of a parliamentary committee or otherwise, inevitably the legislation is amended. Defects are discovered, matters which have not been anticipated are raised, and it is found that the legislation is in some way defective. The changes which I understand the Government will suggest to this legislation at the Committee stage are changes which, I think, are to the good. The Government, in response to representations which were made both by the Opposition and by industry, did show that it was prepared to make changes and to take into account the issues that had been raised. I acknowledge the receptivity of the Minister for Resources and Energy, his office and, further down the line, his Department to the points which the Opposition has raised over the last half year or so. I also acknowledge the receptivity that all of those people have shown to some of the concerns which have been expressed by the industry. I do not know whether it is necessary at the second reading stage of the debate to go into a great mass of detail about what we think is wrong with the legislation as it stands at the moment. We were concerned, and we expect those concerns to be removed by the amendments which will subsequently be moved by the Government, about the fact that Parliament was to be allowed only five sitting days to consider the regulations made by the Minister under the Act and that only this limited time was to be available to us to consider regulations which could be matters of very considerable complexity. We put the proposition to the Government that where it was proceeding in a non-emergency situation it would be better to allow the Parliament the normal 15 sitting days we have to consider subordinate legislation to consider any regulations. In the course of putting those views to the Government it became apparent to us that the whole scheme whereby the regulations under the Act did not come into force until after they had been available for parliamentary scrutiny for a period of five days, could have the reverse effect from the one we originally raised. The Government could be faced with an emergency situation in which it was unable to act because it could not put down valid subordinate legislation which would cover the situation in the absence of Parliament sitting and in a situation in which five sitting days had not elapsed. It seemed to the Opposition, and I think it was accepted by the Government, that on further examination it was necessary to change the scheme of the Act to ensure that in an emergency situation, where there was some gap in the legislative provision, action could be taken immediately, without waiting for the five sitting days to pass. We found ourselves in the rather odd situation on the one hand of saying to the Government: 'It is highly desirable in a complex situation like this to ensure that Parliament has adequate time to consider these matters. We do not believe five sitting days is long enough and we seek 15 '; and on the other hand saying: 'If the Government and Australia find themselves in the grip of an emergency, if there is a need for immediate subordinate legislation or arrangements to be put in place, we think the scheme of the Act needs to be changed to give the Government power to do that'. I think I have seen the final form of the amendments which will be put forward by the Government. It appears that the Government has taken into account the very real difficulties which it would have faced under the original legislation and is amending the legislation in a way which will make it more workable, both from the point of view of the Government and from the point of view of the Parliament. The Opposition has also raised with the Government the fact that one of the pre-conditions for the declaration of an emergency had not been given legislative form. It was clear from the second reading speech that the Government did not intend an emergency to be dealt with under the legislation unless the situation was one which could not be dealt with by the voluntary augmenting of supplies by the industry itself. Again the Government has shown itself ready, although it does not believe an amendment in that form to be strictly necessary, to amend the legislation to ensure that what the Opposition sees as an essential safeguard is included. The final item with respect to this legislation on which there was some dealing between the Opposition and the Government arose out of concerns which were originally expressed, I think, by those in the industry who are potentially affected by it. That matter is whether there is adequate provision in the legislation covering compensation for anybody who might be affected by government action under it. There was some difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition in the informal discussions which took place as to the extent to which additional legislative provision was necessary. Originally the Government seemed to take the view that any loss which was suffered by industry could be made up by industry or by an adjustment of the price mechanism . In other words, the market itself would look after losses which the industry might suffer. However, the Opposition took the view that in a highly regulated market such as the sort we have with respect to petroleum in Australia, it was quite possible that if not the Federal Government then some State government might by its interference in the market prevent that sort of adjustment occurring. I believe that the amendment which the Government now proposes to bring forward is reasonably satisfactory to meet the sort of concern which has been expressed by industry and the Opposition. I make all those points because I think that we all devote a great deal of time , mental effort and nervous excitement to the more highly political issues with which we deal in this chamber. I am conscious of the fact that at times I hear from the Australian Democrats that the Opposition is not interested in the more constructive activities that are supposed to take place in this Parliament. I put on record in the context of this Bill, but wishing my remarks to have a wider application, that I believe the Parliament has a legislative role to which it can and should give attention, as well as the political role of making and unmaking governments, which is also such an important part of our work. The technique which is available to the Senate, and perhaps is underutilised, of sending complicated and non-political legislation to Senate committees for detailed examination, inquiry and report is a procedure we might use more often to good effect. In the pressure of creating legislation within a department, with the pressures under which a government works and the pressures under which legislation committees of Cabinet work, it is very often true that there are quite real defects in legislation by the time it hits this place. There are many checkpoints, but many of them are not effective. For example, I do not believe that the sort of scrutiny which busy Ministers can give to legislation before it hits the Parliament is necessarily very effective in pointing out the sorts of defects which have been the subject of discussion between my office and the Minister's office over recent months. I address myself to the Bill not merely on the basis that the Opposition sees it as at least an appropriate interim measure which provides a necessary instrument for the Government to deal with what we all hope will not occur, namely, a liquid fuel shortage in Australia, but on the basis that we should also look at it as yet another example of the ability of the parliamentary process, or perhaps the sub-parliamentary process, to improve the quality of laws which we inflict on the Australian people. I do have one complaint, having I hope been reasonably gracious in reply to the Minister's response to matters which have been raised with him. It appears to me , on a preliminary examination of the guidelines which he very kindly sent to me on 18 January, that he has fallen yet again into the hands of the lawyers. I really think that it would take a lawyer who perhaps practised in the field of equity rather than in the field of good conscience to work out what in the hell the Minister is on about in his guidelines. I think they are excessively complicated. I think that they will be difficult for industry to use. I think that the Commonwealth draftsmen need to look at their drafting technique to see whether they can do something which will be a little more intelligible. I am sure that the Minister would like to jump up and say: 'That is all right, I understand all this perfectly. It is just that you are deficient'. But I do not believe that I am the only person who has found these guidelines to be rather complex. I think that it is a pity if in this Parliament we cannot provide laws which are readily usable by those who are subjected to them. I ask the Minister to ask his Department to see whether it can do something about producing a plain man's guide to what I think are a pretty awful set of guidelines. I should say that in the approach of the Opposition to this legislation there is a very real reservation regarding the enormous powers which the legislation gives to the Government. For the reasons I have tried briefly to explain we accept that on an interim basis at least, the legislation should be in place. We accept that the provision of a sunset clause, which means that the legislation has limited life, is an appropriate way to deal with that reality. We think that the Government is right to pick up the recommendations which have been made by that very expert Committee. I simply say to the Government that we will endeavour to scrutinise the guidelines carefully and to be constructive in this area, which we see as being not an area of policy conflict but simply an area where a job has to be done. All of us ought to try to see that the result is as good as possible. However I would like the Minister to make it clear to the Senate what I believe is the intention of the Government regarding the legislation, namely, that the provisions of this legislation will be put into operation only as a last resort and after every possible avenue for dealing with the crisis, including the use of the flexibility of the commercial marketing entities and the use of the price mechanism, has been exhausted. Of course, I also ask the Minister to acknowledge that in many situations the substantial direct powers and responsibilities of the States will be the most appropriate source of action in these areas, that is , in other than truly national crises limited State action is likely to be appropriate, rather than the use of this nation-wide legislation. I think that a declaration by the Minister that this is legislation of last resort would be appropriate, given the draconian nature of its provisions. I hope, too, that the Minister will acknowledge the value of there being some delay where we have very technical legislation of this sort, delay which I know has enabled industry to make very useful representations to the Minister and, I also believe, has enabled the Opposition to make useful representations to the Government. Having said that, the Opposition will support the legislation on the understanding that the Government will be moving the very substantial amendments of which we have been given notice. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.15) —The long title of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Bill 1983 is somewhat ominous, perhaps even prophetic. It is: An Act to facilitate the management of liquid fuel that is, or is likely to be, in short supply That contingency is only too likely to face Australia some time in the future, and perhaps not too far into the future. Of course that is why this Bill is before us. I think that the Government has exercised a very proper role by bringing forward legislation which would at least make the best of some crisis in which we suddenly found ourselves. When we look at the Bill's definitions we find that the liquid fuels listed are exclusively products of crude oil, ranging as they do from aviation gasoline to lubricating grease. It is probable that few more important Bills than this will come before the Parliament for some considerable time, when one looks at the background properly . That background is that the older, Western-style societies in Europe and the United States of America have very substantial alternatives to roads as a form of transport. They have railways and canal networks which can use coal or even wood or charcoal in an emergency. Also, in most of these developed Western economies distances are relatively short by Australian standards. Only one Western economy stands out plainly as the exception, a nation with one of the world's smallest rail networks for its size, geographically, with virtually no navigable canals or rivers and with vast distances between its main centres and often between its sources of food and its cities. That nation is, of course, Australia. We are probably the most dependent economy in the world on liquid fuel in large quantities to keep our buses, trucks, cars and aircraft on the move. Without it we would face the most severe type of recession; it would amount to virtual anarchy. One must foresee and warn against sudden and major food shortages, a complete breakdown of industry and almost total unemployment as the major transport services grind to a halt. I do not want to paint too depressing a picture, but I believe that to be a realistic picture, which we should always bear in mind because it is one of the constants of life in this continent. We should not underrate this risk to our society because it is obviously going to become closer and become worse with every day that passes. The demand for crude oil in Australia is now about 650,000 barrels a day. By 1990 the best estimates are that this will have risen to about 710,000 barrels a day. Australian crude oil fields have the capacity to produce about 460,000 barrels a day, and we are not actually producing at that capacity. Most of this comes from the Bass Strait fields. It is apparent from these figures that we are self-sufficient for about 70 per cent of our crude oil requirements now. But we are on the downhill slide. As demand increases and as our practical delivery of oil from our present oil fields goes down, our self-sufficiency will, of course, decrease. It is only a matter of time before that happen. An important point to be made at this stage about our crude oil production is that Australian crude is a light crude, suitable for petroleum, but not very suitable for lubrication and fuel oil needs. So no matter how much crude oil we can produce in Bass Strait we will still have to import about 30 per cent of our needs in heavy crude oil. We all feel that it would be nice if another major oil field in Australia could be discovered, something like the Bass Strait field. That would solve all of our problems. Possibly we will be lucky, but the evidence so far after a lot of exploration is that we might not be. It is a fact too that various techniques now used-computer-enhanced pictures from the Landsat satellite is one technique- reveal that probably there is not another off-shore field of those dimensions. Certainly it would be very foolish of us in the extreme to rely on luck in such a basic and critical matter for this society. In the world scene the situation in the major oil-producing areas is not reassuring. The current war between Iran and Iraq could cause major difficulties at any time. The Soviet family in Saudi Arabia is quite a recent dynasty, yet it holds its position only because of a delicate balance of power between that country's population of unruly tribesmen. Saudi Arabia itself is only too likely to be afflicted by extremist Moslem sentiments such as those which have convulsed Iran in recent years. Whatever the political situation there it is a fact that the world's resources of oil are fast running out. The supply of oil is in glut now, simply because the major suppliers are pumping oil out of the fields virtually as fast as they can. But nothing they can do can increase the amount of oil actually in those fields. It is true that other areas will come into production when the price rise is very much higher than it is now and they are seen as economic. That very much higher price will, of course, apply the most severe sanctions to our society if we are forced to pay those prices. Of course even these resources are finite resources only. So the scenario must be one in which liquid fuels derived from oil become scarcer and more expensive until finally they are completely or nearly completely exhausted. Regional or global war could advance the timing of this scenario quite dramatically and disastrously for this country. If with this background in mind we look at the Bill we are considering-I repeat that it is a Bill for an Act to facilitate the management of liquid fuel that is or is likely to be in short supply-we see that the Bill looks thin indeed because it is basically an instrument to requisition, ration and redirect those supplies of liquid fuel actually in the country and available. Nothing in the Bill can provide another drop of fuel if the crisis comes. Of course, new technologies exist that would make it possible for this country to withstand the sort of crisis I have described. It is not necessary for liquid fuel to be derived only from crude oil. But it requires action being taken by government soon. That technology I am describing, which is very well established and used in many parts of the world, uses natural gas to make fuel methanol or, by a further chemical process, petrol. Our Pacific neighbour, New Zealand, has just completed in its North Island a major petrochemical complex which uses natural gas from its Maui field to make ethanol and petrol. New Zealand is a poorer country than Australia but there has been a political consensus there for some time that this is necessary for strategic reasons alone. If New Zealand suddenly lost all sources of imported oil, at least half the motor traffic could continue to run. While in New Zealand I discussed this with the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, and the Opposition Leader, Mr Lange. Both agreed it was necessary. I suggested to Sir Robert Muldoon that on strategic grounds alone it was desirable. He agreed with that and said that it was by no means merely an economic matter. I raised that point because I have suggested a number of times, often by way of question in this place, to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) that it is high time we started on the same technology, with at least one complex to make probably methanol-I do not think it is necessary for us to go to petrol here yet-from natural gas as a supplement to our existing supplies. This could be used as a blend initially because M20, that is, 20 per cent methanol with petrol, requires no changes to the engines of cars. Because methanol has a high octane rating it is a useful alternative to putting lead into petroleum which is, of course, known to be harmful to the health of people who have to breathe the exhaust fumes that motor traffic produces in such huge quantities, especially in a city like Sydney. So the methanol option does have that advantage as well. A comprehensive test was undertaken some little time ago, between May 1975 and June 1976, by the Volkswagen group supported to the extent of about $800,000 by the West German Federal Ministry of Research and Technology. The VW program employed 45 vehicles and consumed 150,000 litres of test fuel with a blend of 85 per cent gasoline to 15 per cent methanol, and the test environment ranged from the heat of Corsica to the cold of Lapland. The vehicles, said VW, were in more or less normal production state, although some of the plastic components had been replaced with others made of methanol resistant material. The introduction of these materials into normal line production is said not to present many problems and would be a quite minor item in the cost of a motor vehicle, a few dollars. Volkswagen's report on the test program makes some interesting points. (Quorum formed) I was describing the fascinating Volkswagen experiment with methanol and I pointed out that Volkswagen's report on the test program makes some interesting reading: Basically methanol blends are already-honourable senators should remember that this was eight years ago-an acceptable alternative of equal value to normal petrol. Methanol can improve the efficiency of an engine to the point where a 3 per cent energy saving can be achieved and, of course, emission quality is also improved, this being because no lead is emitted if one uses methanol instead of lead to increase the anti-knock capacity. The equipment of new vehicles on the production line for operation on a blended fuel is possible without much extra cost, but Volkswagen says interestingly enough that the conversion of old vehicles is not justifiable except in the case of a national emergency. I suggest that this makes an important point which I commend to the Minister: This is something we have to plan a long way ahead and in association with our motor manufacturers if we are ever going to get to the stage of using methanol alone as a fuel. This was the case with methanol vehicles in Brazil. It was necessary for Fiat Brazil to tool up on its production line for cars which use total alcohol. This in itself is an argument for pretty long term planning of this type of situation. The final Volkswagen point was that even under difficult climatic conditions test vehicles operated perfectly. It has been proven pretty much by a reliable engineering firm whose qualifications to do this sort of work cannot be disputed that this is a goer and is a form of liquid fuel that could keep our buses, our trucks, our tractors and our cars going in a time of emergency. The Minister's reply to me, not unreasonably, has been: 'Not yet. I have looked at this and it is not economic. We are keeping an eye on the situation'. I suggest to the Minister that economic factors are not necessarily the only ones to be taken into account in this matter. We are living now in a very uncertain world over which we have no control. We cannot really control what is going to go on in Saudi Arabia. We do not know what is going to happen eventually in the Iran-Iraq war. That behoves us to take into account some sort of planning which would provide us with some sort of supplement if we found ouselves all alone in the hard cold world, maybe in wartime, without the means to keep our vehicles going. I also bring to the Minister's attention the scenario of a world war, not now but in 10 or 15 years time, when our own Bass Strait crude was running down. We would then be dependent on oil imported from overseas. I believe that in the next war there will be no sea traffic and no courageous tanker crews. It will not be worth while having them as every one of them will be knocked off and sunk before it is an hour out of port. It will be understood that there is no future in trying to send oil to Australia in time of war. There will be none whatsoever . That supply could dry up completely in a matter of days or weeks. When that is taken into account, it is sensible for us to start planning the natural gas to methanol and petrol option and to do it in association and co-operation with our motor manufacturing industry so that we have some kind of insurance policy against the future. We know the time will inevitably come when it will be necessary for us to do this. We are fortunate; we are a lucky country because we have truly vast resources of natural gas on the North-West Shelf which provides us with the opportunity of taking this option. There are, of course, problems of blending petrol and methanol due to the tendency of methanol to combine easily with water, like most alcohols, as we all know when we pour ourselves a Scotch and water. Petrol does not do that. Petrol tends to float on top of the water. This causes what is called phase separation. The methanol and water form one layer in the tank and the petrol another. However, this and similar problems have now been solved and the technologies exist to cope with them completely. Finally, the lead time for this technology is at best five years and probably 10 years if we are to get the motor industry to tool up for cars coming off the production line that can use this technology fully. If we started the operation now we could have our first plants operating by about 1990. We would perhaps be coming to a methanol car and the methanol fuel area about 1995. I suggest to the Minister that is about spot on. On that basis, now would be the time to start. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.30) —I rise tonight to express my absolute disgust at the Federal Government's decision to deny entry to Australia to two members of the South African Parliament, Mr Durr and Mr Rajab. The South African Government has sought visitors visas for Mr Durr and Mr Rajab to enter Australia for the purpose of attending discussion seminars on recent developments in South Africa itself and on South Africa's diplomatic relations with its neighbours. One was to take place in Canberra, one was to take place in Sydney, and one was ultimately to take place in Perth. The topics particularly to be discussed were: The importance of the Cabinet Committee on Blacks; the confederal concept and related developments; the Republic of South Africa's relationships with Mozambique, Angola and other countries in southern Africa; the Republic of South Africa's defence capability; the sporting scene; South Africa's internal priorities; and 'Can Australia make a contribution'-amongst a range of subjects. It ought to be noted that Mr Rajab is, besides being a member of a number of service organisations, a trustee of the Islamic Education and Religious Trust. He is a founding member of the Solidarity Party of South Africa, which is, as no doubt Senator Grimes will know, made up of a minority disenfranchised group of Indians. It is not particularly significant, but it is probably worth mentioning , that Mr Rajab himself is married to an Indian woman. Therefore, he is hardly a man, I would have thought, who would be likely to be supporting apartheid. I quote Mr Rajab. He says, first: I am not an apologist for the Government of South Africa. He says that he is a member of a disenfranchised Indian community in South Africa, and that he had hoped to be able to present a realistic picture of what happens in the country. He says: If that can be termed propaganda, really there is nothing more I can say. I would be telling the story as I see it, as I perceive it to be. I don't think one can distort the truth. Mr Rajab says that he would have told Australia about the new electoral system soon to come into operation in South Africa and other aspects of South Africa's life of which Australians were probably not aware. He says: It is strange that this sort of double standard should be applied by your Government. What we would have been saying we would have said in public and we would have been judged on what we said. Yet your Government takes a very strong stand against South Africa for very much the same reason-for refusing people their democratic rights. Mr Rajab said that apartheid barriers were being broken down in South Africa, albeit slowly. He said that there had been a starting point and that he believed that South Africa was now at the crossroads. As I say, I should have thought that he was hardly a man who would come here and preach apartheid and brainwash and convince Australians that that system is suitable for South Africa and for Australia. I should have thought that he was rather more a man of courage who was prepared to work within the system and seek to change that system from within, and not a man who has committed himself to terrorist organisations, such as the African National Congress and the South West Africa People's Organisation , which, by their own admission, commit acts of violence and terror in South Africa and Namibia and which are prepared to trade lives for votes. Both of these terrorist movements have been given approval by the Australian Government for the establishment of information offices. In fact, the Labor Government said at the time that the information offices were being opened that activities by such offices were legitimate and accorded with the operation of a free democratic society. I find that at variance with the decision with respect to the two gentlemen in question now. Referring to the subjects that these two members of parliament were to discuss during their visit to Australia I mention, by way of example, item 4-the Republic of South Africa's relations with Mozambique, Angola and other countries in southern Africa. I should have thought that that would be a subject in which not only all of the Australian public should be interested and about which it would want to learn more, but also that the Australian Government would wish to treat likewise. Of course, from its ivory tower in the isolation of Australia, the Labor Government has had much to say about that issue. Only very recently, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) issued a Press statement welcoming reports of progress in talks between South Africa, Angola and the United States of America on disengagement. He went on to say that it was a promising step in creating a climate of trust in which larger outstanding issues could be tackled. Now we suddenly find that the Australian Government does not want to hear about it, does not want to know about it, and does not want to learn any more; it does not want to have intercourse with members of parliament from South Africa. We have a repository of wisdom inside the shores of Australia. We know it all. We can make such Press statements. But we fear practical discussions upon the subject. The truth, I suspect, is that the Labor Government is interested in the subject. I am sure that it is interested in the subject on which the two members of parliament would have spoken had they come to Australia. I think that the reason that they have been denied entry is based simply on blind prejudice. I refer honourable senators to one of the other items, item 8-'Can Australia make a contribution?'. Surely in the past Australia has sought to make a contribution by imposing its views on South Africa, by condemning apartheid and by abandoning her sporting contacts. Here we now have an opportunity to discuss in a practical way what contribution we can make and to learn, perhaps, of more recent events in respect of sporting relations with South Africa; yet we turn our backs blindly on the opportunity to learn, to discuss and to make a contribution. Item one which was to be discussed was the importance of the Cabinet Committee on Blacks. I recall that that is a subject about which this Government has had plenty to say, and yet on this occasion what the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) had to say in his Press statement when he was announcing the refusal of the visas was: Quite frankly, I am not sure what contribution any Australian could be expected to make to the South African Government's Cabinet Committee on Blacks. It seems absurd to me that we are the conscience of the world, or at least the Labor Party purports to be; we are the repository of all wisdom and all knowledge as to how other governments should conduct themselves and how democracy should prevail; we ban sporting contacts with the South Africans, and we condemn them left, right and centre; and when we have an opportunity to contribute we suddenly turn our backs. Senator Grimes —What did your Government do? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Our Government took a position which was at variance with my own. I have not changed my mind since the Labor Government has taken over, except to say that I have no doubt that if these members of parliament had sought a visa during the life of our Government, they would have been allowed in . That would have been permitted, and there would not have been this phoney Press statement, these phoney excuses, this diatribe being put out by Mr West as an excuse for not allowing a couple of members of the South African Parliament into Australia. It is a poor old excuse at that. Mr West says that we have a very strong and fixed view on sporting contacts and that that is well known. I just wonder. Are we frightened to hear of new developments? Are we concerned that we might discover some new events and some changes in the activities in South Africa? The fact is that the Government does ot want to allow Australian members of parliament to learn about any new events in any of these matters. The matters that I have raised are but a few. I really do not understand how any of these subjects could be subjects on which the public of Australia could be brainwashed, more particularly the members of parliament and the media who were invited. I just remind the Senate of the guest list for the seminars. It includes people who have previously visited South Africa or who have taken more than a casual interest in South Africa, not necessarily those who support the view of the South African Government. Senator Grimes —Why are they confidential? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —They are not confidential. I will come to that point in just a moment. Senator Grimes —Why are they confidential? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —They are confidential to the point that the media have been asked not to publish the contents of the seminars for the time being because that would escalate the tension between South Africa and Australia. I just remind the Senate of the people who have been invited. They are the same people who have recently visited South Africa-Mr Ken Fry, Mrs Elaine Darling and the President of the Senate, Senator Douglas McClelland. One could hardly call Ken Fry somebody who is likely to go to these seminars and come out punch drunk saying: 'We must have apartheid'. I doubt that he is such a person. The same applies to Mrs Elaine Darling and the President of the Senate. Of course, there are many others on the invitation list. The media have been invited. I think it is highly unlikely that any of these members of parliament or members of the media who have been invited-- Senator Grimes —Why are they confidential? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —They are confidential to a point which I have just covered. I will cover it again if the honourable senator is still confused. Senator Grimes —Read the letter. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I have read the letter. I have one. I am still going to the seminars and I would not be surpirsed if a number of Australian Labor Party members do the same, unless there is a decision of Caucus that they will be expelled from the Party if they dare step into the seminars. We will wait and see. The overseas media have been invited and so have the Australian media. Knowing how they leak, I would hardly call that confidential. Officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs, who leak more than the media, have been invited. A discussion took place between the South African Embassy in Australia and the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Department proffered a number of names that it thought would be suitable for the occasion. Senator Grimes —What does 'confidential' mean? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —'Con- fidential' means that the contents are not to be immediately published in the newspaper. Senator Grimes —That is right. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I would have thought that that would please the Labor Party. Is the Minister saying that it does not? He was saying that the seminars should not be confidential and the Government is not letting South Africans in because it is terrified they might say something. Much has been made of the matter by the Minister. I think he used the word 'secret' this morning when we talked about the confidentiality of this matter. As I said, the guest list includes a number of members of parliament who have been visitors-- Senator Grimes —Did you say that the President had been to South Africa? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I understood that he had been invited. Senator Grimes —You might be wrong, might you not? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am not perfect but I am closer to being perfect than the Minister is. His invitation might still be in the mail. Senator Grimes —Yes, something like that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes. The fact of the matter is that in order not to make the visit of these members of parliament controversial and not to escalate the friction and the tension between the South African Government and the Australian Government, the South African Government chose purposely to try to keep this visit in a low profile perspective. Senator Grimes —'Secret' is the word. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No. Is the Minister opposed to that? Senator Grimes —'Secret' is the word. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Is the Minister saying that he would prefer the contents to be made public? That is a contradiction in terms. One minute I understand the Labor Government to be saying that it does not want these men in Australia because they would be here to preach propaganda and now I hear the Minister telling us that the seminars are secret and should be made public. He says that there is something sinister about their being secret. As I said, I could hardly consider them to be secret with members of the Labor Party, officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and media representatives being there. What a combination! It ought to be remembered that the Press were invited on the understanding that for the time being they would not disrupt the seminars by publishing the proceedings. Senator Grimes —It was secret. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It was not secret. It was simply intended to keep the temperature down in terms of the relationship between South Africa and Australia . Quite frankly, that attempt in the final analysis has proved to be absolutely futile because the Australian Government insulted the South African Government and many people in Australia by declining to grant entry visas to the two members of parliament. I think that demonstrates the graciousness and the responsible approach of the South African Government in ensuring that the differences are not escalated. Quite frankly, I cannot ignore the disgraceful way in which this whole matter has been treated by this Government. As I said earlier, members of parliament such as Mr Fry, Mrs Elaine Darling and-correct me if I am wrong, Mr President-you, have all sought permission to enter South Africa. To my knowledge, not one single member from either side of the Australian Parliament has ever been denied a visa. They were granted visas within eight days. This whole messy saga has dragged on for over one month. Ultimately the South African Government learnt of the decision of the Minister from a journalist with the Canberra Times. Senator Grimes —Oh, how shocking! Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The Minister does not think that that is bad. He thinks that that was intended to create goodwill between the South African Government and the Australian Government. Yet at the same time the Australian Government wishes to impose its will and have some influence on events in South Africa. It seems absolutely absurd to me. The South African Embassy discussed with the Department of Foreign Affairs the prospect of the entry of the two members of parliament and made it clear that in the event that these two gentlemen-young, active and likely to be leaders and decision makers in the South African Government in due course-were not welcomed into this country, it would like the Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs to consider other guests. But no; suddenly the shutters were put down and Mr West's Department notified the media that the visa applications had been rejected. Frankly, I find it very difficult to follow the logic of the decisions this Government makes in respect of visas. Mr West has said that he believes the policy of this Government is to reject sporting links with South Africa because of the South African Government's attitude to apartheid. He believes we should reject the visits of members of parliament who helped to frame that policy and keep it in place. Of course, that begs the question. What happens to the South African citizens who voted for that party? Are they to have their visas rejected ? Are they likely to be able to settle in this country? I must say that I have had some difficulty in trying to get people to Australia from South Africa. As I raise the matter I question in my mind whether this Government does not already have a view in that respect. What about the members of political organisations who support the South African Government, who obviously endorse its policies? Are they to be denied entry to Australia? Are they to be denied an opportunity to visit us? It seems to me that South Africa has an open door to people of all persuasions to see the situation for themselves. But this Government seems to be terrified that others might come here from South Africa and expose to us a few of the truths, the realities of what goes on in that country and the real aspirations of many of its people. This Government, with its blind prejudices and hates would not want us to be exposed to the view of South Africans. It is obviously terrified of the balance of any fair debate. This is really censorship . It is a question of our being allowed to know only what the Government would have us know. It is terrified that South African members of parliament might come here and put a different point of view or a different emphasis on the issues. Senator Grimes —How many people applied when your Government was in and how many would have been accepted? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —From South Africa? Senator Grimes —Yes. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I have no knowledge of any being rejected. Senator Grimes —Of course you have not. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —None being rejected-quite right. The Minister interrupts me to say 'Of course you have not'. I have some difficulty in drawing -- Senator Grimes —In seven years no-one applied. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, you can speak later in reply. I call Senator Crichton-Browne. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I have some difficulty, pursuing the same issue, in identifying the distinction drawn by the Government between rejecting the South Africans and embracing other members. We have the South West African People's Organisation, members of the Red Army, members of the African National Congress, the Arab League, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. They are all welcome , all embraced. The Labor Party loves them. The Red Army joined the PLO, blew up Lod Airport, and knocked off 25 innocent souls, but that is quite okay. Members of SWAPO proudly come across and speak on public forums and boast about the slaughter, the death, the murder and the terrorism. Labor seems to embrace that; that is good stuff. Senator Grimes —We? Who? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The Australian Labor Party. It says: 'Information and activities by such offices are legitimate and accord with the operations of a free democratic society'. That is what we say about them. Who are they connected with? They are connected with SWAPO. They have been influenced by the Marxist- Leninists. Their training is conducted in Angola by Cubans and East Germans. We can embrace them and invite them in. The ANC has had very close relationships with the South African Communist Party. That is okay too. We have all this mob in. We do not mind them. We do not mind a bit of bloodshed. What we object to is not 'one vote, one value'-we will trade a vote for a life any time. We just have to get that equality in the voting system. It seems to me to be absolutely absurd. We do not mind having the Russians here. We had the Russians in last year at a seminar on disarmament. Do honourable senators think that they came to Australia to tell us that we were right and they were wrong, that they were very ashamed of themselves and were going back to re-educate their heirarchy? They came to Australia to try to tell us that our lack of a disarmament policy was wrong and they were right. That was perfectly okay. We can have them in Australia on forums. We do not mind that. That is quite okay, but we cannot have South Africans here discussing the progress they have made with their new Constitution and their new peace arrangements with other countries. We do not mind the Russians though, do we? I find it absolutely absurd. We do not mind terrorists, we do not mind murderers, we do not mind communists, but we cannot have South Africans. I would be very intrigued to know the real logic of all that if it is not some blind left wing prejudice from the Australian Labor Party. I am quite sure that the great majority of the moderate, intelligent people in the Labor Party are ashamed of themselves. It seems that we are very pleased to trade with South Africa, we are very pleased to take their taxes, we are very pleased to get their revenue, we are very pleased to make profits from trading with them. We just do not trade in politicians. There is no money in them. It might even lose a few votes for the Labor Party. But we are very happy to trade. How strong is the commitment of the Labor Government to opposition to apartheid? It extends to interfering in other people's rights, inhibiting other people's opportunities for travel, and preventing sportsmen from this country playing sport in South Africa. The Government does not mind any of that. Senator Grimes —What about your Government? You stopped that too. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I opposed it then. Finally, we find that the Government is prepared to disrupt everybody else's life and make judgments for everybody else, but to be very glad of the trade as long as it gets the taxes and the revenue. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs finally said that each decision will be based on its merits. As I have tried to point out, I do not think there is one example in the statements that have been put down by the Government in respect of this matter that demonstrate to me that the merits have been considered. I suspect that there has hardly been a case that has been considered less on its merits than this one. When we go through each of the Minister's reasons and explanations for not allowing the South Africans into Australia, we find that each one falls to the ground in terms of its logic and in terms of the reasons the Government seek to outline. First of all, we have two members of parliament who are coming to a meeting which is generally described as confidential, so that it does not escalate the friction. The media has been asked in the short term not to publish stories while the members of parliament are in Australia and to do everything possible to keep the goodwill and good relationships between the two countries. We find that blind prejudice causes the Labor Government to say: 'No, these two members of parliament shall not be allowed into Australia because, as Mr West says, it is only a propaganda trip'. As I have said, it does not matter whether it is the PLO, the Russians, the communists or whoever, but we cannot have South Africans coming to Australia. We are all very happy to go across to South Africa and see what goes on there, but we are terrified that South Africans might come here and expose us to the real truths. I find the situation absolutely absurd. I am embarrassed to be an Australian. I am embarrassed to see the way in which these two members of parliament from South Africa have been treated in this case. The Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, finds this very humorous, but I think it is disgraceful that the decision, which hung on for more than one month, should be conveyed to the South African Government via a journalist in the Canberra Times. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.55) —I will endeavour to be brief, but I could not in all conscience be a member of this Parliament without condemning the refusal of the Australian Government to allow South African politicians and spokesmen to enter Australia and put their Government's position on various issues. I would take this position no matter which party was in government. I am particularly disappointed that it has not been equally condemned by the so- called civil libertarians of the Australian Labor Party. What is absolutely critical to the survival of our democracy is that the Australian public are able to listen to all arguments on an issue, not just those which the Government determines they should hear. This is a question that goes far beyond any question of the politics of South Africa. We are reminded of the wisdom of Voltaire in today's Australian: 'It is not necessary to agree with what a man is saying to protect his right to say it.' I rise to defend the right of South Africa to put its views, the right of Australians to hear and consider those views. This decision is the most unwise political action I have witnessed in the two and half years I have been a member of this Parliament. It sets a frightening political precedent that alternative views will be silenced in a way more familiar in totalitarian states. I find it particularly inconsistent in relation to South Africa because what we complain of is in part the freedom of speech, freedom to put a different view, freedom to criticise. We complain that that, to some extent, is restricted in South Africa. We are now behaving with the same standards as those about which we complain. I, as an Australian, am embarrassed by that double standard imposed upon us by our Labor Government. As I understand it, Mr Kent Durr, a National Party MP and Mr Mahmoud Rajab, an Indian member of the President's Council, were to address a number of seminars privately convened by the South African Embassy on current events and policies in South Africa. Whilst I would defend their right to speak at public meetings in this country, it appears that the South African Embassy did not propose such overt political activity, but proposed that they would speak to groups known to be interested in Southern African affairs. Clearly, they were not going to speak to purely apologists for apartheid. I heard Senator Missen this morning say that he had been invited. Senator Crichton-Browne has mentioned several somewhat extremist Labor politicians, including you, Mr President, and I have received an invitation. This Australian Government will not even let them come to this country to speak to those who are interested in hearing their views. I was in South Africa for a few days in 1982. Senator Grimes —I'll bet you were. Senator HILL —I utilised the services of our Embassy to learn a little more of the current political situation. For the benefit of the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, I was on the way home to Australia from a parliamentary delegation to other African nations. Senator Grimes —As the others were. Senator HILL —I was not a guest. If South Africa had refused me a visa I would obviously have been furious and alleged gross violation of normal democratic principles. I find it particularly embarrassing that my country is now behaving in a way that I would have regarded in such terms. I remember speaking to a large audience in Taiwan early last year on the subject of freedom. I stressed the importance of being satisfied that standards complained of elsewhere were not being practised at home. In the law we talk of coming to equity with clean hands. I believe that the precipitate decision of our Government has compromised our ability to complain of internal affairs in South Africa in the future. I fear that we no longer have clean hands. It is a time of considerable change within South Africa internally and its relations with its neighbours. All students of African affairs and South Africa in particular will be aware that that is the case. The major constitutional changes that have just taken place, the new form of government involving Indians and coloureds, has been described by a former Labor Minister, Mr John Wheeldon, in the following terms: But it is nothing short of revolutionary that the ideological principle of white supremacy has been discarded. Once the new constitution comes into effect it will be no longer true to describe South Africa as an exclusively white dominated political entity. These changes are more profound than the introduction of formal apartheid which followed the defeat of Smuts. That is an ex-Labor politician, a highly respected man speaking of the dramatic changes that have taken place. Senator Townley —Everyone really used to listen when Senator Wheeldon spoke in this place because they knew what he was talking about. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Townley; you are speaking later on. Senator HILL —He was a student of foreign affairs in the true sense. I appreciate Senator Townley's interjection. I am on the record in this chamber on 19 August 1982 as saying that apartheid is immoral and that there appears to me to be little in the new package that corrects that basic immorality for reasons that are not necessary to debate tonight. So different people will have different views on the current changes. But unlike the Government, I will always be ready to listen and consider what is happening. The lot of the urban blacks is, of course, one of the great tragedies of South Africa. Unlike the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) who appeared to make something of a joke of that subject, I am prepared to learn more of the work of the Cabinet committee that is addressing the problem. I suspect that I will not be satisfied because the tragedy goes to the very root of apartheid. However, I am prepared to listen. I want to be able to continue to urge the type of change to that which I regard as the entitlement of all human beings, including all basic human rights. Of course, my opportunity to put my view to the South African politicians has now been removed from me by my Australian Government. But in any event my credibility would now have been damaged by the double standards which have been exhibited by the Australian Government. In external affairs, as I mentioned, there are presently changes which could be described as exciting. I refer to the recent agreements between South Africa and Mozambique and South Africa and Angola. Senator Crichton-Browne —Also on the agenda. Senator HILL —As Senator Crichton-Browne says, they are on the agenda for the visit of these gentlemen. I was pleased that Mr MacKellar put out a Press release only a week ago recognising the importance of these new agreements. The agreement to remove South African troops from Angola and the setting up of a demilitarised zone together with the release of Mr Toivo, a founder of the Namibian Independence Movement, gives cautious hope for positive developments in south-west Africa. The developments in the relationship between Mozambique and South Africa are even more exciting as was said in the Press release of Mr MacKellar to which I referred. The agreement between South Africa and Mozambique ushers in arrangements for general co-operation between the two counries. These agreements indicate that the governments involved are opting for policies of co- operation. These developments will displace confrontation and violence which have been very destructive of the economies, particularly Mozambique's. For a long time I have held the view that the stabilisation by South Africa of its neighbours is a policy not only not in their neighbour's interests but also not in South Africa's best interest. I am, therefore, anxious to learn more on the subject and particularly keen to have the opportunity to question South African politicians. That, of course, has now been denied me. I will continue to condemn apartheid. I will continue to support the international sanction that has been agreed to express the world's view that it is not a system under which civilised society can be carried on. That sanction is in the form of sporting contacts. It is a way in which the community of nations can dramatically illustrate the evils of apartheid. I also condemn failures in Australia to uphold the basic rights, the lack of which I condemn elsewhere. I did not criticise the setting up of information offices in Australia of SWAPO or the African National Congress although the latter particularly has a declared terrorist policy in bringing about its objectives. I did not do so because whilst I abhor the use of violence as a political weapon I regard it as important that Australians know and consider the arguments of those bodies. When government policy censors particular political views from the Australian public I fear for the future of democracy in this country. I know that the Government is presented with a difficult political dilemma at the moment to ensure its seat on the Security Council to impress developing African nations that it is necessary to adopt anti-South African policies. That in itself is particularly difficult when it comes to government to find policies that are regarded, I think one can fairly say, as the strongest anti-South African policies of all industrialised Western nations. I urge this Government: Please do not sacrifice that which is so precious to this country to achieve short term political gain. I hope this Government will reconsider the decision it has made. It is not too late to reconsider. I think it has made an extremely dangerous precedent and one which Australia will live to regret. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(11.07) —I would just like briefly to agree with what has just been said by Senator Crichton-Browne and Senator Hill. At the outset I point out that I am not in favour in any way of apartheid. At Question Time today I believe the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) did those honourable senators in the Senate who are trying to get gradual changes brought about in South Africa a grave disservice when in one of his, I would have to say , snide remarks-- Senator Crichton-Browne —No, standard remarks. Senator TOWNLEY —No, I said 'snide remarks', he implied that everybody sitting on this side was in favour of apartheid. Senator Grimes —I did not say that at all. Senator TOWNLEY —The Minister implied it. Senator Grimes —I did not even imply it. Senator TOWNLEY —The Minister can apologise tomorrow during Question Time if he wants to. He certainly should because that was the impression that was given to this Senate. Nobody in this building, let alone in the Senate or the Press or elsewhere, would say that Senator Missen is on the side of apartheid-- Senator Grimes —I agree. Senator TOWNLEY —The Minister said he was on this side of the chamber and-- Senator Grimes —I did not say that. Senator TOWNLEY —I am sorry. I refer Senator Grimes to Hansard tomorrow. It is my belief that he implied that in regard to everybody on this side. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Townley. Would you please address your remarks through the Chair? Senator TOWNLEY —That is one of the dishonest things that happened in this chamber today. Another of the dishonest things that happened in this chamber today was also perpetrated by Senator Grimes. He described the seminars in a way that implies that they are somewhat underhand. Senator Crichton-Browne —Clandestine. Senator TOWNLEY —Clandestine is perhaps the correct word, but he used the word ' secret'. Senator Grimes —'Confidential' I said. Senator TOWNLEY —Senator Grimes said 'secret' and yet there have been three Labor members invited to those seminars. Senator Grimes —But they are not going. Senator TOWNLEY —I do not care whether they are going or not. Does it mean that they have been told not to go? Has the left wing told them not to go or has the Centre Left told them not to go? Who will run this country? The Left? Certainly it seems that the people who are deciding some of the policies of this country are the left wing-- Senator Grimes —What does the word 'confidential' mean? The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Grimes; you can speak later on. Senator TOWNLEY —The left wing is trying to decide who shall come into this country, what immigration policy shall be applied to this country. To leave the immigration of this country in the hands of somebody like Mr West is an error that Mr Hawke will live to regret. I know of three Labor members who were invited to those seminars. I had not heard of the President being invited. I met another Labor member of the Senate in an elevator in Johannesburg when I was in South Africa at my own expense. If necessary I can name the person. His eyes became as big as saucers because he did not expect to see me there. I am not in the practice of naming people I meet in circumstances like that. Senator Grimes —There are no worries about that. Senator TOWNLEY —The Minister should look at some of the things that happen over there. Obviously the ministry in both the present Government and the previous Government was not well informed on the situation in South Africa. I will be the first to agree with that proposition. I did not agree with some of the things that Mr Fraser did with regard to South Africa. That puts to an end the dishonest inference that Senator Grimes gave to the seminars that were arranged in this country and which I would have liked to attend had there been people present who would have given us up to date information on the situation. Senator Crichton-Browne —You know that the Prime Minister's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs both recommended it. Senator TOWNLEY —I was just coming to that question. According to newspaper reports the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet recommended the granting of visas to the two gentlemen. If that is correct, who caused those decisions to be overridden? Did the Prime Minister give in to the left wing? Did he give in to the centre left group? Honourable senators should notice that it is not called the centre group; it is called the Centre Left. It is more left than centre. They insisted on the word ' left' being included in the name. We must always remember that that group will have a tremendous amount of influence from now on as to who becomes or remains Prime Minister of this country. Voltaire made a statement which Senator Hill mentioned. I believe his exact words were: 'I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. Senator Grimes —It loses something in the translation, doesn't it? Senator TOWNLEY —Some of the Minister's statements lose a heck of a lot in their translation. Whatever he says loses a lot in translation. When he is confronted with what he has said, he then tries to say: 'That is not what I said; I have a copy of the Hansard in front of me. That is not what I said'. I refer him to the copy of Hansard tomorrow to see whether what I said is correct. Senator Crichton-Browne —It is like the pensioners. He will back down tomorrow. Senator TOWNLEY —I will refer to the pensioners in a minute. Honourable senators should listen to the first part. It seems to me that this country will allow terrorist groups into Australia to set up offices. It will not allow certain offices to be set up by certain of our trading partners who are very important to this country without a lot of trouble but it lets in terrorists who have announced that they blow up all sorts of things in South Africa. Senator Grimes —Who? Name them. Senator TOWNLEY —I will tell the Minister tomorrow, if he really wants to know. I am sure there are people who will follow me in the debate who can agree with what I have said. This Government will not allow the setting up of offices by a country that I know of which is one of our very important trading partners yet it will let in terrorists and allow them to set up offices in this country. What good can it do for this country to have terrorists in the country? Senator Grimes —Who? Senator TOWNLEY —The Government has allowed two self-professed terrorist organisations, the African National Congress and the South West Africa People's Organisation, to establish offices in this country. Senator Grimes —Rubbish! Senator TOWNLEY —The honourable senator says 'rubbish'. He always says 'rubbish' . It is one of the sounds that he keeps uttering when he does not quite know what he should say in defence of a government in a situation which is indefensible. Senator Grimes in many cases tries to defend the Government in the way that he thinks it should be defended. Mr Hawke states: 'There will not be an assets test'. What happens in Tasmania to the people working in the assets test area? They are told to continue working in exactly the same way as if Mr Hawke had not made that statement. Senator Grimes —He did not make that statement. Senator TOWNLEY —That is the kind of friction that is going on within this Government. Mr Hawke says one thing and Senator Grimes says another. Mr Hawke most probably said it purely because of the election announcement that he knew Mr Wran was going to make in New South Wales. Senator Grimes said: 'Keep on getting ready for the assets test because after the election in New South Wales we will go ahead full steam'. That is another thing that this Government will live to regret. But I will return to the matter that I was discussing just a moment ago. The Government lets certain terrorist groups into the country. Even before I saw a couple of the editorials in some of the newspapers today my feeling was that we should stand up in this country and in the Senate against things that are against the nature of Australia and protect freedoms that are essential to the future of this country. I will read a couple of paragraphs from The Australian editorial this morning. It says in part: The most harmless construction to put upon the action taken by the Minister for Immigration, Mr West, apparently with the concurrence of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, is that it is a nasty little example of left-wing McCarthyism. Senator Peter Baume —Who do you think wrote the editorial? Senator TOWNLEY —I have no idea who wrote it. The final paragraph of the editorial states: The ban on the two South Africans cannot be justified by any international obligations or by any other criterion. It is dangerous to the principles of a free and open society. It is a decision that ought to be reversed. I call upon the Government to reverse this decision before it gets into the situation where this country has closed its doors to people wishing to enter the country. The next thing will be that members of Parliament will be refused visas to go to other countries. That happens already in many communist countries. I would not be at all surprised to see some of the left wing people in this country, whom I call communists, try to do the same thing. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the full text of the editorial in today's Australian. Leave granted. The editorial read as follows- DANGEROUS THOUGHTS THE Federal Government's decision to refuse entry to two South African politicians has implications of a more fundamental nature than those related to Australia's policy towards race relations in South Africa. The most harmless construction to put upon the action taken by the Minister for Immigration, Mr West, apparently with the concurrence of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, is that it is a nasty little example of left-wing McCarthyism. What is more alarming is the preparedness shown by the Minister and his colleagues to suppress free discussion of a matter on which many Australians are anxious to inform themselves. During its periods in opposition, the ALP has been, quite properly, highly critical of restrictions imposed by non-Labor governments on the entry of foreigners whose views were unacceptable. It may be remembered that at the height of the Vietnam War the coalition government denied a visa to the American comedian Dick Gregory, who had intended to speak against the policies of the US and Australian governments, and Labor correctly denounced the prohibition as a denial of freedom of speech. Similar protests were made by ALP spokesmen when visas were refused to intending visitors from communist bloc nations. Of the two South Africans who have been refused visas, one is white and a National Party member of Parliament; the other is prominent in the Indian community and a member of the South African President's Council. Despite Mr West's assumption that all is known about South Africa that needs to be known, many Australians with more open minds would like to know something more about the major changes that will result from the coming into effect of the new South African constitution, and, having been informed, to make known to the South Africans whatever criticisms they may think are appropriate. The constitutional developments are part of the pattern of change in southern Africa. Closer relations between South Africa and Angola and Mozambique and the prospect of a settlement in Namibia, ought to be of interest to all Australians even if Mr West thinks we should be protected from dangerous thoughts. As Voltaire remarked two centuries before Mr West was born, it is not necessary to agree with what a man is saying to protect his right to say it. The Federal Government would no doubt deny that, because it allowed a Nicaraguan Government minister to speak publicly in Australia last month, it therefore supports the Sandinistas against President Reagan. It would surely protest if the fact it admitted Soviet functionaries who took part last year in a symposium on disarmament was taken as proof of its liking for Moscow's military policy. The ban on the two South Africans cannot be justified by any international obligations or by any other criterion. It is dangerous to the principles of a free and open society. It is a decision which ought to be reversed. Senator TOWNLEY —Another editorial that I believe is worthwhile bringing to the notice of people who are present and to those who read Hansard in the future is the one in the Melbourne Herald this evening. It is headed 'An unfair go'. The last paragraph of that editorial states: Immigration Minister Stewart West may have good reasons for banning the pair, but these reasons have not been adequately explained. While our foreign policy- makers may not be happy with the South African Government, this is no reason for stifling public debate on just what is going on in that country. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the entire text of that editorial. Leave granted. The editorial read as follows- AN UNFAIR GO Australia's international diplomatic and democratic image has taken another denting by the Federal Government's decision to ban two South African politicians who planned to speak at seminars in Canberra, Sydney and Perth. Abhorrent as the apartheid policy may be, there appears to be little justification for refusing entry to the two men-one of them a moderate Indian community political leader-while at the same time allowing the anti-apartheid African National Congress and the South-West African People's Organisation ( SWAPO) to open offices in Australia. For a nation which is supposed to put great stock on the principle of a ''fair go'' for everybody, the distinction between the two moves is difficult to reconcile, particularly at a time when significant moves are being made towards closer relationships between South Africa and neighbouring Angola and Mozambique . In the light of recent constitutional changes in their country, the topic on which the two banned South Africans were to speak-''South Africa-today and tomorrow''-would have been of more than passing interest to Australians of all political persuasions. While these constitutional amendments still fall short of our understanding of democracy, they at least indicate a shifting of the foundations of apartheid. Immigration Minister Stewart West may have good reasons for banning the pair, but these reasons have not been adequately explained. While our foreign policy- makers may not be happy with the South African Government, this is no reason for stifling public debate on just what is going on in that country. Senator TOWNLEY —I conclude this section of my contribution to the adjournment debate by saying that I believe Mr Hawke should re-examine this matter and not let his left wing colleagues, many of whom, as I have said, I regard as communists, take over the running of a very important part of this country. Mr Hawke has shown a reasonable amount of courage in some areas. As I said earlier, I believe his Department recommended the granting of the visas to the gentlemen who wish to come from South Africa. Senator Crichton-Browne —Ask Senator Grimes whether this is true. Senator TOWNLEY —I ask whether this is correct. If so, on what basis was the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet overridden. Senator Crichton-Browne —Ask him whether the Department of Foreign Affairs recommended it too. Senator TOWNLEY —I have already mentioned that. I expect that Senator Grimes will address himself to that in due course. Senator Crichton-Browne —Don't hold your breath waiting. Senator TOWNLEY —I will not because I have one other matter that I have to deal with. That matter concerns what I regard as another dishonest statement in the Mercury newspaper last Friday. It appears on page 11 under the headline 'Old and disadvantaged are doctors' victims: Blewett'. In view of the lateness of the hour, I will read only parts of a fairly short letter from a lady who wrote to me. She is a pensioner who objected to not being able to insure against the gap. The article in the Mercury states that Dr Blewett said that the Government was aware of the problem. Dr Blewett was reported as saying that it was clearly the Government's preference that doctors bulk billed. The article stated: The Government accepted that doctors had the right to elect not to bulk bill . . . I refer now to the letter from the pensioner who wrote to me. No one could say that she had money to throw around. In her letter she stated: . . . I was advised I would have to ask my doctor to bulk bill, or only charge me the scheduled fee . . . Further on she stated: Hoping you may be able to bring this matter to the attention of the Federal Health Department on behalf of all Tasmanians, as we believe the majority of doctors in the State are against 'bulk billing', which we feel is their right under the circumstances. This is a pensioner who has written this- What union would accept a $2.15 decrease per head in their awards at this time? Yet the medical profession is expected to do so. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the article from the Mercury and the full text of the letter. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- 'Mercury' Article OLD AND DISADVANTAGED ARE DOCTORS' VICTIMS: BLEWETT CANBERRA. - Some doctors were punishing the old and disadvantaged simply for ideological reasons by refusing to bulk bill them, the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, told Parliament yesterday. He said the Government lacked the power to force doctors to bulk bill these people but he and Health Ministers in Labor States would take every opportunity to publicise these kinds of intolerable practices. Mrs Wendy Fatin (Lab, WA) had asked if he was aware significant numbers of doctors in her State were refusing to bulk bill pensioners. ''Can the Minister say whether this Draconian practice is widespread and is there anything the Government can do to prevent doctors causing this distress for the elderly?'' Dr Blewett said the Government was aware of the problem in her electorate and elsewhere. It was clearly the Government's preference that doctors bulk billed, he said. It brought a major reduction in the community's health bill, it meant administrative advantages to both doctors and Medicare, and it removed the problem of bad debts for doctors while patients did not have to worry about collecting their refund from a Medicare office, the Minister said. The Government accepted that doctors had the right to elect not to bulk bill '' but what we regard as quite unacceptable is that doctors, in their ideological opposition to Medicare, should now refuse to bulk bill pensioners and the disadvantaged who for years they have bulk-billed.'' ''Simply for ideological reasons they are now punishing the old and the disadvantaged,'' he said. He related one case in Mrs Fatin's electorate where an 89-year-old woman pensioner was forced on a 42 degree day to collect her refund from the Medicare office because the doctor refused to bulk bill. ''I believe Members on both sides of the House will regard that case as wrong and unreasonable,'' Dr Blewett said. Letter from Pensioner Senator M. Townley, A. M. P. Building, 86 Collins Street, Hobart. Tas. Dear Senator Townley, Having read in the 'Mercury' that you would be pleased to assist electors with any matters of concern, I am writing to you re the new Medicare Scheme. I had the misfortune to fracture my left wrist prior to the Christman-New Year holidays and consequently have needed to visit my doctor (G.P.) at frequent intervals over the past months. Yesterday I presented my two paid accounts ($12.70 each visit) for refund at Medicare Branch, (Glenorchy), and was only paid $21.10, ($25.40 paid) being $4. 30 that I was out of pocket. The amount charged by my doctor was the same as previously, and being in Medical Benefits I had always received the full amount in refund. On questioning the payment paid to me as a refund, I was advised I would have to ask my doctor to bulk bill, or only charge me the schedule fee, being a pensioner. From what I understood, the onus was on me to seek the lower fee by explaining my circumstances to my doctor. As he already knows all the facts about us both being pensioners, and the fee is the same as we have previously paid, what am I supposed to do? Ask my doctor to accept $2.15 less per consultation, or just accept the fact that I will have to pay this excess from our pension? I might add that we have been in Medical Benefits since 1956, and I am still the same pensioner, being treated by my same doctor at the same fee as prior to Medicare. But now I am to pay $2.15 per visit extra to my doctor or ask him to reduce his charge by this amount for the identical professional service. My husband who is covered under Veterans' Affairs elected at an added cost from our pension of $302.50 p.a. to keep me in the Medical Benefit Scheme, as my health is such that I need specialist treatment at intervals, plus frequent physiotherapy to keep me mobile. Why has the Federal Government refused to allow people to insure against 'the gap'? We had no choice, just as we had no say in being compelled to enrol in Medicare, even though people like ourselves now are having to pay out extra dollars. The $2.15 is not a large amount, but the principle behind this scheme is most unfair. Hoping you may be able to bring this matter to the attention of the Federal Health Department on behalf of all Tasmanians, as we believe the majority of doctors in this State are gainst 'bulk-billing', which we feel is their right under the circumstances. What union would accept a $2.15 decrease per head in their awards at this time? Yet the medical profession is expected to do so! Thanking you, Yours faithfully Senator TOWNLEY —I thank the Senate. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.23) —I will not delay the Senate for very long but I do believe that the subject we have been discussing for the greater part of the adjournment debate is quite important. I suppose every country in the world has some matters with respect to internal policy that it would regret. Before becoming a member of this Parliament I objected to the term 'white Australia policy'. The Minister for Immigration of the day was a gentleman whom I regarded with a lot of respect, Arthur Calwell. He was one of the people who pursued that policy with the concurrence of the Australian Labor Party. I believed that was wrong. Subsequently Australia admitted that it was wrong and that we should invite to Australia, in a special sort of way, people from other countries to enjoy the development, the employment opportunities and the economic advantages of coming to Australia. Many years ago, prior to European migration, South Africa was undeveloped and devoid very largely of black people. I think there were a few bushmen. My medical friend opposite, Senator Grimes, is smirking. I shall remind him of the history of some of these countries. I have already pricked his conscience with respect to the white Australia policy. Instead of smirking at me, Senator Grimes should listen to me because he might learn. Very few black people lived in South Africa until the white people came to farm and develop that country. The problems occurred with the migration downwards of massive numbers of black people who wanted to take advantage of the development that had occurred because of the white people's enterprise and initiative. Senator Grimes —Ha, ha! Senator JESSOP —Senator Grimes is laughing. He has probably never been to Africa , as I have. Senator Grimes —Oh, haven't I? Senator JESSOP —I ask the honourable senator whether he has been to South Africa ? Senator Grimes —I will have my say. Senator JESSOP —The honourable senator has not been there. I went to Africa for the first time on the first official delegation that Australia ever sent to visit the countries bordering the Indian Ocean which had become independent of the British Commonwealth. There I witnessed the lifestyle of the black people in those countries. I witnessed the inter-tribal jealousies and conflict in the black African states of that large and important continent. Senator Grimes —What about in South Africa between the English and the Afrikaaners? Senator JESSOP —I ask Senator Grimes to let me get to that point. Seven years later I was able to visit South Africa and compare the difference in the quality of life offered to the black people in that part of the African continent. I observed in the northern African states that the quality of life and the economic position of the black people there were very low compared with the lifestyle that was experienced by the black African people in South Africa. I think that the South African people would probably regret the term 'apartheid' just as we regret the term 'white Australia policy'. I believe that the objectives of the South African Government happen to be deserving of some consideration. That Government's objective is to endeavour to provide independence for the various tribes that migrated down to South Africa over the years so they could live in their own areas and enjoy independence, self- government and so on to the benefit of their people. I recall being in South Africa on one occasion and wanting to go to the district of Soweto but I was unable to do so. That is a fairly notorious district internationally because there happen to be 17 or so murders in that black African populated area every weekend. I learned that the reason for that was the inter-tribal conflict between the Xhorsa and the Zulu or some other tribe. The people might over indulge on a Saturday evening, as we do in Australia, and have an argument. Those things are problems. The South African people have an objective in mind. I think that is very important. I do not agree with some of the internal policies of South Africa. I certainly do not agree with the internal policies of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and many other countries in the world. Sometimes I do not agree with the internal policies of Australia. We are not beyond the realms of criticism from other countries. The South African Government can say: 'What are you doing about your Aborigines? You are establishing Aboriginal health commissions; you are establishing Aboriginal legal aid; you are giving the black people in Australia particular advantages with respect to education grants over and above the disadvantaged white people in your community'. The South African Government could criticise us. What I am saying to the Government-it is not too late now-is that it ought to look at the statement that was made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, when he was asked about the approval given to the African National Congress and the South West Africa People's Organisation to establish information offices in Australia. He stated: Information activities by such offices were legitimate and accorded with the operation of a free democratic society. I submit to the Senate and to the Government that these people-ANC and SWAPO-who have been permitted to come to Australia under the guise of so-called legitimate offices are self-professed terrorists. I noted that Senator Grimes asked: 'Who was Senator Townley referring to?' I have read Press statements emanating as a result of a visit by a Ms Mavis Nhlapo who was the co-ordinator of the Women's Secretariat of the ANC in Zambia. She addressed a lunch time meeting in Sydney. The purpose of her month long visit to Australia was reported as being to rally anti-apartheid forces to support sanctions against South Africa. Apart from addressing meetings in Canberra and Adelaide, she also met with officials from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs. It was reported that: . . . it is Australian Government policy to meet, at official level, with any interest group irrespective of whether they pursue their policies by peaceful or violent means. The Canberra Times of 23 June last year reported that Ms Nhlapo said that the ANC-caused bomb attack in Pretoria in May 1983 in which 19 people were killed and about 200 injured was not incidental but was part of the new phase of war against the South African Government and its supporters. This lady's visit received wide media coverage. One wonders why the Australian people-73 per cent according to gallup polls-believe that we ought not only to be trading with South Africa but also playing sport in order to establish bridges of understanding between our two countries. Honourable senators should remember that during the two world wars the South African people were the first to help us defend our freedom in Australia and to ensure that the free world was able to have the lifestyle that we enjoy today. Yet the Government that I condemn now-it has heard what I have just said-fails to recognise the importance of allowing legitimate, elected, moderate representatives of the parliament of that country to come here. Recognising the sensitivities involved, the South African Government requested a seminar without any media coverage. I think it is a reasonable proposition to invite members of the media, members of Parliament and, very importantly, people in Australia from business and industry who trade with that country. Yet this Government says: 'No , we are democratic but we will not let people who are democratically elected, moderate people from other countries, including this particularly important country, to come here and have an opportunity to express a view on current political events in that country'. I recall returning from Africa. On one occasion I left Mauritius and the pilot- as they usually do-said: 'Settle down. We are now flying over the longest sea- air route in the world. It will take so many hours. The temperature at Perth will be so much and you will arrive at such and such a time. Meanwhile we will be crossing over the Indian Ocean where the Russian Navy operates'. That is the truth of the matter. The Russian Navy constantly patrols the Indian Ocean. I believe from that point of view alone and recognising the cynical and stupid expression on Senator Grimes's face that he does not recognise its significance to Australia. I can alter what I am saying to make it even more significant. South Africa is on one side of the Indian Ocean and Australia is on the other. Senator Crichton-Browne —Western Australia. Senator JESSOP —Yes. It is of tremendous strategic importance to the security of Australia and for the security of the western world. What aggravates me is that SWAPO and ANC are financially and militarily supported by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR would love to grab hold of South Africa, even if it was for only a few months because of the strategic materials that are available in that country. It could build nuclear weapons. Heaven knows what it would use against the free world of which we are a significant part. As Senator Townley said earlier, it is not too late for the Government of Australia to refuse to bend to the dictates of the extreme left wing of the Australian Labor Party epitomised by the action taken by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr West. It is not too late to demonstrate that the consensus view of Australia, the thing that our Prime Minister is now world famous for, should prevail. I challenge the Government to recognise that the majority of people in Australia are offended by what this Government has done. It will do no harm to the Government of Australia to listen to the elected representatives of other countries about current political events about which they should be better informed. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.39) —It has been a long evening. I will correct a couple of points that were made by previous speakers before I talk on the issue with which we are concerned at the moment. Senator Townley suddenly brought into the debate the matter of gap insurance, of all things. I point out to Senator Townley and the lady he quoted that in 1975 and again in 1979 the Australian Medical Association very vigorously opposed gap insurance because it believed that good medical care could not be provided unless someone crosses the palm with silver. It believed that very firmly. Senator Townley's pensioner patient may not believe it but it happens to be what the medical profession believes. I believe that if Senator Townley is defending the medical profession, he ought to get his facts straight. Senator Crichton-Browne in passing spoke about the President of the Senate going to South Africa. I hope that on some future occasion Senator Crichton- Browne will apologise to the President on that matter. Senator Jessop, I think, and certainly Senator Crichton-Browne and Senator Townley, quoted Voltaire. Senator Crichton-Browne —I did not. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry; the other two quoted Voltaire. Voltaire said: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. I point out that any black person in South Africa who tries to carry on the way Opposition senators carry on and who tries to oppose the policy of the South African Government is very likely to be sentenced to death. That is what this debate is about. Senator Jessop talks about people coming to this country who are elected in free democratic elections. Two million whites in South Africa elect the member of the National Party who was to come here. The member of the Presidential Council who was to come here is not elected. Nineteen million people in South Africa have no vote at all. Yet honourable senators opposite talk about a free and democratic society. They do not know what a free and democratic society is. The simple fact of the matter is that Senator Jessop has had at least four free trips to South Africa, paid for by the South African Government, and he has been swanned around the country by that Government all that time. Having been duchessed, he comes back and says: 'It is a lovely country. It is a free and democratic country.' He is a paid agent of the South African Government. Senator Jessop —Mr President, I take a point of order-- Senator GRIMES —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator Townley —He does not know what he is withdrawing, Mr President. Senator GRIMES —I withdraw. Senator Townley —The point is that Senator Grimes said that Senator Jessop was a paid agent of the South African Government. I object to that kind of thing being said in one of the snide comments which Senator Grimes is becoming well known throughout this country for making in the Senate. I feel that not only should he be made to withdraw but that also that kind of remark should be struck from the record of the Senate. The PRESIDENT —I take it that Senator Grimes has already withdrawn the phrase: ' He is a paid agent of the South African Government'. Senator GRIMES —I withdraw. I said that Senator Jessop had had several trips to South Africa at the expense of the South African Government. Senator Jessop —You said four. Senator GRIMES —Maybe it is four. Is it three, or only two? Let us hear the number. The simple fact of the matter is that the two gentlemen who sought visas to Australia, Mr Durr and Mr Rajab, were to come here, in the words of the South African Ambassador, Dr Worrall, 'for confidential seminars'. Senator Crichton- Browne tells us that they are to be confidential only so that the Press will not report them, so that it will not cause trouble in this country. What a lot of nonsense. They were asked to come here to speak at confidential seminars on behalf of the South African Government. In 1975 the Liberal-Country Party Government was elected. In 1983 that Government was defeated. In all that time no South African members of parliament sought visas to come to this country. They did not do so because they knew that they would be refused by the previous Government. In all that time-seven years- they did not seek visas to come into this country-- Senator Withers —That's a shame on us. Senator GRIMES —As Senator Withers says, it is a shame on us. They did not come into this country because they knew they would be refused, because the previous Government-God forbid that I defend the previous Prime Minister-was opposed to apartheid. The previous Prime Minister said: 'We will not have sporting contacts with South Africa.' Once the Labor Government is elected, we get a try-on. They decide that they will try to come here, knowing quite well that Senator Townley, Senator Crichton-Browne and Senator Jessop will get up in this chamber and defend their right to do so. They never tried to come here while the previous Government was in power. Senator Crichton-Browne —Never did what? Senator GRIMES —They never tried to come into this country in these circumstances. They never tried to get a visa to do so. So do not condemn the present Government for carrying through policies which the previous Government would have carried through. Do not come into this chamber and talk about a free and democratic society when in that free and democratic society two million out of 21 million people have a vote. Do not come into this place and condemn this country. Honourable senators opposite should not condemn their own country when in that country people can be locked up on Robben Island and left there for years. Let not Senator Jessop come into this place and say that the problems in Soweto are due to a couple of tribal differences, when the people in Soweto are confined there by the laws of that country, when they cannot move out of that suburb of Johannesburg because of the laws of that country. Do not say that is the fault of the people who live there. Do not say that is is the fault of the people who are confined there in sub-standard accommodation, as Senator Jessop knows they are. Senator Townley —Why are other black people trying to get into South Africa rather than out of it? Senator GRIMES —Let not Senator Townley come into this chamber and say that the 19 million black people in South Africa are all wrong and that they like to be dominated by the two million white people in that country. The simple fact of the matter is that this country, under Liberal, Country Party and Labor governments, has opposed the apartheid policy of the South African Government. We have opposed sporting contacts with that Government. We have said that we will not have people such as Danie Craven out here. Surely it is sensible that we do not have members of parliament from South Africa-one of whom is a National Party member and the other who is not an elected member-coming out here and attending proceedings which, in the words of Dr Denis Worrall, 'will be . . . confidential . . . There will . . . be no media coverage.' Honourable senators should not condemn this Government for taking the same attitude as the previous Government to these people. They should not condemn this Government for taking a different attitude to that taken by Senator Townley , Senator Crichton-Browne and Senator Jessop. I exclude carefully Senator Hill and Senator Missen from that attitude. Let us remember that in recent years in this country we have had a policy whereby we abhor apartheid. I know that there are some people on the Opposition benches who enjoy their free trips to South Africa, enjoy being looked after and swanned around by the South African Government. Senator Crichton-Browne —What about your colleagues who go to Russia on free trips with the Australian Government? Senator Withers —And to Red China? Senator GRIMES —Honourable senators will never hear me get up in this place and defend the system which exists in Russia or in Red China. Senator Crichton-Browne —Do you condemn your colleagues who have gone there on free trips? Senator GRIMES —I never do. I condemn those people who get up and uncritically support the system which exists in those countries, as those three honourable senators opposite have done. Senator Crichton-Browne —I have not. Senator GRIMES —Of course the honourable senator has. I urge the honourable senator not to take on the present Government at a late hour like this for following through a policy that the previous Government had. The honourable senator knows that that is so. He knows the reason no such visas were requested by the South African Government when the previous Government was in power was that it knew they would be refused. This is a try-on. The honourable senator knows that is is a try-on. Had the previous Government, when it was in power, refused such visas, the honourable senator would not have made such a speech. He knows that he would not have done so. He would not have used the phoney arguments he has used tonight. He has had his fun on the adjournment. He has enjoyed his time and he has justified the trips he has had. Senator Crichton-Browne —I have not had one trip. I have not been to South Africa. Senator GRIMES —Well, the trips that the honourable senator will get. Senator Peter Rae —Mr President, I take a point of order. It ought to be ensured that there is in the Hansard record not only the accusation that Senator Crichton-Browne enjoyed his trips to South Africa but also the denial that he has had a trip to South Africa. It seems to me that it is fair that it should appear clearly, and I simply take the point of order to make sure that it does. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator GRIMES —I think it is a reasonable point of order actually, Mr President , because I realise that, had Senator Rae had trips to South Africa, he would not have been influenced in this way. Senator Crichton-Browne —You do yourself a disservice. Senator GRIMES —I am not doing myself a disservice at all. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne, you have spoken already. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator has spoken and he has accused the President of doing certain things which he did not do. The honourable senator should remember that we spend a lot of time in this place debating all sorts of issues, but three out of four speakers in this debate-and I include Senator Hill -made impassioned pleas to justify people coming to this country to support the most iniquitous system in the world, a system which exists in the most horrendous way on the basis of the colour of people's skin and on the basis of where they were born and a system which has been condemned by all governments in this country, whether they be Labor or Liberal-National Party. This Government continues to oppose that sort of system. It opposes that system by refusing visas to two people who obviously were being brought out here for purely propaganda purposes. It is as simple as that. We will continue to oppose that sort of thing. We will continue to look at applications for visas such as this on an individual basis, as we should. We should not make general and sweeping condemnations, as we do not in the sporting context. The sooner the people of this country realise that amongst the majority of this Parliament there is basic agreement, the better we will all be. Senator Townley —I would like the Minister to table the paper from which he quoted, if it is his wish. Senator GRIMES —I will certainly table it. There are three pages of scribbled notes I made while the honourable senator was speaking. Senator Townley —I mean the document the Minister purports to be the circular regarding the seminars. Senator GRIMES —Does the honourable senator wish me to table the letter from the South African Ambassador inviting people to various seminars? Senator Townley —Yes. I believe the Minister misquoted it, and that is why I ask that it be tabled. Senator GRIMES —I will certainly table that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.55) —Mr President, can you guide me? I claim to have been misrepresented. Should I make a personal explanation now or following Senator Peter Rae's comments? The PRESIDENT —If the honourable senator claims to have been personally misrepresented, he can speak now. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —First of all, let me clear up one matter. I think I did say in the course of my speech that you, Mr President, had visited South Africa. If that is not true, I withdraw it. I do not apologise because I do not believe it is anything to apologise about. I understand that you were in fact granted a visa to South Africa. I am sure that you did not receive a visa to South Africa to go somewhere else. I just set the record straight. I am sorry if I misrepresented the facts in a precise sense. Senator Grimes commented that tonight I support everything that the South African Government has done and that I support apartheid. That is thoroughly untrue. Senator Grimes knows that it is untrue. It is regrettable that he continues to lower the quality of his speeches by introducing elements of misleading and untrue statements into them. I did not on one occasion seek to defend the South African Government. I sought only to condemn the Australian Labor Party Government for choosing not to grant visas to two members of the South African Government. Notwithstanding the fact that such applications are considered on merit, it has now been said to us by Senator Grimes that these applications were thrown out because they were a test case. If I sought to support many of the things that the South African Government seeks to do-the direction in which it is moving, its new and innovative policies and its new Constitution-I could speak for a considerable period, if I wished. But I do not support apartheid, and during my speech I did not support everything that occurs in South Africa, any more than I support everything that occurs in Australia or any other country, whether or not it be a democracy. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.56) —I had intended to move for the tabling of the document, but may I very briefly say that I hope that the Senate never reaches the stage where the fact that a member of the Parliament of this country accepts an invitation to visit another country is taken as being an acceptance of every policy. If we reach that stage we have probably gone too far towards paranoia. I thank you, Mr President, for the opportunity to add that. The PRESIDENT —My name was mentioned during the debate. I should mention that I have never been to South Africa. The fact is that when I was going to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Nairobi last October it was originally intended that I should go to Nairobi via an overnight stop in Johannesburg rather than fly through Singapore, Bombay and the Seychelles. I eventually found out that by leaving a day later I could go to Nairobi via Harare, and this I did with a member of the Opposition who was on the same aircraft. As for having been invited to attend some seminar, I assure the Senate that, as far as I know, I have never received such an invitation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.58 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian National Railways Commission Act- By-laws 1984- General. Board of Appeals. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos. 20, 21, 22. Currency Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 29. Director of Public Prosecutions Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 24. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister Describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Public Service Act-Appointment-Department of Health-M. Dennett. Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1984-No. 5-Workmen's Compensation (Amendment). Regulations 1984-No. 4 (Public Health Ordinance). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 598) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 December 1983: (1) Are Taiwan and Australia planning to set up a non-governmental trade co- operation committee to enhance commercial relations between the two countries? (2) Does the Federal Government sanction an improvement in commercial relations between Taiwan and Australia? (3) What effect would upgrading commercial ties with Taiwan have on trade and diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China? Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government understands that the Australian Chamber of Commerce has been exploring the feasibility of establishing a body to enhance commercial relations between Australia and the Province of Taiwan. Australia recognises the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, and acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of China. (2) The arrangements establishing diplomatic relations between Australia and China in December 1972 preclude any possibility of the Australian Government establishing a trade office or any official presence in the Province of Taiwan. However, this does not preclude private organisations from doing business with the Province of Taiwan or establishing trade promotion bodies to enhance commercial relations between Australia and Taiwan. (3) The importance the Government attaches to Australia's trade and diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China was clearly underlined during the Prime Minister's recent visit to the People's Republic. An increase in normal commercial ties with the Province of Taiwan should not in our view adversely affect these important links. (Question No. 613) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Who authorised the appointment of 369 new recruits presently undergoing training in anticipation of the proposed assets test program. (2) When were they appointed. (3) How many of the 113 other officers currently working on the proposed assets test program were: (a) existing departmental officers; and (b) new appointments. (4) In which State and Territory are the 482 officers located. (5) In which State were the new officers appointed. (6) Was Public Service Board approval sought for the appointment of new staff to work on the proposed assets test program; if so, when was approval: (a) sought; and (b) granted. (7) What is the total number of officers that the Public Service Board has approved for the Department of Social Security to work on the proposed assets test program. (8) How many of the new recruits are: (a) temporary; and (b) permanent. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The decision to introduce an income and assets test was taken by Cabinet as part of its Budget considerations. It is normal practice, where a substantial lead time is necessary to implement government decisions, for departments to begin planning at the earliest possible date. The recruitment of the 369 new officers (to 14 December 1983) was approved by delegated officers in the Department's State administrations and was possible under the flexibility given to the Department through the use of existing average staffing arrangements. (2) They were appointed in October, November and December. (3) All of the 113 other officers working on the income and assets test at 14 December 1983 were existing departmental officers. (4) The 482 officers as at 14 December 1983 were located as follows: New South Wales 19 Victoria 165 Queensland 98 South Australia 125 Western Australia 15 Tasmania 22 Northern Territory 2 Australian Capital Territory 36 (5) New officers were appointed in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. (6) The Department submitted a proposal to the Public Service Board on 21 October 1983 seeking approval to staffing levels for the income and assets test. The Department's recruitment to January 1984 was approved on 28 December 1983. Approval for the planned February and March recruitment was given on 2 February 1984. (7) The Public Service Board approved recruitment of 2237 officers. This included 530 in respect of March 1984 but the Department will not now recruit this number. (8) All of the 369 new recruits referred to in question (1) were permanent. (Question No. 615) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) How many officers are involved in the income and assets test hotline. (2) How many are: (a) temporary officers; and (b) permanent officers. (3) How many of these officers are new recruits. (4) When were they appointed. (5) Who authorised their appointment. (6) Under what vote are they being paid. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows: (1) As at 27 February 1984, 19 staff are involved in the income and assets test hotline. However, both the number of staff involved and the regularity of their involvement vary from time to time depending on enquiry loads. (2) This number includes: (a) 1 temporary officer (b) 18 permanent officers. (3) Only the temporary officer is a new recruit. (4) The officer was appointed on 9 January 1984. (5) The appointment was approved under local delegation. (6) All are paid salary under Division 560-1-02 of the normal salaries and allowances vote. (Question No. 625) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) When is the office of aged care to be established. (2) How will the office interact with the Department of Social Security and Department of Health. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No decision has been made on timing of announcement although the matter is under active consideration. (2) This matter is still under consideration. (Question No. 630) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: On what other occasions have funds for a program been made out of one vote and held against another to be reimbursed at a later date in the way that the Minister described in the Senate on 15 December 1983 in relation to asset testing. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: None, for the reason that no appropriation of the nature of that made under Division 312 in 1983-84 has been made in prior years. However, there are some similarities between the application of funds under Division 312 and of funds issued from the Advance to the Minister for Finance in respect of requirements not fore- seen prior to introduction of the additional estimates appropriations. Departments have been instructed to absorb to the maximum extent possible within Budget provisions additional costs arising in relation to government programs and to make application for funds from Division 312 when full absorption is not possible. The application is to indicate the head of expenditure to which funds should be charged pursuant to Section 7 of the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1983-84. These instructions, in effect, confirm the correctness of charging to the normal head of expenditure, payments which later will in whole or in part, be covered by a final charge against Division 312.